European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 5/2011 of the European Union for the financial year 2011, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor and Section X - European External Action Service (13991/2011 – C7-0244/2011 – 2011/2131(BUD))

P7_TA(2011)0445 A7-0346/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 314 thereof and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

–  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 thereof,

–  having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, as finally adopted on 15 December 2010(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 Draft amending budget No 5/2011 of the European Union for the financial year 2011, which the Commission presented on 22 June 2011 (COM(2011)0374),

–  having regard to Council's position on Draft amending budget No 5/2011, which the Council established on 12 September 2011 (13991/2011– C7-0244/2011),

–  having regard to Rule 75b of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0346/2011),

A.  whereas Draft amending budget No 5/2011 to the general budget 2011 covers the modification of the establishment plans of two institutions, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS),

B.  whereas the establishment of the EEAS in 2010 was guided by the principle of budget neutrality and sound and efficient management while fully taking into account the impact of the economic crisis in public finances and the need for budgetary stringency,

C.  whereas it has been clear from the start that a gradual build-up of the service will be called for and that resources should be made available according to the progress of the institution's set-up and current absorption capacity,

D.  whereas, the Council in its position of 12 September 2011, has confirmed the Commission's request,

1.  Notes Council's position on Draft amending budget No 5/2011;

2.  Decides to amend Council's position on Draft amending budget No 5/2011 as shown below;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, together with Parliament's amendment to the Council, the Commission, the other institutions and bodies concerned and the national parliaments.

Amendment 1

SECTION IX: European Data Protection Supervisor

ANNEX - STAFF

--------------------------------

(1) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (2) OJ L 64, 12.3.2010. (3) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1.European Parliament decision of 25 October 2011 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2009 (C7-0241/2010 – 2010/2181(DEC))

P7_TA(2011)0446 A7-0330/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, together with the College's replies(1),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 – C7-0052/2011),

–  having regard to its Decision of 10 May 2011(2) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and the replies by the Director of the European Police College,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL)(4), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002(5) of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

–  having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

–  having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. N° CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

–  having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. N° CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

–  having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security,

–  having regard to the 4th progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the 3rd progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament's resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

–  having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010 - 1 July 2011,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0330/2011),

1.  Grants the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College's budget for the financial year 2009;

2.  Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Director of the European Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

2.European Parliament decision of 25 October 2011 on the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009 (C7-0241/2010 – 2010/2181(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, together with the College's replies(6),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 – C7-0052/2011),

–  having regard to its Decision of 10 May 2011(7) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and the replies by the Director of the European Police College,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(8), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL)(9), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002(10) of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

–  having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

–  having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. N° CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

–  having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. N° CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

–  having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security,

–  having regard to the 4th progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the 3rd progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament's resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

–  having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010 - 1 July 2011,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control of (A7-0330/2011),

1.  Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

3.European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2009 (C7-0241/2010 – 2010/2181(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, together with the College's replies(11),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 – C7-0052/2011),

–  having regard to its Decision of 10 May 2011(12) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and the replies by the Director of the European Police College,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(13), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL)(14), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002(15) of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

–  having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

–  having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. N° CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

–  having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. N° CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

–  having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security,

–  having regard to the 4th progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the 3rd progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

–  having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament's resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

–  having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010 - 1 July 2011,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control of (A7-0330/2011),

A.  whereas the College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the framework Financial Regulation for agencies,

B.  whereas the Court of Auditors in its reports on the annual accounts of the College for the financial years 2006 and 2007, qualified its opinion with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions on the grounds that the procurement procedures did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation,

C.  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2008, added an emphasis of matter to its opinion on the reliability of the accounts, without expressly qualifying it, and qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

D.  whereas in its decision of 7 October 2010(16) Parliament refused to grant the Director of the College discharge for implementation of the College's budget for the financial year 2008,

E.  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2009, again qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

F.  whereas in its abovementioned Decision of 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting the Director of the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009,

G.  whereas in its report on the College's MAP for 2010-2014 the Court of Auditors stated that the College is progressing according to the milestones established in its MAP,

H.  whereas in its note of 4 July 2011 to the Director of the College the IAS stated that, although the description in the progress report on the implementation of the College's MAP remains fairly general, it gives a clear overview of the status of the different milestones and should thereby serve as a satisfactory basis for informing different stakeholders,

I.  whereas by Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 the Commission granted a derogation to the College from the provisions of Article 74b of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

General assessment

1.  Acknowledges the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College to tackle its deficiencies in response to Parliament's request for action, following the serious irregularities in the implementation of the budget for 2009; welcomes, in particular, the following actions taken in time to respond to Parliament's requests:

2.  Looks forward to the Commission's presentation in 2012 of the College's new legal framework to integrate the abovementioned Commission's voting rights in the proceedings of the Governing Board;

3.  Underlines that the discharge authority will continue to carefully monitor the level of implementation of the measures undertaken during the upcoming discharge procedures;

4.  Notes that the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the College established that there is a case for the College's relocation; calls, therefore, on the Court of Auditors to prepare a special report, during 2012, setting out the costs and benefits in financial and operational terms of merging the College's responsibilities with those of Europol;

Specific actions taken by the College to tackle its weaknesses
Procurement procedures

5.  Acknowledges that the College has finally developed and implemented its procurement manual for internal use as requested by Parliament in its discharges to the College for 2008 and 2009; acknowledges that this manual was adopted by the College on 8 June 2010 and entered into force on 1 July 2010 and that a public procurement coordinator has been appointed;

6.  Welcomes the first report of the College on the application of its procurement manual for 1 July 2010 - 1 July 2011; nevertheless, waits for the Court of Auditors to evaluate the application by the College of the procurement manual;

7.  Has checked the College's statistical report for 1 July 2010 - 1 July 2011; welcomes the fact that this document provides Parliament with full information on the procurement procedures; acknowledges from this report and from the report on the application of the procurement manual that the procedures used by the College were constantly monitored and controlled by the College;

Rules governing expenditure on courses

8.  Acknowledges that on 28 April 2011 the College presented the Commission with a request to modify its Financial Regulation by introducing an Article (Article 74c) which includes a derogation from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 concerning the exclusion for tender for the selection of educational experts in order to use experts from national police training institutes;

9.  Welcomes the Commission's subsequent Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 which granted consent to the abovementioned derogation;

10.  Takes the view that the College should grant direct access to its detailed budget, which should include a list of its contracts and of its public procurement decisions; and considers that it should publish that list on its internet site, according the provision of the Financial Regulation, excluding details of any contracts whose disclosure might pose a security risk;

Carryover of appropriations

11.  Takes note that the College established an organisational risk register as part of its ongoing budget management to mitigate its risk of underspending; reminds, nonetheless, the College of the importance of programming and monitoring the implementation of its budget to minimise carryover of appropriations; calls also on the Court of Auditors and the IAS to assure Parliament on the College's effective improvements on this issue and to indicate that all instruments for programming and monitoring are firmly in place;

Errors in the accounts

12.  Takes note that, despite the significant delays and errors in its provisional accounts for 2009, the College has assured Parliament that since 2010 it increased its financial discipline and internal control; looks forward to the report of the Court of Auditors on the College's annual accounts for 2010, to establish whether the assurance from the College is well founded;

13.  Welcomes the decision of March 2011 by the Governing Board of the College to replace the former Internal Control Standards (ICS) with the recently established 16 ICS of the Commission;

14.  Is of the opinion that these new 16 ICS will offer better help to the Director of the College not only to put controls in place but also to monitor that these controls work as intended;

15.  Calls therefore on the College to update Parliament on the level of implementation of these 16 ICS on a continuing basis;

Human resource management

16.  Takes note that the College put an end to a contract that the Court of Auditors considered ‘illegal’; notes that the end of this contract is effective from 15 September 2011 and that the vacancy notice is already advertised; calls on the College to update the discharge authority on subsequent developments on this specific case;

17.  Acknowledges that the level of implementation of the College's recruitment guide bringing the procedures in line with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union(17) was considered to be sufficient by the College; calls also on the Court of Auditors to assure Parliament on the level of implementation of this guide;

Appropriations used to finance private expenditure

18.  Acknowledges that, as a result of an external audit on an ex-post check, the current Director initiated a recovery order requiring the former Director to return the sum of EUR 2014,94 of which only EUR 43,45 have been recovered to date; regrets the small amount recovered compared to the financial loss that the College incurred under the management of the former Director; takes note that a final reminder for payment has been issued in 2011 and that the next step is to institute proceedings before an English court to establish the legality of the debt, dating from 2007, and, should the appropriate judgement be obtained, the enforcement service will seek to recover the remainder of the unpaid debt; calls on the current Director to keep the discharge authority updated with regard to the development of this matter;

The College's MAP for 2010-2014

19.  Notes that the enhanced transparency provided by the current Director and its management team has led to an improved understanding of the challenges the College is facing and has fostered the necessary changes; welcomes, in this respect, the policy of the College to:

20.  Welcomes the Court of Auditors publication of a report on the implementation of the College's MAP for 2010-2014 in response to Parliament's request; notes that in this report the Court of Auditors stated that the College's implementation of the MAP is progressing according to its milestones; welcomes in this respect that the College proved to have entirely completed its MAP 1 (governance), MAP 4 (validation of its financial system), MAP 5 (financial environment), MAP 6 (transparency over its Governing Board), MAP 8 (strategy plan), MAP 9 (multi-annual recruitment plan); MAP 12 (procurement control environment) and that the remaining MAP objectives are in progress or on schedule;

21.  Calls on the College to consult Parliament regularly and to continue to update it with its progress report on the MAP implementation;

22.  Welcomes also the IAS' note on the 3rd progress report on the implementation of the College's MAP; notes in particular that this note states that the IAS considers that the College responds adequately to the IAS comments and recommendations and although the description in the progress report remains fairly general, it gives a clear overview of the status of the different milestones and should thereby serve as a satisfactory basis for informing different stakeholders, including Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control;

Structural deficits

23.  Underlines that the governance costs of the College are high compared to its activities; welcomes, therefore, the efforts of the College to reduce its governance expenditure at its 25th Governing Board (GB) meeting of June 2011, when it was agreed that all GB committees should be abolished by 2012 and that all GB working groups should be critically analysed;

o
o   o

24.  Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2011(18) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

(1) OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 137. (2) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 260. (3) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (4) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63. (5) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (6) OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 137. (7) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 260. (8) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (9) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63. (10) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (11) OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 137. (12) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 260. (13) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (14) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63. (15) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (16) OJ L 320, 7.12.2010, p. 11. (17) OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1. (18) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 269.

1.European Parliament decision of 25 October 2011 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009 (C7-0233/2010 – 2010/2173(DEC))

P7_TA(2011)0447 A7-0329/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009, together with the Agency's replies(1),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 – C7-0052/2011),

–  having regard to its decision of 10 May 2011(2) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and the replies by the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004(4) establishing a European Medicines Agency and in particular Article 68 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002(5) of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to the letter of the Chair of the Agency's Management Board to the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament of 17 June 2011 (EMA/441533/2011),

–  having regard to the Agency's replies to Parliament's resolution of 10 May 2011(6) accompanying its abovementioned Decision on discharge for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Annual Internal Audit Reports for 2009, 2008 and 2007 of the Commission's Internal Audit Service (IAS) on the Agency,

–  having regard to the final follow-up report on the audits of 2009, 2008 and 2006 of the IAS on the Agency,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0329/2011),

1.  Grants the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2009;

2.  Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

2.European Parliament decision of 25 October 2011 on the closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009 (C7-0233/2010 – 2010/2173(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009, together with the Agency's replies(7),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 – C7-0052/2011),

–  having regard to its decision of 10 May 2011(8) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and the replies by the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(9), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004(10) establishing a European Medicines Agency and in particular Article 68 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002(11) of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to the letter of the Chair of the Agency's Management Board to the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament of 17 June 2011 (EMA/441533/2011),

–  having regard to the Agency's replies to Parliament's resolution of 10 May 2011(12) accompanying its abovementioned Decision on discharge for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Annual Internal Audit Reports for 2009, 2008 and 2007 of the Commission's Internal Audit Service (IAS) on the Agency,

–  having regard to the final follow-up report on the audits of 2009, 2008 and 2006 of the IAS on the Agency,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0329/2011),

1.  Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

3.European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009 (C7-0233/2010 – 2010/2173(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009, together with the Agency's replies(13),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 – C7-0052/2011),

–  having regard to its decision of 10 May 2011(14) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and the replies by the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(15), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004(16) establishing a European Medicines Agency and in particular Article 68 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002(17) of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to the letter of the Chair of the Agency's Management Board to the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament of 17 June 2011 (EMA/441533/2011),

–  having regard to the Agency's replies to Parliament's resolution of 10 May 2011(18) accompanying its abovementioned Decision on discharge for the financial year 2009,

–  having regard to the Annual Internal Audit Reports for 2009, 2008 and 2007 of the Commission's Internal Audit Service (IAS) on the Agency,

–  having regard to the final follow-up report on the audits of 2009, 2008 and 2006 of the IAS on the Agency,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0329/2011),

A.  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009, qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

B.  whereas in its abovementioned Decision of 10 May 2011 Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting the Executive Director of the Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2009,

C.  whereas the budget of the Agency for 2009 was EUR 194 000 000, which is an increase of 6,28 % on the financial year 2008,

D.  whereas the Agency's budget is financed both from the Union's annual budget, which accounted for 18,52 % of total revenue in 2009, and, to a greater extent, from fees paid by pharmaceutical companies for services which may spread across more than one financial year, and whereas the Union's general contribution consequently decreased by 9,2 % between 2008 and 2009,

E.  whereas the discharge authority received replies from the Agency following Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 10 May 2011,

F.  whereas in its replies to Parliament, the Agency updated the discharge authority on the level of implementation of the IAS' recommendations, stating that:

General assessment

1.  Acknowledges receipt of a letter of the Chair of the Agency's Management Board of 17 June 2011 in which it is stated that the Agency has taken actions to address the 2009 shortcomings; also takes note of the documents and annexes received from the Agency in response to Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 10 May 2011; also acknowledges receipt of a letter of the Agency's Acting Executive Director of 10 August 2011, following the questions raised during the debate on discharge to the Agency for 2009 at the meeting of Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control of 13 July 2011; regrets, however, that not all the information requested was submitted;

2.  Notes, however, that the Agency should continue to inform on a three-monthly basis the discharge authority on the results of the actions requested by the discharge authority;

3.  Underlines that the discharge authority shall continue to carefully monitor during the upcoming discharge procedures the level of implementation of the measures undertaken to address the Agency's serious weaknesses disclosed by the reports from both the Court of Auditors and the IAS; expects, therefore, the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the actions implemented and their results and to submit the documents requested, especially with regard to the following issues:

Specific comments
Procurement procedures

4.  Notes the information received relating to the control system which sets out to avoid or detect in time the persistent errors in procurement procedures; expects to receive the multi-annual procurement plan; accordingly reminds the Agency to continue improving the quality of its procurement system and to comply strictly with the requirements of the relevant rules on public procurement, so as to rectify the shortcomings pointed out by the Court of Auditors;

5.  Notes the initiation of the actions to develop an action plan on improving procurement procedures; calls on the Agency to proceed promptly with the adoption of an action plan to remedy the shortcomings in the procurement procedures, in particular the errors in managing contract award procedures, by providing for more rigorous technical and procedural checks, and to inform the discharge authority accordingly;

6.  Recalls that in its 2009 annual report the Court of Auditors stated that the Agency did not carry out enough checks to mitigate the risk of errors on a number of procedures for the procurement of large IT framework contracts; also recalls that the audit showed errors which affected the regularity of these operations and formed the basis for the qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the Agency's accounts by the Court of Auditors;

Carryover appropriations

7.  Points out that in its annual report on the Agency for 2009, the Court of Auditors reported that approximately EUR 14 800 000 of a carryover of EUR 19 500 000 (38 % of the Agency's commitments in 2009) was for activities as yet not implemented (or, in some cases, goods not received for services which may spread across more than one financial year) at the year-end; reminds the Agency therefore to take action in this respect and looks forward to receiving assurance from the Court of Auditors on this;

Revenue from fees

8.  Takes note of information from the Agency that as of 1 January 2011, the Agency introduced an integrated Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP) with SAP as the provider to remedy its long delay for recovery orders; takes note that with this new system the Agency feeds the data from its current operational systems (e.g. SIAMED) via a dashboard directly into the financial module SAP;

Foreign-exchange contracts

9.  Acknowledges the Agency's commitment to limit its risks due to exchange rate variance and that as of 11 June 2010 it revised its Treasury Policy by: establishing an internal consultation committee to advise the accounting officer on hedging strategies; limiting the hedging to 50 % of estimated requirement; and ensuring that achievable market rates match or are above the budget-costing rate;

Management of conflicts of interest

10.  Takes note of the Agency's replies on the compliance with its Code of Conduct by setting out principles and guidance on independence and confidentiality applicable to the Management Board and members of committees, experts and the Agency's staff; accordingly expects the Agency to assess thoroughly, before the allocation of project team leaders to products, whether the interests declared by staff members might influence their impartiality and independence; expects that the Agency's documents on the conflicts of interest shall be updated;

11.  Takes note of the Agency's intention to apply the IAS' recommendation from its 2010 follow-up audit by adopting a risk-based approach and focusing checks on staff who declare interests; calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the timing and plan to apply this IAS' recommendation before the end of 2011;

12.  Acknowledges, nevertheless, the Agency's reply in which it is stated that there is no onus on it to request or monitor the annual declaration of financial interests of experts responsible for evaluating medicinal products, as this lies with the Member States' competent authorities (Article 126b of Directive 2001/83/EC(19)as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC(20)); calls therefore on the Commission to remind the respective authorities in the Member States of their obligations in this matter;

13.  Stresses that it is not only the Agency's reputation that could be affected in cases where evaluations can be challenged on the grounds of possible conflicts of interest but also that such conflicts of interest do not guarantee the optimal protection of European citizens' health;

14.  Notes that, as of 1 July 2011, the new electronic Declaration of Interests (e-DoI) form went live and all experts were requested to fill in the new e-DoI and that the e-DoIs of all experts included in the Experts database have been made publicly available on the Agency's website as of 30 September 2011; also notes that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Agency and each National Competent Authority on the monitoring of the scientific level and independence of the evaluation carried out by the National Competent Authority for services to be provided to the Agency became effective as of 4 July 2011;

15.  Calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on actions taken on issues relating to the effective compliance with its Code of Conduct as regards the management of conflicts of interest;

16.  Insists, but also warns the Agency, that all the actions mentioned in the respective audit reports, including the one for the year 2010, should be fully implemented before the start of the next discharge procedure;

Human resources management

17.  Takes note of the Agency's reply in which it is stated that it has corrected the deficiencies identified by the IAS for contract agent selection and that revised work instructions and templates have been put in place and the staff have received specific training; accordingly calls on the Agency to keep the discharge authority updated on the level of implementation of these actions; looks forward to the 2010 report of the Court of Auditors to establish whether the assurance from the Agency is well founded;

o
o   o

18.  Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2011(21) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

(1) OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 28. (2) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 173. (3) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (4) OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1. (5) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (6) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 182. (7) OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 28. (8) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 173. (9) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (10) OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1. (11) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (12) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 182. (13) OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 28. (14) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 173. (15) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (16) OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1. (17) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (18) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 182. (19) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67). (20) OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 34. (21) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 269.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 October 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting (codified text) (COM(2011)0120 – C7-0071/2011 – 2011/0053(COD))

P7_TA(2011)0448 A7-0349/2011

(Ordinary legislative procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0120),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0071/2011),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 June 2011(1),

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(2),

–  having regard to Rules 86 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0349/2011),

A.  whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 25 October 2011 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2011/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting (Codification)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(3),

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure(4),

Whereas:

(1)  Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting(5) has been substantially amended several times(6). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Directive should be codified.

(2)  Directive 92/23/EEC is one of the separate Directives of the EC type-approval system provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive)(7), and lays down technical prescriptions which motor vehicles and their trailers must satisfy relating to, inter alia, pneumatic tyres. Those technical prescriptions concern the approximation of the laws of the Member States to enable the EC type-approval procedure provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC to be applied in respect of each type of motor vehicle and trailer. Consequently, the provisions laid down in Directive 2007/46/EC relating to motor vehicles and their trailers, and to systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, apply to this Directive. 

(3)  Rules on tyres should lay down common requirements concerning not only their characteristics but also the requirements for the equipment of vehicles and their trailers with regard to their tyres.

(4)  It is desirable to take into account the technical requirements adopted by the UN Economic Commission for Europe in its Regulation No 30 (‘Uniform provisions concerning the approval of pneumatic tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers’), as amended(8), in its Regulation No 54 (‘Uniform provisions concerning the approval of pneumatic tyres for commercial vehicles and their trailers’)(9), in its Regulation No 64 (‘Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles equipped with temporary-use spare wheels/tyres’), as amended(10), and in its Regulation No 117 (‘Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval Of Tyres With Regard To Rolling Sound Emissions And To Adhesion On Wet Surfaces’), as amended(11), which are annexed to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (Revised 1958 Agreement)(12).

(5)  This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex VII, Part B,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Article 2

1.  The requirements set out in Annex V shall apply to tyres intended to be fitted to vehicles first used on or after 1 October 1980.

2.  The requirements set out in Annex V shall not apply to:

Article 3

1.  Member States shall grant EC type-approval, under the conditions laid down in Annex I, to all types of tyres meeting the requirements of Annex II, and shall allocate to them an approval number as specified in Annex I.

2.  Member States shall grant EC type-approval, under the conditions laid down in Annex I, to all types of tyres meeting the requirements of Annex V, and shall allocate to them an approval number as specified in Annex I.

3.  Member States shall grant EC type-approval to all vehicles in respect of their tyres under the conditions laid down in Annex III, where those tyres (including spare tyres, where appropriate) meet the requirements of Annex II and the requirements concerning vehicles laid down in Annex IV, and shall allocate to any such vehicle an approval number as specified in Annex III.

Article 4

The approval authority of a Member State shall, within one month of issuing or refusing an EC type-approval for a component (tyre) or vehicle, send a copy of the relevant certificate, models of which are given in the Appendices to Annex I and Annex III, to the other Member States and, if requested, send the test report on any type of tyre approved.

Article 5

No Member State may prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tyres bearing the EC type-approval mark.

Article 6

No Member State may refuse to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval to a vehicle on grounds relating to its tyres if those tyres bear the EC type-approval mark and are fitted in accordance with the requirements laid down in Annex IV.

Article 7

No Member State may prohibit the use of a vehicle on grounds relating to its tyres if those tyres bear the EC type-approval mark and are fitted in accordance with the requirements laid down in Annex IV.

Article 8

1.  If, on the basis of a substantiated justification, a Member State considers that a tyre type or a vehicle type is dangerous although complying with the requirements of this Directive, it may, within its territory, provisionally prohibit the marketing of that product or subject it to special conditions. It shall immediately inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof, stating the grounds for its decision.

2.  The Commission shall, within six weeks, consult the Member States concerned, following which it shall deliver its opinion without delay and take the appropriate steps.

3.  If the Commission is of the opinion that technical adaptations to this Directive are necessary, such adaptations shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11. In that event, the Member State which has adopted safeguard measures may maintain them until the entry into force of the adaptations.

Article 9

1.  The Member State which has granted the EC type-approval for a component (tyre) or vehicle shall take the measures required in order to verify that production models conform to the approved type in so far as this is necessary and if need be in cooperation with the approval authorities in the other Member States. For this purpose, that Member State may at any time check the conformity of the tyres or vehicles to the requirements of this Directive. Such verification shall be limited to spot checks.

2.  If the Member State referred to in paragraph 1 finds that a number of tyres or vehicles with the same approval marking do not conform to the approved type, it shall take the necessary measures to ensure that production models so conform. Where there is a consistent failure to conform, those measures may extend to a withdrawal of EC type-approval. The authorities shall take the same measure if they are informed by the approval authorities of another Member State of such failure to conform.

3.  The approval authorities of the Member States shall within one month notify each other, using the relevant form shown in the Appendices to Annex I and Annex III, of any withdrawal of EC type-approval and of the reasons for such a measure.

Article 10

Any decision taken pursuant to the provisions adopted in implementation of this Directive to refuse or withdraw EC type-approval for a tyre or for a vehicle with regard to the fitting of its tyres implying a prohibition of marketing or of use shall set out in detail the reasons on which it is based. Every such decision shall be notified to the party concerned, who shall at the same time be informed of the remedies available to him under the laws in force in the Member States and of the time-limits allowed for the exercise of such remedies.

Article 11

Any amendments necessary to adapt the requirements of Annexes I to VI to technical progress shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 40(2) of Directive 2007/46/EC.

Article 12

1.  Member States may not:

2.  Member States may not grant EC type-approval, and shall refuse to grant national type-approval, for those types of tyre which fall within the scope of this Directive and which do not meet the requirements of this Directive.

3.  Member States may not grant EC type-approval or national approval for a type of vehicle, for reasons relating to its tyres or their fitting, if the requirements of this Directive are not met.

4.  Member States shall:

5.  The provisions of this Directive shall apply for the purposes of Article 28 of Directive 2007/46/EC to all tyres which fall within the scope of this Directive, with the exception of tyres of class C1e, to which they shall apply as from 1 October 2011.

Article 13

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 14

Directive 92/23/EEC, as amended by the acts listed in Annex VII, Part A, is repealed, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex VII, Part B.

References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex VIII.

Article 15

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 16

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at

For the European Parliament

The President

For the Council

The President

LIST OF ANNEXES

(The full text of the Annexes is not reproduced here for technical reasons. For that text, please refer to the Commission proposal COM(2011)0120).

(1) OJ C 248, 25.8.2011, p. 153. (2) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2. (3) OJ C 248, 25.8.2011, p. 153. (4) Position of the European Parliament of 25 October 2011. (5) OJ L 129, 14.5.1992, p. 95. (6) See Annex VII, Part A. (7) OJ L 263, 9.10.2007, p. 1. (8) Economic Commission for Europe document E/ECE/324(E3/ECE/TRANS/505) REV 1 ‐ ADD 29, 1.4.1975 and its amendments 01, 02 and supplements. (9) Economic Commission for Europe document E/ECE/324(E/ECE/TRANS/505) REV 1 ‐ ADD 53 and supplements. (10) Economic Commission for Europe document E/ECE/324(E/ECE/TRANS/505) REV 1 ‐ ADD 63 and supplements. (11) Economic Commission for Europe document E/ECE/324(E/ECE/TRANS/505) REV 2‐ ADD 116 and its amendment 01 and supplements. (12) Published as Annex I to Council Decision 97/836/EC (OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78). (13) The technical requirements for tyres are similar to those of Regulations Nos 30 and 54 of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters (2011/2117(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0449 A7-0343/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union, as well as Articles 67 and 81(2)(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Commission's consultation paper entitled ‘On the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution as a means to resolve disputes related to commercial transactions and practices in the European Union’ of 18 January 2011 and the document entitled ‘Summary of the responses received’ published in April 2011,

–  having regard to the Commission's consultation document entitled ‘Alternative dispute resolution in the area of financial services’ of 11 December 2008 and the document entitled ‘Summary of the responses to the public consultation on alternative dispute resolution in the area of financial services’ of 14 September 2009,

–  having regard to the Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law of 19 April 2002 (COM(2002)0196),

–  having regard to the Commission's recommendations of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes(1) and of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes(2),

–  having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 13 April 2011 entitled ‘Single Market Act – Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence ’Working together to create new growth' (COM(2011)0206),

–  having regard to the Council Resolution of 25 May 2000 on a Community-wide network of national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes(3) and to the European Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net) launched on 16 October 2001,

–  having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Cross-Border Out-of-Court Complaints Network for Financial Services in the European Economic Area of 30 March 1998 and to FIN-NET,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters(4),

–  having regard to the European Code of Conduct for Mediators (hereinafter: ‘Code of Conduct’) launched in 2004,

–  having regard to Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters(5),

–  having regard to the study entitled ‘The Cost of Non ADR – Surveying and Showing the Actual Costs of Intra-Community Commercial Litigation’, dated 9 June 2010, by the ADR Center, Rome, Italy,

–  having regard to the findings of the European Business Test Panel (EBTP) on ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’, covering the period from 17 December 2010 to 17 January 2011,

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 March 2003 on the Commission's Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law(6),

–  having regard to its recommendation of 19 June 2007 based on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on governance and partnership in the single market(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2011 on the implementation of the directive on mediation in the Member States, its impact on mediation and its take-up by the courts(10),

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0343/2011),

A.  whereas access to justice is a fundamental right,

B.  whereas an area of freedom, security and justice, as laid down in the Treaties, must meet the needs of citizens and businesses, for example by creating simpler and clearer procedures, whilst enhancing access to justice,

C.  whereas the objectives of the judicial process and of alternative means of dispute settlement are closely linked and seek to swiftly restore legal peace between parties in dispute, suitably safeguard individuals' substantive rights and settle disputes between parties,

D.  whereas alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation,

E.  whereas ADR is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator),

F.  whereas in many countries the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes,

G.  whereas by strengthening citizens' confidence in the internal market, trust in the enforcement of rights in cross-border disputes can make a contribution towards stimulating the EU economy,

H.  whereas the EU citizen's knowledge and understanding of ADR schemes throughout Europe is low and confused, with only a small percentage of citizens knowing how to file a claim with an ADR body,

I.  whereas it is important to assure better publicising of the existence of ADR mechanisms and to do more to encourage consumers and professionals to use them as an alternative to court proceedings, in order to make it possible to avoid a confrontational approach and offer the prospect of a win-win situation,

J.  whereas a balanced approach has to be sought which takes into consideration both the flexibility of ADR systems on the one hand and the need to ensure consumer protection and fair procedures on the other,

K.  whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for further efforts to develop ADR; whereas it has called on the Commission in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on governance and partnership in the single market to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the EU by the end of 2011,

L.  whereas the Commission has included a legislative proposal on ADR, in its Work Programme 2011 as a strategic initiative and in its communication of 13 April 2011 on a ‘Single Market Act’, as one of the twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, with the aim of consumer empowerment,

M.  whereas the deadline for the implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC expired on 21 May 2011,

Horizontal approach to ADR

1.  Welcomes the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions;

2.  Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses;

3.  Welcomes the fact that Directive 2008/52/EC has harmonised some standards for mediation; emphasises that common terms need to be defined and procedural guarantees maintained in all areas of ADR; feels the need to revisit the 1998 and 2001 Commission recommendations and the Code of Conduct;

4.  Considers that, whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders, as shown by the example of Directive 2008/52/EC; stresses that any such framework should be careful not to limit diversity in the field of ADR as there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution that could tackle the variety of problems that arise in different legal sectors;

5.  Emphasises the need for better understanding of the many different types of mechanisms and processes (including the activities of public authorities such as ombudsmen) that are often collectively referred to as ADR; considers that while there is considerable commonality among the techniques of negotiation and dispute facilitation that are commonly to be found in ADR systems, nevertheless the structure and architecture of ADR differs considerably between Member States;

6.  Considers that legislative measures adopted at EU level will facilitate the implementation of ADR and encourage natural and legal persons to use it more often, especially in relation to cross-border disputes, bearing in mind that judicial procedures for resolving such disputes are more complex, expensive and lengthy;

7.  In this context, calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption;

Common standards for ADR

8.  Believes that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties;

9.  Takes the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators;

10.  In order not to prejudice access to justice, rejects any wholesale imposition of a mandatory system of ADR at EU level, but suggests that a mandatory system of referral of the parties to consider possibilities of ADR could be examined;

11.  Notes the example of Italian ‘joint conciliation’ as a possible best practice model based on a protocol agreed and signed by the company and the consumer associations requiring the company to agree in advance to ADR in order to resolve any disputes which arise in the area covered by the protocol;

12.  Stresses that any ADR clause should not hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party, which, in certain circumstances, may also be an SME, and therefore considers, to this extent, that ADR decisions may be binding only with the explicit agreement of the parties involved;

13.  Takes the view that an obligation to disclose circumstances that affect the third party's independence or that give rise to a conflict of interests and a duty to serve all parties equally, as laid down in the Code of Conduct, should apply to ADR in general;

14.  Calls for an obligation for the parties involved and, where appropriate, a third party, as contained in the Code of Conduct, to keep ADR information confidential; is also considering, where applicable, more far-reaching measures, such as creating a professional privilege, in parallel with that provided for in Article 7 of Directive 2008/52/EC;

15.  Notes, however, that whilst respect for the confidentiality of personal data is important, there should also be a level of transparency guaranteed in the ADR process, allowing Member States and ADR bodies to identify and share best practices, and allowing independent regulators the opportunity to scrutinise the procedure in cases where complaints have been made;

16.  Believes that not only mediation but ADR in general (Article 8 of Directive 2008/52/EC) should have an effect on limitation and prescription periods; acknowledges the risk posed by the many forms of ADR and the risk of abusive delay of court proceedings; notes that the feasibility study on European Contract Law(11) provides for a suspension of prescription in the case of arbitration and mediation proceedings, and in certain other ADR situations; calls upon the Commission to continue work on this;

17.  Is convinced that speedy and inexpensive enforcement of agreements resulting from ADR is indispensable, including cross-border; calls for legislative measures to this end;

18.  Recalls that specific training for third-party neutrals is essential; calls on the Commission to assemble data on the required type and extent of training, and to assist the sectors in developing training and quality-control schemes;

ADR in different areas

19.  Supports the Commission's intention of encouraging the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment and maintenance of quality and trust-based commercial, economic, social and neighbourhood relations and to contribute to a high level of consumer protection in a ‘win-win’ situation, with benefits for both sides as compared to current judicial practice;

20.  Stresses that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, one of the main obstacles to their use is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and sectoral terms; suggests, therefore, that existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europe be rectified rapidly, deplores the major sectoral deficiencies that persist in most Member States, while promoting the improvement of a sector by sector coverage that would involve people who understand the way in which a given sector works; encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information on how to initiate ADR;

21.  Recalls that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs; reiterates its call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law; would also welcome guidance on ADR clauses in standard contracts;

22.  Acknowledges the achievements of FIN-NET, ECC-Net and SOLVIT, but believes that, as regards information to parties and funding, there is still room for improvement, and calls on the Commission to support, strengthen and enhance the capabilities of, existing bodies such as these that have demonstrated their effectiveness and value;

23.  Sees great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims; notes that traditional ADR procedures exist online alongside others that seek to prevent disputes or to facilitate their resolution; emphasises that, where traditional ADR is carried out online, procedural standards should not be lowered, and that issues such as the enforceability of awards should also be resolved; sees a particular benefit in online trustmark systems; points to the work of the UNICTRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution(12), intended for B2B and business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions;

24.  Believes that a ‘hierarchy’ of settlement – comprising, firstly, an in-house complaint scheme, secondly, ADR and, only as last resort, litigation – will reduce time and cost; calls upon the Commission to assist the sectors in promoting such systems;

25.  Emphasises the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes, where it may reduce psychological harm, can help the parties to start talking again and thereby, in particular, help ensure the protection of children; sees potential in cross-border ADR in terms of its flexibility in particular; points also to the work of the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction;

26.  Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR and the existence of an effective system for collective claims, the two being complementary and not mutually exclusive;

27.  Sees potential for ADR within the ongoing discussion on collective redress, since ADR provides an effective means for dispute settlement that avoids redress action before the courts;

28.  Sees a need at EU level for ADR in the area of freedom of the press and rights of personality, given that in cases of defamation and breaches of rights of personality in particular, costs of legal proceedings, especially in some Member States, can be ruinous, and that ADR could help to improve the existing situation;

ADR as a mechanism to settle consumer disputes

29.  Stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU; notes that the use of ADR systems affords a higher level of consumer rights protection and boosts consumer confidence in the market, businesses and consumer rights protection institutions by making them more attractive, as well as promoting cross-border trade and increasing the prosperity of all operators in the EU market;

30.  Calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU;

31.  Suggests that the Commission's future legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumers in the EU incorporate the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:

32.  Calls on the Commission to make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumer disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national and business-led ADR systems;

33.  Calls on the Commission, in the context of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes, to make arrangements for the rapid introduction of a multilingual platform enabling consumers to resolve their disputes entirely on line, bearing in mind that this platform must meet quality standards and be based on existing ADR systems in the Member States;

34.  Takes the view that the provision of information to consumers is a responsibility shared by public authorities, information and advisory networks, regulators and consumer groups, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness-raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;

35.  Criticises the confusing nature of the Commission's current ADR database; suggests that the Commission create a multilingual European internet ADR portal, where any consumer may access information on how ADR works, what it involves and about their rights and obligations, building on existing databases and networks; emphasises that, in the interests of consumers, emphasis must be placed on the user-friendliness and clarity of the on-line portal;

36.  Emphasises that consumers must be able to obtain all relevant on-line information about ADR, properly translated into their own languages, by using readily accessible, user-friendly on-line translation machines;

37.  Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence and benefits of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; insists on the necessity to reinforce the sense of responsibility of businesses and business organisations in this regard; considers that businesses and businesses federations have a duty to inform consumers on available ADR mechanisms; proposes that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recourse to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems; however, this requirement should avoid extra costs and bureaucracy;

38.  Recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices, so that consumers can rapidly identify businesses that have opted into ADR systems; takes the view that a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out first on this proposal; stresses that the Commission should ensure that the label is properly used and enforced;

Next steps

39.  Notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their existence, functioning and location; takes the view that information programmes should also point to the main advantages of choosing ADR, such as the cost in comparison to litigation, success rates and time efficiency in comparison to litigation; takes the view that such programmes should be targeted in particular at citizens and SMEs; believes that ADR is most effectively provided in a network close to citizens and on the basis of joint work with Member States;

40.  Calls on the Commission, at the same time, to take immediate steps to ensure that consumers and businesses are made more aware of existing legislative instruments, such as Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters and Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; with that aim in view, proposes that national authorities, courts, bar associations and chambers of commerce, consumer advice bureaux, legal expenses insurers and other competent organisations should be involved in a comprehensive information campaign; calls for financial support to be provided for European and national campaigns of this kind;

41.  Notes that the usage of small claims tribunals in some Member States remains significantly low and that more needs to be done in terms of legal certainty, language barriers and transparency of proceedings; calls on the Commission to devote particular attention to these legal bodies when formulating its legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumer matters in the EU;

42.  Notes that the conciliatory nature of ADR means that the resolution is more likely to be considered a ‘win-win’ result and points to the fact that compliance with resolutions reached via ADR is generally high; believes, therefore, that up-to-date statistics regarding this should be published alongside public information on ADR;

43.  Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution;

44.  Considers that ADR information campaigns should be run in cooperation with chambers of commerce, consumer groups and offices of fair trading (or equivalent) in order to ensure a well coordinated and effective campaign;

45.  Takes the view that the provision of information to businesses is a responsibility shared by public authorities and representative organisations, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness-raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;

46.  Acknowledges that one of the main obstacles to the use of ADR systems is the reluctance of businesses to engage in such mechanisms; proposes that chambers of commerce, umbrella organisations at both national and EU level, and other professional bodies be required to inform enterprises of the existence of ADR and of the potential benefits of its use, not least in terms of: pre-empting lawsuits; corporate image; and, lastly, the possibilities offered by ADR, unlike an arbitration or court ruling, for the re-establishment of trust-based commercial relations between the parties;

47.  Calls on the Commission, on the basis of the data collected and a solid impact assessment in compliance with the better regulation rules, to explore the setting out of minimum standards of ADR across sectors, while developing existing schemes and encouraging Member States and sectors covered by schemes to increase funding, bearing in mind that ADR, while providing parties with a low-cost alternative, must not be ‘justice on the cheap’;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31. (2) OJ L 109, 19.4.2001, p. 56. (3) OJ C 155, 6.6.2000, p. 1. (4) OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25. (5) OJ L 136, 24.5.2008, p. 3. (6) OJ C 61 E, 10.3.2004, p. 256. (7) OJ C 146 E, 12.6.2008, p. 110. (8) OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 12. (9) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0144. (10) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0361. (11) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/consumer/docs/explanatory_note_results_feasibility_study_05_2011_en.pdf. (12) http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/commission/working_groups/3Online_Dispute_Resolution.html.

1.European Parliament decision of 25 October 2011 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council (C7-0213/2010 – 2010/2144(DEC))

P7_TA(2011)0450 A7-0328/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009(1),

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2009 (SEC(2010)0963 – C7-0213/2010)(2),

–  having regard to the Council's annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2009,

–  having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2009, together with the institutions' replies(3),

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

–  having regard to its decision of 10 May 2011(5) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and to the accompanying resolution,

–  having regard to Article 272(10) and Articles 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(6), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

–  having regard to Decision No 190/2003 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High-Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members(7),

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, of 17 May 2006, on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(8),

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0328/2011),

1.  Refuses to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009;

2.  Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

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

2.European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council (C7-0213/2010 – 2010/2144(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009(9),

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2009 (SEC(2010)0963 – C7-0213/2010)(10),

–  having regard to the Council's annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2009,

–  having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2009, together with the institutions' replies(11),

–  having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(12),

–  having regard to its decision of 10 May 2011(13) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2009, and to the accompanying resolution,

–  having regard to Articles 272(10) and Articles 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  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(14) (Financial Regulation), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

–  having regard to Decision No 190/2003 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High-Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members(15),

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, of 17 May 2006, on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(16),

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0328/2011),

A.  whereas ‘citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled’(17),

B.  whereas the Council administration should be subject to democratic accountability towards Union citizens as far as the implementation of Union funds is concerned,

C.  whereas it is also important to ensure greater transparency in the application of Union legislation, and European citizens have the right to be better informed in this respect too, Parliament welcomes the agreement reached with the Council on the subject of correlation tables,

D.  whereas Parliament is the sole directly elected body among the Union institutions and has responsibility to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union,

Pending issues

1.  Deplores the difficulties encountered in the 2007-2009 discharge procedures and, in addition, reaffirms its position expressed in its previous discharge resolutions concerning those financial exercises;

2.  Acknowledges receipt on 28 February 2011 of a letter from the Secretary-General of the Council containing a number of documents for the 2009 Council discharge procedure (final financial statements of 2009 including accounts, financial activity report and summary of 2009 internal audits) and welcomes this as a constructive step towards ensuring the democratic accountability of the Council's administrative budget;

3.  Welcomes the fact that the Council submitted the abovementioned documents to Parliament and that the Council Presidency participated in Plenary at the 2009 discharge debate; recalls, however, that the discharge was postponed as Parliament had not received any responses to a number of pending issues concerning the 2009 Council discharge which were raised at an earlier stage, notably:

The right of Parliament to grant discharge

4.  Takes note of the letter of 2 June 2011 from the Council Presidency to the President of the European Parliament in which the Council considers ‘that all the Union accounts for 2009, including its own, have been discharged in accordance with EU law by vote of the Parliament on 10th May 2011, in accordance with Article 319 of the TFEU’;

5.  Underlines the right of Parliament to grant discharge, pursuant to a combined reading of Articles 316, 317 and Article 319 of the TFEU, that should be interpreted in the light of their context and purpose, which is to submit the implementation of the entire budget of the European Union to parliamentary control and scrutiny without exception, and to grant discharge autonomously not only in respect of the section of the budget implemented by the Commission, but also in respect of the sections of the budget implemented by the other institutions, as referred to in Article 1 of the Financial Regulation;

6.  Is of the opinion that Article 319 of the TFEU and Article 50 of the Financial Regulation require the other institutions to respect the same rules and conditions as the Commission in the execution of its budget; considers that, as a consequence, the responsibility for the implementation of each budget lies with each respective institution and not with the Commission alone;

7.  Underlines that, notwithstanding possible different legal interpretations of the autonomous closure of accounts, Parliament is of the opinion that for all intents and purposes, political assessment of the institution's financial management during the year under examination should be completed, thereby maintaining the current institutional equilibrium, in accordance with which Parliament is responsible for the assurance of democratic accountability towards Union citizens;

8.  Considers that the abovementioned legal reasoning as well as the established practice of adopting individual decisions on discharge in respect of each Union institution and body support this interpretation and, in addition, the decisions on discharge need to be adopted separately for operational reasons in order to avoid discontinuity and disruption of Union action;

9.  Is of the opinion that the proper interpretation of Article 147 of the Financial Regulation and Article 265 of the TFEU is that failure to take the appropriate steps to act on the observations accompanying Parliament's discharge decision, entitles Parliament to bring an action for failure to act;

A different role for Parliament and the Council in the discharge procedure

10.  Notes that, according to the Council Presidency's declaration at the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 21 June 2011, the ‘memorandum of understanding’ adopted by the COREPER on 2 March 2011 is intended to form the basis of relations between Parliament and the Council regarding the discharge of their respective budgets; further notes that this memorandum requires full reciprocity between Parliament and the Council in respect of submission of documents, answers to questions and a bilateral meeting to be organised every year between representatives of the Council and Parliament's Committee responsible for the discharge procedure, as well as Secretaries-General of both institutions;

11.  Fully respects the Council's role as recommending authority in the annual discharge procedure, provided for in Article 319 of the TFEU; would disagree with the Council, however, should it consider itself to be in an identical position to Parliament as regards the granting of discharge;

12.  Reiterates that a distinction must be maintained in respect of the different roles of Parliament and the Council in the discharge procedure and that the Council administration (its General Secretariat), as with the other administrations of Union institutions, including the Parliament administration itself, should be subject to the control of the Court of Auditors and should be fully accountable to Union citizens for the implementation of their respective budgets, by means of the discharge procedure as set out in the TFEU;

13 Notes that the Court of Auditors carries out its controls on these institutions separately from the Commission controls and underlines that the final element of the accountability chain should be the democratic control through the discharge granted by Parliament;

14.  Reminds the Court of Auditors of Parliament's suggestion to perform an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments it performed on the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in the course of preparation of the Court of Auditors' annual report concerning the financial year 2010;

Main elements of the Council's discharge

15.  Recalls that the expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of the other institutions, and the fundamental elements of such scrutiny should be:

(1) OJ L 69, 13.3.2009. (2) OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 1. (3) OJ C 303, 9.11.2010, p. 1. (4) OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 129. (5) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 23. (6) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (7) Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7). (8) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (9) OJ L 69, 13.3.2009. (10) OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 1. (11) OJ C 303, 9.11.2010, p. 1. (12) OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 129. (13) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 23. (14) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (15) Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7). (16) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (17) The European Transparency Initiative. (18) OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 22.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 October 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the application of emission stages for narrow-track tractors (COM(2011)0001 – C7-0018/2011 – 2011/0002(COD))

P7_TA(2011)0451 A7-0282/2011

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0001),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0018/2011),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 March 2011(1),

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 21 September 2011 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0282/2011),

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

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 25 October 2011 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2011/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the application of emission stages for narrow-track tractors

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2011/87/EU).

(1) OJ C 132, 3.5.2011, p. 53.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 October 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme (COM(2010)0362 – C7-0171/2010 – 2010/0195(COD))

P7_TA(2011)0452 A7-0080/2011

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0362),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0171/2010),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 September 2010(1),

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 29 June 2011 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rules 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0080/2011),

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

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 25 October 2011 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2011/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2011/88/EU).

(1) OJ C 48, 15.2.2011, p. 134.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (2010/2272(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0453 A7-0263/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), and its entry into force on 21 January 2011, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 on the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(1),

–  having regard to the Community Charter of the Social Fundamental Rights of Workers(2),

–  having regard to Articles 2, 10, 19 and 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(3),

–  having regard to the Commission 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) and Parliament's position of 2 April 2009 thereon(4),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

–  having regard to Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities(5),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 August 2010 entitled ‘A digital agenda for Europe’ (COM(2010)0245),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 May 2000 entitled ‘Towards a Barrier-Free Europe for People with Disabilities’ (COM(2000)0284),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 25 September 2001 entitled ‘eEurope 2002: Accessibility of public websites and their content’ (COM(2001)0529),

–  having regard to the World Health Organisation's international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) of 22 May 2001 (World Health Assembly resolution (WHA) 54.21),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 30 November 2003 entitled ‘Equal opportunities for people with disabilities: A European action plan’ (COM(2003)0650),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 24 January 2003 entitled ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’ (COM(2003)0016),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 16 March 2005 entitled ‘Green Paper on confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations’ (COM(2005)0094),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 November 2007 entitled ‘Situation of disabled people in the European Union: the European Action Plan 2008-2009’ (COM(2007)0738),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 16 December 2010 entitled ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion’ (COM(2010)0758),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 15 November 2010 entitled ‘European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A renewed commitment to a barrier-free Europe’ (COM(2010)0636),

–  having regard to the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the Optional Protocol’), adopted on 13 December 2006,

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions on ‘Promoting labour market inclusion – Recovering from the crisis and preparing for the post-2010 Lisbon Agenda’ of 30 November 2009,

–  having regard to Petition 1454/2010 by Urzula Weber-Król,

–  having regard to the Commission's report on the functioning and effects of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (COM(2011)0166),

–  having regard to the ruling of the European Court of Justice (Case C 13/05 regarding Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Concept of disability) of 11 July 2006,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2010/707/EU of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 June 1988 on sign languages for deaf people(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 26 May 1989 on women and disability(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 September 1992 on the rights of mentally disabled people(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 December 1995 on the human rights of disabled people(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 May 1996 on the rights of people with autism(11),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 December 1996 on ‘Parking card for disabled people – rights of disabled people’(12),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 April 1997 on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities(13),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2003 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’(14),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 January 2011 entitled ‘The Annual Growth Survey: advancing the EU's comprehensive response to the crisis’ (COM(2011)0011), and the draft joint employment report annexed thereto,

–  having regard to Council decision 2011/308/EU of 19 May 2011 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(15),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on reducing health inequalities in the EU(16),

–  having regard to the framework agreement on inclusive labour markets, concluded by the European social partners on 25 March 2010,

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions on common values and principles in European Union health systems (2006/C146/01),

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions of 8 June 2010 on ‘Equity and health in all policies: solidarity in health’,

–  having regard to Rule 48 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 the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0263/2011),

A.  whereas as full citizens, people with disabilities (including physical and psycho-social disabilities) have equal rights and are entitled to unquestionable dignity, equal treatment, independent living and full participation in society,

B.  whereas over 80 million people, or around 16 % of the European Union's total population, are living with disabilities – including people with mental health problems, with special regard to autism – and their rate of unemployment is at least twice as high as that of people without disabilities; whereas people with disabilities constitute a vulnerable group, among whom the rate of poverty is 70 % higher than average; whereas the rate of employment for people with disabilities is only around 45 %, while high-quality jobs ensure economic independence and foster personal achievement; whereas unemployment increases the risk of poverty and social exclusion, since at least a quarter of the population suffer once during their lifetime from a mental health problem and whereas for 10 % of them this can lead to chronic mental health problems, underlining the need for active and targeted policies to combat this persistent situation; whereas the higher risk of poverty is often the result of limited access not only to employment and training but also to healthcare and appropriate treatment,

C.  whereas the most marginalised groups in society are those hardest hit by crisis, and whereas people with disabilities are one of the groups most affected by the impact of the financial crisis in Europe,

D.  whereas the fact that gaps in the implementation of the existing principle of equal treatment of people with disabilities are regularly brought to the attention of the Committee on Petitions by the citizens concerned,

E.  whereas people with disabilities in need of high levels of support are among the most excluded in society, and whereas women with disabilities are generally amongst the more vulnerable and marginalised members of society and experience discrimination and exclusion from participation in education, employment and social life,

F.  whereas the success of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the objective of which is to develop European growth which is smart (based on innovation and research), sustainable and inclusive, will necessarily require structural improvements as regards the mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities,

G.  whereas this figure will rise substantially in the coming years in view of the inevitable reversal of the population pyramid, as more than one third of people aged over 75 have disabilities that restrict them to some extent and over 20 % are considerably restricted,

H.  whereas the European Union formally ratified the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and whereas this has also been signed by all 27 EU Member States and ratified by 17 of them,

I.  whereas the European Union's competence in the area of protection against discrimination on the ground of disability is currently limited to employment, occupation and vocational training (2000/78/EC), and whereas the UN CRPD is a mixed agreement whereby the EU institutions and the Member States have obligations regarding its implementation and the proposals and approaches within this report to be considered and addressed in the upcoming Commission proposal on a European Accessibility Act,

J.  whereas social policies aimed at people with disabilities often fall within the competence of Member States and are therefore based on national traditions and heritage, social customs, economic development and the very important role played by families and associations in helping people with disabilities to achieve autonomy and integrate into society,

K.  whereas disability is an evolving concept that results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others and with the same dignity,

L.  whereas there is a strong relationship between mobility, disability and social inclusion, especially with regard to freedom and access to communication (including Braille and sign languages and other alternative forms of communication), freedom of movement in all fields of life and access to services; whereas full participation in all aspects of society needs to be promoted, bearing in mind the importance of Community policies regarding information and communications technologies, as well as home robotics and online communication solutions, and the need to move towards full accessibility by promoting compatible standards in the single market and facilitating their dissemination,

M.  whereas access to information (Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and culture, as laid down in the Council Resolution of 6 May 2003 on accessibility of cultural infrastructure and cultural activities for people with disabilities, plays a vital role in the intellectual development of people, including people with disabilities, and therefore has a direct impact on their employment opportunities,

N.  whereas people with disabilities have the right to community-based services favouring independent living, to personal assistance, to economic and social independence and full participation in society and to the labour market; whereas if support activities were remunerated, they would account for nearly 50 % of GDP (the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, 21 April 2010),

O.  whereas accessibility barriers to using services and goods offered to all are significant obstacles to people with disabilities,

P.  whereas people with disabilities in some Member States and in some sectors suffer from discrimination throughout their lives and in particular during the period of education and training, owing to a lack of early recognition and intervention for children and pupils with disabilities, which restricts their future employment opportunities,

Q.  whereas in the 16-19 age group the rate of non-participation in education is 37 % for people with disabilities and 25 % for people with a certain degree of disability, as against 17 % for people without disabilities,

R.  whereas Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the EU in December 2010, prohibits exclusion from the education system on the basis of disability, and whereas inclusive education represents the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, building an integrationist society and achieving education for all,

S.  whereas women with disabilities often suffer double discrimination, and whereas governments can counter this phenomenon by implementing gender mainstreaming in all relevant areas of disability policy,

T.  whereas the economic crisis represents a challenge for employment in general and for people with disabilities in particular, with the rise in the unemployment rate being considerably greater for people with some kind of disability and a growing fear that disability benefits may be used to control labour supply,

U.  whereas the family members of persons with disabilities suffer from discrimination by association and measures supporting families will in turn have a positive impact on the full and equal realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities,

V.  whereas in 2007 a petition with 1 364 984 signatures was submitted to the Commission calling for people with disabilities to be given extensive protection in all European Union policies, and whereas the Commission has so far failed to take due account of this legitimate initiative,

Objectives

1.  Emphasises that the Europe 2020 Strategy target of 75 % of the population aged 20-64 in employment cannot possibly be achieved unless this includes the population with some form of disability;

2.  Stresses that financial expenditure for the benefit of, and economic investment in, people with disabilities is a long-term return investment in the well-being of all in a sustainable society where people can live longer and work more efficiently under better conditions; in this connection, stresses that it is unacceptable in the context of public austerity measures for unjustified cuts to be made to services for persons with disabilities or to projects for their social inclusion, since this would mean failing to guarantee certain basic and inalienable rights of people with disabilities; believes that, on the contrary, investment in this area should be increased substantially; reiterates that all health services in the European Union should be based on the fundamental values of universality, access to high-quality care and solidarity;

3.  Observes that throughout the financial crisis, from which there are now signs of recovery, there has remained an intrinsic solidarity in European societies; fully acknowledges and stresses the need for individualised measures for persons with disabilities who require, on the basis of different levels and features of disabilities, even more intensive support based on human rights and dignity as well as the risk of discrimination, which is frequently not respected and therefore needs to be highlighted through European public awareness campaigns; points out that the needs of people with disabilities should therefore be taken into account on the basis of their specific requirements so that suitable arrangements can be made at all stages of education and training and professional life;

4.  Stresses the importance of the objectives of the new European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (EDS) and calls especially for the framing of more detailed actions at all levels of governance based on reliable data; considers that the basic principle of ‘nothing about persons with disabilities without persons with disabilities’ should be observed, i.e. people with disabilities must be involved in all measures and decisions which affect them;

5.  Regrets that the Commission Communication on the European Disability Strategy does not include an integrated gender perspective or a separate chapter on gender-specific disability policies, despite the fact that women with disabilities are often in a more disadvantaged position than men with disabilities and are more often victims of poverty and social exclusion; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take gender aspects into account throughout the European Disability Strategy (EDS) 2010-2020;

6.  Stresses the need for an efficient new approach to disability starting with the creation of a European Disability Board, which would meet on a regular basis and with the active involvement of the European Parliament and the participation of representative organisations of persons with disabilities, as well as national task forces, in order to ensure more effective mechanisms to coordinate and monitor – as well as to evaluate – the implementation of the EDS within the Commission and Member States' programmes and strategies, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity;

7.  Recalls that a sustainable society where people live longer and in better health should also imply improvements in the planning of urban and common areas and in the accessibility of available goods and services, including equal access to new information and communication technologies, so as to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities and prevent social exclusion;

Civil and human rights

8.  Calls for full respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and support for the principles of Design for All and Universal Design; acknowledges the efforts made by the European Union and the United Nations with respect to legislation aimed at strengthening the full integration of people with disabilities in society but takes the view that more should be done;

9.  Stresses in particular the need to ensure full respect for the rights laid down in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the case of children with disabilities, including the right to engage in play, the right to education, the right to participate in community life (including cultural life and the arts), the right to the medical care required by their personal circumstances, and the freedom to seek and receive information and ideas; points out in particular that Article 23 of the above convention recognises that children with disabilities should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community, and calls for children with disabilities to have effective access to education, training, healthcare services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development;

10.  Calls for effective mainstreaming of disability throughout the EU 2020 Strategy and its flagship initiatives, including Innovation Union, in which reference to disability is lacking;

11.  Calls attention to the fact that many people with disabilities continue to suffer discrimination with regard to the lack of equal recognition before the law and justice, and calls on the Member States to correct and remedy these shortcomings, including effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff, and stresses the importance of guaranteeing and ensuring equal participation in political and public life, including the right to vote, to stand for election and to hold office, in accordance with Article 29 of the UN CRPD, because according to estimations made by relevant NGOs and election experts, only a small percentage of people with disabilities are able to participate in elections;

12.  Takes the view that purchasing goods and services, including the relevant and accessible information about them, should include suitable (on-line) shopping solutions as well as goods and services designed to be accessible in the long term; draws attention to the need for products for people with disabilities to be approved under both European and global standards; calls on the Commission to take further appropriate measures to promote the development of, and access to, universally-designed goods and services as enshrined in Article 29 of the UN CRPD, including the exchange of best practices;

13.  Highlights the fact that, in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, numerous studies have shown that women with disabilities suffer double discrimination on grounds both of their gender and their disability; calls on the Commission, in view of the almost total lack of mechanisms in this regard, to make special provision in the social protection systems for women with disabilities;

14.  Stresses that people with mental disabilities and intellectual impairments are particularly exposed to the risk of abuse and violence; calls on the Member States to establish a developed control mechanism to provide social services and legal protection for victims and to guarantee respect for the human rights and freedoms of people in residential institutions, with special regard to women and children with disabilities; calls on the European Institute for Gender Equality to carry out studies on the situation of girls and women with disabilities in relation to violence; stresses the need for measures and actions to fight the double discrimination of women and promote full equality of rights and opportunities; calls on the European Commission and the Member States to take active and effective steps to support and promote the transition from institutional to community-based care, making efficient use of possibilities of EU funding such as PROGRESS for measures to heighten public awareness of the situation of people with disabilities resident in institutions; calls on the Member States to guarantee priority access to social housing for women with disabilities who fall victim to violence, grants for adapting the home environment, home support and public services attending to cases of gender violence;

15.  Stresses that the Member States should be encouraged to pay considerably more attention to the social aspects of disability; considers that a necessary precondition for the individual's ability to exercise civil rights could be the establishment of a legal background for a supported decision-making mechanism; calls on the Member States to encourage as much as possible forms of support such as personal assistance and other services which support independent living in order to reduce institutional care in general in favour of other forms of support; calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth study of these phenomena and to heighten society's awareness thereof; highlights the role of voluntary work as a vital support for people with disabilities and calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue and to improve the initiatives and support programmes devoted to such work;

16.  Stresses the importance of guaranteeing and ensuring equal access to public information with special regard to the public management of natural and man-made disasters, in accordance with Article 21 of the UN CRPD;

17.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary steps to prepare for natural disasters and those caused by human negligence, with particular regard to providing people with disabilities with appropriate, useful information, inter alia through the presentation of useful and suitable international examples;

18.  Stresses the need for action at both national and European level to promote the transition from institutional to local community care, making use of the Structural Funds accompanied by measures to heighten public awareness of the situation of people with disabilities resident in institutions;

The importance of data collection and consultation with stakeholders

19.  Stresses that consistent gender-specific data on disability issues and disability-related services in the Member States, including specific indicators and information regarding the number and quality of residential institutions and homes, are currently lacking or limited, and that Eurostat should provide more annual gender-specific data on persons with disabilities and their carers;

20.  Expresses disappointment at the lack of transparency and the limited involvement of persons with disabilities in data collection and consultation and considers that the European Commission should encourage the participation of persons with disabilities in consultation procedures that must be fully accessible according to the experience of NGOs, designed in order to allow specific comments and supported by effective information campaigns; stresses that only 336 replies by civil society to the Commission's on-line consultation, which was held on the Commission's central consultation website in 2009, show that the information campaigns did not reach targeted groups and the online tool was not accessible for blind people using screen readers; calls on the Member States to ensure that in all implementation processes at all levels, people with disabilities and their organisations are included in the process (as set out in Article 33 UN CRPD);

21.  Calls on the Commission to speed up the process of monitoring, cooperation and exchange of good practice between Member States, especially with respect to the gathering of comparable gender-specific data and progress indicators, in order to achieve the aims set at both national and Community level; stresses that measurements should be based on the needs of people with disabilities and should include not only medical but also social, employment and environmental aspects; at the same time, stresses the importance of coordinating efforts to combat abuse of the system and the feigning of disability;

22.  Recalls that registration of people with disabilities for services and public-budget-based support must not lead to violation of their human rights and privacy or the creation of stigmas;

Demographic changes and a barrier-free environment

23.  Stresses that demographic change will also lead to a growing number of elderly people with disabilities, as more people will experience the onset of a disability because people are living longer, so that there will be a growing need for the development and design of services and solutions that are of benefit both for persons with disabilities regardless of their age and elderly people with or without disabilities;

24.  Encourages alliances between the two groups in society, in order to contribute to innovative growth, based also on employment and social development in the Member States and in order to meet the new demands arising from the ageing society and demographic change;

25.  Calls on the Commission to strengthen both sanctions and positive incentives for Member States to implement Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and to respect its legally binding requirements; calls on the Commission to reinforce anti-discrimination and accessibility provisions in the future Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and to monitor and assess the correct implementation of the European funding programmes and the use of European Funds;

26.  Calls on the Commission to promote the use of European Structural Funds, especially the European Regional Development Fund, to improve the accessibility of goods and services and the built environment through the use of European funds;

Free movement and barrier-free services

27.  Acknowledges that free movement is a fundamental right within the European Union; stresses that it positively influences the quality of life and participation in society and the labour market of people with disabilities and their families in society, with special regard to better access to health services, paying more attention to people with chronic disabling diseases in order to decrease health inequalities throughout the European Union;

28.  Points out that, in a Europe that promotes equality and freedom of movement within its territory for its citizens, the rights of people with disabilities vary from one Member State to another;

29.  Stresses that accessible transportation enables people with disabilities to participate in the labour market more easily and therefore helps in the fight against poverty and social exclusion;

30.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to bring about accessibility of services more speedily via various strategies to remove barriers to access to these technologies, including lower prices, as well as EU2020 flagships initiatives designed to achieve the EU2020 objectives;

31.  Recalls that mobility is a core issue for the European Employment Strategy and that the specific obstacles to a life of dignity and independence for people with disabilities in the EU remain extremely significant, particularly in terms of the portability of benefits and aid as well as of access to the necessary facilities or personal assistance;

32.  Stresses that people with disabilities, under the Directive on application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (2011/24/EU ), are entitled to cross-border health care and should be granted equal access to health care in any EU Member State, all the more so if they need highly specialised care;

33.  Calls for better, mutual recognition of disability status across the Member States; calls on the Member States to exchange good practice in order to close the gaps between national systems for assessing degree(s) of disability across the EU, with the aim of ensuring better mobility for people with disabilities;

34.  Underlines the need to encourage recognition by the Member States, in their social security systems and when people retire, of the involvement and unpaid work of carers, generally women, of people with disabilities; stresses that particular attention should be paid to these women;

35.  Recognises the importance of Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities, which states that this card should exist in a standard format and should be recognised by all Member States in order to facilitate the bearers' car use, and observes that a unified EU charter for travellers' rights and obtaining and renewing driving licences and any other permits or documents which may be required to facilitate mobility between Member States are essential for the inclusion of people with disabilities in society across Member States; recognises that innovative forms of free communication tools for the blind and the deaf, such as accessible information services with special regard to online services, are also essential for the full enjoyment of their rights; this includes ‘easy to read’ versions for people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities; calls for the reduction of barriers to the freedom of movement of people with disabilities, via the adoption of a European Mobility Card, based on mutual recognition by Member States of disability cards and disability benefits and entitlements so as to make it easier for people with disabilities to study, work and travel, also using the Open Method of Coordination framework; calls for the creation by the Commission of a more informative website targeting people with disabilities, explaining their rights and providing additional specific information on travelling;

36.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures to promote access without physical barriers to workplaces and homes for people with disabilities as a means of helping them integrate into working life;

37.  Stresses that innovative and knowledge-based economies cannot develop without accessible content and forms for people with disabilities governed by binding legislation, such as accessible web pages for the blind and subtitled contents for the hard of hearing, including mass media services, online services for people using sign languages, smart phone applications and tactile and vocal aids in public media;

38.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to introduce a twin-track approach, whereby binding legislation and standards are seen as complementary instruments necessary to achieving accessibility; stresses that the legislation should lay down a framework which is sustainable, given the rapid developments in the ICT sector; notes that the standards should concern evolving tools that can ensure implementation of the legislation;

39.  Is aware of the lack of equal access to health care, including access to health and health-care information, and calls on the European Commission to speed up its work on recommendations that will support equal access to health services and to information on health and health care;

40.  Stresses that in order to achieve the active involvement of people with disabilities in all fields of social life, efforts have to be made to provide communication solutions for people with mental disabilities (e.g. easy-to-read websites) and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for people with complex communication needs;

41.  Calls on the Member States, with the help of the Commission, to encourage the integration and acceptance in society of people with disabilities by improving access for them to sports, leisure and cultural facilities and activities, including the promotion and exchange between Member States of cultural material accessible to the visually impaired in accordance with the Council Resolution of 6 May 2003 on accessibility of cultural infrastructure and cultural activities for people with disabilities(17);

42.  Calls on the Member States to remedy shortcomings in accessibility legislation, especially as regards public transport and passenger rights legislation, including damage to mobility equipment, the services of electronic information communication systems and rules on public-built environments and services;

Equal opportunities

43.  Takes the view that ‘equal opportunities’ cannot be interpreted as meaning the same conditions and circumstances for people with different needs, and therefore believes that people with different disabilities should have access to appropriate means of purchasing goods and services, creating real equal opportunities;

44.  Reaffirms the need to guarantee universal, effective, non-discriminatory access for persons with disabilities to social protection, social advantages, health care and education, and to the supply of the goods and services which are available to the public, including housing, telecommunications and electronic communications, information – including information provided in accessible formats – financial services, culture and leisure, buildings open to the public, modes of transport and other public areas and facilities;

45.  Stresses that integration into working life and economic independence are extremely important factors for the social integration of people with disabilities;

46.  Reaffirms that products, goods and services, including their modified versions, should not be discriminatory and therefore must not cost more for people with disabilities;

47.  Maintains that SMEs play a crucial role in giving people with disabilities access to employment, insofar as they can provide a working environment conducive to enhancing the personal and professional potential of people with disabilities; stresses, therefore, that SMEs should be provided not only with comprehensive information on facilitation and support measures for the hiring of protected persons but also with all relevant information on technologies and courses of study which enable people with disabilities to lead autonomous and active professional lives;

48.  Stresses the exceptional importance of employing people with disabilities on the ordinary labour market; is aware of the great need for more flexible legal forms of employment relations with an emphasis on modern forms of employer-employee relations, and calls on the Commission and Member State governments to adopt legal and financial measures that will effectively support the employment of people with disabilities;

49.  Calls on the Member States to improve and adapt their active employment policies to enable people with disabilities both to join the labour market and to remain on it; advocates the introduction of initiatives aligned with the needs of each type of disability, including plans and vocational guidance that operate from the moment individuals in need register with the services set up for this purpose;

50.  Stresses that sheltered workshops and integrated workplaces, though not on an equal footing with participation in the open labour market, are valuable ways of accompanying and supporting all people with different disabilities and at different stages of life, including by means of reasonable accommodation in the transition towards an open labour market, and takes the view that unjustified denial of reasonable accommodation (Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC) should be seen as a form of discrimination, in accordance with Article 2 of the UNCRP; notes that in some Member States, sheltered workshops and quotas can be used as a transition to the open labour market, with the provision of specific facilities for people with disabilities and of staff trained to meet their needs; stresses that, in large undertakings, the appointment of representatives from among people with disabilities, allowing them to speak for themselves, should be welcomed, as should a strengthening of closer cooperation between relevant local NGOs and SMEs; stresses that personal assistants should supported if necessary, since this would significantly improve the opportunities for people with disabilities to gain a foothold in the labour market;

51.  Stresses the importance of transition programmes which, firstly, offer opportunities for work, beginning with sheltered workshops and progressing to the open labour market, and, secondly, create a more flexible framework for the transition from professional rehabilitation to other forms of employment in the course of implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy;

52.  Calls on the Member States to consolidate and improve active employment policies adopted with a view to integrating people with disabilities at the workplace, and to increase the effectiveness of the national bodies responsible;

53.  Notes that the Member States should, as a priority, agree and adopt as soon as possible 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); calls on the Commission to continue to support the overcoming of technical difficulties within the Council in order to ensure that a swift agreement is reached; notes that anti-discrimination policy plays a key role in promoting social inclusion and employment for people with disabilities;

54.  Calls for the European public procurement legislation to be reviewed in order to make the accessibility criteria mandatory for enforcing selection criteria aimed at promoting social inclusion, innovation and accessibility for people with disabilities;

55.  Stresses that, despite the differences between the Member States, the overwhelming majority of social security systems are not flexible enough for individuals to receive benefits in a manner enabling them to remain on the labour market; calls for these systems to be revised in order to make them more proactive so that individuals who receive benefits or who are partially disabled can remain on the labour market;

56.  Recalls that the Commission itself, in its Communication on a European Disability Strategy, expresses concerns as to the low availability of subtitles in television and audio-description on television in the European Union; underlines especially the fact that a pan-European campaign to ensure wider access to subtitling on television in the European Union has been conducted for several years by organisations of deaf and hard of hearing people with the support of the European Parliament; calls for more diligent implementation of the Member States' obligation under Directive 2007/65/EC to encourage broadcasters to ensure greater accessibility of media services to people with hearing or visual disability; calls on the Commission to provide for specific funding possibilities for public broadcasters in order to help them introduce the framework of services of subtitles and audio-description in their programmes;

Investing in people with disabilities

57.  Finds that the employment level of people with disabilities across Europe is woefully low and reminds the European institutions that the aims of the EU2020 Strategy cannot be achieved unless the situation of such people improves; society must therefore be familiarised with disability and must accept it, including at pre-school and primary school level;

58.  States that the present education and training systems are not sufficient to prevent a high drop-out rate of people with disabilities without additional public policies offering specific learning support, since the figure relating to the Europe2020 objective represents a reduction to less than 10%; stresses that this leads to significant social and employment disadvantages, and resulting poverty, among people with disabilities, especially during the present economic crisis; stresses, given the high drop-out rate of persons with disabilities and in the light of the Council Conclusions of 11 May 2010 on the social dimension of education and training, the need to invest in and promote effective (including alternative) educational and (vocational) training programmes that are tailored to the needs, attributes and abilities of persons with disabilities, and notes that this calls for the availability of an adequate number of qualified and motivated professionals with sound and suitable programmes, as well as the availability of such programmes in the curricula of all vocational education and training and higher education establishments, including in extra-curricular programmes for people with disabilities, in order to combat negative attitudes towards children with disabilities and for them to obtain adequate qualifications for the modern and open labour market; calls on the Member States and the Commission to enable persons with disabilities to have better access to information about existing mobility and education programmes as well as equal access to Lifelong Learning programmes; notes, this being the case, that mainstreaming of anti-discrimination in Europe2020 and its flagship initiatives is needed in order to fulfil Article 24 of the UN CRPD;

59.  Confirms that inclusive education should be the focus, in particular in the context of the accreditation of prior experiential learning, and that this should therefore be emphasised within the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) as well as the New Skills and Jobs Flagship of EU2020; notes, in addition, the need for new and suitable guidelines and proper use of IT in schools and at home to provide personal, tailored assistance;

60.  Stresses that all children, including those with disabilities, need to be guaranteed the right to universal access to all sectors and levels of education in all institutions; calls on the Commission and Member States to increase the general information provided for families with children with disabilities in order to include early recognition and support and open up possible solutions for their specific needs; highlights the importance of state support for the families of people with disabilities, in terms of funding, assistance (including childcare services), healthcare provision, psychological support and the sharing of expertise, as well as more flexible working hours for (one of) the parents with children with disabilities; therefore urges the Member States to establish dedicated and accessible offices where information and administrative advice can be obtained; calls on the Member States to support the families of people with disabilities and professionals working in the national health systems by means of targeted information and training measures and by involving patients' associations in decision-making and monitoring processes;

61.  Underlines that employers should allow people with disabilities to take up a position of work, if qualified, and to advance in it, and should support them with training;

62.  Emphasises the need to foster the promotion of integrated work-linked training projects which enable young people with disabilities to make an immediate practical transition from education to working life;

63.  Emphasises that efforts must also be made to address the issue of non-formal education and learning for young people with disabilities, including in areas such as social relations, the mass media (which should be subject to ever more stringent accessibility requirements, including in relation to subtitling and audio description systems), sport, leisure and outdoor pursuits, according to the specific needs of each child or young person; emphasises that these are not merely crucial tools for the healthy development of each individual, but also inalienable rights recognised by the UN;

64.  Stresses that lifelong learning is a crucial way of supporting and increasing adaptability and continuance of employment for people with disabilities, and that it is particularly relevant for people who acquire a disability during the course of employment, especially for people who have an evolving disabling disease;

65.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support or set up rehabilitation services in the fields of health, education, training, employment, tools for independent living, transport, etc. which are more effective and overlapping; these must not only be monitored and individually tailored but also help long-term budgetary and development planning;

66.  Believes that suitable funding needs to be channelled to organisations of people with disabilities; insists that for such organisations the cofinancing rate should be no less than 10 % of the value of the projects presented by them, in view of their known financial difficulties;

Lifestyles

67.  Stresses that voluntary social corporate responsibility could also be an important impetus to the situation of people with disabilities; calls for the introduction of aid and subsidies with special regard to EU funds and programming, which would vary according to the type of contract, for companies and individuals hiring workers with disabilities; calls on actors and stakeholders to support and apply good practice in this field, with special regard to women who have children with disabilities;

68.  Reaffirms that training of public officials in the EU Institutions and the Member States in receiving and informing people with disabilities should be the rule, and that access to public legal documents and procedures should be supported by concrete actions; calls on the EU institutions to set an example as regards the employment of people with disabilities and urges the Member States also to pursue this strategy;

69.  Stresses that policies to foster and support independent entrepreneurship should pay due attention to the integration of people with disabilities into the labour market and into the sphere of economic activity, as this integration is a source of flexibility that enables them, in many cases, to overcome limits and barriers in the workplace; calls on the Member States to introduce more suitable and effective aid for independent entrepreneurship policies concerning this group;

70.  Calls on the Commission to present more effectively the advantages of accessibility and to mainstream the costs and expenditure of creating a barrier-free environment for all with special regard to an ageing society;

71.  Encourages the creation of special forms of leave so that parents can take care of their children with disabilities; urges, further, that the commitment shown and the work performed by parents of children with disabilities should be recognised by being counted as professional experience and by being specifically taken into account when old-age pension entitlements are calculated;

72.  Stresses that barrier-free access to health services and complex rehabilitation services does not stop the deterioration of health completely, particularly in an ageing society, which is why everyone has a responsibility in terms of everyday activities and consumer habits if a sustainable society in which ever greater value must be placed on health, from prevention to rehabilitation, is to be achieved;

The fight against poverty

73.  Calls on the Commission to secure adequate financial support for the EU umbrella organisation representing people with disabilities, as well as other European impairment-specific organisations, in order to enable full participation in policy making and implementation of legislation which builds on the commitments in the EDS and the UN CRPD and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to people with disabilities;

74.  Deplores the fact that people with disabilities must assume an additional financial burden – the extra expenditure in the short term incurred seemingly because of their disability – in their daily lives, which has a considerable impact on their quality of life;

75.  Calls on the Commission, in the light of its targets on poverty reduction, to disaggregate poverty figures in order to calculate the numbers of persons with a disability who are experiencing poverty so that comparable targets for poverty reduction of persons with a disability can be achieved within the framework of the EU 2020 strategy;

76.  Points out that eliminating or seriously alleviating this poverty would entail having more people with disabilities in work, which would increase net tax revenue for the state and would reduce the number of people needing benefits for reasons of extreme poverty;

77.  Confirms that, recalling the impetus of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion as well as the new European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, decreasing poverty cannot be achieved without integrating people with disabilities, starting with the field of education and later in the labour market, and adjusting income policies regarding invalidity and disability pensions systems in accordance with point 12 of the EPSCO Council conclusions adopted at its meeting of 30 November 2009, bearing in mind that this process may also lead to stigmatisation;

78.  Recognises that early detection and help are vital and fundamental in the case of children with disabilities and must be regarded as long-term investments in an ageing society; observes that families of people with disabilities are more exposed to the risk of poverty and social exclusion, and that special attention should be paid to them;

79.  Calls on the Member States to avoid unjustified cuts in social protection for people with disabilities under the austerity policies introduced in response to the economic crisis, since it is necessary to ensure an acceptable standard of living for them as an inalienable right;

80.  States that persons with disabilities are particularly at risk of social exclusion and poverty and highlights the fact that the poverty rate of persons with disabilities is 70 % higher than that of people without disabilities; emphasises that persons with severe or multiple disabilities and single parents with children with disabilities are in the most vulnerable position; calls on the Commission and the Member States to guarantee their rights and take measures to improve their quality of life by providing, inter alia, access to practical information on everyday issues, including by familiarising them with skills-building procedures and services which have an impact on family life;

81.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to take further steps and produce regular reports concerning rare diseases and provide real assistance with developing contacts between parents and the specialists living closest to their homes; takes the view that this must be taken into account and assessed in the work of the INSERM organisation; calls on the Commission to promote the establishment of a European network of accredited centres for the diagnosis and treatment of specific forms of rare diseases, in order to coordinate and monitor their activities and the benefits they offer patients;

Parliament continues to demand a socially sustainable and human-rights-based approach

82.  Confirms that, based on the new rights enacted in the EU Charter, the Commission has the correct approach to equal opportunity: strengthening anti-discrimination, supporting active inclusion politics and raising awareness of disability, including notions of Design for All and Universal Design, and stressing the importance of reasonable accommodation;

83.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission swiftly to ratify and implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well as its Optional Protocols and welcomes the Commission's initiative to accede to the Convention's Optional Protocol;

84.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to consider concluding an interinstitutional agreement with the European Parliament and to draw up within one year a specific recommendation for Parliament to be involved in monitoring the implementation of the UN CRPD;

85.  Calls on the Council to adopt the Commission proposal for a decision on the conclusion by the EU of the Optional Protocol, stressing the fact that the mechanism set up by this Protocol could, with the involvement of the European Parliament, lead to implementation of the UN CRPD by the EU;

86.  Calls on the Commission to develop concrete, appropriate, more detailed measures and to set up a monitoring mechanism for all levels of governance in respect of the implementation of the EDS in line with the list of actions of EDS, in close cooperation with the European Parliament;

87.  Calls on the Member States to give as much support as possible to suitable measures and tools tailored (apart from the medical aspect) to a higher level of independent life in order to ensure equal opportunities and active life for persons with disabilities and their families;

88.  Emphasises the need to help those who can work and want to remain in the labour force, even if they have lost part of their functional capacities; calls on the Member States to promote a culture of inclusiveness and help integrate people with partial work capacity into the labour market;

89.  Calls on the Member States to (re)consider their disability-related actions and national programmes or strategies within the time span and framework of the EDS in accordance with the EU2020 Strategy and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

90.  Calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal for a European Accessibility Act as announced in the EDS, stressing the need for strong, binding measures at EU level to improve the accessibility of goods and services for people with disabilities, with a clear roadmap;

91.  Calls on the Member States to adopt, with the support of the Commission, specific social measures to ensure equal access to health care, including high-quality health and rehabilitation services for people with mental and physical disabilities;

92.  Stresses the importance of research into new therapeutic methods which further facilitate the integration of people with disabilities into society; points out, in this regard, that drama and pet therapy, for instance, are proving to be effective in promoting socialisation and interpersonal communication;

93.  Urges the Commission to take the necessary measures to help the visually impaired to carry out business transactions;

94.  Calls on the Commission to have stronger disability-related references in the planned revision of the public procurement reform;

95.  Calls on the Commission, as per the outcome of the debate following publication of the Green Paper on Pensions, to argue in favour of a cross-cutting policy on disability in the forthcoming white paper, due to be published in the second half of 2011;

96.  Calls on the Commission to assess whether further measures taken in the context of the European Structural Funds with special regard to the Rural Development Fund help people with disabilities to be active citizens living in rural areas in Europe;

97.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to make every effort to draw up rules on personal screening when using transport services which will guarantee passengers' fundamental rights and dignity and serve the purpose of their journeys, with particular regard to the medical devices, aids and accessories which can be taken on board, and to achieve a clear, common interpretation of the existing security requirements in order to ensure that people with disabilities are not denied the opportunity to travel – in the absence of proper justification and to a disproportionate degree – simply to prevent inconvenience to the service provider;

98.  Calls on the Commission to increase efforts to achieve individually-tailored navigation-based services for the blind and those with serious visual impairments and to report on these annually and make specific recommendations – taking into account dynamic technological development – ensuring that progress is made and continuous, multimodal door-to-door transport is possible, as set out in the White Paper entitled ‘Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’;

99.  Calls on the Member States to review their provision of health services for people with disabilities, such as encompassing measures relating to physical accessibility to services, training and medical staff, awareness-raising, information provided in accessible formats, customised counselling services, including translation into various languages, and health services customised to the needs of people with disabilities;

100.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States, in giving support to sport and recreation for people with disabilities, to avoid making distinctions when identifying disabilities, and urges the Council to continue its efforts, recalling that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe promised, in 1986, to support sport for people with disabilities;

101.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to improve access for people with disabilities in the field of copyright, including the increased exchange of best practices, to support the development of optimum forms of cooperation, and to ensure service providers are governed by appropriate, common and compulsory requirements concerning people with disabilities, with particular emphasis on those with visual impairments;

102.  Stresses that, in accordance with the spirit of the UN CRPD, Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices – particularly the provision on misleading omissions – is also relevant to people with disabilities;

103.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to take action on the basis of the practice and experience of the European Parliament to make ICT barrier-free for deaf people, in accordance with Parliament's 1988 and 1998 decisions, and to report on this annually to the MEP(s) concerned;

104.  Calls on the Commission to prepare a study with people with visual impairments in mind analysing the characteristics of the digital displays (interfaces) of industrial and domestic products and alternative, equivalent information solutions for blind people and making specific legislative proposals;

105.  Calls on the Member States and Commission to recognise sign language as an official language in the Member States; notes that the Member States should therefore work towards the possibility of such a recognition, in accordance with the Brussels Declaration of 19 November 2010;

106.  Calls on the Commission to pay attention to the inclusion of the interests of people with disabilities, in accordance with the UN's Millennium Development Goals, when handling assistance for international relations and development;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 23, 27.1.2010, p. 35. (2) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1. (3) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. (4) OJ C 137 E, 27.5.2010, p. 68. (5) OJ L 167, 12.6.1998, p. 25. (6) OJ L 308, 24.11.2010, p. 46. (7) OJ C 187, 18.7.1988, p. 236. (8) OJ C 158, 26.6.1989, p. 383. (9) OJ C 284, 2.11.1992, p 49. (10) OJ C 17, 22.1.1996, p. 196. (11) OJ C 152, 27.5.1996, p. 87. (12) OJ C 20, 20.1.1997, p. 386. (13) OJ C 132, 28.4.1997, p. 313. (14) OJ C 76 E, 25.3.2004, p. 231. (15) OJ L 138, 26.5.2011, p. 56. (16) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0081. (17) OJ C 134, 7.6.2003, p. 7.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on modernisation of public procurement (2011/2048(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0454 A7-0326/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC on procedures for the award of public contracts(1) and Directive 2007/66/EC on review procedures concerning the award of public contracts(2),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2010/48/EC on the Conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(3), which entered into force on 22 January 2011 and which identifies public procurement directives as ‘Community acts which refer to matters governed by the Convention’,

–  having regard to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement of 15 April 1994,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and especially Article 26 thereof (integration of persons with disabilities),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on equal access to public sector markets in the EU and in third countries(4),

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy (COM(2011)0015),

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper on expanding the use of e-procurement in the EU (COM(2010)0571),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on a single market for enterprises and growth(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2010 on new developments in public procurement(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 February 2009 entitled ‘Pre-commercial procurement: driving innovation to ensure sustainable high-quality public services in Europe’(7),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Smart Regulation in the European Union’ (COM(2010)0543),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Towards a Single Market Act. For a highly competitive social market economy. 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another’ (COM(2010)0608),

–  having regard to Professor Mario Monti's report of 9 May 2010 on ‘A new strategy for the single market’,

–  having regard to Commission staff working document SEC(2010)1214,

–  having regard to the report on ‘Evaluation of SMEs’ access to public procurement markets in the EU‘(8),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Public procurement for a better environment’ (COM(2008)0400),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Think Small First – a ’Small Business Act' for Europe' (COM(2008)0394),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative. Innovation Union’ (COM(2010)0546),

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 11-12 May 2011 on the Green Paper on ‘The modernisation of EU public procurement policy – towards a more efficient European market’,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 July 2011 on the Green Paper on ‘The modernisation of EU public procurement policy – towards a more efficient European market’,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 July 2011 on the Green Paper on expanding the use of e-procurement in the EU,

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0326/2011),

A.  whereas a properly functioning EU public procurement market is a key driver of growth and a cornerstone of the single market, and is, furthermore, fundamental to stimulating competition and innovation and to addressing fast-emerging environmental and social public-policy challenges, as well as quality-of-work issues including adequate pay, equality, social cohesion and inclusion, while achieving optimal value for citizens, businesses and taxpayers;

B.  whereas European public procurement rules have contributed substantially to increased transparency and equal treatment, to combating corruption and to professionalising the procurement process;

C.  whereas the current economic climate makes it more important than ever to ensure optimal efficiency in public spending, whilst limiting costs borne by businesses as much as possible, and a better functioning procurement market would help achieve these two objectives;

1.  Welcomes the Commission Green Paper and the broad consultation process as a starting point for the revision of the Public Procurement Directives, in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and the case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and in line with the revised state aid rules;

2.  Points out that, although the revision of the EU procurement directives in 2004 led to useful further development of the single market for public procurement, there is a need –some years after the transposition of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC into national law – to assess whether optimisation and clarification of the directives will be necessary in order to address shortcomings that have become evident in practice; emphasises that many stakeholders see public procurement rules as highly complex, leading to costly and burdensome administrative compliance procedures; deplores the frequent cases of inadequate transposition of the rules into national legislation, and the insufficiency of training measures; calls on the Commission to propose a significant simplification and consolidation of the rules, while further clarifying them where necessary; stresses furthermore that the increased use of ICT must now play a major role in reducing administration and costs, and that the various European initiatives on e-procurement and e-commerce should accordingly be aligned with the reform of the procurement rules;

3.  Calls for an explicit statement in the directives that they do not prevent any country from complying with ILO Convention C94; calls on the Commission to encourage all Member States to comply with that Convention; stresses that the effective functioning of sustainable public procurement requires clear and unambiguous EU rules precisely defining the framework of Member States' legislation and implementation;

First task: improving legal clarity

4.  Asks for clarification of the scope of the directives; notes that the main purpose of public procurement is the purchase of goods, works and services by public authorities to accommodate the needs of their citizens and ensure effective use of public funds; points out that there must be a direct benefit for the contracting authority in order for a procedure to qualify as public procurement;

5.  Calls for clarification of the definitions in the directives – for example the definition of a ‘body governed by public law’ – in line with the case-law of the ECJ and without reducing the scope of EU public procurement rules;

6.  Recalls its resolution of May 2010 on recent developments in public procurement, which took note of the ECJ case-law and took the view that public-public cooperation was not subject to public procurement rules as long as the following criteria were met: that the purpose of the partnership was the provision of a public-service task conferred on all the public authorities concerned; that the task was carried out solely by the public authorities concerned, i.e. without the involvement of private capital; and the activity involved was essentially performed on behalf of the public authorities concerned; underlines the fact that transferring tasks between public sector organisations is a matter for the Member States' internal administrative organisation and is not subject to procurement rules; takes the view that these clarifications should be codified in the procurement directives;

7.  Emphasises the exclusion of service concessions from the scope of European procurement rules; reiterates that due account must be taken both of the complexity of the procedures and of the differences between Member States in terms of legal culture and practice with regard to service concessions; takes the view that the process of defining the term ‘service concession’ and establishing the legal framework governing such concessions has evolved as a result of the 2004 public procurement directives and the CJEU's supplementary case-law; insists that any proposal for a legal act dealing with service concessions would be justified only with a view to remedying distortions in the functioning of the internal market; points out that such distortions have not hitherto been identified, and that a legal act on service concessions is therefore unnecessary if it is not geared to an identifiable improvement in the functioning of the internal market;

8.  Emphasises that the current classification of A and B service categories should be maintained in so far as ‘lighter’ provisions for B services have their justification in the characteristics of that category as mainly locally or regionally provided services; calls on the Commission to develop tools that make it easier for local and regional authorities to decide to which category specific contract tasks belong;

9.  Observes, in this context, that the application of procurement law to the provision of personal social services is often not the best way of ensuring optimum results for the users of the services in question; calls for recognition under European law of tried and tested Member State procedures based on the principle that all providers able to comply with the conditions previously laid down by law should, irrespective of their legal form, be permitted to provide services, provided that account is taken of the general principles of equal treatment, transparency and non-discrimination;

10.  Emphasises that the introduction of new rules for public procurement markets below the EU thresholds should be avoided, as it may jeopardise legal certainty established at national level;

11.  Calls on the Commission to align the Remedies Directive with the new public procurement framework which will emerge following the current review, and to carry out this exercise in parallel to the main legislative proposal, in order to ensure consistency;

12.  Stresses the Commission's responsibility for monitoring the correct transposition of EU directives in the Member States;

Second task: developing the full potential of public procurement – best value for money

13.  Takes the view that, in order to develop the full potential of public procurement, the criterion of lowest price should no longer be the determining one for the award of contracts, and that it should, in general, be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits – taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works; stresses that this would not exclude the lowest price as a decisive criterion in the case of highly standardised goods or services; asks the Commission to develop, in close cooperation with the Member States, a methodology for the calculation of life-cycle costs on a broad and non-obligatory basis; stresses that supporting the criterion of ‘maximum economic benefit’ would foster innovation and efforts to achieve the best quality and value, i.e. to comply with the requirements of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that this is particularly relevant in relation to public procurement of goods that have an impact on consumers' health – in the food sector, for example – where quality and production methods play an important role; emphasises that public procurement rules should be flexible enough to ensure that passive consumers, for example in hospitals, care facilities for the elderly, schools and kindergartens, have equal access to healthy, value-for-money food, rather than merely the cheapest available option;

14.  Recognises that public procurement, if used effectively, could be a real driver in promoting quality jobs, wages and conditions as well as equality, in developing skills and training, in promoting environmental policies, and in providing incentives for research and innovation; calls on the Commission to encourage governments and contracting authorities to increase the use of sustainable public procurement, supporting and promoting high-quality employment and providing quality services and goods in Europe; invites the Commission to scrutinise how public procurement has contributed to achieving the EU's wider goals and to outline what should be done to improve these objectives in the future;

15.  Recalls that pre-commercial procurement is an underused tool, which can drive innovation in public procurement and make a significant contribution to identifying and establishing lead markets and improving SME access to public procurement; considers furthermore that the proposed model of risk and benefit (IPR) sharing in pre-commercial procurement requires both legal clarification and simplification in order to enable regular and effective use of this tool by procurement practitioners; accordingly, calls on the Commission to propose an adaptation of the relevant procurement or state aid rules as part of the overall revision exercise, in order to boost the take-up of pre-commercial procurement;

16.  Notes the importance of standards for public procurement, in that they can help public procurers to meet their policy objectives in an effective and transparent way; calls, in that regard, for the development of a regularly updated database of standards, especially in relation to environmental and social criteria, to be made available to public authorities, in order to ensure that procurers, when drawing up tenders, have access to appropriate guidance and a clear set of rules so that they can easily verify their compliance with relevant standards;

17.  Calls for increased reliance on non-discriminatory and open standards in public procurement, in the interests of the simplification and innovation objectives, particularly in the areas of accessibility, ICT, and the environment;

18.  Underlines the fact that whether or not a product or service has been sustainably produced is rightly considered to be a characteristic of the product, which can be used as a criterion for comparison with products or services that have not been sustainably produced, so as to enable contracting authorities to control the environmental and social impact of contracts awarded by them in a transparent way but at the same time not to weaken the necessary link to the subject matter of the contract; points out the need to clarify the scope for including requirements relating to the production process in the technical specifications for all types of contract, where relevant and proportionate; points to the Wienstrom case, which has become the classic example of how and why production characteristics can be categorised as technical specifications;

19.  Underlines the need to strengthen the sustainability dimension of public procurement by allowing it to be integrated at each stage of the procurement process (i.e. ability test, technical specifications, contract performance clauses);

20.  Points out that, in response to increased awareness of the environmental and climate impact of goods, works and services, procurement authorities should include environmental costs in their assessment of the ‘most economically advantageous offer’ and their calculation of life-cycle costs;

21.  Notes that the text of the directives needs to be more specific in terms of improving access for people with disabilities;

22.  Considers that the current provisions on subcontracting should be strengthened, as the use of several levels of subcontracting can cause problems in terms of compliance with collective agreements, working conditions and health and safety standards; suggests therefore that the public authorities be informed of all details relating to the use of subcontractors before a contract is concluded; asks the Commission to assess, with an eye to the future review of the directives, whether further rules on the award of subcontracts are needed, for example on the establishment of a chain of responsibility, specifically to avoid SME subcontractors being subject to conditions worse than those applicable to the main contractor awarded the public contract;

23.  Recognises the role the EU can play in facilitating the development of successful public-private partnerships (PPPs) by promoting fair competition and sharing best practice across Member States in relation to social and employment policies; notes, however, that major disparities exist between Member States in terms of the legal and procedural requirements applying in this area; calls, accordingly, on the Commission to clarify the concept of PPPs, in particular as regards how the parties will bear shared risks and meet their financial obligations;

24.  Calls on the Commission to reassess the appropriate level of thresholds for supply and services contracts, and if necessary raise them, so as facilitate access to public procurement by, amongst others, not-for-profit and social-economy operators and SMEs; asks that very careful consideration be given to the legally binding requirements of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement; emphasises that, given the difficulties which already exist in negotiations on the issue of access to public procurement, it should also be borne in mind that raising thresholds in Europe could easily lead to further complications for EU trade policy;

25.  Emphasises that any extension of the EU procurement rules into the area of ‘what to buy’ would represent a significant change to the current regime and should be carefully assessed; doubts that this would contribute to simplifying and streamlining, and fears rather that it would lead to more complicated rules, with many exemptions, which would be difficult to administer in practice – procurement directives being procedural (‘how to buy’) guidelines that should not be supplemented with provisions on ‘what to buy’;

Third task: simplifying the rules and allowing more flexible procedures

26.  Points out that the directives are often perceived as too detailed and that they have become increasingly technical and complex, while at the same time the legal risk of non-compliance has increased considerably for contracting authorities and suppliers alike; notes that the fear of challenge leads to a risk-averse approach, which stifles innovation and sustainable development, resulting far too often in contracting authorities opting for the cheapest price rather than the best value; asks for more space for negotiation and communication, combined with measures to assure transparency and to prevent abuse and discrimination, and urges that market consultation be explicitly allowed as a possible first step;

27.  Notes that public procurement policy should, in the first instance, ensure the effective use of funds by the Member States, achieve optimum results in terms of public procurement through the application of clear, transparent and flexible procedures, and allow European businesses to compete on an equal footing throughout the Union;

28.  Advocates, when European public procurement law is being revised, clear, simple and flexible rules, reducing the level of detail and making procurement procedures simpler, less cumbersome, cheaper, more open to SMEs and more conducive to investment; sees a need, therefore, for greater reliance on the general principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination; considers that simplification of the rules on public procurement would make it possible to reduce the risk of error and to pay greater heed to the needs of small contracting authorities;

29.  Advocates assessing whether wider use of the negotiated procedure with prior EU-wide publication might be allowed, beyond that provided for in the current directives, so that contracting authorities and economic operators can communicate better, and supply and demand can be coordinated effectively; takes the view that, if any extension of the scope of the negotiated procedure is envisaged, further safeguards against abuse should be introduced – e.g. an obligation on contracting authorities to establish, for any bidder at the outset, at least some minimum conditions regarding the performance of the procedure, in line with what is sound practice in private procurement – as well as requirements for written documentation;

30.  Calls on the Commission to review the current approaches to the qualification of suppliers (particularly framework agreements, dynamic purchasing systems and the use of qualification systems by utilities procurers), so that any new approaches to qualification reduce costs and timescales, are attractive for both contracting authorities and economic operators and lead to the best possible outcomes;

31.  Reiterates its insistence on the systematic admission of alternative bids (or variants), as they are crucial to promoting and disseminating innovative solutions; stresses that specifications referring to performance and functional requirements and the express admission of variants give tenderers the opportunity to propose innovative solutions, particularly in highly innovative sectors such as ICT; asks also that all avenues – both legislative and non-legislative – be explored to ensure that public procurement is more engaged in promoting innovation in Europe;

32.  Calls on the Commission to introduce clarifications into the regulatory framework on public procurement, particularly in relation to the contract execution phase (e.g. on ‘substantial modification’ of a contract in force, on changes concerning the contractor and on the termination of contracts);

33.  Considers it regrettable that tenderers have only limited opportunities to rectify omissions in their bids; asks the Commission, therefore, to elaborate on what omissions may be rectified by bidders, what additional adjustments are allowed and how to guarantee transparency and equal treatment;

34.  Points out the contracting authorities should be able to benefit from previous experience with a tenderer on the basis of an official evaluation report; recommends setting a time limit for exclusions, which should guarantee transparency and objectivity; points out the need for legislative clarification in Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC stating that a bidder found guilty of a misconduct in a previous procurement procedure can regain reliability after having substantially proved that he has undergone an effective ‘self-cleaning’ procedure; considers that such a clarification would foster anti-corruption mechanisms by underpinning incentives to accelerate the elimination of corrupt practices, and would remove serious legal uncertainties;

35.  Regrets the Green Paper's failure to mention shortcomings, the lack of expertise and knowledge about procurement and the inadequacy of public procurement strategies; stresses the importance of promoting professionalism and guaranteeing objectivity on the part of both contracting authorities and market operators, particularly by supporting the development of targeted training programmes; recommends setting up a network of centres of excellence within the existing national frameworks, and promoting exchanges of information and good practices between Member States; also encourages umbrella organisations, at both national and EU level, to take shared responsibility for making relevant information available and to facilitate exchanges of information between their members throughout Europe; stresses the importance of clear and readily comprehensible manuals for both contracting authorities and tenderers; finds it regrettable that the documents ‘Buying green! A handbook on environmental public procurement’ and ‘Buying Social: A Guide to Taking Account of Social Considerations in Public Procurement’, published in 2005 and 2010 respectively, are not sufficiently useful in this respect;

36.  Observes that only 1.4% of contracts are awarded to undertakings from another Member State; stresses that professionalisation and better training of those who award contracts, and of tenderers, would foster EU-wide competition and exploit more fully the advantages of an internal market for public contracts;

Fourth task: improving access for SMEs

37.  Emphasises that ready access to public procurement for SMEs, which are the driving force of the European economy, is crucial to maintaining employment and to sustainable development, innovation and growth; stresses that simplifying the procedures and administrative formalities, as well as creating SME-friendly strategies and implementing the code of good practice, will facilitate SMEs' access to public contracts and enable them to participate on a more equal and fairer footing; believes that providing simplified, equal and fair access to public procurement for all economic operators would result in a better use of taxpayers' money; points out that SMEs do not generally have significant specialised administrative capacity, and that it is thus essential to minimise the administrative burden imposed on them;

38.  Points out that selection criteria on financial standing, e.g. in relation to company turnover, should be proportional to the character of a given contract; warns the Commission and the Member States, when adopting flexible and user-friendly instruments, not to create any new barriers for SMEs and to take account of their interests as a matter of priority; asks the Commission, with the aim of improving access to public procurement procedures and improving their transparency, particularly for the benefit of smaller contracting authorities and tenderers, to modernise the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) website to make it more accessible by improving its appeal and user-friendliness, with particular attention to search criteria and the quality and detail of the summary translations for each tender; recommends that TED should offer an alert service for users, to inform them when new tenders of interest are published;

39.  Asks the Commission to increase awareness of the importance of splitting contracts into lots, and to consider the implementation of the ‘apply or explain’ principle, whereby rules on matters such as division into lots must be complied with, or the failure to comply explained;

40.  Points out that contracting authorities should take greater advantage of the possibilities of dividing public contracts into lots, thus giving SMEs a better chance, in qualitative and quantitative terms, of participating in public procurement, and improving the level of competition; encourages SMEs to make use of joint procurement and contract pooling, which would allow them to make economies of scale in areas such as logistics and transport; encourages public authorities to be flexible when considering these modern and voluntary forms of arrangement; calls on the Commission to investigate all the possibilities for encouraging the temporary or permanent grouping of SMEs and small businesses in order to enable them to take part in invitations to tender that are not split into lots, without having to operate as subcontractors; asks the Commission, in this regard, to examine in particular the current practice of subcontracting to SMEs – often on conditions inferior to those applicable to the main contractor – of parts of contracts not split into lots, which are too big to enable SMEs to participate in the procurement procedure;

41.  Proposes that self-declarations be allowed where feasible, and that original documents be requested only from the shortlisted candidates or the successful tenderer, whilst avoiding any delays or market distortions caused by incorrect declarations; asks the Commission to promote the option of an ‘electronic procurement passport’ accepted by all Member States and proving that the economic operator fulfils the conditions required under EU legislation on public contracts; underlines the point that a European pre-qualification system should be a helpful instrument if it is kept simple, cheap and easily accessible for SMEs;

Fifth task: ensuring sound procedures and avoiding unfair advantages

42.  Calls on the Commission, with a view to fighting corruption in public procurement, to promote more efficient reporting practices, including exchanges of information between Member States on the exclusion of unsound bidders; invites the Commission to provide for clear rules on protection of whistleblowers, following the recommendations in Resolution 1729(2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe(9), to enhance the transparency of contracts funded with EU money and to promote educational action both at institutional level and among the general public;

43.  Notes that certain Member States already apply efficient public procurement award procedures that ensure transparency and the proper use of taxpayers' money; asks the Commission to study Member States' good practices in this field and identify the most effective principles for public procurement in the EU;

44.  Points out that combating corruption and favouritism is one objective of the directives; underlines the fact that Member States face different challenges in this area and that a more elaborate European approach carries the risk of undermining efforts to streamline and simplify the rules, and of creating new bureaucracy; points out that the principles of transparency and competition are key in combating corruption; asks for a common approach on ‘self-cleaning’ measures to avoid market distortion and ensure legal certainty for economic operators and contracting authorities alike;

45.  Takes the view that, since public contracts concern public funds, they should be transparent and open to public scrutiny; asks the Commission for clarification with a view to ensuring legal certainty for local and other public authorities and enabling them to inform citizens of their contractual obligations;

46.  Calls on the Commission to assess the problems associated with exceptionally low bids and to propose appropriate solutions; recommends that contracting authorities provide, in the event of abnormally low bids being received, for early and sufficient information to other bidders, in order to allow them to assess whether there is ground for initiating a review procedure; asks for greater consistency between the EU's common external trade policy and the practices in Member States where exceptionally low bids are accepted;

Sixth task: expanding the use of e-procurement

47.  Welcomes the Commission Green Paper on expanding the use of e-procurement; points out that the e-procurement action plan has failed to achieve its goal and that more political leadership at all levels of government – including EU level – is needed in order to maintain and accelerate the transition to e-procurement; wants to ensure that at least 50% of both the EU institutions' and the Member States' public procurement operations are carried out electronically, in line with the commitment made by the Member State governments at the ministerial conference on e-government in Manchester in 2005;

48.  Underlines the fact that the Commission has a unique role to play in promoting progress on standardisation and infrastructure issues – e-signatures and time-stamps, for example, need a commonly agreed format for security purposes; asks the Commission to develop the common standards in question; emphasises that onerous technical requirements for bidder authentication can act as barriers to operators; stresses, in this context, the need to develop a standardised system for e-signature; calls on the Member States to make available a validation service for certificates issued by certification service providers under their supervision;

49.  Underlines the fact that, to ensure interoperability of different systems and avoid vendor lock-in, open standards and technology neutrality must be observed; asks the Commission to assure real interoperability between the different e-procurement platforms that already exist in Member States, making more use of results obtained by EU initiatives such as PEPPOL and e-CERTIS;

50.  Points out that any legislative proposals to expand and simplify the use of e-procurement should be integrated into the review of the main public procurement directives and should be in line with the scope and with general public procurement rules such as obligations linked to thresholds;

51.  Underlines the point that e-procurement can drive simplification of the entire procurement process, introducing efficiencies that will lead to significant cost and time savings for both businesses and public administrations, and increasing transparency and accessibility; notes that the electronic awarding of contracts, in particular, opens up new avenues for modernising administration in the field of public contracts; reiterates that e-procurement should be less costly, more expedient and more transparent than conventional public procurement procedures; believes, however, that there is still room for improvement and that more should be done in terms of access to reliable, comparable and objective information and statistical data; calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage cross-border use of e-procurement;

52.  Points out that legislation is not the only key to promoting change; asks the Commission, therefore, to explore new ways to exchange experiences, share best practices and transfer knowledge across borders among local and regional actors; highlights the strong need to further enhance the capacity and understanding of staff dealing with e-procurement and – through national and/or EU incentives to secure a ‘level playing field’ between SMEs and large enterprises – to assist SMEs in building their knowledge and capacity; welcomes the Connecting Europe Facility as a new instrument to boost cross border e-procurement, thus allowing the digital single market to develop;

53.  Welcomes the announcement in the Commission's ‘eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015’ that the epractice.eu platform is to be developed into an effective tool for the exchange of experience and information among Member States and e-government practitioners, and urges that its scope be extended to local and regional practitioners;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 134, 30.4.2004. (2) OJ L 335, 20.12.2007, p. 31. (3) OJ L 23, 27.1.2010, p. 35. (4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0233. (5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0146. (6) OJ C 161 E, 31.5.2011, p. 38. (7) OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 10. (8) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/files/smes_access_to_public_procurement_final_report_2010_en.pdf (9) Resolution 1729(2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the protection of whistleblowers, text adopted 29 April 2010.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on promoting workers' mobility within the European Union (2010/2273(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0455 A7-0258/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 21, 45 and 47 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 15, 21, 29, 34 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

–  having regard to Article 151 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(1),

–  having regard to Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship(2),

–  having regard to the International Labour Organisation's Core Labour Standards,

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems(3),

–  having regard to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States(4), the 2008 report on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC (COM(2008)0840) and the Council resolutions of November 2007 and April 2009 regarding Directive 2004/38/EC,

–  having regard to the Commission follow-up document on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (COM(2009)0313),

–  having regard to the draft interim report entitled ‘Comparative study on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’ requested by its Committee on Legal Affairs and delivered by the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC, as well as its intention to publish simplified guides for EU citizens and making the best use of the Internet,

–  having regard to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications(5),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 6 December 2007 on ‘Mobility, an instrument for more and better jobs: The European Job Mobility Action Plan (2007-2010)’ (COM(2007)0773),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 November 2008 on the impact of free movement of workers in the context of EU enlargement (COM(2008)0765),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 16 December 2008 on ‘New skills for new jobs; Anticipating and matching labour market and skill needs’ (COM(2008)0868),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 13 July 2010 on ‘Reaffirming the free movement of workers: rights and major developments’ (COM(2010)0373),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 13 April 2011, ‘Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence ’Working together to create new growth'' (COM(2011)0206), which includes workers' mobility as one of its twelve key instruments,

–  having regard to the European 2020 Strategy and in particular to its flagship initiatives ‘An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’ and ‘Youth on the Move’,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 27 November 2008 on ‘Free movement of persons: abuses and misuses of the right to free movement’,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council of 9 March 2009 on ‘The professional and geographical mobility of the work force and the free movement of workers within the European Union’,

–  having regard to its resolution of 2 April 2009 on problems and prospects concerning European Citizenship(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2008 on the European Job Mobility Action Plan (2007-2010)(7),

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the identification of outstanding barriers to mobility in the internal labour market(8),

–  having regard to Rule 48 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0258/2011),

A.  whereas living and working in a different Member State is one of the Union's fundamental freedoms - irrespective of one's ethnic origin -, a basic component of Union citizenship and recognised by the Treaties, yet statistics show that still too few people take advantage of this right despite the specific initiatives taken to support workers' mobility,

B.  whereas mobility of EU workers should be encouraged throughout the European Union where there is an employment need,

C.  whereas EU workers can face difficulties and challenges when seeking employment in a host Member State,

D.   whereas the right to live and work in another country of the Union is one of the Union's fundamental freedoms, a basic component of Union citizenship recognized by the Treaties, yet according to statistics and notwithstanding specific initiatives to support workers' mobility, there are still too few people taking advantage of this right,

E.  whereas current workers mobility rate is not sufficient to enhance labour markets efficiency in the European Union; whereas only 2.3% of people in the EU reside in a Member State other than the state of which they are citizens, but 17% intend to take advantage of the free movement in the future and 48% would consider seeking jobs in another country or region in the event of redundancies,

F.   whereas the free movement of workers represents a positive socio-economic example for both the EU and the Member States, being a milestone for EU integration, economic development, social cohesion, individual upgrading at professional level, fighting against prejudices, racism and xenophobia and can counteract the negative effects of economic crisis and better prepare for the challenges of global change, by engaging all stakeholders at decisional level together with the civil society into dialog,

G.   whereas promoting mobility of workers is a positive contribution to reaching the employment objectives set in the Europe 2020 Strategy; invites the Commission to include labour mobility in the flagship initiatives and the Member States to include labour and geographical mobility dimensions when designing their National strategies and reform programs,

H.   whereas insufficiently flexible labour laws impair workers' mobility in Europe,

I.  whereas, according to the Commission communication of 18 November 2008, mobile workers from the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 have had a positive impact on the economies of Member States which host mobile workers,

J.  whereas the recent evolution of our societies notably due to industrial change, globalization, new work patterns, demographic change and the development of means of transport, call for a higher degree of mobility among workers,

K.  whereas no negative effects have been reported in those Member States which have not applied the transitional measures concerning free movement of workers originating from Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007, but a number of Member States have decided to continue applying restrictions in their labour markets with respect to nationals of Romania and Bulgaria,

L.  whereas, despite EU legal acts and programmes aimed at promoting free movement of workers, there are barriers to the full implementation of this fundamental freedom (e.g. social, linguistic, cultural, legal and administrative barriers, poor return policies that do not meet the needs of migrant workers, lack of recognition of mobility experience, difficulties concerning the employment of spouses or partners, and a delayed process for the recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications),

M.  whereas in times of economic crisis professional and geographical mobility of workers can help reduce unemployment by matching labour supply with demand, contributing to job creation opportunities, to adapting the economy, the society and the demography to structural changes and to promoting economic growth and EU's competitiveness; to this aim, considers that current procedures for recognition of professional qualifications represent a big obstacle to workers´ mobility in the European Union;

N.  whereas these barriers and restrictions infringe a fundamental right of workers, make the recovery of the EU economies more difficult and can lead to counterproductive effects, such as more illegal work, an expansion of the black economy and worker exploitation,

O.   whereas discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is forbidden under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

P.  whereas the current economic crisis has had negative effects on mobility and has hit temporary workers and part-time workers hardest, women being one of the most affected categories,

Q.  whereas strong gender differences are visible as regards workers' mobility within the EU (men report moving because of a new job or job transfers far more often than women do, respectively 44% as against 27%(9)); whereas there is a need for better monitoring of the mobility phenomenon, based on data disaggregated by gender,

1.  Points out that Commission report COM(2008)0840 identifies persistent infringement by Member States in the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC, which affects the exercise of free movement of workers, and this situation has given rise to numerous individual complaints, petitions, and more than 40 questions from the Parliament, as a result of which the Commission has brought five infringement proceedings for incorrect application of the Directive;

2.  Welcomes Commission communication COM(2010)0373, which describes and explains the current state of play regarding free movement of workers, but regrets the lack of concrete measures or solutions to the problems of mobility;

3.  Welcomes initiatives undertaken by the Commission such as the ‘WO.M.EN Mobility Enhancement Mechanism’ and invites it to extend and improve the scope of projects aiming at increasing women's labour mobility;

4.  Calls upon the Commission, to further promote labour mobility by presenting a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary, mobility strategy to ban all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to free movement of workers; requests a consistent, efficient and transparent policy focused on the requirements of the labour market and economic trends;

5.  Calls on the Commission to enhance the mobility of the workforce by planning and promoting further strategies to provide simplified information concerning the rights of migrant workers and the benefits of mobility for the overall process of development and for the economies of both the EU and its Member States. Raising the awareness of employees, members of their families and interested parties about their rights and opportunities and the tools available as regards freedom of movement is a key factor for effectively implementing EU legislation;

6.  Takes the view that mobility can only be effectively promoted through substantial improvements in respect of solidarity and shared responsibility on the part of the Member States and through the formulation of a clear regulatory framework governing legal migration;

7.  Calls on the Member States to remove obstacles to workers' mobility by offering persons (the majority of whom are women) who follow their spouses or partners to another Member State appropriate services such as courses to facilitate their integration into their new social and cultural environment, for example language courses and vocational courses;

8.  Notes, however, that mobility should remain voluntary; stresses that negative side effects of increased mobility, leading to brain drain and youth drain, as well as negative impacts on family cohesion and children when one or both parents are working abroad, should be better mitigated at EU level;

9.  Calls on the Member States to create mechanisms of cooperation aimed at preventing the devastating effects on families, especially on children, caused by the separation from their parents and the distance between them;

Administrative simplification and legal aspects

10.  Given the provisions of the Treaties and the existing legislation, recalls that Member States have a responsibility to simplify the administrative procedures regarding the exercise of free movement of workers with a view to an optimal implementation of this right and to avoiding unjustified, unnecessary or cumbersome administrative procedures restricting the application of this right;

11.  Urges the Commission to promote the streamlining of administrative practices and administrative cooperation so as to allow synergies between national authorities;

12.  Encourages Member States to create more effective channels of communication between migrant workers and the corresponding State services, so that workers have full access to information regarding their rights and obligations;

13.  Stresses that ‘workers’ rights' can be better implemented if and when an EU migrant is employed in a legally paid activity in a host Member State;

14.  Underlines that women workers moving abroad for jobs involving child or elderly care, such as babysitters, au-pairs, nannies or nurses, are often employed by private entities such as families or family members and thus end up working without a contract or illegally, and consequently have no rights and benefits linked to social security, healthcare etc. available to them;

15.  Is concerned by the poor transposition and implementation of current directives on free movement of workers, especially Directive 2004/38/EC with respect to the right of entry and residence for third-country family members, and cumbersome administrative procedures and additional residence documents (work permits, evidence of satisfactory accommodation) inconsistent with Directive 2004/38/EC;

16.  Calls on the Commission to fully exercise its prerogatives under the Treaties, by continuous and comprehensive monitoring of the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC, including, if necessary, the exercise of its right to initiate infringement procedures against non-compliant Member States;

17.  Calls on the Member States to review their provisions regulating the transitional periods for access to their labour markets, which, in the long term, can have negative effects on the fundamental values and rights enshrined in the EU Treaties, such as freedom of movement, non-discrimination and solidarity and equal rights; therefore welcomes the recent decision of some Member States to fully open their labour markets to some of the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and deplores the recent legislative proposals in other Member States intended to undermine the rights of workers from the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007; calls on the Commission to investigate whether such policies infringe EU law;

18.  Calls on the Commission to strengthen the current legal framework on recognition of professional qualifications set out in the directive 2005/36/EC;

19.  Calls on the Commission to revise Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(10) in order to take into account the proposals made by the European Parliament in this resolution;

20.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that member states apply the ‘Brussels I’-regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001) regarding jurisdiction recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters; stresses the importance of the ‘Brussels I’-regulation in regard to sanctions and fines for exploitation of workers;

21.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States implement Directive 2004/38/EC without any discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation; reminds the Commission of previous calls to ensure freedom of movement for all EU citizens and their families, regardless of their sexual orientation;

Links with other policies

22.  Notes that the right of free movement of workers cannot be viewed in isolation from other rights and basic principles of the EU and that respect for the European social model and the rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights, as reflected in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, will offer the possibility of decent jobs, adequate working conditions, including protection and safety at work, social security rights, equal treatment, reconciliation of family and working life and the freedom to provide services; stresses that the right to vote in local, regional and European elections is an essential element of these rights and calls for better implementation; notes that the right to vote in national elections of the Member States of origin may be lost, believes consideration should be given to this issue;

23.  Calls on the Commission to produce a scoreboard presenting the obstacles faced by Union workers wishing to make use of their right to free movement and how they are being tackled in the Member States, so as to assess whether such obstacles are dealt with thoroughly and effectively;

24.  Calls on the Commission to thoroughly evaluate the current economic situation in the Member States with regard to labour markets; calls on the Member States to better integrate migration policies with respect to labour in order to address labour shortages and with the view to boost in-house production;

25.  Congratulates the Commission to linking workers' mobility with the Europe 2020 Strategy and takes the view that this is of crucial importance to boost welfare within the EU through sound and sustainable job creation;

26.  Stresses the importance of equal treatment of workers, combined with the adequate protection of labour rights, to be in accordance with the rules in force laid down in national legislation and collective agreements in the Member State concerned. Believes that the principle of ‘equal pay for the same work in the same place’ in conjunction with gender equality should apply throughout the EU in order to prevent wage and social dumping; Stresses that rights will only be beneficial for all if properly implemented and enforced; To these aims, calls on the Commission and the Member States to make sure that free movement is never exploited with a view to unequal treatment, wage and social dumping;

27.  Considers that both EU and Member State legislation should be coordinated more closely in order to prevent any types of barriers to implementation and use of the right of free movement of workers;

28.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to guarantee, taking into account subsidiarity, the correct implementation of the existing legislation on non-discrimination, to take practical measures to enforce the principle of equal treatment of mobile workers, and to fight prejudice, racism and xenophobia;

29.  Urges the Member States and the Commission to strengthen EU policy on fighting direct and indirect discrimination, exploitation of EU migrant workers in the European Union and abuse of their rights due to their insufficient knowledge of languages and laws applicable to their employment in the host Member State;

30.  Encourages Member States to increase the attention which authorities responsible for monitoring the labour market devote to protecting the rights of mobile workers, particularly by improving education and raising of awareness in the field of labour law;

31.  Considers that amendments to the legislation of Member States relating to social security, the care system and taxation should be examined in advance to ascertain what impact they will have on the free movement of workers; calls therefore for the introduction of a requirement to perform a frontier impact assessment providing detailed information about obstacles to freedom of movement;

32.  Points out that the increased cross border mobility also demands the active involvement of the social partners in order to provide the workers concerned, especially those temporarily working abroad, with adequate and effective information, support and protection regarding their social and labour rights;

33.  Considers that, for the efficient implementation of all policies tackled by the free movement of workers, action must be coordinated, especially in the fields of completion of the internal market, coordination of social security systems, supplementary pension rights, protection of workers, cross-border health care, education and vocational training, tax measures such as those designed to avoid double taxation, and anti-discrimination;

34.  Underlines that labour restrictions constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market and that the economic crisis demonstrates the need to promote free labour mobility;

35.  Reiterates that, in order to avoid inconsistencies in the area of the EU internal market, for the purpose of employment Member States must give preference to Union citizens and may give preference to third-country nationals who apply for highly qualified employment, as set out in Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment(11); stresses the importance of rejecting applications for an EU Blue Card in labour market sectors for which the access to workers from other Member States is restricted on the basis of transitional arrangements;

36.  Calls on a greater coordination between the European Institutions and the national ones to better inform and provide assistance to the citizens and monitor how the right of free movement of workers is being transposed into practice and used by individuals in order to accelerate the implementation of labour mobility;

37.  Takes the view that adequate social protection systems greatly facilitate the geographical and occupational mobility of workers and that the social inclusion of mobile workers and the social reintegration of returned workers must be included in the policy on labour mobility; underlines that, to this end, the recognition of previously acquired rights and a greater understanding of the differences between the systems of the individual Member States are indispensable and must be promoted;

38.  Calls on Member States to tackle the issue of false self-employment among mobile workers; stresses the need to give these workers access to rights and protection;

39.  Calls on Commission and Member States to combat xenophobia against all EU workers by providing the means for integration and information and promoting understanding, cultural diversity and respect in Member States hosting EU mobile workers;

40.  Stresses that an efficient implementation of the free movement of workers calls for coordinated action by the European and national authorities to facilitate and simplify administrative procedures on issues indirectly linked to this right, such as the transfer of vehicle registrations and the guarantee of accessibility of medical records, provision of a comprehensive database on current healthcare practitioner performance competence, avoidance of double taxation, clear rules on the reimbursement of medical expenses, etc.;

41.  Considers that enabling migrant workers to enjoy portable social security rights is essential in ensuring that they effectively benefit from the prerogatives they have acquired;

42.  Considers that the SMEs can act as a trigger for economic recovery and development, being the primary source for job creation; therefore, reiterates the need for an EU commitment to supporting and developing the SMEs (e.g. by the Progress Microfinance Facility), particularly through active labour policies and vocational education and training programmes;

43.  Invites border regions to consider agreements for promoting cross-border labour mobility in order to gain mutual (beneficial) advantages for these regions;

Measures to promote free movement

44.  Calls on the Member States to eradicate the existing transitional barriers regarding free movement of workers for the Member States who joined in 2007; takes the view that these barriers impose double standards, are counterproductive and represent discriminatory measures against European citizens, calling for the preference clause to be effectively enforced for the whole Union;

45.  Takes the view that the mobility of the workforce within the European Union is essential for economic recovery and achievement of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives; urges accordingly those Member States that still impose labour market restrictions in respect of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals to remove them by the end of 2011 in accordance with the deadline laid down in the Treaty of Accession;

46.  Calls for closer and more efficient cooperation between the competent national authorities in checking the compliance of labour contracts with national and EU law; points out that mutual assistance and information exchange have to be guaranteed between the Member States in case of breaches; asks the Commission to supervise this process;

47.  Calls on public authorities and all stakeholders to do their utmost to increase the level of awareness among workers of their rights and the various instruments (labour law, collective agreements, codes of conduct, social security provisions) that regulate their employment relationship as well as their working and living conditions;

48.  Deplores the decrease in labour inspection across the EU; stresses that efficient controls are an essential element to guarantee equal treatment and a level playing field; calls on the Member States to increase labour inspection and give labour inspections sufficient resources; calls on the Commission to improve cooperation and coordination of labour inspections;

49.  Considers that Member States should ensure that the children of EU mobile workers do not face difficulties regarding their nationality or citizenship due to the working choices of their parents, and that the particular needs of the children of mobile workers should be adequately studied to ensure effective policy responses;

50.  Underlines that the Member States should improve the situation of children left behind by their parents and to help them develop normally and benefit from education and appropriate social life;

51.  Expresses its concern for the growing amount of forced labour in the EU which in some areas has close links to organized crime; stresses the need to make forced labour a key priority in the activities of EUROPOL and EUROJUST; urges Member States to increase their joint efforts to control, prosecute and sanction forced labour and make sure that this is covered under criminal sanctions; stresses the need for measures that ensure the protection of victims of forced labour;

52.  Calls on the Commission to explore and publish both positive effects and drawbacks derived from labour mobility for the host and home countries and the EU, from a socio-economic and geographical cohesion point of view, highlighting consequences such as: economical losses, increased undeclared work and abusive working conditions due to unclear legal situation when transitionary measures are in place, lack of awareness of rights among EU citizens and the outcomes due to delayed actions by Member States to integrate EU workers from the 2004 and 2007 integration wave; calls on both the Commission and Member States to avoid the implementation of transitional measures that restrict the free movement of workers and negatively affect the competitiveness of the EU labour markets, for any current member state or upcoming candidate country;

53.  Encourages the Commission to pursue its initiatives aimed at promoting the geographical mobility of young people through learning mobility schemes, using all the designated programs related to the topic;

54.  Welcomes the Commission's plan to establish a regular systematic assessment of long-term supply and demand in the EU labour markets up to 2020, broken down by sectors, occupations, levels of qualification and countries, and strongly advises the coordination of labour and educational policies between Member States with a view to meeting the targets set in the EU 2020 Strategy regarding job creation and avoiding future indirect barriers that may hinder the exercise of the right of free movement, such as non-recognition of diplomas from other EU countries; The plan should clearly identify labour shortages in the EU in the short, medium and long term;

55.  Calls for appropriate measures to be drawn up and implemented in order to break down continuing discrimination and negative stereotypes such as those affecting workers from eastern and southern Europe and to promote the integration of workers exercising their right to freedom of movement in the society of their host country;

56.  Calls on authorities at all levels to ensure policy support and raise awareness about the possibilities and advantages of mobility, especially among job-starters, stressing the Commission's coordinating role;

57.  Considers that the Member States should facilitate and establish general criteria for the recognition of diplomas and qualifications, as this is very often a source of difficulty for people seeking work in a Member State other than their country of origin;

58.  Deplores Member State policies that actively encourage other EU citizens to leave that Member State; asks the Commission to verify whether such policies are infringing on the right to free movement;

Employment services and information of workers

59.  Acknowledges and stresses the importance of public employment services, and in particular the EURES system and network, for promoting labour mobility across the EU especially in cross-border regions by providing information on job vacancies, on rights and obligations attendant on migration, including immigration, and attendant on frontier work, as well as information on education and vocational training opportunities, working and living conditions; emphasises the special role played by social partners in advising employees in cross-border partnerships; stresses that EURES should remain a means of promoting fair mobility and therefore calls on the Commission to continue to provide financial resources to support the work of the social partners in border regions;

60.  Calls for developing EURES' institutional capabilities and its reinforcement of the one-stop instrument to facilitate mobility of workers and their families;

61.  Is concerned about the reduction of the funds for EURES councillors; calls for the commitment to a long term strategy that allows EURES and its staff to efficiently perform its tasks and notes that this is only possible when funds are increased;

62.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary steps to make cooperation between EURES and the corresponding national public authorities more productive and effective;

63.  Encourages Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, to promote EURES among citizens, by providing relevant documentation and advice on using it through public job centres, but also by organizing meetings to promote mobility in the framework of higher education;

64.  Considers that information to EU workers about the benefits, rights and obligations deriving from labour mobility should be further improved; calls on the Commission to coordinate its action with national authorities and develop links between EURES and the SOLVIT online problem-solving network, in order to enhance the quality of the service provided to citizens exercising their right to mobility; calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up multilingual advisory agencies for EU migrant workers particularly in places where many of these workers are employed;

65.  Stresses that, when promoting active employment policies, information about learning and training programmes available across the EU they should be given a high priority;

66.  Urges to strengthen the implementation of the Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (so-called ‘Information Directive’)(12) about the minimum information that workers should receive from their employer regarding their employment relationship, including all relevant provisions concerning their employment situation in the host country;

67.  Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to promote the active involvement of the social partners so as to ensure the practical implementation and strengthening of the rights of migrant workers;

68.  Emphasises the need for cooperation between employees and employers in the EURES network;

69.  Calls for greater dialog and coordination among national and regional authorities as they are usually the first source of information for many citizens due to their proximity and knowledge of citizens needs and greater involvement of the social partners;

70.  Calls on Member States to monitor the activities of recruitment agencies more strictly in order to ensure that the rights of mobile workers are not violated or their expectations disappointed, which could hamper the free movement of workers and their social security;

71.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to monitor the situation of agencies and organisations offering jobs to workers from other Member States and to detect potential illegal or black market employment, or agencies or organisations providing fictitious jobs;

72.  Emphasises that, in the context of implementing freedom of movement, employers should be obliged to provide foreign workers with information on workers' rights in the relevant country of employment. In addition, multilingual advisory agencies must be set up for migrant workers in the Member States;

73.  Calls on the Commission to launch a communication regarding taxation effects on the workers comprised in the scope of this directive, for providing a better understanding and possible solutions to crucial matters that can impede or deter workers mobility;

Gathering skills and knowledge to become more competitive

74.  In order to ensure and improve Europe's competitiveness, the highest priority must be given to investing in formal and informal education, vocational training, exchanges of working experience and coordinated actions to speed up the process of labour mobility;

75.  Takes the view that active labour market policies and in particular vocational training and life-long learning, must be reinforced as they can contribute to increasing labour mobility, facilitate transitions in times of structural unemployment, and allowing workers to adapt to labour market changes;

76.  Congratulates the Commission on its flagship initiative Youth on the Move and on the launch of the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs and welcomes in particular the pilot project ‘Your first EURES job’ and proposed action for the creation of a European skills passport;

77.  In welcoming the training of youth in the skills necessary for working and living in other countries; takes the view that people have a right to live and work in a country of their choice;

78.  Considers that skills and knowledge corresponding to specific national, regional or local market needs will foster workers' mobility and requests the Commission to develop a roadmap for demands for skills and a mid- and long-term assessment regarding future jobs, where a match between demand and supply of skills can be provided, as well as mid- and long-term forecasts for labour shortages in selected occupations which may arise as a result of demographic change and the ageing of the population;

79.  Considers that labour mobility is a two-way process; On the one hand, it leads to gathering skills and knowledge through all types of education in order to prepare the active population facing competition when searching for a new job and on the other hand, mobile workers can upgrade their skills and knowledge through labour mobility as they gather more practical experience and knowledge on the new site;

80.  Believes that mobility in particular must be promoted in professional training, as there are still shortcomings in this area; underlines the importance of programmes such as Leonardo and calls on the Member States and enterprises involved in professional training to make more use of these and also to facilitate their use;

81.  Hopes too that the new competences acquired by mobile workers as they move around will be validated so that their increased individual potential will be recognised and their chances of long-term professional inclusion improved;

82.  Takes the view that young workers should not be the only focus and that targeted strategies promoting and facilitating the free movement of different categories of workers, based on their specific characteristics (age, gender, skills, belonging to vulnerable and minority groups) and needs are desired so that mobility can become an option for all categories of workers;

83.  Calls upon Member States to tailor their life-long learning and vocational training strategies according to developments in the labour markets and to provide transferable skills that have a wider coverage in terms of geographical area and knowledge, with a view to properly matching them with the supply of jobs;

84.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate on achieving higher comparability of school and University curricula and education systems in the EU, through simplified mutual recognition of diplomas, with a view also to promoting mutual recognition of educational qualifications, which is vital; stresses, however, that this is different from the recognition of qualifications for the regulated professions, although it would like to see more liberalised access in general to these professions; welcomes in this context the fact that increasing numbers of cross-border cooperation agreements are being concluded between colleges and universities and calls on Member States to support this development;

85.  Encourages Member States to boost the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in lifelong learning by providing incentives for their respective employees and employers, with particular emphasis on learning languages and the new technologies, in line also with labour market requirements, as most of Europe's workforce is employed in SMEs and in this way it will become more competitive, but this will also strengthen mobility in order to address the failure to fill job vacancies in a number of Member States;

86.  Takes the view that a better synergy must be found between programmes aimed at encouraging the free movement of students, persons undergoing vocational training and trainees and programmes specifically aimed at fostering the free movement of workers;

87.  Encourages Member States, with the assistance of the Commission and the social partners, to create structures for language learning support and also for teaching the cultural traditions of the host Member States for the families of migrant workers, especially since these factors continue to hinder the mobility of European citizens;

88.  Takes the view that an insufficient knowledge of languages (in particular in the case of adults) remains an important obstacle for labour mobility and could lead to increased undeclared work; calls on the Member States to actively promote foreign language teaching and expand it in all categories of schools and on the Commission to pursue its efforts in this area;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2. (2) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32. (3) OJ L 200, 7.6.2004, p.1. (4) OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. (5) OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22. (6) OJ C 137 E, 27.5.2010, p. 14. (7) OJ C 45 E, 23.2.2010, p. 23. (8) OJ C 228, 22.9.2009, p. 14. (9) Eurofound Study ‘Mobility in Europe - the way forward’. (10) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2. (11) OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17. (12) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on the Mutual Evaluation Process of the Services Directive (2011/2085(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0456 A7-0324/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union,

–  having regard to Articles 9, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘Towards a better functioning Single Market for services – building on the results of the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive’ (COM(2011)0020) and the accompanying Commission staff working document ‘On the process of mutual evaluation of the Services Directive’ (SEC(2011)0102),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘Single Market Act. Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence’ (COM(2011)0206),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Towards a Single Market Act’ (COM(2010)0608),

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions of 10 March 2011 on a better functioning Single Market for services – mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive,

–  having regard to Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market(1),

–  having regard to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on Governance and Partnership in the Single Market(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 February 2011 on implementation of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC(4),

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs(A7-0324/2011),

A.  whereas services still represent only around one-fifth of total intra-EU trade while accounting for over two thirds of the EU GDP and employment,

B.  whereas activities covered by the Services Directive account for 40% of EU GDP and jobs, but whereas these activities also represent some of the most important untapped potential for economic growth and job creation in the EU, since many obstacles to trade in services still exist in the Internal Market,

C.  whereas services drive the economies of the Member States by creating jobs, growth and innovation, and whereas a well-functioning and integrated internal market in services is therefore all the more necessary in the light of the current economic and financial crisis and as a condition for recovery;

D.  whereas the Services Directive is a lever for the growth of the European Union and whereas its full and correct implementation is included in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy and the Single Market Act,

E.  whereas, while timely and correct transposition of the Services Directive has been a challenge for the Member States' administrations, it is necessary and it is also a strong basis for the development of administrative cooperation between the Member States,

F.  whereas close to 34 000 requirements have been notified to the European Commission in the context of the screening process,

Introduction

1.  Welcomes the Commission's Communication on the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive and acknowledges the considerable amount of work accomplished by the Commission and, above all, Member States' national administrations, including local and regional administrations;

2.  Highlights the fact that a functioning Single Market in services is a prerequisite for generating growth, decent employment and innovation in Europe and for maintaining Europe's competitive role on the world stage;

3.  Notes that the overall potential of the common market in services has not been fully exploited, since owing in particular to market restrictions in the Member States only a small proportion of SMEs are providing cross-border services;

4.  Considers that the first priority for the creation of a Single Market in Services is the full and complete implementation of the Services Directive in all Member States and setting up fully operational Points of Single Contact;

5.  Calls therefore for consideration to be given to supplying the information at the Points of Single Contact in English as well as in the local language for the benefit of service providers and service users from other Member States, and whether an electronic signature could be used by service providers and users;

6.  Stresses that mutual evaluation exercise have allowed for the assessment of the internal market for services after implementation of the Directive, especially in relation to the requirements of art. 9, 15, and 16;

Experiences with the Mutual Evaluation Process

7.  Notes the vagueness of article 39 of the Services Directive in establishing the precise objectives of the mutual evaluation process; notes that different perceptions and expectations existed among stakeholders as regards to its purposes and results;

8.  Points out that the mutual evaluation was organised after the deadline for transposition of the Services Directive provisions; underlines that the implementation of Services Directive should not be confused with the mutual evaluation exercise;

9.  Deplores the delays in the implementation of the Services Directive in some Member States and considers that these have had an impact on the process of mutual evaluation;

10.  Takes the view that, while the timing of the mutual evaluation process was challenging, it helped to maintain momentum after the implementation of the Directive;

11.  Considers that the mutual evaluation process has proved to be a worthwhile exercise in enabling a better understanding of the remaining barriers and the situation in each Member State on the part of the European Commission and the Member States; notes that the process has enabled the Member States to get feedback on their policy choices and facilitated the promotion of best practices and increased transparency of implementation results;

12.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to initiate a dialogue on which barriers are permitted and which are not;

13.  Takes the view that the mutual evaluation process was key in clarifying certain ambiguous situations still prevalent in the provision of services both at national and cross-border level, such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and insurance obligations imposed on cross-border service providers; highlights the fact that ultimately it helped to gauge whether or not the implementation measures adopted in each Member State are carried out according to the spirit of the Services Directive;

14.  Highlights ‘cluster discussions’ as the core element of the mutual evaluation; welcomes the spirit of cooperation and mutual trust which has prevailed during discussions;

15.  Takes the view that the mutual evaluation exercise has contributed to the development of a ‘European spirit’ among national administrations and enabled Member States' administrations to get to know each other better; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the knowledge and experience gained through the mutual evaluation is maintained and used for the improvement of the Single Market in services;

16.  Notes that the involvement of stakeholders in the process of mutual evaluation was limited; acknowledges that a certain degree of confidentiality was an important condition to create a mutual trust between Members States; Nevertheless, regrets that the regular feedback of the process has not been provided to the stakeholders;

17.  Is conscious of the administrative costs related to the mutual evaluation, especially in Member States where regional level administration was involved in the process;

Results and Follow-up to improve the functioning of the Internal Market for Services

18.  Takes the view that the mutual evaluation process in the Services Directive is an important instrument for identifying further initiatives aimed at improving the functioning of the internal market in services; welcomes the fact that the Commission is proposing a set of actions to build on the momentum gathered during the implementation and mutual evaluation phases;

19.  Urges the Commission to keep Parliament informed about the progress and outcomes of the dialogue held with Member States on the implementation of the Services Directive; Calls on the Commission to take further enforcement measures when deemed necessary;

20.  Looks forward to the announced economic assessment of the implementation of the Services Directive and its impact on the functioning of the services market; hopes that this evaluation will make it possible to measure the real impact of the directive on economic activity and employment; calls on the Commission to ensure maximum transparency when carrying out this assessment and invites the Commission to present to Parliament its findings as soon as they are available;

21.  Welcomes the internal market performance check initiative and hopes that this exercise will significantly improve the practical understanding of how different pieces of EU legislation are applied and interact on the ground; Considers that the performance check exercise should be performed by taking into account the perspective of the Single Market users;

22.  Calls on the Commission to involve the European Parliament closely in the performance check initiative;

23.  Calls for the remaining regulatory barriers, such as the rules on reserved activities, insurance obligations, legal form and capital ownership requirements, to be tackled; calls on the Commission to concentrate its efforts on unjustified or disproportionate requirements which should be abolished in order to guarantee the smooth functioning of the Single Market;

24.  Deplores the fact that no earlier action had been taken in areas where problems had long been known;

25.  Regrets that the Commission has not provided criteria for choosing specific types of requirement for targeted actions; calls on the Commission to clarify the reasons why the other types of requirement mentioned in Article 15 of the Services Directive, such as the minimum number of employees and fixed minimum or maximum tariffs, were considered less important than those singled out in its Communication;

26.  Calls on the Commission to collect and present data quantifying the impact of the various remaining requirements which, if removed, would improve the functioning of the Single Market for services; calls on the Commission to prioritise its targeted actions on removing those requirements which would bring the highest level of added value to the functioning of the Single Market in services in full compliance with Article 1 of the Services Directive; calls on the Commission, furthermore, to focus its action on the sectors and professions with a high growth potential for the cross-border provision of services;

27.  Calls on the Commission to continue and step up work with Member States on an individual basis so as to achieve a complete and correct transposition and implementation of the Services Directive in all Member States;

28.  Takes the view that many national barriers still remain in place, slowing in particular growth in professional business-to-business services; calls on the Member States to ensure that new and remaining requirements are non-discriminatory, necessary and proportionate; calls on the Commission to engage more actively with Member States to monitor closely and ensure due notification of the relevant national legislative measures relating to implementation of Article 15 of the Services Directive;

29.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to work more closely together to ensure the proper application in Member States of the freedom to provide services clause in Article 16 of the Services Directive; calls on the Commission to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the state of play on the provision of cross-border services in the EU including the reasons explaining the moderate growth rate in this sector, and a detailed overview of the effectiveness of Member State implementation of the provisions of Article 16 of the Services Directive;

30.  Stresses the need to ensure coherence of the implementation of the different pieces of legislation of central relevance to service activities;

31.  Urges the Members States to ensure complete and proper implementation of the provisions of the Services Directive which were not included in the mutual evaluation process, such as the Points of Single Contact, and calls on the Commission to ensure strict enforcement of the relevant provisions;

32.  Calls on the Commission to pay careful attention to the regular checks and evaluations of the work of the Points of Single Contact in Member States, which play a key role in making necessary information available to service-providers in an up-to-date and user-friendly manner;

33.  Notes the important role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and problem solving tools such as SOLVIT in ensuring that service providers, and in particular SMEs, can fully exploit their Single Market rights; welcomes the Commission's announcement that it will assess the effectiveness of these tools and report on the need for further specific initiatives;

34.  Shares the Commission's view that service providers, but also service recipients, should be helped to enforce their rights, and recommends to build on the existing tools such as SOLVIT;

The Mutual Evaluation Process as a tool

35.  Reiterates its support for the use of mutual evaluation in other policy areas, where appropriate; believes that mutual evaluation has proven innovative and useful and should be seen as a tool to improve the functioning of the Single Market;

36.  Suggests, therefore, that a ‘light-touch’ mutual evaluation to be considered and where appropriate introduced for the mutual evaluation of policy areas covered by ‘horizontal’ directives under which Member States have retained significant scope for manoeuvre, with a view to obtaining more uniform legislation, creating better relations and mutual understanding between the Member States, and preventing ‘gold plating’;

37.  Recommends that mutual evaluation should be used as a ‘flexible instrument’ on a case-by-case basis; suggests that the tool should be proposed in a targeted manner for inclusion in selected Directives of a ‘horizontal’ nature which imply numerous transposition measures and provide for a wide margin of discretion for the Member States; suggests furthermore a targeted use of mutual evaluation whereby only a key provisions of a Directive are subject to the procedure;

38.  Calls on the Commission, however, to clearly define the aims and deliverables of mutual evaluation before proposing mutual evaluation on other Directives, in order to ensure that the process does not impose unnecessary burdens on the evaluating authorities;

39.  Believes that ‘cluster discussions’ should remain the central element of the mutual evaluation process; considers that a well targeted but limited number of expert participants in cluster discussions creates the conditions for efficiency and delivering outcomes; takes the view that mutual evaluation should be developed further as a procedure for exchanging best practices and policy development experiences between Member States and that the Commission's role could be clarified in terms of providing guidance and steering the process, particularly during these cluster discussions; is of the opinion that the clusters' composition should always reflect Member States' expectations and the potential impact on the Single Market;

40.  Asks the Commission to increase transparency by informing the European Parliament on the contents and progress of discussions between Member States and by presenting regular reports throughout the different stages of mutual evaluation to keep all stakeholders updated; calls on the Commission to make the main conclusions of the cluster and plenary meetings public;

41.  Points out that correlation tables and mutual evaluation have different purposes and therefore should be regarded as separate and not interchangeable policy tools, and that the correlation tables are therefore indispensable in the transposition of European legislation;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36. (2) OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22. (3) Text adopted, P7_TA(2011)0144. (4) Text adopted, P7_TA(2011)0051.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on Global Economic Governance (2011/2011(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0457 A7-0323/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the conclusions and agreements of the G20 summits of London, Pittsburgh, Toronto and Seoul,

–  having regard to the Palais-Royal Initiative report ‘Reform of the Monetary System: a cooperative approach for the twenty-first century’ published on 8 February 2011,

–  having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2010 on ‘Improving the economic governance and stability framework of the Union, in particular in the euro area’(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on ‘the EU as a global actor: its role in multilateral organisations’(2),

–  having regard to the continuous, relevant work of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue (TLD) and the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD),

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0323/2011),

A.  whereas the development of the world economy during the last decades generally has entailed increased growth and prosperity, although unevenly distributed, lifting millions of people out of poverty; meanwhile, the number of people still living in poverty and despair is unacceptably high; whereas social and economic inequalities between and within countries must be reduced; whereas Europe's fight against poverty must be one of the top priorities for the EU 2020 strategy;

B.  whereas the US and Europe are currently still dealing with the worst effects of the worst international economic recession experienced since the Great Depression;

C.  whereas the development of the global economy in recent decades has suffered from unsustainable imbalances;

D.  whereas effective global economic governance would make it possible to minimise the negative impacts and correct the dangerous effects of globalisation, such as the rise in inequality or destruction of the environment;

E.  whereas the emergence of new major players, in terms both of world trade and of economic growth, with China and India as frontrunners, in the world economy has had a profound impact and changed the economic landscape fundamentally, calling for trade reforms and convertible exchange rates;

F.  whereas the imbalances of today are still caused primarily by a lack of competitiveness and private and public saving in the deficit countries, and high saving coupled with a lack of demand in the surplus countries, which today are greater in magnitude and whereas, in view of the high degree of globalisation and scale of capital flows, these imbalances make new demands on global governance and challenge the structures of existing institutional arrangements;

G.  whereas the main element for rebalancing the global economy in broad terms is twofold: enhanced competitiveness and wide-ranging reforms fostering growth in deficit countries and the opening of markets and sound monetary policy in surplus countries;

H.  whereas the first decade of functioning of the EMU has shown that responsible budgetary policy is one of the preconditions for minimising the impact of global financial and economic shocks;

I.  whereas there is a multitude of international organisations designed to govern the world economy such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD and the IFC, alongside the inter-governmental fora of the G7 and G20, of which the IMF and G20 are the most effective bodies, although both still need to be improved;

J.  whereas global markets require global rules;

K.  whereas the prevailing monetary arrangements led to substantial accumulation of foreign exchange reserves, particularly the US dollar, in some surplus countries, which in turn increased the supply of capital in deficit countries and exerted downward pressure on interest rates, helping to spur the bubble in asset prices that played a central role in the last financial crisis;

L.  whereas the global economic crisis, which started in the financial sector, has now led to high levels of indebtedness in some of the leading world economic players including the US, Japan and the EU;

M.  whereas the G20 has agreed in its Pittsburgh final declaration on a Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth that a new multilateral approach as a response to the crisis is urgently required;

N.  whereas there has been global recognition of the role that some sectors of the financial industry played in contributing to the global financial crisis, demonstrating weaknesses in financial regulation, deepening of the sovereign debt crisis and a common understanding that the responsibility and transparency of the financial sector needs to be enhanced, including bearing a fair share of the costs caused by the crisis;

O.  whereas the much mentioned current-account imbalances are a result of underlying structural imbalances in the domestic economies;

P.  whereas the lack of coordinated and effective regulation and supervision of the global financial system led to weaknesses in the financial sector which subsequently exacerbated the vulnerabilities in the global economy;

Q.  whereas the increased role and prominence of the G20 as a forum for informal political discussions at the highest global level is welcome; whereas the G20 as an institution lacks a legal basis and a permanent secretariat and has a weak governing structure especially in comparison with other international institutions such as the IMF and WTO;

R.  whereas the current international monetary system has enabled several countries to proceed with competitive devaluation strategies which, together with the growing speculative transactions undertaken by powerful market stakeholders on exchange markets, have severely contributed to excess rate volatility and created significant risks for the exchange markets as well as international trade;

S.  whereas the EU is not perceived as a strong actor in reshaping the international monetary and financial system because it does not speak with one voice, and because of the fragmentation of its external representation in international economic affairs;

T.  whereas it is essential to ensure that economic and financial systems do not harm the real economy;

U.  whereas, in accordance with the recommendations of the G20, the IMF has been assigned greater powers of supervision and surveillance of the global financial system, its financial resources have been increased and a thorough reform of its governance structure is under way;

V.  whereas financial markets have evolved over the past decades to operate globally through IT-intensive processes and networks, and data standardisation has lagged behind, hindering market – and often even firm-wide – data aggregation, analysis and operations, and reducing the transparency of financial transactions;

Policy recommendations to address global economic governance

1.  Stresses that global imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability, especially when excessive, in the leading economies and may have repercussions on other economies; taking this into account, notes that imbalances stemming from structural misalignments and a lack of competitiveness in the domestic economy should be addressed by both surplus and deficit countries, as these could also be a source of fundamental problems;

2.  Stresses that the financial and economic crisis demonstrated that the inflow of capital as a result of global imbalances should be accompanied by responsible monetary policy and strong financial regulation and supervision;

3.  Recognises the need for policy-makers around the world to continue working on solutions to reform global economic governance to help rebalance the world economy and avoid another slump; stresses that the reform of global governance should ensure that markets are embedded in a comprehensive institutional framework for them to function properly; estimates furthermore that one of the priority objectives of worldwide economic governance must be the creation of a favourable environment for long-term investment;.

4.  Stresses the importance of responsible monetary policies; urges central banks of major economies to consider potential negative externalities, such as asset bubbles, carry-trade dynamics and financial destabilisation in other countries, when implementing conventional or non-conventional measures;

5.  Is aware that, ultimately, confidence in the strength of the underlying economy and the depth, transparency, sophistication and stability of its financial markets are the main determinants for which currencies are kept as reserves by third countries' central banks; stresses in regard to this that any currency that seeks to become a part of the IMF's Special Drawing Rights basket must be subject to full convertibility, and acknowledges that the composition of the IMF's SDR basket should reflect the relative importance of currencies in the world's trading and financial systems;

6.  States that exchange rates should reflect underlying market fundamentals in order to enhance openness and flexibility and to facilitate economic adjustment, and therefore should not be managed or manipulated by national monetary authorities;

7.  Urges members of the IMF to adhere to the Articles of Agreement, especially the commitment to refrain from manipulating the exchange rate, and the relevant provisions of the GATT and WTO Agreements;

8.  Urges reconsideration of the use of ‘Special Drawing Rights’ (SDRs) as a possible replacement for the dollar as the world's reserve currency, which could help stabilise the global financial system; asks the IMF to explore further allocation as well as a broader use of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) in particular for the purpose of enhancing the multilateral exchange rate system;

9.  Supports the work and commitments of G20 States to implement properly phased growth-friendly fiscal consolidation plans in the medium term while supporting domestic demand at a pace determined by each country's circumstances, pursuing appropriate monetary policies, enhancing exchange rate flexibility to better reflect underlying economic fundamentals, and undertaking structural reforms to foster job creation and contribute to global rebalancing;

10.  Notes, however, that, otherwise, prospects at G20 level of correcting global imbalances so far seem limited;

11.  Urges the World Trade Organization (WTO) to take an active role in identifying and addressing possible trade distortions in financial services caused by differing regulatory regimes;

12.  Calls on the Commission to design a comprehensive mechanism, largely based on and strongly interlinked with WTO regulations, that would prevent the use of trade as a foreign-policy tool in a way contrary to internationally recognised democratic values, as reflected in the Charter of the United Nations;

13.  Calls on the Commission to raise at the next EU-USA meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) the issue of mutual cooperation on supervision of commodity derivatives in line with existing transparency and market abuse regulation;

14.  Calls on the EU to implement declarations by the G8/G20 summits, in particular with regard to subsidies for fossil fuels and agriculture, taking into account the OECD guidelines in this domain, and to food price volatility and commodities markets;

15.  Calls on the Commission to revise its trade strategy with regard to strengthening south-south trade and intra-regional trade in other parts of the world in order to decrease the vulnerability of many small economies and to contribute to the development of strengthened economic partners in the future;

16.  Supports the establishment of a timetable for an action plan that will implement the G20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth;

17.  Welcomes all initiatives for further discussion and cooperation on common global challenges but notes that many of the current fora, like the G20, are only for informal discussion, without legal basis or the attributes of international organisations in their decision-making processes or in the implementation and supervision of their decisions, and will as such remain weak as governing structures;

18.  Notes that the consensus method of decision-making which characterises many of the global cooperation bodies does not encourage bold decisions to be taken and often leads to vague non-binding agreements; urges the global forum to emulate the EU's move away from exclusive reliance on unanimity;

19.  Takes the view that the commitments given in the G20 need to be more concrete and that progress needs to be monitored by an independent, more formal and inclusive body with statutes and a secretariat, such as the IMF;

20.  Welcomes steps agreed by the Summit meeting of G20 Finance Ministers in Paris on 19 February 2011 to measure imbalances by a set of indicators; underlines that these indicators should cover internal imbalances, such as public debt and deficits and private savings and debt, as well as external imbalances from trade and investment flows and transfers;

21.  Calls on the G20 to carry out on a regular basis a Mutual Assessment Process based on a G20 framework and the above indicators in order to provide policy options which will achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth;

22.  Underlines that financial actors operate on a global level and, from now on, considers that the coordination gaps in financial regulations need to be addressed to avoid allowing certain financial actors to take advantage of regulatory arbitrage;

Reform of the international monetary and financial system and its institutions

23.  Stresses that the European Union must play a leading role in global economic reform to make international institutions more legitimate, transparent and accountable and that, to an ever greater extent, the European Union should act as one party in international economic affairs;

24.  Calls for an EU seat in the IMF and the World Bank; calls for a more democratic IMF, including an open and merit-based election of its managing director, and a substantial increase in voting rights for developing and transitional nations;

25.  Maintains that global economic governance must be sufficiently responsive, flexible and pragmatic to make it possible to establish which arrangements are the most suitable, depending on the circumstances and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

26.  Stresses that the European Union must play a leading role in global economic reform to make international institutions and informal forums more legitimate, transparent and accountable;

27.  Notes that these institutions and forums, in particular the G20, lack a certain parliamentary legitimacy at the global level, and consequently calls on them to involve parliaments in their decision-making processes; deplores the democratic shortcomings of some partners;

28.  Notes the problems that may arise if the policies pursued by the various informal forums and international economic and financial institutions lack coherence; maintains that measures to promote global institutional coordination should be adopted via the IMF;

29.  Underlines the need for a global understanding and a common approach regarding monetary policy, international trade, sustainable public finances and flexible currencies based on economic fundamentals; considers that the global economy should be characterised by open markets for the mutual benefit of all participants; underlines that high social and environmental standards are vital and must be developed in all regards; stresses that the IMF and WTO should be the core of such a process;

30.  Urges members of the WTO to accede to multilateral trade agreements and to negotiate further international trade rounds aimed at a significant reduction of obstacles to international trade while ensuring a level playing field in all sectors, thus contributing to economic growth and development;

31.  Believes that, in order to allow developing countries to obtain more benefits from trade and to ensure decent working conditions and decent wages for all workers, the EU has a strong interest in strengthening the ILO and in encouraging its participation in the work of the WTO and the monitoring of sustainability chapters linked to the GSP;

32.  Calls on the Commission to redefine the EU trade and investment strategy to include the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as future major trading partners with their own interest in a common global network of interlocked interests of socially and ecologically sustainable development;

33.  Is of the opinion that Multilateral Development Banks should provide additional resources more effectively in order to target specific local needs, support long-term investments and consolidate local economies;

34.  Recommends a strong and independent IMF with sufficient tools and resources enabling it to increase its attention to cross-country linkages by not only strengthening multilateral surveillance but also focussing on economies of systemic importance and developing indicators to assess durable large imbalances; calls for the IMF's intervention mandate also to be extended to risks arising from capital accounts;

35.  Stresses the need to ensure that multilateral tax information exchange agreements incorporate automatic information exchange provisions and calls for action to strengthen the legal basis for OECD black-listing of non-cooperative jurisdictions, with a view to improving fiscal transparency and combating fraud and tax evasion; urges the Commission to propose by the end of 2011 a robust Country-by-Country Reporting Standard for cross-border companies, with the aim of enhancing transparency and access to relevant data by tax administrations;

36.  Emphasises the importance of the international initiatives undertaken in the areas of accounting and audit standards;

37.  Calls on the G20 leaders to without further ado conclude the discussions on the minimum common elements of a global financial transaction tax;

38.  Considers the G20 to be a key forum for global consultation, notwithstanding the importance of other bodies, but notes that the G20 has a number of shortcomings as a global institution, including a lack of representation of small nations, a lack of transparency and democratic accountability, as well as a lack of a legal basis to make its decisions legally binding;

39.  Encourages the IMF and G20 to seek, and act on, input and advice from global economies with low budget deficits and disciplined government expenditure;

40.  Stresses that the euro area, in the context of debates on global monetary arrangements, needs to be considered as a single entity given its single currency and single exchange rate policy;

41.  Urges the EU and its Member States to seek solutions to further improve coordination between the G formations and the UN system;

42.  Calls for the establishment of an international board of central banks – comprised in the first place of the central banks of the EU, Japan, UK and US – with a mandate to coordinate monetary policy, to oversee financial supervision, and to extend and promote the SDRs as a global reserve currency;

43.  Recommends that the IMF be strengthened politically with annual summits of the leaders of the countries represented in the Executive Board of the IMF; against this background, also encourages the Member States of the IMF to appoint persons from the most senior ranks of government to the Executive Board, so that it can take the lead as the forum for discussions and decisions regarding global economic governance;

44.  Considers that it is necessary to increase the transparency of international capital flows, in particular by seeking to bring banking secrecy to an end;

Global financial sector governance

45.  Stresses that the lack of cooperation among financial supervisors facilitated the spread of the financial crisis and worsened its effects; calls in this regard for the Union's supervisory authorities to take the lead in building international cooperation and establishing best practices in financial regulation; also underlines that convergence towards a common financial regulatory framework between the US and the EU would be beneficial;

46.  Notes that there is a need for the global implementation of reforms that improve the transparency and accountability of financial institutions;

47.  Stresses that, although legislation designed to improve the regulation of some areas of the financial sector has been adopted in the world's financial centres, further reforms of rules and practices in the banking and shadow banking system are warranted;

48.  Stresses the need to give European financial supervisory bodies a clear mandate to work in close cooperation with their non-EU or international counterparts, as the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) does with the Financial Stability Board (FSB);

49.  Stresses the need to combine micro- and macro-prudential supervision as part of a coherent, uniform approach;

50.  Notes that the US and EU together account for almost 40% of global trade and almost 50% of global GDP and recommends an enhanced macro-prudential dialogue, with a focus on the Atlantic dialogue, thorough and even-handed implementation of the Basel III package and further discussions on widening the scope of supervision to non-bank financial institutions; calls for continued momentum behind reform of financial sector regulation to ensure that finance effectively supports stability and growth in the real global economy;

51.  Respects the approach of the G20, WTO, Basel III and other multinational bodies whilst recognising the potential perils of over-regulation and regulatory competition;

52.  Welcomes the establishment of the Global Economy Meeting of central bank governors under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as a reference group for the organisation of cooperation among central banks;

53.  Is concerned about the risk of fragmentation as a result of the variety of regulations affecting the activities of global financial players; calls, therefore, for a greater degree of integration between the mechanisms put in place in different sectors;

54.  Recognises the role of the EIB in fostering growth through long-term investment;

55.  Stresses the need to develop adequate criteria for identifying systemically important financial institutions, with the aim of avoiding ‘too big or too interconnected to fail’ institutions, and therefore to reduce systemic risk through the use of additional reserve and capital requirements as well as antitrust laws;

56.  Calls on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to propose measures to ring-fence the retail banking activities of systemically important institutions and require them to be capitalised on a standalone basis;

57.  Urges the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to develop a standard model approach for calculating risk-weighted assets (RWAs) in order to accurately assess and compare banks' exposures to credit and market risks;

58.  Recommends the development of a suitable international infrastructure under the aegis of the IMF offering authorities and industry alike a unique source for standardised basic financial data as a technical enabler for international prudential tasks and safer and more efficient industry processes alike;

Reconfiguration of the international monetary system
Role and challenges of the EU

59.  Stresses the positive effects of a stronger economic governance framework in the EU and the euro area for global cooperation and coordination;

60.  Notes the great importance of strengthening and deepening the European Single Market not only as an internal objective but also as a leading example for other trading blocs around the world;

61.  Stresses the need for EU policies both in the agricultural and financial fields that help to avoid global shocks in the food supply and prices;

62.  Stresses the positive effects of a stronger economic governance framework reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact in the EU and the euro area for global cooperation and coordination;

63.  States that the EU should play an active role in reshaping the international monetary and financial system via more powerful external representation based on more efficient and transparent internal decision-making in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty;

64.  Welcomes the creation of the four new European financial regulatory bodies, the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, the European Securities and Markets Authority, and the European Systemic Risk Board, and hopes that they will grow strong and effective;

65.  Deems that the need to favour an international level playing field should not prevent the EU or other regional blocks and countries from strengthening regional arrangements aiming at fully using flexibility provided by WTO and other international standards in order to rebalance macroeconomic fundamentals and increase prosperity;

66.  Calls on the EU to focus on decreasing its energy dependency in order to curb imported inflation and regain commercial balance with oil-producing countries;

67.  Underlines the fact that the production of global public goods such as climate protection and the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals could be favoured by an EU qualified market access framework;

68.  Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal on how to improve the EU's internal decision-making procedure to improve its coherence as regards external representation in the area of economic and financial affairs to ensure that the EU's representation is democratically accountable to the European Parliament, Member States and national parliaments;

69.  Urges the G20 or WTO to explore the possibility of a global agreement for a carbon tax on imported products and services;

70.  Recalls that, under Article 138 of the Lisbon Treaty, the euro area is supposed to introduce unified external representation; urges the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to that effect;

71.  Underlines that full participation in the global economy is crucial for Europe in order to take advantage of all its opportunities, and the best opportunity to do so as one unit;

72.  Calls on the EU always to promote fair trade, democracy, human rights, decent working conditions and sustainable development in its trade policies, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, its internal agenda and the Millennium Development Goals;

o
o   o

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

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0377. (2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0229.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on the situation of single mothers (2011/2049(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0458 A7-0317/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 14(3), 23, 24 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

–  having regard to Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

–  having regard to Articles 7, 8, 16, 17, 27 and 30 of the European Social Charter (revised) of the Council of Europe,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 3 October 2008 entitled ‘A better work-life balance: stronger support for reconciling professional, private and family life’, (COM(2008)0635),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 21 September 2010 entitled ‘Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015’ (COM(2010)0491),

–  having regard to the Commission report of 3 October 2008 on the implementation of the Barcelona objectives concerning childcare facilities for pre-school-age children (COM(2008)0638),

–  having regard to the Commission report on equality between women and men 2010 (COM(2009)0694),

–  having regard to Commission Recommendation 2008/867/EC of 3 October 2008 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market,

–  having regard to the European Pact for Equality between women and men for the period 2011-2020,

–  having regard to the EU Platform against Social Exclusion,

–  having regard to the Eurofound report of 24 March 2010 entitled ‘Second European Quality of Life Survey: Family life and work’,

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 October 2005 on women and poverty in the European Union(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 February 2009 on non-discrimination based on sex and intergenerational solidarity(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on gender aspects of the economic downturn and financial crisis(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on assessment of the results of the 2006-2010 Roadmap for Equality between women and men, and forward-looking recommendations(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2011 on towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pensions systems(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on equality between women and men in the European Union – 2010 (6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on the face of female poverty in the European Union (7),

–  having regard to its position at first reading of 20 October 2010 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (8),

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0317/2011),

General situation

A.  whereas owing to socio-cultural changes which have been accompanied by access to the job market and greater financial independence for women, the two-parent family model and the notion of motherhood only after marriage have become eroded and single mothers are becoming increasingly significant as a group in all advanced and industrialised countries; whereas an increasing number of women are freely opting for motherhood while remaining unattached;

B.  whereas disproportionate attention is paid to teenage parenthood as a route into parenting alone, painting an inaccurate picture of who single parents are; whereas damaging and inaccurate stereotypes erode single parents' confidence and self-esteem and that of their children;

C.  whereas single-parent families do not form a homogeneous group, but cover a very wide range of family, financial and social situations;

D.  whereas the living conditions of certain categories of single mother nevertheless make them vulnerable, something which might have consequences for their offspring;

E.  whereas single mothers are becoming increasingly significant as a group in all advanced and industrialised countries, whether as a result of divorce, separation or never having been married, and whereas there is therefore a need to respond to this new reality by adapting policies;

F.  whereas the Member States have a responsibility to ensure reasonable conditions for single mothers and their children;

G.  whereas public policies in many Member States are still not adapted to different family models and situations, and whereas single parents are often still socially and economically disadvantaged;

H.  whereas in many societies the choice to become an unmarried mother is not discredited or stigmatised as in societies dominated for various reasons by patriarchal models;

I.  whereas the vast majority of single parents in Europe are women; whereas in 2001 an average of 85 % of single parents were mothers aged 25 to 64, meaning that 5 % of the overall female population were single mothers and that in some Member States single mothers accounted for 6 to 7.5 % (the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia) and in others even for 9 % (Estonia, Latvia);

J.  whereas attitudes to single mothers and the policies pursued in this area vary from one region to the next throughout Europe, creating a geographical imbalance whereby northern regions have stronger welfare systems, southern regions depend on the role of the extended family and eastern regions are marked by a mixture of the two;

K.  whereas, as a result of different public policies and legal statuses (divorced, separated, unmarried or widowed), single mothers experience different situations and benefit, depending on the country in which they live, from different types of allocation, including health services for themselves and their children;

L.  whereas single mothers often interrupt their education and acquisition of professional skills, because their limited time and resources are spent on bringing up their children, so that they also face the risk of social exclusion and poverty;

M.  whereas education and information about the sexual and reproductive rights of women, in particular younger women, are essential to avoid unwanted pregnancies;

N.  whereas women who have lost their partner as a result of violence, including gender violence, terrorism and organised crime, are more vulnerable to isolation from society and therefore need special attention in order to stimulate their reintegration in society and guidance in continuing their parental role in a way which is best for the child;

O.  whereas at European level the responsible authorities are introducing measures and programmes to assist these categories;

P.  whereas many factors influence how children develop in single-parent families, whereas most children brought up by a single parent grow up to do well, and whereas the factors that influence how children develop are far more complex than family type;

Q.  whereas decisions around family policy should prioritise the needs and best interests of the child, and ensure that children can thrive;

Employment of single mothers

R.  whereas 69 % of single mothers are present in the labour market and whereas in 2001 an average of 18 % of single mothers worked part-time;

S.  whereas these part-time solutions and the underemployment of single mothers are often not voluntary, but determined by family constraints;

T.  whereas the maternal employment rate, particularly in the case of the single mothers, is improved by the provision of good childcare services, but whereas it should also be combined with other complementary measures, including good maternity leave and flexible working arrangements, which encourages higher participation, as well as contributing to mother and child well-being;

U.  whereas men with children tend to work more than men without children, while the opposite is true of women; whereas the gender pay gap, which on average is 18% in the EU, enlarges when women become mothers and is carried on into retirement;

Risk of poverty and social exclusion

V.  whereas single-parent households are more vulnerable to the risk of poverty and the reproduction of poverty than dual-parents households; whereas, according to the most recent data available in 2006, 32 % of single-parent households in the EU-25 were at risk of poverty as against 12 % of couples with children;

W.  whereas a larger percentage of women than men are likely to face a risk of financial insecurity mainly because of their labour market conditions, including a higher unemployment rate, lower wages and part-time or lower-quality jobs, a situation which affects single mothers without income more acutely;

X.  whereas the risk of poverty amongst children from single-parent families (19%) is higher than that of the general population, and whereas childcare provision contributes to reducing poverty, including child poverty, and to increasing social inclusion;

Combining family and professional life

Y.  whereas access to the labour market and career opportunities are highest between the ages of 25 and 40, when children are still young and require more care and time from their parents; whereas there is a lack of quality, affordable childcare facilities, and whereas working hours are often incompatible with the opening hours of childcare centres and schools, which are often the biggest obstacle and constraint in combining family and professional life;

Z.  whereas single parents confront twice the difficulties of dual-parent families since they cannot share daily care responsibilities;

AA.  whereas the provision of quality, affordable childcare services plays an extremely important role for single mothers and their children, especially for the category of 0-2-year-olds; whereas the use of formal childcare arrangements for the category of 0-2- year-olds varies from 73% in Denmark to only 2% in the Czech Republic and Poland, and whereas only a few EU Member States (Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the UK) have already met the Barcelona targets (the provision of childcare for 33% of children under 3 years old);

AB.  whereas the expectation of all women, including single mothers, should be access to the labour market as the only means of escaping vulnerability and poverty; whereas the public authorities should accordingly make every effort to achieve this;

General situation

1.  Calls for greater attention to be paid to the situation of single mothers; encourages the Member States to adopt public policies, including educational policies, care provision, health policies, employment policies, social security systems, and housing policy, to support the needs and realities of single-parent families, taking particular account of the reality of single-mothers families;

2.  Calls on the Commission and the Members States to support the work of all organisations and informal networks working for single mothers, especially in countries where there is little or no specific support for single-parents families; this support should not replace welfare state support in protecting single mothers in the Member States, since, in view of the geographical and cultural differences existing between the Member States as regards State support to single mothers, no one model can fit all; calls on the Member-State authorities to include aid programmes for those affected;

3.  Encourages work designed to help single mothers; takes the view that these efforts should be aimed at enhancing the self-reliance and independence of single mothers, reducing their feelings of passivity and isolation, improving their social resourcefulness, improving their parenting skills and giving them easier access to information on employment rights and opportunities;

4.  Calls for increased gender-focused strategies, which can provide a greater understanding of the relationship between gender and poverty, and an investment in projects that take on the needs of one-parent families;

5.  Calls on the Member States to encourage associations working in support of single mothers to provide training courses aimed at facilitating employment for single mothers and helping to raise their self-esteem; in this connection, calls on the Member States to encourage the setting up of family centres providing temporary accommodation, where single mothers can obtain advice and education; encourages the national authorities to include specific training programmes for single mothers in order to facilitate their access to the labour market, and to collaborate with associations seeking to achieve this objective;

6.  Encourages the development of online and interpersonal chat forums, blogs and telephone help lines aimed directly at single mothers, in order to reduce their isolation and allow them to exchange advice, information and best practices based on their individual needs, along with the introduction of telephone help lines or free phone numbers that make it easier to put them in contact with social services;

7.  Urges the Member States to identify common policies based on the exchange of best practice in Europe;

8.  Encourages the development of support mechanisms, including training courses to support single mothers by providing them with advice on the best ways of dealing with the difficult task of raising a child as a single parent while providing the child with a balanced life rhythm;

9.  Calls on the Member States and their administrations to encourage the development of parental training courses to prepare and teach young single parents without economic resources, enabling them to deal more effectively with the job of raising a child;

10.  Calls on the Member States to strengthen the role of the national equality bodies as regards discriminatory practices against single mothers in the workplace;

11.  Recommends that the Member States provide housing assistance and temporary residence solutions, especially for single mothers who have had to leave foster care because of their age;

12.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to take into account the specific circumstances faced by single mothers in different European countries and to provide special assistance for single mothers belonging to the most vulnerable categories;

Employment of single mothers

13.  Underlines the need to facilitate access – by funding through the European Social Fund and Member States – to training, vocational training and specific scholarships for single mothers (unmarried, widowed or separated), and underlines especially the importance of encouraging young pregnant women not to stop their education, since it will enable them to obtain qualifications and maximise their chances of having decent working conditions, getting well paid jobs and gaining financial independence, this being the only guarantee of escaping poverty;

14.  Invites the Commission, while developing the framework of programmes such as Progress and Equal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, to consider awareness-raising programmes for greater participation by certain economically fragile social groups, such as single mothers, and to encourage their involvement,

15.  Encourages Member States to analyse carefully the phenomenon of underemployment of single mothers and to take appropriate steps to tackle this problem;

16.  Stresses the need to provide sufficient high-quality services for the care of children and other dependants at affordable prices compatible with full-time employment, to grant privileged access to them for single mothers and to facilitate significantly access to training and the search for employment for single mothers and improve their chance of remaining in work; supports the creation of company childcare facilities with flexible opening hours; insists that Member States ensure access to childcare facilities by aiming to provide the conditions for 50% of necessary care for 0-3-year-olds and 100% of care for 3-6 year-olds;

17.  Stresses the need for Member States to introduce more provisions that aim at raising maternal employment, as it is the most effective way of improving income and therefore a way to reduce the chances of poverty or social exclusion of single mothers;

18.  Stresses the importance of pursuing employment policies to encourage the recruitment of single mothers and prevent unjustified dismissals;

19.  Encourages Member States to provide tax deductions and other financial incentives to companies that employ single parents and/or create, operate and provide on-site childcare facilities and services to employees;

Risk of poverty and social exclusion

20.  Encourages the Member States to share best practices in supporting single-parent families, especially in the context of the financial crisis, which is worsening the situation for single parents;

21.  Invites Member States, in cooperation with the European Institute for Gender Equality, to examine the specific needs of single mothers, to collect data and analyse them, to consider setting up concrete measures to address those issues and to exchange best practices to improve them;

22.  Urges the Member States to take actions and measures designed to prevent single mothers from being at permanent risk of poverty and social exclusion;

23.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that single mothers benefit from housing support and that they are given priority concerning waiting lists for renting houses;

24.  Asks the Member States to guarantee equal treatment and to maintain a high quality of life for all children regardless of the marital status of their parents or their family circumstances, by providing universal allowances in order to not pass poverty on to the child;

25.  Asks the Member States to establish measures that eliminate discrimination towards single mothers and their children, and therefore welcomes the use of programmes that provide state aid and scholarships for their children;

26.  Encourages the Member States to introduce policies aimed at providing financial support for single-parent families in the form of a one-parent benefit, tax deductions for single-parent households or other fiscal deductions for single parents appropriate to their national legislation as well as training aid for single carers;

27.  Asks the Member States to ensure that allowances (child support) from non-custodial parents are paid regularly;

28.  Encourages Member States to take into account the gender factor and especially the situation of single mothers during the reform of their pension systems;

Combining family and professional life

29.  Underlines the fact that the Member States and public and private organisations should give priority to work-life balance by introducing more family-friendly working conditions such as flexible working hours and teleworking and by developing child facilities, nurseries etc.;

30.  Stresses that in order to facilitate work-life balance for single mothers, greater involvement of fathers is necessary; notes in this regard that shared care is almost non-existent in some Member States;

31.  Urges that, in accordance with the principle of equal opportunities, all initiatives and actions in favour of single mothers be extended also to single fathers;

32.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to compile comparative data on this subject at EU level and on the various prevailing trends, with a view also to comparing welfare provisions and systems;

33.  Takes the view that those who devote their time and skills to looking after and bringing up children or caring for the elderly should receive social recognition, and whereas this could be achieved by granting such people entitlements in their own right, particularly as regards social security and pensions,

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ C 233 E, 28.9.2006, p. 130. (2) OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 31. (3) OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 79. (4) OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 87. (5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0058. (6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0085. (7) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0086. (8) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0373.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on organised crime in the European Union (2010/2309(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0459 A7-0333/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 67, Chapter 4 (Articles 82-86) and Chapter 5 (Articles 87-89) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Stockholm Programme on freedom, security and justice(1), the Commission communication ‘Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens – Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme’ (COM(2010)0171) and the Commission communication ‘The EU internal security strategy in action: five steps towards a more secure Europe’ (COM(2010)0673),

–  having regard to the conclusions of the JHA Council of 8 and 9 November 2010 on the establishment and implementation of an EU policy cycle to combat international serious and organised crime,

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime(2),

–  having regard to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, adopted by the General Assembly on 15 November 2000 (Resolution 55/25), and its Protocols, in particular the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition,

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005(3) on confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property and Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007(4) concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States in the field of tracing and identification of proceeds from, or other property related to, crime and having regard to Commission report COM(2011)0176 based on Article 8 of that decision,

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions on Confiscation and Asset Recovery (7769/3/10),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No 198),

–  having regard to the study ‘Assessing the effectiveness of EU Member States’ practices in the identification, tracing, freezing and confiscation of criminal assets' (2009), commissioned by the Commission,

–  having regard to the European Parliament study entitled ‘The EU role in fighting transnational organised crime’(5),

–  having regard to the OCTA (European Organised Crime Threat Assessment) reports drawn up each year by Europol(6), in particular that of 2011,

–  having regard to the Joint Report by Europol, Eurojust and Frontex on the state of internal security in the EU (2010),

–  having regard to the annual reports of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction on the state of the drugs problem in Europe,

–  having regard to the annual reports of the Italian National Antimafia Directorate; having regard to the reports of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA, German federal criminal investigation department) on the presence of the ‘Ndrangheta in Germany, in particular the most recent of these reports entitled ’Analysis of the activities of the San Luca clan in Germany‘,

–  having regard to the ROCTA (Russian Organised Crime Threat Assessment) report, drawn up by Europol in 2008,

–  having regard to the General Report on Europol's activities (2009),

–  having regard to the EP-commissioned study entitled ‘Improving coordination between the EU bodies competent in the area of police and judicial cooperation: moving towards a European Prosecutor’,

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime(7),

–  having regard to Eurojust's annual activity reports (2002-2010)(8),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network(9),

–  having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the European Union (COM(2007)0644),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol)(10),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters(11),

–  having regard to the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union(12) and the Council Acts of 16 October 2001 establishing the protocol thereto and of 18 December 1997 concerning the Convention on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations (Naples II)(13),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States and subsequent amending acts(14),

–  having regard to the Commission communications pursuant to Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (COM(2005)0063 and COM(2006)0008),

–  having regard to the report on the implementation of the European arrest warrant published by the Commission on 11 July 2007 and the information note from the General Secretariat of the Council of 11 June 2008 concerning the ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant - Year 2007’(15),

–  having regard to its recommendation to the Council on the evaluation of the European arrest warrant (16),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2002/465/GAI of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams(17), and the report from the Commission on national measures taken to comply with the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Joint Investigation Teams (COM(2004)0858),

–  having regard to the 2009 European Parliament study entitled ‘Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and joint investigation teams at EU and national level’(18),

–  having regard to Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011(19) on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA,

–  having regard to the 40 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to combat money laundering,

–  having regard to Directive 2005/60/EC of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing(20),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community(21),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds(22),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector(23) and the report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 9 of Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA (COM(2007)0328),

–  having regard to the UN Convention against Corruption (known as the ‘Merida Convention’),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe's Criminal Law and Civil Law Conventions on Corruption; having regard to the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions,

–  having regard to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004(24) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as subsequently amended,

–  having regard to the European Parliament study entitled ‘Financial institutions and Structural Funds implementation in southern Italy’ (2009),

–  having regard to the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012),

–  having regard to the World Drug Report 2010 of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),

–  having regard to the 2010 annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction on the state of the drugs problem in Europe,

–  having regard to the study by the Centre for the Study of Democracy ordered by the Commission, entitled ‘Examining the Links between Organised Crime and Corruption’ (2010),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein and the Commission recommendation of 13 June 2007(25) identifying a set of actions for the enforcement of the Regulation,

–  having regard to the ‘Study on extortion racketeering: the need for an instrument to combat activities of organised crime’, carried out by Transcrime in 2008 and financed by the Commission,

–  having regard to the Council resolution of 25 September 2008 on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan and the Council resolution of 23 October 2009 on a reinforced strategy for customs cooperation,

–  having regard to Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law(26),

–  having regard to Written Declaration 2/2010 of the European Parliament on the Union's efforts in combating corruption,

–  having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2008 – Proceeds of organised crime: ensuring that ‘crime does not pay’ (COM(2008)0766),

–  having regard to Rule 48 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 Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0333/2011),

A.  whereas it is one of the primary objectives of the European Union to create an area of freedom, security and justice without internal borders, in which crime is prevented and combated (Article 3 of the TFE), and to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime and measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgements in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws (Article 67 TFEU);

B.  whereas organised crime has a substantial social cost, in that it violates human rights, undermines democratic principles, diverts and wastes financial, human and other resources, distorting the free internal market, contaminating businesses and legitimate economic activities, encouraging corruption and polluting and destroying the environment;

C.  whereas alarming evidence that has emerged from the courts and from investigations by police and journalists indicates that, in some Member States, organised crime has infiltrated, and become solidly entrenched in, political circles, the public sector and legitimate economic activities; whereas it is conceivable that similar inroads have also been made, thereby strengthening the position of organised crime, in the rest of the European Union;

D.  whereas the purpose and basis of organised crime is to make an economic profit and consequently if action to prevent and combat the problem is to be effective, it must focus on identifying, freezing, seizing and confiscating the proceeds of crime; whereas the legal framework which currently exists at EU level does not appear to be an adequate basis for serious action to tackle the problem and there is a need for legislation which would, for example, allow so-called ‘extended confiscation’ and action targeting assets registered in the name of front persons and organisations; whereas, moreover, the re-use of confiscated assets for social purposes fosters a positive attitude to strategies aimed at tackling organised crime, since confiscating an asset is no longer regarded solely as a means of depriving a criminal organisation of resources but is doubly constructive in that it both helps to prevent organised crime and has the effect of boosting economic and social development;

E.  whereas criminal organisations are concentrating their activities on a large number of ever-expanding fields including, for example, international drug trafficking, trafficking in and the exploitation of human beings, financial crime, international arms trafficking, counterfeiting, cybercrime, environmental crime, the diversion of public funds, fraud and extortion, most of which activities are trans-national and pan-European by nature; whereas a large proportion of the proceeds of these criminal activities is laundered;

F.  whereas illegal immigrant women and girls are more vulnerable to organised crime, for example through prostitution and trafficking, than women and girls who are EU nationals;

G.  whereas, although no comprehensive study exists, the mafia-style criminal organisations operating in Europe have an impressively large turnover, particularly in the case of Italian organised crime groups, which, as found by many studies (including the Eurispes study) and confirmed by the joint Eurojust, Europol and Frontex report in 2010, are conservatively estimated to have revenues of at least EUR 135 billion, a figure which is higher than the combined GDP of 6 EU Member States, the foremost example being the ‘Ndrangheta, the most deeply entrenched mafia group in the EU countries and in the world, which has an estimated annual turnover of at least EUR 44 billion;

H.  whereas the threat to the European Union from organised crime goes beyond the borders of the Union and must, therefore, be addressed with due regard to the need for a global and international approach requiring close cooperation with third countries and with international organisations such as, for example, Interpol and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC);

I.  whereas corruption is the standard means by which organised criminals employ blackmail or dispense rewards in order to divert public resources and worm their way into local politics, government and the private sector;

J.  whereas money laundering is one of the most insidious channels enabling legitimate activities to be contaminated by illicit activities and an indispensable transition process, without which the purchasing power acquired through crime would remain merely potential, usable within illegal circles but incapable of translating into real economic power; whereas cooperation and international collaboration are essential in order to tackle money laundering effectively;

K.  whereas international drug trafficking is the main source of profit for organised criminals and mafias, providing the basis for them to establish themselves economically and socially; whereas the EU is both one of the largest markets for drug trafficking (heroin, cocaine, and cannabis) and a producer (more often than not of synthetic drugs); whereas the trafficking also extends to many clearly identifiable non-European production and transit countries, especially in Latin America, West Africa and Asia;

L.  whereas extortion, racketeering and usury are among the ways in which organised criminals infiltrate the legal economy, severely distorting any form of free market and curtailing the rights of citizens, entrepreneurs, workers and professionals; whereas, as was shown by the 2008 Commission-funded Transcrime study entitled ‘Study on Extortion Racketeering: the Need for an Instrument to Combat Activities of Organised Crime’, this phenomenon is assuming alarming proportions in at least half of the EU Member States and exists on a significant scale in the other half; whereas the spread of extortion racketeering stands in a direct relationship to the extent of the control of a country and its economic/business and political activities exercised by organised criminals; whereas the first essential steps to take to combat extortion racketeering effectively are to encourage victims to report offences and to ensure that official authorities maintain a strong presence;

Introduction

1.  Welcomes the measures to curb organised crime proposed in the Stockholm Programme, in the relevant action plan and in the internal security strategy and hopes that under the new trio Presidency combating organised crime will be included among the political priorities and tangible results achieved;

2.  Is convinced that organised crime, whether or not of the mafia type, is among the key threats to the internal security of the EU and the freedom of its citizens; considers that, although there is a risk that criminal organisations may cooperate increasingly frequently with terrorist organisations, organised crime should be treated separately from terrorism, and calls for a specific, horizontal EU strategy on the issue, including legislative and operational measures, the allocation of funds and a strict implementation timetable; endorses the Council conclusions of 8-9 November 2010 on the EU policy cycle for organised crime and calls on the Council to revise the decision and make provision for Parliament's involvement in determining priorities, discussing the strategic objectives and assessing the outcome of the policy cycle;

3.  Supports Member States in their actions to combat organised crime and encourages them to strengthen their judicial authorities and police forces on the basis of the best current experience, including by comparing the legislation and resources designed to support their activities, and to assign adequate human and financial resources for that purpose; calls on the Member States to pursue a proactive approach to investigation, draw up national plans to combat organised crime, and provide for central coordination of activities by appropriate specific structures, taking their cue from the most successful experiences of some Member States; calls for the COSI to organise an annual meeting attended at least by Member States, the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, Europol and Eurojust where the results achieved and the future plans for combating organised crime at EU and national level can be presented;

4.  Stresses that all measures to counter organised crime must respect fundamental rights in full and be proportionate to the objectives pursued and that these objectives must be necessary in a democratic society, in accordance with Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, without unduly restricting the freedom of individuals, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and constitutional principles common to the Member States;

5.  Noting that Article 222 TFEU establishes the legal obligation of the European Union and its Member States to implement the solidarity clause, expresses deep concern at the attempts by organised crime to infiltrate the sectors of politics, government at all levels, the economy and finance; calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to focus their dissuasive action on attacking criminal assets, including those which are often hidden behind a network of front men and supporters, political institutions and lobby groups; stresses that efforts to combat organised crime must take full account of ‘white collar’ crime;

Improving the EU legislative framework

6.  Given that international criminal networks are highly active and that organised crime is growing in scale and sophistication, calls on Member States to improve cooperation and coordination and to approximate their legislation, especially with reference to the development of common, standard procedures and types of criminal offence, drawing on the good practices of the legal systems that are the most highly developed in terms of countering organised crime; calls on the Member States to ensure the timely and effective ratification and/or transposition of all European and international legal instruments relating directly or indirectly to action to combat organised crime;

7.  Taking account of the extremely limited impact on the legislative systems of the Member States of Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on organised crime, which has not made any significant improvement to national laws or to operational cooperation to counter organised crime, calls on the Commission to submit, by the end of 2013, a proposal for a directive which contains a more concrete definition of organised crime and better identifies the key features of the phenomenon, focusing in particular on the key concept of organisation and also taking into account new types of organised crime; requests, as regards the offence of membership of a criminal organisation and with due regard to the different and specific characteristics of the various national legal systems, a study of the abolition of the current dual approach (which criminalises both membership and conspiracy) and the identification of a range of typical offences which, regardless of the maximum sentence permitted in the legal system of Member States, could be deemed to constitute such a criminal offence; calls also for more rigorous scrutiny of the question of criminalising all forms of support for criminal organisations;

8.  Calls on the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, a framework proposal for a directive on the procedure for the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, as provided for in its 2011 Work Programme, and therefore calls on the Commission, having regard to the requirement to respect fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights:

9.  Calls on the Commission to accept and support the urgent need for European legislation on the re-use of crime proceeds for social purposes, including court witness protection, so that the capital of criminal organisations or their associates can be reinjected into legal, clean, transparent and virtuous economic circuits;

10.  Is in favour of closer cooperation between Member States on recognition and proper execution of seizure and confiscation orders; believes that Asset Recovery Offices are a vital tool in combating organised crime and that they have to be provided with the necessary resources, expertise and powers as soon as possible; endorses the Commission's analysis of the main difficulties encountered by existing Asset Recovery Offices; calls on the Commission to strengthen the role and competences of Asset Recovery Offices and give them more flexible and uniform access to information, respecting EU fundamental rights and data protection standards;

11.  Calls on the Commission to draw up a study by the end of 2013 on the investigative practices employed in the Member States to combat organised crime, with particular reference to the use of tools such as telephone interception, environmental interception, search procedures, delayed arrest, delayed seizure, undercover operations and controlled and supervised delivery operations; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive by the end of 2014 on common investigative techniques to combat organised crime, pursuant to Article 87(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

12.  Stresses the importance of providing appropriate protection for primary and secondary victims of organised crime, court witnesses, informers, whistleblowers and their families; in this regard welcomes the Commission's proposal for a directive establishing minimum standards for the rights, support and protection of victims of crime but calls for EU legislation covering also court witnesses, informers, whistleblowers and their families; calls for all types of victim to be treated equally (in particular the victims of organised crime and of terrorism and those injured in the course of their duties) and for the protection of court witnesses, informers, whistleblowers and their families to be extended over and beyond the duration of the court proceedings; stresses that minors need special attention, treatment, protection, assistance and guidance when they are victims of organised crime; calls on the Commission to set out clear guidelines for assisting court witnesses, informers, whistleblowers and their families, according them European transnational legal status and extending any protection granted to them within the Member States, if so requested by the Member State of origin of the informers, witnesses or whistleblowers; proposes establishing a European fund to protect and assist victims of organised crime and court witnesses, including via support for nongovernmental anti-mafia and anti-racketeering associations recognised by Member States; welcomes the adoption by some Member States of legislative provisions designed to improve the protection of witness and informers in cases related to organised crime (e.g. by allowing the use of remote court hearings);

13.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote the role of associations of victims' families, dialogue between such associations and the institutions and the establishment of an EU forum of associations of victims' families;

Eradicating entrenched mafia-style organised crime in the EU

14.  Urges on the Commission to draw up a proposal for a directive to make associating with mafias or other criminal rings apunishable crime in all Member States, in order to be able to punish criminal organisations which profit from their very existence, through their ability to intimidate – even without any specific acts of violence or threats – with the aim of committing crimes, influencing the running of the economy, general government, public services and the electoral system;

15.  Intends to set up, within three months of the adoption of this resolution, a special committee on the dissemination of criminal organisations which operate across borders, including mafias, one of whose aims will be to investigate the extent of the phenomenon and the negative social and economic impact it has throughout the EU, including the issue of the misappropriation of public funds by criminal organisations and mafias and their infiltration into the public sector, as well as the contamination of the legal economy and financial system, while another aim will be to identify a range of legislative measures in order to address this tangible and acknowledged threat to the EU and its citizens; calls, therefore, on the Conference of Presidents to put forward a proposal under Rule 184 of the Rules of Procedure;

16.  Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Europol and Eurojust, to conduct a study by June 2013 to assess the negative impact of transnational organised crime in the European Union; calls on Europol to draw upon a thematic OCTA on the threat posed by the presence of mafia-type criminal organisations in the EU by 2012;

17.  Stresses that according to the OCTA report (an assessment carried out by the European Union into the threat posed by organised crime) published by Europol in 2011, criminal organisations are displaying a genuine capacity to adapt and are identifying and rapidly exploiting new illegal markets; considers it necessary, therefore, not only to combat traditional organised crime activities but also to pay particular attention to the new forms of organised crime;

How to improve the functioning of European structures involved in various ways in fighting organised crime and to strengthen relations with other international institutions

18.  Calls on the Member States to immediately transpose and implement Council Decision 2009/426/JHA on the strengthening of Eurojust and to comply with all its recommendations; calls on the Member States to ensure that their Eurojust national members will be informed without delay in the case of crimes involving at least two Member States and in which there are clear indications that a criminal organisation is involved; asserts the importance of strengthening Eurojust in order to improve its effectiveness in countering transnational organised crime, with reference to its powers of initiative, particularly the power to initiate investigations, and to those conferred upon it under Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; calls on the European institutions to bring their political influence to bear at international level to launch a review of the possibilities of exchanging some of the experience acquired by the EU, including by Eurojust, at international level and, possibly, making available the know-how acquired to date at EU level;)

19.  Calls on the Commission to draft, as soon as possible, an impact assessment on the added value of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, considering the possibility of extending its remit to include the combating of serious cross-border organised crime and corruption,as provided for under Article 86(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and taking into account the impact on fundamental rights and the rights of the defence in particular and the need for prior harmonisation of standards of procedural and substantive criminal law and criminal jurisdiction rules; calls on the Commission to enter into consultations with all relevant stakeholders, including the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, national parliaments and civil society, to discuss the implications of the possible establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office;

20.  Endorses the five-year strategy for the development of Europol outlined in 2009; calls on Europol to step up meetings and relations with the European Parliament in order jointly to review progress with this strategy and any problems at periodic intervals; calls on Europol to engage more effectively with organised crime and mafia-style crime by setting up and strengthening a specific section in its organisation and by making more of the allocated funding on this area; calls on Europol to collaborate even more closely with Interpol with a view to combating criminal organisations at international level, with particular reference to the issue of information-sharing; calls on Europol to establish closer links and conclude strategic and operational agreements with the competent authorities of third countries;

21.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to improve cooperation between national police services in practice, removing formal obstacles as far as possible;

22.  Reiterates the importance of improved practical cooperation among police and judicial authorities of the Member States in order to exchange data on criminal organisations and to coordinate investigations; calls upon the Commission and Eurojust to set up a more effective network of national focal points to this effect; furthermore, requests the Commission to submit annual reports on progress made with intensified cooperation among police and judicial authorities in the field of organised crime;

23.  Recognises that, despite the protocols and bilateral agreements between Europol, Eurojust and OLAF, there is still significant room for improvement as far as cooperation between these institutions is concerned; calls, therefore, on Europol, Eurojust and OLAF and the European Anti-Trafficking Coordinator to make tangible, joint efforts both to assess and constantly update the cooperation agreements and to implement them, notably with reference to exchanges of case summaries, information relating to cases and strategic information and data; considers that, for cooperation between Europol, Eurojust and OLAF to be fully effective, a clear breakdown of responsibilities needs to be established with a view to avoiding any duplication of effort; calls on the Commission to conduct a study to assess the effectiveness of EU and Member States' crime-fighting agencies;

Developing the principle of the mutual recognition of criminal decisions and improving judicial and police cooperation in the EU and with third countries

24.  Is aware that, in order to overcome practical obstacles to judicial cooperation, considerable attention needs to be paid to informing and raising awareness among the judicial and police authorities and calls on the Member States to consider judicial and police training a political priority; at the same time, calls on the Commission to mobilise the appropriate resources, including financial ones, to support the activity of the Member States;

25.  Recognises that judicial cooperation, including that between Member States, is one of the pillars for combating transnational organised crime and for establishing a common area of security and justice, and calls on the Member States to honour their commitments and immediately transpose all the judicial cooperation instruments that already exist at EU level, in particular the 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its 2001 Protocol and the Framework Decision on joint investigation teams; is aware that, in order to overcome practical obstacles to judicial cooperation, considerable attention needs to be paid to informing and raising awareness among the judicial and police authorities and defence lawyers and calls on the Member States to consider judicial and police training plus defence rights a political priority; at the same time, calls on the Commission to allocate the appropriate resources, including financial ones, to support the activity of the Member States;

26.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to continue their efforts with a view to the effective implementation of the European Arrest Warrant; calls on the Commission to consider whether the grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant referred to in Article 4 of the framework decision could be redrafted to meet the Union's fundamental rights obligations and in the light of experience gained with subsequent mutual recognition instruments in respect of offences generally associated with organised crime, including the offence of mafia association; calls on the judicial authorities of the Member States to make every effort to ensure that the European arrest warrants they issue are always forwarded to Interpol;

27.  Acknowledges the fundamental role played by joint investigation teams in combating cross-border organised crime and voices its concern at the fact that, owing to inadequate transposition of the relevant framework decision and to foot-dragging on the part of some national judicial authorities, this investigative instrument is not being used to best effect; calls on the Commission and the Council to give a new impetus to the work of joint investigation teams both by ensuring full implementation of Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA in all Member States and by providing adequate financial support; stresses that the results achieved by joint investigation teams can be assessed at European level (e.g. on the basis of the value of items confiscated) and at national level (e.g. on the basis of the effectiveness of individual team members), and calls on the Commission to address this issue in cooperation with Eurojust and Europol;

28.  Points out that borders are not an obstacle to organised crime; considers it necessary, therefore, for the external dimension of organised crime to be integrated into the framework of Europe's effort to combat the phenomenon; notes that it is important, to that end, to involve more deeply the European External Action Service and the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen); calls on the Commission to continue to hone the effectiveness of and regularly update agreements on judicial and investigative cooperation with non-EU countries aimed at combating cross-border organised crime; calls, furthermore, for due account to be taken when drafting such agreements of the specific threats that organised crime in the individual countries poses to the EU's internal and external security; calls on Europol to produce more frequent and more detailed analyses of non-European criminal organisations whose activities have a direct or indirect impact on the European Union; considers it essential to continue and step up the efforts being made by the EU and the international institutions in the Balkans, particularly in connection with action to combat organised crime; calls on the Commission, in collaboration with Europol, to develop a joint project with Interpol to support the establishment and implementation of a regional system for the exchange of police and judicial information with West Africa, while making available to the Economic Community of West African States the necessary know-how and resources, not least in the field of training and follow-up;

Other recommendations to counter organised crime

29.  Stresses the importance of promoting a culture of legality and increasing awareness and knowledge of the issue among citizens and, in general, public opinion; highlights, in this regard, the fundamental role of the press, free from all outside influences, enabling it to investigate and publicise the links between organised crime and vested interests; considers that the pursuit of these activities must be guaranteed with due respect for the fundamental rights to personal dignity, honour and privacy; calls on the Commission to put forward specific action plans with a view to developing a culture of legality, involving among other things the creation of specific budget lines for this purpose;

30.  Emphasises that the European institutions and Member States need to take a holistic approach to child trafficking which mainstreams multi-sectoral interventions to protect the rights of trafficked children and children at risk of trafficking; insists that Member States should participate actively in the fight against illegal adoption and develop a framework to ensure transparency and effective monitoring of the development of abandoned and adopted children;

31.  Emphasises the vital importance of public sector transparency in the fight against organised crime and calls on the Commission to take action to lay down the necessary rules and ensure that the allocation and use of EU funds is fully traceable and monitored both by the competent institutions and the citizens and press; calls for this information to be promptly made available on an appropriate internet site in a format which is machine-readable, comparable and open-data, and in at least one of the EU's working languages, to ensure that such information is easily accessible and can be re-used and processed by civil society; calls on the Member States to adopt similar measures to make all transactions using public funds transparent, with particular reference to local authorities, which are more liable to infiltration by organised crime, taking into account the inherently secretive nature of measures to fight organised crime;

32.  Calls, with respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, for the introduction of an appropriate system of penalties and suitable detention provisions for offences relating to organised crime,both to discourage the commission of offences and to prevent prisoners from continuing to lead organisations during their sentences or from helping them to achieve their aims by committing further crimes;

Counter-measures relating to specific areas of action of organised crime

33.  Is convinced of the intrinsic link between organised crime and corruption and emphatically reiterates the request it expressed when adopting Written Declaration 02/2010, both with reference to the creation of a mechanism of an objective and quantifiable nature to assess and monitor the policies of the 27 Member States in combating corruption and with regard to the framing of a comprehensive anti-corruption policy by the EU institutions; stresses the need for a proactive approach to combating corruption and calls on the Commission to place emphasis on measures to counter both public and private sector corruption; considers it, moreover, a priority to develop effective measures to combat corruption in the neighbourhood policy, in the area of pre-accession and in the use of development aid funds, in particular by the European Investment Bank and the new bodies being set up under the auspices of the European External Action Service; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament and introduce effective monitoring of the measures taken and results achieved;

34.  Calls on the Member States immediately to ratify international anti-corruption instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the Council of Europe's Criminal Law and Civil Law Conventions on Corruption (1999);

35.  Undertakes to lay down rules to ensure that those who have been convicted, by a judgment which has the force of res judicata, of membership of criminal organisations or of offences typically committed in connection with such organisations (such as trafficking in human beings, international drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, corruption and extortion) will be unable to stand for election to the European Parliament; calls on the Member States to lay down similar rules for national and local elections;

36.  Calls on the Commission to draw up clear guidelines and adequate legislative proposals to prevent companies linked to organised crime and mafias from taking part in public tenders and public procurement management; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure the traceability of financial flows in connection with public works, service and supply contracts and to evaluate the introduction of rules to punish the obstruction of administrative selection procedures for the award of contracts by public authorities; calls on the Commission to ensure that Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC is applied fully and correctly, by excluding in principle the ‘self-cleaning’ mechanisms, making it clear that convictions against both legal entities and physical persons will give rise to exclusion, and ensuring that these grounds for exclusion are permanent or for a reasonable period rather than being confined to the period of conviction; calls on the Commission to present proposals setting out grounds for exclusion from public procurement procedures and special precautions in respect of people who are currently under investigation or being prosecuted; calls for an extension of the range of offences giving rise to exclusion to all those offences typically committed in connection with organised crime and for action to prevent the relevant legislation being evaded through the use of front men and supporters; calls on the Member States to adopt similar measures in respect of all types of contract, concession, licence and State aid, even where these are not covered by EU legislation; calls on the Commission to develop appropriate legislative and operational instruments for the exchange of information between Member States and between Member States and EU institutions and agencies and for the drawing-up of black-lists to prevent the misappropriation of public funds in the EU;

37.  Welcomes the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, a phenomenon often related to the activities of organised crime in the form of the exploitation of prostitution and labour, the removal of organs and enslavement; stresses the extreme importance of rapid and effective implementation of this Directive;

38.  Urges the Member States and the EU institutions to give due consideration to the fact that organised crime is continuing to further its own activities and interests, including by means of drug trafficking, and endeavouring to extend the global market in illegal drugs to new markets and new substances;

39.  Calls on the European Investment Bank and all the European development finance institutions of the Member States to improve their policies on offshore financial centres and uncooperative jurisdictions, in particular by adopting a list of jurisdictions that should be monitored more stringently by reference to the OECD's black list and grey list and by carrying out specific ‘due diligence’ of every country as necessary, while prohibiting any form of support for financial intermediaries in jurisdictions which are regarded as high-risk and requiring the relocation of registered companies resident in uncooperative jurisdictions and offshore financial centres as an essential prerequisite for financial support for specific activities; calls on the European institutions and the Member States to actively commit to ensuring the correct implementation of all 40 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force through the adoption of specific policies for each institution, including enhanced due diligence, particularly in politically sensitive cases;

40.  Stresses that organised crime uses communication and information technologies for illegal purposes, to commit offences involving identity theft, cybercrime, fraud, illegal gambling and rigged sports events; calls, in this connection, for the development of a coherent European legislative framework; calls on EU institutions to call on as many as possible of their international partners to sign and ratify the 2001 Convention on Computer Crime; emphasises the trend that criminal organisations increasingly focus on opportunities for money laundering or financial crime which could result in an increasingly widespread development of internet-based criminal activities;

41.  Calls on the European institutions to send out a clear message at EU and international level with a view to curbing all forms of money laundering through the use of the financial markets, in particular by:envisaging possible capital control measures, as recently suggested by the International Monetary Fund itself; encouraging a reduction of the pervasiveness of the financial markets in the context of short-term operations; imposing increased transparency on the use of public funds, first and foremost on those to support private-sector development, and carrying out an effective offensive against tax havens by imposing country-by-country financial reporting on all multinational economic operators; promoting a multilateral agreement on the exchange of tax-related information whilst revising the definition of ‘tax haven’ and the list of these secret jurisdictions; calls on the Commission to draw up clear guidelines on the traceability of money so as to make it easier to identify cases involving the laundering of money deriving from illegal activities; calls on the Commission, with a view to its legislative proposal to update the Money Laundering Directive, to generalise as far as possible the criminalisation of laundering of the proceeds of crime and to establish a legal basis for the widest possible range of investigative powers in this area; calls, in this connection, for all the Member States to be required to criminalise ‘self-laundering’, or the laundering of illicit funds by the very person or entity having obtained those funds by unlawful means; also calls on the Commission, in its proposal, to consider the possibility of extending the criminalisation of laundering to cases where the perpetrator should have known that the assets in question were the proceeds of crime;

42.  Calls on the Commission carefully to monitor the transposition by the Member States of the EU directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, to ensure that it is done promptly and effectively; calls on the Commission to develop innovative instruments for the prosecution of those who commit environmental offences in which organised crime plays a role, for example by submitting a proposal to extend to the EU Italy's positive experience with the offence of ‘organised illegal waste trafficking’, since 2011 classed as an offence with a major social impact (and thus dealt with by the District Anti-mafia Bureau); calls for stronger action by the CITES offices and closer coordination between those offices at European level in combating illegal trafficking in protected and endangered animal and plant species;

43.  Calls on the Member States to adopt a proactive approach to investigating cases of extortion, for example through incentives and forms of financial support to enable complainants to continue their business activities, together with the launch of investigations on the basis of intelligence work; believes it is essential to strengthen both the role of civil society and partnerships between civil society and the judicial system and the police, and that this is to be encouraged; calls on Member States to encourage the signing of memorandums of understanding between the public and traders and entrepreneurs complaining of racketeering, in order to enable them to work despite the attendant difficulties; calls on the Commission, in its proposal for a directive on the confiscation of the proceeds of organised crime, to extend the measures currently provided for in Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA to the offence of extortion;

44.  Calls on the Commission to incorporate specific provisions on the role of organised crime in the legislative framework applicable to the fight against counterfeiting; endorses the decisions set out in the Council resolution of 23 October 2009 on a reinforced strategy for customs cooperation, with particular reference to the development of new forms of cooperation and new investigative techniques, the adoption of an institutional approach based on cooperation between customs services, the police and other competent authorities, and improvements to the existing cooperation process in order to develop an effective approach to fighting cross-border organised crime and allow the confiscation of illicit goods across the EU; maintains that the greatest possible emphasis must be placed on these aspects in the context of the adoption and implementation of the Fifth Action Plan for Customs Law Enforcement Cooperation;

o
o   o

45.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the national parliaments, Europol, Eurojust, the European Investment Bank, Interpol and the UNODC.

(1) OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1. (2) OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42. (3) OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49. (4) OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 103. (5) PE 410.678. (6) http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=publications&language= (7) OJ L 138, 4.6.2009, p. 14. (8) http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm (9) OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 130. (10) OJ L 121, 15.5.2009, p. 37. (11) OJ L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 60. (12) OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 3. (13) OJ C 24, 23.1.1998, p. 1. (14) OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. (15) 10330/2008. (16) OJ C 291 E, 30.11.2006, p. 244. (17) OJ L 162, 20.6.2002, p. 1. (18) PE 410.671. (19) OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1. (20) OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15. (21) OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 9. (22) OJ L 345, 8.12.2006, p. 1. (23) OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 54. (24) OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114. (25) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1. (26) OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 28.

European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2011 on the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2011/2145(INI))

P7_TA(2011)0460 A7-0313/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the United Nations Millennium Declaration of 8 September 2000,

–  having regard to the 2005 European Consensus on Development(1),

–  having regard to the European Union Code of Conduct on Complementarity and the Division of Labour in Development Policy(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 28 September 2006 on ‘more and better cooperation: the 2006 EU aid effectiveness package’(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 May 2008 on the follow-up to the Paris Declaration of 2005 on Aid Effectiveness(4),

–  having regard to the Conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 17 November 2009 on an Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness(5),

–  having regard to the Conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council (Development Ministers) of 14 June 2010 on Cross-country Division of Labour(6), which makes a number of additions and changes to the Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness,

–  having regard to the Conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council (Development Ministers) of 9 December 2010 on ‘Mutual Accountability and Transparency: A Fourth Chapter for the EU Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness(7),

–  having regard to the consolidated text of the Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness adopted by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union on 11 January 2011(8),

–  having regard to the Budapest Declaration on the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea (2011), adopted at the 21st session of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Budapest,

–  having regard to the Dili Declaration of 10 April 2010, which concerns peace-building and state-building,

–  having regard to the Bogotá Statement of 26 March 2010, which concerns the implementation of the principles of the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) in the context of South-South cooperation,

–  having regard to the ‘Tunis Consensus: Targeting Effective Development’ of 4 and 5 November 2010, which is an African agenda for development effectiveness,

–  having regard to the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) report on aid effectiveness, which is a progress report on the implementation of the June 2009 Paris Declaration,

–  having regard to the Commission report of October 2009 entitled ‘Aid Effectiveness Agenda: Benefits of a European Approach’(9),

–  having regard to the Commission staff working document entitled ‘EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women´s Empowerment in Development 2010-2015’ (SEC(2010)0265), and to the Council Conclusions of 14 June 2010 on the Millennium Development Goals, which endorse the relevant EU action plan,

–  having regard to the Commission's final report of March 2011 entitled ‘Joint Multiannual Programming’(10),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of April 2011 entitled ‘Enhancing EU Accountability on Financing for Development towards the EU Official Development Assistance Peer Review’ (COM(2011)0218),

–  having regard to the initiative launched by the Commission in March 2010 entitled ‘Structured Dialogue: for an efficient partnership in development’, which seeks to identify practical ways of ensuring more effective involvement of civil society organisations and local authorities in European cooperation,

–   having regard to the ‘Final Report on the Evaluation of the Paris Declaration: Phase 2’, published in May 2011,

–   having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2007 on local authorities and development cooperation(11),

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A7-0313/2011),

A.  whereas the Fourth High Level Forum on aid effectiveness (HLF-4) is expected to map out future commitments aimed at making development aid more effective, and to help develop a new international aid architecture in the run-up to the 2015 deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and beyond;

B.  whereas the principles set out in the Paris Declaration focus primarily on the mechanisms of aid delivery rather than on the framing of effective development policy; whereas the Accra Agenda for Action on Aid Effectiveness (AAA) has been hampered by several factors: the financial crisis, a reduction in the payments level of official development assistance (ODA), changes in the policies of some donors, who wish to see more short-term results´, and the emergence of new public and private donors who are not members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and whose approach is not governed by consensual cooperation standards;

C.  whereas an increasing proportion of total ODA comes from emerging countries which are not members of the OECD;

D.  whereas recent monitoring studies and assessments have shown that recipient countries have done more than donor countries to implement the commitments set out in the Paris Declaration and the AAA;

E.  whereas former high level conferences failed to produce the necessary political pressure or a legally binding framework and whereas implementation of the Paris Declaration has failed to produce the anticipated reduction in aid fragmentation, with too many operations still lacking transparency, for example with regard to conditionalities;

F.  whereas transparency and accountability – both between the governments of donor and recipient countries and between the state and society – are prerequisites for aid effectiveness; whereas donors and partner countries agreed in the AAA to provide detailed information on current and future aid flows in good time to enable developing countries to draw up their budgets and audit their accounts more accurately; whereas, likewise, it remains crucial for donor countries to support the strengthening of the institution of parliament and the involvement of local authorities and civil society organisations, so as to anchor development policy firmly in the democratic process;

G.  whereas the EU and its Member States contribute more than half of global ODA and therefore play an important role in the aid effectiveness programme;

H.  whereas it is important, in the run-up to the fourth Forum, to remind donor countries of their commitment to devote 0.7% of their GNP/GNI to development aid by 2015, to include a significant gender equality component in all policies and practices in the context of their relations with developing countries, to define ODA more rigorously and to uphold the principles laid down in the AAA, which remain valid, and whereas there is a need to move beyond ODA in order to build partnerships aimed at supporting the emergence of a vision of development that is owned and driven by the countries themselves;

I.  whereas the development aid landscape is constantly evolving, and whereas aid effectiveness mechanisms should better reflect the emergence of new donors;

J.  whereas all forms of development funding, including innovative financing mechanisms such as the financial transaction tax and the global funds for health and education, must embody and put into practice the principles of the Paris Declaration;

K.  whereas the Tunis Consensus, an African agenda for development, calls for attention to be refocused from aid effectiveness to the broader agenda of development effectiveness; whereas the six elements identified as being crucial for Africa in terms of development effectiveness are: building capable states, developing democratic accountability, promoting South-South cooperation, thinking and acting regionally, embracing new development partners, and outgrowing aid dependence;

1.  Stresses the need for the EU to adopt an ambitious position at HLF-4 with a view to making a substantial contribution to deepening and fully implementing its aid effectiveness commitments; hopes, in view of the importance of aid effectiveness in terms of improving quality of life, reducing poverty in recipient countries and achieving the MDGs, that the EU will send high-level representatives to Busan;

2.  Points out that one of the prerequisites in order to fulfil the ‘aid effectiveness agenda’ is to embrace fully the principle of ‘democratic ownership’, which means that development strategies must be driven by the countries themselves and reflect a commitment on the part of all national stakeholders;

3.  Notes that the governments of developing countries have not left their parliaments and civil societies the necessary room for manoeuvre to allow genuine ownership; urges the EU to strengthen the commitments set out in the Paris Declaration and the AAA by promoting democratic ownership of development policies, planning and measures through full engagement with, and accountability to, all development stakeholders;

4.  Believes that HLF-4 will be a success if it results in a strong commitment to aid effectiveness, reflected in clear and measureable objectives with a precise timetable for their realisation; mindful of the implementation deficits of the Paris Declaration and AAA, underlines the importance of development ‘ownership’ following a bottom-up approach,  of  non-fragmentation of aid and, as well as of  setting up strong, effective and independent follow-up enforcement mechanisms, involving parliaments and civil society at both national and international level; takes the view that, if it is to be effective, aid should be considered and evaluated in terms of its concrete contribution towards achieving development goals and not only in term of inputs;

5.  Points out that aid effectiveness requires poor countries to be able to mobilise domestic revenues; urges the EU once again, therefore, to make the fight against tax havens and tax evasion its utmost priority, while also promoting alternative sources of development finance, for example through the introduction of a financial transaction tax; likewise, urges the EU to give developing countries more help with tax reforms, thereby supporting the establishment of effective, efficient, fair and sustainable tax systems, which should have the effect of reducing poverty and aid dependency;

6.  Calls on donor and recipient countries to take immediate action to honour their commitments under the Paris Declaration and the AAA, the only obstacles to which are political will, bureaucracy and high transaction costs, for instance as regards the untying of aid, aid predictability, conditionality and transparency; emphasises, in particular, the need to put into practice the commitment made in the AAA whereby, in the context of bilateral cooperation between governments, donors undertake to draw first and foremost on their national systems, and to make aid flows more predictable; also urges donor countries to give priority to local and regional public procurement;

7.  Points out that aid should serve as a lever for inclusive, sustainable growth in order to reduce poverty and aid dependency and facilitate job creation, taking into account the individual characteristics of each country while strengthening aid effectiveness in those countries whose need is greatest; also notes that aid should be regarded as a temporary measure aimed at fostering self-sustainable growth in developing countries, rather than as a long-term solution;

8 Stresses that such growth is being hampered by certain procurement practices on the part of donors, which disregard the local economy; urges donors, therefore, to give preference to local and regional procurement, thereby enhancing local economic performance;

9.  Points out that development aid is not in itself enough to eradicate poverty and that it should address its causes, rather than its symptoms; emphasizes the need for more effective aid as part of a development process which seeks to create, in recipient countries, strong, environmentally friendly economies in which access to basic social services is guaranteed for everyone and, ultimately, to reduce dependence on aid; stresses, in that connection, the importance of creating a climate conducive to decent work creation, entrepreneurship and innovation in recipient countries; encourages donors to exploit local economic capacities as a matter of priority and to take active steps to strengthen them;

10.  Calls for more effective international coordination of cross-country aid distribution in order to address the problem of ‘aid darlings’ and ‘aid orphans’; stresses that the aim to increase the impact of aid and to get more results/value for money should not lead to a risk-averse development policy which only focuses on ‘easy countries’; insists that poverty eradication and needs must remain the crucial criteria for the allocation of development aid;

11.  Underlines the importance of a differentiated approach to aid effectiveness, taking into account the level of development of the receiving countries (least developed, fragile and middle-income) and their specific needs; highlights that, given the high number of fragile states and the fact that they are the furthest away from achieving the MDGs, accounting for 75 % of the deficit, it is important that special attention is given to this issue;

12.  Stresses that the involvement of local authorities and civil society organisations in development policies is essential in order to achieve the MDGs and ensure good governance; notes that, although the AAA recognises them as ‘development actors in their own right’, many civil society organisations are faced with policies and practices that are undermining their role as development actors; calls, more broadly, on donors and partner countries to place the emphasis on greater recognition of the involvement of parliaments, local authorities and civil society, and on more transparent use of national systems;

13.  Points out that financial aid is not in itself enough to guarantee sustainable development and that local government and the domestic private sector must play a major part in implementing MDG-related projects; emphasises the role played by private undertakings, such as small and medium enterprises, in wealth creation and the responsibility of States to guarantee stability and the rule of law; stresses, in that connection, the importance of good governance in recipient countries;

14.  Stresses that indicators of good governance – some of which remain highly controversial – should also be the subject of debate, given their value in determining the quality of the participatory approaches necessary for democratic ownership;

15.  Calls on partner governments to value and step up efforts towards decentralisation (political, administrative and fiscal) and to enhance coordination between local and national development planning processes by contributing to complementarity and specialisation, with due regard for local autonomy;

16.  Calls on donor countries to coordinate and harmonise their efforts more effectively, to streamline their procedures and to work towards closer cooperation with private donors;

17.  Urges that South-South and triangular cooperation be encouraged and promoted as forms of aid that help to improve quality and effectiveness and contribute to the exchange of knowledge and to capacity-building;

18.  Points out that all governments – donor and recipient – are bound by human rights obligations; stresses that these commitments, along with accountability under international human rights law, are crucial in order to ensure effective development; urges the EU, therefore, to advocate in Busan for the introduction of binding measures which will ensure that aid provision complies with human rights agreements;

19.  Stresses the importance of striking a balance between the need to meet certain political and tax conditions and approaches based on performance indicators, so as to ensure that strict political and performance requirements do not deter partner country governments from implementing their own policies – and even experimenting with new, more adventurous approaches – rather than simply following donors' prescriptions;

20.  Welcomes the adoption of the EU Code of Conduct on the Division of Labour in Development Policy and stresses that its principles have not been fully implemented to date owing to a lack of political will, which is preventing optimum use of European aid and undermining the EU's ability to be a driving force in the division of labour in the context of the fourth Forum;

21.  Calls on the EU to speed up the Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour – in particular as regards concentration by sector – by means of reorganisation and joint programming, and to encourage the use of national systems in an effort to fulfil the undertaking given in the Paris Declaration to make greater use of aid delivery mechanisms based on ownership, inter alia through budget support;

22.  Welcomes the Commission initiative outlined in the Green Paper on budget support, which seeks primarily to promote local development in partner countries, and calls for budget support eligibility criteria to be tightened up so as to prevent departures from agreed approaches and the misuse of this type of aid, with due account being taken of factors such as a country's corruption index rating;

23.  Stresses the leading role of national parliaments in the new aid architecture, and the need to help them boost their law-making capacity and promote the necessary changes to enable them to scrutinise all development-related expenditure;

24.  Calls on national parliaments to adopt country strategy documents and annual budgets in consultation with civil society and local authorities in advance of any political dialogue with donors, so as to give full weight to democratic scrutiny;

25.  Recalls, in this connection, the undertaking given in the Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness(12) adopted by the Council of the European Union, which is aimed at ensuring that financial aid provided by EU donors is subject to democratic scrutiny as part of the processes implemented by partner countries;

26.  Draws attention to the important role played by supreme audit institutions in assisting national parliaments in their task of scrutinising development-related expenditure and promoting aid effectiveness;

27.  Points out the danger of adopting a highly technical approach to aid effectiveness; stresses the need to place greater emphasis on indicators showing the impact of aid on development and on how effectively it contributes to eradicating poverty, promoting gender equality, reducing inequalities and creating wealth; believes that closer involvement of public and private development actors and the absorption of lessons learned from the implementation of the commitments made in the Paris Declaration and the AAA will help to improve the aid effectiveness programme;

28.  Calls on the EU to review its policies on division of labour so as to ensure that horizontal issues such as human rights, social inclusion, gender equality, citizenship and climate change are not overlooked;

29.  Emphasises that aid transparency is essential in order to ensure both ownership and aid effectiveness; calls, therefore, on the Commission and Member States to adopt an ambitious stance on aid transparency by promoting at international level mechanisms that seek to establish global standards in this area, such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI); calls on the Member States that have not yet done so to sign up and implement the IATI;

30.  Maintains that it is important clearly to assess the potential risks associated with greater private-sector involvement, and that clear criteria for supporting private-sector projects should therefore be defined, while at the same time developing sound impact assessment mechanisms in order to ensure that private-sector investment is sustainable and consistent with agreed international development goals and does not mean a return to tied aid;

31.  Considers gender equality to be a priority in the shaping of development policies, and consequently calls for it to be fully integrated into the aid effectiveness agenda, and for women's organisations to play an active part in all development processes;

32.  Stresses that the HLF-4 should also lay the foundations for a more inclusive global partnership for development, by involving emerging donors more closely, in particular those countries whose approach is not governed by the global norms on aid effectiveness; calls on the EU to take a leading role in this respect in order to ensure that aid from such countries is in accordance with agreed international principles in terms of official development assistance; takes the view that this should not lead to any watering down of aid effectiveness and the basic principles underpinning it;

33.  Maintains that, in view of its role in exercising democratic scrutiny, Parliament should continue to be involved in the ongoing recasting of the aid effectiveness programme, including through appropriate participation in the Busan meeting;

34.  Calls on the EU and its Member States to continue to give consideration to the quality of aid and to promote an international agenda which focuses on development;

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

(1) OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1 (2) Council Conclusions 9558/07, 15.5.2007. (3) OJ C 306 E, 15.12.2006, p. 373. (4) OJ C 279 E, 19.11.2009, p. 100. (5) Doc. 15912/09. (6) Doc. 11081/10. (7) Doc. 17769/10. (8) Doc. 18239/10. (9) Project No 2008/170204 – Version 1. (10) Project No 2010/250763 – Version 1. (11) OJ C 301 E, 13.12.2007, p. 249. (12) General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, Consolidated Text 18239/10.