Index 
Texts adopted
Thursday, 18 April 2013 - Strasbourg
Amendment of the EC-Ukraine Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas ***
 EU-Moldova Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas ***
 Impact of the financial and economic crisis on human rights
 UN principle of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’
 European statistics on demography ***I
 Ship recycling ***I
 2012 comprehensive monitoring report on Croatia
 2012 progress report on Turkey
 2012 progress report on Montenegro
 2012 progress report on Serbia
 European integration process of Kosovo
 Completing the scoreboard for the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure
 Vietnam, in particular freedom of expression
 Human rights situation in Kazakhstan

Amendment of the EC-Ukraine Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas ***
PDF 190kWORD 19k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 April 2013 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (12282/2012 – C7-0200/2012 – 2012/0138(NLE))
P7_TA(2013)0177A7-0059/2013

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (12282/2012),

–  having regard to the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine amending the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (11044/2012),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0200/2012),

–  having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0059/2013);

1.  Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

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


EU-Moldova Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas ***
PDF 188kWORD 19k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 April 2013 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (12012/2012 – C7-0201/2012 – 2012/0140(NLE))
P7_TA(2013)0178A7-0128/2013

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (12012/2012),

–  having regard to the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (10871/2012),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0201/2012),

–  having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0128/2013),

1.  Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

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


Impact of the financial and economic crisis on human rights
PDF 231kWORD 38k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on the impact of the financial and economic crisis on human rights (2012/2136(INI))
P7_TA(2013)0179A7-0057/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Joint Communication from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2011 entitled ‘Human rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action – Towards a more effective approach’ (COM(2011)0886),

–  having regard to the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (11855/2012), as adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 25 June 2012,

–  having regard to the European Union’s Guidelines on Human Rights,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Los Cabos (Mexico) G20 Summit of 18-19 June 2012,

–  having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 13 October 2011 entitled ‘Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’(COM(2011)0637),

–  having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee of 27 January 2012 entitled ‘Trade, growth and development - Tailoring trade and investment policy for those countries most in need’ (COM(2012)0022),

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),

–  having regard to the General Affairs Council Conclusions of 24 September 2012,

–  having regard to UN Human Rights Council resolution S-10/1 of 23 February 2009 on the impact of the global economic and financial crises on the universal realisation and effective enjoyment of human rights,

–  having regard to the UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development, held in New York from 24 to 26 June 2009, and the outcome document adopted by the Conference (as endorsed by UN General Assembly resolution 63/303 of 9 July 2009),

–  having regard to the United Nations Millennium Declaration of 8 September 2000 on the Millennium Development Goals(1),

–  having regard to the Rome Principles for Sustainable Global Food Security, adopted by the World Summit on Food Security held in Rome on 16-18 November 2009,

–  having regard to the 2009 UN report by the then UN Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, currently Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights,

–  having regard to the report of 4 February 2009 by the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context , Raquel Rolnik,

–  having regard to UN policy briefing note No 07 of October 2012 by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier de Schutter, and the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, entitled ‘Underwriting the poor - A Global Fund for Social Protection’,

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2010 on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 December 2012 on a digital freedom strategy in EU foreign policy(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2011 on the financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken(6),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 October 2011 entitled ‘The future approach to EU budget support to third countries’ (COM(2011)0638),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2012 on an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy(7),

–  having regard to the Global Monitoring Report 2012 of 20 April 2012 by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund,

–  having regard to the joint report by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the World Bank of 19 April 2012 entitled ‘Inventory of Policy Responses to the Financial and Economic Crisis’,

–  having regard to the World of Work Report of 29 April 2012 by the International Labour Organisation, entitled ‘Better Jobs for a Better Economy’,

–  having regard to the report of the International Labour Organisation entitled ‘Global employment trends for youth 2012’ of May 2012,

–  having regard to Rules 48 and 119(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0057/2013),

A.  whereas, although the financial and economic crisis affects, to varying degrees, all regions in the world, including the European Union, the scope of the present resolution is to assess the impact of the financial and economic crisis in third countries, with the main focus on developing and least developed countries;

B.  whereas the financial and economic crisis is in fact a global systemic crisis and has become intertwined with numerous other crises, such as the food, environmental and social crises;

C.  whereas not only economic and social rights but also political rights are affected by the crisis when governments in some cases limit freedom of expression or association in the context of growing discontent and economic hardship, as reflected, in particular, by popular protests such as those which took place in North Africa and the Middle East in 2011;

D.  whereas civil and political rights are at risk as a result of the brutal repression of social protests in many countries around the world; stresses that the right to information and the right to participate in government policy decisions concerning measures to fight the crisis must be respected;

E.  whereas, although the impact of the crisis on civil and political rights has yet to be fully evaluated, it is clear that it has magnified social unrest, leading sometimes to violent repression, and has multiplied the failures to respect basic rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to information;

F.  whereas the financial and economic crisis has had a negative impact on developing and least developed countries, mainly reflected in shrinking demand for their exports, high levels of indebtedness, the risk of reduced foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow and declining Official Development Assistance (ODA), also affecting human rights since fewer resources are available to ensure social and economic rights, and more people are being driven into poverty;

G.  whereas the global economic crisis has had a major impact on living standards in the developing world over the last 10 years, and whereas the rate of inequality has increased in one quarter of developing economies, thus limiting access to education, food, land, and credit;

H.  whereas the EU’s collective ODA decreased from EUR 53.5 billion in 2010 to EUR 53,1 billion in 2011, bringing the EU ODA level to 0,42 % of GNI, down from the 2010 outcome of 0,44 % of GNI; whereas the EU and its Member States nevertheless remain the world’s leading providers of ODA;

I.  whereas the objective of the trade agreements signed by the EU with partner countries is, inter alia, to promote and expand trade and investment, and to improve market access, with a view to increasing economic growth, cooperation and social cohesion, reducing poverty, creating new employment opportunities, improving working conditions and raising living standards, and thereby ultimately contributing to the fulfilment of human rights;

J.  whereas proper monitoring and practical enforcement of the human rights clause of each trade agreement must be guaranteed; whereas any systematic violation of the human rights clause enshrined in the EU’s trade agreements entitles each signatory party to take ‘appropriate measures’, which may include totally or partially suspending or terminating the agreement or imposing restrictions;

K.  whereas the Aid-for-Trade Initiative has shown positive results, contributing to the development of better trading capacity and economic infrastructure in partner countries;

L.  whereas the failure to put into place adequate measures to prevent, detect and root out all forms of corruption is one of the reasons for the financial crisis; whereas widespread corruption in the public and private sectors, both in developing and developed countries, hampers effective, broad and equal protection and promotion of civil, political and social rights; whereas corruption impedes democracy and the rule of law and directly affects the population since it increases the cost of public services, lowers their quality and often restricts poor people’s access to water, education, health care and many other key services;

M.  whereas the current economic crisis carries significant implications for democracy and governance assistance by the European Union and other major donors; whereas economic difficulties for donor countries are likely to encourage reductions in overseas assistance; whereas, however, the global crisis makes it all the more important to sustain support for political reform and democratic development in third countries;

N.  whereas the financial and economic crisis is also having a disproportionate effect on the rights of specific groups of people, particularly the poorest and marginalised;

O.  whereas the rights of the poorest people have been most affected by the crisis; whereas, according to the World Bank, 1,2 billion people live in extreme poverty on less than USD 1,25 a day; whereas the World Bank estimates that, even in the event of a rapid recovery, some additional 71 million people in the world will remain in extreme poverty by 2020 as a result of the economic crisis; whereas three-quarters of the world’s poor live in middle-income countries;

P.  whereas the financial crisis has spread around the world through a variety of transmission channels, interacting with other crises (such as the food and fuel crises) at different speeds and intensities; notes with concern that, owing to the crisis, the World Bank and the UN estimate that between 55 and 103 million more people have to live in poverty, thereby jeopardising further achievement of human rights;

Q.  whereas people who are living in poverty and are extremely vulnerable need effective and affordable access to justice in order to be able to claim their rights or challenge violations of human rights committed against them; whereas lack of access to a fair trial and judicial process further subjects them to economic and social vulnerability;

R.  whereas global unemployment reached 200 million in 2012 – an increase of 27 million since the start of the crisis in 2008, jeopardising the right to work and resulting in a decrease in household incomes; whereas worsening economic conditions and unemployment may have an impact on the health of individuals, which can cause a lack of self-esteem or even depression;

S.  whereas more than 40 % of workers employed in developing countries work in the informal sector, leading in many cases to unstable and unequal working conditions without any social protection, and only 20 % of their families have access to any form of social protection;

T.  whereas because of the crisis, women’s rights have deteriorated through, for example, additional unpaid work and increased violence; whereas the development of public services and establishment of effective social protection systems are essential in ensuring respect for women’s economic and social rights;

U.  whereas women often experience unequal treatment in the workplace compared to men, in terms of access to employment, salary, dismissal, social security benefits and rehiring;

V.  whereas the crisis disproportionately affects young people; whereas, globally, 74,8 million young people aged 15–24 were unemployed in 2011, an increase of more than 4 million since 2007, with an exceptionally high level of unemployment in the Middle East and North Africa;

W.  whereas, in low- and middle-income countries, there are around 200 million young people who have not completed primary school and have thus been denied their right to education;

X.  whereas children are particularly affected by the financial and economic crisis, with their circumstances often aggravated by the vulnerabilities and risks experienced by their caregivers;

Y.  whereas, globally, 61 million primary-school age children are not attending school and the progress towards achieving universal primary education has stalled since 2008; whereas sub-Saharan Africa, with 31 million children out of school, accounts for half of the world’s total number, and more girls than boys are forced to leave school in order to contribute to household work because of the pressures of poverty;

Z.  whereas empirical evidence suggests that, in times of economic crisis, when education budgets are reduced, more children will prematurely leave school or not attend at all to join the workforce; whereas over 190 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are forced to work, with one in four children aged 5-17 being used as child labourers in sub-Saharan Africa, compared to one in eight in Asia-Pacific and one in ten in Latin America and the Caribbean; whereas girls in particular are at a higher risk of being taken out of school and forced into child labour or domestic work at home; whereas this creates a negative impact on child welfare and the right to education, and in the long term affects the quality of the labour force and overall development;

AA.  whereas rising and volatile food prices caused by financial speculation on the derivatives markets are affecting millions of people struggling to meet basic needs; whereas since 2007 global progress in reducing hunger has slowed; whereas 868 million people are suffering from chronic malnutrition, with the vast majority (850 million people) living in developing countries; whereas the coping strategies adopted by vulnerable households includes cutting down on the quantity and/or quality of food eaten at critical stages of child development or during pregnancy, with long-lasting effects on physical growth and mental health;

AB.  whereas, in the face of the rising demand for agricultural goods destined for food production and increasingly for energy and industrial use, the competition for land, a resource that is becoming more and more scarce, is also growing; whereas national and international investors use long-term purchase or lease agreements to secure vast tracts of land, which might cause socio-economic and environmental problems for the countries affected and especially for the local population;

AC.  whereas the impact of the economic crisis can be particularly acute for older people who may be at greater risk of losing their jobs and are less likely to be retrained and re-employed; whereas the crisis can limit their access to affordable healthcare;

AD.  whereas the rising price of medicines (by up to 30 %) is having a negative impact on the right to health of the most vulnerable, notably children, the elderly and persons with disabilities;

AE.  whereas, globally, 214 million migrant workers are now, as a result of the economic crisis, more affected by unequal treatment, underpayment or non-payment of wages, and physical abuse;

AF.  whereas remittances, microfinance and foreign direct investment are means of alleviating the shock of the crisis on the economies of developing countries;

AG.  whereas trafficking in human beings is a modern form of slavery and a severe violation of fundamental human rights; whereas traffickers are exploiting their potential victims’ need to find a decent job and escape poverty; whereas women and girls account for two thirds of the victims of trafficking in human beings;

AH.  whereas, globally, 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity; whereas access to energy, in particular electricity, is vital to the achievement of several Millennium Development Goals since, inter alia, it reduces poverty through improved productivity, generates greater income and micro-enterprise development, and leads to economic and social empowerment;

AI.  whereas the agricultural sector provides employment and livelihood for more than 70 % of the labour force in developing countries; whereas the share of ODA allocated to agriculture is falling all the time and currently accounts for only 5 % of the total; whereas, in resource-poor low-income countries, growth in the agricultural sector is five times more effective in reducing poverty than growth in other sectors (eleven times in sub-Saharan Africa); whereas rural development and measures designed to support agriculture, in particular local production, are key elements of all development strategies and are vital for eradicating poverty, hunger and underdevelopment;

AJ.  whereas aggregate data often used to describe the impact of the crisis can hide huge disparities between and within countries; whereas it is difficult to access the real-time data necessary to fully understand the impact of the economic crisis on regions and vulnerable groups; whereas there is a need for collaborative and innovative data collection and analysis at global level;

1.  Reiterates its strong determination to defend and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms – civil, political, economic, social and cultural – as a core principle of the European Union’s foreign policy and underpinning all other policies, as enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular in the context of the economic and financial crisis;

2.  Stresses that human rights include the right to food, water, education, adequate housing, land, decent work, health and social security; condemns the fact that these rights have been under attack in a number of countries since the crisis began; recognises that worsening poverty is the main factor preventing people from asserting these rights; calls for the EU to invest more effort and money in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), given the evidence that the world is falling far short of the goals set for 2015;

3.  Insists on the fact that the response to the crisis must include internationally coordinated multilateral cooperation at both the regional and the inter-regional levels with a strong human rights-based approach at its core;

4.  Recalls the duty of governments to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including economic and social rights, as well as digital freedoms, at all times, as stated in international human rights law; calls on governments to guard against all forms of discrimination and to ensure basic human rights for all; deplores the existing gap between legal recognition and political enforcement of these rights;

5.  Reaffirms that while the global economic crisis poses a severe threat to the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights, there is no justification for states, whatever their level of income, to compromise on their obligation to respect fundamental human rights; stresses that governments have, at all times, an obligation to ensure ‘minimum essential levels’ of the social and economic rights necessary for living in dignity;

6.  Urges governments to place the interests of the most vulnerable sections of the population at the centre of policy responses by using a human rights framework in the decision-making process; calls on governments to pursue all the necessary measures to ensure access to justice for all, with a particular focus on people living in poverty, who need to have a full understanding of their rights and the means to realise them; calls on the EU to step up the fight against impunity and its support for the rule of law and justice reform programmes in partner countries, to enable an active civil society to form the basis of any democratisation process;

7.  Welcomes the EU’s commitment to promoting economic, social and cultural rights and to strengthening efforts to ensure universal and non-discriminatory access to basic services, with a particular focus on poor and vulnerable groups, as set out in the Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy; looks forward to seeing this reflected in concrete measures, including in the human rights country strategies drafted by the EU Delegations;

8.  Insists that the EU Special Representative for Human Rights should ensure that human rights are at the forefront of policy initiatives, with a particular emphasis on the most vulnerable groups in the societies of third countries;

9.  Stresses the importance of ensuring that support for human rights and democracy promotion is not undermined by a decrease in the budget for such projects in response to the crisis; in this connection, emphasises the need to offer steady support to projects financed by the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy (EIDHR) for human rights defenders, including those working for economic and social rights, such as the rights of workers and migrants, and stresses the importance of promoting human rights education;

10.  Reminds governments of their duty to ensure that civil society organisations (CSOs) possess the necessary means to carry out their role within society, and not to use the current crisis as an excuse to reduce support for CSOs; calls for sufficient funding of the Civil Society Facility post-2013 to further strengthen civil society’s capacity in partner countries;

11.  Stresses that the Commission should include human rights provisions in impact assessments for legislative and non-legislative proposals, implementing measures, and trade and investment agreements that have a significant economic, social and environmental impact;

12.  Notes with concern that the global economic crisis is jeopardising Official Development Aid spending by EU Member States; recalls that the costs of the global economic crisis are being borne disproportionately by poor countries, despite having originated in the richer countries; urges, therefore, the EU and its Member States to maintain and deliver on their existing bilateral and multilateral ODA commitments and on the targets identified in the UN Millennium Declaration, especially by addressing those areas which suffer from a lack of progress at present and to ensure efficient use of development aid in order to guarantee the best value for money and consistency between human rights and development policies; points out that, through their potential contribution to official development assistance, the emerging countries also have an important role to play;

13.  Urges the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to model crisis responses and development policy on a human rights-based approach, as set out in the Commission’s Communication ‘Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’, and in the Parliament’s resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Communication(8);

14.  Stresses the importance of policy coherence and coordination in order to attain the objective of poverty reduction and to increase the credibility and the impact of EU external assistance;

15.  Reiterates that budget support to partner countries and all trade agreements should be conditional on respect for human rights and democracy in the partner countries; takes the view that donors and lenders should, in particular, respond in a coordinated manner to reported cases of fraud and corruption and foster reforms in those countries towards good governance and transparency; urges the EU and the Member States to make systematic risk assessments of widespread corruption in partner countries, which may hamper the desired effects of development and humanitarian projects;

16.  Calls on developing countries to devise economic policies which promote sustainable growth and development, create jobs, place vulnerable social groups at the forefront of policy responses, and base development on a sound fiscal system that rules out tax evasion, which is necessary for mobilising domestic resources in a more efficient and equitable manner;

17.  Encourages foreign and domestic investors to instigate strong Corporate Social Responsibility policies in all countries, with an emphasis on sustainable development and good governance and with a clear focus on human rights, decent work, labour standards, freedom of association, collective bargaining and other social considerations;

18.  Encourages developing countries to use trade preferences afforded by the EU within the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) framework in order to boost their economy, diversify their exports and improve their competitiveness; recalls their obligation in the GSP+ framework, to ratify and effectively implement the core international conventions on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance, which are listed under this scheme;

19.  Calls on the EU to support and adopt the international target of universal energy access by 2030 as this will contribute to economic empowerment and social benefits for the poorest and most vulnerable in developing countries;

20.  Welcomes the introduction of a specific enforcement mechanism to monitor implementation of human rights clauses in ‘new generation’ bilateral and regional EU agreements; welcomes efforts to improve analysis of the human rights situation in third countries when launching or concluding trade and/or investment agreements; notes with concern that the current human rights monitoring provisions in the relevant agreements are not clearly defined or sufficiently ambitious; calls on the EU to adopt an unfaltering principled stance in insisting that its partner countries comply with the human rights clauses in international agreements;

21.  Welcomes the refocusing of the EU’s aid towards least developed countries, urging middle-income countries to commit an increasing proportion of their fiscal revenues to social protection schemes and the fulfilment of human rights for the poorest and most vulnerable;

22.  Calls on the international community to provide adequate assistance to governments in sub-Saharan Africa in order to prevent the financial crisis worsening the humanitarian crisis in some countries in the region;

23.  Calls on governments to respect their obligations towards citizens in terms of the good stewardship of natural resources;

24.  Urges governments to take all the necessary measures to reduce extremes in income inequality and put in place conditions that will enable those currently living in extreme poverty to fully realise their potential and live in dignity;

25.  Urges governments in developing countries to elaborate social protection schemes, since these are essential for protecting the most vulnerable and building resilience against economic and environmental shocks and have proved to be an investment in society rather than a cost, as shown by social welfare programmes, such as Brazil’s bolsa familia or demand-driven public works schemes like India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS); stresses that the success of these cash transfer schemes depends largely on conditionality such as school enrolment and attendance as well as health aspects, most notably the vaccination of children;

26.  Welcomes the joint initiative launched by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, and the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, to strengthen social protection systems in developing countries through a Global Fund for Social Protection, by means of which international solidarity can be transposed to benefit the least developed countries; asks the Commission to provide support for these programmes;

27.  Considers that investment in sustainable agriculture in developing countries is an important accelerant for combating food insecurity and boosting overall growth; urges governments to support responsible private-sector investment and small-scale food producers, especially women and agricultural cooperatives, which are the most effective in reducing extreme poverty by increasing returns on labour; stresses the importance of investment in rural infrastructure that reduces transaction costs and enables farmers to reach markets and generate more income;

28.  Calls on governments to prevent national and international financial speculators investing in land from having a negative impact on small-scale farmers and local producers by causing displacement, environmental problems and food and income insecurity; recalls in this regard that secure employment and nutrition are conditions for respect for human rights, democratisation and any political engagement;

29.  Reminds governments and the private sector alike to respect informal and traditional land ownership, as well as land-use rights; stresses that vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples are most in need of protection, as land is often the only resource from which they can derive their subsistence;

30.  Urges governments not to cut or limit food subsidies since these subsidies can limit the prevalence of hunger and improve nutrition in recipient households;

31.  Calls for more transparency on the commodity markets to avoid price volatility of agrarian raw materials caused by excessive speculation, and underlines the need for greater international attention and enhanced coordination on this issue;

32.  Reminds governments that youth employment policies should focus not only on job creation, but also on ensuring a level of income and working conditions that are appropriate for an adequate standard of living;

33.  Expresses its support for the global introduction of a financial transaction tax, which can be an innovative financing mechanism for development, ultimately contributing to the universal fulfilment of economic and social rights; encourages all Member States to support the EU budget proposal for a financial transaction tax;

34.  Stresses that combating illicit financial flows, tax havens and speculation on commodities are necessary steps for the achievement of human rights, especially in low-income countries;

35.  Believes that developing countries should introduce innovative financing systems for economic policies; encourages developing countries to develop financial mechanisms connected with their own resources;

36.  Calls for an increase in the competitiveness of enterprises in developing countries, making for a reduction in unemployment and the promotion of employment policies;

37.  Considers of the utmost importance the strengthening of skills development and training policies, including non-formal education, internships and on-the-job training, which provide support for a successful transition from school to the labour market;

38.  Stresses that the events of the Arab Spring have revealed a number of shortfalls in EU policies towards the region, including the situation of young people, who face mass unemployment and a lack of prospects in their countries; calls on the EU to take more effective action to tackle the effects of the financial crisis in third countries, including by taking due account of reports by civil society organisations;

39.  Urges both governments of countries with high child-labour rates and international donors to promote preventative measures, such as expanding school access, improving school quality and reducing school costs in order to decrease poverty rates and encourage economic growth;

40.  Urges governments to provide second-chance education programmes for those who have not attended primary school in order to equip them with literacy and numeracy skills, as well as livelihood skills that can help them to escape poverty;

41.  Urges governments to step up child protection support measures, including measures to tackle violence against children and promote awareness-raising among government officials on violence against children;

42.  Recalls that all recovery policies will need a strong gender component; calls, as a matter of urgency, for the enforcement of policies and practices ensuring that more women enter the labour market in jobs with decent working conditions and social protection; calls for public investment in care services to reduce women’s unpaid domestic and care work; insists that labour market policies must address the lack of parental time for care and nurture;

43.  Stresses that women must be more involved in social dialogue and decision-making processes; reiterates the fact that education for girls and women and gender empowerment are essential;

44.  Urges governments to tackle critical human rights issues faced by the elderly, especially in times of economic downturn, such as long-term unemployment, age-related employment discrimination, income insecurity and unaffordable healthcare; calls on governments to put in place innovative new mechanisms for flexible workforce participation, such as entitling older people to social pensions while working part-time, retraining programmes or fiscal measures aimed at stimulating the employment of the elderly;

45.  Calls for the transaction costs for remittances to be reduced and for it to be made easier, for example, for migrants to open a bank account in host countries;

46.  Calls on governments to ensure that the fight against trafficking in human beings remains high on their agenda during times of economic and financial crisis; urges governments to fully implement legislation to prosecute traffickers and smugglers, expand support and legal assistance to victims of human trafficking, and develop closer international cooperation;

47.  Welcomes the discussions within the UN High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda with the participation of the European Commissioner for Development; considers that the post-2015 framework should prioritise the universal implementation of human rights, take into consideration the impact of the financial and economic crisis, notably on the poorest and the most vulnerable, and honour poverty reduction commitments; urges all involved parties to consider setting quantifiable targets and indicators, as well as qualitative and outcome-based indicators;

48.  Emphasises that there is a need for further research and analysis on the impact of the financial and economic crisis on various regions, including in the EU and in its relations with third countries, and a need to improve the monitoring of early signals of global and regional crises; stresses that disaggregated data should be more prominent in research and policy planning in order to better capture and address the problems facing the poorest and most vulnerable members of society; calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide financial support for the UN innovation laboratory ‘Global Pulse’, launched by the UN Secretary General in 2009, with the aim of collecting and analysing the data required for a better understanding of the impact of the financial and economic crisis on vulnerable sections of the population and providing appropriate policy responses;

49.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

(1) http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm
(2) OJ C 4 E, 7.1.2011, p. 34.
(3) OJ C 99 E, 3.4.2012, p. 31.
(4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0470.
(5) OJ C 380 E, 11.12.2012, p. 89.
(6) OJ C 33 E, 5.2.2013, p. 140.
(7) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0386.
(8) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0386.


UN principle of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’
PDF 238kWORD 32k
European Parliament recommendation to the Council of 18 April 2013 on the UN principle of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (’R2P’) (2012/2143(INI))
P7_TA(2013)0180A7-0130/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the values, objectives, principles and policies of the European Union as, inter alia, enshrined in articles 2, 3 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union,

–  having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–  having regard to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948,

–  having regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC),

–  having regard to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution A/RES/63/308 of 7 October 2009 on the responsibility to protect,

–  having regard to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1674 of April 2006 and UNSC Resolution 1894 of November 2009 on ‘Protection of civilians in armed conflict’(1),

–  having regard to UNSC Resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) on women, peace and security, to UNSC Resolution 1888 (2009) on sexual violence against women and children in situations of armed conflict, to UNSC Resolution 1889 (2009) aiming to strengthen the implementation and monitoring of UNSC Resolution 1325 (2000), and to UNSC Resolution 1960 (2010), which created a mechanism for compiling data on, and listing perpetrators of, sexual violence in armed conflict,

–  having regard to the UNSC Resolution 1970 of 26 February 2011 on Libya referencing the R2P and authorising several non-coercive measures to prevent the escalation of atrocities, and to the UNSC Resolution 1973 of 17 March 2011 on the situation in Libya, which authorised Member States to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, and contained for the first time in history an explicit reference to the R2P‘s first pillar, followed by similar references in UNSC Resolution 1975 on Côte d’Ivoire, UNSC Resolution 1996 on the Sudan and UNSC Resolution 2014 on Yemen,

–  having regard to the Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the UN 2005 World Summit Outcome(2),

–  having regard to the report ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ (2001) by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), the report ’A more secure world: our shared responsibility’(3) (2004) by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and the report ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’(4) (2005) by the UN Secretary-General,

–  having regard to the reports of the UN Secretary-General, specifically those on ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’ of 2009(5), ’Early warning, assessment and the responsibility to protect’ of 2010(6), ‘The role of regional and subregional arrangements in implementing the responsibility to protect’ of 2011(7) and ’Responsibility to protect: timely and decisive response’ of 2012(8),

–  having regard to the UN Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on UN Action in Sri Lanka of November 2012, enquiring into the failure of the international community to protect civilians from large-scale violations of humanitarian and human rights laws and making recommendations regarding future UN action to respond effectively to similar situations involving mass atrocity crimes,

–  having regard to the report by the UN Secretary-General on ‘Strengthening the role of mediation in the peaceful settlement of disputes, conflict prevention and resolution’ of 25 July 2012,

–  having regard to the Brazilian initiative submitted to the UN on 9 September 2011 entitled ‘Responsibility while protecting: elements for the development and promotion of a concept’,

–  having regard to the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts (Gothenburg Programme) of 2001 and the annual reports on its implementation,

–  having regard to the EU’s priorities for the 65th UN General Assembly of 25 May 2010(9),

–  having regard to the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, which not only honours the EU’s historical contribution to a peaceful Europe and world but also enhances expectations as to its future engagement for a more peaceful world order based on the rules of international law,

–  having regard to the European Consensus on Development(10) and the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid(11),

–  having regard to its recommendations to the Council, of 8 June 2011 on the 66th session of the UNGA(12) and of 13 June 2012 on the 67th session of the UNGA(13),

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council(14),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on ‘the EU as a global actor: its role in multilateral organisations’(15),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 February 2009 on the European Security Strategy and ESDP(16),

–  having regard to Rules 121(3) and 97 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0130/2013),

A.  whereas the UN 2005 World Summit Outcome provides, for the first time, a common definition of the principle of R2P; whereas the principle of R2P, embedded in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the UN 2005 World Summit Outcome, represents an important step forward towards a more peaceful world by establishing the obligation of states to protect their populations against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, as well as the obligation of the international community to help states assume this responsibility and to react should they fail to protect their citizens against these four specified crimes and violations;

B.  whereas the principle of R2P is based on three pillars, namely: (i) the state bears the primary responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing; (ii) the international community must assist states in fulfilling their protection obligations; (iii) when a state manifestly fails to protect its population or is in fact a perpetrator of these crimes, the international community has a responsibility to take collective action;

C.  whereas, according to the work done on R2P preceding the agreement on the World Summit Outcome Document in 2005 and specifically in the 2001 report on R2P of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), the principle of R2P has been further defined to encompass the components of the responsibility to prevent (R2prevent), the responsibility to react (R2react) and the responsibility to rebuild (R2rebuild), as introduced in the ICISS report;

D.  whereas the development of the concept of R2P is welcome since it clarifies and strengthens the existing obligations of states to ensure the protection of civilians; whereas this concept, born from the international community’s failures in Rwanda in 1994, is critical for the survival of the community of nations;

E.  whereas in the cases in question legitimate force should only ever be used in a prudent, proportionate and limited manner;

F.  whereas the development of the principle of R2P is an important step towards anticipating, preventing and responding to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and upholding fundamental principles of international law, in particular international humanitarian, refugee and human rights law; whereas the principles should be applied as consistently and uniformly as possible, to which effect it is crucially important that early warning and assessment should be conducted fairly, prudently and professionally and that the use of force should remain the measure of last resort;

G.  whereas more than a decade after the emergence of the concept of R2P and eight years after its endorsement by the international community at the UN World Summit in 2005, recent events have again brought to the fore the importance and the challenges of ensuring timely and decisive responses to the four core crimes covered by the concept, as well as the need to further operationalise the principle in order to implement it effectively and prevent mass atrocities;

H.  whereas the development of the principle of R2P - particularly its prevention component - can advance global efforts towards a more peaceful world. since many mass atrocity crimes occur during periods of violent conflict and this makes it necessary to create effective capacities for structural and operational conflict prevention, thus minimising the need for the use of force as the last resort;

I.  whereas using all tools available under Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter, ranging from non-coercive responses to collective action, is of fundamental importance for the further development and the legitimacy of the principle of R2P;

J.  whereas the most effective form of preventing conflict, violence and human suffering is to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, enforcement of the rule of law, good governance, human security, economic development, poverty eradication, inclusiveness, socio-economic rights, gender equality, and democratic values and practices, as well as the reduction of economic inequalities;

K.  whereas the military intervention of 2011 in Libya pointed up the need to clarify the role of regional and subregional organisations when applying R2P; whereas such organisations can be both legitimisers and operational agents for the implementation of R2P, but often lack capacities and resources;

L.  whereas human rights are of the utmost importance in international relations;

M.  whereas there is a need for a shift in the manner in which we approach R2P, which should involve integrating it into all our models of development cooperation, aid and crisis management, as well as building on programmes that already embrace R2P;

N.  whereas a more consistent implementation of R2P’s prevention component (R2prevent), including mediation measures and preventive diplomacy at an early stage, could prevent or reduce the potential for conflicts and violence and help avoid their escalation, thus potentially helping prevent international intervention under R2P’s reaction component (R2react); whereas two-track diplomacy is an important instrument in preventive diplomacy which builds upon the human dimension of reconciliation efforts;

O.  whereas R2P is primarily a preventive doctrine and military intervention should be the last resort in R2P situations; whereas R2P, wherever possible, is to be carried out first and foremost through diplomatic and long-term developmental activities that focus on capacity-building in the fields of human rights, good governance, the rule of law, the reduction of poverty and emphasis on education and health, conflict prevention through education and the expansion of trade, effective arms control and prevention of illicit arms trading, and the strengthening of early warning systems; whereas, furthermore, there are many non-military coercive alternatives, such as preventive diplomacy, sanctions, accountability mechanisms and mediation; whereas the EU must continue to play a leadership role in the field of conflict prevention;

P.  whereas cooperation with regional organisations is an important dimension of R2P work; whereas it is therefore necessary to call for the reinforcement of regional capacities in terms of prevention and the identification of effective policies for preventing the above-mentioned four crimes; whereas the forthcoming EU-Africa summit in 2014 will provide a good opportunity to express our support for AU leadership and promote African ownership of R2P;

Q.  whereas the UN Guidelines for Effective Mediation identify the dilemma that arrest warrants issued by the ICC, sanctions regimes and national and international counter-terrorism policies also affect the manner in which some conflict parties may be engaged in a mediation process; whereas the definition in international law of crimes which demand an immediate reaction by the international community has made considerable progress since the establishment of the ICC, although an independent assessment mechanism of when these definitions are met is still, crucially, missing; whereas the implementation of the Rome Statute would enhance the efficiency of the ICC regime; whereas the Rome Statute has not been ratified by all states of the international community;

R.  whereas the ICC and R2P are interlinked, since both aim to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; whereas, on the one hand, R2P bolsters the ICC’s mission to fight impunity by advocating that states honour their judicial responsibility, while, on the other hand, it also reinforces the complementarity principle of the ICC, under which the main responsibility to prosecute lies with states;

S.  whereas the ICC plays a fundamental role not only in crime prevention but also in the reconstruction of countries and in mediation processes;

T.  whereas the EU has always been an active promoter of R2P on the international stage; whereas it needs to strengthen its role as a global political actor, upholding human rights and humanitarian law and also reflecting that political support in its own policies;

U.  whereas EU Member States have also endorsed the R2P principle; whereas only a few of them have incorporated the concept into their national texts;

V.  whereas recent experiences relating to specific crises such as those in Sri Lanka, Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria have demonstrated the persistent challenges involved in arriving at a common understanding of how to ensure the timely and effective implementation of the R2P principle, while also generating the common political will and effective capacity to prevent or stop genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, whether committed by national and local authorities or non-state actors, and the consequent multiple civilian casualties;

W.  whereas in situations where R2P is applied it is of the utmost importance to maintain the distinction of mandates between military and humanitarian actors, in order to safeguard the perception of the neutrality and impartiality of all humanitarian actors and avoid putting at risk the effective delivery of aid and of medical or any other kind of assistance, access to beneficiaries, or the personal safety of field-based humanitarian personnel;

X.  whereas the proposal initiated by Brazil on ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ is a welcome contribution to the necessary development of the criteria to be followed when implementing an R2P mandate, including the proportionality of the scope and duration of any intervention, a thorough balance of consequences, ex ante clarity of the political objectives, and transparency in the intervention’s reasoning; whereas the monitoring and review mechanisms of adopted mandates should be strengthened, including through the UN Secretary-General’s Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and on R2P, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and should be conducted ’fairly, prudently and professionally, without political interference or double standards’(17);

Y.  whereas the definition in international law of crimes which demand an immediate reaction by the international community has made considerable progress since the creation of the ICC, although independent assessment mechanisms for when those definitions should apply are still, crucially, missing;

Z.  whereas the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights plays an important role in awareness-raising on ongoing cases of mass atrocity crimes; whereas the UN Human Rights Council is playing an increasingly important role in implementing R2P, including by authorising fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry to gather and assess information relating to the four specified crimes and violations, and by its increasing readiness to refer to R2P in crisis situations such as in Libya and Syria;

AA.  whereas a narrow but deep approach to implementing R2P should restrict its application to the four mass atrocity crimes and violations specified;

AB.  whereas the principle of R2P should not be applied in the context of humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters; whereas humanitarian action should not be used as an excuse for political action, and whereas humanitarian space needs to be respected by all actors involved;

AC.  whereas comprehensive assistance has to be offered for post-conflict situations; whereas more efforts are needed to affirm accountability for serious violations of human rights, as well as international humanitarian law and the fight against impunity;

1.  Addresses the following recommendations to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy / Vice-President of the Commission (HR/VP), the EEAS, the Commission, the Member States and the Council:

   (a) to reconfirm the EU’s commitment to R2P by adopting an interinstitutional ‘Consensus on R2P’, including a common understanding of the implications of R2P for the EU’s external action and the role its actions and instruments can play in situations of concern, to be prepared jointly by the Council, the EEAS, the Commission and Parliament having also taken into account the views of stakeholders, including those of civil society actors and NGOs;
   (b) to include a chapter in the HR/VP’s annual report to Parliament on the CFSP concerning the EU’s actions on conflict prevention and mitigation in applying the R2P principle; to analyse in this chapter the usefulness of the relevant instruments and administrative structures in implementing R2P, including identifying necessary revisions; to prepare this chapter in cooperation with the EU Special Representative for Human Rights and taking account of the various positions adopted by Parliament on specific issues relating to conflict prevention or human rights protection; and to debate the findings with Parliament;
   (c) to integrate the R2P principle in the EU’s development assistance; to further professionalise and strengthen the Union’s preventive diplomacy, mediation, crisis prevention and response capacities, with special reference to information gathering and exchange as well as early warning systems; to improve the coordination between the various Commission, Council and EEAS structures regarding all aspects of R2P, and to inform Parliament on a regular basis of the initiatives taken in support of R2P;
   (d) to ensure sufficient policy planning, operational concepts and capability development goals within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) to enable the Union to fully implement R2P in close international cooperation within the UN and regional organisations;
   (e) to further develop the EU’s conflict prevention and mitigation capacities, including the standby capacities of legal experts, police officers and regional analysts and the creation of an autonomous European Institute of Peace intended to provide the EU with advice on and capacities for mediation, two-track diplomacy and exchange of best practices on peace and de-escalation; to strengthen the preventive elements of the EU’s external instruments, in particular of the Instrument for Stability;
   (f) to strengthen linkages between early warning, policy planning and high-level decision-making in the EEAS and the Council;
   (g) to include a systematic assessment of the risk factors of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in regional and country strategy papers, and to include their prevention in dialogues with third countries that are at risk of those crimes and violations;
   (h) to develop cooperation with and training of the staff of the EU delegations and Member States’ embassies, as well as of civilian and military missions, in the fields of international human rights, humanitarian law and criminal law, including their capacity to detect potential situations involving the four specified crimes and violations, inter alia by regular exchanges with local civil society; to ensure that EU Special Representatives uphold R2P whenever necessary and broaden the mandate of the EU Special Representative on Human Rights to include R2P issues; to identify an EU Focal Point for R2P in the EEAS in the context of the existing structures and resources, to be tasked notably with raising awareness of the implications of R2P and ensuring timely information flows between all concerned actors on situations of concern, while also encouraging the establishment of national focal points for R2P in the Member States; to further professionalise and strengthen preventive diplomacy and mediation;
   (i) to launch and promote an internal debate within the EU on the reform of the UN Security Council, which is the only internationally legitimate body that can sanction R2P interventions without the consent of the target state;
   (j) to involve and train representatives of civil society and NGOs, who could play a role in informal or ’track II’ diplomacy with a view to promoting exchanges of good practice in this field;
   (k) to strengthen cooperation with regional and subregional organisations, including by improving their prevention, capacity-building and response measures in relation to R2P;
   (l) to ensure speedy ratification by all EU Member States of the amendments to the ICC Statutes defining the crime of aggression, since the Court can play a central role in the prevention of mass atrocity crimes, as well as in efforts to ensure accountability;
   (m) to insist on respect for the ICC clause in agreements with third countries. and to consider reviewing agreement with countries failing to comply with ICC arrest warrants;
   (n) to espouse a dual track-approach, i.e. promoting the universal acceptance of R2P while at the same time encouraging states to support and assist the ICC;

2.  Encourages the HR/VP and the Council:

   (a) to contribute actively to the debate on the R2P principle, building on existing international human rights law and the Geneva Conventions with a view to strengthening the international community’s focus on R2P’s prevention component and the universal application of non-coercive tools, and to develop a concrete action plan to that end which also includes considerations on the responsibility/need to rebuild;
   (b) to promote the R2P principle at the UN, and to work towards ensuring its universality, as an essential part of a collective security model based on multilateralism and the primacy of the UN and linked to the strengthening of the ICC; to recall that R2P also implies the responsibility to fight impunity;
   (c) to support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to reinvigorate and enhance the understanding of the implications of the R2P principle, and to cooperate with other UN members who wish to improve the capacities of the international community to prevent and respond to mass atrocity crimes covered by the R2P principle;
   (d) to call on the UNSC to take up the Brazilian proposal ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ in order to ensure the most efficient application of the R2P principle that causes the least harm possible, and contribute to the necessary development of the criteria to be followed when acting to implement in particular the third pillar of R2P, including the proportionality of the scope and duration of any intervention, a thorough balance of consequences, ex ante clarity of the political objectives and transparency in the intervention’s reasoning; given that the development of such criteria may provide guarantees which could persuade countries currently reticent about the R2P doctrine of its applicability, to strengthen the monitoring and review mechanisms of adopted mandates, including through the UN Secretary-General’s Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and on R2P, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to conduct these mechanisms ’fairly, prudently and professionally, without political interference or double standards’(18);
   (e) to draw lessons, in cooperation with the Member States and our international partners, from the experience of R2P in Libya in 2011 and from the current inability to take action in Syria;
   (f) to propose to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council the adoption of a voluntary code of conduct which would limit the use of the right of veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity;
   (g) to engage with the EU’s regional partners in order to spell out more clearly the role of regional and subregional organisations in applying R2P;
   (h) to work towards establishing R2P as a new norm of international law, within the scope agreed to by the UN’s member states at the 2005 World Summit;
   (i) to advise the Security Council that enshrining R2P, which is now an emerging standard, as a standard of international law would not limit its decision-making capacity;
   (j) to help strengthen the framework and capacities at UN level for mediation, two-track diplomacy, exchange of best practice on the peaceful resolution of emerging conflicts, and de-escalation and early warning systems, such as those of the Mediation Support Unit of the Department of Political Affairs; to strengthen the Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide and the Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect; to engage the Human Rights Council in the debate on R2P;
   (k) to ensure, in cooperation with the EU Member States having a seat on the UN Security Council and all international partners, the full consistency of possible further developments of the R2P concept with international humanitarian law (IHL), and to advocate and monitor full compliance with IHL in future cases where R2P is applied;
   (l) to address the issue of a single EU seat on the UN Security Council and of a communalised budget for CFSP missions under UN mandate;
   (m) to integrate women, including women leaders and women’s groups much more in all conflict prevention and mitigation, as well as in resolution efforts in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 1325 and 1820;
   (n) to work with the UN towards the establishment of a clear link between the implementation of R2P and the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes covered by this concept;

3.  Calls on the HR/VP:

   (a) to present to the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs a concrete plan of action within six months of the adoption of the present Recommendation, on the follow-up of the Parliament’s proposals, notably outlining the steps towards achieving a ‘Consensus on R2P’;

4.  Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the HR/VP, the EEAS and the Member States.

(1) S/RES/1674.
(2) A/RES/60/1.
(3) http://www.un.org/secureworld/report3.pdf
(4) A/59/2005.
(5) A/63/677.
(6) A/64/864.
(7) A/65/877-S/2011/393.
(8) A/66/874/-S/2012/578.
(9) 10170/2010.
(10) OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1.
(11) OJ C 25, 30.1.2008, p. 1.
(12) OJ C 380 E, 11.12.2012, p. 140.
(13) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0240.
(14) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0058.
(15) OJ C 377 E, 7.12.2012, p. 66.
(16) OJ C 76 E, 25.3.2010, p. 61.
(17) Article 51, ‘Responsibility to protect: timely and decisive response’, Report of the UN Secretary-General, 25 July 2012 (A/66/874-S/2012/578).
(18) Article 51, ‘Responsibility to protect: timely and decisive response’, Report of the UN Secretary-General, 25 July 2012 (A/66/874-S/2012/578).


European statistics on demography ***I
PDF 322kWORD 28k
Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 18 April 2013 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European statistics on demography (COM(2011)0903 – C7-0518/2011 – 2011/0440(COD))(1)
P7_TA(2013)0181A7-0050/2013

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4)  Pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission submits every three years a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the progress made towards achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion. The preparation of these reports and the regular monitoring of demographic developments and of possible future demographic challenges in the EU regions, including different types of regions such as cross-border regions, metropolitan regions, rural regions, mountain and island regions, require annual regional data at NUTS 3 regional level. Since demographic ageing displays strong regional differences, Eurostat is requested to prepare regional projections on a regular basis in order to complement the demographic picture of the NUTS 2 regions in the European Union.
(4)  Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission submits every three years a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the progress made towards achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion. The preparation of these reports and the regular monitoring of demographic developments and of possible future demographic challenges in the Union's regions, including different types of regions such as cross-border regions, metropolitan regions, rural regions, mountain and island regions, require annual regional data at NUTS 3 regional level. Since demographic ageing displays strong regional differences, the Commission (Eurostat) is requested to prepare regional projections on a regular basis in order to complement the demographic picture of the NUTS 2 regions in the European Union.
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7)  The EU sustainable development strategy, launched by the European Council in Gothenburg in 2001 and renewed in June 2006, seeks the continuous improvement of the quality of life for current and future generations. The Eurostat monitoring report, which is published every two years, provides an objective statistical picture of progress, based on the EU set of sustainable development indicators.
(7)  The EU sustainable development strategy, launched by the European Council in Gothenburg in 2001 and renewed in June 2006, seeks the continuous improvement of the quality of life for current and future generations. The Commission (Eurostat) monitoring report, which is published every two years, provides an objective statistical picture of progress, based on the EU set of sustainable development indicators.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a)  The strategic objective of the Beijing Platform for Action (1995) provides a reference framework for the generation and dissemination of gender-disaggregated data and information, for planning and policy evaluation reasons.
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9)  Demographic statistics on population constitute an essential component for the estimation of total population in the framework of the European System of Accounts (ESA).
(9)  Demographic statistics on population constitute an essential component for the estimation of total population in the framework of the European System of Accounts (ESA). The updating and purging of data are important when establishing statistics at European level.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11)  The information on demography should be consistent with the relevant information collected pursuant Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers and Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on population and housing censuses.
(11)  The information on demography should be fully in line with the relevant information collected pursuant Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers and Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on population and housing censuses.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13)  In the development, production and dissemination of European statistics, the national and European statistical authorities should take account of the principles set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice as reviewed and updated by the European Statistical System Committee on 28 September 2011.
(13)  In the development, production and dissemination of European statistics, the national and European statistical authorities, and, where applicable, other relevant national and regional authorities, should take account of the principles set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice as reviewed and updated by the European Statistical System Committee on 28 September 2011.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a
(a)  ‘national’ means the same as in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008, where the territory is as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 in the version applicable at the reference time;
(a)  ‘national’ refers to the territory of a Member State within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 in the version applicable at the reference time;
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point b
(b)  ‘regional’ means the same as in Article 2(g) of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 ; for countries that are not members of the European Union, it means the statistical regions at level 1, 2 or 3 as agreed between those countries and the Commission (Eurostat), according to the version applicable at the reference time;
(b)  ‘regional’ means NUTS level 1, NUTS level 2 or NUTS level 3 within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 in the version applicable at the reference time; for countries that are not members of the European Union, it means the statistical regions at level 1, 2 or 3 as agreed between those countries and the Commission (Eurostat), according to the version applicable at the reference time;
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point c
(c)  ‘usually resident population’ means all persons having their usual residence in a Member State at the reference time;
(c)  ‘usually resident population’ means all persons having their usual residence in a Member State of the Union at the reference time;
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point d – introductory part
(d)  ‘usual residence’ means the same as in Article 2(d) first paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 763/2008. The following persons alone shall be considered to be usual residents of the geographical area in question:
(d)  ‘usual residence’ means the place where a person normally spends the daily period of rest, regardless of temporary absences. The following persons alone shall be considered to be usual residents of the geographical area in question:
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point d – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Where the circumstances described in point (i) or point (ii) cannot be established, the "usual residence population" shall be estimated from the legal or registered population, using scientifically based, well-documented, and publically available statistical estimation methods that are monitored by the Commission (Eurostat).
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point h
(h)  ‘validated data’ means data that fulfil a set of quality criteria for data compilation, including all the checks made in terms of the quality of the data to be published or already published.
(h)  ‘validated data’ means statistical data that fulfil a set of quality criteria for data compilation, including all the checks made in terms of the quality of the data to be published or already published.
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1.  Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with data on the population as referred to in Article 2 (c) and (d) at the reference time. Where the circumstances described in Article 2 (d)i. or (d)ii. cannot be established, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with data on population at their place of legal or registered residence at the reference time; in this case, they shall undertake proportionate efforts to compute data which are the closest possible approximation to the population referred to in Article 2 (c) and (d).
1.  Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with statistical data on the population as referred to in Article 2 (c) and (d) at the reference time. The statistical data provided shall cover the following variables:
(a)  age;
(b)  sex;
(c)  region of residence.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2.  Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with data on vital events at the reference time, regardless of the place where the events occurred. Member States shall use the same population definition as for the data referred to in paragraph 1.
2.  Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with data on vital events that occurred during the reference period. Member States shall use the same population definition as they use for the data referred to in paragraph 1. The data provided shall cover the following variables:
(a)  live births by sex, by month of occurrence, by live birth-order, by mother’s age, by mother’s year of birth, by mother’s country of birth, by mother’s country of citizenship and by mother’s region of residence;
(b)  deaths by age, by sex, by year of birth, by region of residence, by country of birth, by country of citizenship and by month of occurrence.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3.  Member States shall use the same population definition for all national and regional levels as defined in Article 2 (a) and (b).
3.  Member States shall use the same definition of population for all levels, as given in Article 2 (a) and (b).
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a.   Where regional authorities provide national authorities with statistical data, Member States shall forward such data to the Commission (Eurostat), in order to enable it to acquire a more detailed overview of the demographic situation in the Union.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4.  Uniform conditions related to the breakdown of data referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as to the frequency, deadlines and revisions of data, shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 9(2).
4.  The Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down uniform conditions for the breakdown of data referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as to the frequency, deadlines and revisions of data. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 9(2).
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
For the purposes of qualified majority voting in the Council, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with data on the total population at national level at the reference time, as referred to in Article 2(c), within 8 months from the end of the reference year. For the purposes of this Article, Member States shall not provide data on population at their place of legal or registered residence at the reference time.
For the purposes of qualified majority voting in Council, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with data on the total population at national level at the reference time, as referred to in Article 2(c), within 8 months from the end of the reference year.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1.  The reference time for population data shall be the midnight of 31 December.
1.  The reference time for population data shall be the end of the reference period (midnight of 31 December).
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5.  Member States shall ensure that the population data as required by Article 3 of this Regulation are consistent with those required by Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007.
5.  Member States shall ensure that the population data as required by Article 3 of this Regulation are consistent with those required by Article 3(1)(c), of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007.
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9a
Review Clause
The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of this Regulation by 31 December 2018, and every five years thereafter. In that report, the Commission shall evaluate the quality of the data transmitted by Member States and the impact on the specific purposes referred to in Article 4. The report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by proposals designed to further improve the functioning of this Regulation.

(1) The matter was referred back to the committee responsible for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 57(2), second subparagraph (A7-0050/2013).


Ship recycling ***I
PDF 525kWORD 73k
Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 18 April 2013 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ship recycling (COM(2012)0118 – C7-0082/2012 – 2012/0055(COD))(1)
P7_TA(2013)0182A7-0132/2013

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Title
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on ship recycling
on the environmentally sound recycling and treatment of ships and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a)  The predominant method of dismantling ships through the so-called ‘beaching’ method does not and cannot represent safe and sound recycling and should therefore no longer be tolerated.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3)  Current ship recycling capacity in OECD countries which is legally accessible to ships flying the flag of a Member State is insufficient. Safe and sound recycling capacity which already exists in countries which are not members of the OECD is sufficient to treat all EU-flagged ships and is expected to expand further by 2015 as the results of actions taken by recycling countries to meet the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention.
(3)  Current ship recycling capacity in OECD countries, which is legally accessible to ships that constitute hazardous waste for export, is not sufficiently exploited. There is a controversy about the accessibility and capacity of ship recycling facilities in the United States. Irrespective of the situation in the United States in that regard, there is significant potential capacity in certain Member States and OECD countries, which could nearly suffice for recycling and treating ships flying the flag of a Member State (EU ships), if it was fully mobilised. Together with existing and potential safe and sound recycling capacity in countries which are not members of the OECD, there should be sufficient capacity to treat all EU ships.
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a)  The current situation of ship recycling is characterised by an extreme externalisation of the costs. Ship recycling facilities with little or inexistent standards for the protection of workers, human health and the environment offer the highest price for waste ships. As a result, the large majority of the global ship fleet sent for recycling is taken apart on the beaches of certain countries under humanly degrading and environmentally destructive conditions that are unacceptable. It is appropriate to create a financial mechanism, applicable to all ships calling at Union ports irrespective of the flag they are flying, to counterbalance this situation by contributing to render environmentally sound recycling and treatment of ships which constitute hazardous waste competitive vis-à-vis substandard operations.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 b (new)
(3b)  In view of the "polluter pays" principle, the costs of environmentally sound recycling and treatment of ships should be covered by ships owners. In the interest of protecting human health and the environment, a financial mechanism should be established to generate resources that would contribute to making environmentally sound recycling and treatment of both EU ships and non-EU ships in EU listed facilities economically competitive. All ships calling at Union ports and anchorages should contribute to the costs of environmentally sound recycling and treatment of ships so as to counterbalance the economic incentive to go to substandard operations, and to provide a disincentive to out-flagging. Ships that deposit a financial guarantee as a guarantee that they will go to EU listed facilities for recycling and treatment should be exempted from the recycling levy. The recycling levy as well as the financial guarantee should be fair, non-discriminatory and transparent.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4)  The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (‘the Hong Kong Convention’) was adopted on 15 May 2009 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization at the request of the Parties to the Basel Convention. The Hong Kong Convention will only enter into force 24 months after the date of ratification by at least 15 States representing a combined merchant fleet of at less 40 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping and whose combined maximum annual ship recycling volume during the preceding 10 years constitutes not less than three per cent of the gross tonnage of the combined merchant shipping of the same States. The Member States should ratify the Convention at the earliest opportunity in order to hasten its entry into force. The Convention covers the design, construction, operation and preparation of ships so as to facilitate safe and environmentally sound recycling without compromising ship safety and operational efficiency; it also covers the operation of ship recycling facilities in a safe and environmentally sound manner, and the establishment of an appropriate enforcement mechanism for ship recycling.
(4)  The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (‘the Hong Kong Convention’) was adopted on 15 May 2009 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Hong Kong Convention will only enter into force 24 months after the date of ratification by at least 15 States representing a combined merchant fleet of at least 40 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping and whose combined maximum annual ship recycling volume during the preceding 10 years constitutes not less than three per cent of the gross tonnage of the combined merchant shipping of the same States. The Convention covers the use of hazardous materials in ships so as to facilitate safe and environmentally sound recycling without compromising ship safety and operational efficiency; it also covers, through guidelines, the operation of ship recycling facilities, and includes an enforcement mechanism for ship recycling. The Hong Kong Convention does not apply to government-owned ships nor to vessels under 500 Gross Tonnes (GT), nor to vessels operating throughout their life only in waters subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly. The Hong Kong Convention also does not cover the actual recycling of the steel recovered at the ship recycling facility or the operations of facilities managing waste materials downstream of the initial ship recycling facility. The Hong Kong Convention does not seek to prevent the export of ships that constitute hazardous waste to non-OECD countries - a practice currently prohibited under Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. It is expected that it will take up to a decade before the Hong Kong Convention enters into force.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5)  The Hong Kong Convention provides explicitly for its Parties to take more stringent measures consistent with international law, with respect to the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships, in order to prevent, reduce or minimise any adverse effects on human health and the environment. The establishment of a European list of ship recycling facilities fulfilling the requirements set out in this Regulation would contribute to that objective as well as to better enforcement by facilitating the flag states´ control of ships going for recycling. Those requirements for ship recycling facilities should be based on the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention.
(5)  The Hong Kong Convention provides explicitly for its Parties to be able to take more stringent measures consistent with international law, with respect to the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships, in order to prevent, reduce or minimise any adverse effects on human health and the environment. The establishment of a European list of ship recycling facilities fulfilling the requirements set out in this Regulation should contribute to that objective as well as to better enforcement by facilitating the flag states' control of ships going for recycling. Those requirements for ship recycling facilities should be based on the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention, but should go beyond them so as to achieve a level of protection of human health and the environment that is broadly equivalent to that of the Union. This should also contribute to increasing the competitiveness of the environmentally safe and sound recycling and treatment of ships in Union facilities.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7)  The ships not covered by the scopes of the Hong Kong Convention and this Regulation should continue to be recycled in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives respectively,
(7)  Ships not covered by the scope of the Hong Kong Convention, ships that are not able to travel by their own means, unless they have a valid contract for full repair, and ships that do not comply with the applicable provisions under Union and international law with regard to safety when they become waste in the territory under the jurisdiction of a Member State, should continue to be recycled in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives respectively.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8)  It is necessary to clarify the respective scopes of this Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive 2008/98/EC in order to avoid the duplication of regulatory instruments that have the same objective.
(8)  It is necessary to clarify the scope respectively of this Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive 2008/98/EC in order to avoid applying different legal requirements in the same situation.
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a)  The application of this Regulation should respect the rights of transit countries under international law.
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a)  Member States should arrange for a swift ratification of the Hong Kong Convention with the aim of improving ship recycling practices and conditions.
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11)  Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and ensure that these penalties are applied so as to prevent circumvention of ship recycling rules. The penalties, which may be of a civil or administrative nature, should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
(11)  Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and ensure that these penalties are applied so as to prevent circumvention of ship recycling rules. The penalties, which may be of a criminal, civil or administrative nature, should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14)  Since the objective to prevent, reduce or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment caused by the recycling, operation and maintenance of ships flying the flag of a Member State cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the international character of shipping and ship recycling, and can therefore be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,
(14)  Since the objective to prevent, reduce or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment caused by the recycling and treatment of EU ships cannot always be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone due to the international character of shipping and ship recycling, and can therefore in some cases be better achieved at Union level although the ratification of Hong Kong Convention would transfer the Union competence for regulating ship recycling issues back to EU Member States, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1
The purpose of this Regulation is to prevent, reduce or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment caused by the recycling, operation and maintenance of ships flying the flag of a Member State.
The purpose of this Regulation is to prevent, reduce to a minimum and, to the extent possible, eliminate accidents, injuries and other adverse effects on human health and the environment caused by the recycling and treatment of EU ships, inter alia by recycling them in EU listed facilities located in the Union or outside the Union, and to improve the conditions for the recycling of non-EU ships.
The purpose of this Regulation is also to reduce disparities between operators in the Union, in OECD countries and in relevant third countries in terms of health and safety at the work place and environmental standards.
This Regulation aims also at facilitating ratification of the Hong Kong Convention.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a)  'EU Ship' means a ship flying the flag of a Member State or operating under its authority;
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)
(1b)'non-EU Ship' means a ship flying the flag of a third country;
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
(3a)  'waste' means waste as defined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC;
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
(3b)  'hazardous waste' means hazardous waste as defined in Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC;
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 c (new)
(3c)  'treatment' means treatment as defined in Article 3(14) of Directive 2008/98/EC;
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 d (new)
(3d)  'environmentally sound management' means environmentally sound management as defined in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006;
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5)  ‘ship recycling’ means the activity of complete or partial dismantling of a ship at a ship recycling facility in order to recover components and materials for reprocessing and re-use, whilst taking care of hazardous and other materials, and includes associated operations such as storage and treatment of components and materials on site, but not their further processing or disposal in separate facilities;
(5)  ‘ship recycling’ means the activity of complete or partial dismantling of a ship at a ship recycling facility in order to recover components and materials for reprocessing and re-use, whilst taking care of hazardous and other materials, and includes associated operations such as storage and treatment of components and materials on site, but not their further treatment in separate facilities; the meaning of the term 'recycling' in the context of this Regulation is therefore different from the definition given in Article 3(17) of Directive 2008/98/EC;
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
(6)  ‘ship recycling facility’ means a defined area that is a site, yard or facility located in a Member State or in a third country and used for the recycling of ships;
(6)  ‘ship recycling facility’ means a defined area that is a built yard or facility located in a Member State or in a third country and used for the recycling of ships;
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
7.  'recycling company’ means, the owner of the ship recycling facility or any other organisation or person who has assumed the responsibility for the operation of ship recycling from the owner of the ship recycling facility;
(7)  ‘ship recycling company’ means, the owner of the ship recycling facility or any other organisation or person who has assumed the responsibility for the operation of ship recycling from the owner of the ship recycling facility;
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
(9a)  ‘transit means the movement of a ship to its destination of recycling in accordance with this Regulation through the territory of a country other than the country of dispatch or destination and which is entitled to oppose such a movement under international law.
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 20 a (new)
(20a)  ‘abandoned ship means a ship which has been left unattended and derelict in an Union port by its last recorded owner
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1.  This Regulation shall apply to ships entitled to fly the flag of a Member State or operating under its authority.
1.  This Regulation shall apply to EU ships.
Article 5a, Article, 5b, Article 11b and Article 23(1) and Article 29(1) of this Regulation shall also apply to non-EU ships calling at a port or anchorage of a Member State to engage in a ship/port interface.
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – points c a (new) and c b (new)
(ca)  ships that are not able to travel by their own means, irrespective of the flag they fly and thus constitute waste for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, unless they have a valid contract for full repair;
(cb)  ships that do not comply with the applicable provisions under Union and international law with regard to safety.
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – title
Control of hazardous materials
Control of prohibited or restricted hazardous materials
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a.  The new application of anti-fouling systems containing organotin compounds as a biocide or any other anti-fouling system whose application or use is prohibited by the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships shall be prohibited on ships.
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
Inventory of hazardous materials
Inventory of hazardous materials
1.  An inventory of hazardous materials shall be kept on board of each new ship.
1.  Member States shall ensure that an inventory of hazardous materials shall be established and kept available on board each new EU ship.
2.  An inventory of hazardous materials shall be established before a ship goes for recycling and kept on board.
2.  Member States shall ensure that for existing EU ships, an inventory of hazardous materials shall be established in accordance with the timelines indicated in paragraph 2a, or before a ship goes for recycling, whatever the earlier, and kept available on board.
2a.  The following timelines shall apply for the establishment of an inventory:
–  for ships more than 25 years old on ... * ;
–  for ships more than 20 years old on…**;
–  for ships more than 15 years old on …***;
–for ships less than 15 years old on …****.
3.  Existing ships registered under the flag of a third country and applying to be registered under the flag of a Member State shall ensure that an inventory of hazardous materials is kept on board.
4.  The inventory of hazardous materials shall:
4.  The inventory of hazardous materials shall:
(a)  be specific to each ship;
(a)  be specific to each ship;
(b)  provide evidence that the ship complies with the prohibition or restrictions on installing or using hazardous materials in accordance with Article 4;
(b)  provide evidence that the ship complies with the prohibition or restrictions on installing or using hazardous materials in accordance with Article 4;
(c)  identify, at least, the hazardous materials referred to in Annex I and contained in the structure or equipment of the ship, their location and approximate quantities.
(c)  for new ships, identify, at least, the hazardous materials referred to in Annex I and contained in the structure or equipment of the ship, their location and precise quantities;
(ca)  for existing ships, identify, at least, the hazardous materials referred to in Annex I and contained in the structure or equipment of the ship, their location and quantities as precisely as practicable;
(cb)  take into account the guidelines developed by the IMO.
5.  In addition to paragraph 4, for existing ships a plan shall be prepared describing the visual/sampling check by which the inventory of hazardous materials is developed.
5.  In addition to paragraph 4, for existing ships a plan shall be prepared describing the visual/sampling check by which the inventory of hazardous materials has been developed.
6.  The inventory of hazardous materials shall consist of three parts:
6.  The inventory of hazardous materials shall consist of three parts:
(a)  a list of hazardous materials referred to in Annex I and contained in the structure or equipment of the ship, their location and approximate quantities (Part I);
(a)  a list of hazardous materials referred to in Annex I and contained in the structure or equipment of the ship, their location and quantities (Part I) in accordance with point (c) of paragraph 4;
(b)  a list of the waste present on board the ship, including waste generated during the operation of the ship (Part II);
(b)  a list of the waste (both hazardous and non-hazardous) present on board the ship, including waste generated during the operation of the ship, and its approximate quantities (Part II);
(c)  a list of the stores present on board the ship once the decision to recycle it has been taken (Part III).
(c)  a list of the stores present on board the ship once the decision to recycle it has been taken (Part III).
7.  Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials shall be properly maintained and updated throughout the operational life of the ship, reflecting new installations containing any hazardous materials referred to in Annex I and relevant changes in the structure and equipment of the ship.
7.  Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials shall be properly maintained and updated throughout the operational life of the ship, reflecting new installations containing any hazardous materials referred to in Annex I and relevant changes in the structure and equipment of the ship.
8.  Prior to recycling, the inventory shall, in addition to the properly maintained and updated Part I, incorporate Part II for operationally generated wastes and Part III for stores, and be verified by the Member State whose flag the ship is flying.
8.  Prior to recycling, the inventory shall, in addition to the properly maintained and updated Part I, incorporate Part II for operationally generated wastes and Part III for stores, and be verified by the Member State whose flag the ship is flying.
9.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 concerning the updating of the list of items for the inventory of hazardous materials in Annex I.
9.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 concerning the updating of the list of items for the inventory of hazardous materials in Annex I to ensure that the list includes at least the substances listed in Appendices I and II of the Hong Kong Convention, and to take account of relevant Union legislation which provides for the phasing out or restriction on the use or installation of hazardous materials.
____________________
* One year after the entry into force of this Regulation.
** Two years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
*** Three years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
**** Four years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 120
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a
Incentive-based system
In view of the current situation of ship recycling, characterised by an extreme externalisation of costs and unacceptable conditions involved in the dismantling of ships, the Commission shall, before the end of 2015, submit a legislative proposal for an incentive-based system that would facilitate safe and sound ship recycling.
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – title
Preparation for recycling: general requirements
General requirements for ship owners
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a)  prior to publication of the European List, are only recycled in ship recycling facilities that are located in the Union or in a country member of the OECD;
(a)  prior to publication of the European List, are only recycled in ship recycling facilities that are duly authorised by the competent authorities in the Union or in a member country of the OECD;
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1.  A ship-specific ship recycling plan shall be developed prior to any recycling of a ship.
1.  A ship-specific ship recycling plan shall be developed for any EU ship more than 20 years old or prior to any recycling of a ship, whatever the earlier, no later than ...*
________________
* 30 months after the entry into force of this Regulation
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a)  be developed by the ship recycling facility taking into account information provided by the shipowner in accordance with point (b) of Article 9(3);
(a)  prior to publication of the European List, be developed by a ship recycling facility that is located in the Union or in a member country of the OECD, taking into account information provided by the ship owner in accordance with point (b) of Article 9(3);
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa)  after publication of the European List, be developed by a ship recycling facility that is included in the European List, taking into account the information provided by the ship owner in accordance with point (b) of Article 9(3);
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d)  include information on the type and amount of hazardous materials and waste generated by the recycling of the specific ship, including those materials identified in the inventory of hazardous materials, and on how these hazardous materials and waste will be managed in the facility as well as in subsequent waste management facilities;
(d)  include information on the type and amount of hazardous materials and of waste generated by the recycling of the specific ship, including those materials and the waste identified in the inventory of hazardous materials, and on how those hazardous materials and that waste will be treated in the facility as well as in subsequent waste treatment facilities;
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
(ea)  be updated within six months of a renewal survey or an additional survey.
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a.  Ship owners selling an EU ship more than 20 years old to a new owner that intends to fly the flag of a third country shall ensure that the contract with the new ship owner stipulates that the new owner, and any subsequent owners, take over the responsibility for developing a ship recycling plan in the event that they wish to call at Union ports or anchorages.
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1.  Surveys shall be carried by out by officers of the administration or of a recognised organisation acting on behalf of the administration.
1.  Surveys shall be carried out by officers of the national competent authorities or of a recognised organisation acting on behalf of the administration.
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3.  The initial survey shall be conducted before the ship is put in service, or before the inventory certificate is issued. The officers carrying out that survey shall verify that Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials complies with the requirements of this Regulation.
3.  The initial survey of a new vessel shall be conducted before the ship is put in service. For existing vessels, an initial survey shall be conducted within five years of the entry into force of this Regulation. The officers carrying out that survey shall verify that Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials complies with the requirements of this Regulation.
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5.  The additional survey, either general or partial, may be conducted at the request of the shipowner after a change, replacement, or significant repair of the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material. The officers carrying out that survey shall ensure that any such change, replacement, or significant repair has been made in a manner that allows the ship to comply with the requirements of this Regulation, and they shall verify that Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials has been amended accordingly.
5.  The ship owner shall request an additional survey, either general or partial, after a significant change, replacement, or repair of the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material. The officers carrying out that survey shall ensure that any such significant change, replacement, or repair has been made in a manner that allows the ship to comply with the requirements of this Regulation, and they shall verify that Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials has been amended accordingly.
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa)  the ship has been pre-cleaned in accordance with point (c) of Article 6(1);
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a.  The officers carrying out the surveys may, at any time or at the duly substantiated request of port authorities which have serious concerns about the condition of a ship that has put into port, decide to carry out an unannounced inspection in order to determine whether the ship complies with this Regulation.
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2.  The contract shall be effective at the latest from the time of the request for the final survey referred to in Article 8(1)(d) and until the recycling is completed.
2.  The contract shall be effective at the latest from the time of the request for the final survey referred to in Article 8(6) and until the recycling is completed.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b)  to provide the ship recycling facility with all the ship-relevant information necessary for the development of the ship recycling plan required by Article 7;
(b)  to provide the ship recycling facility at least four months prior to the intended date for the ship recycling with all the ship-relevant information necessary for the development of the ship recycling plan required by Article 7, or in cases where the ship owner is not in possession of such information, to inform the ship recycling facility and collaborate with them to ensure that any lacunae are adequately resolved;
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba)  to provide the ship recycling facility with a copy of the ready for recycling certificate issued in accordance with Article 10;
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new)
(bb)  to send a ship for ship recycling only when the ship recycling plan has been explicitly approved by the competent authority in accordance with point (b) of Article 7(2);
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c)  to take back the ship prior to the start of the recycling or after the start of the recycling, where technically feasible, in case the content of hazardous materials on board does not substantially correspond to the inventory of hazardous materials and does not allow for appropriate recycling of the ship;
(c)  to take back the ship prior to the start of the recycling or after the start of the recycling, where technically feasible, if the intended ship recycling is impractical or would undermine safety or protection of the environment due to a failure to describe the ship properly, whether in the inventory or elsewhere;
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
(ca)  to cover the actual extra costs in the event that the content of hazardous materials on board is significantly higher than indicated in the inventory of hazardous chemicals, but does not render the intended ship recycling impractical or undermine safety or protection of the environment.
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a)  to develop, in collaboration with the shipowner, a ship-specific ship recycling plan in accordance with Article 7;
(a)  to develop, in collaboration with the ship owner, a ship-specific ship recycling plan in accordance with Article 7 within one month of reception of all relevant information pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 3;
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c)  to prohibit the start of any recycling of the ship prior to submission of the report referred to in point (b);
(c)  to refuse the start of any recycling of the ship prior to submission of the report referred to in point (b) and prior to approval of the ship recycling plan by its competent authority;
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point d – introductory part
(d)  when preparing to receive a ship for recycling, to notify in writing at least 14 days prior to the planned start of the recycling the relevant competent authorities of the intention to recycle the ship concerned:
(d)  when preparing to receive a ship for recycling, to notify in writing at least three months prior to the planned start of the recycling the relevant competent authorities of the intention to recycle the ship concerned:
Amendment 56
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a.  The ship owner shall provide a copy of the contract to the competent authority.
Amendment 57
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1.  After completion of an initial or renewal survey or of an additional survey conducted at the request of the shipowner, a Member State shall issue an inventory certificate in accordance with the form laid down in Annex IV. This certificate shall be supplemented by Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials.
1.  After successful completion of an initial or renewal survey or of an additional survey, the Member State whose flag the ship is flying shall issue an inventory certificate in accordance with the form laid down in Annex IV. This certificate shall be supplemented by Part I of the inventory of hazardous materials.
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 concerning the updating of the form of the inventory certificate laid down in Annex IV.
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 concerning the updating of the form of the inventory certificate laid down in Annex IV.
Amendment 58
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2.  After successful completion of a final survey in accordance with Article 8(6), the administration shall issue a ready for recycling certificate in accordance with the form laid down in Annex V. This certificate shall be supplemented by the inventory of hazardous materials and the ship recycling plan.
2.  After successful completion of a final survey in accordance with Article 8(6), the administration shall issue a ready for recycling certificate in accordance with the form laid down in Annex V, if it considers that the ship recycling plan complies with the requirements of this Regulation. This certificate shall be supplemented by the inventory of hazardous materials and the ship recycling plan.
Amendment 59
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11a
Inspections
Member States shall apply control provisions for EU ships equivalent to those laid down in Directive 2009/16/EC, in accordance to their national legislation. A more detailed inspection shall be carried out, taking into account guidelines developed by the IMO, where an inspection reveals that a ship does not comply with the requirements set out in Article 4(1) to (3a), Articles 5 and 7, or does not carry a valid inventory certificate in accordance with Article 10(1), or whenever there are clear grounds for believing, after an inspection, that:
–  the condition of the ship or its equipment does not comply with the requirements set out in Article 4(1) to (3a) or does not correspond substantially to the particulars of the certificate, and/or the inventory of hazardous materials, or
–  there is no procedure implemented on board the ship for the maintenance of the inventory of hazardous materials.
Amendment 60
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 b (new)
Article 11b
Provisions applicable to non-EU ships in addition to Article 5a, Article 5b, Article 23(1) and Article 29 (1)
1.  Member States shall ensure that non-EU ships comply with the requirements set out in Article 4(1) to (3a), without prejudice to the requirements of other Union legislation which may require further measures. Member States shall prohibit the installation or use of the materials referred to in Article 4(1) to (3a), on non-EU ships whilst in its ports, anchorages, shipyards, ship repair yards or offshore terminals.
2.  New non-EU ships entering a port or an anchorage of a Member State shall keep available on board a valid inventory of hazardous materials.
3.  Existing non-EU ships entering a port or an anchorage of a Member State shall keep available on board an inventory of hazardous materials in accordance with the timelines indicated in Article 5(2a). The inventory shall fulfil the requirements set out in Article 5(4) to (7).
4.  Non-EU ships entering a port or an anchorage of a Member State shall present a statement of compliance issued by the ship's administration or recognised organisation acting on its behalf confirming that the ship complies with the provisions set out in paragraphs 1 to 3.
5.  Non-EU ships that have been bought from an owner flying an EU flag when the ship was older than 20 years, where entering a port or an anchorage of a Member State, shall keep available on board a ship recycling plan in accordance with point (d) of Article 7(2).
6.  A more detailed inspection shall be carried out where an inspection reveals that a non-EU ship does not comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 1 to 5, or whenever there are clear grounds for believing, after an inspection, that:
–  the condition of the ship or its equipment does not comply with the requirements of paragraph 1 or does not correspond substantially to the particulars of the certificate or the inventory of hazardous materials, or
–  there is no procedure implemented on board the ship for the maintenance of the inventory of hazardous materials.
7.  Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties are applicable to owners of non-EU ships that do not comply with the provisions in this Article.
Amendment 61
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
In order to be included in the European list, a ship recycling facility shall comply with the following requirements:
In order to be included in the European list, a ship recycling facility shall comply with the following requirements, taking into account relevant IMO, ILO and other international guidelines:
Amendment 62
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa)  operate from permanent built structures (dry docks, quays or concrete slip-ways);
Amendment 63
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a b (new)
(ab)  have sufficient cranes available for lifting parts cut from a ship;
Amendment 64
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b)  establish management and monitoring systems, procedures and techniques which do not pose health risks to the workers concerned or to the population in the vicinity of the ship recycling facility and which will prevent, reduce, minimise and to the extent practicable eliminate adverse effects on the environment caused by ship recycling;
(b)  establish management and monitoring systems, procedures and techniques which ensure that no health risks are posed to the workers concerned or to the population in the vicinity of the ship recycling facility and which will prevent, reduce, minimise and to the extent practicable eliminate adverse effects on the environment caused by ship recycling;
Amendment 65
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d)  develop and approve a ship recycling facility plan;
(d)  develop and adopt a ship recycling facility plan;
Amendment 66
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point j
(j)  ensure access for emergency response equipment such as fire-fighting equipment and vehicles, ambulances and cranes to all areas of the ship recycling facility;
(j)  ensure rapid access for emergency response equipment such as fire-fighting equipment and vehicles, ambulances and cranes to the ship and all areas of the recycling facility once work has commenced to recycle the ship;
Amendment 67
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point k
(k)  ensure the containment of all hazardous materials present on board of a ship during the recycling process so as to prevent any release of these hazardous materials into the environment and in particular in intertidal zones;
(k)  ensure the containment of all hazardous materials present on board of a ship during the recycling process so as to prevent any release of these hazardous materials into the environment and in particular in intertidal zones, notably by cutting the bottom part in a permanent or floating dry dock;
Amendment 68
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m
(m)  handle hazardous materials and waste only on impermeable floors with effective drainage systems;
(m)  without prejudice to point (k), handle hazardous materials and waste only on impermeable floors with effective drainage systems;
Amendment 69
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m a (new)
(ma)  ensure that all wastes prepared for recycling are only transferred to recycling facilities authorised to deal with their recycling without endangering human health and in an environmentally sound manner;
Amendment 70
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m b (new)
(mb)  ensure appropriate storage for dismantled spare parts, including impermeable storage for oil-contaminated spare parts;
Amendment 71
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m c (new)
(mc)  ensure functioning equipment for the treatment of water, including rainwater, in compliance with health and environmental regulations;
Amendment 72
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m d (new)
(md)  ensure appropriate storage for explosive and/or inflammable materials and gas, including the prevention of fire hazards and excessive stockpiling;
Amendment 73
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m e (new)
(me)  ensure appropriate impermeable and sheltered storage and containment for solid and liquid PCB/PCT waste or material;
Amendment 74
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m f (new)
(mf)  ensure that all PCB/PCT containing material is managed in accordance with the obligations and Guidelines of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;
Amendment 75
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point n
(n)  ensure that all wastes generated from the recycling activity are only transferred to waste management facilities authorised to deal with their treatment and disposal without endangering human health and in an environmentally sound manner.
(n)  ensure that all wastes generated from the recycling activity are only transferred to waste management facilities authorised to deal with their treatment and disposal without endangering human health and in an environmentally sound manner. Therefore draw up a register of secondary operators working at the main facility, including information on their waste management methods and capacities.
Amendment 76
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 1
(1)  identify the permit, license or authorization granted by its competent authorities to conduct ship recycling and specify the size limitations (maximum length, breadth and lightweight) of the ships it is authorized to recycle as well as any applicable limitations;
(1)  identify the permit, license or authorization granted by its competent authorities to conduct ship recycling and specify the size limitations (maximum length, breadth and lightweight) of the ships it is authorized to recycle as well as any applicable limitations and conditions;
Amendment 77
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 3 a (new)
(3a)  provide evidence that the ship recycling facility complies with all health and safety provisions under the laws of that country;
Amendment 78
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 4 a (new)
(4a)  identify all subcontractors directly involved in the process of ship recycling and provide evidence of their permits;
Amendment 79
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 5 – point b – introductory part
(b)  which waste management process will be applied within the facility: incineration, landfilling or other waste treatment method and provide evidence that the applied process will be carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular:
(b)  which waste treatment process will be applied within the facility: (e.g. landfilling, neutralization of acids, chemical destruction) or other waste treatment method for each of the materials listed in Annex I, and provide evidence that the applied process will be carried out in accordance with established best practices, global norms and laws, without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular:
Amendment 80
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 5 – point c – introductory part
(c)  which waste management process will be applied if the hazardous materials is destined for a subsequent waste treatment facility outside the ship recycling facility. The following information shall be provided regarding each subsequent waste treatment facility:
(c)  which waste treatment process will be applied if the hazardous materials are destined for a subsequent waste treatment facility outside the ship recycling facility. The following information shall be provided regarding each subsequent waste treatment facility:
Amendment 81
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 5 – point c – point ii
(ii)  evidence that the waste treatment facility is authorized to treat the hazardous material;
(ii)  evidence that the waste treatment facility is authorized by the relevant competent authority to treat the hazardous material;
Amendment 82
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 5 – point c a (new)
(ca)  have a system in place to document the actual quantities of hazardous materials removed from each ship compared to the inventory of hazardous materials and the respective treatment processes applied within the facility and outside the facility for those materials
Amendment 83
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 5 a (new)
(5a)  have adequate insurance to cover health and safety liabilities and the costs of environmental remediation in compliance with relevant legislation of the Member State or third country where the facility is located.
Amendment 84
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point 5 b (new)
(5b)  conduct regular monitoring of water and sediments in the vicinity of the ship recycling facility to check for pollution.
Amendment 115
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14
Authorization of ship recycling facilities located in a Member State
deleted
1.  Competent authorities shall authorize ship recycling facilities located on their territory that comply with the requirements set out in Article 12 to conduct ship recycling. That authorization may be given to the respective ship recycling facilities for the maximum period of five years
2.  Member States shall establish and update a list of the ship recycling facilities that they have authorised in accordance with paragraph 1.
3.  The list referred to in paragraph 2 shall be notified to the Commission without delay and not later than one year from the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.
4.  Where a ship recycling facility ceases to comply with the requirements set out in Article 12, the Member State shall withdraw the authorization given to the ship recycling facility concerned and shall inform the Commission thereof without delay.
5.  Where a new ship recycling facility has been authorized in accordance with paragraph 1, the Member State shall inform the Commission thereof without delay.
Amendment 116
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – Title
Ship recycling facilities located outside of the Union
Inclusion of a ship recycling facility in the European List
Amendment 117
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1.   A recycling company located outside the Union wishing to recycle ships flying the flag of a Member State shall submit an application to the Commission for inclusion of its ship recycling facility in the European List.
1.  A recycling company owning a ship recycling facility and wishing to recycle EU or non-EU ships in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation shall submit an application to the Commission for inclusion of its ship recycling facility in the European List.
Amendment 87
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3.   By applying for inclusion in the European List, ship recycling facilities accept the possibility of being subject to a site inspection by the Commission or agents acting on its behalf prior or after their inclusion in the European list in order to verify their compliance with the requirements set out in Article 12.
3.   In order to be included in the European list, ship recycling facilities shall be audited by an international team of experts nominated by the Commission prior to their inclusion in the European list with a view to verifying their compliance with the requirements set out in Article 12, and once every two years thereafter. The ship recycling facility shall also agree that it may be subject to additional unannounced site inspections by an international team. The international team of experts shall cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member State or the third country where the facility is located in order to carry out such site inspections.
Amendment 118
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4.  Based on an assessment of the information and supporting evidence provided in accordance with paragraph 2, the Commission shall decide by means of an implementing act whether to include a ship recycling facility located outside of the Union in the European list. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27.
4.   Based on an assessment of the information and supporting evidence provided in accordance with paragraph 2, the Commission shall decide by means of an implementing act whether to include a ship recycling facility located in a Member State or outside of the Union in the European list. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27.
Amendment 119
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1.  The Commission shall establish by means of an implementing act in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27 a European List of the ship recycling facilities which:
deleted
(a)  are located in the Union and have been notified by the Member States in accordance with Article 14(3);
(b)  are located outside the Union and whose inclusion has been decided in accordance with Article 15(4).
Amendment 88
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2.  The European list shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the website of the Commission at the latest thirty-six months after the day of entry into force of this Regulation.
2.  The European list shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the website of the Commission at the latest twenty-four months after ... *. It shall be split into two sub-lists, including EU/OECD, and non OECD ship recycling facilities, respectively.
________________________
* Date of entry into force of this Regulation
Amendment 89
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a.  The European List shall include the following information about the ship recycling facility:
(a)  the method of recycling;
(b)  the type and size of ships that are suitable for recycling; and
(c)  any limitation under which the facility operates, including as regards hazardous waste management.
Amendment 90
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b.  The European List shall indicate the date of inclusion of the ship recycling facility. An inclusion shall be valid for a maximum period of five years and shall be renewable.
Amendment 91
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c.  In the event of any significant changes to the information provided to the Commission, ship recycling facilities included in the European list shall provide updated evidence without delay. In any event, three months prior to the expiry of each five year period of inclusion on the European list, the ship recycling company shall declare that:
(a)  the evidence that it has provided is complete and up-to-date;
(b)  the ship recycling facility continues and will continue to comply with the requirements of Article 12.
Amendment 92
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a)  to include a ship recycling facility in the European list in any of the following cases:
(a)  to include a ship recycling facility in the European list where its inclusion in the European list has been decided in accordance with Article 15(4);
(i)  where it has been authorized in accordance with Article 13;
(ii)  where its inclusion in the European list has been decided in accordance with Article 15(4);
Amendment 93
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point b – point 2
(2)  where the ship recycling facility has been included in the list for more than five years and has not provided evidence that it still complies with the requirements set out in Article 12.
(2)  where the ship recycling facility, three months prior to the expiry of the five-year inclusion, has not provided evidence that it still complies with the requirements set out in Article 12;
Amendment 94
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – point b – point 2 a (new)
(2a)  where the ship recycling facility is located in a State that applies prohibitions or discriminatory measures against any ships flying the flag of a Member State.
Amendment 95
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – point a
(a)  notify the administration in writing at least 14 days before the planned start of the recycling of the intention to recycle a ship in order to enable the administration to prepare for the survey and certification required by this Regulation;
(a)  notify the administration, in writing at least three months before the planned start of the recycling of the intention to recycle a ship in order to enable the administration to prepare for the survey and certification required by this Regulation; it shall simultaneously notify its intention to recycle a ship to the administration of the country under whose jurisdiction it is at that time;
Amendment 96
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 - point b a (new)
(ba)  transmit to the administration a list of the States through which the ship is intended to transit on its voyage to the ship recycling facility;
Amendment 97
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c)  information regarding illegal recycling and follow-up actions undertaken by the Member State.
(c)  information regarding illegal recycling and follow-up actions undertaken by the Member State, including details of the penalties laid down pursuant to Article 23.
Amendment 98
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2.  Each Member State shall transmit the report by 31 December 2015 and every two years thereafter.
2.  Each Member State shall transmit the report by 31 December 2015 and every year thereafter.
Amendment 99
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a.  The Commission shall enter this information in an electronic database that is permanently accessible to the public.
Amendment 100
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 - paragraph 1
1.  Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties are applicable to ships that:
1.  Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties are applicable and effectively applied to the owners of EU ships and non-EU ships that:
(a)  do not comply with the prohibitions of certain hazardous materials pursuant to Article 4 and Article 11b;
(d)   do not have on board an inventory of hazardous materials required by Articles 5 and 28;
(b)   do not have on board a valid inventory of hazardous materials pursuant to Article 5 and Article 11b;
(c)  do not have on board a ship recycling plan pursuant to Article 7 and Article 11b;
(e)  were sent for recycling without complying with the general requirements for the preparation set out in Article 6;
(f)  were sent for recycling without an inventory certificate required by Article 6;
(g)  were sent for recycling without a ready for recycling certificate required by Article 6;
(h)  were sent for recycling without a notification to the administration in writing as required by Article 21;
(i)  were recycled in a manner which did not conform with the ship recycling plan required by Article 7.
Amendment 101
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 - paragraph 1 a (new)
1a.  Member States shall ensure that penalties pursuant 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 law1 are applicable to the owners of EU ships that:
(a)  were sent for recycling without complying with the general requirements pursuant to Article 6 of this Regulation;
(b)  were sent for recycling without an inventory certificate pursuant to Article 10(1) of this Regulation;
(c)  were sent for recycling without a contract pursuant to Article 9 of this Regulation;
(d)  were sent for recycling without a notification to the administration in writing pursuant to Article 21 of this Regulation;
(e)  were recycled without approval of the ship recycling plan by the competent authority pursuant to point (b) of Article 7(2) of this Regulation or in a manner which did not comply with the ship recycling plan pursuant to Article 7 of this Regulation.
___________________
1 OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 28
Amendment 102
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 - paragraph 2
2.  The penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In particular, where a ship is sent for recycling in a ship recycling facility which is not included in the European list the applicable penalties shall, as a minimum, correspond to the price paid to the shipowner for its ship.
2.  Without prejudice to the application of Article 5 of Directive 2008/99/EC, in particular, where a ship is sent for recycling in a ship recycling facility which is not included in the European list the applicable penalties shall, as a minimum, correspond to the price paid to the ship owner for its ship.
Amendment 103
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 - paragraphs 5 and 6
5.  Where a ship is sold and, within less than six months after the selling, is sent for recycling in a facility which is not included in the European list, the penalties shall be:
5.  Where a ship is sold and, within less than twelve months after the selling, is sent for recycling in a facility which is not included in the European list, the penalties shall be:
(a)  jointly imposed to the last and penultimate owner if the ship is still flying the flag of an European Member State;
(a)  imposed on the last owner if the ship is still flying the flag of a Member State;
(b)  only imposed to the penultimate owner if a ship is not flying anymore the flag of an European Member State.
(b)  imposed on the last owner who was flying a flag of a Member State in that one-year period if the ship is no longer flying the flag of a Member State.
6.  Exemptions to the penalties mentioned in paragraph 5 may be introduced by Member States in the case where the shipowner has not sold its ship with the intention to have it recycled. In that case, Member States shall request evidence supporting the shipowner's claim including a copy of the sales contract.
6.  Exemptions to the penalties mentioned in paragraph 5 may only be introduced by Member States in the case where the ship owner has not sold his ship with the intention to have it recycled. In that case, Member States shall require the ship owner to provide evidence supporting the ship owner's claim, including a copy of the sales contract with corresponding provisions, and information about the business model of the buyer.
Amendment 104
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3.  Where the request for action and the accompanying observations show in a plausible manner that a breach of the Regulation exists, the competent authority shall consider any such observations and requests for action. In such circumstances, the competent authority shall give the recycling company an opportunity to make its views known with respect to the request for action and the accompanying observations.
3.  Where the request for action and the accompanying observations show in a plausible manner that a breach of the Regulation exists, the competent authority shall consider any such observations and requests for action. In such circumstances, the competent authority shall give the ship owner and the recycling company an opportunity to make their views known with respect to the request for action and the accompanying observations.
Amendment 105
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 5
5.  Member States may decide not to apply paragraphs 1 and 4 to cases of imminent breach of this Regulation.
deleted
Amendment 106
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 5, 9, 10 and 15 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 5, 9, 10 and 15 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from ...*. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power no later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension no later than three months before the end of each period.
____________________
* Date of entry into force of this Regulation
Amendment 107
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1.  An inventory of hazardous materials shall be established for all ships not later than five years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
deleted
Amendment 108
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 a (new)
Directive 2009/16/EC
Annex IV – point 45 (new)
Article 28a
Amendment to Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control
In Annex IV of Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control1, the following point is added:
'45. A certificate on the inventory of hazardous materials pursuant to Regulation (EU) No XX [insert full title of this Regulation]*'
_____________________
OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 57.
* OJ L […], […], p. [..]'
Amendment 109
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point i
(i)  Ships falling under the scope of Regulation (EU) No XX [insert full title of this Regulation].
(i)  Ships that are delivered to a ship recycling facility included in the European list in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XX [insert full title of this Regulation].
Amendment 110
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 a (new)
Article 29a
Transit
1.  Member States shall ensure that the relevant administration, or another governmental authority, notifies the competent authority or authorities of transit within 7 days of receipt of the notification from the ship owner.
2.  The competent authority or authorities of transit shall have 60 days from the date of notification referred to in paragraph 1 within which to:
(a)  consent to the transit of the ship through its waters, with or without conditions; or
(b)  refuse to consent to transit of the ship through its waters.
The Member State concerned shall immediately inform the ship owner of the decision of the competent authority or authorities of transit.
3.  In the event that the consent referred to in paragraph 2 is refused, or is made subject to conditions which are not acceptable to the ship owner, the ship owner may only dispatch the ship for recycling via transit States which have not objected.
4.  In the absence of a reply within the 60-day period referred to in paragraph 2, the competent authority of transit shall be presumed to have refused its consent.
5.  Notwithstanding paragraph 4, in accordance with Article 6(4) of the Basel Convention, if at any time a competent authority of transit has decided not to require prior written consent, either generally or under specific conditions, the competent authority of transit shall be presumed to have given its consent if no response is received by the Member State concerned within 60 days of the transmission of the notification to the competent authority of transit.
Amendment 111
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30
The Commission shall review this Regulation not later than two years after the date of entry into force of the Hong Kong Convention. This review shall consider the inclusion of facilities authorized by the Parties to the Hong Kong Convention in the European List of ship recycling facilities in order to avoid duplication of work and administrative burden.
The Commission shall review this Regulation not later than two years after the date of entry into force of the Hong Kong Convention. This review shall consider whether the inclusion of facilities authorized by the Parties to the Hong Kong Convention in the European List of ship recycling facilities complies with the requirements of this Regulation.
Amendment 112
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 365th day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from ...*.
____________
* One year after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 113
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – subtitle 5 a (new)
UNANNOUNCED SURVEY CERTIFICATE
At an unannounced survey in accordance with Article 8 of the Regulation, the ship was found to comply with the relevant provisions of the Regulation.
Signed:..................................... (Signature of duly authorized official)
Place: .......................................................................................................
Date (dd/mm/yyyy):...................................................................
(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)

(1) The matter was referred back to the committee responsible for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 57(2), second subparagraph (A7-0132/2013).


2012 comprehensive monitoring report on Croatia
PDF 128kWORD 26k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on the 2012 Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Croatia (2012/2871(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0183B7-0160/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Treaty concerning the Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, the Protocol and the Final Act,

–  having regard to the Commission’s Comprehensive Monitoring Report of 10 October 2012 on Croatia’s state of preparedness for EU membership (SWD(2012)0338),

–  having regard to the Commission’s final Monitoring Report on Croatia’s accession preparations of 26 March 2013 (COM(2013)0171),

–  having regard to the Commission’s regular reports on Croatia’s progress towards accession covering the period 2005-2011,

–  having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council of 19-20 June 2003 on the Western Balkan countries and on enlargement,

–  having regard to all its previous resolutions and reports on Croatia’s progress and the enlargement process, in particular those of 1 December 2011 on the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia(1), of 1 December 2011 on the application of Croatia to become a member of the European Union(2) and of 22 November 2012 on enlargement: policies, criteria and the EU’s strategic interests(3),

–  having regard to all previous recommendations of the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas Croatia is set to accede to the EU on 1 July 2013;

B.  whereas some EU Member States have not yet completed ratification of the Accession Treaty;

C.  whereas Croatia is on track to meet the outstanding requirements as regards the final preparations for EU membership;

D.  whereas reform efforts must be sustained beyond accession in order for Croatian citizens to benefit fully from EU membership;

E.  whereas Croatia’s accession process testifies to the credibility of the EU’s enlargement policy and its transformative effects on applicant states;

F.  whereas Croatian membership will make the EU stronger and more secure, enrich its culture and heritage, and serve as a powerful reminder to other aspirant countries that conscientious implementation of commitments yields tangible and durable benefits to their citizens;

G.  whereas Croatia is expected, and uniquely positioned, to play a constructive role in its neighbourhood, above all by promoting further EU enlargement, democratic consolidation, regional cooperation and reconciliation between the peoples of the Western Balkans, while doing its utmost to ensure that bilateral issues do not obstruct any of these processes;

1.  Looks forward to welcoming Croatia as the 28th Member State of the EU on 1 July 2013, following the legally binding vote of the European Parliament on 1 December 2011 which gave consent to the accession of Croatia, and in accordance with the date set by the European Council in the Accession Treaty; expresses its confidence in the strength and maturity of Croatia’s democracy and social market economy, its adherence to European values, and capacity to fulfil the obligations of membership;

2.  Notes that Croatia is on track to meet the outstanding requirements as regards the final preparations for membership;

3.  Notes that Croatia has completed the ten priority actions identified in the Commission’s Comprehensive Monitoring Report;

4.  Welcomes the significant progress achieved by Croatia in completing tasks singled out in the Commission’s Comprehensive Monitoring Report and calls on the Government and the Parliament to resolve all outstanding issues by 1 July 2013 and to advance with all other necessary reforms; encourages Croatia to respect and fulfil all its commitments from the accession negotiations, in order to be fully prepared as a new Member State, as this is in the interests of Croatia and the EU; stresses that this process should be carried out in a transparent and inclusive manner, involving the Croatian Parliament and civil society to the largest extent possible;

5.  Invites those EU Member States that have not yet completed their respective ratification procedures for the Accession Treaty to proceed in a timely manner;

6.  Reiterates its view that accession should not be construed as the end of a process, but rather as a step along the path towards economic, administrative and judicial modernisation, and as an opportunity whose benefits can only be fully realised through continuous policy action; invites Croatia to continue to make efficient use of IPA (Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance) funds in preparation for EU membership and the utilisation of structural funds and the cohesion fund;

7.  Invites Croatian political and social actors to explore innovative ways of sustaining the impetus and consensus for reforms in the post-accession period, and of holding policy-makers accountable for the implementation of commitments undertaken in the Accession Treaty; stresses, in this respect, the indispensable role of effective parliamentary oversight and that of civil society;

8.  Reaffirms the centrality of an independent judiciary, professional and accountable public administration, and the rule of law in strengthening democracy and supporting investment and economic activity; invites Croatia to continue improving the independence, accountability, impartiality, professionalism and efficiency of its judicial system and the members of its judiciary, inter alia by reducing the number of backlog cases by implementing the new system of asset declarations for judges, and by further improving the track record of the new system of disciplinary proceedings; urges Croatia to implement the new Judicial Reform Strategy for 2013-2018;

9.  Notes that Croatia has put in place a satisfactory institutional and legal framework for combating corruption; calls on the Croatian authorities to further step up their fight against corruption, fraud and mismanagement of funds; points out that anti-corruption measures must continue to be strictly enforced; further invites the authorities to establish a track record of conflict of interest, corruption and organised crime cases and to improve implementation of the legal framework for the seizure and confiscation of assets;

10.  Calls on the Croatian authorities to make full use of the existing anti-corruption instruments to ensure unbiased and successful prosecutions and court rulings, including in high-profile cases, in order to consolidate citizens’ trust in the rule of law and public institutions; stresses the need for sustainable measures in the fight against corruption and organised crime and to reform the judiciary primarily for the benefit of Croatian citizens; emphasises that independent investigative journalism should be encouraged, as it is vital in exposing corruption and organised crime;

11.  Calls on Croatia to continue implementing the new, robust legislation on access to information, thereby consolidating the prevention framework against corruption; notes that the newly created Conflict of Interest Commission is now operational, and calls on the Croatian authorities to fully implement the legislative package on public procurement and on the financing of political parties and electoral campaigns;

12.  Calls on the Croatian authorities to remain vigilant in ensuring that fundamental rights are fully respected, while combating all forms of discrimination and acts of intolerance against national minorities, the Roma community, migrants, LGBT people and other minority groups and vulnerable groups; calls furthermore on Croatia to foster an environment that will ensure that members of the aforementioned minorities (e.g. LGBT people) can freely express their views and beliefs in line with the principles of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights;

13.  Encourages the authorities to promote freedom of expression, including freedom and pluralism of the media; acknowledges that the new law on the public broadcaster was adopted in July 2012; encourages the authorities to continue with efforts to ensure that the public service broadcaster is free from political and economic pressure and to increase its transparency;

14.  Observes that Croatia is preparing adequately for the future management and implementation of operations financed by the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds; calls on Croatia to create a project pipeline for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); encourages the Government to further strengthen the administrative capacities of the institutions responsible, including at regional and local levels, in line with the recommendations of the 2012 report by the European Court of Auditors; urges the Government to do its utmost do minimise the risk of corruption, fraud and irregularities in both the allocation and use of EU funds;

15.  Reminds the Member States, in the context of the negotiations on the MFF, of the EU’s commitments to Croatia and its citizens as regards future assistance in economic and regional development;

16.  Encourages Croatia to carry out further structural reforms to stimulate economic growth and revive the labour market; calls upon Croatia to continue to keep the banking sector stable and to continue the policy of fiscal consolidation in order to boost competitiveness; welcomes Croatia’s participation in the European Semester from January 2013; supports efforts to ensure timely and effective use of EU funds as well as to improve Croatia’s transport infrastructure and its links with the EU Member States and the countries of the region; invites the Government to fully implement the legislative framework on small businesses, inter alia by appropriate policy actions, by improving their access to finance and by supporting the internationalisation of SMEs;

17.  Is of the view that special emphasis should be laid on the social and environmental dimensions of economic modernisation; encourages Croatia to continue to strengthen social dialogue and uphold social and labour union rights; calls on the Croatian authorities to ensure transparency regarding environmental assessments of large-scale investment projects; urges the Croatian authorities to give priority to protection of the environment, especially in the field of spatial planning;

18.  Is concerned that the proposed law on strategic investments is not in line with European standards; calls on the Croatian Government and Parliament to revise it with a view to better protecting fundamental rights, notably property rights, and the environment;

19.  Calls on the Member States not to restrict Union citizens’ fundamental rights more than absolutely necessary with respect to the transitional measures provided for in Article 18 of the Act of Accession; calls on the Member States, in particular, to make use of the transitional measures restricting the free movement of persons exclusively on the basis of factual information and only in cases of serious labour market disturbance; points out that restricting access to their labour markets during transitional periods after previous rounds of enlargement has proved detrimental to the welfare of those Member States enacting the restrictions;

20.  Notes the progress in the construction of the border crossing points at the Neum corridor;

21.  Invites the Croatian authorities to take further action, including on legislative alignment, interinstitutional cooperation and border management, to prepare for Croatia to enter the Schengen area in due course;

22.  Calls on Croatia to continue to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and to intensify domestic efforts to investigate and prosecute war crimes, in line with the adopted strategy on impunity; makes a strong appeal to Croatia and Serbia to cooperate in good faith on the prosecution of war crimes in order to achieve justice and true reconciliation in the region;

23.  Calls on the Croatian authorities to continue to pay special attention to the rights and social conditions of returning refugees and displaced persons, in line with the goals of the Sarajevo Declaration Process; continues to support the RECOM (Regional Commission for Truth and Reconciliation) initiative to search for ways to acknowledge suffering and respect the right to truth and justice for all victims of war crimes;

24.  Encourages Croatia to play an active role in the process of stabilisation and European integration of the Western Balkan countries; believes that Croatia’s experience and expertise, accumulated in the course of its transformation and accession, are of significant value to other applicant and aspirant states; encourages Croatia to share its experiences with other candidate and potential candidate countries and to strengthen regional cooperation; is of the view that Croatia’s promotion of European values and further enlargement is built on good neighbourly relations and the pursuit of reconciliation;

25.  Appeals to Croatia and its neighbours to engage actively in the resolution of outstanding bilateral issues in accordance with international commitments and the principles of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation; welcomes, in this regard, the steps taken by the Government of Croatia and the Government of Serbia to improve relations, and looks forward to an intensification of their cooperation; welcomes the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between Slovenia and Croatia on finding a solution to the Ljubljanska Banka case in a constructive manner; welcomes the ratification of the Accession Treaty by the Parliament of Slovenia; recalls that issues of a bilateral nature must not be used to impede the integration processes of current or future applicant countries; in this context, urges all Member States to ratify Croatia’s Accession Treaty on time;

26.  Encourages Croatia to continue to play a constructive role in regional cooperation; calls on the Croatian authorities to fully implement the declaration on promoting European values in Southeast Europe endorsed by the Croatian Parliament on 21 October 2011; invites all countries in the region to adopt and implement similar positions; urges the Commission to assist all countries in the region in this respect; calls on the Commission to learn from past experience in the enlargement process, including the enlargement process with Croatia, by helping countries in the region resolve their bilateral disputes in a manner that does not interfere with the accession process through establishing facilitation and arbitration mechanisms within the existing EU institutional framework that countries in the region can draw on if they so wish;

27.  Acknowledges the activities and the constructive contribution of the Croatian observers in the European Parliament; welcomes the outcome of the elections for the Croatian Members of the European Parliament held on 14 April 2013, but regrets the low turnout; looks forward to welcoming MEPs from Croatia as of Croatia’s accession to the EU on 1 July 2013;

28.  Appreciates the work of the Commission in steering Croatia’s accession process; asks the Commission to take stock of the exercise and draw policy lessons for future applicant states, such as use of the comprehensive monitoring regime in the period between the completion of negotiations and accession; calls on the Commission to evaluate the involvement of civil society and parliament throughout the accession process in order to draw lessons for current and future negotiations; asks the Commission, in this specific context, to draw up proposals to better involve civil society and parliaments in the candidate countries in the accession process;

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

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0538.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0539.
(3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0453.


2012 progress report on Turkey
PDF 168kWORD 39k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on the 2012 Progress Report on Turkey (2012/2870(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0184B7-0162/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission’s 2012 Progress Report on Turkey (SWD(2012)0336),

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013’ (COM(2012)0600),

–   having regard to its previous resolutions, in particular those of 9 March 2011 on Turkey’s 2010 progress report(1), 29 March 2012 on Turkey’s 2011 progress report(2), 22 May 2012 on a 2020 perspective for women in Turkey(3), and 22 November 2012 on Enlargement: policies, criteria and the EU’s strategic interests(4),

–  having regard to the Negotiating Framework for Turkey of 3 October 2005,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2008/157/EC of 18 February 2008 on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey(5) (‘the Accession Partnership’), as well as to the previous Council decisions on the Accession Partnership of 2001, 2003 and 2006,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 14 December 2010, 5 December 2011 and 11 December 2012,

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

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas accession negotiations with Turkey were opened on 3 October 2005 after the Council had approved the Negotiating Framework, and whereas the opening of such negotiations is the starting point for a long-lasting and open-ended process based on fair and rigorous conditionality and the commitment to reform;

B.  whereas Turkey has committed itself to reforms, good neighbourly relations and progressive alignment with the EU, and whereas these efforts should be viewed as an opportunity for Turkey itself to continue to modernise and to consolidate and further improve its democratic institutions, the rule of law and the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

C.  whereas the EU should remain the benchmark for reforms in Turkey;

D.  whereas full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria and EU integration capacity, in accordance with the conclusions of the December 2006 European Council meeting, remain the basis for accession to the EU, which is a community based on shared values, sincere cooperation and mutual solidarity among all its Member States;

E.  whereas the positive agenda was launched in May 2012 to support and complement the negotiations, without replacing them, through enhanced cooperation in a number of areas of joint interest;

F.  whereas in its conclusions of 11 December 2012 the Council endorsed the Commission’s new approach of placing the rule of law at the heart of enlargement policy and confirmed the centrality in the negotiating process of Chapter 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights) and Chapter 24 (justice, freedom and security), which should be tackled early in the negotiations in order to allow clear benchmarks and maximum time to establish the necessary legislation, institutions and solid track records of implementation;

G.  whereas in its 2012 Enlargement Strategy the Commission concluded that, in terms of its economy, strategic location and important regional role, Turkey is a key country for the European Union and that the accession process remains the most suitable framework for promoting EU-related reforms in Turkey; whereas the Commission expressed concern regarding Turkey’s lack of progress on the fulfilment of the political criteria;

H.  whereas Turkey, for the seventh consecutive year, has still not implemented the provisions stemming from the EC-Turkey Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto;

I.  whereas negotiating chapters for which technical preparations have been concluded should be opened without delay according to established procedures and in line with the Negotiating Framework;

J.  whereas there is an economic interdependence between the European Union and Turkey, with trade between the EU and Turkey totalling EUR 120 billion in 2011;

K.  whereas the EU is Turkey’s largest trading partner and Turkey is the EU’s sixth-largest trading partner; whereas foreign direct investment (FDI) by EU Member States in Turkey accounts for 75 % of total FDI inflow;

L.  whereas the Commission has assessed that, in the area of economic policy, Turkey’s overall level of preparedness is advanced and that its capacity for economic policy formulation and coordination is adequate;

M.  whereas Turkey has the potential to play a pivotal role in diversifying energy resources and routes for oil, gas and electricity transiting from neighbouring countries to the EU; whereas in creating a sustainable low-carbon economy, there is potential for both Turkey and the EU to benefit from Turkey’s rich renewable energy resources;

N.  whereas EU dialogue and cooperation with Turkey on stability, democracy and security, with particular reference to the broader Middle East, are of strategic importance; whereas Turkey has strongly and repeatedly condemned the Syrian regime’s violence against its civilians and is providing vital humanitarian assistance to Syrians fleeing from the violence taking place across the border;

O.  whereas Turkey and Armenia need to proceed to a normalisation of their relations by ratifying, without preconditions, the protocols agreed on and by opening their common border;

P.  whereas the casus belli threat declared by the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) against Greece in 1995 should be withdrawn; whereas it is important that Turkey and Greece conduct a new round of talks to improve their relations;

Constructive dialogue and common understanding

1.  Believes that renewed mutual engagement in the context of the negotiation process is needed in order to maintain a constructive relationship; stresses the importance of creating the conditions for a constructive dialogue and the foundations of a common understanding; notes that this should be based on common values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights; commends the Commission and Turkey for the implementation of the positive agenda, which proves how, in a context of mutual engagement and clear objectives, Turkey and the EU could advance their dialogue, achieve common understanding, and produce positive change and necessary reforms;

2.  Stresses Turkey’s strategic role, politically and geographically, for the EU’s foreign and neighbourhood policies; recognises Turkey’s role as a neighbour and an important regional player, and calls for further reinforcement of the existing political dialogue between the EU and Turkey on foreign policy choices and objectives; regrets that the alignment of Turkey with CFSP declarations continued to be low in 2012; encourages Turkey to develop its foreign policy in the framework of dialogue and coordination with the EU; calls on Turkey and the EU to cooperate more closely on strengthening the forces of peace and democracy in the southern neighbourhood, a region of critical importance both for the EU and for Turkey;

3.  Expresses support for dialogue and re-established relationships between Turkey and Israel;

4.  Welcomes the Council decision to invite the Commission to take steps towards visa liberalisation in parallel with the signing of the readmission agreement; urges Turkey to sign and implement the readmission agreement without further delay and to ensure that, until this agreement enters into force, existing bilateral agreements are fully implemented; recalls that Turkey is one of the key transit countries for irregular migration to the EU; acknowledges the steps undertaken by Turkey to prevent irregular migration, and underlines the important need for Turkey to intensify cooperation with the EU on migration management, the fight against human trafficking, and border controls; stresses, once again, the importance of facilitating access to the EU for business people, academics, students and representatives of civil society from Turkey; supports the efforts of the Commission and the Member States to implement the visa code, to harmonise and simplify visa requirements and to create visa facilitating centres in Turkey; reminds the Member States of their obligations under the association agreement, in line with the ruling of the European Court of Justice of 19 February 2009 in the Soysal case(6);

5.  Welcomes the recent adoption of the draft law on foreigners and international protection and expects this legislation to address existing concerns about the continued arbitrary refusal of access to the asylum procedure and the practice of repatriation of refugees, asylum-seekers and other people who may be in need of protection; underlines the importance of aligning with international standards the detention regulations that were found to be unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Abdolkhani and Karimina vs Turkey;

Fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria

6.  Commends the Turkish Constitution Conciliation Committee for its commitment to drafting a new Constitution and for the inclusive process of consulting civil society in a manner that reflects the diversity of Turkish society; expresses concern at the apparently slow progress made by the Committee so far; encourages the Committee to continue its work and to tackle – in an inclusive, representative and collegial way, and in line with the criteria and values of the EU – key issues such as (a) ensuring the separation of powers and an adequate system of checks and balances; (b) clarifying relations between the state, society and religion; (c) introducing an inclusive system of governance that secures the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all citizens; and (d) formulating an inclusive concept of citizenship; calls on all political parties, and on the actors concerned, to take a constructive approach in the negotiation of the new Constitution; is of the opinion that the involvement of, and dialogue with, the Venice Commission would produce positive results and support the constitutional process;

7.  Stresses the need for further progress in implementing the 2010 constitutional amendments, in particular the adoption of laws on the protection of personal data and military justice, and of laws introducing affirmative-action measures to promote gender equality; notes that the presence and the powers of the Turkish Minister of Justice and his Undersecretary in the High Council of the Judges and Prosecutors (HCoJP) give cause for considerable concern regarding the independence of the judiciary; welcomes the entry into force of legislation providing for the right of individuals to petition the Constitutional Court, as foreseen by the 2010 constitutional amendments;

8.  Reaffirms the fundamental role that the TGNA plays as the centre of Turkey’s democratic system, and stresses the importance of securing the support and commitment of all political parties for the reform process, in particular as regards the valuable legal framework to protect and enhance the fundamental rights of all communities and citizens and to lower the 10 % threshold for representation in the TGNA; commends the work of the Turkish Human Rights Inquiry Committee, and asks for a more central role for the EU Harmonisation Committee in promoting the alignment of new legislation with the Union’s acquis or with European standards during the legislative process;

9.  Stresses that the reform of the Turkish judiciary system is central to the efforts to bring about democratic consolidation in Turkey and an indispensable prerequisite for Turkey’s modernisation, and that such reform must lead to a modern, efficient, fully independent and impartial judicial system guaranteeing due process of law for all citizens; welcomes the third judicial reform package as a step towards a comprehensive reform process in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights; stresses, however, the crucial importance of continuing the reform process by (a) addressing the excessively broad definition of criminal offences and, in particular, what constitutes an act of terrorism under the Penal Code or the Anti-Terror Law, with the urgent need to introduce a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the promotion of terrorism and the incitement to violence and, on the other hand, the expression of non-violent ideas, in full compliance with ECtHR case law, in order to safeguard freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, including student protests, and freedom of association; (b) addressing the issue of excessively long pre-trial detention periods; (c) addressing the need to allow full access to the prosecution file for defence lawyers; (d) setting criteria to promote the quality and consistency of evidence; and (e) reviewing the role and scope of special courts; welcomes, in this regard, the adoption of the fourth reform package by the TGNA and looks forward to its speedy implementation;

10.  Underlines the importance of providing effective protection for human-rights defenders; draws particular attention to the trial of Pinar Selek, which has lasted almost 15 years and, despite three acquittal decisions, resulted in a life sentence pronounced on 24 January 2013 by Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No 12; takes the view that this trial is an example of the shortcomings of Turkey’s justice system;

11.  Welcomes the changes to the code of criminal procedure and to the law on the execution of punitive and security measures to allow the use in court of languages other than Turkish, and looks forward to the rapid implementation of the new rules; welcomes the entry into force on 19 January 2013 of the law on payment of compensation for long trial durations and late, partial or non-execution of court verdicts, and expresses the hope that the domestic remedy foreseen will decrease the number of pending cases against Turkey at the ECtHR;

12.  Is concerned about the ongoing trials and the long pre-trial detention periods affecting activists, lawyers, journalists and opposition parliamentarians, noting that this constitutes interference in legal political activities and with the right to political association and participation; welcomes the abolition of the special courts established by the Government of Turkey in 2005 as adopted by the TGNA, but regrets the fact that the closure will not affect ongoing prosecutions;

13.  Notes that, in a culture of tolerance, minority rights should be fully recognised; expects that due process of law will be followed in the appeal made by the Prosecutor for a dismissal of the January 2012 Court decision on the Hrant Dink murder case based in part on the argument that the murder was committed by an organisation;

14.  Calls on the Government of Turkey, with a view to increasing the efficiency of judicial proceedings and addressing the ongoing backlog of cases, to bring its regional courts of appeal, which were legally due to be operational by June 2007, into operation as soon as possible and to focus on training judges and prosecutors for this purpose;

15.  Notes that Parliament’s ad hoc delegation for the observation of trials of journalists in Turkey will continue to monitor the trials of journalists and will follow judicial reforms in Turkey that address freedom of expression and of the media;

16.  Encourages Turkey to adopt the Human Rights Action Plan, prepared by the Turkish Ministry of Justice in cooperation with the Council of Europe and based on the case law of the ECtHR, in order to address issues raised in judgments of the ECtHR where Turkey was found to violate the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and calls for its implementation; supports the Ministry of Justice and the HCoJP in providing judges and prosecutors with human rights training; welcomes the establishment by the HCoJP of new assessment criteria for judges and prosecutors which will reward respect for the provisions of the ECHR and judgments of the ECtHR;

17.  Calls on Turkey to reaffirm its commitment to the fight against impunity, to expedite efforts to accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to align its national legislation fully with all obligations under the Rome Statute, including by incorporating provisions to cooperate promptly and fully with the ICC;

18.  Recalls that freedom of expression and media pluralism, including on the internet, are core European values and that a truly democratic society requires genuine freedom of expression, including the right of dissent; highlights the special role of public-service media in strengthening democracy and calls on the authorities to ensure their independence, sustainability and compliance with European Union standards; underlines, once again, the importance of abolishing legislation providing for disproportionately high administrative tax fines on the media, leading, in some cases, to their closure or to self-censorship, and the urgent need to reform the internet law; stresses the importance of tackling restrictions on fundamental freedoms in the broader context of the rule of law, in terms of both the wording and the application of the law; is concerned, in particular, that the penal code and anti-terror law are used to prosecute non-violent statements when they are perceived as supporting the aims of a terrorist organisation; stresses the need to amend Articles 26 and 28 of the Turkish Constitution, which limit freedom of expression on the basis of national security, public order and national unity; reiterates, therefore, its previous calls to the Government of Turkey to finalise the review of the legal framework on freedom of expression and to bring it, without delay, into line with ECtHR case law;

19.  Takes note of the concern of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media regarding the high numbers of trials of journalists and of journalists in prison, and calls on the Government of Turkey to ensure that trials are carried out in a transparent manner and with proper conditions and procedural rights for the defendants;

20.  Is concerned that the Turkish act on the establishment of radio and television enterprises and their broadcasts contains restrictions which do not comply with the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive;

21.  Notes with concern that most media are owned by and concentrated in large conglomerates with a wide range of business interests; reiterates its call for the adoption of a new media law addressing, inter alia, the issues of independence, ownership and administrative control;

22.  Encourages Turkey, with a view to completely eradicating torture and ill-treatment by the security forces, to set up the National Prevention Mechanism called for in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, ratified in 2011;

23.  Calls on Turkey to place constitutional restrictions only on those political parties that advocate the use of violence as a means of overthrowing the constitutional order, in line with the Venice Commission recommendations;

24.  Fully supports the Commission’s new approach of opening the chapters on the judiciary and fundamental rights, and on justice and home affairs, early in the negotiation process and closing them as the very last ones; stresses that official benchmarks would provide a clear roadmap and give a boost to the reform process; calls on the Council, therefore, to make renewed efforts for the opening of Chapters 23 and 24;

25.  Welcomes the Turkish law on the Ombudsman and the appointment of a first Head Ombudsman, who is to ensure the credibility of the institution through his decisions; stresses that the Head Ombudsman should promote public confidence in transparency and accountability in public services; recalls that the Head Ombudsman, and the members of the board of the Ombudsman, should be elected from among candidates who are non-partisan and impartial; calls on the board of the Ombudsman to ensure that the regulation on the internal decision-making process guarantees the independence and impartiality of the institution;

26.  Encourages Turkey to continue the process of civilian oversight over the security forces; calls for an amendment of the law on provincial administrations to give civilian authorities broader oversight of military operations and the gendarmerie’s law-enforcement activities; stresses the importance of setting up an independent law-enforcement complaints agency to investigate complaints of human rights abuses, ill-treatment and possible wrongdoing by Turkish law-enforcement agencies; takes the view that the legal provisions on the composition and powers of the Supreme Military Council need to be reformed;

27.  Notes that in the ‘Sledgehammer’ trial a first-instance court sentenced 324 suspects to 13 to 20 years after lengthy pre-trial detention periods; stresses that investigations of alleged coup plans, such as the ’Ergenekon’ and ‘Sledgehammer’ cases, and the investigation of the Kurdish organisation Koma Civakên Kurdistan (KCK), must demonstrate the strength and the proper, independent, impartial and transparent functioning of Turkey’s democratic institutions and judiciary, as well as their firm, unconditional commitment to respect for fundamental rights; is concerned about the allegations regarding the use of inconsistent evidence against the defendants in such cases; regrets the fact that these cases have been overshadowed by concerns about their excessively wide scope and the shortcomings of the proceedings, and is concerned about the adverse effects on society;

28.  Welcomes the law setting up the Turkish National Human Rights Institution (TNHRI); calls for its implementation without delay, in order to promote and monitor the effective implementation of international human rights standards; stresses the importance of using all EU instruments available in the field of human rights promotion to actively support the setting-up and proper functioning of the TNHRI and the empowerment of civil society organisations;

29.  Stresses the importance of active and independent civil society organisations (CSOs) for democracy; underlines the importance of dialogue with CSOs and stresses their crucial role in contributing to enhanced regional cooperation on social and political matters; is therefore worried that CSOs continue to face fines, closure proceedings and administrative obstacles to their operations, and that consultation of CSOs remains the exception rather than the rule; welcomes the Turkish Government’s improved cooperation with NGOs, but calls for their broader consultation in policy-making, including the formulation of policies and legislation, and in monitoring the activities of the authorities;

30.  Stresses that more progress is needed in the areas of labour and trade union rights; calls on Turkey to continue working on new legislation in this area to ensure that it is in line with the EU acquis and ILO conventions, especially as regards the right to strike and the right to bargain collectively; stresses the importance of opening Chapter 19 on social policy and employment;

31.  Welcomes the Law on protection of the family and prevention of violence against women; commends the National Action Plan to combat Violence against Women (2012-2015) and stresses the need to enforce it effectively nationwide; calls on the Ministry for Family and Social Policies to continue its efforts to increase the number and quality of shelters for women and minors in danger; stresses the importance of providing women who have been victims of violence with concrete alternatives and self-sustainment prospects; commends Turkey’s efforts, at all levels, to fight against ‘honour killings’, domestic violence and the phenomenon of forced marriages and child brides, and underlines the importance of a zero-tolerance attitude towards violence against women, and the importance of continuously stepping up prevention measures; is concerned, however, by the fact that, despite such efforts, violence against women is still a regular occurrence, and asks that those who fail to protect and assist victims be identified and prosecuted; stresses the importance of tackling poverty amongst women and of increasing the social inclusion of women; calls on the Ministry to continue actively to promote women’s rights, education – including by bridging the gender gap in secondary education – and participation in the labour market (which remains low), in politics and at senior level in the public as well as private sector, if necessary by introducing reserved quotas and by reviewing certain specific laws regulating employment in Turkey; encourages the Government of Turkey to revise the law on political parties and the law on elections in order to make the inclusion of women a priority for political parties; notes that Turkey’s 2023 employment target for women is 35 %, while in the EU 2020 strategy the target is 75 %; encourages Turkey to strive to achieve an ambitious employment target for women;

32.  Expresses concern that the draft law on antidiscrimination does not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity; stresses the urgent need for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation and the establishment of an anti-discrimination and equality board to protect individuals against discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, age or disability; expresses concern at the frequent attacks on transgender persons and the lack of protection provided to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons against acts of violence; calls on Turkey to combat homophobia and to adopt an action plan to promote full equality of rights, including labour rights, and full acceptance of LGBT persons; underlines the need for hate-crime legislation that includes heavier sentences for crimes based on any form of discrimination;

33.  Urges the Turkish authorities to take strong and effective measures to combat expressions of anti-Semitism, thus setting an example for the region;

34.  Welcomes the continued implementation of legislation amending the 2008 law on foundations and broadening the scope of the restoration of the property rights of non-Muslim communities; calls on the relevant authorities to assist the Syriac community in resolving the difficulties they face in dealing with property and land registration matters; calls for a solution for the large number of properties of the Latin Catholic Church that remain confiscated by the state; notes that progress has been particularly slow in extending the rights of the Alevi minority; recalls the urgent need to continue vital and substantial reform in the area of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in particular by enabling religious communities to obtain legal personality, by eliminating all restrictions on the training, appointment and succession of clergy, by recognising Alevi places of worships and by complying with the relevant judgments of the ECtHR and the recommendations of the Venice Commission; calls on Turkey to ensure that the Saint Gabriel Monastery is not deprived of its lands and that it is protected in its entirety; believes that a broader composition of the Directorate General for Religious Affairs, so as to include representatives of religious minorities, would prove beneficial, as it would promote an inclusive concept of society; calls on Turkey to remove the reference to religion from national identity cards and to guarantee that religious education respects the religious diversity and plurality of Turkish society;

35.  Recalls that education plays a pivotal role in the process of building an inclusive and diverse society based on respect for religious communities and minorities; urges the Government of Turkey to pay special attention to educational materials in schools, which should reflect the ethnic and religious plurality, and the plurality of beliefs, of Turkish society, eliminate discrimination and prejudice and promote full acceptance of all religious communities and minorities, and stresses the need for unbiased learning materials;

36.  Welcomes the direct political dialogue that the Government of Turkey has recently opened with Abdullah Öcalan; deems that a perspective for negotiations has been opened which could lead to a historic agreement that would settle the Kurdish conflict in a peaceful and democratic way; encourages the conflict parties, therefore, to transform these talks into structured negotiations as soon as possible; underlines the constructive role that all political parties, media and civil society in Turkey must play if the peace process is to succeed, and praises the cross-party and civil-society support for this initiative; notes that Turkey has continued to demonstrate resilience to the terrorist attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK); considers that true and sincere political dialogue is necessary, and calls on Turkey to invest renewed efforts in working towards a political solution to the Kurdish issue; asks all political forces to ensure an appropriate political platform for, and to debate in a constructive way, the Kurdish issue, and to facilitate a real opening to the claims for basic rights in the constitutional process that reflects the pluralism in Turkey and in which all citizens can find themselves and their rights fully recognised; asks all political forces to work in alliance towards the goal of reinforced political dialogue and a process of further political, cultural and socio-economic inclusion and participation of citizens of Kurdish origin, in order to guarantee their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and to promote the peaceful inclusion of citizens of Kurdish origin in Turkish society; welcomes the new legislation that opens the possibility for people’s native language to be used in trials and the positive discussion on the use of Kurdish in education; recalls that a political solution can be built only on a truly democratic debate on the Kurdish issue, and expresses concern at the large number of cases launched against writers and journalists writing on the Kurdish issue and the arrest of several Kurdish politicians, mayors and members of municipal councils, trade unionists, lawyers, protestors and human rights defenders in connection with the KCK trial; underlines the importance of promoting a discussion of the Kurdish issue within democratic institutions, particularly the TGNA;

37.  Welcomes the initiatives to reopen the Greek orphanage of Büyükada as an international cultural centre, and underlines the importance of lifting all obstacles to a speedy reopening of the Halki Seminary; welcomes and expects the speedy implementation of the declaration by the Government of Turkey regarding the reopening of a Greek minority school on the island of Gökçeada (Imbros), which constitutes a positive step towards the preservation of the bicultural character of the Turkish islands of Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos), in line with Resolution 1625 (2008) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; notes, however, that further steps are needed to address the problems encountered by members of the Greek minority, particularly with regard to their property rights;

38.  Strongly condemns the terrorist attack on the US Embassy in Ankara on 1 February 2013, and presents its condolences to the family of the deceased Turkish citizen; recalls that, while further measures to counter terrorist actions should be taken in order to ensure the security of the state and its people, they should not come at the expense of human and citizens’ rights;

39.  Calls on the Turkish authorities to ensure that the circumstances of the massacre of Uludere, in Sirnak Province, on 28 December 2011 are fully clarified and that those responsible are brought to justice;

40.  Welcomes the incentives package seeking to increase investment and economic development in the least developed regions of Turkey, including the south-east of the country, and the continuation of the South East Anatolia project; takes note of the verdict of the Higher Administrative Court (Danistay) on the annulment of the permit to construct the Ilisu Dam, based on environmental impact studies and applicable law; calls on the Government of Turkey to preserve this archaeological and environmental heritage by prioritising smaller, ecologically and socially sustainable projects;

41.  Reiterates the need to strengthen cohesion among Turkish regions and between rural and urban areas in order to open up opportunities for the population at large and to promote economic and social inclusion; highlights the particular role of education and the need to tackle persistent and substantial regional disparities in the quality of education and enrolment rates; calls for steps conducive to the opening of Chapter 22 on regional policy;

42.  Welcomes the establishment of an Ombudsperson for children’s rights and the adoption of Turkey’s first strategy on the rights of the child; expresses concern at the disproportionally high poverty rate among children and child labour rate, particularly in rural areas; stresses the need for a comprehensive strategy to combat child poverty and child labour, especially in seasonal agricultural work, and to continue to promote access to education for boys and girls alike; is concerned that the number of active juvenile justice courts has decreased, and urges Turkey to provide alternatives to detention for minors; calls on the Government of Turkey to continue to improve the conditions of the detention centres for minors; recalls the importance of independent monitoring and protection mechanisms to protect rights and prevent abuse;

43.  Welcomes the improvement in the overall business environment in Turkey, especially through the entry into force of the new Turkish Commercial Code and the consistent support for small and medium enterprises (SME) provided by the SME Development Organisation (KOSGEB); calls for greater partnership between Turkish and EU businesses;

44.  Reminds Turkey that tens of thousands of EU citizens and residents who have been victimised by the fraud committed by the ‘Green-Funds’ still await redress, and calls on the authorities to take all necessary measures to accelerate the process;

Building good neighbourly relations

45.  Notes the continuing intensified efforts by Turkey and Greece to improve their bilateral relations, including through bilateral meetings; considers it regrettable, however, that the casus belli threat declared by the Turkish Grand National Assembly against Greece has not yet been withdrawn; reiterates that Turkey must commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, having recourse, if necessary, to the International Court of Justice; urges the Government of Turkey to end the repeated violation of Greek airspace and Turkish military aircraft flights over Greek islands;

46.  Takes the view that Turkey missed an important opportunity to start a process of engagement and normalisation of relations with Cyprus during the latter’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union; recalls that the EU is based on the principles of sincere cooperation and mutual solidarity amongst all its Member States and respect for the institutional framework; stresses that progress towards the normalisation of Turkey’s relations with the Republic of Cyprus is urgently needed in order to give new momentum to the EU-Turkey accession negotiations;

47.  Regrets that Turkey refused to convene the 70th Joint Parliamentary Committee meeting during the second half of 2012 as planned, thus missing another opportunity to enhance the interparliamentary dialogue between the EU and Turkey;

48.  Emphasises that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been signed by the EU, the 27 Member States and all other candidate countries and that it is part of the acquis communautaire; calls, therefore, on the Government of Turkey to sign and ratify the convention without further delay; recalls the full legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone, in accordance with UNCLOS;

49.  Expresses once again its strong support for the reunification of Cyprus, based on a fair and viable settlement for both communities; underlines the urgent need for an agreement between the two communities on how to proceed with the substantive settlement negotiations, so that the negotiating process, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, can soon regain momentum; calls on Turkey to begin withdrawing its forces from Cyprus and to transfer the sealed-off area of Famagusta to the UN in accordance with UNSC Resolution 550 (1984); calls on the Republic of Cyprus to open the port of Famagusta, under EU customs supervision, in order to promote a positive climate for the successful solution of the ongoing reunification negotiations, and to allow Turkish Cypriots to trade directly in a legal manner that is acceptable to all;

50.  Takes the view that the Committee on Missing Persons is one of the most sensitive and important projects in Cyprus, and recognises that its work affects equally the lives of thousands of people on both sides of the island; encourages Turkey and all parties concerned to intensify further their support for the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus; takes the view that dialogue and a common understanding on issues such as full access to all relevant archives and military zones are required; calls for special consideration for the work done by the Committee on Missing Persons;

51.  Calls on Turkey to refrain, in accordance with the principles of international law, from any new settlement of Turkish citizens in Cyprus, as this would continue to change the demographic balance and reduce the allegiance of its citizens on the island to a future common state based on its common past;

52.  Stresses the importance of a coherent and comprehensive security approach in the Eastern Mediterranean, and calls on Turkey to allow political dialogue between the EU and NATO by lifting its veto on EU-NATO cooperation including Cyprus, and consequently calls on the Republic of Cyprus to lift its veto on Turkey’s participation in the European Defence Agency;

53.  Urges Turkey and Armenia to proceed to a normalisation of their relations by ratifying, without preconditions, the protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations, by opening the border and by actively improving their relations, with particular reference to cross-border cooperation and economic integration;

Advancing EU-Turkey cooperation

54.  Deplores Turkey’s refusal to fulfil its obligation of full, non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement towards all Member States; recalls that this refusal continues to have a profound effect on the negotiation process;

55.  Reiterates its condemnation, in the strongest terms, of the terrorist violence committed by the PKK, which is on the EU list of terrorist organisations, and by all other terrorist organisations; expresses its full solidarity with Turkey in this regard and with the families of the many victims of terrorism; calls on the Member States, in close coordination with the EU counter-terrorism coordinator and Europol, to intensify cooperation with Turkey in the fight against terrorism and organised crime as a source of financing of terrorism; calls on Turkey to adopt a data protection law so that a cooperation agreement can be concluded with Europol, and judicial cooperation with Eurojust and the EU Member States can be further developed; takes the view that the assignment of a Turkish police liaison officer to Europol would help improve bilateral cooperation; welcomes the adoption of legislation on the financing of terrorism in line with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations;

56.  Supports Turkey’s commitment to democratic forces in Syria and the provision of humanitarian assistance to the increasing number of refugees from Syria who have fled the country; recognises the fact that the repercussions of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria on the security and stability of the region are multiplying; asks the Commission, the Member States and the international community to continue to support Turkey’s efforts to cope with the growing humanitarian dimension of the Syrian crisis; underlines the importance of a common understanding between the EU and Turkey on how to deliver the available humanitarian assistance to the displaced Syrians currently on Turkish territory or waiting at its borders; underlines that beyond humanitarian assistance, the EU and Turkey should actively seek to develop a joint strategic vision to achieve reinforced leverage to end the tragic crisis in Syria;

57.  Welcomes the decision to enhance cooperation between the EU and Turkey on a number of important energy issues, and calls on Turkey to commit to this cooperation; believes that, in view of Turkey’s strategic role and considerable renewable energy resources, initial consideration should be given to the value of opening negotiations on Chapter 15 on energy with a view to furthering the EU-Turkey strategic dialogue on energy; underlines the need for more enhanced cooperation on the strategy for the EU energy corridors towards the EU; considers that both the enhanced EU-Turkey energy cooperation and eventual negotiations on Chapter 15 should also encourage the development of renewable energy potential and cross-border electricity transmission infrastructure;

58.  Considers that Turkey is an important partner in the Black Sea region, which is of strategic importance to the EU; encourages Turkey to further support, and actively contribute to, the implementation of EU policies and programmes in this region;

59.  Calls on the Commission to continue its support for civil society organisations and people-to-people activities through adequate funding of the Civil Society Dialogue, the EIDHR and Lifelong Learning programmes, including culture- and media-related activities;

o
o   o

60.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy / Vice- President of the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Government and Parliament of the Republic of Turkey.

(1) OJ C 199 E, 7.7.2012, p. 98.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0116.
(3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0212
(4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0453.
(5) OJ L 51, 26.2.2008, p. 4.
(6) Case 228/06 Mehmet Soysal and Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [2009] ECR I-01031.


2012 progress report on Montenegro
PDF 137kWORD 29k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on the 2012 Progress Report on Montenegro (2012/2860(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0185B7-0087/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part, of 29 March 2010(1),

–  having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 19-20 June 2003 and to the annex thereto entitled ‘The Thessaloniki Agenda for the Western Balkans: moving towards European integration’,

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 9 November 2010 on the Commission’s opinion on Montenegro’s application for membership of the European Union (COM(2010)0670),

–  having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2012 on Montenegro’s Progress in the Implementation of Reforms (COM(2012)0222), and to the Council conclusions of 26 June 2012 deciding to open accession negotiations with Montenegro on 29 June 2012,

–  having regard to the Commission Staff Working Paper of 10 October 2012 on the 2012 Progress Report on Montenegro (SWD(2012)0331),

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 10 October 2012 on the Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013 (COM(2012)0600),

–  having regard to the declaration and recommendations of the 4th and 5th Meeting of the European Union – Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee (SAPC) of 3-4 April 2012 and 28-29 November 2012,

–  having regard to the first meeting of the EU-Montenegro Civil Society Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) of 2 October 2012,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the application of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages by Montenegro, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 September 2012(2),

–  having regard to the election observation report by the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Council of Europe of 29 November 2012,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the country’s political leadership has received a fresh mandate at the elections to pursue the objectives of the accession negotiations;

B.  whereas significant progress has been achieved by Montenegro on the path to EU membership;

C.  whereas some shortcomings in the accession process continue to persist and need to be addressed, especially the fight against organised crime and corruption at high level;

D.  whereas the accession process should remain the driving force for continued reforms; whereas civil society has an irreplaceable role in the process of reform and EU integration;

E.  whereas Montenegro is the first country in which a new EU negotiating approach is applied with the strengthened focus on democratic governance, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, the judiciary, the fight against corruption and organised crime;

F.  whereas the EU has put the rule of law at the core of the enlargement process;

G.  whereas Montenegro continues to play an important role in regional stability;

General considerations

1.  Welcomes the decision of the Council to open accession negotiations with Montenegro on 29 June 2012; notes that this decision is a major step in the country’s accession process and a clear reconfirmation of the EU’s attachment to the European future of the Western Balkans; underlines the progress achieved by Montenegro as noted in the Commission 2012 Progress Report;

2.  Welcomes the peaceful, free and fair conduct of the early parliamentary elections in line with international standards; notes that the electoral legislation is broadly in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR; underlines that the legal framework must be fully in line with the OSCE/ODIHR recommendations that no citizens are subject to undue restrictions; calls on the authorities to further improve the compilation of voter lists and transparency regarding the oversight of campaign finance, and to ensure the due implementation of the legislation on party funding, including by eliminating all forms of abuse, especially of public resources for political purposes; calls, furthermore, for the proper review of complaints in order to further increase, in line with the OSCE/ODIHR recommendations, public confidence in the electoral process;

3.  Welcomes the creation of the new government, and encourages all political forces to remain focused, through constructive dialogue and close cooperation with civil society, on the country’s EU integration agenda;

4.  Welcomes the opening of negotiations with Montenegro and takes the view that this also represents a positive signal for other countries in the region; encourages the authorities in Podgorica to keep up the reform processes; equally welcomes the EU’s new negotiating approach under which the crucial issues of Chapters 23 and 24 will be tackled early in the negotiations, thus reinforcing the focus on the rule of law, and allowing maximum time to establish the necessary legislation, institutions and solid track records of implementation; considers that new negotiating chapters should be opened as soon as possible, provided that the reform process is sustained and concrete results are delivered;

5.  Notes with satisfaction that assistance provided by the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) works well in Montenegro; encourages both the Montenegrin Government and the Commission to simplify the administration procedure for IPA funding, with the aim of making it more accessible to smaller and non-centralised civil organisations, trade unions and other beneficiaries;

Political criteria

6.  Welcomes the fact that the Montenegrin Parliament’s oversight role has been further strengthened through the adoption of a law on parliamentary inquiry and amendments to the Parliament’s rules of procedure and to the law on data secrecy, as well as with the start of implementation of the law on parliamentary oversight of the security and defence sector; underlines the fact that ensuring civilian control over the military is a critical element of democratic reform; stresses the need to further reinforce law-making capacities and consultations with civil society; calls on the Montenegrin Parliament to continue improving its oversight role especially with regard to the fight against organised crime and corruption; calls for a more active involvement of the Parliament in the accession negotiations through strategic and political discussions, policy analysis and legislative review in different parliamentary committees to gain a meaningful oversight over the negotiations; calls for stronger parliamentary oversight of the implementation of adopted legislation and resolutions;

7.  Urges the Montenegrin Parliament to adopt constitutional provisions to reinforce the legal independence, integrity and accountability of the judiciary and to enhance judicial independence and the professional autonomy of the Judicial and Prosecution Council; takes the view that further efforts are needed to ensure merit-based appointments and career development;

8.  Welcomes measures to enhance judicial efficiency, including a reduction in the backlog of cases, but remains concerned by the length of court procedures and poor infrastructure at many courts; calls on authorities to introduce clear criteria for the promotion and professional assessment of judges and prosecutors; calls for more transparency regarding due legal process and judicial verdicts;

9.  Is concerned by the lack of alternatives to detention for children in conflict with the law; calls on the authorities to promote measures to reinforce the capacities of professionals working with children in contact with the justice system;

10.  Calls for further measures to create a professional, effective, merit-based and impartial public administration which, in practice, should represent a service for citizens; stresses that this should be done in a financially sustainable manner and with adequate verification mechanisms; welcomes the comprehensive reform of the public sector aimed at rationalisation and modernisation, and calls for its implementation;

11.  Calls for strengthening of the links between policy-makers and civil society; welcomes the inclusion of NGOs in the working groups dealing with the accession negotiations in order to ensure the accountability and transparency of the accession process; considers it important that they are equal members of the working groups; welcomes the Government’s new e-petitions platform to enhance participatory democracy in policy-making and e-governance; encourages Montenegro to consider establishing a ‘National Committee’, composed of parliamentarians and civil society representatives, to act as a consultative forum throughout the negotiation period; underlines the responsibility of both the Government and Parliament to inform citizens and civil society in a timely manner on the developments in the negotiation process;

12.  Underlines the fact that Montenegro has ratified the eight core labour rights conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the revised European Social Charter; points out the important role of social dialogue, and encourages the Montenegrin Government to step up ambitions in the Social Council and to further strengthen it; underlines the importance of improving the transparency and effectiveness of the Social Council; encourages the Montenegrin authorities to amend the Labour Law in order to bring it into line with the EU acquis;

13.  Is worried that the performance of the labour market remains weak and that unemployment has continued to increase and is at 20 %; welcomes the national strategy for employment and human resource development for the period 2012-2015; encourages the Montenegrin authorities to swiftly implement the strategy, strengthen the capacity of the Public Employment Service and increase the efforts to address low activity, employment rates and the mismatch between the available skills and needs;

14.  Regrets the fact that corruption remains common; encourages the Government to implement anti-corruption measures and measures in relation to the conflict of interest, including the new Law on Political Party Financing, in a consistent manner; considers it essential to build up a track record in terms of investigations and convictions, in particular in high-level corruption cases, to further strengthen preventive tools and awareness-raising campaigns and to protect citizens’ reporting on corruption cases; stresses the need to reinforce inter-agency cooperation, enhance related administrative capacities of the supervisory institutions and implement the respective recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in order to increase the transparency in the funding of political parties and election campaigns; calls for concrete results to be achieved in the investigation of high-level corruption cases, including a re-assessment of controversial privatisation cases;

15.  Calls on the Government to reinforce the legal framework and strengthen the capacities of law-enforcement bodies in combating organised crime; calls for extending domestic, regional and international cooperation, particularly in the field of financial investigations; commends the measures to prevent and combat human trafficking, but calls for effective investigations and prosecution, as well as for measures to strengthen the capacities of law enforcement and judicial authorities dealing with human trafficking and to reinforce the identification and protection of victims, especially children and women;

16.  Calls on the Montenegrin Government and Parliament to develop and adopt, prior to the presidential elections in 2013, a new law on financing the election campaign for the President of Montenegro that is in accordance with the new Law on Political Party Finance and with international best practices of other countries, in order to prevent any misuse of public funds;

17.  Calls on the Montenegrin Parliament to adopt a code of conduct for the prevention of conflict of interest, and to publish information on financial interests of members;

18.  Notes that the media environment is diverse and divided along political lines; urges the competent authorities to ensure and promote media pluralism and freedom of expression by means of a media free from political or any other interference, given that the safeguarding of media freedom is a core EU principle; recalls the importance of fostering responsible media and editorial independence;

19.  Welcomes progress in decriminalising defamation and libel; considers it important to duly investigate and prosecute all threats and attacks against journalists and threats to press freedom; is concerned that police investigations regarding a number of violent attacks against Montenegrin media representatives and facilities have not yet resulted in any final verdict; stresses the need to bring justice to the victims; invites the authorities to ensure the independence, self-sustainability, monitoring capacity and functioning of regulatory bodies based on EU standards;

20.  Calls on the Montenegrin Parliament to ensure the transparency of Montenegrin institutions, and, in particular, to reveal information that could disclose corruption and organised crime, through adequate implementation of the new Law on Free Access to Information, in accordance with the standards of the European Court on Human Rights and with best international practices;

21.  Welcomes progress in the protection and inclusion of all minorities and persons with disabilities; acknowledges, however, that the inclusion of, in particular, the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians needs to be improved, especially through the implementation of the relevant policy documents; calls on the authorities to take further measures to combat discrimination and to raise awareness of the problem, to improve the living conditions, access to social security, health, education, housing and employment services of the groups in question, to ensure their proper participation in public services, with special regard to the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian population, including access to inclusive education for all children, and to protect their cultural heritage and identity; condemns physical and verbal attacks against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and calls on the authorities to do the utmost to prevent such attacks; underlines the responsibility of the Government and of all political parties to take proactive steps to create a climate of tolerance and inclusion;

22.  Welcomes the Government’s commitment to combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, including by organising the international conference ‘Together against Discrimination’, which brought together high-level governmental entities from the region to discuss the socio-legal situation of LGBT people in March 2012; welcomes the creation of a shelter for LGBT people and hopes that its financing can be secured; calls on the Government to work together with NGOs to prevent further attacks and discrimination; looks forward to closer cooperation in this field; calls on the Montenegrin Government to publicly support plans for a Pride in Podgorica festival in 2013 and to ensure the safety of its participants;

23.  Notes that only limited progress has been made with regard to women’s rights and gender equality; stresses the problem that women remain underrepresented in the Montenegrin Parliament and in other top decision-making positions, on the labour market, and that their employment rights, including equal pay, are often ignored; encourages the authorities to strengthen governmental and other bodies responsible for gender equality with sufficient human and financial resources;

24.  Notes that domestic violence against women still prevails in the society, and encourages the authorities to step up efforts to implement the legislative framework to address this issue and to raise awareness about it; encourages the authorities to express concern over child poverty and the fact that some three out of four poor children live in distant rural areas without access to basic services; calls for improved services for children and families at risk, and for reforms to strengthen the relevant social welfare sectors;

Economic criteria

25.  Commends Montenegro for being at the vanguard of structural reforms in the Western Balkans and for maintaining macroeconomic and fiscal stability, despite the economic crisis; notes, however, the rise in public debt; encourages the Government to continue carrying out structural reforms, rationalise spending, increase labour market flexibility, tackle raising unemployment, foster quality job creation, boost competitiveness in order to become a fully functioning market economy, and support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); calls on the Commission to help Montenegro develop a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth agenda, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy;

26.  Calls on the Montenegrin authorities to maintain the balance between economic development and environmental protection; calls on the Government to ensure that privatisation of the national electricity company is conducted in a transparent manner and that the agreed investments are carried out; also recalls the need to specifically bring the development of tourism into line with environmental protection; calls for long-term planning with regard to tourism along the coastline and for the creation of strong mechanisms to prevent the destruction of the environment and corruption in the field of spatial planning and construction;

27.  Encourages the authorities in Podgorica to implement the Strategy for Introduction of Business Clusters, adopted in July 2012, which could improve the competitiveness of the Montenegrin economy by strengthening SMEs and increasing export potential and employment opportunities;

28.  Is concerned about the size of the informal economy, which is a problem that needs to be addressed in order to attract investment, support enterprises and protect employees in an efficient manner;

Ability to assume the obligations of membership

29.  Calls on the Government to enhance the institutional and administrative capacities of state institutions dealing with key areas of the acquis, and to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation and coordination, especially with a view to speeding up the preparations for decentralised management of the IPA components in preparation for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund; calls for further improvement in the efforts to establish a professional, effective, merit-based and impartial public administration;

30.  Encourages the authorities to take further measures to align national legislation with, and implement, the environment and climate acquis and to strengthen relevant administrative capacities and interinstitutional cooperation;

31.  Underlines the need to focus on the sustainable production of electric energy, reconciling the needs of economic development with those of conserving the environment; welcomes some progress in the area of renewable energies; calls for further measures to enhance energy efficiency and ensure security of energy supply;

32.  Encourages further efforts in areas such as the free movement of workers, the free movement of capital, company law, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, taxation, enterprise and industrial policy, and financial and budgetary provisions;

Regional cooperation and bilateral issues

33.  Underlines the importance of good neighbourly relations and welcomes Montenegro’s constructive role in regional cooperation, especially its active participation in numerous regional initiatives in South East Europe; commends Montenegro for maintaining good bilateral relations with all neighbouring countries; regrets, however, that the delimitation of borders with almost all neighbouring countries remains pending; calls for efforts to resolve all remaining open issues in a good neighbourly spirit, and highlights the need to resolve bilateral issues prior to accession; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to start developing, in accordance with the EU Treaties, a generally applicable arbitration mechanism aimed at solving bilateral issues between enlargement countries and Member States;

34.  Welcomes the continued cooperation of Montenegro within the framework of the Sarajevo Declaration Process with regard to the issue of refugees and displaced persons, notably the agreed Regional Housing Programme supported by the April 2012 International Donors Conference in Sarajevo; underlines the need for sustained efforts towards the resolution of issues pending in this process;

35.  Welcomes the signing by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia of a ministerial declaration and agreement on a Regional Housing Programme and the financing pledged in support of this programme;

36.  Invites Montenegro to align its position on the International Criminal Court with the EU Common Position on the integrity of the Rome Statute;

37.  Welcomes the ratification and entry into force of the agreement between the EU and Montenegro establishing a framework for the participation of Montenegro in European Union crisis management operations;

o
o   o

38.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Government and Parliament of Montenegro.

(1) OJ L 108, 29.4.2010, p. 3.
(2) CM/RecChL (2012)4.


2012 progress report on Serbia
PDF 180kWORD 44k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on the 2012 Progress Report on Serbia (2012/2868(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0186B7-0090/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the European Council conclusions of 2 March 2012,

–  having regard to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Serbia, to which the European Parliament gave its consent on 19 January 2011 and which is in the final stage of ratification by Member States, the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia, which entered into force on 1 February 2010, and the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain procedures for applying the EC/Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement: procedures for applying the Agreement and the Interim Agreement,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2008/213/EC of 18 February 2008 on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European Partnership with Serbia and repealing Decision 2006/56/EC(1),

–  having regard to the General Affairs Council conclusions of 28 February 2012 and the European Council conclusions of 1 March 2012,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 25 October 2010 inviting the Commission to prepare its opinion on Serbia’s application for membership of the European Union, to the Council conclusions of 5 December 2011 and the conclusions of the European Council of 9 December 2011 setting conditions for the opening of accession negotiations with Serbia, as well as to the Council Conclusions of 11 December 2012 as endorsed by the European Council of 13-14 December 2012,

–  having regard to the Commission opinion of 12 October 2011 on Serbia’s application for membership of the European Union (SEC(2011)1208) and to the Commission communication of 12 October 2011 entitled ‘Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011-2012’ (COM(2011)0666),

–  having regard to the Commission’s 2012 Progress Report on Serbia of 10 October 2012 (SWD(2012)0333),

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 10 October 2012 on ‘Enlargement strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013’ (COM(2012)0600),

–  having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), to the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 on the question of the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, and to the UN General Assembly Resolution of 9 September 2010, which acknowledged the content of the opinion and welcomed the readiness of the EU to facilitate the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina(2),

–  having regard to the joint statement of the 6th EU-Serbia Inter-Parliamentary Meeting of 27-28 September 2012,

–  having regard to the EU-Serbia readmission agreement of 8 November 2007(3) and to Council Regulation (EC) No 1244/2009 of 30 November 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement(4),

–  having regard to the third Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the Post-Visa Liberalisation Monitoring for the Western Balkan Countries in accordance with the Commission Statement of 8 November 2010, published on 28 August 2012 (COM(2012)0472),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2011/361/CFSP of 20 December 2010 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Serbia in European Union crisis management operations(5),

–  having regard to the final report of 19 September 2012 of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission which observed the Serbian parliamentary and presidential elections held on 6 and 20 May 2012,

–  having regard to the annual report of 1 August 2012 of the President of the ICTY, presented to the UN General Assembly on 15 October 2012,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the European Council of 1 March 2012 granted Serbia EU candidate country status, reconfirming its clear European perspective in line with the EU’s commitments to the whole Western Balkans region;

B.  whereas in the Presidency Conclusions issued following the Thessaloniki European Council of 19 and 20 June 2003 an unequivocal commitment was made to all the Western Balkan states that they may join the European Union once they meet the established criteria; whereas this commitment was reiterated in the renewed consensus on enlargement approved by the European Council on 14 and 15 December 2006 and in the Council conclusions of 25 October 2010, as well as by the EU/Western Balkans ministerial meeting of 2 June 2010;

C.  whereas Serbia has taken numerous steps towards the normalization of relations with Kosovo, and has made efforts to sufficiently fulfil the political criteria and conditions of the Stabilisation and Association Process;

D.  whereas only one EU Member State has yet to ratify the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Process;

E.  whereas Serbia, like every country aspiring to EU membership, has to be judged on its own merits in terms of fulfilling, implementing and complying with the same set of criteria;

F.  whereas Serbia is in a position to become an important player in guaranteeing security and stability in the region, and should maintain and enhance a constructive approach towards regional cooperation and good-neighbourly relations, since this is essential for the process of European integration;

G.  whereas bilateral issues should be addressed as early as possible in the accession process, in a constructive and neighbourly spirit and preferably before the opening of accession negotiations, taking account of the EU’s overall interests and values; whereas such issues should not represent or be used as an obstacle in the accession process;

H.  whereas the new Serbian government has affirmed its commitment to continue to pursue European integration; whereas building up a solid track record in the adoption and implementation of reforms is necessary in this context;

I.  whereas the EU has placed the rule of law at the core of its enlargement policy;

1.  Welcomes the Council’s call on the Commission to present a report as soon as Serbia has achieved the necessary degree of compliance with the membership criteria and key priorities, in order to open accession negotiations without further delay; strongly believes that the start of EU accession negotiations in June 2013 is an achievable objective; urges Serbia to continue with the democratic, systemic and socio-economic reforms that will allow it to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership;

2.  Welcomes the conduct of the parliamentary, local and early presidential elections held in May 2012, characterised, according to the OSCE/ODIHR, by respect for fundamental rights and freedoms; invites the government to take up the recommendations contained in the OSCE/ODHIR final report in order to enhance the transparency of the election process;

3.  Welcomes the commitment of the new government to a continued EU integration course, and highlights the need to deliver reforms; encourages the new government to engage wholeheartedly in the adoption of reforms, particularly the key ones related to the judiciary, anti-corruption, media freedom, protection of all minorities, sustainable management of natural resources, structural economic reform and improvement of the business environment;

4.  Stresses that the opening of accession negotiations with Serbia will be possible as soon as the key priorities are satisfactorily met and provided the reform processes continue, particularly regarding the rule of law; emphasises that this will demonstrate both the EU’s commitment to the enlargement process and the Western Balkans countries’ EU perspective; welcomes the progress made by Serbia towards meeting the Copenhagen political criteria, as recognised by the Commission in its 2012 progress report, and recalls that further progress in the European integration process is dependent on continuing the reform process, and in particular on guaranteeing democracy and the functioning of democratic institutions, upholding the rule of law, ensuring respect for human rights and the equal and committed protection of all minorities throughout Serbia according to European standards, maintaining good-neighbourly relations and regional cooperation, including peaceful resolution of bilateral issues, as well as on improving the functioning of the market economy;

5.  Emphasises that Serbian accession to the EU is of crucial importance for the quality of the economic and social development in the country;

6.  Underlines the importance of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), which defines the mutual rights and obligations of both parties up to the moment when Serbia joins the EU; notes that Serbia has built up a positive track record in implementing its obligations under the SAA and the Interim Agreement; calls on the one Member State which has not done so to complete swiftly the ratification process of the Stabilization and Association Agreement, so as to enable its entry into force as soon as possible in order to enhance and give further impetus to EU-Serbia relations;

7.  Welcomes the progress made by Serbia towards meeting the political Copenhagen criteria, as recognised in the Commission’s 2012 progress report; recalls that further progress in the European integration process is directly dependent on pursuing an irreversible path of reform and meeting the Council’s set conditions; stresses that implementation is key;

8.  Notes with regret that the 9th round of the high-level Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue ended without a comprehensive agreement on the scope of authority of the community of Serbian municipalities; calls on both parties to continue and intensify talks in order to find a mutually acceptable and sustainable solution to all outstanding issues as soon as possible; underlines the fact that normalisation of relations is in the best interest of Serbia and Kosovo and is a key step to unblocking the European integration process; calls for full implementation of the agreements reached so far by both parties; welcomes the meetings between the Serbian and Kosovo Prime Ministers, Ivica Dačić and Hashim Thaçi, as crucial steps towards a genuine reconciliation between Serbians and Kosovars and normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo; commends the proactive role and leadership of High Representative / Vice-President Catherine Ashton in facilitating the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo; looks forward to progress in other areas, such as telecommunications and energy, and urges both sides to actively engage in efforts to resolve the issue of missing persons; welcomes the instruction of the Serbian government on the implementation of the agreement on inclusive regional cooperation, the decision to appoint a liaison officer to each of the Pristina and Belgrade EU offices, as well as the signature of the IBM agreement and the first steps of its implementation; calls on Belgrade to continue to cooperate closely with EULEX in the rule of law area, and to step up the joint efforts in the fight against organised crime; encourages Serbia to cooperate fully with and assist the EULEX Special Investigative Task Force (SITF) in its work;

9.  Emphasises the need to ensure the involvement of Serbia’s and Kosovo’s parliaments and civil societies in the dialogue process; stresses that the outcomes of the dialogue need to be communicated in a transparent and coherent manner to the public of both Serbia and Kosovo in order to strengthen the process’s credibility and boost public support; calls for joint communications and public consultations on issues to be discussed in the dialogue where appropriate, and for all agreements reached to be published not only in English but also in Serbian and Albanian;

10.  Reiterates that notions of partitioning concerning Kosovo or any other country of the Western Balkans run counter to the spirit of European integration; calls for the dismantling of the parallel institutions maintained by the Serbian state in northern Kosovo, and in particular for the withdrawal of security services and judicial organs; underlines the importance of ensuring socio-economic development in the region; reiterates that economic support needs to be fully transparent, in particular the financing of schools and hospitals in northern Kosovo; stresses that both the Serbian and the Kosovar authorities need to continue working on ensuring the protection of all minorities and their inclusion in the wider society;

11.  Welcomes Serbia’s cooperation with the ICTY, which has resulted in all war crimes suspects being handed over to the Hague Tribunal for trial; encourages further cooperation with the Tribunal; endorses the repeated calls by the ICTY chief prosecutor for the thorough investigation and prosecution of the persons engaged in the support networks which enabled fugitives to remain at large for so long, particularly in the military and civilian security services; notes that domestic war crimes prosecutions have proceeded steadily, but draws attention to the need to deal more vigorously with the issue of missing persons; furthermore calls on the authorities to ensure the credibility and professionalism of the Witness Protection Programme (WPP) and to provide it with adequate resources so that the judiciary can effectively continue its proceedings on war crimes; draws attention to the fact that a number of former police officers voluntarily opted out of the WPP because of its considerable shortcomings;

12.  Calls on the Serbian authorities and political leaders to refrain from statements and actions that undermine the authority and integrity of the court, and on Serbia to keep its promise and remain consistently dedicated to regional cooperation and reconciliation in the Western Balkans, despite the manifest disappointment of Serbian public opinion after the recent acquittals in the Gotovina, Markac and Haradinaj cases; welcomes the signing of the protocol on cooperation in the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina;

13.  Stresses that more efforts need to be made by the authorities to obtain justice for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence in Serbia and elsewhere in the Western Balkans;

14.  Welcomes the government’s commitment to fight against corruption and organised crime, as being crucial for Serbia’s EU integration process; stresses the importance of strengthening independent institutions in the fight against corruption, in particular the Anti-Corruption Agency and Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, and improving inter-agency coordination; calls on the authorities to finalise the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2012-2016 and corresponding Action Plan and to ensure that the Anti-Corruption Agency plays an important role in their implementation as an independent body; emphasises that political will is crucial for establishing a solid track record of investigation and conviction for high-profile corruption cases, including the 24 controversial privatisations, and hopes that the special and proactive role of the First Deputy Prime Minister in this area will yield results;

15.  Notes that Serbia is developing a new strategy for judicial reform, and supports the efforts being made to devise a new court system in order to improve the efficiency and independence of the whole judicial system; welcomes the government’s commitment to tackling shortcomings in the reform of the judiciary, particularly by ensuring that the legal framework leaves no room for undue political influence and addressing the issues of parliament’s power to appoint judges and prosecutors and the direct political participation of officials in the work of the High Judicial and State Prosecutorial Councils; underlines the importance of adopting clear and transparent evaluation criteria for appointed judges and prosecutors that will ensure their independence and professionalism; furthermore stresses the need to implement measures, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission, to address the growing backlog of cases; notes that the Justice Ministry still has responsibility for capital expenditure and that this could further limit the independence of the judiciary; calls on the government to focus on the quality of reform rather than its speed, using the available technical expertise from abroad; stresses also the need for initial and continued professional training of judges and prosecutors, following the extensive changes to the law;

16.  Reiterates the need for the continued and comprehensive training of prosecutors and police with a view to their conduct of complex investigations, especially those of a financial nature; stresses that the key to the fight against systemic corruption lies in severing the bonds between political parties, private interests and public enterprises; draws particular attention to the need to make party financing transparent and bring it into line with EU standards; calls on the authorities to fully implement the law on party financing; maintains that the principle of the presumption of innocence must at no point be endangered in the fight against corruption; stresses that whistleblowing is essential for the detection of corruption; calls, therefore, on the government to enact and implement whistleblower protection rules and to actively encourage people to denounce corruption at all levels; recalls that both authorities and media bear the responsibility to inform the public about ongoing corruption investigations in a credible manner, since this is a necessary condition for successful and professional operations by the judiciary and the police;

17.  Calls for stronger political commitment to the reform of the public administration, particularly in ensuring the completion of the legislative framework and its full alignment with international standards;

18.  Notes the efforts of the new government to address the concerns expressed by the European Parliament regarding the call for immediate revision of Article 359 of the Criminal Code, but expresses concern that the same provisions have been included in Article 234 of the same code; emphasises that the provisions of the new Article 234 of the Criminal Code must not be applied either to owners of private domestic or foreign companies or to responsible persons occupying posts in foreign companies outside Serbia, and calls on the authorities to cease all criminal proceedings against such persons. This should be applied also in reclassification on a case-by-case basis. The cases of the unjustly frozen assets should be solved as soon as possible because they aggravate the state of the Serbian economy;

19.  Is concerned about the legal and political uncertainty regarding the autonomy of Vojvodina and the rising political tensions between the central and the provincial authorities following the intention of the Vojvodina Assembly to pass a declaration on the province’s autonomy; calls on the Serbian Government to restore the status quo ante and abjure centralising measures and to start immediate negotiations with the government of the Autonomous Province in order to find solutions which respect the principles of rule of law and subsidiarity; reminds the parties that according to the Constitution the law on financing of the Autonomous Province should have been adopted by the end of 2008; thus encourages the Government to draft such a law and submit it to the Parliament without further delay, since this is indispensable for the functioning of democracy and the rule of law in Serbia;

20.  Calls once again for a review of the cases of unjustified freezing of assets and of inappropriately increased and retroactively applied taxes imposed on individuals and private companies; calls on the Ministry of Justice and the Constitutional Court to put an immediate stop to the selective application of the ‘law of one-time tax on extra profit and extra property acquired by taking advantage of special benefits’, as well as of all the provisions of the other tax laws which permit the imposition of unacceptably high fines that lead to bankruptcy, before the final judgment in tax proceedings; calls on the Serbian authorities to provide fair compensation for affected private persons and companies;

21.  Expresses its concern over contradictory legislative initiatives such as the changes to the law governing the National Bank introduced in August 2012 which undermined the independence and autonomy of that institution in the face of undue influence by the government; stresses that the Copenhagen political criteria include the independence of state institutions; welcomes the subsequent amendments adopted in November 2012 to the changes to the above law, in line with the Commission’s recommendations and aimed at ensuring greater continuity of the National Bank and reducing the impact of each change of government on its governorship;

22.  Reiterates its call on the authorities to continue their efforts to eliminate the legacy of the former Communist secret services, as a step in the democratisation of Serbia; recalls the importance of further security sector reform and increasing parliamentary oversight and control over the security services, as well as of opening up the National Archives, and in particular allowing access to the files of the former intelligence service, the UDBA; encourages the authorities to facilitate access to those archives that concern other ex-Yugoslav republics, and to return them to the respective governments if they so request;

23.  Welcomes the gradual increase in civilian control of the security services; notes, however, that the overall legislative framework is not coherent and should be brought further in line with European standards; is concerned at the trend towards increased unauthorised surveillance; calls on the authorities to adopt comprehensive and modern legislation with the aim of clearly defining mechanisms for civilian control of the security services, both civil and military; notes that the current ambiguity of the legal framework defining the authority of the security services leaves room for undue political influence and undermines the general efforts to establish a genuine rule of law in the country;

24.  Is concerned at the repeated allegations of police brutality and abuse of office, particularly in the towns of Kragujevac, Vranje and Leskovac; recalls that the independence and professionalism of state institutions are part of the Copenhagen criteria; calls on the authorities, in this respect, to take all necessary measures to restore public trust in the police and prosecute all perpetrators of alleged incidents;

25.  Stresses the need to develop independent supervision and capacity for the early detection of wrongdoing and conflicts of interest in the areas of public procurement, management of public enterprises, privatisation procedures and public expenditure, which are currently particularly vulnerable to corruption; expresses its concern at the procedural shortcomings in the setting-up of the Commission for the Protection of Bidder’s Rights; stresses that the highest standards of integrity should be required of the independent regulators dealing with public procurement, since this is identified as one of the main sources of corruption in the country;

26.  Welcomes Serbia’s efforts in fighting match-fixing in sport and the fact that this practice has been criminalised in an amendment to the Criminal Code;

27.  Notes with satisfaction that the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) works well in Serbia; stresses the importance of the IPA funds allocated in December 2012 by the Commission to support Serbia’s efforts to implement its EU reform agenda; emphasises that this funding is to be used to increase the efficiency of the judicial system, develop asylum capacities, and fight organised crime, including trafficking in people and corruption; encourages both the government and the EU to simplify the administrative procedures for IPA funding with the aim of making it more accessible for smaller and non-centralised beneficiaries; stresses the need to maintain an adequate level of pre-accession support in the forthcoming review of the EU’s financial framework;

28.  Recommends amending the Law on Restitution in order to remove all procedural obstacles and legal impediments concerning restitution in kind;

29.  Notes that corruption and organised crime are widespread in the region, and calls for a regional strategy and enhanced cooperation between all the countries for purposes of tackling these grave issues more effectively;

30.  Considers that an early launch of accession negotiations would, for Chapters 23 and 24, benefit the fight against corruption and organised crime and the consolidation of the rule of law; in this respect, encourages the authorities to deliver concrete results in the justice field alongside progress in the fight against corruption and organised crime, and to establish a credible track record of high-profile corruption cases;

31.  Recalls that a vigorous, professional and independent media constitute an essential element of a democratic system; calls on the authorities to speed up the implementation of the Media Strategy adopted in October 2011 and its accompanying action plans; is deeply concerned about the continued violence and threats against journalists, particularly those investigating corruption and organised crime; underlines the utmost importance of solving the cases of murdered journalists from the 1990s and 2000s, as evidence of the new government’s commitment to ensure the rule of law and freedom of the media; is concerned about the attempts to control and interfere in the media sector, and calls on the authorities to ensure its independence from political pressure in order to provide journalists with a safe environment where they can conduct their work effectively and without self-censorship; underlines the need to take steps against concentration of media ownership and lack of media transparency, as well as to ensure equal access to the advertising market - hitherto dominated by a handful of economic and political actors - including the release of public funds for purposes of advertising and promotion; calls on journalists to respect the Code of Ethics; notes that the level of internet access remains low, recognises the importance of the internet for media freedom, and urges the authorities to maximise their efforts in this field; notes that media reporting during the election campaign lacked the necessary analytical element, which points to the need to clarify the issue of media ownership; welcomes the fact that the Strategy respects the constitutional rights regarding minority language media, and stresses that the right to operate regional public radio and television should also apply within Vojvodina;

32.  Welcomes the role played by independent regulatory bodies in improving the efficiency and transparency of the country’s institutions; urges the authorities to work towards the highest possible standards in ensuring the coherence of the legal system and the even-handed implementation of all legal provisions; commends, in particular, the work of the Ombudsman and Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection; urges the authorities to provide the State Audit Institution, the Commission for the Protection of Competition, the Public Procurement Office and the Commission for the Protection of Bidders’ Rights with adequate financial, administrative and office capacities enabling them to carry out their duties; calls on the authorities to follow up on the findings of the Anti-Corruption Council, which have been instrumental in making the public aware of high-profile corruption; urges the authorities to boost the follow-up of the recommendations of the independent regulatory bodies and to ensure the independence of the Republic Broadcasting Agency, as well as its secular character; reiterates that independent regulatory bodies are essential for the success of the fight against systemic corruption and are a central part of the checks-and-balances mechanism for effective oversight of the government;

33.  Emphasises the importance of fight against all forms of discrimination affecting vulnerable groups, especially minorities, Roma, women, LGBT persons and persons with disabilities; calls on the authorities to take swift action to align the legislation on anti-discrimination with the acquis, particularly with regard to the exceptions granted to religious institutions, the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees, the definition of indirect discrimination and the role of NGOs in judicial proceedings; noted with regret that a track record of prosecutions and final convictions for offences related to discrimination has not been established; calls on political leaders to actively engage in campaigns promoting tolerance. especially with regard to Roma, women, persons with disabilities and the LGBT population; welcomes the positive actions undertaken by the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Equality to promote these values in Serbian society;

34.  Recognises women as important agents for change in Serbian society; notes the improvement in women’s representation in the Serbian Parliament following the 2012 elections; welcomes the fact that 84 out of 250 parliamentary seats went to women; however, encourages the Serbian authorities to make further efforts to guarantee equal representation; stresses that women still face discrimination on the labour market and in other sectors of society, and that they are not yet fully represented in the political life of the country, including governmental positions; is concerned that although both legislation and implementation bodies are in place as regards both anti-discrimination and gender equality, no progress could be reported on equality of opportunity between women and men; notes that effective implementation of the existing legislation and further strengthening of administrative capacity remain major challenges, and urges the Serbian authorities to step up their efforts to this end;

35.  Welcomes Serbia’s signing of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence; highlights the importance of rapid implementation and adequate enforcement of the convention, given that violence against women still remains an area of concern;

36.  Calls on the authorities to focus on policies for reducing unemployment and poverty among and discrimination against persons with disabilities;

37.  Is concerned about the threat posed by violent hooligan groups to the rule of law and public security in Serbia, especially after the government announced that it was incapable of controlling these groups when cancelling the Belgrade Pride in October 2012; calls on the Serbian Government to immediately ensure concerted action by all relevant government and security institutions so that these groups cease to be a threat and any form of violence or criminal activity perpetrated by their members leads to their prosecution;

38.  Encourages the Serbian authorities to guarantee the security of women human rights defenders (WHRD); is concerned that hate speech, threats and physical attacks, not least against LGBT rights activists and activists raising the importance of facing the past, still exist in 2012;

39.  Stresses the importance of systematically punishing hate speech and the need for the government to condemn hate speech when it is committed by public officials;

40.  Condemns the government’s decision to ban the Belgrade Pride Parade which was supposed to take place on 6 October 2012; calls on the Serbian authorities to draw up and implement an action plan to increase knowledge and understanding of LGBT rights, combat homophobia and improve security, in order to ensure that a Pride or other such initiative can freely, successfully and safely take place in 2013 and the years after; calls on the authorities to strengthen their commitment to freedom of assembly, in particular by effectively banning extreme right-wing organisations and informal sports fans’ organisations which are closely connected to organised crime; welcomes, in this connection, the Constitutional Court’s rulings banning two such organisations;

41.  Welcomes the fact that the legislative framework with regard to national, ethnic and cultural minorities in Serbia is in place; stresses, however, that more efforts are needed to ensure its effective implementation throughout Serbia; calls on the authorities to address known shortcomings, particularly with regard to the fair representation of minorities in the public administration, judiciary and police; insists that more consistent and prompt measures are necessary to ensure unrestricted access to quality education in minority languages at state and provincial level, since this is necessary to preserve ethnic and cultural identity, and in particular to provide all necessary textbooks and other educational materials; calls on the authorities to ensure that all necessary budgetary subsidies are provided to Minority Councils; calls on the Commission to continue to closely monitor Serbia’s efforts in this area;

42.  Notes with regret that the Republican Council for National Minorities has not been active since 2009; calls on the authorities to facilitate in good faith the formation of the Bosniak National Council, as well as the integration of the two Islamic Communities in the country; draws attention to the fact that Sandžak and South and South-East Serbia, where a significant number of minorities live, are economically underdeveloped regions which require further efforts by the authorities to combat high unemployment and social exclusion; reiterates the importance of implementation of the protocol on national minorities signed by the Romanian and Serbian governments in Brussels on 1 March 2012; calls on the Serbian authorities to improve the situation of all minorities, including Roma, Bosniak, Albanian and Bulgarian minorities, which are disproportionally affected by the economic downturn, and to ensure consistent application of the legal framework on the protection of minorities throughout Serbia, notably in the areas of education, language and cultural rights; regrets the recent incidents in Vojvodina involving attacks on ethnic minorities; calls, therefore, on the authorities, particularly the forces of law and order, to investigate all details of the cases concerned;

43.  Notes that the 2011 census was published only with considerable delay, further notes that the count was largely boycotted by the Albanian-speaking population of southern Serbia, and calls on the Serbian authorities, particularly at the local level, to refrain from using the aforementioned boycott as a pretext for discrimination against Albanian-language speakers;

44.  Underlines the need to improve the position of the Roma population; recognises that some progress has been made, such as the increase achieved in the enrolment rate of Roma children in the education system, as well as the measures taken to increase their social inclusion, such as support for registering ‘legally invisible’ persons; stresses, however, that more concentrated and targeted efforts are needed to improve the socio-economic status of Roma, among other means through the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies; expresses concern at the continued phenomena of severe discrimination, social exclusion, forced eviction and high unemployment, particularly affecting Roma women; notes furthermore the need to fully harmonise anti-discrimination law with EU policy;

45.  Welcomes the important steps taken to implement inclusive education, leading to a marked increase in the proportion of Roma children enrolled in primary school, with two out of three Roma children now completing primary school compared to just over one in four some years ago; remains concerned at the continuing low proportion of Roma children attending secondary school and the fact that 70 % of Roma children are not attending school at all; calls on the Serbian Government to ensure that all Roma children and young people are given an equal chance or second chance to return to school; emphasises that equal access to quality early childhood education is of particular importance for children from deprived backgrounds and is paramount to breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty and social exclusion; notes with concern that young children are being disproportionally affected by the economic crisis, as reflected in the dramatic increase in the proportion of children living in absolute poverty between 2008 and 2010; recalls that poverty in childhood is closely and consistently associated with poorer physical health, impaired cognitive development, underachievement in school and social risks, entailing higher costs to the legal and social protection systems; calls on the Serbian Government to act to address child poverty and social exclusion;

46.  Reiterates its call on the Serbian authorities to initiate further measures for crossborder cooperation with the neighbouring EU Member States, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, including in the framework of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, in order to facilitate inter alia the economic development of border regions and areas populated by minorities; underlines, in this respect, the importance of opening a terminal for commercial trucks and goods at the border crossing at Ribarci-Oltomantsi;

47.  Welcomes the progress made in reforms to the childcare system and the continued implementation of the 2011 Social Welfare Law; is concerned over the growing number of children in care, and in particular the slow decrease in the numbers of children with disabilities in institutions and of Roma children in special schools; expresses its concern, furthermore, over the rise in both juvenile violence and violence against children, and calls on the authorities to ensure full protection of the rights of vulnerable children, including Roma children, street children and children in poverty;

48.  Reiterates the central importance of regional cooperation for the success of the Western Balkan countries’ European integration process, insofar as it demonstrates the willingness and capacity of applicant countries to fulfil the obligations of an EU member state and participate constructively in the further development of European integration in the context of the EU institutions; welcomes the work carried out on reconciliation, and believes that Serbia should continue to play an active and constructive role in the region and go on searching for ways to acknowledge the suffering and respect the right to truth and justice of all war crimes victims, including support for the establishment of RECOM; recalls that true reconciliation between nations and peoples, the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the establishment of good neighbourly relations between European countries are essential to sustainable peace and stability and contribute substantially to a genuine European integration process; encourages the Serbian authorities to work closely with the countries of the former Yugoslavia for the resolution of all outstanding problems of legal succession;

49.  Deeply regrets President Nikolić’s statements of July 2012 in which he denied that genocide took place in Srebrenica, and urges him to reconsider his stance and rhetoric in order to make genuine and lasting reconciliation possible; reiterates that there must be no denial of any of the war crimes and human rights violations that occurred during the 1990s conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, and that this includes the genocide in Srebrenica, which was recognised as such in findings and rulings by the ICTY and ICJ;

50.  Reaffirms its staunch support for visa liberalisation for the Western Balkan countries; calls on Serbia and the EU Member States most affected to tackle together the issue of bogus asylum applicants; recalling that this liberalisation represents the most visible and concrete achievement of the European integration process in the region, calls on them to do their utmost to strictly implement all the necessary criteria and measures for visa-free travel to the Schengen countries; stresses that putting the visa-free regime on ice would be a significantly setback for the accession process of the Western Balkan countries benefiting from it; notes that Serbia needs to further engage further with the EU Member States’ authorities in dealing with bogus asylum applicants, also through the adoption and implementation of reforms to improve the situation of minorities whose members have in many cases abused the visa-free regimes and asylum policies of some Member States; calls on the Member States that are most affected by the inflow of false asylum seekers to adopt appropriate mechanisms for dealing with these cases, above all by classifying the Western Balkan countries as ‘countries of safe origin’; furthermore, calls on the Member States to assist Serbia in its efforts to fight organised crime in connection with the trafficking of false asylum seekers; notes, moreover, that Serbia is increasingly becoming a recipient country of asylum seekers, needing therefore more efficient management of asylum requests; stresses that it is necessary to duly inform citizens about the limitations of the visa-free regime in order to prevent any kind of abuse of freedom of travel and visa liberalisation policy; notes that this liberalisation is one of the biggest achievements in Serbia’s recent progress towards EU, and that any suspension would certainly have negative social, economic and political implications;

51.  Stresses the central role of active and independent civil society organisations (CSOs) and of the Serbian parliament for the strengthening and consolidation of democratic political processes in the country; underlines the importance of dialogue with the CSOs, and stresses the crucial role of civil society actors in contributing to the promotion of dialogue and enhanced regional cooperation;

52.  Welcomes closer cooperation of the government with NGOs, but calls for them to be more broadly consulted in policymaking, including the formulation of policies and legislation and the monitoring of the authorities’ activities; calls on the Serbian Government to engage with CSOs, non-state actors and social partners at all stages of the accession process and to provide the necessary information in the country as a proof of its commitment to the principle of including civil society in policymaking, since this is essential to ensure the accountability and openness of the process;

53.  Congratulates the Serbian Government on its pursuit of the weapons destruction programme; notes that the success of this programme is a relevant factor in overcoming the legacy of violence in Serbian society inherited from the 1990s belligerency;

54.  Welcomes the official visit by Prime Minister Ivica Dačić to Bosnia and Herzegovina and the official support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of that country; is of the opinion that Serbia’s direct relations with the authorities of the Republika Srpska must be in line with this stated support and should not undermine the integrity, sovereignty, competences and effective functioning of the institutions of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina; furthermore, urges the Serbian authorities to actively support all necessary constitutional changes that would enable the Bosnian state-level institutions to carry out challenging reforms as part of the European integration process;

55.  Welcomes the idea of starting negotiations for the signature of a treaty of good neighbourly relations with Bulgaria, and hopes this will lead to a more positive development in the regional context;

56.  Encourages political leaders in Croatia and Serbia to make efforts to improve their mutual relations; in this respect, supports all initiatives leading to the enhancement of cooperation and reconciliation between the two countries; stresses the importance of good neighbourhood relations in the process of European integration, and urges the authorities of both countries to make further efforts to resolve the issue of missing persons; calls on both governments to resolve pending border issues and to actively support the return of refugees;

57.  Welcomes the improvements in relations between Montenegro and Serbia; calls for closer coordination between the respective governments on EU-related reforms, in particular when addressing common challenges to the rule of law; encourages both governments to step up their efforts to find a solution for the remaining border issues;

58.  Welcomes the agreement reached between Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the free movement of citizens in addition to the agreements already signed by Serbia; takes note of and welcomes the offer of President Nikolić to mediate a solution to the long-standing dispute between the Orthodox churches in the two countries, on a basis of full respect for the principle of separation of church and state; asks both governments to open more checkpoints in order to facilitate fast border-crossing for the local population in the border regions;

59.  Welcomes the progress made as regards the Sarajevo process, and the active involvement of Serbia in advancing it; welcomes the outcome of the international donors’ conference held in Sarajevo in April 2012, at which Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia agreed on a join Regional Housing Programme; strongly supports this programme, and encourages cooperation between the countries in finding solutions for refugees and displaced persons in the region; calls on all parties to implement the programme with no undue delay;

60.  Urges Serbia to respect the territorial integrity of Kosovo and to resolve all bilateral issues in dialogue with Pristina in a good European spirit of neighbourhood and mutual understanding;

61.  Notes the tough economic policy challenges that need to be addressed; stresses the need to improve the business environment as a response to high unemployment and the resurgence of inflation; notes that new austerity measures cannot be effective on their own and must be combined with a policy for growth;

62.  Encourages Serbia to pay additional attention to further improving the business environment, in particular concerning privatisation procedures and public procurement;

63.  Welcomes the presentation of the Renewable Energy Action plan, which aims to institute concrete measures through which Serbia hopes to realise its commitment made in the framework of the Energy Community Treaty to the effect that renewables should account for 27 % of its total energy consumption by 2020;

64.  Reiterates the importance of historical reconciliation concerning the atrocities of 1941-1948, and underlines the importance of the commitment made by both the Hungarian and Serbian Presidents to pay the relevant due tribute;

65.  Regards the two-year functioning of the Joint Serbian-Hungarian Historians’ Committee as a positive step in the process of mutual understanding and reconciliation in the context of historical traumas, and urges the authorities to consider extending the model to all of Serbia’s neighbours;

66.  Welcomes the agreement reached between Serbia’s and Croatia’s Ministers of Foreign Affairs on forming a joint mixed commission that will address outstanding issues between the two countries, including the genocide charges the two countries have raised against each other; considers this an important step forward, for the whole region, on the path to EU integration; calls on the Council, in this regard, to step up and strengthen EU-funded, joint cross-border projects with a view to further developing good neighbourly relations and enhancing regional cooperation;

67.  Calls on the Serbian Government, which will take over the presidency of the Energy Community in January 2013, to take all necessary steps to bring the Energy Strategy adopted by the Ministerial Council of the Energy Community in Budva on 18 October 2012 into line with the EU’s environmental standards and climate goals, ensuring at the same time that all relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations, are included in the consultation process;

68.  Asks the Commission to extend the Energy Roadmap 2050 to include the countries of the Energy Community, since those countries, like the EU, are striving towards a fully integrated internal market for electricity and gas, and are applying the EU energy acquis;

69.  Calls for the promotion of economic policies that ensure sustainable growth, environmental protection and job creation; calls for further efforts to facilitate the operations of SMEs, as a means of both raising incomes and reducing the current high rates of unemployment, particularly among young people, as well as increasing access to finance; recalls that the existence of state and private monopolies severely hampers the transition towards an open market economy, and calls on the government to take measures to abolish them;

70.  Draws attention to the considerable rise in the public debt and the high unemployment rate; encourages the government to proceed with measures aimed at reducing the budget deficit and to draw up an employment strategy focusing on the most affected social categories and on youth;

71.  Stresses that the global financial crisis has negative effects on society, and especially on vulnerable groups; calls, therefore, on the authorities to make every effort to minimise the adverse effects - poverty, unemployment, social exclusion - but also to address and combat their root causes;

72.  Emphasises that Serbia has ratified the major labour rights conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as well as the revised European Social Charter; draws attention to the fact that labour and trade union rights still remain limited, despite constitutional guarantees, and calls on Serbia to further enhance those rights; is concerned that the social dialogue remains weak and that consultation of the social partners is irregular; calls for further steps to be taken to strengthen the Economic and Social Council so that it can play an active role in strengthening the social dialogue and a more active consultative role in lawmaking;

73.  Notes with regret the lack of progress in relation to labour and trade unions rights; calls on the authorities to swiftly proceed with creating the conditions for a genuine social dialogue which has not taken place so far, to simplify the procedures for registering a trade union, and to promote the recognition of already registered unions; draws attention to the shortcomings in the Law on Labour, which has not been brought into line with the acquis, as well as to the law on strikes, which does not comply with EU and ILO standards; points out, furthermore, that favouritism and nepotism remain significant problems in Serbia; underlines the importance of merit-based recruitment and promotion, especially in the public sector, and stresses that dismissal of employees on grounds of their political opinion or affiliation is unacceptable;

74.  Welcomes the work done so far by the Agency for Restitution; calls on the authorities to ensure that all necessary administrative and financial resources are provided to the agency so that it can carry out its work independently; encourages restitution in kind wherever it is deemed possible; underlines the need to tackle the systemic acquisition of public property by private interests by compiling a full list of public and state property and by bringing the Law on land and construction into line with European standards; draws attention to the fact that urban land has been particularly subject to acquisition through inadequate legal procedures and has been targeted for money-laundering by organised crime and private interests;

75.  Welcomes the adoption of the new regulation on the European Capital of Culture project, which allows for participation of EU candidate countries in the 2020-2030 period; supports the initiative of the Belgrade city authorities to launch the Belgrade European Capital of Culture 2020 campaign, and encourages related projects aimed at bringing Belgrade and Serbia culturally closer to the EU, in particular with regard to interethnic coexistence, multicultural understanding and interreligious dialogue;

76.  Stresses the importance of developing public transport with regard, in particular, to upgrading or creating rail links within the framework of a sustainable transport system; regrets that little progress has been achieved either in this field or that of combined transport;

77.  Urges the Serbian authorities, in particular, to simplify and speed up the administrative procedures for issuing construction permits, licensing and establishing network connections for renewable energy projects;

78.  Points out that significant efforts are required in the field of the environment, and in particular in the areas of water management, nature protection and air quality; emphasises that no substantial progress can be achieved without sufficiently strengthening administrative capacity, and calls on the Serbian Government to take the necessary measures in this respect;

79.  Regrets the decision of the Serbian Government to raise the maximum permitted level of aflatoxin in milk from 0.05 to 0.5 micrograms per kilogram in order to cope with the recent milk crisis; urges the Serbian authorities to tackle, in due time, the root causes that brought about this increased level of aflatoxin in milk and subsequently to lower the maximum permitted level in line with EU standards;

80.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Government and Parliament of Serbia.

(1) OJ L 80, 19.3.2008, p. 46.
(2) A/RES/64/298.
(3) OJ L 334, 19.12.2007, p. 46.
(4) OJ L 336, 18.12.2009, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 163, 23.6.2011, p. 1.


European integration process of Kosovo
PDF 155kWORD 34k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on the European integration process of Kosovo (2012/2867(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0187B7-0089/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 18/2012 on European Union Assistance to Kosovo related to the rule of law, published on 30 October 2012,

–  having regard to the Council decision of 22 October 2012 authorising the Commission to open negotiations on a framework agreement with Kosovo on participation in Union programmes,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2012 on a Feasibility Study for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and Kosovo (COM(2012)0602),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2012 to the European Parliament and the Council on Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013 (COM(2012)0600),

–  having regard to the end of the mandate of the International Civilian Representative in September 2012 and the phasing-out of the International Civilian Office by the end of 2012,

–  having regard to the reports of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the ongoing activities of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and developments related thereto, the latest one of 8 November 2012 covering the period from 16 July to 15 October 2012,

–  having regard to the ratification on 7 September 2012 by the Kosovo Assembly of the agreement with the EU on the extension of the mandate of EULEX until June 2014,

–  having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX Kosovo, as amended by Council Joint Action 2009/445/CFSP of 9 June 2009, by Council Decision 2010/322/CFSP of 8 June 2010 and by Council Decision 2012/291/CFSP of 5 June 2012,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the General Affairs Council meetings of 7 December 2009, 14 December 2010 and 5 December 2011, which stress and reaffirm, respectively, that Kosovo, without prejudice to Member States’ position on its status, should also benefit from the prospect of eventual visa liberalisation once all conditions are met, and welcoming the launch of a visa dialogue in January 2012 and the presentation of the visa liberalisation roadmap in June 2012,

–  having regard to the Structured Dialogue on the Rule of Law launched on 30 May 2012,

–  having regard to the National Council for European Integration, attached to the President’s office and serving as the high-level coordinating body responsible for building a consensus on the European agenda through an inclusive and cross-party approach, which was inaugurated in March 2012,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 28 February 2012 on Enlargement and the Stabilisation and Association Process,

–  having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1244(1999), to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, and to the UN General Assembly resolution of 9 September 2010(1), which acknowledged the content of the ICJ opinion and welcomed the EU’s readiness to facilitate dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina,

–  having regard to the October 2012 report of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Kosovo entitled ‘Fair Trial Rights in Election Related Cases’,

–  having regard to the joint statements of the EP-Kosovo interparliamentary meetings of 28-29 May 2008, 6-7 April 2009, 22-23 June 2010 and 20 May 2011,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the end of supervised independence marks an important step for Kosovo and reinforces the Kosovo authorities’ responsibility to bring forward and implement reforms on the path to European integration;

B.  whereas 98 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, including 22 of the EU’s 27 Member States, recognise Kosovo’s independence;

C.  whereas all EU Member States support the European perspective of Kosovo, in line with EU commitments to the whole Western Balkans region and without prejudice to Member States’ position on the status of Kosovo;

D.  whereas the resumption of high-level Belgrade-Pristina dialogue is an important step towards the normalisation of relations between the two parties, provided that they engage effectively and constructively in result-oriented negotiations;

E.  whereas good neighbourly relations are essential for security and stability in the region;

F.  whereas there have been important developments in EU-Kosovo relations, including the publication of the Commission’s feasibility study and the launch of the visa dialogue and of the Structured Dialogue on the Rule of Law;

G.  whereas the European perspective of Kosovo is a powerful incentive for the implementation of the necessary reforms;

H.  whereas the persistent weakness of the rule of law is delaying the building of democracy and harming the economy, undermining long-term development;

I.  whereas one of the key priorities of the EULEX mission is the fight against corruption and organised crime and the investigation and prosecution of war crimes;

1.  Welcomes the outcome of the Commission’s feasibility study, which found that a stabilisation and association agreement can be concluded in a situation where Member States maintain different views on Kosovo’s status, provided that Kosovo fulfils a number of basic conditions; encourages Kosovo to invest more efforts in meeting the short-term priorities identified in that study;

2.  Stress that the signing of a stabilisation and association agreement is an important step towards Kosovo’s future integration into European structures and, ultimately, membership of the Union; is convinced that such an agreement will create new opportunities that will strengthen neighbourly cooperation and the regional integration of Kosovo;

3.  Encourages, nevertheless, the remaining five Member States to proceed with recognising Kosovo and invites them to do their utmost to facilitate economic, social and political relations between their citizens and those of Kosovo;

4.  Takes note of the end of supervised independence on 10 September 2012, following the judgment of 2 July 2012 by the International Steering Group that the Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement had been substantially implemented; welcomes the conclusion of the mandate of the International Civilian Representative and the work carried out by the EU Special Representative / Head of the EU Office so far;

5.  Welcomes the new high-level Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue initiated and facilitated by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, as it has given new impetus to the dialogue between the two parties; calls for full implementation of all the agreements reached so far, particularly on integrated border management and the implementation of control points at the common border between the parties as determined in the agreement; welcomes the appointment of a liaison officer from Kosovo in Belgrade as an important step in this direction;

6.  Notes with regret that the 9th round of the high-level Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue ended without a comprehensive agreement on the scope of authority of the community of Serbian municipalities; calls on both parties to continue and intensify talks in order to find a mutually acceptable and sustainable solution to all outstanding issues as soon as possible; underlines that a normalisation of relations is in the best interests of Serbia and Kosovo and is a key step towards unblocking the European integration process;

7.  Emphasises the need for significant transparency in communicating the outcomes of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue and involving the parliaments and civil societies concerned; stresses, in this regard, the need for the Kosovo and Serbian negotiators to build public trust and consult citizens;

8.  Reiterates that ideas of partitioning Kosovo or any other country of the Western Balkans run counter to the spirit of European integration; reiterates its support for the territorial integrity of Kosovo and for commonly agreed solutions to outstanding disputes; calls on all parties concerned to engage constructively in the EU-facilitated dialogue and to refrain from any action which may spark tensions in the region;

9.  Underlines the need for local responsibility and ownership of the reconciliation process; considers that the Kosovo authorities should take further steps to reach out to the Serbian minority, particularly in the north, so as to ensure broad integration within society while also ensuring that the constitutional principle granting Kosovo Serbs the right to access all official services in their own language is fully implemented; takes the view, at the same time, that cooperation between all Kosovo Serbs should be enhanced and that the Commission should support related projects and promote people-to-people contact; encourages all Kosovo Serbs and their political representatives to use all the possibilities afforded to them by the Kosovar constitution to play a constructive role in politics and society; considers the opening of the administrative office in northern Mitrovica to be a positive step; notes, however, that many civil society activists in northern Mitrovica are experiencing less freedom to do their work, facing a strengthening of mainstream nationalistic sentiment over the past year;

10.  Calls for full transparency in the financing of schools and hospitals in north Kosovo, in accordance with the provisions of the Ahtisaari plan;

11.  Deplores the vandalising of two Serbian cemeteries and urges the Kosovo authorities to bring to justice those responsible for such heinous acts;

12.  Calls on the Kosovo authorities and EULEX to take steps to prepare a roadmap and implement the decentralisation process fully in order to improve the functioning of local authorities in accordance with the Kosovo constitution, including in the north;

13.  Welcomes the decision of the board of the Regional Cooperation Council accepting Kosovo as a member of this organisation; considers this to be an important step forward for the country on its path towards regional and European integration;

14.  Welcomes the review and extension of the EULEX mandate and the appointment of Bernd Borchardt as head of mission; considers that the European Court of Auditors’ report on EU assistance related to the rule of law in Kosovo raises very important concerns, especially as regards the efficiency of such assistance, high-level corruption, organised crime and the lack of clearly identified objectives; endorses the analysis and recommendations set out in that report and calls on all the actors involved to implement them, thus improving the effectiveness of EU assistance;

15.  Underlines the importance of the success of EULEX for both the sustainable development of Kosovo and the consolidation of its institutions and stability; further underlines the importance of Kosovo strengthening its close cooperation with EULEX and supporting EULEX’s work in all areas of its mandate; emphasises that EULEX should urgently address the need for transparency and accountability in its work and calls for an efficient and transparent system within EULEX structures to ensure that complaints by citizens and representatives of civil society are taken into account; encourages EULEX to communicate better its accomplishments to Kosovo citizens, to work to increase trust in the mission and to be alert to citizens’ expectations;

16.  Underlines the necessity of effective internal management, coordination and cooperation within EULEX; calls on EULEX to renew and strengthen its efforts to improve the rule of law in Kosovo, and to focus the exercise of its executive powers on the repression of high-level corruption and organised crime; stresses the responsibility of EULEX as regards its executive powers and its mandate to monitor, mentor and advise; calls on the Member States in particular to ensure that EULEX is staffed appropriately, in terms of quality, time-span and gender balance, and that the composition of staff reflects the necessities on the ground;

17.  Supports the Special Investigative Task Force established following the December 2010 report of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly; considers that thorough investigation of all the allegations set out in that report is in Kosovo’s interests; calls on the Kosovo authorities and on the authorities of neighbouring countries to cooperate fully and to support the Special Investigative Task Force;

18.  Stresses the need for better cooperation and better coordination of assistance between the Member States, EU institutions and other international donors in order to avoid any overlapping of activities and ensure efficient resource management; welcomes Kosovo’s membership of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) as of December 2012;

19.  Encourages the Kosovo authorities to step up their efforts to combat the high level of unemployment and poverty in the country through further economic reforms and an improved investment climate;

20.  Welcomes the launch of the visa dialogue and the handover of the visa roadmap in June 2012; urges swift and strict implementation of the roadmap; calls on the Council and the Commission to inform Parliament regularly of the progress made in this field;

21.  Calls on the Kosovo authorities to meet the four short-term priorities which are criteria for the launch of stabilisation and association agreement negotiations, in the fields of the rule of law, minorities, administrative capacity and trade, and to enhance their administrative capacity for negotiations, specifically by continuing to restructure the Ministry of Trade;

22.  Urges the Kosovo authorities to step up their commitment and demonstrate their political will to strengthen the rule of law, in particular by providing evidence of the fight against organised crime and corruption; notes with interest the launch of the Structured Dialogue on the Rule of Law as a high-level forum for monitoring progress in relation to the rule of law; urges the Kosovo authorities to end the practice of granting pardons to large numbers of convicted criminals on the occasion of the celebrations marking the anniversary of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, and to apply stricter criteria in granting such pardons, always observing the separation of powers;

23.  Urges the Kosovo authorities to improve the independence, effectiveness, accountability and impartiality of the judiciary and to respect its independence, in both their actions and their public statements, including in connection with the investigation or arrest of public figures, and to respect EULEX’s mandate and exercise of its executive powers;

24.  Is concerned about the lack of significant progress in the fight against corruption and organised crime; calls on the Kosovo authorities to demonstrate real political will and courage to fight high-level corruption and to demonstrate more transparency and better governance, inter alia by coordinating Kosovo’s police forces and judicial authorities; reiterates its concern about the high level of organised crime in the north of Kosovo, notes the government’s adoption of an anti-corruption strategy and considers that Kosovo needs to adopt and implement this strategy with serious commitment; expresses concern about the lack of full participation in Europol and Interpol owing to the lack of recognition of Kosovo’s statehood and calls on the Member States to facilitate better cooperation between EULEX and Europol and Interpol and to seek possibilities for including Kosovo in both Europol and Interpol, at least as an observer;

25.  Notes, in this connection, that the European Court of Auditors’ report lists several instances in which the Kosovo authorities have declined to follow the advice and recommendations of EU institutions or EU-financed experts in the field, in particular in relation to the fight against corruption; notes that the organised crime present in Kosovo poses a considerable threat, and is facilitated by impunity, frequent political interference with the judiciary and law enforcement authorities, and high-level corruption;

26.  Notes that corruption and organised crime are widespread in the region and also represent an obstacle to Kosovo’s democratic, social and economic development; calls, in this connection, for a regional strategy and for enhanced cooperation between all the countries in the region in order to tackle these scourges more effectively, in particular the trafficking and exploitation of women and minors for the purpose of sexual exploitation or forced begging; welcomes the successful work carried out in this field by the ‘Ohrid cooperation’ between the governments in Pristina, Skopje, Podgorica and Tirana;

27.  Expresses concern about Kosovo’s limited framework for witness protection, which is particularly important in high-profile cases; underlines the importance of a fully functioning witness protection programme; calls on the Kosovo authorities to strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of the witness protection system, and on EULEX to increase its support for these efforts; urges the Member States to accept more cases of witness relocation and underlines the need to continue to seek ways to acknowledge the suffering and respect the right to truth and justice of all victims of war crimes, including support for the establishment of the RECOM regional truth commission;

28.  Considers it regrettable that, as a result of the 1999 war in Kosovo, 1 869 people are still missing; notes that this issue requires a prompt response, as uncovering the truth and enabling victims’ families to mourn their loved ones are vital preconditions for reconciliation between the communities and for a peaceful future in the region; stresses the need for better cooperation between missing persons committees and urges the authorities of all the countries concerned to make available the archives of the secret police and the military;

29.  Remains concerned by the continued trend of human trafficking through, and originating from, Kosovo, especially child trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation; calls on Kosovo to step up its efforts to fight human trafficking, including by increasing the capacities of its law enforcement and judicial authorities;

30.  Calls on all parties to finalise the electoral reform in order to establish a well-functioning electoral framework in line with international standards, in particular those of the Council of Europe, with the particular aim of reducing the room for election fraud and strengthening the political accountability of the legislature; is concerned about the shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution of electoral fraud connected with the December 2010 parliamentary elections, as highlighted in the OSCE report on the subject; calls on the responsible authorities to take into consideration the recommendations of the OSCE report; calls on EULEX to consider exercising its executive powers in this field, if its assessment is that the Kosovo judicial system is unable to remedy such shortcomings;

31.  Welcomes the significant improvements in Kosovo’s regulatory framework, including progressive legislation and policies on returns and repatriation, community rights, use of languages, anti-discrimination, gender equality and young people;

32.  Emphasises that despite these improvements, challenges remain in respect of human and community rights protection, non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and participation of women and young people in decision-making; stresses that women, young people and communities continue to be under-represented at both the central and local levels;

33.  Firmly condemns the recent threats made against human rights activist Nazlie Balaj, a member of the Kosova Women’s Network, in response to her public defence of including an amendment to the Law on the status of martyrs, invalids and veterans, members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, civilian victims and their families which would enable people who suffered sexual violence during the war to be given equal status as veterans, and calls on the Kosovo authorities to investigate this incident and to ensure the protection of all human rights defenders;

34.  Calls on both central- and local-level institutions to implement legislation relating to human rights effectively and to contribute to the further development of a multi-ethnic society;

35.  Welcomes the work of the Ombudsperson and considers the budgetary independence of his or her office to be a matter of urgency;

36.  Emphasises the need for the Kosovo Assembly to strengthen its independence, expertise and capacity for oversight of the budget, the executive and the security sector, by improving its scrutiny of legislation and its monitoring of the implementation and impact of policies and laws;

37.  Underlines the importance of implementing the necessary reform of public administration and increasing the number of women and of people belonging to minorities at all levels of administration;

38.  Welcomes the fact that Kosovo’s legal framework provides for women’s rights and that gender equality is well enshrined in the legal system, and welcomes the progress made in this area; is concerned, however, about the high dropout rates among girls and the under-representation of women on the labour market, including in key sectors of society; urges the government and parliament to be more proactive and effective in implementing the relevant laws, including those against domestic violence and trafficking, in order to advance visibly on women’s rights and gender equality in Kosovo; calls on the Kosovo authorities to be more active in encouraging women’s political and societal participation, promoting their participation, and strengthening their position, on the labour market and mainstreaming gender equality;

39.  Stresses the central role of active and independent civil society organisations (CSOs) in strengthening and consolidating democratic political processes and building an integrated society in the country; recognises the important work carried out by CSOs and women’s organisations; underlines the importance of dialogue with CSOs;

40.  Underlines the central role of civil society organisations in building an integrated society, strengthening and consolidating democratic political processes in Kosovo and promoting dialogue and good neighbourly relations in the region, thus contributing to enhanced regional cooperation on social and political aspects; welcomes the government’s improved cooperation with NGOs, but calls for broader consultation of NGOs in policymaking and in the context of monitoring the authorities’ activities; calls, moreover, for their role in the stabilisation and association process to be enhanced;

41.  Stresses the need to encourage active citizenship through, inter alia, strengthening civil society and truly ensuring freedom of speech;

42.  Recognises that although the freedom to join trade unions is guaranteed by law, there is still need for improvements as regards basic labour and trade union rights; encourages Kosovo to strengthen social dialogue within the decision-making process, policy design and capacity-building for the social partners;

43.  Stresses that EULEX should step up its assistance to the Kosovo police with regard to training in de-escalating critical and sensitive situations before and during demonstrations; highlights that more efforts also need to be made by the authorities, assisted by EULEX, to obtain justice for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Western Balkans;

44.  Is concerned that discrimination is still a serious problem; underlines the importance of guaranteeing the equality of all people regardless of their ethnic origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation or disability; stresses the need for a comprehensive anti-discrimination strategy addressing all grounds of discrimination, and for the full implementation of the Law on Anti-Discrimination; underlines the importance of raising awareness of what constitutes discrimination and what the legal remedies are;

45.  Calls on the authorities to give effect to the constitutional principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, to increase the knowledge of law enforcement officials about LGBT rights and to fight homophobia and transphobia; deplores, in this connection, the violent attack carried out in Pristina on 14 December 2012 by a group of people, including radical Islamists, on the premises where media outlet Kosovo 2.0 was to launch the latest issue of its magazine, the subject of which was sex, including LGBT issues; calls on the Kosovo police and the Ministry of the Interior to investigate the violent acts and threats perpetrated against the people involved, and to bring the perpetrators to justice; urges the authorities to make every effort to ensure that human rights are fully respected, including freedom of thought, speech and assembly;

46.  Highlights the importance of independent and free media; welcomes, in this connection, the amendments to the Criminal Code concerning the criminal liability of chief editors, publishers, printers and manufacturers, and the protection of journalistic sources, which entered into force on 1 January 2013;

47.  Takes note of the OSCE’s third community rights assessment report of July 2012, which points out that although a comprehensive and sophisticated legislative framework is in place, much remains to be achieved in order to provide real and meaningful protection of communities’ rights in Kosovo;

48.  Welcomes the adoption of relevant legislation for the protection and promotion of communities and of the religious and cultural heritage, and the successful taking-over of responsibility by Kosovo for the security of most cultural and religious sites of the Serbian Orthodox Church; particularly welcomes, in this connection, the creation of a special unit within the Kosovo police that will be exclusively dedicated to this task; calls for further implementation of the relevant legislation, particularly the Law on Communities; deplores the Kosovo authorities’ refusal to let Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic visit Kosovo and attend the Orthodox Christmas celebration in Gracanica; welcomes, in this respect, the meeting between Serbian President Nikolic and Kosovo President Jahjaga that took place in Brussels on 6 February 2013 in an open and constructive atmosphere under the auspices of Vice-President/High Representative Catherine Ashton, in the context of the efforts to normalise relations between the two sides;

49.  Deplores the Serbian authorities’ refusal to allow Kosovo’s Deputy Prime Minister, Mimoza Kusari-Lila, to cross the border and visit the Presevo Valley; deplores the long hours that Kosovo citizens have to wait in order to cross into Serbia;

50.  Stresses the importance of upgrading Kosovo’s relations and representation within international cultural and heritage institutions with a view to improving the protection of religious and cultural sites and monuments, and of upgrading its representation in European and international sports organisations with a view to enabling Kosovar athletes to take part in all international sports events, including European and world championships and the Olympics;

51.  Welcomes the establishment of Municipal Offices for Communities and Returns in most municipalities, but considers it regrettable that, notwithstanding the progress made, the return of refugees and internally displaced persons continues to be a challenge, particularly on account of security incidents; encourages the Kosovo authorities to make further efforts in this field, at both the central and local levels, giving particular attention to Serbian, Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian returnees;

52.  Welcomes the final closure of the lead-contaminated Osterode camp in north Mitrovica and the resettlement of the remaining families, including many Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian families, to newly constructed houses and one social apartment block, which are part of an EU-funded project; considers this to be an important step towards the full reintegration and inclusion of refugees and minorities in Kosovo society; urges the Kosovo authorities to start immediate clean-up operations in the contaminated area, and the Commission to provide the necessary technical and financial assistance; invites Kosovo to devote greater resources to the adoption and implementation of EU environmental standards;

53.  Welcomes the launch of the mid-term review of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians (RAE) strategy and action plan; calls for more effective implementation and monitoring of the RAE integration strategy through further capacity-building and improved interinstitutional coordination; emphasises the need to implement fully the ‘Forty Actions’ to promote the social inclusion of Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities at both central and municipal level, in line with the objectives of the European Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies; calls on the Kosovo authorities to include a gender perspective in the integration strategy and action plan for Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities;

54.  Is concerned that Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian children remain vulnerable and marginalised; calls on the authorities to give adequate attention to improving the living conditions of these communities, including their access to education;

55.  Is concerned about the high rates of child poverty and mortality, the low level of cover afforded by Kosovo’s social protection system and the high amount of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare, exposing vulnerable families to chronic poverty;

56.  Stresses that children with disabilities continue to be deprived of basic education, with only 10 % being enrolled in primary education; calls on the government to ensure that people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups can access healthcare, education and social services without discrimination; welcomes the adoption of recommendations on early childhood development by the Assembly of Kosovo;

57.  Welcomes the launch of a comprehensive mapping of child protection in Kosovo, and the progress made with regard to the adoption of a strong juvenile justice code aligning Kosovo with international and European standards; remains concerned, however, about the lack of specialised institutional infrastructure for young people in conflict with the law (victims and witnesses);

58.  Welcomes Kosovo’s final 2011 census results as a first step in providing decision-makers with timely and accurate information for policymaking; recognises, however, the challenges remaining as regards the availability of statistically sound and internationally comparable data, which are essential for evidence-based policies and for monitoring Kosovo’s progress;

59.  Calls on Kosovo to improve the business environment for small and medium-sized enterprises by reducing the administrative burden and associated costs, increasing access to finance and providing particular support for start-ups;

60.  Underlines the importance of assigning Kosovo an international telephone area code of its own, for both economic and political reasons; considers the present situation unsustainable and confusing, and calls on the competent international organisations to resolve the issue as quickly as possible, and on Serbia to give up its veto on the matter;

61.  Calls on Kosovo to work on developing renewable energy and diversifying energy sources with a view to closing down Kosova A and rehabilitating Kosova B in accordance with its obligations under the Energy Community Treaty; underlines the necessity of devoting more of the financial aid provided by the EU and the EBRD to energy saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy projects; regrets that the EBRD is planning to support new lignite capacity (Kosova e Re) in its draft country strategy, and calls on the Commission to take action to contest plans such as this that run counter to EU climate commitments;

62.  Takes note of plans for new road infrastructure to improve connections between Pristina and bordering countries; notes that procurement practices in Kosovo remain inadequate, and underlines the need to ensure that procurement processes for such large projects are truly open, competitive and transparent; further notes that such infrastructure projects should be undertaken in accordance with the criteria set out in the current International Monetary Fund programme; stresses the importance of developing public transport, with particular regard to upgrading or creating new railway links as part of a sustainable transport system; suggests building up a cross-border system of high-speed railways between all countries in the Western Balkans, linked to the EU’s Trans-European Network;

o
o   o

63.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service and the Government and National Assembly of Kosovo.

(1) A/RES/64/298.


Completing the scoreboard for the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure
PDF 114kWORD 21k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on completing the scoreboard for the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (2013/2582(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0188B7-0165/2013

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances(1) (part of the ‘6-pack’, and hereinafter referred to as the ’MIP Regulation’),

–   having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the Scoreboard for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances: envisaged initial design(2),

–  having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document of 14 November 2012 entitled ‘Completing the Scoreboard for the MIP: Financial Sector Indicator’ (SWD(2012)0389),

–  having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank on the Alert Mechanism Report 2013 (COM(2012)0751),

–  having regard to the ‘Views of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) on the Envisaged Scoreboard Indicators Relevant for Financial Market Stability’ of 9 December 2011,

–  having regard to the letter of 19 December 2011 from the Commission to the President of the European Parliament forwarding to Parliament relevant information and documents on the adjusted scoreboard for the MIP,

–  having regard to the question to the Commission on completing the scoreboard for the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) (O-000039/2013 – B7-0117/2013),

–  having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the MIP is a policy tool introduced with the 6-pack and constitutes an important pillar of the economic governance of the euro area, aimed at preventing and correcting macroeconomic imbalances in Member States, with specific attention to those macroeconomic imbalances with potential spillover effects on other Member States;

B.  whereas the scoreboard established in line with Article 4 of the MIP Regulation consisted initially of ten indicators covering a wide range of surveillance issues under the MIP;

C.  whereas in November 2012 the Commission added an indicator, namely the growth rate of financial sector liabilities, communicating this to Parliament in its letter of 19 November 2012 and publishing relevant analysis in the Alert Mechanism Report (AMR) on 28 November 2012;

D.  whereas recital 12 of the MIP Regulation states that the Commission ‘should present suggestions for comments to the competent committees of the European Parliament and of the Council on plans to establish and adjust the indicators and thresholds’;

1.  Strongly deplores the Commission’s failure to respect the cooperative spirit of the MIP Regulation when it updated the Scoreboard for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances;

2.  Further strongly deplores the fact that Parliament received the relevant communication only days before the Commission published the scoreboard in November 2012;

3.  Asks the Commission to notify Parliament and the Council well in advance on whether it intends to further update the scoreboard before 2015;

4.  Notes with deep regret a lack of equal treatment of the co-legislators in this process, as the Commission reportedly consulted the relevant working group of the Council;

5.  Stresses that its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the scoreboard, in which Parliament requests an indicator for the financial sector to be added, cannot be considered to reflect a satisfactory consultation of Parliament as envisioned in recital 12 of the MIP Regulation, as that resolution was adopted the year before and was not a response to a proposal from the Commission; further points out that the detailed choice and design of the indicator implied a high degree of discretion, as evidenced by the Commission Staff Working Document of 14 November 2012;

6.  Notes the ESRB’s statement of views of 9 December 2011 containing its reservations as regards a financial indicator, in which it states that the scoreboard ‘should include short-term liabilities (the sum of liabilities maturing within one year) for the unconsolidated financial sector, net of bank deposits, as a share of total liabilities’ and that ’this indicator should be preferred to indicators based on flow-of funds equity measures, such as leverage or gearing ratios, because since equity is estimated at market values it is very sensitive to movements of the stock market’; reminds the Commission that Article 4(5) of the MIP Regulation stipulates that ‘the work of the ESRB shall be taken into due consideration in the drafting of indicators relevant to financial market stability’;

7.  Will no longer tolerate the fact that the necessary culture change of full recognition of the role of Parliament in economic governance is still ongoing within the Commission’s services; underlines the need for the Commission to unequivocally respect Parliament’s role as co-legislator in multilateral surveillance, as provided for inter alia in Articles 121(6) and 136 TFEU, and to treat Parliament on an equal footing with the Council in all Union acts in this domain; reminds the Commission that consulting Parliament on modifications to the scoreboard is also part of best practice in terms of interinstitutional courtesy;

8.  Reminds the Commission of its obligation to be responsible to Parliament, as laid down in Article 17(8) TEU;

9.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the ECB.

(1) OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0583.


Vietnam, in particular freedom of expression
PDF 199kWORD 24k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on Vietnam, in particular freedom of expression (2013/2599(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0189RC-B7-0166/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Vietnam signed on 27 June 2012 and to the EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue held twice a year between the EU and the government of Vietnam,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Vietnam acceded in 1982,

–  having regard to the Universal Periodic Review Outcome on Vietnam by the UN Human Rights Council of 24 September 2009,

–  having regard to report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the 14th Session of the Human Rights Council in April 2010,

–  having regard to the Statement by the Spokesperson of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the sentencing of bloggers in Vietnam of 24 September 2012,

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 December 2012 on a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy(1),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Vietnam,

–  having regard to Rules 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas three prominent journalists – Nguyen Van Hai/Dieu Cay, Ta Phong Tan and Pan Thanh Hai – were sentenced to prison on 24 September 2012; whereas, following an appeal, their sentences were confirmed as 12, 10 and 3 years respectively, followed by several years of house arrest, for posting articles on the website of the Vietnamese Club of Free Journalists;

B.  whereas, according to recent reports by international human rights organisations, 32 cyber dissidents have been handed heavy prison sentences or are awaiting trial in Vietnam; 14 pro-democracy activists have been sentenced to a total of over 100 years in prison for exercising their right to freedom of expression; a group of 22 peaceful environmental activists have been given prison terms ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment; a journalist working for the state-run press was fired after writing a post on his personal blog criticising the Secretary-General of the Communist Party; and cyber dissidents, including Le Cong Cau and Huynh Ngoc Tuan, are frequently harassed and assaulted by the police;

C.  whereas several prisoners of conscience have been sentenced under vaguely worded ‘national security’ provisions that make no distinction between acts of violence and the peaceful expression of dissenting opinions or beliefs, such as ’propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’ (Article 88 of the Criminal Code), ‘activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s power’ (Article 79), ’sowing divisions between religious and non-religious people’ (Article 87) and ‘abusing democratic freedoms to encroach on the interests of the state’ (Article 258); whereas Ordinance 44 of 2002 authorising detention without trial is increasingly used to detain dissidents;

D.  whereas bloggers and human rights defenders increasingly turn to the internet to voice their political opinions, expose corruption, and draw attention to land-grabbing and other official abuses of power;

E.  whereas the Vietnamese authorities systematically suppress freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and persecute those who question government policies, expose cases of official corruption or call for alternatives to the one-party rule;

F.  whereas Vietnam is drafting the ‘Decree on the Management, Provision, Use of Internet Services and Information Content Online’, a new decree on internet management that would legalise content-filtering, censorship and sanctions by the government against vaguely defined ’prohibited acts’ and which would oblige internet companies and providers, including foreign ones, to cooperate with the government in the surveillance and tracking of cyber dissidents; whereas digital freedoms are increasingly under threat;

G.  whereas in 2009, during the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Vietnam’s human rights record, Vietnam accepted a number of recommendations on freedom of expression, including the recommendation to ‘fully guarantee the right to receive, seek and impart information and ideas in compliance with article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’; whereas Vietnam has still not implemented those recommendations;

H.  whereas land confiscation by government officials, use of excessive force in response to public protests over evictions, arbitrary arrests of activists and heavy sentences for protesters are ongoing, while the issues of land rights and land use are unclear;

I.  whereas freedom of religion and belief is repressed and the Catholic Church and non-recognised religions, such as the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Protestant churches and others continue to suffer from severe religious persecution;

J.  whereas Vietnam has started extensive public consultations with a view to drafting a new Constitution, but those who expressed their opinions have faced sanctions and pressure;

K.  whereas Vietnam is bidding for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2014-2016 term;

1.  Expresses its deep concern about the conviction and harsh sentencing of journalists and bloggers in Vietnam; condemns the continuing violations of human rights, including political intimidation, harassment, assaults, arbitrary arrests, heavy prison sentences and unfair trials, in Vietnam perpetrated against political activists, journalists, bloggers, dissidents and human rights defenders, both on- and offline, in clear violation of Vietnam’s international human rights obligations;

2.  Urges the authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all bloggers, online journalists and human rights defenders; calls upon the government to cease all forms of repression against those who exercise their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of assembly in accordance with international human rights standards;

3.  Calls on the Vietnamese government to amend or repeal legislation that restricts the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press in order to provide a forum for dialogue and democratic debate; calls also on the government to modify the draft ‘Decree on the Management, Provision, Use of Internet Services and Information Content Online’ to ensure that it protects the right to freedom of expression online;

4.  Urges the Vietnamese government to cease forced evictions, to secure freedom of expression for those who denounce abuses on land issues, and to guarantee those who have been forcibly evicted access to legal remedies and adequate compensation in conformity with international standards and obligations under international human rights law;

5.  Calls on the authorities to comply with Vietnam’s international obligations by putting an end to religious persecution and removing legal hindrances to independent religious organisations freely conducting peaceful religious activities, which entails the recognition of all religious communities, the free practice of religion and the restitution of assets arbitrarily seized by the state from the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Catholic Church and any other religious community;

6.  Expresses deep concern about the detention conditions of prisoners of conscience stemming from ill-treatment and lack of medical care; requests that the authorities guarantee their physical and psychological integrity, ensure unrestricted access to legal counsel and offer appropriate medical assistance to those in need;

7.  Reiterates that the human rights dialogue between the EU and Vietnam should lead to concrete progress on human rights and democratisation; calls, in this respect, on the European Union to consistently raise concerns about human rights violations in Vietnam at the highest levels and to intensify pressure on the Vietnamese authorities to lift internet and blogging controls and prohibitions on privately owned media, allow groups and individuals to promote human rights and express their opinions and dissent publicly, take steps to abolish the death penalty, repeal or amend national security laws used to criminalise peaceful dissent, and release peaceful prisoners of conscience;

8.  Reminds all parties that Article 1 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) states that: ‘Respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis for the cooperation between the Parties and for the provisions of this Agreement and it constitutes an essential element of the Agreement’; asks the High Representative to assess the compatibility of the Vietnamese government’s policies with the conditions included in the PCA;

9.  Encourages Vietnam to move towards ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Convention against Torture (CAT); calls on the government to put in place an independent national human rights commission;

10.  Requests that the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights examine the situation concerning the state of human rights in Vietnam with a special focus on the freedom of expression, and that it make recommendations to the country;

11.  Welcomes the fact that the Government of Vietnam has issued a call for public input into its first constitutional reform since 1992 and that the deadline has now been extended until September 2013, but regrets that the public consultation has led to sanctions and pressure against those who legitimately express their opinions; hopes that the new Constitution addresses the issues of civil and political rights and religious freedoms as a priority; welcomes in this respect the opening of a dialogue with human rights organisations; expresses its hope that this can lead to important reforms on labour, education and human rights over a longer term; recommends that an invitation be addressed to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion to visit the country and that the authorities fully implement any recommendations;

12.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the government and parliament of Vietnam, the governments of ASEAN Member States, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0470.


Human rights situation in Kazakhstan
PDF 128kWORD 26k
European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2013 on the human rights situation in Kazakhstan (2013/2600(RSP))
P7_TA(2013)0190RC-B7-0167/2013

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Kazakhstan, including those of 15 March 2012 on Kazakhstan(1), 15 December 2011 on the state of implementation of the EU Strategy for Central Asia(2), and 17 September 2009 on the case of Yevgeny Zhovtis in Kazakhstan(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations for an EU-Kazakhstan enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement(4),

–  having regard to the statement of 9 October 2012 by the spokesperson of High Representative Catherine Ashton on the trial of Vladimir Kozlov in Kazakhstan and to the High Representative’s statement of 17 January 2012 on parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan,

–  having regard to the legal opinion of the International Commission of Jurists of 13 February 2013 on the disciplinary proceedings against lawyers in Kazakhstan,

–  having regard to the statement of 25 January 2012 by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on the media situation in Kazakhstan,

–  having regard to the statement of 1 February 2012 by the Director of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights on the clampdown on the Kazakh opposition,

–  having regard to the statement of 20 March 2013 by the International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) entitled ‘Overview of Human Rights concerns in Kazakhstan’,

–  having regard to Rules 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas on 21 December 2012, following a lawsuit introduced on 20 November 2012 by Kazakhstan’s Prosecutor-General, the Almaty District Court banned the unregistered opposition party ‘Alga!’ on charges of extremism; whereas the ban makes Aliya Turusbekova, the wife of Vladimir Kozlov, personally liable;

B.  whereas on 25 December 2012 a number of opposition media outlets, including eight Kazakh newspapers and 23 web news portals, were banned on charges of extremism, being described by the prosecutor as ‘one unified media outlet Respublika’; whereas this decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 22 February 2013, with the effect that the journalists affected were banned from exercising their profession;

C.  whereas Kazakhstan is an important international actor and is of the utmost importance for the political and socio-economic development, as well as the security situation, of the whole region; whereas it has played a positive role in Central Asia, making efforts to develop good neighbourly relations with bordering countries, resume regional cooperation and resolve all bilateral issues by peaceful means; whereas the EU has a vital interest in stepping up political, economic and security cooperation with that region via a strong and open EU-Kazakhstan relationship;

D.  whereas Kazakhstan has long limited key civil and political rights, such as freedom of assembly, expression and religion; whereas over the last two years there has been a decline in respect for fundamental freedoms while, in the wake of the Zhanaozen violence in December 2011, 2012 saw an overt crackdown on government critics;

E.  whereas during recent months several opposition leaders, human rights defenders, journalists and civil-society actors have been subjected to harassment and criminal prosecution, leading in several cases to prison sentences;

F.  whereas on 13 March 2013 the Court of Cassation refused to grant appeal in the case of Vladimir Kozlov, who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison and confiscation of property on charges of ‘inciting social discord’, ’calling for the forcible overthrow of the constitutional order’ and ‘creating and leading an organised group with the aim of committing crimes’; whereas Kozlov is currently filing an appeal to the Supreme Court as the last instance for appeal in his case;

G.  whereas on 7 December 2012 the human rights defender Vadim Kuramshin was sentenced to 12 years in prison for blackmailing the district attorney’s assistant; whereas this sentence was confirmed by the Appeal Court on 14 February 2013; whereas Mr Kurashim’s re-arrest took place on his return from the OSCE conference in September in Warsaw and came after his release following a previous trial in August 2012;

H.  whereas the Kazakh Government is considering starting work on a new National Human Rights Action plan for 2013-2020;

I.  whereas the Kazakh authorities have established a working group under the Prosecutor- General to reform the Criminal Code; whereas on 15 and 16 March 2013 a round table on the ‘Reform of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan based on the principles of rule of law’ was held, with the participation of a delegation of the Venice Commission to advise on the reform; whereas the European Parliament has urged the Kazakh authorities to bring the country’s criminal law into line with international standards, including the reform of Article 164 on ’inciting social discord’;

J.  whereas the Kazakh authorities have repeatedly used the charge of ‘inciting social discord,’ a vague and over-broad charge that can be used to criminalise legitimate exercise of the rights of freedom of expression and association as protected under international human rights law;

K.  whereas Kazakhstan’s three-year term as a member of the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights’ Council) began on 1 January 2013;

L.  whereas Kazakhstan, as a member of the OSCE, of which it held the chairmanship in 2010, has committed itself to respecting and implementing the fundamental principles of that organisation;

M.  whereas defamation remains criminalised, while the law of 10 July 2009 on the Introduction of Changes and Additions to the Legislation on Informational-Communicative Networks equates internet resources (websites, chatrooms, blogs, discussion forums) with mass media outlets and therefore makes those resources and their owners liable for the same range of offences;

N.  whereas at the end of November 2012, HR/VP Ashton travelled to Central Asia and visited Kazakhstan while the legal bans on the opposition and the media outlets were being imposed; whereas she did not issue any statement on the matter during her visit but subsequently in December 2012;

O.  whereas in July 2012 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, following her two-day visit to Kazakhstan, called on the authorities to authorise an independent international investigation into the events of Zhanaozen, their causes and their aftermath;

1.  Stresses the importance of relations between the EU and Kazakhstan and of strengthening economic and political cooperation in all areas; highlights the great interest the EU has in a sustainable relationship with Kazakhstan in terms of political and economic cooperation;

2.  Strongly criticises the court decision to ban opposition parties on charges of extremism, including the unregistered party ‘Alga!’, as well as to ban key independent media actors, given that this violates the principles of freedom of expression and assembly and raises major concerns with regard to future repression of independent media and the opposition;

3.  Calls on the authorities to respect the principles and commitments of the OSCE standards on freedom of expression, assembly and association; encourages Kazakhstan to view criticisms not as a threat but as a constructive tool with which to improve policies and inclusiveness;

4.  Stresses that Aliya Turusbekova cannot be held responsible for actions of third persons;

5.  Calls on the EU and the Member States to seek guarantees that protect journalists, opposition activists and human rights defenders and their families, and in particular those visiting the EU institutions to discuss human rights issues, against any kind of subsequent personal threats, pressures or prosecution;

6.  Reiterates its concern over the detentions of opposition leaders, journalists and lawyers on the basis of trials which fall short of international standards, and reaffirms its call for the release of all persons convicted on the basis of vague criminal charges which could be considered to be politically motivated, including among others Vladimir Kozlov, Vadim Kurashim and Roza Tuletaeva; expresses its concern with regard to the fairness of trials, and reiterates its call for the guaranteeing of transparency and international standards in trials, an end to convictions on the basis of the above vague criminal charges, and the upholding of the independence of the judiciary;

7.  Calls on the Kazakh authorities to guarantee detention conditions that conform to international standards and to allow adequate medical treatment for all prisoners, including the opposition leader Vladimir Kozlov; calls for the full implementation of improvements included in the recent reform of the prison system and for further improvement to meet international standards;

8.  Strongly emphasises that the legitimate fight against terrorism and extremism should not be used as an excuse to ban opposition activity, hinder freedom of expression or hamper the independency of the judiciary;

9.  Stresses that Kazakhstan is an increasingly important international partner in the region, be it with regard to cooperation with NATO, support for the E3+3 talks with Iran, or the establishment of an international fuel bank in Kazakhstan; welcomes Kazakhstan’s ambition to engage actively as a mediator/facilitator in international security issues concerning the wider region; urges the Kazakh authorities to honour the international commitments they have signed up to, including those relating to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary;

10.  Calls on Kazakhstan to create a climate where opposition activists, journalists and lawyers can freely exercise their activities, including via necessary legal reforms; stresses the EU’s commitment to supporting Kazakhstan in this effort;

11.  Calls on Kazakhstan to review its legislation on religion and to ease restrictions on the registration and practice of religion;

12.  Stresses the importance of respecting and promoting the right of workers to form independent labour unions, conduct strikes, and collectively bargain with employers, in accordance with Kazakhstan’s obligations under international human rights law;

13.  Welcomes the dialogue with the delegation of the Venice Commission on the new Code of Criminal Procedure, and encourages further collaboration with the Venice Commission with a view to deriving maximum benefit from its experience; stresses that the reform should aim at strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and fulfilling international standards; reaffirms its call for the reform of Article 164 on ‘inciting social discord’, and calls on the EEAS to undertake close monitoring of the reform and the content of the new law;

14.  Reaffirms its call on the Kazakh authorities to follow through with enforcement of the existing Human Rights Action Plan, drawing on the recommendations of the Venice Commission and making use of EU technical assistance under the Rule of Law initiative; encourages and supports Kazakhstan in its efforts to develop a new Human Rights Action Plan for 2013-2020; invites the Kazakh authorities to collaborate with NGOs;

15.  Welcomes the regular EU-Kazakhstan human rights dialogues; underlines the importance of human rights dialogues between the EU and the Kazakh authorities, and welcomes the constructive approach being shown on the Kazakh side; calls for a strengthening of the dialogues conducive to the establishment of a forum where issues can be openly addressed; stresses that these dialogues should be effective and results-oriented, and should involve civil-society actors where possible;

16.  Welcomes the international student exchange programmes introduced by the Kazakh Government; underlines the fundamental impact these stays abroad have in terms of the democratic education of Kazakh students; welcomes the support offered by the Kazakh authorities to these students on their return;

17.  Calls on the EU, and in particular the EEAS, to closely monitor developments in Kazakhstan, raise concerns with the Kazakh authorities where necessary, offer assistance, and report regularly to Parliament; also calls on the EU delegation in Astana to play a more proactive role in monitoring the situation, including the observation of trials and prison visits;

18.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the European External Action Service, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Government and Parliament of Kazakhstan.

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0089.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0588.
(3) OJ C 224 E, 19.8.2010, p. 30.
(4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0459.

Legal notice - Privacy policy