European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (COM(2006)0244 – C6-0228/2006 – 2006/0084(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0553 A6-0394/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0244),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 280(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0228/2006),

–   having regard to Court of Auditors' Opinion No 7/2006(1),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0394/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 20 November 2008 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 280 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission ║,

Having regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors(2),

║

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(3),

Whereas:

(1)  The European Parliament has invited the Commission to press ahead without further delay with consolidating the legal texts on Community administrative investigations. This consolidation aims to strengthen the efficiency of the European Anti-Fraud Office ('the Office') and to clarify the legal framework of its mission.

(2)  It is appropriate to ensure that the staff of the Office can execute their mission in full independence. To this end, it is appropriate to manage human resources in a way that better responds to the operational needs of the Office; particularly by seeking a better balance between temporary staff and permanent staff.

(3)  While drawing attention to the responsibility of every department of the Commission and of the other institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union and European Communities (hereinafter "institutions, bodies, offices and agencies") to protect the Community's financial interests, and recognising the importance of prevention aspects when defining European policy in this field, including the fight against fraud and corruption, there is a need to widen the task of the Office to include those aspects. The design of legislative and administrative measures at European level needs to be based on the Office's operational practice in this field.

(4)  Given the scale of the Community funds allocated to the external-aid sector, the number of investigations carried out by the Office in that sector and the existence of international cooperation for investigation purposes, a legal basis should be established which will enable the Commission to seek assistance from the competent authorities in third countries and from international organisations in the performance of the Office's tasks.

(5)  Clear rules should be laid down which, while confirming the priority enjoyed by the ║ Office for conducting internal investigations, establish mechanisms enabling the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies quickly to take over the investigation of cases in which the Office decides not to intervene.

(6)  It needs to be made clear that the decision as to whether to open an investigation is left to the discretion of the Office, which may decide not to open an investigation in cases of minor importance or not falling within the investigative priorities set annually by the Office. Such cases should then be handled, where internal investigations are concerned, by the institutions and, where external investigations are concerned, by the competent national authorities in accordance with the rules applicable in each Member State.

(7)  The accuracy of the information sent to the Office in connection with its remit has to be checked as quickly as possible. Hence it should be made clear that the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies will grant the Office immediate and automatic access to databases relating to the management of Community funds and to any other database and any other relevant information.

(8)  The Office must be placed under precise obligations to inform the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in good time of investigations in progress where a member, manager, official or other servant or staff member is personally implicated in the matter under investigation or where administrative measures may be required in order to protect the Union's interests.

(9)  In order to make the Office's investigative activity more effective and in the light of the evaluations of its activities made by the institutions, in particular the Commission's evaluation report of April 2003 and the Court of Auditors" special report No 1/2005 on the management of the Office(4), certain aspects need clarifying and certain measures the Office can take in conducting its investigations need improving. The Office should therefore be given the power to carry out the inspections and checks provided for by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities" financial interests against fraud and other irregularities(5) in connection with internal investigations and in cases of fraud linked to contracts concerning Community funding, and have access to information held by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies ║ in connection with external investigations.

(10)  The Office's operational practice depends greatly on cooperation with Member States. There is a need for the Member States to identify their competent authorities for the Office who are able to provide Office staff with the required assistance in the exercise of their duties, particularly in cases where a Member State has not set up a specialist department with the task of coordinating the fight against Community fraud at national level.

(11)  If the operational, legal and administrative framework for combating fraud is to be improved, the Office must know how the results of its investigations have been followed up. Hence the Member States" competent authorities and the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies (and also - with assistance from the Commission - third-country authorities and international organisations) should be required to report regularly to the Office on progress made as regards action taken in response to the final investigation report issued by the Office.

(12)  In view of the major benefits of strengthening cooperation between the Office, the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust), a legal basis must be introduced which will enable the Office to conclude agreements with those two agencies. In order to bolster the respective powers of Eurojust, the Office and the Member States' competent authorities in respect of deeds liable to criminal investigation, the Office should be called upon to inform Eurojust in cases of suspected illegal activity damaging to the European Communities' financial interests and involving serious forms of criminality and at least two Member States.

(13)  It is necessary, in the interests of legal certainty, to codify in this Regulation the fundamental procedural guarantees applicable in internal or external investigations conducted by the Office. That does not affect any more extensive protection which may derive from the rules of the Treaties, the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (hereinafter "the Staff Regulations") and any relevant national provisions.

(14)  The procedural guarantees and the legitimate rights of persons who are under investigation should be upheld and applied without any difference in treatment stemming from the type of investigation carried out by the Office.

(15)  In order to ensure that the Office's operational activities are as transparent as possible, particularly in respect of the principles governing investigation procedure, the legitimate rights of the persons concerned and procedural safeguards, data protection provisions, the policy for providing information on certain aspects of the Office's operational activities, reviewing the legality of investigation activities and appeals procedures for the persons concerned, it is necessary to provide a legal basis for adoption of a procedural code for OLAF investigations. The code should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(16)  In order to ensure that procedural guarantees are upheld at every stage of the investigation, checks on legality must be carried out by the Office. Such checks should be carried out in particular prior to the opening and the closing of an investigation and prior to any forwarding of information to the Member States" competent authorities. Such checks should be carried out by legal experts who may play a judicial role within a Member State and who will work within the Office. The Director General of the Office should also request those experts" opinion on behalf of the Office's Investigations and Operations Executive Board (hereinafter "the executive board").

(17)  In order to strengthen the protection of the individual rights of persons under investigation, and without prejudice to Article 90a of the Staff Regulations and the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Communities under the Treaty, a person implicated personally should be entitled, at the final stage of an investigation, to be provided with the conclusions and recommendations of the final investigation report ▌.

(18)  For the sake of greater transparency, it is necessary to ensure an adequate degree of information for informers, who should be informed of the initial decision as to whether or not to open an investigation and, on their express request, of the outcome of the action taken on the information supplied.

(19)  In order to make it possible to provide objective information to European taxpayers and to guarantee freedom of the press, all EU bodies involved in the investigation should respect the principle of protecting journalists' sources in accordance with national legislation.

▌

(20)  Experience based on operational practice has shown that it would be useful to allow the Director General of the Office to delegate the exercise of certain of his functions to one or more members of the staff of the Office by a written document specifying the conditions and limits governing the delegation.

(21)  The fundamental rights of the persons concerned by investigations should be respected at all times, particularly when providing information. There is a need to clarify the basic principles of the Office's information policy. Information on Office investigations supplied to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, whether bilaterally or as part of the concertation procedure, should be provided while respecting the confidentiality of investigations, the legitimate rights of the persons concerned and, where applicable, the national provisions governing judicial proceedings. There is a need to introduce a legal basis enabling the Office to conclude agreements with the institutions concerned on the provision of information. The Director General of the Office should ensure that any information supplied to the public complies with the principles of neutrality and impartiality. The procedural code for OLAF investigations should spell out the consequences of unauthorised dissemination of information.

(22)  It is appropriate to strengthen the Supervisory Committee's role and to revise the criteria and procedure for appointing its members. At the time of their selection, candidates should be engaged in high-level judicial or investigative tasks, or comparable functions. They should be appointed for a non-renewable five-year period. Some members should be appointed at staggered intervals in order to retain the expertise of the committee.

(23)  It is appropriate to widen and strengthen the tasks of the Supervisory Committee arising from its mandate and to safeguard the Office's independence in its investigative function. The Committee should monitor trends concerning procedural safeguards and the length of investigations. It should be informed of investigations lasting more than 12 months and deliver opinions to the Director General of the Office and, if needs be, to the institutions on investigations that are not completed within 18 months. It should be made clear that the Supervisory Committee does not interfere in the running of ongoing investigations.

(24)  There is a need to evaluate the judicial, institutional and operational context for the fight against fraud, corruption and any other activity detrimental to the European Communities" financial interests. To this end the institutions should be asked to coordinate their action and encouraged to consider the major aspects of European anti-fraud strategy. A concertation procedure needs to be set up between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This concertation should cover certain areas of cooperation in this field between the Office and the Member States and the institutions of the European Union, and also relations with third countries and international organisations, and should also cover the Office's investigative policy and reports and assessments by the Supervisory Committee. The Director General of the Office and the chair of the Supervisory Committee should participate in the concertation, which should take place at least once a year.

(25)  In order to allow the Supervisory Committee to carry out its mission effectively, in full independence and in an efficient way, it is essential that the Office ensure that all conditions are put in place for the secretariat of the Supervisory Committee to work in an independent way under the chair of the committee and its members exclusively.

(26)  In order to reinforce complete independence in the running of the Office, the Director General of the Office should be appointed for a term of five years, renewable once. At the time of their selection, candidates should occupy or have occupied a senior judicial post or an executive investigative post and have operational professional experience of at least ten years in a position of high management responsibility. A significant portion of this professional experience should have been acquired in the area of the fight against national or Community fraud. The appointment procedure should be completed within nine months. The Director General of the Office should be designated by common agreement between the European Parliament and the Council and be appointed by the Commission.

(27)  Considering the sensitivity of the position, it is appropriate to stipulate that the Director General of the Office will inform the Commission if he intends to engage in any new occupational activity within two years of leaving the post, in conformity with Article 16 of the Staff Regulations. This information should be included in the Commission's annual report on the fight against fraud.

(28)  In order to strengthen respect for procedural guarantees, any person who is under investigation by the Office should be able to lodge a complaint with the Supervisory Committee. Complaints will be dealt with by a Review Adviser acting in complete independence, appointed by the Director General of the Office, on a proposal of the Supervisory Committee. The Review Adviser should deliver his opinion within 30 working days and will forward it to the plaintiff, to the Director General of the Office and to the Supervisory Committee.

▌

(29)  After a four-year period, the application of this Regulation should be assessed. The Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, accompanied by an opinion issued by the Supervisory Committee. Following that assessment this Regulation should be able to be revised. In any event, this Regulation should be revised after the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office.

(30)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999(6) should be amended accordingly.

(31)  This Regulation clarifies and strengthens the courses of action which may be taken by the Office in external investigations, and does so only in isolated respects where legal loopholes have been found in the existing system and where only more effective action by the Office can ensure that reliable external investigations are conducted, which can be used by the authorities of the Member States. In addition, procedural guarantees need to be extended to external investigations in order to provide a uniform legal framework for all investigations conducted by the Office. This Regulation fully respects the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(32)  This Regulation respects fundamental rights and complies with the principles recognised in particular in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 47 and 48 thereof,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 shall be amended as follows:

(1)  In Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the following:"

1.  In order to step up the fight against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Community, the European Anti-Fraud Office established by Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom (hereinafter "the Office") shall exercise the powers of investigation conferred on the Commission by the Community rules and Regulations in the Member States and, in accordance with the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements in force, in third countries.

Fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity detrimental to the Community's financial interests, including irregularity, are defined in Community regulations and the provisions of agreements in force in this field.

2.  The Office shall provide the Member States with assistance from the Commission in organising close and regular cooperation between their competent authorities in order to coordinate their activities for the purpose of protecting the European Community's financial interests against fraud. The Office shall contribute to the design and development of methods of preventing and of fighting fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Community.

(2)  Article 3 shall be replaced by the following:"

Article 3

External investigations

1.  The Office shall exercise the power conferred on the Commission by Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 to carry out on-the-spot inspections and checks in the Member States and, in accordance with the agreements in force, in third countries and international organisations.

As part of its investigative function, the Office shall carry out the inspections and checks provided for in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 and in the sectoral rules referred to in Article 9(2) of that Regulation in the Member States and, in accordance with the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements in force, in third countries and in international organisations.

2.  With a view to establishing that there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity referred to in Article 1 in connection with a grant agreement or decision or a contract concerning Community funding, the Office may, in accordance with the procedures laid down by Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96, conduct on-the-spot checks and inspections on economic operators concerned directly or indirectly by such funding.

Member States shall adopt and implement all the measures required in order to ensure that the Office performs the investigative function referred to in this Article. They shall offer their support to the Office in connection with on-the-spot inspections and checks carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 on economic operators concerned directly or indirectly by Community funding.

3.  During an external investigation and where ▌necessary in order to establish that fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity referred to in Article 1 has occurred, the Office may have access to any relevant information held by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies connected with the matter under investigation. Article 4(2) and (4) shall apply for that purpose.

4.  Where the Office has to hand, prior to an investigation, information which suggests that there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity referred to in Article 1, the Director General of the Office informs the competent authorities of the Member States concerned and, without prejudice to the sectoral rules, those authorities shall ensure that appropriate action is taken and, where necessary, undertake investigations in accordance with national law, in which staff of the Office may take part. The competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall inform the Director General of the Office of the action taken and of their findings on the basis of such information. ║

5.  When the Office decides not to open an investigation it shall inform Eurojust that it has forwarded to the competent authorities in the Member States information giving grounds for suspecting the existence of fraud, an act of corruption or any other illegal activity referred to in Article 1, in the form of serious crime involving two or more Member States. Eurojust shall also be notified by the Office as soon as an Office investigation comes within its competence, in accordance with the procedures laid down in the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements concluded between them.

(3)  The following article shall be inserted:"

Article 3a

Cooperation of the Office with Eurojust, Europol and other international organisations

Pursuant to the powers and responsibilities conferred upon it under this Regulation, the Office may conclude cooperation and mutual assistance agreements with Eurojust and Europol. The aim of these agreements shall be to clarify the respective powers and responsibilities of these bodies and to define the cooperation between them within the framework of the area of freedom, of security and of justice.

The Office may also conclude cooperation and mutual assistance agreements with other international organisations.

(4)  Article 4 shall be amended as follows:

a)   paragraph 1, subparagraph 2, shall be replaced by the following:"

These internal investigations shall be carried out subject to the rules of the Treaties, in particular the Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Communities, and with due regard for the Staff Regulations under the conditions and in accordance with the procedures provided for in this Regulation and in decisions adopted by each institution, body, office and agency; in respect of procedural guarantees and the legitimate rights of the persons concerned, there must be no difference in treatment in comparison to external investigations.

b)   paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:"

In accordance with the procedures laid down by Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96, the Office may carry out on-the-spot inspections at the premises of economic operators who are directly or indirectly concerned in order to obtain access to information relevant to the matter under internal investigation.";

c)   paragraph 5 shall be deleted.

(5)  Article 5 shall be replaced by the following:"

"Article 5

Opening of investigations

1.  The Office may open an investigation when sufficiently strong suspicions exist that acts of fraud or corruption or other illegal acts referred to in Article 1 have been committed. The decision whether or not to open an investigation shall take account of the investigation policy priorities and the Office's programme of investigative activities determined in accordance with Articles 11a and 12(6). Anonymous information may also be taken into account if it constitutes sufficiently strong grounds for suspicion.

2.  The decision to open an investigation shall be taken by the Director General of the Office after consulting the Office's executive board and in accordance with the provisions concerning checks on legality which are laid down in Article 14.

3.  The decision to open an external investigation shall be taken by the Director General of the Office, acting on his own initiative or following a request from a Member State concerned or one of the institutions of the European Communities or of the European Union.

The decision to open an internal investigation shall be taken by the Director General of the Office, acting on his own initiative or following a request from a Member State concerned or one of the institutions of the European Communities or of the European Union within which the investigation is to be conducted.

While the Office is conducting an internal investigation within the meaning of this Regulation, the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies shall not open a parallel investigation into the same facts.

4.  When an institution, body, office or agency plans to open an investigation acting under its own administrative authority, it shall ask the Office whether the facts in question are already the subject of an internal investigation. The Office shall state within fifteen working days of that request if an investigation is already open or if it is planning to open an investigation under paragraph 5. Failure to reply shall be deemed to be a decision on the part of the Office not to open an internal investigation.

5.  The decision on whether or not to open an investigation shall be taken within two months of receipt by the Office of a request as referred to in paragraphs 3 or 4. It shall be communicated without delay to the institution, body, office or agency or the Member State which made the request. Reasons shall be given for a decision not to open an investigation.

Where an official or other staff member of an institution, body, office or agency, acting in accordance with Article 22a of the Staff Regulations or the corresponding provisions of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, provides information to the Office relating to a suspected fraud or irregularity, the Office shall inform him of the decision whether or not to open an investigation into the facts in question.

Prior to the opening and throughout the duration of an investigation, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall provide the Office with immediate and automatic access to databases relating to with the management of Community funds and to any other database containing relevant data and any other information which will enable the Office to check that the information forwarded is accurate.

6.  If the Office decides, on the basis of what it deems appropriate or on the basis of its priorities for investigative action, not to open an internal investigation, it shall without delay send the information available to the institution, body, office or agency concerned for appropriate action to be taken in accordance with the rules that are applicable to it. In appropriate cases the Office shall agree with that institution, body, office or agency on suitable measures to protect the confidentiality of the source of that information and shall ask, if necessary, to be informed of the action taken.

If the Office decides, on the basis of what it deems appropriate or on the basis of its priorities for investigative action, not to open an external investigation, Article 3(4) shall apply.

(6)  Article 6 shall be amended as follows:

a)   paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:"

1.  The Director General of the Office shall direct the conduct of investigations. He may issue written instructions to an operational Director of the Office to direct the conduct of investigations. Investigations shall be conducted under the authority and the responsibility of the Director General of the Office by agents nominated by the Office.

b)   paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:"

3.  "The Office's employees shall be equipped for each intervention with a written authority issued by the Director General of the Office indicating the subject matter and the purpose of the investigation, the legal bases for conducting the investigation and the investigative powers stemming from those bases.";

c)   the following paragraph shall be inserted:"

3a.  Where Office employees nominated to carry out an on-the-spot check or inspection in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 encounter resistance from an economic operator, the competent authority of the Member State concerned (previously identified by the Office as a contact point) shall be informed immediately. At the Office's request the competent authority of the Member State concerned shall provide the Office's employees with the assistance which they require in order to carry out their task, as specified in the written authority referred to in paragraph 3. The Member State must ensure that the Office's employees are allowed access (under the same terms and conditions as its competent authorities and in compliance with national law) to all information and documents relating to the facts referred to in Article 1 which prove necessary for the on-the-spot checks and inspections to be carried out satisfactorily.

(d)  Article 6(4) shall be replaced by the following:"

4.  During on-the-spot inspections, […] checks and investigations, the Office's employees shall adopt an attitude in keeping with the rules and practices governing investigators of the Member State concerned, with the Staff Regulations and with the decisions referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1). The Office's employees shall act in accordance with the principle of impartiality. They shall immediately notify the Director General of the Office if they find themselves in a position of conflict of interest in the context of their investigation. The Director General of the Office shall decide whether a conflict of interest exists. If it does, the Director General of the Office shall give instructions for replacing the employee.

e)   paragraph 5 shall be replaced by the following:"

5.  Investigations shall be conducted continuously over a period which must be proportionate to the circumstances and complexity of the case. Employees of the Office must ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with procedures which will enable items of evidence to be safeguarded and preserved. If necessary (where there is a risk that items of evidence will disappear) they may ask the competent authority of the Member State concerned to take, in accordance with its internal law, any necessary precautionary or implementing measures.

f)   the following paragraph shall be inserted:"

The provision of this information to the institution, body, office or agency may be deferred in cases requiring absolute secrecy to be maintained for the purposes of the investigation or requiring recourse to investigative procedures falling within the competence of a national judicial authority, in accordance with national law applicable to investigations. The Director General of the Office shall give reasons for his decision in accordance with the provisions concerning checks on legality which are laid down in Article 14.

The institution, body, office or agency shall decide whether any precautionary or administrative measures are appropriate, with due account being taken of the importance of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the conduct of the investigation and of the specific confidentiality measures recommended by the Office. The institution, body, office or agency shall inform the Office without delay of the decision to take any measures under this Article or, where appropriate, of the need to initiate an additional disciplinary procedure on matters for which there is an appropriate competence under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. An additional disciplinary procedure may be initiated after consulting the Office.";

g)   in paragraph 6, the following subparagraph shall be added: "

"Employees of the Office may ask the competent authorities of third countries for assistance in the performance of their duties, pursuant to the provisions of the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements concluded with those countries. They may also request assistance from international organisations in the performance of their duties, pursuant to the provisions of the agreements concluded with those organisations.

h)   the following paragraph shall be added:"

Where it is found that an investigation cannot be closed within 12 months after it has been opened, the Director General of the Office may decide to extend the period by up to six months. The Director General of the Office shall ascertain the need for the investigation to be extended. Before taking this decision, the Director General of the Office shall inform the Supervisory Committee of the reasons preventing the investigation from being concluded and of the likely period of time needed for it to be completed.

If an investigation is not completed within 18 months after it has been opened, the Supervisory Committee shall be informed by the Director General of the Office of the reasons which have prevented him from closing the investigation and shall issue an opinion on the extension and, where appropriate, the subsequent running of the investigation.

The Supervisory Committee shall forward a copy of its opinion to the institution, body, office or agency concerned. It may defer the forwarding of its opinion in cases requiring absolute secrecy to be maintained for the purposes of the investigation or in accordance with the national law applicable to investigations.

The Director General of the Office shall submit to the budgetary authority an annual report on the reasons which have prevented him from closing investigations within 30 months after they have been opened. The Supervisory Committee shall submit an opinion on those reasons to the budgetary authority.

(7)  In Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the following:"

1.  The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall forward to the Office without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud or corruption or any other illegal activity detrimental to the financial interests of the European Community.;

2.  The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and, in so far as national law allows, the Member States shall, at the request of the Office or on their own initiative, forward any document or information they hold which relates to a current [...] investigation.

(8)  The following Articles shall be inserted:"

Article 7a

Procedural guarantees

1.  In its investigation the Office shall seek evidence for and against the person concerned. Investigations shall be conducted objectively and impartially and in accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence and the procedural guarantees set out in the procedural code for OLAF investigations referred to in Article 15a.

2.  As soon as an investigation reveals that a member, manager, official or other servant or a person serving an institution, body, office or agency or an economic operator may be implicated in a matter, the person concerned shall be informed, provided that this does not prejudice the conduct of the investigation.

In any event, before the investigation's final report is drawn up no conclusions referring by name to a natural or legal person may be drawn on completion of an investigation unless the person thus personally implicated has been given the opportunity to make his views known, in writing or at an interview with employees designated by the Office, on all matters concerning him. The person concerned must be given a summary of such matters in the invitation to comment and shall submit his comments within the time limits indicated by the Office. In an interview he is entitled to be assisted by a person of his choice. Any person implicated personally is entitled to use the official Community language of his choice; however, officials or other servants of the Communities may be asked to use an official Community language of which they have a thorough knowledge. A person implicated personally shall be entitled to avoid self incrimination.

In cases requiring absolute secrecy to be maintained for the sake of the investigation or entailing use of investigative proceedings falling under the jurisdiction of a national judicial authority or, in the case of an external investigation, that of a competent national authority, the Director General of the Office may decide to defer fulfilment of the obligation to ask the person implicated to make his views known, while complying with the provisions on reviewing legality laid down in Article 14. In the case of an internal investigation, the Director General of the Office shall take his decision after having informed the institution, body, office or agency to which the person concerned belongs.

The institution, body, office or agency shall, where necessary, decide on the expediency of any precautionary or administrative measures, taking due account of the interest of ensuring effective management of the investigation and of any particular confidentiality measures that the Office has recommended. The institution, body, office or agency shall inform the Office as soon as possible of the decision to take any measures under this Article or, where appropriate, of the need to initiate an additional disciplinary procedure on matters for which there is an appropriate competence under the Staff Regulations. An additional disciplinary procedure may be initiated after consulting the Office.

3.  The invitation to any interview, whether with a witness or with a person implicated personally within the meaning of paragraph 2, must be sent with at least ten working days" notice; the period of notice may be shortened with the express consent of the person to be interviewed. The invitation shall include a list of the rights of the person interviewed. The Office shall draw up a record of the interview and shall give the person interviewed access to it so that he may either approve the record or add observations.

When, in the course of the interview, evidence emerges that the person interviewed may be involved in the facts under investigation, the procedural rules provided for in paragraph 2 shall apply at once.

4.  The procedural guarantees provided for in this Article shall apply without prejudice:

Article 7b

Information about decisions to close an investigation and take no further action

If, on completion of an investigation, no evidence has been found against a member, manager, official or other servant or person serving an institution, body, office or agency or against an economic operator, the investigation into that person shall be closed and no further action taken, by decision of the Director General of the Office, who shall, within ten working days of the decision being taken, inform the person concerned and, where appropriate, the institution, body, office or agency in writing.

Article 7c

Protection of journalistic sources

In order to make it possible to provide objective information to European taxpayers and to guarantee freedom of the press, all EU bodies involved in the investigation must respect the principle of protecting journalists' sources in accordance with national legislation.

(9)  In Article 8, paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be replaced by the following:"

The Office shall observe the Community and national provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular those provided for in Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*).

4.  The Director General of the Office shall ensure that the provisions of this Article and of Article 287 of the Treaty are applied.

_________________

(*) OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(10)  The following Article shall be inserted:"

Article 8a

Notification of the final report on completion of the investigation

Before sending the final investigation report to the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies concerned or to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, the Office shall communicate the conclusions and recommendations of the final report to the person implicated personally in the matter under internal or external investigation.

The Director General of the Office may decide not to make the communication referred to in the first subparagraph in cases requiring the maintenance of absolute secrecy or use of investigative measures that fall under the jurisdiction of a national judicial authority, in accordance with the national law applicable to investigations. In the case of an internal investigation he shall decide, having first duly informed the institution, body, office or agency to which the person concerned belongs.

If the person implicated personally considers that the procedural guarantees provided for in Articles 6(5) and 7a have been disregarded in a manner liable to affect the conclusions of the investigation, that person may lodge a request for an opinion with the Director General of the Office, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14a, within ten working days of receiving the conclusions of the final report.

(11)  Article 9 shall be amended as follows:

a)   paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:"

On completion of an investigation by the Office, the latter shall draw up a report, under the authority of the Director General of the Office, which shall give an account of the stages in the procedure, the legal basis, the facts established and their classification in law, ▌and the findings of the investigation, including recommendations on action that should be taken. The report shall specify the estimated financial loss and the amounts to be recovered. The regulatory procedure referred to in Article 15a shall detail all the other information to be included in the report for purposes of recovery, responsibility for which lies with the competent authorising officer.";

b)   paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:"

"3. Reports drawn up following an external investigation and any useful related documents shall be sent to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned in accordance with the rules relating to external investigations and to the Commission. The competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall, in so far as is not incompatible with national law, inform the Director General of the Office of the action taken as a result of the investigation reports sent to them. To this end, they shall send a progress report to the Director General of the Office every six months or, where applicable, within the period laid down by the Director General of the Office.

The Office shall send to the competent authorities of third countries, in accordance with the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements concluded with the Commission, and to international organisations, in accordance with the agreements concluded with the Commission, the conclusions and recommendations of the report drawn up following an external investigation and any useful related documents. The Commission shall ensure that the competent authorities of the third countries identified in the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements as the Office's points of contact inform the Director General of the Office, in so far as this is compatible with national law, of the action taken on the conclusions and recommendations of the final investigation report. The Commission shall likewise ensure that the international organisations inform the Director General of the Office of the action taken further to the conclusions and recommendations of the final investigation report. To this end, they shall send a progress report to the Director General of the Office every six months or, where applicable, within the period laid down by the Director General of the Office.

c)   the following paragraph shall be inserted:"

Where the report drawn up after an internal investigation contains information pertaining to facts which could give rise to criminal proceedings, the final report shall be transmitted to the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned and, without prejudice to national provisions on judicial procedures, to the institution, body, office or agency concerned in accordance with paragraph 4. ▌

(d)  Article 9(4) shall be replaced by the following:"

4.  Reports drawn up following an internal investigation and any useful related documents shall be sent to the institution, body, office or agency concerned. The institution, body, office or agency shall take such action, in particular disciplinary or legal, on the internal investigations, as the results of those investigations warrant, and shall report thereon to the Director General of the Office [...]. To that end they shall send the Director General of the Office, every six months or, where appropriate, within the time-limits that the Director General of the Office has set, a report on the progress made.

e)   the following paragraph shall be added:"

An informer who has provided the Office with information relating to suspected fraud or irregularity may, if he so requests, be informed by the Office that an investigation has been closed and, where appropriate, that a final report has been sent to the competent authorities. The Office may, however, refuse the request when it considers that it is such as to prejudice the legitimate interests of the persons concerned, the effectiveness of the investigation and the action to be taken subsequent thereto or any confidentiality requirements.

(12)  Article 10 shall be replaced by the following:"

Article 10

Exchange of information between the Office and the national authorities of the Member States

1.  Without prejudice to Articles 8 and 9 of this Regulation and to the provisions of Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96, the Office may at any time forward to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned information obtained in the course of external investigations.

The decision to forward such information shall be taken by the Director General of the Office, after consultation of the Office's Executive Board and in accordance with the legality review provisions set out in Article 14(2).

2.  Without prejudice to Articles 8 and 9, the Director General of the Office shall, in the course of internal investigations, forward to the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned information obtained by the Office concerning facts entailing use of investigative proceedings within the jurisdiction of a national judicial authority or which are so serious as to require urgent criminal prosecution. In such a case he shall first inform the institution, body, office or agency concerned. The information forwarded shall include the identity of the person implicated by the investigation, a summary of the facts established, a preliminary legal evaluation and any financial loss.

The decision to forward such information shall be taken by the Director General of the Office, after consultation of the Office's Executive Board and in accordance with the legality review provisions set out in Article 14(2).

Before forwarding the information referred to in the first subparagraph, provided that this is not prejudicial to the conduct of the inquiry, the Office shall give the person implicated by the investigation the opportunity to comment on the matters concerning him subject to the conditions, and in accordance with the arrangements, set out in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 7a(2).

3.  The competent authorities, and in particular the judicial authorities, of the Member State concerned shall, in so far as is not incompatible with national law, inform the Director General of the Office as quickly as possible of the action taken on the basis of the information forwarded to them under this Article.

4.  Information exchange and cooperation between the Office and the competent authorities of the Member States, as well as the actions and measures taken or implemented on the basis of the information forwarded to them, shall be regularly analysed in the framework of the concertation procedure established under Article 11a.

(13)  The following Articles shall be inserted:"

Article 10a

Exchange of information between the Office and the relevant interested institutions

1.  The Director General of the Office shall report regularly, at least once a year to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the results of the investigations carried out by the Office, with due respect for the confidentiality of those investigations, the legitimate rights of the people involved and, where applicable, the national provisions applicable to judicial procedures.

The Director General of the Office shall act in accordance with the principle of independence that informs his mission.

2.  The European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors shall ensure that the confidentiality of the investigations carried out by the Office, the legitimate rights of the people concerned and, where there are judicial procedures, all national provisions applicable to those procedures, is preserved.

3.  The Office and the institutions concerned may reach agreements regarding the forwarding of any information necessary for the accomplishment of the Office's mission, in compliance with the principles set out in paragraphs 1 and 2.

Article 10b

Public information

The Director General of the Office shall ensure that public information is given neutrally and impartially and in accordance with the principles set out in Article 10a.

The procedural code for OLAF investigations adopted under Article 15 sets out the rules on prevention of unauthorised distribution of information relating to the Office's operational activity and the disciplinary sanctions to be applied in the event of an information leak, in accordance with Article 8(3).

(14)  Article 11 shall be amended as follows:

a)   paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:"

The Supervisory Committee shall deliver opinions to the Director General of the Office, on its own initiative or at his request or the request of an institution, body, office or agency, without however interfering with the conduct of investigations in progress. The applicant shall be provided with a copy of such opinions.";

b)   paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:"

2.  "2. It shall be composed of five independent outside persons occupying, at the time of their appointment, senior judicial or investigative posts, or comparable posts, relating to the Office's areas of activity. They must possess knowledge of the workings of the institutions of the European Union and of a second official EU language.

The members of the committee shall be appointed by common agreement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. A call for applications shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The five persons shall be chosen on the basis of a "pre-selection list" submitted by the Commission, comprising at least 12 candidates.

c)   paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:"

3.  The term of office of members shall be five years and shall not be renewable. Some members shall be appointed at staggered intervals in order to preserve the Committee's expertise.

d)   paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 shall be replaced by the following:"

6.  The Supervisory Committee shall appoint its chair. It shall adopt its own rules of procedure, which shall, before adoption, be submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for their opinion. Meetings of the Supervisory Committee shall be convened on the initiative of its chair or of the Director General of the Office. The Supervisory Committee shall take its decisions by a majority of its members. Its secretariat shall be provided by the Office.

7.  ║7. The Director General of the Office shall forward to the Supervisory Committee each year the Office's programme of investigative activities. He shall keep the Supervisory Committee regularly informed of the Office's activities, the implementation of its investigative function and the action taken by way of follow-up to investigations.

8.  The Supervisory Committee shall adopt at least one report on its activities per year, covering in particular the assessment of the Office's independence, the application of procedural guarantees and the duration of investigations; such reports shall be sent to the institutions. The Committee may submit reports to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the results of the Office's investigations and the action taken thereon.

(15)  The following Article shall be inserted:"

Article 11a

Concertation procedure

1.  A concertation procedure between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be established.

2.  The concertation procedure shall relate to:

3.  Concertaion shall take place at least once a year and at the request of one of the institutions.

4.  The Director General of the Office and the chair of the Supervisory Committee shall take part in the concertation procedure. Representatives of the Court of Auditors, Eurojust and Europol may be invited.

5.  Concertation shall be prepared at one or more technical meetings. The meetings shall be convened at the request of one of the institutions or of the Office.

6.  The concertation procedure may not under any circumstances interfere with the conduct of investigations and shall be carried out with full respect for the independence of the Director General of the Office.

7.  The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, the Office and the Member States shall inform the parties to the concertation procedure of the action taken further to the conclusions of the concertation procedure on every occasion.

(16)  Article 12 shall be replaced by the following: "

║ "Article 12

Director General of the Office

1.  The Office shall be placed under the authority of a Director General of the Office appointed by the Commission for a term of five years, which may ▌be renewed once.

The European Parliament and the Council shall designate the Director General of the Office by common agreement on the basis of a list of 6 candidates put forward by the Commission. A call for applications shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The appointment shall be made within three months of the list of candidates being put forward by the Commission. The duration of the appointment procedure as a whole may not exceed nine months and the procedure must begin at least nine months before the end of the term of office of the incumbent, who shall remain in office until the beginning of the new Director General's term of office.

If the European Parliament and/or the Council do not oppose the renewal of the Director General's mandate at the latest nine months before his first mandate expires, the Commission will proceed to extend the mandate of the Director General. Opposition to the extension of the mandate should be justified. Otherwise, the nomination procedure provided for in the third subparagraph of this paragraph applies.

2.  The Director General of the Office shall be chosen from among the candidates from Member States who occupy or have occupied a senior judicial or an executive investigative post and who have operational professional experience of at least ten years in a position of high management responsibility. A significant portion of this professional experience shall have been acquired in the area of the fight against national and/or Community fraud. The Director General of the Office must have a thorough knowledge of the workings of the Union institutions and of a second official language of the Union. The candidate's independence must be beyond doubt.

3.  The Director General shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or any institution, body, office or agency in the performance of his duties with regard to the opening and carrying out of external and internal investigations or to the drafting of reports following such investigations. If the Director General considers that a measure taken by the Commission calls his independence into question, he shall immediately inform the Supervisory Committee for their opinion, and decide whether to bring an action against the institution concerned before the Court of Justice.

The Director General of the Office shall report regularly to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, in the context of the concertation procedure referred to in Article 11a, on the findings of investigations carried out by the Office, the action taken and the problems encountered, whilst respecting the confidentiality of the investigations, the legitimate rights of the persons concerned and, where appropriate, national provisions applicable to judicial proceedings.

The above institutions shall ensure that the confidentiality of the investigations conducted by the Office is respected, together with the legitimate rights of the persons concerned, and, where judicial proceedings have been instituted, that all national provisions applicable to such proceedings have been adhered to.

4.  Before adopting any disciplinary sanction against the Director General of the Office, the Commission shall consult the Supervisory Committee, meeting with representatives of the European Parliament and of the Council in the context of the concertation procedure provided for in Article 11a.

Measures relating to disciplinary sanctions against the Director General of the Office shall be the subject of reasoned decisions, which shall be forwarded for information to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Supervisory Committee.

5.  The Director General of the Office will inform the Commission if he intends to engage in any new occupational activity within two years of leaving the post, in conformity with Article 16 of the Staff Regulations.

6.  The Director General of the Office shall each year, after securing the opinion of the Supervisory Committee, determine the programme of activities and the investigation policy priorities of the Office.

7.  The Director General of the Office may delegate the exercise of certain of his functions under Articles 5, 6(3), 7b and 10(2) to one or more members of the staff of the Office by a written document specifying the conditions and limits governing the delegation.".

(17)  The following Article shall be inserted:"

Article 12a

Interventions of the Director General of the Office before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the national courts

The Director General of the Office may intervene in cases, in connection with the conduct of the Office's activities, brought before the Court of Justice and, in accordance with national law, before the national courts.

Before intervening before the Court of Justice of the European Communities or the national courts, the Director General of the Office shall seek an opinion of the Supervisory Committee.

(18)  Article 13 shall be replaced by the following:"

Article 13

Financing

The appropriations for the Office, the total amount of which shall be entered under a specific budget line within the section of the General Budget of the European Union relating to the Commission, shall be set out in detail in an Annex to that section.

The establishment plan of the Office shall be annexed to the Commission's establishment plan.

(19)  Article 14 shall be replaced by the following:"

Article 14

Review of legality of the Office's investigations

1.  The review of legality of the Office's investigations shall relate to respect for procedural guarantees and the fundamental rights of the persons concerned by an Office investigation.

2.  The review of legality shall be carried out before the opening and before the close of an investigation, before any forwarding of information to the competent authorities in the Member States concerned within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10, and in connection with an evaluation of the absolute confidentiality of the investigation.

3.  The review of legality of investigations shall be carried out by Office experts in law and investigative procedure who are qualified to hold judicial office in a Member State. Their opinion shall be annexed to the final investigation report.

4.  The procedural code for OLAF investigations referred to in Article 15a sets out the procedure for the review of legality.

(20)  The following Article shall be inserted:"

Article 14a

Filing of complaints by persons concerned by Office investigations

1.  Any person personally concerned by an investigation may lodge a complaint with the Supervisory Committee alleging a violation of that person's procedural or human rights in the course of the investigation. Following reception of a complaint, the Supervisory Committee shall transmit the complaint without delay to a Review Adviser.

2.  The Director General of the Office, acting on a proposal from the Supervisory Committee, shall appoint a Review Adviser for a non-renewable term of five years. The Supervisory Committee shall base its proposal on a list of several candidates drawn up following a call for applications.

3.  The Review Adviser shall act in complete independence. He shall neither seek nor take instructions from anyone in the performance of his duties. He shall perform no functions within the Office other than those related to monitoring compliance with procedures.

4.  The Review Adviser is also competent for dealing with the complaints of the informers, including persons falling under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations.

5.  The Review Adviser shall, within no more than 30 working days of the forwarding of the complaint, give the complainant, the Supervisory Committee and the Director General of the Office his opinion.

6.  The Review Adviser shall report regularly to the Supervisory Committee on his activities. He shall present it, and the Commission, with regular statistical and analytical reports on questions related to complaints.

(21)  Article 15 shall be replaced by the following:"

Article 15

Evaluation report

In the course of...(7), the Commission shall transmit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Regulation, together with an opinion by the Supervisory Committee. The report shall state whether there is a need to amend this Regulation. In any event, this Regulation shall be amended after the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office.

(22)  The following Article ║ shall be inserted:"

Article 15a

Procedural code for OLAF investigations

1.  The Office shall adopt a "procedural code for OLAF investigations" incorporating the judicial and procedural principles adopted under the present regulation. It shall take account of the Office's operational practices.

2.  The procedural code for OLAF investigations shall set out the practices to be observed in implementing the mandate and statute of the Office, general principles governing investigative procedures, as well as the main investigative acts, the legitimate rights of the persons concerned, procedural guarantees, provisions relating to data protection and policies on communication and access to documents, provisions on review of legality and the means of redress open to the people concerned.

3.  Before adoption of the procedural code for OLAF investigations, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Office's Supervisory Committee shall be consulted. The Supervisory Committee shall ensure the independence of the Office in adopting the procedural code for OLAF investigations.

4.  The procedural code for OLAF investigations may be updated at the proposal of the Director General of the Office. In this case the adoption procedure referred to in this Article shall apply.

5.  The procedural code for OLAF investigations adopted by the Office shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

▌

Article 2

The provisions of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 as amended by this regulation shall not apply to the Director General of the Office in office at the date of entry into force of this regulation, whose term of office has been renewed for a period of five years.

Article 3

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at ║,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 8, 12.1.2007, p. 1. (2) OJ C 8, 12.1.2007, p. 1. (3) Position of the European Parliament of 20 November 2008. (4) OJ C 202, 18.8.2005, p. 1. (5) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2. (6) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1. (7) * Fourth year after the entry into force of this Regulation.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on Draft amending budget No 8/2008 of the European Union for the financial year 2008 (15765/2008 – C6-0426/2008 – 2008/2287(BUD))

P6_TA(2008)0554 A6-0453/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 272 of the EC Treaty and Article 177 of the Euratom Treaty,

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

–   having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, as finally adopted on 13 December 2007(2),

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

–   having regard to Preliminary draft amending budget No 9/2008 of the European Union for the financial year 2008, which the Commission presented on 6 October 2008 (COM(2008)0619),

–   having regard to Draft amending budget No 8/2008, which the Council established on 18 November 2008 (15765/2008 – C6-0426/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 69 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0453/2008),

A.   whereas Draft amending budget No 8 to the general budget 2008 concerns only the European Economic and Social Committee and covers the budgetary adjustments resulting from the fact that the increase in salaries and pensions was lower than that used as a basis for drawing up the 2008 preliminary draft,

B.   whereas the principle of presenting an amending budget updating technical data which served to establish the budget in the first place, with a view to returning funds to the taxpayer, is to be welcomed, although, in this case, the cost of the procedure may unfortunately exceed the actual money to be returned,

1.  Takes note of Preliminary draft amending budget No 9/2008, which reduces the European Economic and Social Committee's 2008 budget (costs) by EUR 318 262 and its revenue by EUR 48 265;

2.  Approves Draft amending budget No 8/2008 unamended;

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

(1) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (2) OJ L 71, 14.3.2008. (3) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the Special Report by the European Ombudsman following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 1487/2005/GG (2008/2072(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0555 A6-0395/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 195(1), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties(1), particularly Article 3(7) thereof,

–   having regard to the studies carried out by the Commission, as published in Special Eurobarometer Nos 237 and 243, on the dissemination of languages in the European Union,

–   having regard to Article 3(5) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, which directs the Ombudsman to seek, as far as possible, a solution with the institution concerned in order to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complainant,

–   having regard to Rule 195(2), first sentence, of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A6-0395/2008),

A.   whereas improved transparency, the promotion of multilingualism and the provision of accurate information to the public are objectives which are given the highest priority by the EU and its institutions,

B.   whereas ease of access to information for as many EU citizens as possible is an important prerequisite for, and a basic element of, the general principles of democratic legitimacy and transparency,

C.   wishing to enable as many citizens as possible to have direct access to information on the activities of the EU institutions in all their formations,

D.   whereas this wish must be reconciled with the logistical challenge posed by a large number of official EU languages,

E.   whereas the internet is an increasingly important means of obtaining information and must, accordingly, be used by the European Union in its efforts to achieve transparency and disseminate information,

1.  Endorses the conclusions of the Ombudsman, namely that:

2.  Is astonished to note, in this regard, that the Council does not consider itself empowered to address this question, even though it is one which affects all Member States and the Council could make recommendations to all future presidencies;

3.  Notes with regret that the Council, unlike other institutions such as the Commission and Parliament, which have significantly improved the number of languages available in their communication with citizens, has so far completely avoided addressing in a substantive way the question of the language options of the websites of its presidencies;

4.  Invites the Council to conduct a comprehensive review of the question of expanding the language options of the websites of its presidencies, irrespective of the question of responsibility or authority for these websites, so as to ensure that as large a section as possible of the population of the European Union has easy and direct access to information on its activities; calls on the Council to inform Parliament of the results of its deliberations;

5.  Stresses that any reduction of the language options which may prove necessary must be undertaken on the basis of objective and sufficiently justified criteria, that it must be announced publicly and that only the language of the incumbent presidency may have priority until the end of such presidency;

6.  Supports the recommendation of the Ombudsman to the Council that it examine the complainant's request that the websites of the Council presidencies be also made available in German;

7.  Welcomes the fact that, in contrast to the practice of past presidencies, whereby websites were only available in English, French and the language of the incumbent presidency, the French Council Presidency publishes its official website in the most widely spoken official languages of the European Union (English, German, French, Italian and Spanish);

8.  Addresses itself to all future Council presidencies, in the hope that they will make their websites available in as many languages as possible and, in the event of a restriction on the number of languages, will use the most widely spoken official languages according to an order of priority;

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

(1) OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the future of social security systems and pensions: their financing and the trend towards individualisation (2007/2290(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0556 A6-0409/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 October 2006 on the long-term sustainability of public finances in the EU (COM(2006)0574),

–   having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Articles 99 and 141 thereof,

–   having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in particular the judgment delivered by the Court on 17 May 1990 in Douglas Harvey Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group(1),

–   having regard to the legally binding Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly, and in particular to Article 11.1(d) and (e) and Article 11.2(c),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 1 March 2006 on a roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010 (COM(2006)0092) ,

–   having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 13 and 14 March 2008,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 17 October 2007 on modernising social protection for greater social justice and economic cohesion: taking forward the active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market (COM(2007) 0620),

–   having regard to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security 1952,

–   having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document of 11 April 2008 on the implementation of Article 8 and the related provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, concerning supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the national statutory social security schemes (SEC(2008)0475),

–   having regard to the European social partners' recommendations in the report of 18 October 2007 entitled Key Challenges Facing European Labour Markets: A Joint Analysis of European Social Partners,

–   having regard to the Commission's Green Paper on modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century (COM(2006)0708) and to Parliament's resolution thereon of 11 July 2007(2),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 February 2007 entitled Social reality stocktaking – Interim report to the 2007 Spring European Council (COM(2007)0063) and to Parliament's resolution of 15 November 2007 on Social Reality Stocktaking(3),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 10 May 2007on promoting solidarity between the generations (COM(2007)0244), and to the Parliament's resolution of 21 February 2008 on the demographic future of Europe(4),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0409/2008),

A.   whereas social security:

B.   whereas the total population of the European Union is expected to increase slightly until 2025 and to decrease slightly after 2025, becoming by 2050 slightly smaller and significantly older,

C.   whereas, with immigration constant at present levels, the work force will decrease from 227 million people in 2005 to 183 million in 2050, the employment rate will rise to 70% in 2020, mainly due to higher female employment rates, the total number of people employed will increase by 20 million by 2017, but after that will decrease by 30 million by 2050 and the projected ratio of people over 65 to people of working age will rise from 1:4 in 2005 to 1:2 in 2050,

D.   whereas a general increase in the pensionable age, based on the general trend of increased life expectancy, takes insufficient account of the fact that there are still numerous branches of industry in which the life expectancy of workers is significantly lower,

E.   whereas the social partners in general, and in those branches of industry with workers with a lower than average life expectancy in particular, have a serious responsibility with regard to the in and outflow of workers and can be the primary supporting parties in ensuring an effective age-conscious personnel policy,

F.   whereas, due to lower proportions of unemployed people, unemployment benefit spending will fall by about 0,6 percentage points of GDP by 2050, a decrease that is very modest and will not compensate higher expenditure in other sectors,

G.   whereas the European Union spends 27,2% of GDP on social protection (2008), the major share being spent on old age benefits and pensions (46%),

H.   whereas the term social security does not mean the relationship between spending and revenue but is rather a social contract, a relationship between rights and obligations both for citizens and for the state, and should be treated as such; whereas, under no circumstances should the budgetary character of social security, however, be undermined,

I.   whereas the fact of the ageing population is expected to lead to increases in public spending, most of it for pensions, health care and long-term care, in most Member States by 2050 if current policies are pursued, with the largest increase occurring between 2020 and 2040,

J.   whereas the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy as regards the employment of women, young people and the elderly and the Barcelona objectives as regards childcare services are essential for the viability of pension systems,

K.   whereas the 2000 UN Millennium Objectives, in particular Objective 3, presuppose gender equality,

L.   whereas, in general terms, women's careers tend to be more fragmented and the rate at which their pay increases slower, while men tend to have a more continuous employment record and their pay tends to increase more steadily, which means that there is a discrepancy between their respective contributions to the pension system and an increased risk of poverty for women, which is in addition a longer-term risk, given their greater life expectancy,

General concerns

1.  Urges the Member States, in the light of the Lisbon Strategy and the need to cover social risks and secure the sustainability of the social security and pension systems and maintain the core of the European social models, to make more progress in balancing social expenditure and social activation and, furthermore, to attract and retain more people in quality, secure and mandatory social insurance employment, promoting growth and job creation and access to employment on the basis of greater market transparency, to modernise social protection systems (for example through greater differentiation in benefit formulas and funding mechanisms) and to increase investment in human capital by promoting research and development and innovation and through better education and vocational training in the context of lifelong learning for all;

2.  Calls on the Commission to follow closely social security and pension reforms in the Member States, comparing their impact to date on the employment situation of women and focusing on the best practices that have emerged, particularly in reducing gender discrimination regarding pay and in reconciling professional and family responsibilities;

3.  Emphasises that sources of economic growth will alter as a result of demographic change and that increasing labour productivity and technological innovation will become sources of economic growth; recognises that, in order to maintain a higher level of productivity, it will be essential to invest more in research and development and better management methods, where synergy between technological and social innovation will be a high priority;

4.  Highlights, in the context of current demographic, economic and social trends and the prevention of inter-generational and inter-societal conflicts, the importance of finding new methods for an efficient and equitable distribution of costs and benefits among what will be a smaller economically active and a larger economically inactive population: on a European and national level the aim should be maintaining the balance between the economic viability of the social security systems and pensions on the one hand and the coverage of social risks on the other;

5.  Recalls its belief that, to promote an economically viable social protection system, Community labour law should reinforce employment contracts of indefinite duration as the usual form of employment under which adequate social and health protection is provided and respect for fundamental rights is ensured; recognises, however, that rights also need to be protected for those who have other working patterns, including the right to a pension which allows the retired to live in dignity;

6.  Recalls that the core of European social models is the principle of solidarity between generations and social groups, and that it is primarily financed by work-related earnings, such as contributions by employees and employers and labour taxation; nevertheless points out that the ageing population will put serious pressure on the active work force and that solutions to the demographic change should be a political priority; stresses that, otherwise, demographic change could jeopardise the principle of solidarity and European social models as a consequence; stresses also the significant importance, therefore, of strengthening the principle of solidarity, including fair financial compensation;

7.  Recalls that, under Article 141 of the EC Treaty, measures may be adopted to actively achieve equal pay and Community case-law regards social security contributions as an element of pay;

8.  Notes that, as a result of changing demographics, it is estimated that by 2030 the ratio of active to inactive persons will be 2:1; calls on the Commission and Member States to develop policies to ensure that carers, many of whom are obliged to withdraw from the labour market because of caring responsibilities, are not adversely effected by pension insecurity;

9.  Recalls that the trend towards individualisation contributes to the modernisation of the second and the third pillar, without calling into question the first pillar of social security systems, this to enable people, especially women and other vulnerable groups, to have more freedom of choice and thus become more independent and able to build up their own, additional pension rights;

10.  Calls on the Commission to carry out more detailed research and studies concerning the impact of the individualisation of social rights on the equal treatment of women and men;

11.  Considers that equality between men and women must be one of the objectives of any reform of social security and pension systems, while stressing that inequalities in this respect are fundamentally of an indirect nature, resulting from persisting inequality on the employment market, in pay and career prospects and in the way family and domestic responsibilities are shared, and can therefore only be corrected by more global measures;

12.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to raise awareness among (young) adults of the importance of building-up pension entitlements early;

Work force

13.  Believes that a decreasing work force will, if the present situation continues, lead to a decrease in the total number of hours worked; considers that, in order to reverse this trend, measures could be taken to reduce the unemployment rate and increase recruitment (combined with training and retraining) including persons who have a high labour potential such as disabled persons, women and the elderly; stresses the need to enable flexible retirement on a voluntary basis, change the organisation of working practices and make intelligent use of new technologies; stresses that it is also necessary that support services and services related to the care of children and family dependants are improved, in the light of reducing the number of people working part-time on a voluntary basis;

14.  Recalls that higher employment rates are heavily dependent on the need to keep all groups – especially those excluded from the labour market – active; stresses, therefore, the need to fight discrimination on the labour market and to offer jobs to inactive persons in the labour force; stresses, furthermore, the need to provide reasonable accommodation so as to facilitate the employment of disabled persons and those with significant health problems, and to ensure that disabled persons and persons who are mentally ill have access to employment;

15.  Stresses, therefore, the need for active policies on the employment of women, young people and the elderly so as to make proper use of manpower and business enterprise and to ensure that, inter alia, contributions to pension systems entitle the retired to a decent pension;

16.  Stresses the need to discuss at national level raising the legal retirement age; considers that, irrespective of the various legal retirement ages in the Member States, it is necessary that employees should be encouraged to remain in employment on a voluntary basis and as long as conditions allow, until the age which applies or longer;

17.  Calls on the social partners, among other things on the basis of experience gained in various sectors, to negotiate tailor-made sector-based measures in relation to ageing workers in general and an age-conscious personnel policy in particular;

18.  Calls on the Member States to create financial and social incentives to encourage employees voluntarily to continue to work even after reaching the statutory retirement age;

19.  Calls on the Member States to pursue an active policy to improve the prospects for safe working conditions in order to reduce risk in certain occupations and avoid the early retirement of a large proportion of skilled workers;

20.  Recalls that any pro-active economic migration policy that addresses especially potential migrants of working age and offers fast-track immigration to highly skilled applicants would need to be complemented by better integration of migrants into the labour market and society as a whole; stresses that intensified efforts to increase immigration might lead to a brain-drain in the countries of origin, which might have a negative effect on the economical and societal development of these countries and encourage new waves of uncontrolled migration;

21.  Recognises that "brain waste" can also be an issue, for both the economy as a whole and the individuals concerned, when qualified migrant workers are employed to fill positions for the less-skilled; stresses the need for migrant workers to benefit from their contributions to pension schemes;

22.  Calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps to ensure that Union citizens working and residing in a host Member State do not lose some or all of their social security rights;

23.  Considers that the long-term impact of immigration on the ageing of the population is uncertain as it depends on the behaviour of migratory flows, on family regrouping and on the birth rate among migrants; considers that immigration can lead to a better balance of social security systems if immigrants are legally employed and therefore contributing to its financing;

Pensions

24.  Draws attention to the existing discrimination against all vulnerable groups in terms of access to and the conditions on the labour market, especially those who are working in jobs where social security contributions are not mandatory, which leads to lower employment rates and lower wages and therefore fewer opportunities for those groups to build up adequate pensions; insists on the need to provide equal opportunities for all, thus ensuring higher employment rates, equal pay and adequate pension rights;

25.  Recognises the fact that public pension systems strengthen social solidarity and are the responsibility of the Member States and that safeguarding these systems should be a political priority; believes that greater use of alternatives to state-funded pensions, such as supplementary schemes, could be a viable alternative; points out that private pensions could include occupational supplementary pension schemes by employers or other collective organisations and associations and individual supplementary pensions based on savings; emphasises that the existence of private pensions would increase the need for the appropriate regulation of private pension funds, the portability of such pensions and the promotion and continued modernisation (including more flexibility) of these alternatives; within this framework, believes that the risk should be taken into account that women in the context of the existing public pension system might lose insurance coverage if private provisions are to replace this system, but that this risk can be reduced by crediting pension entitlements for maternity leave, parental leave and breaks from work for personal reasons;

26.  Calls on the Member States to take serious account of the need to redesign traditional pension systems which are based on systematic risk assessments and the assumption of a typical, standard life course and adjust the social security system in line with the reforms of the pension system, this given that the assumed standard course of life is changing rapidly, and that so-called 'patchwork biographies' will become more and more common; believes that this could lead to a new social risk of increasing unpredictability for many individuals and for vulnerable groups in particular, especially immigrants, low-skilled workers, single parents and those with other caring responsibilities; stresses that this can lead to an early exit from the labour market or reduced participation in it; points out that a transformation of the pension systems is also necessary to achieve a flexible labour market;

27.  Notes that a sustainable pension system needs to adapt to demographic and economic challenges and stresses that – provided that there is wide availability – a three-pillar structure is a balanced option; suggests that the statutory pensions (first pillar) be flanked by collectively funded occupational pension systems (second pillar) and by individual additional third-pillar products; stresses the value of pension systems that combine solidarity with often high returns because of volume, long-term and prudent but profitable investment strategies; invites the Commission to undertake the preparation of an appropriate and feasible framework of regulation and supervision of pan-European pension products; stresses that an internal market for occupational and third-pillar pensions would allow individuals to enjoy portable occupational pension arrangements, stimulate competition and reduce the cost of saving for retirement;

28.  Observes that it is predominantly women who take care of children as well as elderly, ill or disabled members of the family, voluntarily or involuntarily under the pressure of cultural attitudes and social norms or of the poor quality or lack of childcare facilities and other care facilities (long-term care structures) and that they therefore have more interruptions in their working careers; stresses the need to compensate women and carers and to provide them with real choices as regards having children as in relation to caring responsibilities, without fearing possible financial disadvantages or suffering detriment to their career progression; welcomes action by Member States to prevent and compensate this situation, for example by crediting child and family care time in statutory pension insurance;

29.  Calls on the Member States, the social partners and representatives of women's organisations to continue to pay close attention to the possible or actual effects of pension system reforms on equality between men and women and to ensure that remedial action is taken if necessary to guarantee equal treatment;

30.  Requests that, as a matter of urgency, the Commission and the Member States take measures prohibiting direct discrimination in occupational pension schemes, including the practice of basing the level of payments and contributions on actuarial factors relating to sex;

31.  Recalls its resolution of 21 February 1997 on the situation of spouses helping self-employed workers(5) which, inter alia, called for action to ensure that it was compulsory for spouses helping self-employed workers to be covered individually by a pension insurance scheme;

32.  Recalls its resolution of 12 March 2008 on the situation of women in rural areas of the EU(6), calling once more on the Commission to submit a proposal for amending Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood(7) by the end of 2008 providing for independent social and pension entitlements for women assisting on agricultural holdings;

33.  Recalls its resolution of 11 July 2007 on financial services policy (2005-2010) (8) and stresses the importance of developing a transparent, flexible European social security and pension market, by reducing fiscal barriers and obstacles to the transferability of pension rights from one Member State to another; is of the opinion that the creation of an internal market for pensions requires a European framework regulating pension products;

34.  Urges the Commission urgently to review Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision(9) in order to provide a solid solvency regime appropriate to such institutions for occupational retirement provision, based on advice from the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors and a thorough impact assessment, examining level playing field issues through differences in calculation and underlying assumptions for measuring liabilities; stresses that such a regime could be based on an extension of some aspects of the amended Commission proposal of 26 February 2008 for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and re-insurance (Solvency II) (COM(2008)0119) to pension funds, taking into account the specificities of the institutions for occupational retirement provision, such as the long-term nature of the pension schemes they operate and the type of risk coverage or guarantees provided by pension funds; considers that such a special solvency regime would underpin financial stability and prevent regulatory arbitrage;

35.  Recalls that the Court of Justice has ruled against obstacles to tax exemptions for cross-border pension contributions; emphasises that tax relief offers the best incentive for long-term savings and that further harmonisation may be needed to remove all obstacles to cross-border contributions to pension schemes;

36.  Notes the current trend away from defined benefit pension systems to defined contribution pension systems and is concerned about the decline in employer contributions that evidently accompanies this trend; emphasises the need for strengthened participation and contribution levels of employees in existing pension schemes in order to ensure adequate retirement income for individuals and emphasises the need for continued adequate contributions from employers, particularly in defined contribution pension schemes; is concerned that the envisaged revision of International Accounting Standard (IAS) 19 regarding employee benefits, as for example in the case of the possible abolition of the so-called 'corridor-approach', could entail significant changes to pension systems that need to be carefully assessed, especially as regards possible adverse effects on the attractiveness of defined benefit schemes;

37.  Observes that, in order to ensure decent living conditions for disabled peersons and to avoid the 'benefits trap', it is necessary to provide compensation for the additional cost of living associated with disability and to coordinate it with pension systems and social integration policies;

Financial sustainability

38.  Stresses the need for the Member States to preserve adequate levels of funding for social security and pensions systems and the need to find alternative and robust tax bases in the face of the increased competition brought about by globalisation; stresses the importance of reducing reliance on labour taxation in order to increase the competitiveness of Member State economies and provide more work incentives; recognises the complexity involved in shifting to a more capital based taxation, given the smaller capital tax base and greater mobility of capital; suggests that shifting to new methods of taxation and/or other alternatives could be considered to improve the financial sustainability of social spending, which would reduce the tax burden on people with lower incomes; maintains that employers' social security contributions represent an investment because they result in increased productivity, this being one of the reasons why countries with high social spending are also the most competitive;

39.  Underlines the fact that Member States must focus on the medium and long-term objectives of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and ensure sustainable public finances to meet the increased pressure of an ageing population; notes that the Informal Economic and Finance Ministers Council held in Brdo on 5 April 2008 agreed that the focus on social spending should move from volume of expenditure to achievements and outcome; recommends that the Council reflect on further improvements to the SGP, for example by allowing longer term investments to be accounted for over a longer period of time;

40.  Stresses that Member States should design their financial policies in a sustainable manner by fairly sharing the tax burden among employees, consumers, businesses and income from capital, and across generations;

41.  Considers that regulation should aim to secure the solvency and protection of occupational pension schemes, not least in the event of a takeover or other significant changes in ownership or management;

42.  Calls on the Member States to include in their annual budgets a fund for future pension payments;

43.  Stresses the need to consider a phased transition from joint contribution-based to fund-based insurance-type pension schemes,

Healthcare and long-term care

44.  Expresses the conviction that measures to improve health mean a need to invest, which can contribute to reducing the costs in light of the ageing population and improve the soundness of public finances; insists on the importance of preserving the values and principles underpinning all health care systems in the European Union, which comprise universal coverage, solidarity in financing, equity of access and the provision of high-quality health care, notwithstanding the need for rational consumption of scarce resources; emphasises that by improving the organisation and provision of services in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, there is the potential for improving both the quality and financial efficiency of health services;

45.  Given the projected higher costs of health care and long-term care, considers that Member States should reflect on their funding and take account of the fact that, given the possibility that less non-professional care will be available due to the trend towards smaller families and an increase in women's participation in the labour market, the increase in long-term care might be higher than projected;

46.  Points out that the emphasis should be placed on persons needing expensive or long-term health care, persons and groups of persons facing particular access problems, such as ethnic minorities and persons on low incomes, on care for persons suffering from chronic illnesses and the development of open support structures for the rehabilitation, social integration and support of persons with physical or mental disabilities and the elderly, so as to avoid institutionalisation and to help them live independently;

47.  Observes that the public funding of health care helps protect against financial risk, independently of the personal health risks and thus supports equality and social security, whereas, in contrast, private contribution mechanisms involve limited or no pooling of risks and usually link payments to the risk of ill health and ability to pay, while simultaneously guaranteeing a sustainable financing regardless of demographic change;

48.  Recognises the importance of public financing in achieving the objective of solidarity, and the wide diversity of the levels of public and private financing of health care in the Member States; recommends that the Commission carries out research to determine the level and/or range of public financing that meets the objective of solidarity, both for the system as a whole and for particular service areas;

49.  Recognises the increasing popularity of market-based solutions and privatisation in health care financing as a panacea for cost explosion, inefficiency and problems of quality of care, especially in the new Member States; recognises the increasing evidence that the functional privatisation of social health insurance systems, the profit motive and competition between financial intermediaries usually make the administration of health care systems more expensive, whilst their beneficial effects in terms of cost containment, efficiency and quality of care are dubious; for this reason, recommends that Member States with a single payer model preserve that model;

50.  Notes that health care systems that are predominantly funded through employment-based social insurance contributions may benefit from broadening the revenue base to include non-earnings-related income;

51.  Notes that, in the light of the principle of freedom to provide services and the right of the insured under health insurance schemes to choose a doctor or establishment freely, it is not permissible for Member States to refuse to reimburse their citizens for any treatment received abroad but that Member States can impose (fixed) individualised ceilings on the costs incurred and are not obliged to reimburse treatment that their nationals would not have received at home;

52.  Calls on the Member States to avoid a purely financial approach when adopting reform policies aimed at redesigning the legal frameworks which underpin their respective national healthcare systems;

53.  Is deeply convinced that the starting point for any reform should be a careful analysis of the existing health (financing) system to identify weaknesses and problem areas, combined with understanding of the contextual factors that may contribute to or impede successful reform; expects Member States to be fully aware of the considerable impact of healthcare reforms on the operation, capacity, and efficiency of their respective healthcare systems, and of the threats that insufficiently or inadequately prepared reform measures can have on the quality and availability of healthcare services, on the health of citizens, and hence on their employability;

54.  Calls on the Member States to consider the whole range of health financing functions and policies, rather than focusing on contribution mechanisms alone; is convinced that raising the level of employment-based contributions, or raising the private contribution of patients to the cost of healthcare services are wrong-headed policies that can have disastrous consequences since they limit in an unacceptable way the access of citizens with low incomes to the full range of healthcare services;

55.  Is convinced that the access of citizens with low incomes to high quality healthcare services should be seen as a clear priority that it is linked most closely with the European values of solidarity and equal rights, and that it constitutes a precondition for the successful achievement of the Lisbon objective of full employment;

56.  Calls on the Commission to take into account the aspects of the equal rights of all Union citizens to high-quality healthcare systems, and to integrate the necessary guarantees against discrimination against citizens relating to financing into the revision of Community anti-discrimination legislation, or any new legislative instrument dealing with the issue of access to healthcare services;

57.  Recommends that Member States contribute to efficiency and equity in their respective healthcare systems by lowering the number of risk pools or – better still – by creating a single, national pool that can facilitate strategic direction and co-ordination throughout the health system;

o
o   o

58.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Employment Committee, Social Protection Committee, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries.

(1) Case C-262/88, ECJ [1990] I-1889. (2) OJ C 175 E, 10.7.2008, p.401. (3) OJ C 282 E, 6.11.2008, p.463. (4) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0066. (5) OJ C 85, 17.3.1997, p. 186. (6) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0094. (7) OJ L 359, 19.12.1986, p. 56. (8) OJ C 175 E, 10.7.2008, p. 392. (9) OJ L 235, 23.09.03, p.10.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment (COM(2007)0637 – C6-0011/2007 – 2007/0228(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0557 A6-0432/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM (2007)0637),

–   having regard to Article 63(3)(a) and (4) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 67 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0011/2007),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Development (A6-0432/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

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

4.  Calls for initiation of the conciliation procedure under the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975 if the Council intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

5.  Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 2 a (new) (2a)  At its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, the European Council noted the need for approximation of national legislation on the conditions for admission and residence of third-country nationals. In that connection, it declared in particular that the European Union should ensure fair treatment of third-country nationals who reside legally on Member States' territory and that a more vigorous integration policy should aim to grant them rights and obligations comparable to those of Union citizens. Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 (3)  The Lisbon European Council in March 2000 set the Community the objective of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. (3)  The Lisbon European Council in March 2000 set the Community the objective of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010. Measures to attract and retain highly qualified third-country workers as part of an approach based on the needs of Member States should be seen in the broader context established by the Lisbon Strategy and by the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs. Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 a (new) (5a)  In an increasingly global labour market, the European Union should increase its attractiveness to workers, in particular highly qualified workers, from third countries. That objective can be more effectively achieved by granting privileges, e.g. particular derogations, and by making it possible to have easier access to relevant information. Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 (6)  To achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Process it is also important to foster the mobility within the Union of highly qualified workers who are EU citizens, and in particular from the Member States which acceded in 2004 and 2007. In implementing this Directive, Member States are bound to respect the principle of Community preference as expressed in particular in the relevant provisions of the Acts of Accession of 16 April 2003 and 25 April 2005. (6)  To achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Process it is also important to foster the mobility within the Union of highly qualified workers who are EU citizens, and in particular from the Member States which acceded in 2004 and 2007. In the implementation of this Directive, the principle of Community preference as expressed in particular in the relevant provisions of the Acts of Accession of 16 April 2003 and 25 April 2005 should be respected. Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 (10)  This Directive should provide for a flexible demand-driven entry system, based on objective criteria such as a minimum salary threshold comparable with the wage levels in the Member States and on professional qualifications. The definition of a common minimum denominator for the national wage threshold is necessary to ensure a minimum level of harmonisation in the admission conditions throughout the EU. Member States should fix their national threshold accordingly to the situation of their respective labour markets and their general immigration policies. (10)  This Directive should provide for a flexible demand-driven entry system, based on objective criteria such as professional qualifications. Application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is necessary to ensure that EU nationals and third-country nationals are treated equally. Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 (11)  Derogations from the main scheme in terms of the salary threshold should be laid down for highly qualified applicants under 30 years of age who, due to their relatively limited professional experience and their position on the labour market, may not be in a position to fulfil the salary requirements of the main scheme, or for those who have acquired their higher education qualifications in the European Union. deleted Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 a (new) (15a)  In the case of intra-EU mobility from one Member State to another after renewal of an EU Blue Card, cross-border commuting may be an option for the EU Blue Card holder. As the EU Blue Card combines a work and residence permit, it does not offer the option of commuting to another Member State for the purpose of work while residing in the Member State which issued the EU Blue Card. The possibility of cross-border commuting should be addressed by Council Directive .../.../EC of... on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State. Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 (17)  The mobility of highly qualified third-country workers between the Community and their countries of origin should be fostered and sustained. Derogations from Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents should be foreseen in order to extend the period of absence from the territory of the Community which is not taken into account for the calculation of the period of legal and continuous residence necessary to be eligible for the EC long-term residence status. Longer periods of absence than those provided for in Council Directive 2003/109/EC should also be allowed after highly qualified third-country workers have acquired EC long-term residence status. In particular, to encourage the circular migration of highly qualified third-country workers originating from developing countries, Member States should take into consideration making use of the possibilities offered in Article 4(3), second subparagraph, and Article 9(2) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC to allow for longer periods of absence than those provided for in this Directive. In order to ensure consistency in particular with the underlying development objectives, these derogations should only be applicable if it can be proven that the person concerned has returned to his/her country of origin for work, study or volunteering activities. (17)  The mobility of highly qualified third-country workers between the Community and their countries of origin should be fostered and sustained. Derogations from Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents should be foreseen in order to extend the period of absence from the territory of the Community which is not taken into account for the calculation of the period of legal and continuous residence necessary to be eligible for the EC long-term residence status. Longer periods of absence than those provided for in Council Directive 2003/109/EC should also be allowed after highly qualified third-country workers have acquired EC long-term residence status. In particular, to encourage the circular migration of highly qualified third-country workers originating from developing countries, Member States should take into consideration making use of the possibilities offered in Article 4(3), second subparagraph, and Article 9(2) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC to allow for longer periods of absence than those provided for in this Directive. In order to ensure consistency in particular with the underlying development objectives, these derogations should only be applicable if it can be proven that the person concerned has returned to his/her country of origin. Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 20 (20)  In implementing this Directive, Member States should refrain from pursuing active recruitment in developing countries in sectors suffering from lack of human resources. Ethical recruitment policies and principles applicable to public and private sector employers should be developed in particular in the health sector, as underlined in the Council and Member States' conclusions of 14 May 2007 on the European Programme for Action to tackle the critical shortage of health workers in developing countries (2007-2013). These should be strengthened by the development of mechanisms, guidelines and other tools to facilitate circular and temporary migration, as well as other measures that would minimise negative and maximise positive impacts of highly skilled immigration on developing countries. Any such intervention must be taken along the lines of the Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Development agreed in Tripoli on 22 and 23 November 2006 and with a view of establishing a comprehensive migration policy as called for by the European Council of 14 and 15 December 2006. (20)  In implementing this Directive, the Member States should not actively seek to attract highly qualified workers in sectors that are already subject, or are expected to be subject, to a shortage of highly qualified workers in the third country. This applies to the health and education sectors in particular. Member States should establish cooperation agreements with third countries with a view to safeguarding both the Union's needs and the development of the third countries from which highly qualified immigrants come. The cooperation agreements should include ethical recruitment policies and principles and be strengthened by the development of mechanisms, guidelines and other tools to facilitate circular and temporary migration by which highly qualified immigrants may return to their countries of origin. Any such intervention must be taken along the lines of the Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Development agreed in Tripoli on 22 and 23 November 2006 and the conclusions of the first meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development of July 2007, and with a view of establishing a comprehensive migration policy as called for by the European Council of 14 and 15 December 2006. In addition, the Member States, in cooperation with the countries of origin, should offer concrete support for the training of professionals in key sectors weakened by the exodus of talent. Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Article 2 − point b (b) "highly qualified employment" means the exercise of genuine and effective work under the direction of someone else for which a person is paid and for which higher education qualifications or at least three years of equivalent professional experience is required; (b) "highly qualified employment" means the exercise of genuine and effective work as an employee under the direction of someone else for which a person is paid and for which higher education qualifications or higher professional qualifications are required; Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Article 2 − point c (c) 'EU Blue Card' means the authorisation bearing the term "EU Blue Card" entitling its holder to reside and work legally in its territory and to move to another Member State for highly qualified employment under the terms of this Directive; (c) 'EU Blue Card' means the authorisation bearing the term "EU Blue Card" entitling its holder to reside and work legally in its territory and, in accordance with Chapter V, to move to another Member State for highly qualified employment; Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Article 2 − point f (f) "family members" means third-country nationals as defined in Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/86/EC; (f) "family members" means third-country nationals as defined in Article 4(1), 4(2)(b) and 4(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC; Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Article 2 − point g (g) "higher education qualification" stands for any degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a competent authority attesting the successful completion of a higher education programme, namely a set of courses provided by an educational establishment recognised as a higher education institution by the State in which it is situated. These qualifications are taken into account, for the purposes of this directive, on condition that the studies needed to acquire them lasted at least three years; (g) "higher education qualification" stands for any degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a third country and subsequently recognised by the competent authority of a Member State attesting the successful completion of a higher education programme, namely a set of courses provided by an educational establishment recognised as a higher education institution by the State in which it is situated. These qualifications are taken into account, for the purposes of this directive, on condition that the studies needed to acquire them lasted at least three years. For the purpose of this Directive, in order to evaluate whether a third-country national possesses higher education, reference shall be made to International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997 levels 5a and 6; Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Article 2 − point h (h) "higher professional qualifications" means qualifications attested by evidence of higher education qualifications or of at least three years of equivalent professional experience; (h) "higher professional qualifications" means qualifications attested by evidence of at least five years of professional experience of a level comparable to higher education qualifications, including at least two years in a senior position; Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Article 2 − point i (i) "professional experience" means the actual and lawful pursuit of the profession concerned. (i) "professional experience" means the actual and lawful pursuit of the profession concerned, attested by any document issued by the public authorities, e.g. certificate of employment, social insurance certificate or tax certificate; Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Article 2 − point i a (new) (ia) "regulated profession" means a professional activity or group of professional activities access to which, the pursuit of which, or one of the modes of pursuit of which, is subject, directly or indirectly, by virtue of legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions, to the possession of specific professional qualifications; in particular, the use of a professional title limited by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions to holders of given professional qualifications shall constitute a mode of pursuit. Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 1.  This Directive shall apply to third-country nationals who apply to be admitted to the territory of a Member State for the purpose of highly qualified employment. 1.  This Directive shall apply to third-country nationals who apply to be admitted to the territory of a Member State for the purpose of highly qualified employment as well as third-country nationals already legally resident under other schemes in a Member State who apply for an EU Blue Card. Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Article 3 − paragraph 2 − point a (a) staying in a Member State as applicants for international protection or under temporary protection schemes; (a) staying in a Member State as applicants for international protection or under temporary protection schemes or who, in either instance, have applied for a residence permit and on whose legal status no decision has yet been taken; Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Article 3 - paragraph 2 - point b (b) who are refugees or have applied for recognition as refugees and whose application has not yet given rise to a final decision; (b) who have applied for recognition as refugees and whose application has not yet given rise to a final decision; Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Article 3 − paragraph 2 − point f (f) entering a Member State under commitments contained in an international agreement facilitating the entry and temporary stay of certain categories of trade and investment-related natural persons; (f) entering a Member State under commitments contained in an international agreement facilitating the entry and temporary stay of certain categories of trade and investment-related natural persons, in particular intra-corporate transferees, providers of contractual services and trainees with higher- education qualifications who are covered by the Community's obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Article 3 − paragraph 2 − point g a (new) (ga) who have been admitted in the territory of a Member State as seasonal workers. Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Article 3 − paragraph 3 3.  This Directive should be without prejudice to any future agreement between the Community or between the Community and its Member States on the one hand and one or more third countries on the other, that would list the professions which should not fall under this directive in order to assure ethical recruitment, in sectors suffering from a lack of personnel, by protecting human resources in the developing countries, signatories to these agreements. 3.  This Directive shall be without prejudice to any future agreement between the Community or between the Community and its Member States on the one hand and one or more third countries on the other, that lists the professions which will not fall under this Directive in order to ensure ethical recruitment, in sectors suffering from a lack of personnel, in sectors vital to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals, in particular the health and education sectors, and in sectors vital to the ability of developing countries to deliver basic social services, by protecting human resources in the developing countries, signatories to these agreements. Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Article 4 − paragraph 2 2.  This Directive shall not affect the right of Member States to adopt or retain more favourable provisions concerning conditions of entry and residence for persons to whom it applies, except for entry into the first Member State. 2.  This Directive shall not affect the right of Member States to adopt or retain more favourable provisions concerning persons to whom this Directive applies than the following provisions:. (a)  Article 5(2) in the event of residence in the second Member State; (b)  Articles 12, 13(1) and (2), 14, 16, 17(4) and 20. Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Article 5 − paragraph 1 − point a (a) present a valid work contract or a binding job offer of at least one year in the Member State concerned; (a) present a work contract for highly qualified employment which is valid under national law or a binding job offer of at least one year in the Member State concerned; Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Article 5 − paragraph 1 − point c (c) for unregulated professions, present the documents attesting the relevant higher professional qualifications in the occupation or sector specified in the work contract or in the binding offer of work; deleted Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Article 5 − paragraph 1 − point e (e) present evidence of having a sickness insurance for the applicant and his/her family members for all the risks normally covered for nationals of the Member State concerned for periods where no such insurance coverage and corresponding entitlement to benefits are provided in connection with, or resulting from, the work contract; (e) present evidence of having a sickness insurance for the applicant and his/her family members for all the risks normally covered for nationals of the Member State concerned for periods where no such insurance coverage and corresponding entitlement to health insurance benefits are provided in connection with, or resulting from, the work contract; Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f (f) not be considered to pose a threat to public policy, public security or public health. (f) not, for reasons which can be objectively demonstrated, constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health. Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Article 5 − paragraph 2 2.  In addition to the conditions stipulated in paragraph 1, the gross monthly salary specified in the work contract or binding job offer must not be inferior to a national salary threshold defined and published for the purpose by the Member States which shall be at least three times the minimum gross monthly wage as set by national law. 2.  In addition to the conditions stipulated in paragraph 1, the gross monthly wage specified in the work contract or binding job offer must not be inferior to a national level defined and published for the purpose by the Member States which shall be at least 1.7 times the gross monthly or annual average wages in the Member State concerned and shall not be inferior to the wages which apply or would apply to a comparable worker in the host country. Member States where minimum wages are not defined shall set the national salary threshold to be at least three times the minimum income under which citizens of the Member State concerned are entitled to social assistance in that Member State, or to be in line with applicable collective agreements or practices in the relevant occupation branches. Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Article 5 a (new) Article 5a Avoiding shortage of highly qualified workers in third countries The Member States shall not actively seek to attract highly qualified workers in sectors that are already subject, or are expected to be subject, to a shortage of highly qualified workers in the third country. This applies to the health and education sectors in particular. Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Article 6 Article 6 deleted Derogation If the application is submitted by a third-country national of less than 30 years of age and holding higher education qualifications, the following derogations shall apply: (a)  Member States shall consider fulfilled the condition set out in Article 5(2) if the gross monthly salary offered corresponds to at least two–thirds of the national salary threshold defined in accordance with Article 5(2); (b)  Member States may waive the salary requirement provided for in Article 5(2) on condition that the applicant has completed higher education on site studies and obtained a Bachelor and a Master's degree in a higher education institution situated on the territory of the Community; (c)  Member States shall not require proof of professional experience in addition to the higher education qualifications, unless this is necessary to fulfil the conditions set out under national legislation for the exercise by EU citizens of the regulated profession specified in the work contract or binding job offer of work. Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Article 8 − paragraph 2 2.  The initial validity of an EU Blue Card shall be of two years and shall be renewed for at least the same duration. If the work contract covers a period less than two years, the EU Blue Card shall be issued for the duration of the work contract plus three months. 2.  The initial validity of an EU Blue Card shall be of three years and shall be renewed for at least another two. If the work contract covers a period of less than three years, the EU Blue Card shall be issued for the duration of the work contract plus six months. Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive Article 8 - paragraph 2 a (new) 2a.  After 36 months of legal residence in a Member State as holder of an EU Blue Card, the person concerned shall be allowed to carry out highly qualified employment in another Member State while residing in the first Member State. Further details on cross-border commuting are to be drawn up in Directive .../.../EC [on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State]. Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive Article 9 − paragraph 2 − subparagraph 1 2.  Before taking the decision on an application for an EU Blue Card, Member States may examine the situation of their labour market and apply their national procedures regarding the requirements for filling a vacancy. 2.  Before taking the decision on an application for an EU Blue Card, Member States may examine the situation of their labour market and apply national and Community procedures regarding the requirements for filling a vacancy. Their discretionary decision shall take account of national and regional demand for labour. Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive Article 9 − paragraph 2 − subparagraph 1 a (new) Member States may reject an application for an EU Blue Card in order to avoid a brain drain in sectors suffering from a lack of qualified personnel in the countries of origin. Amendment 76 Proposal for a directive Article 9 - paragraph 2 - subparagraph 2 For reasons of labour market policy, Member States may give preference to Union citizens, to third-country nationals, when provided for by Community legislation, as well as to third-country nationals who reside legally and receive unemployment benefits in the Member States concerned. For reasons of labour market policy, Member States shall give preference to Union citizens, and may give preference to third-country nationals, when provided for by Community legislation, as well as to third-country nationals who reside legally and receive unemployment benefits in the Member States concerned. Member States shall reject an application for an EU Blue Card in labour market sectors to which access by workers from other Member States is restricted on the basis of transitional arrangements set out in the Acts of Accession of 16 April 2003 and 25 April 2005. Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive Article 10 − paragraph 1 1.  Member States shall withdraw or refuse to renew an EU Blue Card issued on the basis of this Directive in the following cases: 1.  Member States shall withdraw or refuse to renew an EU Blue Card issued on the basis of this Directive when the EU Blue Card has been fraudulently acquired, or has been falsified or tampered with. (a) when it has been fraudulently acquired, or has been falsified or tampered with, or 1a.  Member States may withdraw or refuse to renew an EU Blue Card issued on the basis of this Directive in the following cases: (b) wherever it appears that the holder did not meet or no longer meets the conditions for entry and residence laid down in Articles 5 and 6 or is residing for purposes other that that for which he/she was authorised to reside. (a) wherever it appears that the holder did not meet or no longer meets the conditions for entry and residence laid down in Articles 5 and 6 or is residing for purposes other than that for which he/she was authorised to reside; (c) when the holder has not respected the limitations set out in Articles 13(1) and (2) and 14. (b) when the holder has not respected the limitations set out in Articles 13(1) and (2) and 14. Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 3 3.  Member States may withdraw or refuse to renew an EU Blue Card for reasons of public policy, public security or public health. 3.  Member States may withdraw or refuse to renew an EU Blue Card only where there is a threat to the implementation of public policy, or to public security or public health which can be objectively demonstrated. Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive Article 11 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new) By issuing an EU Blue Card, a Member State commits itself to issuing relevant documentation and visas, where applicable, as speedily as possible, but at least within a reasonable period of time before the applicant is due to start the employment on the basis of which the EU Blue Card was issued, unless that Member State cannot reasonably be expected to do so because of a late application for the EU Blue Card by either the employer or the third-country national concerned. Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive Article 12 − paragraph 2 2.  If the information supplied in support of the application is inadequate, the competent authorities shall notify the applicant of the additional information that is required. The period referred to in paragraph 1 shall be suspended until the authorities have received the additional information required. 2.  If the information supplied in support of the application is inadequate, the competent authorities shall notify the applicant as soon as possible of the additional information that is required. The period referred to in paragraph 1 shall be suspended until the authorities have received the additional information required. Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive Article 12 − paragraph 3 3.  Any decision rejecting an application for an EU Blue Card, or non-renewing or withdrawing an EU Blue Card, shall be notified in writing to the third-country national concerned and, where relevant, to his/her employer in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation and shall be open to challenge before the courts of the Member State concerned. The notification shall specify the reasons for the decision, the possible redress procedures available and the time limit for taking action. 3.  Any decision rejecting an application for an EU Blue Card, or non-renewing or withdrawing an EU Blue Card, shall be notified in writing to the third-country national concerned and, where relevant, to his/her employer in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation and shall be open to challenge before the competent authority of the Member State concerned designated in accordance with national law. The notification shall specify the reasons for the decision, the possible redress procedures available and the time limit for taking action. Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 1 1.  For the first two years of legal residence in the Member State concerned as holder of an EU Blue Card, access to the labour market for the person concerned shall be restricted to the exercise of paid employment activities which meet the conditions for admission set out in Articles 5 and 6. Modifications of the terms of the work contract that affect the conditions for admission or changes in the work relationship shall be subject to the prior authorisation in writing of the competent authorities of the Member State of residence, according to national procedures and within the time limits set out in Article 12(1). 1.  For the first two years of legal residence in the Member State concerned as holder of an EU Blue Card, access to the labour market for the person concerned shall be restricted to the exercise of paid employment activities which meet the conditions for admission set out in Articles 5 and 6. Modifications of the terms of the work contract that affect the conditions for admission or changes in the work relationship shall be notified in advance, in writing, to the competent authorities of the Member State of residence, according to national procedures and within the time limits set out in Article 12(1). Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 2 2.  After the first two years of legal residence in the Member State concerned as holder of an EU Blue Card, the person concerned shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals as regards access to highly qualified employment. The holder of the EU Blue Card shall notify changes in his/her work relationship to the competent authorities of the Member State of residence, according to national procedures. 2.  After the first two years of legal residence in the Member State concerned as holder of an EU Blue Card, the person concerned shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals. Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1 1.  Unemployment in itself shall not constitute a reason for revoking an EU Blue Card, unless the period of unemployment exceeds three consecutive months. 1.  Unemployment in itself shall not constitute a reason for withdrawing or failing to renew an EU Blue Card, unless the period of unemployment exceeds six consecutive months. Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a.  An EU Blue Card holder shall have the right to remain on the territory of the Member States for as long as he/she is engaged in training activities aimed at further increasing his/her professional skills or professional re-qualification. Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 2 2.  During this period, the holder of the EU Blue Card shall be allowed to seek and take up employment under the conditions set out in Article 13(1) or (2) whichever is applicable. 2.  During the periods mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 1a, the holder of the EU Blue Card shall be allowed to seek and take up highly qualified employment under the conditions set out in Article 13(1) or (2) whichever is applicable. Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 2 2.  Member States may restrict the rights conferred under paragraphs 1(c) and (i) in respect to study grants and procedures for obtaining public housing to cases where the holder of the EU Blue Card has been staying or has the right to stay in its territory for at least three years. deleted Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 3 3.  Member States may restrict equal treatment as regards social assistance to cases where the holder of the EU Blue Card has been granted EC long-term resident status in accordance with Article 17. deleted Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive Article 16 − paragraph 2 a (new) 2a.  Article 8(2) shall be taken to mean that an EU Blue Card holder must have resided lawfully in the territory of a first Member State for the period of validity of the EU Blue Card, renewal included. Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive Article 17 − paragraph 4 4.  By way of derogation from Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2003/109/EC, Member States shall extend the period of absence allowed to an EU Blue Card holder and of his/her family members having been granted the EC long-term residence status from the territory of the Community to 24 consecutive months. 4.  By way of derogation from Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2003/109/EC, Member States may extend the period of absence allowed to an EU Blue Card holder and of his/her family members having been granted the EC long-term residence status from the territory of the Community to 24 consecutive months. Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive Article 17 − paragraph 5 5.  The derogations to Directive 2003/109/EC set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall apply only in cases where the third-country national concerned can present evidence that he/she has been absent from the territory of the Community to exercise an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity, or to perform a voluntary service, or to study in his/her own country of origin. 5.  The derogations to Directive 2003/109/EC set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall apply only in cases where the third-country national concerned can present evidence that he/she has been absent from the territory of the Community to exercise, in his/her country of origin, an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity, or to perform a voluntary service, or to study, in order to encourage the circular mobility of these professionals, as well as the subsequent involvement of the same migrant workers in training, research and technical activities in their countries of origin. Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive Article 19 − paragraph 3 − introductory part 3.  In accordance with the procedures set out in Article 12, the second Member State shall process the notification and inform in writing the applicant and the first Member State of its decision to: 3.  In accordance with the procedures set out in Article 12, the second Member State shall process the application and the documents referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and inform in writing the applicant and the first Member State of its decision to: Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive Article 19 − paragraph 3 − point b (b) refuse to issue an EU Blue Card and oblige the applicant and his/her family members, in accordance with the procedures provided for by national law, including removal procedures, to leave its territory if the conditions set out in this Article are not fulfilled. The first Member State shall immediately readmit without formalities the holder of the EU Blue Card and his/her family members. The provisions of Article 14 shall apply after readmission. (b) refuse to issue an EU Blue Card if the conditions set out in this Article are not fulfilled or there are grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 9. In that case, the Member State shall oblige the applicant, if he/she is already in its territory, and his/her family members, in accordance with the procedures provided for by national law, including removal procedures, to leave its territory. The first Member State shall immediately readmit without formalities the holder of the EU Blue Card and his/her family members. The provisions of Article 14 shall apply after readmission. Amendment 75 Proposal for a directive Article 20 - paragraph 2 2.  In cases where a Member State decides to apply the restrictions on access to the labour market provided for in Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/109/EC, it shall give preference to holders of the residence permit "long-term resident – EC / EU Blue Card holder" over other third-country nationals applying to reside there for the same purposes. 2.  In cases where a Member State decides to apply the restrictions on access to the labour market provided for in Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/109/EC, it may give preference to holders of the residence permit "long-term resident – EC / EU Blue Card holder" over other third-country nationals applying to reside there for the same purposes in a situation where two or more candidates are equally well qualified for the job. Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive Article 22 − paragraph 1 1.  Member States shall communicate to the Commission and the other Member States if legislative or regulatory measures are enacted in respect of Articles 7, 9(2), 19(5) and 20 through the network established by Decision 2006/688/EC. 1.  Member States shall communicate to the Commission and the other Member States if legislative or regulatory measures are enacted in respect of Articles 7, 9(2), 19(5) and 20 through the network established by Decision 2006/688/EC and shall identify the specific measures concerned. Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 3 3.  Annually, and for the first time no later than 1 April of [one year after the date of transposition of this Directive], Member States shall communicate to the Commission and the other Member States through the network established by Decision 2006/688/EC statistics on the volumes of third-country nationals who have been granted, renewed or withdrawn an EU Blue Card during the previous calendar year, indicating their nationality and their occupation. Statistics on admitted family members shall be communicated likewise. For holders of the EU Blue Card and members of their families admitted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 19 to 21, the information provided shall in addition specify the Member State of previous residence. 3.  Annually, and for the first time no later than 1 April of [one year after the date of transposition of this Directive], Member States shall communicate to the Commission and the other Member States through the network established by Decision 2006/688/EC statistics on the volumes of third-country nationals who have been granted, renewed or withdrawn an EU Blue Card during the previous calendar year, indicating their nationality and their occupation in accordance with legislation for the protection of personal data. Statistics on admitted family members shall be communicated likewise with the exception of information concerning their occupation. For holders of the EU Blue Card and members of their families admitted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 19 to 21, the information provided shall in addition specify the Member State of previous residence.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (COM(2007)0638 – C6-0470/2007 – 2007/0229(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0558 A6-0431/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0638),

–   having regard to Article 63(3)(a) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 67 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0470/2007),

–   having regard to Rule 51 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 Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0431/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

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 amend the Commission proposal substantially;

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 7 a (new) (7a)  The period of validity of the single permit is to be determined by each Member State. Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 (10)  All third-country nationals who are lawfully residing and working in Member States should enjoy at least the same common set of rights in the form of equal treatment with the own nationals of their respective host Member State, irrespective of the initial purpose of or basis for admission. The right to equal treatment in the fields specified by this Directive should be granted not only to those third-country nationals who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State to work but also for those who have been admitted for other purposes and have been given access to the labour market of that Member State in accordance with other Community or national legislation including family members of a third-country worker who are admitted to the Member State in accordance with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, third-country nationals who are admitted to the territory of a Member State in accordance with Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service and researchers admitted in accordance with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research. (10)  All third-country nationals who are lawfully residing and working in Member States should enjoy at least the same common set of rights related to work in the form of equal treatment with the own nationals of their respective host Member State, irrespective of the initial purpose of or basis for admission. The right to equal treatment in the fields specified by this Directive should be granted not only to those third-country nationals who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State to work but also for those who have been admitted for other purposes and have been given access to the labour market of that Member State in accordance with other Community or national legislation including family members of a third-country worker who are admitted to the Member State in accordance with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, third-country nationals who are admitted to the territory of a Member State in accordance with Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service and researchers admitted in accordance with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research. Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 (13)  Third-country nationals who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State for a period not exceeding 6 months in any twelve-month period to work on a seasonal basis should not be covered by the Directive given their temporary status. (13)  Third-country nationals who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State to work on a seasonal basis should not be covered by the Directive given their temporary status and the fact that they will be governed by a specific directive. Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 a (new) (13a)  Beneficiaries of temporary protection should be subject to this Directive as regards the common set of rights, as they are authorised to work legally within the territory of a Member State. Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 a (new) (18a)  This Directive should be implemented without prejudice to more favourable provisions contained in EU legislation and international instruments. Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 b (new) (18b)  Member States should ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 18 December 1990. Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 19 (19)  Member States should give effect to the provisions of this Directive without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, political or other opinions, membership of a national minority, fortune, birth, disabilities, age or sexual orientation in particular in accordance with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. (19)  Member States should give effect to the provisions of this Directive without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, political or other opinions, membership of a national minority, fortune, birth, disabilities, age or sexual orientation in particular in accordance with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and in accordance with future legislation in this field, such as that to be brought in under the proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426). Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point a (a) a single application procedure for issuing a single permit for third country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State, in order to simplify their admission and to facilitate the control of their status and; (a) a single application procedure for issuing a single permit for third country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State, in order to simplify the procedure for their admission and to facilitate the control of their status and; Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point b (b) a common set of rights to third country workers legally residing in a Member State. (b) a common set of rights to third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, irrespective of the purposes for which they were initially admitted to the territory of a Member State. Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new) This Directive shall not affect the competence of the Member States with respect to the admission of third-country nationals to their labour markets. Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – point d (d) "single application procedure" means any procedure leading, on the basis of one application for the authorisation of a third-country national's residence and work in the territory of a Member State, to a decision on the single permit for that third-country national. (d) "single application procedure" means any procedure leading to a decision on the single permit authorising a third-country national to reside and work in the territory of a Member State, on the basis of an application by that third-country national or by his or her future employer; Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Article 2, paragraph d a (new) (da) "frontier work" means performing work in a Member State other than the Member State of residence when the work is performed by a frontier worker as referred to in Article 1(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) to third-country workers legally residing in a Member State. (b) to third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, irrespective of the purposes for which they were initially admitted to the territory of a Member State. Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  This Directive shall not apply to third-country nationals: 2.  The provisions of this Directive concerning the single application procedure for issuing a single permit authorising third-country nationals to live and work in the territory of a Member State shall not apply to third-country nationals: Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point d (d) who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State for a period not exceeding six months in any 12 month period to work on a seasonal basis; (d) who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State to work on a seasonal basis; Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) (da) who have been admitted to the territory of a Member State in order to work there for a period not exceeding six months, solely so far as the field of the single application procedure is concerned; Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point f (f) staying in a Member State as applicants for international protection or under temporary protection schemes; (f) staying in a Member State as applicants for international protection; Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a.  It shall be the responsibility of Member States to determine whether the application for a single permit must be submitted by the third-country national concerned, by his or her future employer or by either of them. Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 1 b (new) 1b.  Where an application for a single permit is submitted by the third-country national concerned, that application may be submitted and examined either when the third-country national is residing outside the territory of the Member State to which he or she wishes to be admitted or when he or she is already legally in the territory of the Member State concerned. Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new) If the applicant's permit expires before a decision has been taken on its renewal, the Member State responsible for considering the application shall authorise the person concerned and, where applicable, his or her family, to stay legally in its territory until a decision is taken concerning the renewal of the single permit. Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 4 4.  If the information supporting the application is inadequate, the designated authority shall notify the applicant of the additional information that is required. The period referred to in paragraph 2 shall be suspended until the authorities have received the additional information required. 4.  If the information supporting the application is incomplete according to publicly specified criteria, the designated authority shall notify the applicant of the additional information that is required. The period referred to in paragraph 2 shall be suspended until the authorities have received the additional information required. Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a.  Where the time limit for adopting the decision referred to in paragraph 2 is suspended or extended, the applicant shall be duly informed by the competent authority. Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Article 6, paragraph 2 a (new) 2a.  A Member State may issue to the holder of a single permit issued by another Member State a permit enabling him to perform frontier work. Such a permit shall be issued pursuant to the national law of the Member State where the frontier work is performed. The period of validity of such a permit may not exceed that of the single permit. Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 1 1.  Reasons shall be given in the written notification for a decision rejecting the application, not granting, not modifying or not renewing, suspending or withdrawing the single permit on the basis of criteria specified in national or community law. 1.  Objective and verifiable reasons shall be given in the written notification for a decision rejecting the application, not granting, not modifying or not renewing, suspending or withdrawing the single permit on the basis of criteria specified in national or community law. Those criteria shall be objective and open to the public, so that the decision can be verified. Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 2.  Any decision rejecting the application, not granting, modifying or renewing, suspending or withdrawing a single permit shall be open to challenge before the courts of the Member State concerned. The written notification shall specify the possible redress procedures available and the time-limit for taking action. 2.  Any decision rejecting the application, not granting, modifying or renewing, suspending or withdrawing a single permit shall be open to challenge before the competent authority of the Member State concerned designated in accordance with national law. The written notification shall specify the possible redress procedures available, including the authority responsible and the time-limit for taking action. The challenge shall suspend the administrative decision until the final court decision is taken. Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Article 9 Member States shall take the necessary measures to inform the third-country national and the future employer on all the documentary evidence they need in order to complete the application. The Member States shall ensure that regularly updated information concerning the conditions of third-country nationals" entry into and stay in their territory for the purpose of work is made available to the general public, including via their consulates. In particular, Member States shall take the necessary measures to inform the third-country national and the future employer on all the documentary evidence they need in order to complete the application, and of the total fees payable for the processing of their application. Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Article 10 Member States may request applicants to pay fees for handling applications in accordance with this Directive. The level of fees must be proportionate and may be based on the principle of the service actually provided. Member States may request applicants to pay fees for handling applications in accordance with this Directive. The level of fees must be proportionate and reasonable and shall not exceed the actual costs incurred by the national administration. An overall maximum amount shall be fixed in national law, including, where appropriate, the costs of subcontracting incurred through the use of external firms to collect the documents necessary for compiling a file with a view to obtaining a permit. Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Article 11 – introductory part During the period of its validity, the single permit shall entitle its holder as a minimum to: During the period of its validity, as determined by each Member State, the single permit shall entitle its holder as a minimum to: Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Article 11 – point c (c) have free access to the entire territory of the Member State issuing the single permit within the limits provided for by national legislation for reasons of security; (c) have free access to the entire territory of the Member State issuing the single permit. Member States may impose territorial restrictions on exercise of the right of residence and the right to work within the limits provided for by national legislation for reasons of security where the same restrictions apply to their own nationals; Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Article 11 a (new) Article 11a Notification and information The notification and information referred to in Articles 5, 8 and 9 shall be communicated in such a way that the applicant is able to understand their content and implications. Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Article 12 - paragraph 1 - point a (a) working conditions, including pay and dismissal as well as health and safety at the workplace; (a) working conditions, including pay, holidays, working time and dismissal as well as health and safety at the workplace; Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) freedom of association and affiliation and membership of an organization representing workers or employers or of any organization whose members are engaged in a specific occupation, including the benefits conferred by such organizations, without prejudice to the national provisions on public policy and public security; (b) freedom of association and affiliation and membership of an organisation representing workers or employers or of any organisation whose members are engaged in a specific occupation, including the benefits conferred by such organisations, such as information and support, without prejudice to the national provisions on public policy and public security; Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c (c) education and vocational training; (c) education in the broad sense of the term (language learning and cultural familiarisation with a view to improving integration) and vocational training; Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d (d) recognition of diplomas, certificates and other professional qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures; (d) recognition of diplomas, certificates and other professional qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures applicable pursuant to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications1. 1 OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22. Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive Article 12 - paragraph 1 - point f (f) payment of acquired pensions when moving to a third country; (f) portability of pensions or annuities in respect of old age, death, or invalidity at the rate applied by virtue of the law of the debtor Member State or States when moving to a third country; Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive Article 12 - paragraph 1 - point g (g) tax benefits; (g) tax benefits, provided that the worker is considered to be resident for tax purposes in the Member State concerned; Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new) (ha) information and advisory services offered by employment agencies; Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  Member States may restrict equal treatment with nationals: 2.  Member States may restrict equal treatment with nationals only in the following cases: Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 - point c (c) by restricting the rights conferred under paragraphs 1(h) in respect to public housing to cases where the third-country national has been staying or who has the right to stay in its territory for at least three years; (c) by restricting the rights conferred under paragraphs 1(h) in respect to housing; Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 - point d (d) by restricting the rights conferred under paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (g) to those third-country workers who are in employment; deleted Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 - point e (e) by restricting the rights conferred under paragraphs 1(e) to third-country workers who are in employment except for unemployment benefits. deleted Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that any violation of the rights enshrined in this Directive is subject to effective, proportionate and deterrent penalties. Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive Article 14 Article 14 Each Member State shall ensure that a regularly updated set of information, concerning the conditions of third-country nationals' entry into and stay in its territory for the purpose of work, is made available to the general public. deleted

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products ("single CMO Regulation") (COM(2008)0489 – C6-0314/2008 – 2008/0156(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0559 A6-0368/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0489),

–   having regard to Articles 36 and 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0314/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 and Rule 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0368/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal;

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 amend the Commission proposal substantially;

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

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments (COM(2008)0717 – C6-0389/2008 – 2008/0208(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0560 A6-0450/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0717),

–   having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0389/2008),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments(1) and Parliament's resolutions of 6 September 2001 on medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments(2) and 20 November 2008 on establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments(3),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0450/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

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 amend the Commission proposal substantially;

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 2 (2)  An ad hoc procedure should be foreseen for future revisions of that ceiling, with a view to improving the capacity of the Community to react quickly to major changes in the financial environment affecting the total amount of support potentially needed by the Member States. (2)  In the event of exceptional situations that could require a quick Community response to major changes in the financial environment, the European Parliament, the Member States within the Council, and the Commission should act speedily in order to ensure that market confidence is not undermined. Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1– paragraph 2 Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 Article 1 – paragraph 3 The following paragraph 3 is added: deleted "Where a serious deterioration of the financial environment calls for urgent Community medium term financial assistance to several Member States, the Commission may decide a revision of the ceiling after having received the opinion from the Economic and Financial Committee as regards both the urgent need to revise the ceiling and the revised ceiling itself. The new ceiling shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union." Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 Article 10 Article 1 a Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 is replaced by the following: "Every two years and more frequently if appropriate, the Council shall examine, on the basis of a report from the Commission, and after consulting the European Parliament and after delivery of the Economic and Financial Committee's opinion, whether the facility established still meets, in its principle, arrangements and ceiling, the need which led to its creation."

(1) OJ L 53, 23.2.2002, p. 1. (2) OJ C 72 E, 21.3.2002, p 312. (3) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0562.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes

P6_TA(2008)0561 B6-0615/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the statement by the Commission during the debate of 21 October 2008, following the Oral Question B6-0476/2008 on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes (COM(2007)0654),

–   having regard to the current debates in the Council at ministerial and working group levels on the above-mentioned proposal,

–   having regard to the opinions delivered by the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Article 29 Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions(1) on the EU-US PNR agreement(2), the EU-Canada PNR agreement(3) and the EU-Australia PNR agreement(4),

–   having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the data protection principles to be respected by the EU institutions and Member States are outlined in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Articles 7 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter of Fundamental Rights), Article 286 of the EC Treaty, Article 5 of Council of Europe Convention 108 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108) and, at secondary level, Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(5) and the draft Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters),

B.   whereas any new EU legislation should comply with the proportionality and subsidiarity principles, as outlined in Article 5 of the EC Treaty and Protocol 30 thereto,

On procedural aspects

1.  Acknowledges the need for stronger cooperation at European level and internationally in the fight against terrorism and serious crime; recognises that the collection and processing of data can be a valuable tool for law enforcement purposes;

2.  Takes the view that law enforcement authorities should be provided with all the tools they need to adequately carry out their tasks, including access to data; emphasises, however, that since such measures have a considerable impact on the personal life of Union citizens, their justification in terms of necessity, proportionality and usefulness in achieving their stated objectives needs to be convincingly substantiated, and stresses that effective safeguards for privacy and legal protection must be put in place; believes that this is a precondition for lending the necessary political legitimacy to a measure which citizens may view as an inappropriate intrusion into their privacy;

3.  Regrets that the formulation and justification of the Commission's proposal have left so many legal uncertainties with respect to compatibility with the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as its legal basis, which has raised questions as to the appropriate role for Parliament in the legislative procedure; notes that the same concerns regarding the proposal's lack of legal certainty:

4.  Considers that under these conditions Parliament must reserve its formal opinion under the formal consultation procedure until the concerns raised in this resolution are properly addressed and the minimum information necessary is provided;

5.  Maintains its strong reservations as to the necessity for and added value of the proposal for the establishment of an EU PNR scheme and the safeguards which it contains, notwithstanding the explanations and points of clarification given by the Commission and the Council so far, both orally and in writing; observes, furthermore, that many of the questions raised by Parliament, the Article 29 Working Party, the Working Party on Police and Justice, EDPS and the FRA have not been satisfactorily answered;

6.  Shares the FRA's view that the mere availability of commercial databases does not automatically justify their use for law enforcement purposes; moreover, the same or even better results could be obtained by improving mutual legal assistance between law enforcement authorities;

7.  Invites the Council, if it intends to continue the examination of the Commission text, to take into account the recommendations in this resolution and to duly justify the conditions of pressing social need which could make this new EU intervention 'necessary', as required under Article 8 of the ECHR; considers these to be the minimum conditions of support for the introduction of an EU PNR scheme; is ready to contribute and participate in this work at all levels;

8.  Reiterates its calls for clarification of the relationship between the use of PNR and other measures such as Council Directive 2004/82/EC(6) of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data, the proposed Entry-Exit scheme, the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation, biometrics in passports and visas, SIS, VIS, Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002(7) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security, and national border protection schemes; notes with regret that the implementation of some of these measures has been considerably delayed and considers that a full and systematic evaluation of the current EU and Schengen security cooperation mechanisms and tools aimed at ensuring aviation security, protecting external borders and fighting terrorism could help in assessing the added value of the proposed EU PNR scheme;

9.  Recalls that the debate on the appropriate legal basis for the proposal is continuing and reiterates that, according to Article 47 of the EU Treaty, legislative measures within the framework of judicial and police cooperation should be accompanied by the necessary accompanying Community measures to be adopted in codecision with Parliament on all first-pillar aspects, particularly those defining the scope of the obligations to be fulfilled by economic operators(8);

10.  Recalls that the Court of Justice of the European Communities has already challenged the EU-US PNR Agreement on the grounds that its legal basis is wrong; calls therefore on the Commission to examine carefully which legal basis is appropriate;

11.  Considers that, in connection with the tabling of the new legislation, national parliaments must be fully involved in the legislative process, given the impact of the proposal on both citizens and the national legal orders of the Member States;

12.  Stresses that possible future legislation establishing an EU PNR scheme as a new framework for EU police cooperation should contain provisions for periodic evaluation of its implementation, application, usefulness and breaches of safeguards; considers that national parliaments, the EDPS, the Article 29 Working Party and the FRA should be invited to play a role in both review and evaluation; considers, therefore, that the new legislation should include a sunset clause;

13.  Emphasises, in this context, that each Member State bears the initial responsibility for the collection of PNR data and their protection; stresses that safeguards are mandatory when PNR data are transmitted, exchanged or transferred to or between other Member States; takes the view, therefore, that access to PNR data exchanged between Member States should be strictly limited only to those authorities that deal with counter-terrorism and organised crime; considers that other law enforcement agencies may be granted access subject to judicial approval;

Subsidiarity

14.  Notes with concern that the need for Community action has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated; in this connection, questions the claim by the Commission that the stated aim of the proposal is harmonisation of national schemes, when only a few Member States have a system for the use of PNR data for law enforcement and other purposes, or plans for such a scheme; considers, therefore, that the Commission's proposal does not harmonise national systems (as they are non-existent), but merely creates the obligation for all Member States to set up such a system;

15.  Notes that the Commission is proposing a 'decentralised' scheme, which means that the European added value is even less clear;

Proportionality

16.  Recalls that Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights require that such a massive infringement of the right to the protection of personal data be legitimate and justified by a pressing social need, provided for by law and proportionate to the end pursued, which must be necessary and legitimate in a democratic society; in this connection, deplores the fact that the purpose of this envisaged police cooperation measure is not limited to issues such as combating terrorism and organised crime;

17.  Is concerned that, in essence, the proposal gives law enforcement authorities access to all data without a warrant; points out that the Commission has not demonstrated the need for new law enforcement powers, or that this goal cannot be achieved with less far reaching measures; criticises the fact that there is no information as to how existing law enforcement powers fall short of what is needed, and where and when the authorities have demonstrably lacked the powers they needed for the stated purpose; requests that a review of the existing measures mentioned below take place before an EU PNR system is further developed;

18.  Notes the Commission's claim that 'the EU has been able to assess the value of PNR data and to realise its potential for law enforcement purposes', but stresses that to date there is no evidence to substantiate this claim, given that:

Purpose limitation

19.  Stresses that the principle of purpose limitation is one of the basic principles of data protection; points out, in particular, that Convention 108 states that personal data shall be "stored for specified and legitimate purposes and not used in a way incompatible with those purposes" (Article 5(b)); notes also that derogations from this principle are allowed only insofar as they are provided for by law and constitute a necessary measure in a democratic society in the interests of, inter alia, the "suppression of criminal offences" (Article 9); points out that the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has made clear that these derogations must be proportionate, precise and foreseeable, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the ECHR;

20.  Deplores the lack of precise purpose limitation which is an essential safeguard in the imposition of restrictive measures, and considers that such protection is even more important as regards secret surveillance measures, given the heightened risk of arbitrariness in such circumstances; considers that, as the stated purposes and definitions are imprecise and open-ended, they should be strictly specified to avoid exposing the EU PNR scheme to legal challenge;

21.  Reiterates that PNR data may be very useful as supportive, additional evidence in a specific investigation into known terrorism suspects and associates; points out, however, that there is no evidence that PNR data are useful for massive automated searches and analyses on the basis of risk criteria or patterns (i.e. profiling or data mining) in seeking potential terrorists(9);

22.  Stresses, furthermore, that EU data protection rules place restrictions on the use of profiling on the basis of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECHR); concurs, therefore, with the FRA's opinion that profiling based on PNR data should only be intelligence-led, based on individual cases and factual parameters;

23.  Reiterates its concerns regarding the measures outlining an indiscriminate use of PNR data for profiling and for the definition of risk assessment parameters; recalls that any kind of profiling based on ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age or medical condition should be expressly banned as incompatible with the prohibition of any discrimination as defined in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

24.  Recalls that, in the event of any extension of the proposal's scope, the Commission and the Council should clarify in detail for each stated purpose what use will be made of the PNR data and why existing law enforcement powers are not sufficient; considers that, for each specific purpose, the appropriate legal basis must be established;

Protection of personal data

25.  Stresses that the adoption of an adequate data protection framework under the third pillar is an absolute precondition for any EU PNR scheme, as are specific rules for the transfer and use of PNR data that are not covered by the EU data protection framework under the first and third pillars; stresses the need to clarify which data protection rules apply to Passenger Information Units (PIUs) and to ensure the traceability of all access, transfer and use of PNR data;

26.  Emphasises that sensitive data may be used only on a case-by-case basis in the context of a regular investigation or prosecution, obtained under a warrant; notes the concern of airlines that sensitive data cannot be filtered from general remarks; calls, therefore, for the definition of strict conditions for the processing of these data by PIUs, as defined by the FRA in its opinion;

Details of implementation

27.  Stresses that, as regards storage periods, the Commission fails to justify the proposed retention period; considers, however, that for the purpose of developing risk indicators and establishing patterns of travel and behaviour, anonymised data should be sufficient; considers also that, if the scope of the PNR scheme is extended, retention periods must be justified for each separate purpose;

28.  Reiterates that data transfers should be made using the PUSH method alone and that third countries should not have direct access to PNR data in EU reservation systems;

29.  Welcomes the fact that, as regards access to PNR data, the proposal states that all entities having access to PNR data should be named in an exhaustive list;

30.  Stresses, as regards transfers to third countries, that data may not be transferred to third countries unless an adequate level of protection (as specified in Directive 95/46/EC and the legal instruments establishing Europol and Eurojust) or appropriate safeguards are provided by the third countries concerned (in accordance with Convention 108), and that transfers should be made only on a case-by-case basis;

31.  Reiterates that passengers must be informed in full and in an accessible manner of the details of the scheme and of their rights, and that Member State authorities are responsible for providing this information; suggests that the example of the 'denied boarding' information in airports should be used; considers it essential to define a right of access, rectification and appeal for passengers;

32.  Requests that detailed and harmonised rules be laid down on the security of PNR data, in terms of both IT solutions and authorisation and access rules;

Consequences for carriers

33.  33 Notes that air carriers collect PNR data for commercial purposes and that data are not systematically collected to complete all PNR fields; insists that airlines should not be required to collect any data additional to those which they are collecting for their commercial purposes; considers that air carriers should not be made responsible for verifying whether records are complete and accurate, nor should any sanctions be applied in respect of incomplete or incorrect data; calls for a clear evaluation of the costs involved in an EU PNR scheme; considers that any additional costs should be borne by the requesting parties;

Intermediaries/ Passenger Information Units (PIUs)

34.  Calls for a clear definition of the role and powers of the PIUs, in particular in terms of transparency and democratic accountability and in order to lay down appropriate data protection rules; requests that the role of PIUs be limited to the transfer of data to competent authorities, in order to ensure that risk assessments may only be carried out by competent authorities and in the context of an inquiry; asks for clarification of the law which will govern the risk assessment conducted by the PIUs, and the responsibility of data protection authorities in cases where Member States cooperate to set up a joint PIU;

o
o   o

35.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the Article 29 Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice.

(1) OJ C 61 E, 10.3.2004, p. 381; OJ C 81 E, 31.3.2004, p. 105; OJ C 103 E, 29.4.2004, p. 665; OJ C 157 E, 6.7.2006, p. 464; OJ C 305 E, 14.12.2006, p. 250; OJ C 287 E, 29.11.2007, p. 349; OJ C 175 E, 10.7.2008, p. 564; Texts adopted, 22.10.2008, P6_TA(2008)0512. (2) OJ L 204, 4.8.2007, p. 18. (3) OJ L 82, 21.3.2006, p. 15. (4) OJ L 213, 8.8.2008, p. 49. (5) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. (6) OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 24. (7) OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 1. (8) See, in particular, the Council Legal Service opinion on this subject and the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered on 14 October 2008 on Case C-301/06, Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union on the Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC. (9) CRS report for the American Congress 'Data Mining and Homeland Security: An Overview' by Jeffrey Seifert; 'Effective counter-terrorism and the limited role of predicative data mining' by CATO Institute; 'Protecting individual privacy in the struggle against terrorists: a framework for program assessment'; 'No dream ticket to security' by Frank Kuipers, Clingendael Institute, August 2008.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States" balances of payments

P6_TA(2008)0562 B6-0614/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission's proposal of 31 October 2008 for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States" balances of payments (COM(2008)0717),

–   having regard to the Commission's recommendation of 31 October 2008 for a Council decision granting mutual assistance for Hungary and proposal for a Council decision providing EU medium-term assistance for Hungary (COM(2008)0716),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States" balances of payments(1) and Parliament's resolution of 6 September 2001 on medium-term financial assistance for Member States" balances of payments(2),

–   having regard to Articles 100 and 119 of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the Commission recommends granting medium-term financial assistance to Hungary of up to EUR 6 500 000 000 on the basis of Article 119 of the Treaty, in conjunction with an IMF arrangement,

B.   whereas a comprehensive approach to medium-term financial assistance for all Member States is preferable,

C.   whereas the impact of the current global financial and economic crisis should be borne in mind,

D.   whereas the economies of the Member States that have more recently acceded to the European Union do not benefit from the advantages of having a reserve currency of their own,

E.   whereas the currencies of those Member States have recently been subjected to powerful speculative action and the magnitude of the current external imbalances has been driven primarily by a strong expansion of non-governmental credit,

F.   whereas there is a need for policies to address the specific problems of those Member States" economies against the backdrop of the global financial crisis and a spreading recession in Europe,

G.   whereas the budget policy room for manoeuvre in addressing large external imbalances and preventing financial instability may be quite limited against the backdrop of the current economic recession spreading across the European Union,

1.  Believes that Member States outside the euro area should be encouraged to look for potential medium-term financial assistance in respect of their balance of payments deficits within the Community before seeking assistance at international level;

2.  Considers the current situation to be further proof of the relevance of the euro in protecting the Member States in the euro area and invites the Member States outside the euro area to join it as soon as they fulfil the Maastricht criteria;

3.  Invites the Commission to analyse in detail in what way the behaviour of individual banks that moved their assets from Hungary after adoption of rescue plans by other Member States has impacted on Hungary's balance of payments;

4.  Invites the Commission to examine carefully the speculative action (short-selling) on the currencies of the more recently acceded Member States and what might be done to prevent a drastic erosion of confidence in their currencies and the local banking systems;

5.  Invites the Commission to communicate the results of those analyses to the de Larosière group and to Parliament's responsible committee;

6.  Recognises that it is necessary to increase significantly the ceiling for the outstanding amount in loans to be granted to Member States laid down in Regulation (EC) No 332/2002, given that, since its adoption, the number of Member States outside the euro area has increased substantially; underlines that such an increase would also enhance the Community's flexibility in responding to further requests for medium-term financial assistance such as in the context of the current global financial crisis;

7.  Notes that there would be no budgetary impact of such an increase of the loan ceiling because the loans would be borrowed by the Commission on the financial markets and the beneficiary Member States would have to repay them; stresses that the only possible budgetary impact would be that arising from a Member State defaulting on its debt;

8.  Recalls that, before Hungary's current financial difficulties Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 had not been applied since its adoption in 2002, and that its predecessor, Regulation (EEC) No 1969/88(3) implementing the mechanism foreseen by the Article 119 of the Treaty, was applied twice, once for Greece in 1991 and once for Italy in 1993, and that Greece and Italy have fully respected their commitments to the Commission;

9.  Recalls that Parliament requested that the Council examine, every two years, on the basis of a report from the Commission, after consulting Parliament and after the delivery of the Economic and Financial Committee's opinion, whether the facility established still meets the needs which led to its creation; asks whether such reports have been drawn up since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 332/2002;

10.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank, the Eurogroup and the governments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 53, 23.2.2002, p. 1. (2) OJ C 72 E, 21.3.2002, p. 312. (3) OJ L 178, 8.7.1988, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the EU response to the deteriorating situation in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo

P6_TA(2008)0563 RC-B6-0590/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) of 11 November 2008,

–   having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2008 on the Democratic Republic of Congo: clashes in the eastern border areas of the DRC(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 February 2008 on North Kivu(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 17 January 2008 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and rape as a war crime(3) and its previous resolutions on violations of human rights in the DRC,

–   having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2007 on the European Union's response to situations of fragility in developing countries(4),

–   having regard to the resolution of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of 22 November 2007 on the situation in the DRC, particularly in the east of the country, and its impact on the region,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 25 October 2007 entitled "Towards an EU response to situations of fragility – engaging in difficult environments for sustainable development, stability and peace" (COM(2007)0643) and the Commission staff working document annexed thereto (SEC(2007)1417),

–   having regard to Resolution 60/1 of the United Nations General Assembly of 24 October 2005 on the 2005 World Summit Outcome, and in particular paragraphs 138 to 140 on the responsibility to protect populations,

–   having regard to the conclusions of the Southern African Development Community summit, which stated that it was prepared to send peace-keeping troops to North Kivu "if necessary",

–   having regard to the Council statement of 10 October 2008 on the situation in the eastern part of the DRC,

–   having regard to the report of the mission by its Committee on Development to North Kivu in 2008,

–   having regard to the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid signed on 18 December 2007,

–   having regard to Rule 103(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the fighting between the DRC army, the Mai Mai militia, the rebel troops (National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP)) of ousted General Laurent Nkunda and the fighters of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) as well as troops of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army has been escalating and continues to cause tremendous hardship to the civilian populations of North Kivu,

B.   whereas on Sunday, 16 November 2008, the UN envoy, former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, met with the rebel leader Laurent Nkunda and reached an agreement with him on the creation of a tripartite committee to monitor a ceasefire between the army and the rebels, and whereas there is an urgent need for support from the powers which are partners of the countries involved, with a view to ensuring a solution,

C.   whereas intense international diplomatic efforts involving regional and European facilitators are under way, with the aim of preventing the fighting in North Kivu from escalating into a repeat of the wider 1998-2003 Congo war, which involved six neighbouring states; whereas a regional summit on the crisis in the east of the DRC was organised on 7 November 2008 in Nairobi,

D.   whereas since the beginning of the violence millions of people have been killed and displaced and whereas an estimated 250 000 have been displaced since the resumption of fighting in the DRC by General Laurent Nkunda in August 2008, causing a humanitarian catastrophe in the east of the country,

E.   whereas in spite of its mandate by virtue of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, authorising the use of all necessary means to discourage all attempts to use force, and to protect civilians, the United Nations Mission in the DRC (MONUC):

F.   whereas the UN Security Council discussed the situation in eastern DRC once again on 11 November 2008 without agreeing to reinforce MONUC with an additional 3 000 troops as requested by MONUC,

G.   whereas only 6 000 MONUC soldiers are deployed in North Kivu out of a total of 17 000 soldiers present on DRC territory,

H.   whereas the member states of the UN Security Council – which includes Belgium, France, Italy and the United Kingdom – have always refused to give MONUC supplementary means to fulfil its mission; whereas the Council of the European Union is calling for enhanced cooperation between the EU, its Member States and MONUC,

I.   whereas following the initiative of European Commissioner Louis Michel, a regional summit took place in Nairobi, during which the Presidents of the DRC, Joseph Kabila, and of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, agreed to implement immediately all the agreements made in the past, with a view to ensuring peace and sustainable political stability,

J.   whereas, however, that meeting has not been followed by any immediate ceasefire in the east of the DRC, and violent fighting has continued between parties to the conflict, which has severely affected the civilian population,

K.   whereas MONUC has clearly established that Laurent Nkunda's fighters are receiving support from Rwanda, and the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on African leaders to assume their "historical responsibility at this critical moment for the region, for Africa and for the world",

L.   whereas humanitarian organisations are currently responsible for 200 000 refugees in the camps around the town of Goma and estimate that there may be as many as 1 million civilians hiding in the bush in order to escape the violence; whereas the situation in the refugee camps is deteriorating from day to day and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expresses fears of possible militarisation of refugee camps,

M.   whereas the recruitment of child soldiers in the east of the DRC has increased significantly since the escalation of the conflict,

N.   whereas it appears that DRC troops and fighters belonging to the FDLR are both involved in the exploitation and sale of minerals in the east of the DRC,

O.   whereas the plan to end the crisis in the east of the country, established by DRC parliamentarians, calls for a general mobilisation in favour of military, political and diplomatic dialogue between the parties involved in the conflict,

P.   whereas the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France and of the United Kingdom, Bernard Kouchner and David Miliband, recommended strengthening MONUC rather than sending a European force to North Kivu but at the same time affirmed that the possibility of sending a European force was not excluded if it became necessary,

Q.   whereas the epidemics in North Kivu are worsening, with cholera, measles and whooping cough spreading as huge numbers of displaced people are being lodged in temporary sites,

1.  Is extremely concerned at the increase in clashes in North Kivu and the consequences for the population of the east of the DRC and the region as a whole, particularly the humanitarian consequences resulting from the recent offensive by the CNDP, which has displaced and killed large numbers of people in North Kivu;

2.  Expresses its deep outrage at the massacres, crimes against humanity and acts of sexual violence against women and girls in the eastern provinces of the DRC, and calls on all relevant national and international authorities systematically to bring the perpetrators to justice; calls on the UN Security Council, as a matter of urgency, to take all measures capable of genuinely preventing any further attacks on the civilian population of the eastern provinces of the DRC;

3.  Welcomes the decisions taken by the Commission and the Member States to increase humanitarian aid to the civilian population affected by this crisis; draws attention to the difficulties faced by the humanitarian organisations in delivering humanitarian assistance thanks to the security situation in North Kivu; calls on all parties to guarantee access to vulnerable communities and to ensure the safety of aid workers so that the humanitarian presence can continue; recalls that military means and capacities should be used to back up humanitarian aid operations only in very specific circumstances and as a last resort;

4.  Reiterates its firm belief that the Amani and Nairobi processes are still the appropriate framework for stabilising the situation in the east of the DRC in the long term;

5.  Urges Laurent Nkunda to respect his own declaration supporting the peace process for the east of the DRC, made after talks with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the former President of the Republic of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo; calls in this regard on the CNDP to rejoin the Amani peace process without delay; reaffirms its support for the DRC authorities in the search for a political solution to the crisis; welcomes the plan put forward by the DRC parliamentarians, which calls for a general mobilisation in favour of military, political and diplomatic dialogue;

6.  Considers that an international conference on the Great Lakes should be convened to find a viable political solution to the conflict and promote sound regional economic integration, which will benefit all countries of the region;

7.  Stresses the need for further efforts to put an end to the activity of foreign armed groups in the east of the DRC, in particular the FDLR; calls on the governments of the DRC and of other countries in the region to take the necessary steps to this end; welcomes the DRC-Rwanda agreement, announced by the foreign ministers of the two countries, allowing Rwandan intelligence teams to go into the DRC and cooperate with the DRC army to end the FDLR presence in the region;

8.  Calls on the African Union, the UN Security Council and key international players, including the EU, the USA and China, to increase pressure on all parties to push forward with the peace process, finding a solution to the problem of control of the mineral resources and aiming for a broad peace agreement rather than only a ceasefire, and further calls on these actors to put pressure on Rwanda and Uganda to give a commitment to end the free movement and operations of Nkunda's troops on their territory;

9.  Urges all parties concerned to restore the rule of law and fight impunity, specifically in connection with the mass rapes of women and girls and the recruitment of child soldiers;

10.  Calls on the Government of the DRC to develop a plan with Rwanda and MONUC to isolate and capture the leaders of the genocide among the FDLR and offer resettlement in the DRC or reintegration in Rwanda to those who were not involved in the genocide and are willing to demobilise;

11.  Calls on the DRC authorities to put an immediate stop to any looting and violence by government soldiers, as witnessed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Aid;

12.  Calls on the EU Member States to implement the recommendation of the UN Panel of Experts on the illegal exploitation of the DRC's natural resources, including sanctions against those persons and companies whose participation in the pillage has been proven, in order to contribute to the stabilisation of the country;

13.  Points out that the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the east of the DRC is a source of funding for the rebel groups and, therefore, of instability in the region; reiterates the importance of combating such illegal exploitation by rebel groups and governments in the region; calls in this respect on the DRC authorities, in collaboration with MONUC, to close down the economic bases of rebel groups by preventing them from accessing mineral supplies (particularly diamonds, coltan and gold) and trading networks;

14.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to insist in talks with the governments of the DRC and neighbouring countries on the implementation of effective systems of traceability and proof of origin of natural resources, namely gold, cassiterite (tin ore), coltan, cobalt, diamonds, pyrochlore and timber, which should include acceptance of the deployment, on their territory, of UN-mandated monitors to observe imports of natural resources from the DRC and to ensure the protection of these UN-mandated monitors;

15.  Reiterates its call for the effective establishment of monitoring mechanisms analogous to the Kimberley process for the certification of the origin of natural resources from the DRC imported into the EU;

16.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that European companies do not trade in, handle or import products derived from minerals that have been sourced in a manner that benefits armed groups in the DRC, and hold accountable any that persist in such practices;

17.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to make every effort to find a political solution, which is the only way to put an end to the conflicts in the DRC; welcomes, in this regard, the initiative taken by Commissioner Michel to organise a meeting of the President of the DRC and the President of the Republic of Rwanda in Nairobi; calls on the Commission to engage with the authorities of the DRC with a view to implementing the agreement regarding the return of FDLR fighters to Rwanda; urges the authorities of the DRC and the Republic of Rwanda to step up their cooperation in order to implement the commitments agreed on in Nairobi, and to give priority to dialogue and consultation with a view to helping to bring about lasting peace in the east of the DRC and stability in the region;

18.  Calls for zero tolerance of the sexual violence against girls and women which is used as a weapon of war and for severe criminal penalties to be imposed on the perpetrators of these crimes; draws attention to the importance of access to health services in conflict situations and refugee camps, especially in the light of the recent outbreaks of cholera, whooping cough and measles;

19.  Reaffirms its support for MONUC in the present dramatic circumstances in which, despite its shortcomings, its presence remains indispensable, and calls for every effort to be made to allow it to carry out its mandate in full and to use the force of arms to protect those under threat; in this respect, calls on the Council, and in particular, Belgium, France, Italy and the United Kingdom, to play a leading role in ensuring that the United Nations Security Council and the Department for Peacekeeping Operations supports MONUC by strengthening its operational capacities in terms of appropriate equipment and manpower;

20.  Calls on the Council to urge the UN Security Council to provide MONUC with the mandate and the means to address the exploitation of minerals by armed groups, including by monitoring and controlling key border posts, airstrips, selected mining areas and supply routes;

21.  Insists that, if additional military forces are deployed, their mandate should focus on the protection of civilians, as well as supporting and contributing to respect for new peace agreements which could be concluded;

22.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to draw up, together with the Government of the DRC, the UN and other major donors, a new plan for large-scale disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) in the DRC based on the EU concept for support to DDR and an ambitious security sector reform strategy for the country based on the EU's Policy Framework for Security Sector Reform, both to be adequately financed by both Community and CFSP funding;

23.  Calls on the Government of the DRC to do everything possible to identify those responsible for the war crimes committed in the region, and to bring them to justice;

24.  Calls on the Council and Commission to implement with immediate effect large-scale humanitarian and medical assistance and reintegration programmes for the civilian populations in the eastern parts of the DRC, with a particular focus on assistance for women and girls affected by crimes of sexual violence, in order to meet immediate needs and in anticipation of the reconstruction which will be required; notes the key role played by women in rebuilding shattered communities;

25.  Notes with interest the appointment of a team of facilitators including the former President of the Republic of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, and the former President of the United Republic of Tanzania, Benjamin Mkapa; calls on the Council to work together with the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region and the African Union to stabilise the situation in the east of the DRC;

26.  Calls on the Council to work with international and regional mediators to address the economic agendas of the warring parties explicitly in the context of current mediation efforts;

27.  Calls on the Council and Commission to closely follow the humanitarian and security situation in the east of the DRC, with a view to determining in more detail the different lines of action that may be envisaged in the light of circumstances;

28.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Chairman of the Commission of the African Union, the President of the Pan-African Parliament and the governments and parliaments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and of the other member states of the Southern African Development Community.

(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0526. (2) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0072. (3) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0022. (4) OJ C 282 E, 6.11.2008, p. 460.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the European space policy: how to bring space down to earth

P6_TA(2008)0564 B6-0582/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Council resolution of 26 September 2008 on taking forward the European Space Policy(1),

–   having regard to the UN Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Resolution 2222 (XXI) – Outer Space Treaty),

–   having regard to its resolutions of 10 July 2008 on space and security(2), and of 29 January 2004 on the action plan for implementing the European space policy(3), and to the deliberations of the public hearing organised by its Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on 16 July 2007,

–   having regard to Council resolution of 21 May 2007 on the European space policy(4),

–   having regard to the Commission working document of 11 September 2008 entitled European Space Policy Progress Report (COM(2008)0561),

–   having regard to the Council Decision of 7 October 2003 on the signing of the Framework Agreement between the EC and the European Space Agency,

–   having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, and the relevant provisions on the European space policy (Article 189 of the TFEU),

–   having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas space is a strategic asset of fundamental importance for Europe's independence, security and prosperity and whereas political developments in this area must be spearheaded by the Council together with Parliament,

B.   whereas the EU and a number of its Member States have been involved in financing and developing space technology and science for over 30 years, resulting in the establishment of a vision for a European space policy (ESP), and recognising the fruitful cooperation with the European Space Agency (ESA),

C.   whereas there is a growing interest in a strong and leading role for the EU in an ESP in order to foster solutions in the field of the environment, transport, research, defence and security,

D.   whereas a strong ESP, in particular, in terms of applications, services and related infrastructures, will contribute to the EU's societal, cultural, economic and scientific influence, help develop its industrial and scientific base, contribute to its growth and employment and will ensure its political and technological autonomy in a coherent and realistic manner,

E.   whereas all Europe's space activities fully respect the principle that the exploration and use of outer space are for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and recognise outer space as a province of all mankind to be used for exclusively peaceful purposes,

F.   whereas the EU is committed to promoting international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space; sharing the Council's view that Europe should undertake its actions regarding space exploration within a worldwide programme,

G.   whereas it is important to the development of the ESP to reinforce public understanding and support for the development of space technologies, ensuring the complementarity of actions and maximising synergies with non-space developments,

H.   whereas there is a strategic need for Europe to guarantee the continuity of autonomous, reliable, sustainable and cost-efficient access to space, based on both the availability of a set of adequate and competitive world-class launchers and an operational European space port,

I.   whereas it is necessary to find adequate EU instruments and funding schemes for the ESP to supplement the allocations from the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013), so as to allow the different economic actors to plan their actions in the medium and long term,

J.   whereas an adequate structure of governance in the field of space policy and activities and an appropriate regulatory framework to ease the swift emergence of innovative and competitive downstream services, in particular with the objective of guaranteeing sustained access to spectrum for all space-based applications, are fundamental to ensure that the ESP delivers the expected results and matches the ambitions of the EU, the ESA and their respective Member States,

K.   whereas a precise calendar needs to be defined to fulfil the goals of Galileo, EGNOS and the programme for Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES - renamed Copernicus) and a roadmap should be established for the various bodies playing a role in the implementation of these programmes,

L.   whereas space now represents a unique tool for instantaneous collection and worldwide broadcasting of large quantities of data in today's society, as well as a crucial tool for the understanding and monitoring of global climate change, a field in which Europe is at the forefront; calling on the other international actors to a more responsible attitude towards future generations,

M.   whereas important breakthroughs can be achieved regarding security aspects in space, mainly in the field of telecommunications, surveillance and Earth observation,

N.   whereas the resolution of the fourth Space Council of 22 May 2007 (joint meeting between the Council of the European Union and the ESA Council) calls for the optimisation of the decision-making process on space-related issues in the Council of the European Union as well as in other EU institutions,

O.   whereas the next financial framework should take into account adequate EU instruments and funding schemes to allow long-term Community investment for space-related research and for the operation of sustainable space-based applications for the benefit of Europe and its citizens,

P.   whereas the EU should strengthen its cooperation with developing countries,

1.  Welcomes the Council conclusions of 26 September 2008 as a useful political commitment towards the development of anESP which contributes strongly to a European identity and reiterates its intention of being constructive and participating fully in its implementation, as if the Treaty of Lisbon were in force;

2.  Agrees with the Council that the current priorities are the timely implementation of the Galileo and EGNOS and GMES/Copernicus programmes;

3.  Welcomes in particular the creation of the Galileo Inter-institutional Panel which may serve as a model in the development of the ESP;

4.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to set a precise calendar for the creation of an efficient governance structure regarding the GMES/Copernicus programme and to clearly establish a roadmap for this programme with the aim of improving its efficiency and specifying its budget allocation;

5.  Insists on the decisive role of the GMES/Copernicus programme as a user-driven initiative implemented thanks to the essential contribution of the in-situ Earth- and space-based observation infrastructures; stresses that data and service continuity is indispensable; takes the view, more particularly, that the Commission should first undertake to commission an impact assessment of the potential benefits, the costs to be incurred and the long-term evolution of the GMES/Copernicus programme, and then submit to Parliament and the Council an action plan covering, inter alia, the following aspects:

6.  Regrets that, despite the clear recommendations of the user community, the continuity of the low inclination altimetry data is not ensured after the end of life of the Jason 2 satellite already in orbit, and asks the Commission to tackle the problems relating to the financing of Jason 3, which risk endangering the short-term sustainability of Copernicus services, and to report to Parliament on the decisions taken in this respect;

7.  Encourages the establishment of a structured dialogue between European institutional actors and intergovernmental actors, ensuring for all Member States an open and equitable access to the benefits of the ESP;

8.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to encourage synergies between civilian and security developments in the field of space; points out that the European security and defence capabilities depend among other things on the availability of satellite-based systems and that access to these is crucial for the European Union;

9.  Asks the Council and the Commission to make progress on the subject of international relations, namely on competition in international commercial and government markets, with the goal of ensuring that Europe speaks with one voice and follows an agreed strategy;

10.  Agrees with the Council that international cooperation on space must serve the interests of Europe and that, with this purpose, should contribute to global initiatives; stresses the importance of ensuring Europe's political, technological and operational autonomy;

11.  Reminds the Council and the Commission of their stated intention of submitting to Parliament, in the context of the ESP implementation plan, specific recommendations or proposals, given the nature of the four priority areas, on:

12.  Stresses the importance of developing a space-related industrial policy, a crucial element in this policy being the regulatory framework and the standardisation programme which contributes to the emergence of new European downstream markets, and recalls that the Galileo Regulation sets a benchmark for the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in European space-related industrial policy;

13.  Recognises the unique contribution of space programmes which, allowing global and long-term coverage, make available important data for research into climate change, and provide the evidence base for key decisions to be taken in environment policy;

14.  Recognises that space can contribute to reaching the Lisbon goals so as to fulfil the economic, educational, social and environmental ambitions of the EU and the expectations of its citizens;

15.  Recognises the need for the EU to take practical steps to pursue the reduction of Europe's dependence concerning selected critical space technologies, components and operations;

16.  Considers that Europe should develop a common vision and long-term strategic planning for space exploration to play a role in international programmes (such as the Global Exploration Strategy) for human and robotic space exploration, including the possibility of a human expedition to Mars;

17.  Urges that consideration be given to a possible new specific budget line for the ESP in the EU budget in order to reflect the strong commitment of the EU towards the ESP and to increase the clarity and transparency of this policy, should the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty relating to space policy enter into force;

18.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote investments in space-related science and technology;

19.  Calls on the Commission to take the appropriate initiatives for developing the use of space for the collection and distribution of information and insists on the need to encourage technological developments in the field of surveillance and observation of space;

20.  Calls on the Commission to take the necessary measures to avoid pollution of outer space;

21.  Calls on the Commission to produce a study on the impact of space tourism and its necessary relevant safety, security and regulatory framework;

22.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to initiate a large-scale effort of reflection on space exploration, defining a vision of what should be Europe's position in, and resources for, future worldwide exploration endeavours; in this respect, wishes to be closely associated with the forthcoming high-level conference on exploration proposed by the Commission;

23.  Stresses the value of space exploration for inspiring young Europeans to choose a career in science and technology and to strengthen research capabilities in Europe;

24.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Space Agency, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(1) OJ C 268, 23.10.2008, p. 1. (2) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0365. (3) OJ C 96 E, 21.4.2004, p. 136. (4) OJ C 136, 20.6.2007, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the Convention on cluster munitions

P6_TA(2008)0565 B6-0589/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Convention on cluster munitions (CCM) adopted by 107 countries at the diplomatic conference held in Dublin from 19 to 30 May 2008,

–   having regard to the message of 30 May 2008 from the United Nations Secretary-General encouraging "States to sign and ratify this important agreement without delay" and stating that he looks forward "to its rapid entry into force",

–   having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2007 entitled "Towards a global treaty to ban all cluster munitions"(1),

–   having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the CCM will be open for signature as from 3 December 2008 in Oslo, and thereafter at the United Nations in New York, and will enter into force on the first day of the sixth month after the thirtieth ratification,

B.   whereas the CCM will prohibit the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions as an entire category of weapons,

C.   whereas the CCM will require States Parties to destroy stockpiles of such munitions,

D.   whereas the CCM will establish a new humanitarian standard for the assistance of victims and will require States to clear unexploded cluster munition remnants that are left behind after conflicts,

1.  Welcomes the work of civil society, in particular the Cluster Munitions Coalition, in seeking to bring an end to the human suffering caused by cluster munitions;

2.  Calls on all States to sign, ratify and implement the CCM at the earliest opportunity;

3.  Calls on all States to take steps at national level to begin implementing the CCM even before it is signed and ratified;

4.  Calls on all States not to use, invest in, stockpile, produce, transfer or export cluster munitions until the CCM has entered into force;

5.  Calls on all those EU Member States which have used cluster munitions to provide assistance to affected populations and on the Commission to increase financial assistance through all available instruments to communities and individuals affected by unexploded cluster munitions;

6.  Calls on all those EU Member States which have used cluster munitions to provide technical and financial assistance for the clearance and destruction of cluster munition remnants and on the Commission to increase financial assistance for the same purpose through all available instruments;

7.  Calls on all the EU Member States not to take any action which might circumvent or jeopardise the CCM and its provisions; in particular, calls on all the EU Member States not to adopt, endorse or subsequently ratify a possible Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) Protocol allowing for the use of cluster munitions which would not be compatible with the prohibition of such munitions pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the CCM;

8.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the EU Member States, the UN Secretary-General and the Cluster Munitions Coalition.

(1) OJ C 263 E, 16.10.2008, p. 648.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on HIV/AIDS: early diagnosis and early care

P6_TA(2008)0566 RC-B6-0581/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its resolution of 24 April 2007 on combating HIV/AIDS within the EU and in the neighbouring countries, 2006-2009(1),

–   having regard to the Bremen Declaration of 13 March 2007 on 'Responsibility and Partnership – Together against HIV/AIDS',

–   having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2006 on HIV/AIDS: time to deliver(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2006 on AIDS(3),

–   having regard to the Council Conclusions of 6 June 2005 on combating HIV/AIDS,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 15 December 2005 on 'Combating HIV/AIDS within the European Union and in the neighbouring countries, 2006-2009' (COM(2005)0654),

–   having regard to the 'Dublin Declaration' on partnership to fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia, adopted at the Ministerial Conference 'Breaking the Barriers – Partnership to fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia' held on 23-24 February 2004 within the framework of the Irish EU Presidency,

–   having regard to the report of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and WHO Europe entitled 'Progress on implementing the Dublin Declaration on Partnership to Fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia' of 2008,

–   having regard to the 'Vilnius Declaration' on measures to strengthen the response to HIV/AIDS in the European Union and in neighbouring countries, adopted by Ministers and representatives of governments from the European Union and neighbouring countries at the conference 'Europe and HIV/AIDS – New Challenges, New Opportunities' conference, held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 16-17 September 2004,

–   having regard to the WHO's 2006 HIV/AIDS programme 'Towards universal access by 2010',

–   having regard to the Eurobarometer survey on AIDS Prevention of February 2006,

–   having regard to Rule 103(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas EuroHIV's end-year report 2006 shows that 269 152 people were newly diagnosed as infected with HIV in 1999-2006 within the European Union and 806 258 people were newly diagnosed as infected with HIV in the European Region of the WHO,

B.   whereas in the European Union 11% of all new HIV infections affect young people under the age of 25, according to the EuroHIV end-year report 2006,

C.   whereas the reports from EuroHIV and UNAIDS confirm that the number of new HIV infections is still rising at an alarming rate within the European Union as well as in neighbouring countries, and that in some countries the estimated number of people infected with HIV is almost three times higher than the official number,

D.   whereas, despite the increased number of HIV infections, the steady decrease in the number of AIDS cases diagnosed in recent years has continued in 2006, with 40% fewer cases diagnosed in 2006 in comparison to 1999 in the EU, according to the EuroHIV end-year report 2006,

E.   whereas a large proportion of HIV infections remain undiagnosed; whereas many people do not know whether they are infected or not, and are likely to discover it only once afflicted by HIV/AIDS-related illnesses,

F.   whereas the infectivity of HIV increases significantly in the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes and syphilis),

G.   whereas the epidemic among intravenous drug users is one of the reasons for the rapid spread of HIV infection in many Eastern European countries,

H.   whereas HIV/AIDS is a communicable disease, and there is a risk of contagion even from infected persons whose infection has not been detected,

I.   whereas the report of UNAIDS and WHO Europe, entitled 'Progress on implementing the Dublin Declaration on Partnership to Fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia', found that few of the 53 countries in the European region had adopted an approach to tackling stigma, discrimination and human rights that complied with their Dublin declaration commitments,

J.   whereas full protection of human rights is essential in every aspect of the response to HIV,

K.   whereas there is a critical need for cross-border cooperation to address the epidemic,

L.   whereas effective public health measures to facilitate the early diagnosis of HIV need to be introduced,

1.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to formulate a strategy on HIV to:

2.  Calls on the Commission to ensure accurate monitoring and surveillance by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, including more precise estimates (size, characteristics, etc.) of the undiagnosed population, respecting confidentiality and protecting personal data;

3.  Calls on the Commission to commit substantial political, financial and human resources to support the implementation of such a strategy;

4.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure access to testing, which must remain free and anonymous;

5.  Calls on the Commission to establish an HIV/AIDS risk reduction strategy focusing on vulnerable groups and groups known to be at high risk;

6.  Calls on the Council to instruct the Commission to prepare Council recommendations on the implementation of evidence-based testing and treatment guidelines in each Member State;

7.  Calls on the Council to instruct the Commission to ensure that future monitoring of progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Europe and neighbouring countries incorporates indicators that directly address and assess human rights issues in relation to HIV/AIDS;

8.  Calls on the Member States to enact provisions which effectively outlaw discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS, including restrictions that impact on their freedom of movement within their jurisdictions;

9.  Calls on the Member States to step up information and education campaigns on the prevention, testing and treatment of HIV/AIDS;

10.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the UN Secretary-General, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization.

(1) OJ C 74 E, 20.3.2008, p. 348. (2) OJ C 303 E, 13.12.2006, p. 871. (3) OJ C 316 E, 22.12.2006, p. 366.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the situation in the beekeeping sector

P6_TA(2008)0567 B6-0579/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the beekeeping sector throughout the world, and more particularly in Europe, is encountering very serious difficulties,

B.   whereas apiculture has a beneficial impact on the ecosystem as a whole and is essential for the agricultural ecosystem in particular,

C.   whereas it is essential to preserve biodiversity, to which apiculture makes a significant contribution through cross-pollination activities,

D.   whereas beekeeping has been practised in Europe for thousands of years and forms an integral part of its cultural and agriculture heritage,

E.   whereas apiculture products confer nutritional and medicinal benefits,

F.   whereas the variety and high quality of honey and other apiculture products such as royal jelly, propolis, venom and beeswax produced by the European beekeeping sector is due to its expertise and the diversity of its climate,

G.   whereas the sector suffers unfair competition from products originating in third countries and imported into the Community market,

H.   whereas honey may be imported from various regions of the world, but only bees, in sufficient numbers, can guarantee pollination,

I.   whereas there is a serious threat of a decline in bee colonies due to the significant reduction in the supply of pollen and nectar,

J.   whereas there has been a drastic decline in the number of bee colonies in the world,

K.   whereas the continued presence in hives of the parasitic bee mites, Varroa spp., colony collapse disorder and the spread of Nosema ceranae are among the causes of the crisis in bee health,

L.   whereas 76% of the production of food for human consumption is dependent on the beekeeping sector,

M.   whereas 84% of vegetable species cultivated in Europe depend on pollination,

N.   whereas the instructions and good practice applicable to the use of biocides are too often ignored,

O.   whereas no methods exist as yet to eradicate certain bee diseases which result in a reduction in their resistance and the loss of hives,

1.  Considers that it is essential to respond without delay to the crisis in bee health in an appropriate manner and with effective tools;

2.  Considers that action should be taken to tackle unfair competition from apiculture products originating in third countries, which is partly the result of lower production costs, particularly as regards the price of sugar and labour;

3.  Calls on the Commission to step up immediately further research into the parasites and diseases, as well as other potential causes such as erosion of genetic diversity and cultivation of genetically modified crops, decimating the bee population, while making additional budgetary resources available for this research;

4.  Considers it vital to make it compulsory to indicate the country of origin of bee honey on labels;

5.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to introduce measures under the CAP Health Check encouraging the creation of ecological compensation areas (such as apicultural set-aside areas) especially in large areas of arable cultivation; calls for such areas to be situated in those parts of fields which are difficult to cultivate, where plants such as phacelia, borage, charlock and wild white clover could be grown, providing rich sources of nectar in areas where bees gather;

6.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to give due consideration to the health of bees, the possibilities for marketing bee products and the economic impact on the beekeeping sector in all discussions and future legislative steps concerning the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the European Union;

7.  Calls on the Commission to promote the necessary measures to limit the risk of insufficient pollination both for beekeepers and for farmers, whose production could increase considerably;

8.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the quality of surface water is monitored and controlled, as bees are highly sensitive to any deterioration in their environment;

9.  Calls on the Commission to undertake research into the link which exists between bee mortality and the use of pesticides such as thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, clothianidin and fipronil so that it can take appropriate measures as regards authorisation of such products;

10.  Calls on the Commission to coordinate all information pertaining to this situation that is presently available in each Member State; believes that the Commission should cooperate with recognised organisations with a view to exchanging scientific information they have concerning the impact of pesticides on bees;

11.  Considers it vital to introduce a requirement that imported honey be analysed to detect the possible presence of American foulbrood bacteria;

12.  Urges the Commission to propose a financial aid mechanism for apiaries which are in difficulties due to bee mortality;

13.  Calls for the Commission to incorporate into its veterinary policy research into, and action to tackle, bee diseases;

14.  Calls on the Commission to urge all Member States to bring forward immediate support for the beekeeping sector;

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

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States

P6_TA(2008)0568 B6-0580/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States(1) ,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 14 November 2007 on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States (COM(2007)0707),

–   having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas in 2001 Parliament and the Council adopted Recommendation 2001/331/EC, containing non-binding criteria for planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on environmental inspections, recognising that there was a wide disparity between inspection systems in the Member States,

B.   whereas the recommendation's aim was to strengthen compliance with Community environmental law and to contribute to its more consistent implementation and enforcement in all Member States,

C.   whereas the above-mentioned Communication sets out the Commission's views on further development of the recommendation, based, inter alia, on the reports that the Member States have submitted on their implementation of the recommendation,

D.   whereas that Communication noted that the information submitted by the Member States on how they were implementing the recommendation was 'incomplete or difficult to compare',

E.   whereas the information submitted by the Member States demonstrated that 'only a few have achieved full implementation', and that 'there are still large disparities in the way environmental inspections are being carried out within the Community',

F.   whereas according to the Commission the situation of incomplete implementation is partially due to differing interpretations by Member States of the definitions and criteria of the recommendation and of the reporting requirements,

G.   whereas the Commission recognises that the scope of the recommendation is inadequate and does not include many important activities, such as Natura 2000, the control of illegal waste shipments, the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemical substances (REACH), the restriction of certain hazardous substances in products (e.g. the Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment - the RoHS Directive), trade in endangered species as well as activities related to genetically modified organisms and producer responsibility systems,

1.  Voices its concern at the Commission's conclusion that the full implementation of environmental legislation in the Community cannot be ensured, since this leads not only to continuing damage to the environment but also to distortions of competition;

2.  Emphasises that good and even enforcement of Community environmental law is essential, and that anything less falls short of public expectations and undermines the reputation of the Community as an effective guardian of the environment;

3.  Opposes the Commission's intention of dealing with the problem only through a non-binding recommendation and through the insertion of specific legally binding requirements in sectoral legislation;

4.  Urges the Commission instead to come forward, before the end of 2009, with a proposal for a directive on environmental inspections, clarifying the definitions and criteria set out in Recommendation 2001/331/EC and extending its scope;

5.  Considers it essential to strengthen the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) and urges the Commission to report, before the end of 2009, on possible ways of doing so, including the establishment of a Community environmental inspection force;

6.  Proposes that greater emphasis be placed on supporting environmental education and information provision, the specific content of which would be determined at local, regional or national level on the basis of the needs and problems identified in a given area;

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

(1) OJ L 118, 27.4.2001, p. 41.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on Somalia

P6_TA(2008)0569 RC-B6-0596/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its resolutions on the situation in Somalia, particularly that of 15 November 2007 on Somalia(1) and that of 19 June 2008 on the routine killing of civilians in Somalia(2),

–   having regard to the Amnesty International report of 1 November 2008 entitled "The State of the World's Human Rights",

–   having regard to the statement of 8 November 2008 made by Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for children and armed conflict, condemning the stoning of 13-year-old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow,

–   having regard to various regional human rights instruments, and in particular the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981 and the Protocol of 2003 thereto on the Rights of Women in Africa,

–   having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas on 27 October 2008 a 13-year-old girl named Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was stoned to death in Somalia,

B.   whereas the stoning to death was carried out by a group of 50 men in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayo, in front of around 1000 spectators,

C.   whereas she was accused and convicted of adultery in breach of Islamic law while she was in fact a victim of rape by three men,

D.   whereas the al-Shabab militia, who control Kismayo, detained and ordered the execution by stoning of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, but did not arrest or detain those accused of her rape,

E.   whereas inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the people at the stadium attempted to save the life of Aisha Ibrahim Duholow, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander,

F.   whereas there are credible reports that human rights activists in Kismayo have received death threats from the al-Shabab militia, who accuse them of spreading false information about the incident,

G.   whereas, due to the dramatic situation in Somalia and the widespread violence perpetrated by some factions of the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (the so-called 'Islamic Courts') which are trying to topple the legitimate government of Somalia, there are gross violations of human rights in Somalia on a daily basis,

H.   whereas these violations of human rights also include the recent kidnapping of two Italian Roman Catholic nuns from Kenya who were then taken to Somalia, and the increase in suicide attacks, which have killed at least 30 people in the north of the country in recent weeks,

I.   whereas members of staff from international organisations present in the country have recently been the target of violence and killings, and whereas the majority of these have been attributed to members of armed opposition groups, including al-Shabab militias, and the faction 'Islamic Courts',

J.   whereas the Islamist insurgents have carried out public floggings in the capital, Mogadishu, attempting to show their growing strength,

K.   whereas such brutal acts show the methods employed by such militias and, more generally, all the risks in terms of respect for human rights in the event of an expansion of their control over the country,

L.   whereas Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS) signed a cease-fire agreement on the 26 October 2008 in Djibouti, and whereas the regional leaders of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD) presented a peace plan for Somalia at the special Summit in Nairobi on 28-29 October 2008,

M.   whereas it is essential to support Somalia's TFG and its President, Mr Abdullahi Yusuf,

1.  Strongly condemns the stoning and execution of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow and expresses its horror at such a barbaric act perpetrated against a 13-year-old rape victim;

2.  Calls on the Somali Government to condemn this execution and to take action to prevent such brutal executions in the future;

3.  Calls on the Somali Government to issue documents and make statements to restore the honour of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow posthumously;

4.  Supports the legitimate Somali Government's attempts to assert its control over the port of Kismayo, and calls for those accused of raping Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to be brought to trial in accordance with due process;

5.  Calls on the EU to provide all necessary support in order to create a lasting democratic government in Somalia and to further help the Somali Government to assert its control over the whole country and establish the rule of law in a manner compatible with its international human rights obligations, which would prevent such executions in the future;

6.  Strongly urges the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) to make full use of its mandate to protect civilians, with a particular focus on women and children, and calls for it to be mandated to monitor, investigate and report human rights violations;

7.  Calls on both the Somali and Kenyan authorities to make all possible efforts and take all possible political and diplomatic initiatives to secure the release of the two Italian Roman Catholic nuns;

8.  Strongly supports the Djibouti agreement between the TFG and the ARS aimed at ending years of hostilities in Somalia and at forging a lasting solution to restore peace and put an end to the abuses referred to in this resolution;

9.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Member States, the Secretaries-General of the United Nation and the African Union, IGAD governments, AMISOM and the Government of Somalia.

(1) OJ C 282 E, 6.11.2008, p. 479. (2) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0313.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the death penalty in Nigeria

P6_TA(2008)0570 RC-B6-0602/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions on human rights violations in Nigeria,

–   having regard to the existing moratorium on the use of the death penalty by the Federal Government of Nigeria,

–   having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–   having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, ratified by Nigeria on 29 October 1993,

–   having regard to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights of 1981, ratified by Nigeria on 22 June 1983,

–   having regard to the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child of 1990, ratified by Nigeria on 23 July 2001,

–   having regard to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 ratified by Nigeria on 28 July 2001,

–   having regard to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 1979, ratified by Nigeria on 13 June 1985, and its Optional Protocol of 1999, ratified by Nigeria on 22 November 2004,

–   having regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, ratified by Nigeria on 19 April 1991,

–   having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas more than 720 men and 11 women are under sentence of death in Nigeria's prisons,

B.   whereas the Nigerian National Study Group on the Death Penalty and the Presidential Commission on the Reform of the Administration of Justice have found that inmates on death row are almost exclusively poor and without legal representation,

C.   whereas although international law prohibits the sentencing of child offenders to the death penalty, at least 40 death row prisoners were aged between 13 and 17 at the time of their alleged offence,

D.   whereas Islamic Sharia courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases in 12 of Nigeria's 36 states; whereas these courts continue to hand down death sentences as well as sentences of flogging and amputation,

E.   whereas 47% of death row inmates are waiting for their appeal to be decided, a quarter of prisoners' appeals have taken five years, 6% of prisoners with appeals outstanding have waited more than 20 years, and one prisoner has spent 24 years on death row,

F.   whereas Nigeria's criminal justice system is riddled with corruption and negligence and suffers from a significant lack of resources,

G.   whereas torture, although prohibited in Nigeria, occurs on a daily basis, and almost 80% of inmates in Nigerian prisons say they have been beaten, threatened with weapons or tortured in police cells,

H.   whereas many prisoners awaiting trial and on death row are being subjected to extortion by police officers, who ask them for money to release them,

I.   whereas more than half the country's 40 000 prison inmates have not been tried or sentenced,

J.   whereas chronic but preventable diseases such as HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia are also present in the prisons,

K.   whereas the Nigerian authorities have made some attempts to address the failures of their judicial system; whereas the National Study Group on the Death Penalty (2004) and the Presidential Commission on the Reform of the Administration of Justice (2007) have expressed doubts as to whether the death penalty helps lower the rate and extent of crime in Nigeria; whereas, however, neither federal nor state governments have taken action to address the urgent problems highlighted by these two study groups,

L.   whereas Nigeria has not officially reported any executions since 2002,

M.   whereas only seven of the African Union's 53 member states are known to have carried out executions in 2007, while 13 African countries are abolitionist in law and a further 22 are abolitionist in practice,

N.   whereas in 1977 just 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes; whereas today, 137 out of 192 UN member states have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice,

1.  Calls on the Federal Government of Nigeria and the state governments to abolish the death penalty;

2.  Calls on the Federal Government of Nigeria and the state governments, pending abolition, to declare an immediate moratorium on all executions as provided for by UN General Assembly resolution 62/149 of 26 February 2008, and to commute without delay all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;

3.  Calls on the Federal Government of Nigeria and the state governments to develop a comprehensive approach to crime and explain how the crime situation will be addressed;

4.  Urges the Federal Government of Nigeria and the state governments to remove all provisions in both federal and state legislation which provide for the death penalty for people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged crime;

5.  Calls on the Federal Government of Nigeria and the state governments to ensure that in capital cases the most rigorous internationally recognised and constitutional standards for fair trial are respected, especially in the areas of inadequate legal representation of poorer prisoners, of confessions or evidence obtained through violence, coercion or torture, of inordinately long trial and appeal periods, and of sentencing of minors;

6.  Calls on the Federal Government of Nigeria to ratify the 1989 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 2002 Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

7.  Urges the Nigerian state governments to remove all provisions for mandatory death sentences;

8.  Calls on the Federal Government of Nigeria and the state governments to implement the recommendations of the National Study Group on the Death Penalty (2004) and the Presidential Commission on the Reform of the Administration of Justice (2007), and in particular to establish a moratorium on executions and commute all death sentences;

9.  Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to provide technical support to the Nigerian authorities with a view to reviewing the legislation which provides for the death penalty, abolishing the death penalty, and improving the investigation procedures of the Nigerian police;

10.  Calls for support for the activities of the Working Group on the Death Penalty of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in drafting a protocol to the African Charter banning the death penalty and making its reinstatement impossible;

11.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments and the governments of the Member States, The Economic Community Of West African States, the Federal Government and Parliament of Nigeria, the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the case of the al-Kurd family

P6_TA(2008)0571 RC-B6-0608/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions on the Middle East,

–   having regard to the report drawn up by its ad hoc delegation to Israel and the Palestinian Territories (30 May - 2 June 2008) and its conclusions,

–   having regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention,

–   having regard to the relevant United Nations (UN) resolutions,

–   having regard to the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and in particular Article 2 thereof,

–   having regard to the declaration issued by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on 10 November 2008 on the destruction of houses in East Jerusalem,

–   having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas, on the night of Sunday, 9 November 2008, members of the Israeli police and armed forces evicted the al-Kurd family from their home in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem where they had lived for more than 50 years; whereas, immediately afterwards, they allowed settlers to enter the family's house and then sealed off the area,

B.   whereas this eviction was carried out on the basis of an order issued by the Israeli Supreme Court on 16 July 2008 following long and controversial legal proceedings on disputed ownership before Israeli courts and authorities,

C.   whereas the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has declared that it will continue to offer the family assistance,

D.   whereas the eviction took place despite international objections; whereas the US has raised the issue with the Israeli authorities; whereas this decision may pave the way for the takeover of 26 more houses in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem, with 26 other families targeted for eviction; whereas this matter has political ramifications for the future status of East Jerusalem,

E.   drawing attention to the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the fact that the international community has not recognised Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem,

F.   whereas a European Parliament delegation visited the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood on 3 November 2008 and had the opportunity to meet the al-Kurd family,

1.  Expresses its deep concern at the eviction of the al-Kurd family, the recent destruction of the houses of Palestinian families by the Israeli authorities in several areas of East Jerusalem and the possible serious consequences of these measures;

2.  Points out that these operations, which seriously affect the lives of the residents of these areas, contravene international law, and calls on the Israeli authorities to put an end to them as soon as possible;

3.  Points out, whilst acknowledging the independence of the Israeli judiciary within the internationally recognised borders of the State of Israel, that under international law East Jerusalem is not subject to the jurisdiction of Israeli courts;

4.  Calls on the Council, the Commission and the international community, including the Quartet, to make all possible efforts to protect Palestinian residents in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood and other areas of East Jerusalem and calls on the Quartet to play a more active role in this direction;

5.  Reiterates its call to the Israeli authorities immediately to halt any expansion of settlements and the building of the security fence beyond Israel's 1967 borders, actions which are contrary to international law and are undermining peace efforts;

6.  Affirms that such actions can only damage the chances of reaching a peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis; urges Israel to refrain from all unilateral measures that may pre-empt the result of the final status negotiations, particularly in Jerusalem;

7.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Quartet Special Envoy for the Middle East, the Israeli Government, the Knesset, the President of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Legislative Council.