Inhaltsverzeichnis€¦ · Web viewPart II at the sitting of Tuesday 23 October 2012...

United in diversity

TEXTS ADOPTEDPart II

at the sitting of

Tuesday23 October 2012

P7_TA-PROV(2012)10-24 PROVISIONAL EDITION PE 495.874

EN EN

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2012 - 2013

CONTENTS

TEXTS ADOPTED

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0364Draft amending budget 4/2012(A7-0308/2012 - Rapporteur: Francesca Balzani)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission (14059/2012 – C7-0305/2012 – 2012/2127(BUD))................................1

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0365Discharge 2010: European Food Safety Authority(A7-0299/2012 - Rapporteur: Monica Luisa Macovei)1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 (C7-0286/2011 – 2011/2226(DEC))....................................................................32. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 (C7-0286/2011 – 2011/2226(DEC)).................................................................................................................53. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 (C7-0286/2011 – 2011/2226(DEC)).................................................................................................................7

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0366Discharge 2010: European Medicines Agency(A7-0298/2012 - Rapporteur: Monica Luisa Macovei)1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0281/2011 – 2011/2220(DEC))..........................................................................122. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0281/2011 – 2011/2220(DEC))...............................................................................................................143. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0281/2011 – 2011/2220(DEC))...............................................................................................................16

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0367Forest reproductive material ***I(A7-0277/2012 - Rapporteur: Paolo De Castro)European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision

PE 495.874\ I

EN

2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the 'qualified' category within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production (COM(2012)0355 – C7-0175/2012 – (2012/0172(COD))........................................................................................21

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0368European Year of Citizens (2013) ***I(A7-0271/2012 - Rapporteur: Antigoni Papadopoulou)European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year of Citizens (2013) (COM(2011)0489 – C7-0217/2011 – 2011/0217(COD)).......................................37

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0369Common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case(A7-0285/2012 - Rapporteur: Kristiina Ojuland)European Parliament recommendation of 23 October 2012 to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case (2012/2142(INI))................................................................................................................79

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0370Implementation of the Single European Sky legislation(A7-0254/2012 - Rapporteur: Jacqueline Foster)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Implementation of the Single European Sky Legislation (2012/2005(INI))......................................................................82

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0371Passenger rights in all transport modes(A7-0287/2012 - Rapporteur: Georges Bach)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on passenger rights in all transport modes (2012/2067(INI)).....................................................................................................89

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0372Discharge 2010: EU general budget, Council(A7-0301/2012 - Rapporteur: Inés Ayala Sender)1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council (COM(2011)0473 – C7-0258/2011 – 2011/2203(DEC)).................................................1012. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II - Council (COM(2011)0473 – C7-0258/2011 – (2011)2203(DEC))......................................................................................103

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0373Discharge 2010: European Environment Agency(A7-0300/2012 - Rapporteur: Monica Luisa Macovei)1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0278/2011 – 2011/2217(DEC))........................................................................1092. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0278/2011 – 2011/2217(DEC)).............................................................................................................111

II /PE 495.874

EN

3. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0278/2011 – 2011/2217(DEC)).............................................................................................................113

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0374Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors (Leonard Orban)(A7-0296/2012 - Rapporteur: Inés Ayala Sender)European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the appointment of Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0153/2012 – 2012/0805(NLE))...................118

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0375European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk(A7-0322/2012 - Rapporteur: Frédéric Daerden)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk from Ireland) (COM(2012)0423 – C7-0204/2012 – 2012/2157(BUD)).............................................................................................................119

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0376European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/015/SE/AstraZeneca(A7-0325/2012 - Rapporteur: Dominique Riquet)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/015 SE/AstraZeneca from Sweden) (COM(2012)0396 – C7-0191/2012 – 2012/2155(BUD)).............................................................................................................125

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0377European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia Metal(A7-0323/2012 - Rapporteur: Alexander Alvaro)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia Metal from Spain) (COM(2012)0451 – C7-0214/2012 – 2012/2160(BUD)).............................................................................................................131

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0378European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland(A7-0334/2012 - Rapporteur: Frédéric Daerden)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the

PE 495.874\ III

EN

Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland Construction from the Netherlands). (COM(2012)0395 – C7-0190/2012 – 2012/2154(BUD)).................................................................................137

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0379European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco(A7-0324/2012 - Rapporteur: Frédéric Daerden)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco from the Netherlands) (COM(2012)0450 – C7-0220/2012 – 2012/2164(BUD)).............................................................................................................143

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0380European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot(A7-0333/2012 - Rapporteur: Jean Louis Cottigny)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot from France) (COM(2012)0461 – C7-0222/2012 – 2012/2165(BUD)).............................................................................................................149

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0381European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/003 DK/VESTAS(A7-0345/2012 - Rapporteur: László Surján)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(application EGF/2012/003 DK/Vestas from Denmark) (COM(2012)0502 – C7-0292/2012 – 2012/2228(BUD))....155

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0382European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/002 DE/manroland(A7-0346/2012 - Rapporteur: José Manuel Fernandes)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2012/002 DE/manroland from Germany) (COM(2012)0493 – C7-0294/2012 – 2012/2230(BUD))161

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0383Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items ***I(A7-0231/2012 - Rapporteur: Christofer Fjellner)

IV /PE 495.874

EN

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (COM(2011)0704 – C7-0395/2011 – 2011/0310(COD)).............................................................................................................167

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0384Minimum level of training of seafarers ***I(A7-0162/2012 - Rapporteur: Brian Simpson)European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers (COM(2011)0555 – C7-0246/2011 – 2011/0239(COD)).................................173

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0385Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the EC and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) ***(A7-0289/2012 - Rapporteur: Vital Moreira)European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) (12428/2012 – C7-0205/2012 – 2009/0155(NLE)).............................................................................................................269

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0386Future of EU development policy(A7-0234/2012 - Rapporteur: Charles Goerens)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy (2012/2002(INI))...................................................................271

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0387SMEs: competitiveness and business opportunities(A7-0293/2012 - Rapporteur: Paul Rübig)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities (2012/2042(INI))......282

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0388Trade and economic relations with the United States(A7-0321/2012 - Rapporteur: Vital Moreira)European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on trade and economic relations with the United States (2012/2149(INI))..................................................................................299

PE 495.874\ V

EN

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0364

Draft amending budget 4/2012

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission (14059/2012 – C7-0305/2012 – 2012/2127(BUD))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 310 and 314 thereof, and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities1 ('the Financial Regulation'), and in particular Articles 37 and 38 thereof,

– having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, as definitively adopted on 1 December 20112,

– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management3,

– having regard to Draft amending budget No 4/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, which the Commission submitted on 20 June 2012 (COM(2012)0340),

– having regard to the position adopted by the Council on 24 September 2012 on Draft amending budget No 4/2012 (14509/2012 – C7-0305/2012),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards certain provisions relating to risk-sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability4,

– having regard to Rules 75b and 75e of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0308/2012),

A. whereas the aim of Draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the general budget 2012 is threefold, namely the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments, a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between

1 OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.2 OJ L 56, 29.2.2012.3 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p.1.4 OJ L 133, 23.5.2012, p.1.

1

Member States of their own resources contributions to the Union budget, and the replacement of the "dash" presented in payment appropriations for a budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible;

B. whereas the adjustment in own resources stems from the revision of the forecast of TOR, VAT and GNI bases, the correction of budgetary imbalances in favour of the United Kingdom (UK correction), concerning 2008, 2010 and 2011, as well as the impact on the share of Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden in the financing of the UK rebate, which is reduced to one fourth of their normal share, such reduction being financed by the other Member States, excluding the UK;

C. whereas Draft amending budget No 4/2012 provides for the possibility of adding reflows and amounts left-over from Union support to risk-sharing instruments financed from cohesion policy to the following year, at the request of the Member State concerned, to its cohesion policy financial allocation;

D. whereas Draft amending budget No 4/2012 is fully consistent with the modifications of the Financial Regulation agreed between the European Parliament and the Council, in particular in Article 131 thereof;

1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 4/2012;

2. Considers that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, as provided for by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012;

3. Requires that prior to operating any such transfer as specified in paragraph 2 the budgetary authority be informed by the Commission;

4. Requires that regular and detailed information on the operational programmes to be reduced, on the financial instruments to be implemented and on the projects to be supported, be transmitted to Parliament;

5. Approves, without amendment, the Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 4/2012;

6. Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 4/2012 has been definitively adopted and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

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

2

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0365

Discharge 2010: European Food Safety Authority

1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 (C7-0286/2011 – 2011/2226(DEC))


– having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010,

– having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010, together with the Authority’s replies1,

– having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06083/2012 – C7-0051/2012),

– having regard to its Decision of 10 May 20122 postponing the discharge decision in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010, its accompanying Resolution and the replies by the Executive Director of the Authority,

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

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities3, and in particular Article 185 thereof,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 establishing a European Food Safety Authority4, and in particular Article 44 thereof,

– having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities5, and in particular Article 94 thereof,

– having regard to the Joint Statement on decentralised agencies and the Common Approach annexed thereto, agreed in June 2012 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, resulting from the work of the Inter-Institutional Working Group on decentralised agencies created in March 2009, and in particular the sections on governance, operation, programming, accountability and transparency of the Common Approach,

1 OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 106.2 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 367.3 OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.4 OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.5 OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

3

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

– having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0299/2012),

1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority's budget for the financial year 2010;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

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

4

2. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 (C7-0286/2011 – 2011/2226(DEC))








– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council 28 January 2002 establishing a European Food Safety Authority4, and in particular Article 44 thereof,





5


1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010;

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

6

3. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 (C7-0286/2011 – 2011/2226(DEC))








– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council 28 January 2002 establishing a European Food Safety Authority4, and in particular Article 44 thereof,





7


A. whereas on 10 May 2012, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge and closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority ('the Authority') for the financial year 2010,

B. whereas the Authority provided extensive replies to the discharge authority by letters of 29 June 2012 and 20 August 2012,

C. whereas the discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament in this respect, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments; recalling, in this context, the existing rules, i.e. the Staff Regulations for Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community, the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, the Authority's founding regulation and the specific policies and procedures set up by the Authority,

Budget and financial management

1. Notes the Authority's statement that measures now adequate have been undertaken to improve financial management and that the execution rate in terms of commitment appropriations was close to 100 % in 2011;

2. Welcomes the information received on the significant reductions in the Management Board meeting costs, which amounted to EUR 6 175 per member in 2010; commends in particular the reduction of expenditure by 66 % compared to 2010, realised through switching to audio streaming on demand, using English as the only language for the Management Board meetings and holding all meetings at the premises of the Authority in Parma;

Contract management process

3. Takes note that the Authority developed a 'Grants and Procurement Tool' to improve the monitoring of tendering process, the contracts management and the payment forecast capacity; notes that the new Database on Procurements and Grants was launched on 28 June 2012;

Conflict of interest and transparency

4. Notes that the main task of the Authority is to provide independent and transparent scientific advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety;

5. Draws attention to the need to take measures to safeguard the Authority’s credibility;

6. Welcomes the organisation of a mandatory session on ethics and integrity for all members of the Management Board scheduled for October 2012, and calls on the Management Board to enforce effectively its code of conduct and to adopt provisions to prevent and penalise revolving-door cases in the future, in order to avoid situations similar to that which affected its former Chairperson in 2010;

7. Has already addressed certain shortcomings in connection with conflicts of interest, declarations of interests and transparency; stresses that the former Chairperson of the Management Board of the Authority failed, in 2010, to declare her membership of the board

8

of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), even though the ILSI is financed by undertakings in the food, chemicals and pharmaceuticals sectors; notes that the members of the Authority’s Management Board are not appointed by the Executive Director and, hence, cannot be dismissed by the Executive Director;

8. Welcomes the Authority's commitment to propose its Management Board to elect its Chairperson by open ballot; believes that a transparent procedure will reinforce the Management Board's accountability;

9. Takes careful note of all new policies, rules, implementing measures and actions which have been set up since 2007 to avoid conflicts of interest amongst scientific experts and staff; welcomes in this regard the code of conduct of the Authority’s Management Board and their active approach in reviewing their declarations of interest, and the new rules for screening for conflicts of interest in force since July 2012, which were proactively used in the renewal of the scientific panels; is determined to monitor the effect of these actions; will continue to invite the Executive Director for exchanges of views on a regular basis, to foster the exchange of information also through the appointed contact person from amongst its members and by visiting the Authority every two years; recalls that the last visit took place in May 2012;

10. Takes note that the Authority's new policy on "independence and scientific decision-making processes", together with its implementing rules, entered into force in July 2012 and that the Authority's new definition of conflicts of interests is compatible with the OECD guidelines; notes from the Authority that its practical approach concerning an expert breaching the independence policy rules is an exclusion for a 5-year period; suggests to insert a conclusive set of proportionate penalties to be part of the implementing rules of the independence policy;

11. Notes that the Authority scheduled an evaluation of its independence policy by the end of 2013 and committed to consider, inter alia, the possibility to publish the outcomes of the breach of trust procedures, including the outcomes of the procedure verifying the integrity of the scientific review and to broaden and reinforce the mandate of its Committee on Conflict of Interests, for instance with a similar mandate to the Committee for Ethical Standards and Prevention of Conflict of Interest of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES); expects the Authority to inform the discharge authority on this matter by the start of the next discharge procedure;

12. Encourages the Authority to further strengthen its independence policy and consider adopting rules among others including penalties and publishing the curriculum vitae and declarations of interest of the in-house experts and scientists;

13. Is firmly convinced that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur; believes that, in such cases, the Authority should draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aiming to remedy the shortcomings, that its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament, and that these problems should be addressed by changing the existing rules and regulations in order to eliminate possible loopholes;

14. Notes the Authority's statement that it adopted a policy on gifts and hospitality on 4 July 2012; commends this initiative and invites the Authority to make this policy available on its website;

9

15. Acknowledges that the Authority scheduled for 1 October 2012 the launching of its first evaluation of a random sample of declarations of interest in order to verify their coherence with its newly adopted independence policy and implementing rules; expects that the Authority will share the conclusions of that evaluation with the discharge authority by 1 March 2013 in order to reflect them in the next discharge procedure;

16. Acknowledges the Authority's commitment to work with the Commission in order to define the modalities of full public access to unpublished raw data;

17. Observes that eight of the Authority's Panels and its Scientific Committee have been renewed in June 2012; welcomes the publication of the declarations of interest of the newly appointed experts on the Authority's website but observes that some of the curriculum vitae are not yet available; invites the Authority to publish all of them by 1 January 2013;

18. Notes that 37 experts of two Panels have been appointed in 2011, prior to the adoption of the Authority's new policy on independence and scientific decision-making processes; agrees therefore with the Authority's initiative to screen by 31 October 2012 their declarations of interest against the newly adopted policy and implementing rules; invites the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the outcomes of the screening process by the start of the next discharge procedure;

19. Calls on the Authority to introduce in its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest, which should include, inter alia:

– the number of alleged cases of conflict of interest verified,

– the number of revolving door cases,

– the measures taken in each category of cases,

– the number of breach of trust procedures launched and their outcomes,

– the penalties applied;

20. Encourages the Authority to improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process, to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific literature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views; encourages the Authority to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process;

21. Welcomes, in general, the Joint Statement and the Common Approach on decentralised agencies afore mentioned, which address and take up some elements important to the discharge procedure, and believes that the roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach, to be presented by the Commission by the end of 2012, will take due account of those issues;

o

o o

10

22. Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 20121 on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

1 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 388.

11

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0366

Discharge 2010: European Medicines Agency

1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0281/2011 – 2011/2220(DEC))


– having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010,

– having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010, together with the Agency’s replies1,


– having regard to its Decision of 10 May 20122 postponing the discharge decision in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010, its accompanying Resolution and the replies by the Executive Director of the Agency,



– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 establishing a European Medicines Agency4, and in particular Article 68 thereof,




12



1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2010;


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

13

2. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0281/2011 – 2011/2220(DEC))














14

1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010;

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

15

3. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0281/2011 – 2011/2220(DEC))













16


A. whereas on 10 May 2012, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge and closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency ('the Agency') for the financial year 2010,

B. whereas the Agency addressed to a large extent the weaknesses highlighted in the report of 10 May 2012 and provided the discharge authority with substantial information by letters of 2 and 6 July 2012 and of 2, 7 and 24 August 2012,

C. whereas the discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments; recalling, in this context, the existing rules, i.e. the Staff Regulations for Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community, the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, the Agency's founding regulation and the specific policies and procedures set up by the Agency,

1. Recalls the importance of the work of the Agency by providing the best possible scientific advise on any question relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use to the Member States and the institutions;

Follow-up of 2009 discharge

2. Notes that on 7 June 2012 the Management Board endorsed the new structure and scope of the Advisory Committee on Procurement and Contract; welcomes that the Agency put in place a multiannual procurement plan for 2012-2014 as requested by the discharge authority in its report on the discharge for the financial year 2009;

Carryover appropriations and cancellations

3. Reminds that the Court of Auditors reported a high level of carryovers for the financial year 2010 as well as a lack of compliance with the budgetary principle of annuality; welcomes the fact that the Agency has strengthened its procedures of fee revenue forecasting by creating a team which analyses, in close cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry, the status of pharmaceutical product research before submission to the Agency; notes the Agency's firm commitment to work with Directorate General Budget of the Commission in order to achieve a stable framework with the current revision of the Framework Financial Regulations;

4. Gives full support to all efforts at the executive and administrative levels of the Agency to reform the payment system for services provided by Member States' authorities which should clearly be based on the real costs; welcomes therefore the Agency's initiative to prepare a new proposal to be submitted to the Management Board; urges and expects the Management Board to discuss and decide on this payment system without delay;

Transparency and management of conflict of interest

5. Takes note that the Agency is organising for November 2012 a workshop gathering a broad range of interested parties in the view of developing the modalities of providing public

17

access to clinical trial data, and that the selection and training of the Agency's scientific staff aimed at strengthening the analysis of raw data is well advanced;

6. Takes note that the Agency has improved the scope and methodology of the systematic ex-ante and ex post controls related to the screening of declaration of interest; also welcomes the Agency's decision to perform a yearly evaluation of its revised policy on declaration of interest; invites therefore the Agency to keep the discharge authority informed on the implementation of its revised policy, and in particular of its systematic ex ante and ex post controls, on a six month basis;

7. Notes with satisfaction that the Agency has started publishing the minutes of some scientific committees' meetings, starting with the Paediatric Committee, in July 2012; takes note that the publication process of the minutes of all scientific committees' meetings will be completed only by the end of 2013;

8. Notes that the concerns raised with regard to the financial circuits and the potential conflicts of interests in processing payments due to insufficient segregation of duties were addressed by the Agency with the introduction of SAP accounting software as its central financial system;

9. Underlines that in June 2012 a 'revolving door' case occurred in the Agency, as the former Head of the Legal Service joined as senior counsel a US-based law firm having a number of pharmaceutical industry companies as clients; takes note that the Executive Director of the Agency launched a review of the work performed by the former Head of the Legal Service; invites the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the outcomes of this review by the end of 2012;

10. Takes note that the Agency proceeded to a screening process of the declarations of interest of its experts and committee members who have been actively involved in the Agency's activities between 1 January and 31 May 2012 against their curriculum vitae; notes that around 54 % of the experts and committee members provided the Agency with updated curriculum vitae; calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the timeframe and outcomes of the screening process for the remaining 46 % by the start of the next discharge procedure;

11. Welcomes the Agency's initiative to publish on its website the declarations of interests of its staff occupying management positions and of the experts involved in the evaluation of medicinal products; notes with interest that the list of experts also indicates their risk level in terms of conflict of interest; welcomes the Agency's commitment to publish next to the declarations of interest the professional and educational profiles of the scientific experts belonging to its Expert Database from the first quarter of 2013 and will follow closely the publication process during the future discharge procedures;

12. Welcomes the announcement by the Agency that it plans to introduce an ex ante and ex post system for declarations of interest, notably by means of random comparison with CVs and information provided by experts at national level; asks the Agency to provide the budgetary control authority with a precise timetable for the implementation of this new system;

13. Agrees with the Agency that a high level of reliability and honesty concerning the declaration of interests can only be achieved if pharmaceutical companies themselves disclose the list of experts and research centres with which they work, and the sums

18

concerned in their financial links with them; agrees with the Agency that thought should be given to whether a legislative initiative in this field would be pertinent;

14. Acknowledges the Agency's efforts to address the discharge authority's concerns with regards to the prevention and management of conflict of interest; notes in particular the reports of 29 June 2012 and 7 August 2012 received by the discharge authority on the review of the conflict of interest management cases identified by the IAS and on the review of potential conflicts of interest of experts involved in assessing the medicinal product Pandemrix;

15. Is firmly convinced that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur; believes that, in such cases, the Agency should draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aiming to remedy the shortcomings, that its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament, and that these problems should be addressed by changing the existing rules and regulations in order to eliminate possible loopholes;

16. Calls on the Agency to introduce in its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest, which should include, inter alia:

– the number of alleged cases of conflict of interest verified,

– the number of revolving door cases,

– the measures taken in each category of cases,

– the number of breach of trust procedures launched and their outcomes,

– the penalties applied;

requests the Agency to inform the discharge authority of the detailed measures taken;

17. Considers it noteworthy that the committee responsible is in close contact with the Agency by inviting the Executive Director for an exchange of views at least once a year, by having appointed a contact person from amongst its members and by visiting the Agency every two years; recalls that the last visit took place in June 2011;


o

o o


1 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 388.

19

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0367

Forest reproductive material ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the 'qualified' category within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production (COM(2012)0355 – C7-0175/2012 – (2012/0172(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)


– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0355),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0175/2012),

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

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 September 20121,

– having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 28 September 2012 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0277/2012),

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

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

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

1 Not yet published in the Official Journal.

21

P7_TC1-COD(2012)0172

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC to include forest reproductive material of the 'qualified' category and to update the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

43(2) thereof,

22

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

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

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee1,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure2,

Whereas:

(1) Council Decision 2008/971/EC of 16 December 2008 on the equivalence of forest

reproductive material produced in third countries3 determines the conditions under

which forest reproductive material of the 'source identified' and 'selected' categories,

produced in third countries listed in Annex I to that Decision, is to be imported into the

Union.

1 Opinion of 18 September 2012 (not yet published in the Official Journal).2 Position of the European Parliament of 23 October 2012.3 OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 83.

23

(2) The national rules for the certification of forest reproductive material in Canada,

Croatia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States provide for an

official field inspection to be carried out during the collection and processing of seed

and the production of planting stock.

(3) According to those rules, the systems for the approval and registration of basic material

and the subsequent production of reproductive material from that basic material should

follow the OECD Scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material moving in

international trade (OECD Forest seed and plant scheme). In addition, those rules

require seed and planting stock of the ‘source identified’, ‘selected’ and 'qualified'

categories to be officially certified and the seed packages to be officially closed in

accordance with the OECD Forest seed and plant scheme.

24

(4) An examination of those rules as regards the 'qualified' category has shown that the

conditions for approval of basic material satisfy the requirements laid down in Council

Directive 1999/105/EC of 22 December 1999 on the marketing of forest reproductive

material1. Furthermore, with the exception of the conditions regarding seed quality,

species purity and planting stock quality, the rules of these third countries afford the

same guarantees as regards the conditions applicable to seed and planting stock of the

new 'qualified' category as those set out in Directive 1999/105/EC. It follows that the

rules relating to the certification of forestry material of the 'qualified' category in

Canada, Croatia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States should be

considered to be equivalent to those set out in Directive 1999/105/EC, provided that the

conditions set out in Annex II to Decision 2008/971/EC are satisfied as regards seed and

planting stocks.

1 OJ L 11, 15.1.2000, p. 17.

25

(5) As regards material of the 'qualified' category, those conditions should include the

provision of information on whether the products have been genetically modified or not.

Such information should facilitate the application of the requirements set out in

Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001

on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms1, or,

where applicable, in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed2 and

Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22

September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified

organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically

modified organisms3.

1 OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1. 2 OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1.3 OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 24.

26

(6) In addition, the names of some authorities responsible for the approval and control of

the production, as listed in Annex I to Decision 2008/971/EC, have changed.

(7) Decision 2008/971/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2008/971/EC is hereby amended as follows:

(1) in Article 1, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

"This Decision determines the conditions under which forest reproductive material of

the 'source identified', 'selected' and 'qualified' categories produced in a third country

listed in Annex I shall be imported into the Union.";

27

(2) in Article 3, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

"2. Seed and planting stock of the 'source identified', 'selected' and 'qualified'

categories of species listed in Annex I to Directive 1999/105/EC, produced in the

third countries listed in Annex I to this Decision and officially certified by the

third country authorities listed in that Annex, shall be considered equivalent to

seed and planting stock complying with Directive 1999/105/EC, provided that

the conditions laid down in Annex II to this Decision are satisfied.";

(3) in Article 4, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

"When seed and planting stock enter the Union, the supplier importing this material

shall inform the official body of that Member State in advance of the import. The

official body shall issue a Master Certificate based on the official OECD Certificate of

Provenance before the material is placed on the market.";

(4) Annexes I and II are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

28

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the

Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2013.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at …,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

29

ANNEX

Annexes I and II to Decision 2008/971/EC are amended as follows:

(1) Annex I is replaced by the following:

"ANNEX I

Countries and authorities

Country (*) Authority responsible for the approval and control of production

CA National Forest Genetic Resources Centre/ Centre national des

ressources génétiques forestières

Natural Resources Canada/Ressources naturelles Canada

Canadian Forest Service-Atlantic/Service canadien des forêts -

Atlantique

P.O. Box 4000,

FREDERICTON, NB E3B 5P7

30

CH Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)

Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and

Communications (UVEK)

Forest Division

Federal Plant Protection Service

Zürcherstraße 111

CH-8903 BIRMENSDORF

31

HR Croatian Forest Research Institute – CFI

Division of Genetics, Forest Tree Breeding and Seed Science

Cvjetno naselje 41

10450 Jastrebarsko

32

NO Norwegian Forest Research Institute

Høgskoleveien 12

N-1432 AAS

Norwegian Forest Seed Station

P.O. Box 118

N-2301 HAMAR

RS Group for Forest Reproductive Material and Genetic Resources Directorate for ForestMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water ManagementMinistry of AFW - Directorate for ForestOmladinskih brigada 1Novi Beograd

33

TR Ministry of Environment and Forestry

General Directorate of Forestation and Erosion ControlBestepe 06560Ankara

34

US USA United States Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceCooperative ForestryNational Seed Laboratory5675 Riggins Mill RoadDry Branch, Georgia 31020

OFFICIAL STATE CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES(Authorised to issue OECD certificates through cooperative

agreement with USDA Forest Service)

Washington State Crop Improvement Association, Inc.1610 NE Eastgate Blvd, Suite 610Pullman, Washington 99163

(*) CA – Canada, CH – Switzerland, HR – Croatia, NO – Norway, RS – Serbia, TR – Turkey, US – United States.";

35

(2) in Annex II, the following section is added:

"C. Additional conditions relating to the 'qualified' category of seed and planting

stock produced in third countries

As regards seed or planting stock of the 'qualified' category, the OECD Label

and the supplier's label or document shall state whether genetic modification has

been used in the production of the basic material.".

36

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0368

European Year of Citizens (2013) ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year of Citizens (2013) (COM(2011)0489 – C7-0217/2011 – 2011/0217(COD))





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

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 28 March 20121,

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

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0271/2012),




1 OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 137.

37

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0217

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year of Citizens (2013)



21(2) thereof,





Whereas:

1 OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 137.2 Position of the European Parliament of 23 October 2012.

38

(1) The Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity,

freedom, equality and solidarity and based on the principles of democracy and the

rule of law. Those principles are fundamental to the Member States in societies in

which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality

between women and men prevail. Every citizen of the Union has and should enjoy

the rights provided for in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental

Rights of the European Union.

39

(2) The Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 introduced the concept of ‘citizenship of the

Union. The Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 and the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 further

strengthened the rights associated with Union citizenship. The year 2013 will mark

the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of citizenship of the Union. Point (12)

of Article 1 and point (34) of Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon (now Article 9 TEU

and Article 20 TFEU) provides that every person holding the nationality of a

Member State is a citizen of the Union, that citizenship of the Union is additional to,

and does not replace, national citizenship of a Member State and that citizens of the

Union enjoy the rights and are subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties ▌.

Point (35) of Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon (now Article 21 TFEU) enshrines the

right of citizens of the Union to free movement and residence.

▌

40

(3) ▌ The Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting

citizens1 puts the citizen at the heart of European policies in the field of freedom,

security and justice. It focuses its actions on ‘building a citizens' Europe’, including

through promotion of citizens' rights, in particular the right of freedom of movement

and rights which allow Union citizens to participate actively in the democratic life of

the Union.

(4) In its Resolution of 15 December 2010 on the situation of fundamental rights in the

European Union (2009) - effective implementation after the entry into force of the

Treaty of Lisbon2, the European Parliament called on the Commission to make 2013

the ▌European Year of Citizens in order to give momentum to the debate on Union

citizenship, including its terminology, content and scope, and to inform Union

citizens of their rights, in particular of the new rights resulting from the entry into force

of the Treaty of Lisbon, and of the means available to exercise those rights.

1 OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.2 OJ C 169 E, 15.6.2012, p. 49.

41

(5) 2013 should be designated as the European Year of Citizens. A European Year of

Citizens would provide a timely opportunity to raise the awareness of the general

public about the rights and responsibilities attached to Union citizenship. The

European Year of Citizens should aim also to raise the awareness of citizens about

their rights arising from Union citizenship when they exercise their right to move

and reside freely in another Member State, for example as students, workers, job-

seekers, volunteers, consumers, entrepreneurs, young people or retired persons. In

that context awareness-raising should be mainstreamed geographically,

demographically and socially, and should also focus on the removal of remaining

obstacles to exercising rights arising from Union citizenship. The message should be

conveyed that Union citizens themselves also have a critical role to play in

strengthening those rights through their participation in civil society and democratic

life.

42

(6) To enable Union citizens to make informed decisions about whether to exercise their

right of freedom of movement, it does not suffice to raise their awareness about the

right itself. It is essential that Union citizens are also adequately informed about

other rights available to them under Union law in cross-border situations. That

information would enable them also to enjoy those other rights fully, if they decide

to make use of their right of freedom of movement.

(7) Since its introduction in the 1958 Treaty of Rome as one of the four fundamental

freedoms, the right of freedom of movement and residence has demonstrated its value

as one of the pillars for the creation of a internal market for the benefit of Member

States' economies and of individual Union citizens.

▌

43

(8) The right to move and reside freely across the territory of the Member States is highly

valued by Union citizens as a core individual right linked to Union citizenship. As

such, it demonstrates and promotes a better understanding of the value of European

integration, as well as citizens' participation in shaping the ▌Union. ▌

(9) Despite the fact that the right of freedom of movement and residence is firmly

anchored in primary Union law and substantially developed in secondary Union law, a

gap still remains between the applicable legal rules and the reality confronting citizens

when they seek to exercise those rights in practice. In addition to uncertainty

concerning the advantages of mobility, Union citizens perceive too many practical

obstacles with regard to living and working in another Member State.

44

(10) In its EU Citizenship Report 2010 of 27 October 2010 entitled "Dismantling the

obstacles to EU citizens' rights", the Commission addressed the main obstacles which

citizens still encounter in their daily lives when they seek to exercise their rights as

Union citizens, in particular in cross-border situations, and outlined 25 concrete

actions to remove those obstacles. One of the obstacles identified in this context was

lack of information. The Commission concluded, in its report, that Union citizens are

prevented from enjoying their rights because they lack awareness of them and

announced its intention to step up the dissemination of information to Union citizens

about their rights, in particular about their right of freedom of movement.

45

(11) The TEU and the TFEU confer on every citizen of the Union the right to move and

reside freely within the territory of the Member States; the right to vote and to stand

as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in

his or her Member State of residence under the same conditions as nationals of that

Member State; the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the

Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the

diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as

the nationals of that Member State; the right to petition the European Parliament;

the right to apply to the European Ombudsman; the right to address institutions of

the Union; and other rights in various fields such as the free movement of goods and

services, consumer protection and public health, equal opportunities and equal

treatment, access to employment and to social protection.

46

(1)

(12) The Treaty of Lisbon introduced new rights, in particular the citizens' initiative,

provided for in its point (12) of Article 1 and point (37) of Article 2 (Article 11 TEU

and Article 24 TFEU), which enables at least one million citizens, from a significant

number of Member States, to ask the Commission to present a proposal in any of the

Union's areas of responsibility, thereby further allowing citizens to be actively

engaged in the political life of the Union and to participate directly in shaping the

development of Union law1.

1 Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens' initiative (OJ L 65, 11.3.2011, p. 1).

47

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:065:0001:0022:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:065:0001:0022:EN:PDF

(13) Since 1979, when the first direct elections were held, the European Parliament has

acted as a direct interface between citizens and the Union. The European

Parliament and its Members play a crucial role in communicating the rights and

benefits of Union citizenship, in bringing Union citizens' concerns to the fore in the

formulation of policy, and in promoting the active participation of Union citizens.

Raising awareness about Union citizens' rights, gender equality, the participation of

women and men in the democratic life of the Union including their electoral rights,

as voters and as candidates, in their Member State of residence and about the scope

of the European Parliament's powers in the legislative process, is also important in

view of the European Parliament elections in 2014. The impact of such awareness-

raising actions should be multiplied through close coordination and exploitation of

synergies with relevant actions implemented by Union institutions, in particular the

European Parliament, by European political parties and foundations, and by

Member States in the run up to those elections.

48

▌

(14) In addition, Union citizens who are considering whether to make use of their right of

freedom of movement and residence should be informed about their rights to acquire

or preserve social security, including those concerning cross-border healthcare, by

virtue of the Union rules on coordination of social security systems. Those rules ensure

that they will not lose their social security rights when choosing to move within the

Union. Furthermore they should be informed about ▌recognition of their educational,

academic and professional qualifications and about the social and civic competences

which form part of the European framework of "Key Competences for lifelong

learning"1 and which can equip them to fully participate in civic life and empower

them to exercise their rights under Union law.

1 Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (OJ L 394, 30.12.2006, p. 10).

49

(15) Union citizens should also be better informed about their rights as passengers

travelling by any mode of transport across the Union and about their consumer rights

across borders. If Union citizens are confident that their rights as consumers are

effectively protected, they will be in a position to contribute ▌to the development of

the Union market for goods and services, which will thereby achieve its full potential

more effectively for the benefit of citizens. Similarly, citizens should be better

informed about rules on general product safety and market surveillance, so as to be

aware of how their health and their rights are protected throughout the Union,

particularly in the case of threats or risks that they are not able to deal with as

individuals. Moreover, it is important to enhance Union citizens' awareness of their

rights to cross-border healthcare and accompanying measures, such as eHealth and

telemedicine, so that they are able to benefit fully from safe and good-quality

healthcare across Member States' borders.

50

(16) This Decision aims to contribute to the realisation of the objectives of the Europe

2020 Strategy, to the extent that facilitating the freedom of movement of persons and

enhancing workers' mobility are important means by which to address the

consequences of demographic change on the labor market and to increase the

employability of people and the competitiveness of European industries. This

Decision also has the long-term aim of supporting research and innovation in the

Union against the current backdrop of alarmingly high unemployment figures in

particular Member States.

51

(17) The information, education and awareness-raising campaigns organised within the

framework of the European Year of Citizens should also take into consideration the

needs of more specific audiences and vulnerable groups. Information should be free

and accessible in all official languages of the Union. It should be provided in simple

language and in collaboration with local, regional and national authorities, the

media, civil society and non-governmental organisations. All those different

stakeholders could consider initiatives such as essay competitions and the

development of action plans and guides, on-line fora and campaigns in schools and

universities.

52

(18) The active role of Union citizens and the associations representing them are central

to the functioning of the Union. Articles 10 and 11 TEU stress the importance of

participative democracy in all its aspects and the role citizens and their

representative associations play in publicising and exchanging their views in all

areas of Union action. The Union institutions should promote active democratic

participation in the decision-making process by means of an open, transparent and

regular dialogue with civil society in order to ensure that the Union’s actions are

coherent and transparent. The active participation of Union citizens should also be

facilitated by access to documents and information, and by good governance and

good administration.

53

(19) Education policy plays an important role in informing citizens, particularly young

people, about the concept of Union citizenship and the rights attached to it. It can

also help to promote multilingualism, the mobility of students, teachers, persons

undergoing vocational training and their instructors, and to foster social and civic

competences in accordance with the European framework of "Key Competences for

lifelong learning", which can equip them to participate fully in civic life and

empower them to exercise their rights under Union law comprehensively. It should

be possible to implement specific actions to raise awareness of opportunities to

volunteer, to study abroad, to participate in a traineeship in another Member State

or to take part in Union education exchange programmes.

54

(20) The European Year of Citizens will be marked by the Commission's 2013 EU

Citizenship Report that will give details of progress made since its 2010 EU

Citizenship Report and propose further actions to remove persistent obstacles to

Union citizens' exercise of their rights. On the basis of that report, the Council is

able to adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights attached to Union

citizenship.

(21) Union citizens should also be made aware of the multilingual Your Europe web

portal, which is a one-stop-shop information point on the rights of citizens and

businesses in the Union.

(22) The "Europe Direct" Information Centres, as a local interface between the Union

and its citizens, should be close partners of the European Parliament in awareness-

raising campaigns, by facilitating local and regional debate about the Union,

transmitting and distributing information material to the public and offering the

opportunity to send feedback to the Union institutions.

55

(23) All initiatives launched for the purpose of and within the context of the European

Year of Citizens should aim at increasing mutual understanding between Union

citizens, the Union institutions and the Member States. This implies raising

awareness of citizens' rights among the staff of public authorities, whether at Union,

national, regional or local level.

(24) Since it was founded in 1949, the Council of Europe has played a leading role in the

educational and cultural domain by promoting and establishing European cultural

networks and through intercultural dialogue and the promotion of linguistic

diversity. The Union should therefore develop synergies with the Council of

Europe's work in this field in connection with the European Year of Citizens.

▌

56

(25) The primary responsibility for raising citizens' awareness of their rights as Union

citizens rests with the Member States. This includes providing information about the

Union and targeted reporting on the activities of all Union institutions. Action at

Union level complements and supplements action taken at national, regional or local

level, as highlighted in the political declaration "Communicating Europe in

Partnership" signed on 22 October 2008 by the European Parliament, the Council and

the Commission1. The Union institutions and the Member States should strengthen

cooperation with the media and undertake to provide them with high-quality

information on the Union.

1 OJ C 13, 20.1.2009, p. 3.

57

(26) In order to optimise the effectiveness and efficiency of the activities envisaged for

the European Year of Citizens, it is important to carry out a set of preparatory

actions during 2012 in accordance with Article 49(6) of Council Regulation (EC,

Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to

the general budget of the European Communities1 (the Financial Regulation).

▌

(27) Appropriate measures should be taken to prevent irregularities and fraud and the

necessary steps should be taken to recover funds lost, unduly paid or incorrectly used

in accordance with Council Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December

1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests2 and

(Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and

inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European

Communities’ financial interests against fraud and other irregularities3 and Regulation

(EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999

concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)4.

1 OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.2 OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1.3 OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2.4 OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

58

(28) Union funding for activities other than those funded under the budget of the European

Year of Citizens may be given through existing Union programmes or the Structural

Funds, in particular the 2007 to 2013 "Europe for Citizens" programme and the 2007

to 2013 specific programme "Fundamental Rights and Citizenship" as part of the

general programme "Fundamental Rights and Justice", the "Lifelong Learning"

programme, including the Erasmus programme, the "Youth on the Move" initiative

and the "MEDIA" programme.

(29) For the benefit of future European years, a thorough evaluation of the measures

carried out as part of the European Year of Citizens should be prepared. Such a

report should include ideas and best practices for future action on how most

effectively to reach out to and involve citizens basing itself, where possible, on

comparable quantitative data obtained from the European Year of Citizens.

59

(30) Since the objectives of the European Year of Citizens, namely enhancing awareness

and knowledge of the rights and responsibilities attached to Union citizenship in

order to enable citizens to make full use of their right to move and reside freely

within the territory of the Member States and, in that context, also promoting the

enjoyment by Union citizens of the other rights attached to Union citizenship, cannot

be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the need for multilateral

partnerships, transnational exchange of information and the Union-wide

awareness-raising and dissemination of good practices, and can therefore, by reason

of the scale of the European Year of Citizens, be better achieved at Union level, the

Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set

out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle

of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is

necessary in order to achieve those objectives,


60

Article 1

Subject-matter

The year 2013 shall be designated as the 'European Year of Citizens' ▌.

Article 2

Objectives

1. The general objective of the European Year of Citizens shall be to enhance awareness

and knowledge of the rights and responsibilities attached to Union citizenship, in

order to enable citizens to make full use of their right to move and reside freely within

the territory of the Member States. In this context, the European Year of Citizens shall

also promote the enjoyment by Union citizens of the other rights attached to Union

citizenship.

61

2. On the basis of paragraph 1, the specific objectives of the European Year of Citizens

shall be:

(a) to raise Union citizens' awareness of their right to move and reside freely within

the Union and, in that context, of all other rights guaranteed to Union citizens,

without discrimination, including their right to vote in local and European

elections in any Member State in which they reside;

(b) to raise awareness among Union citizens, including young people, about how

they can tangibly benefit from Union rights, as well as about policies and

programmes that exist to support the exercise of those rights;

62

(c) to stimulate debate about the impact and potential of the right of freedom of

movement and residence, as an inalienable aspect of Union citizenship, with a

view to stimulating and strengthening active civic and democratic participation

of Union citizens, in particular in civic fora on Union policies and European

Parliament elections, thereby reinforcing societal cohesion, cultural diversity,

solidarity, equality between women and men, mutual respect and a sense of a

common European identity among Union citizens, based on the core values of

the Union, as enshrined in the TEU and the TFEU and in the Charter of

Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Article 3

Initiatives involved

1. The measures to be taken to achieve the objectives set out in Article 2 may include the

following initiatives organised at Union, national, regional or local level ▌:

63

(a) initiating information, media coverage, education and awareness-raising

campaigns targeted at the general public and more specific audiences;

(b) exchanging information and sharing experience and good practices among

Union, national, regional and local authorities and other public and civil society

organisations;

(c) organising conferences, hearings, including by means of the internet, and other

events to promote debate and raise awareness of the importance and benefits of

the right of freedom of movement and residence, and more generally on the

concept of Union citizenship and the rights attached to it;

64

(d) using the existing multilingual participatory tools to stimulate the active

involvement of civil society organisations and of citizens in ▌the European

Year of Citizens, including such direct democracy tools as the citizens'

initiative and public consultations;

(e) strengthening the role and visibility of existing tools for informing citizens,

including modern information and communication technology tools, such as

the multilingual Europe Direct information centres and Your Europe web portal

as key elements of a 'one-stop-shop' information system relating to Union

citizens' rights;

(f) strengthening the role and visibility of problem-solving tools, such as SOLVIT,

in order to enable Union citizens to make better use of, and defend their rights,

under Union law;

65

(g) providing Union citizens with information about the European Parliament’s

Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman in order to enable

them to make better use of, and defend their rights under, Union law; and

(h) promoting the EU Citizenship Report, which is to be based on a thorough

debate and active contributions by citizens and stakeholders, and which is to

identify further obstacles preventing Union citizens from fully exercising

Union citizenship rights and to promote appropriate strategies to remove those

obstacles.

2. Details of the initiatives referred to in paragraph 1 are set out in the Annex.

66

3. The Commission and the Member States may identify other activities which could

contribute to objectives of the European Year of Citizens set out in Article 2 and allow

the name of the European Year of Citizens to be used in promoting those activities

insofar as they contribute to achieving those objectives.

4. In the context of initiatives organised in the framework of the European Year of

Citizens, consideration shall be given to identifying obstacles to the exercise of the

rights by the Union citizens and to promoting appropriate ways and strategies to

remove those obstacles, as well as to promoting inter-cultural understanding of

discrimination and fighting against it. Synergies shall therefore be sought between

those initiatives and existing tools and programmes in the field of fundamental

rights, citizens' rights, employment and social affairs, education and culture.

67

Article 4

Coordination and implementation at Union level

1. The Commission shall cooperate closely with Member States, the European

Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of

Regions, as well as with local and regional authorities and with bodies and

associations which represent local and regional interests ▌.

▌

2. The Commission shall convene meetings of representatives of European or civil

society organisations, or bodies that are active in the field of citizenship and that

defend citizens' rights or promote education and culture, and other stakeholders, to

assist the Commission in implementing the European Year of Citizens at Union level.

68

3. The Commission shall endeavor to exploit possible synergies between different

thematic European years, by evaluating achievements, monitoring persistent gaps

and providing statistical data, where appropriate, thus ensuring effective

implementation of the aims of European years.

4. The Commission shall implement this Decision at Union level.

Article 5

Financial provisions

1. Measures which are Union-wide in nature, referred to in part A of the Annex, shall

give rise to a procurement contract or the award of grants financed from the general

budget of the Union.

69

2. Measures which are Union-wide in nature, referred to in part B of the Annex, may be

subsidised by the general budget of the Union.

Article 6

International cooperation

For the purpose of the European Year of Citizens, the Commission may cooperate with

appropriate international organisations, in particular with the Council of Europe.

70

Article 7

Protection of the Union's financial interests

1. The Commission shall ensure that, where actions financed under this Decision are

implemented, the financial interests of the Union are protected by the application of

preventive measures against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities, by

effective checks and by the recovery of the amounts unduly paid and, if irregularities

are detected, by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. The Commission

may carry out checks and verifications in situ under this Decision, in compliance with

Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96. If need be, investigations shall be carried out

by the European Anti-Fraud Office in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999

▌.

71

2. For the Union actions financed under this Decision, the notion of irregularity referred

to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 shall mean any

infringement of a provision of Union law or any breach of a contractual obligation

resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator which has, or would have,

the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Union by an unjustified item of

expenditure.

3. The Commission shall reduce, suspend or recover the amount of financial assistance

granted for an action if it finds irregularities, particularly non-compliance with the

provisions of this Decision or of the individual decision or contract granting the

financial support in question, or if it transpires that, without Commission approval

having being sought, the action has undergone significant change that conflicts with its

nature or with its implementing conditions.

72

4. If the time limits have not been observed or if only part of the allocated financial

assistance is justified by the progress made with implementing an action, the

Commission shall request the beneficiary to submit observations within a specified

period. If the beneficiary does not give a satisfactory answer, the Commission may

cancel the remaining financial assistance and demand repayment of sums already paid.

5. Any amount unduly paid shall be repaid to the Commission. Interest shall be added to

any sums not repaid in due time under the conditions laid down in the Financial

Regulation.

73

Article 8

Monitoring and evaluation

By 31 December 2014, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on

the implementation, results and overall assessment of the initiatives provided for in this

Decision. That report shall serve as a basis for future Union policies, measures and actions

in this field. Pursuant to the experience of the European Year of Citizens, that report shall

also present ideas and best practices on how better to inform citizens of their rights, even

after the end of the European Year of Citizens.

74

Article 9

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the


Article 10

Addressees

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at ...,



75

ANNEX

MEASURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3

As a guiding principle, the implementation of the European Year of Citizens will be built

around a broad Union-wide information campaign which can be complemented by actions of

the Member States. Union and national actions may also involve civil society, which has

substantial experience in the field in question, and other stakeholders with a view to create

ownership of all key actors. Implementation will be carried out through the following measures:

A. DIRECT UNION INITIATIVES

Financing will generally take the form of direct purchase of goods and services under existing

framework contracts. Part of the financing can be devoted to the provision of linguistic services

(translation, interpretation, multilingual information, sign language and Braille).

Information and promotion campaigns including:

producing and disseminating audiovisual and print material which reflect the messages

outlined in Article 2;

76

holding high-visibility events and fora for exchanging experience and good practices;

taking measures to publicise the results and raise the profile of Union programmes,

schemes and initiatives contributing to the objectives of the European Year of Citizens;

establishing an information website on Europa (http://europa.eu/index_en.htm) which is

dedicated to the actions implemented in the context of the European Year of Citizens;

including information on the European Year of Citizens in the newsletters, brochures,

information material and websites of education institutions and associations, non-

governmental organisations and trade unions.

B. CO-FINANCING UNION INITIATIVES

Union programmes, such as the 2007 to 2013 Europe for Citizens could be used to co-finance

activities under the European Year of Citizens. Other programmes, such as the 2007-2013

specific programme" Fundamental Rights and Citizenship" as part of the general

programme "Fundamental Rights and Justice", will provide information about the rights of

Union citizens as a priority criterion for projects.

77

C. INITIATIVES NOT RECEIVING ANY UNION FINANCIAL AID

The Union will grant non-financial support, including written authorisation to use the label,

once developed, and other materials associated with the European Year of Citizens, to

initiatives carried out by public or private organisations, in so far as they provide assurances to

the Commission that the initiatives in question are or will be carried out during 2013 and are

likely to make a significant contribution to achieving the objectives of the European Year of

Citizens.

_______________

78

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0369

Common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case

European Parliament recommendation of 23 October 2012 to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case (2012/2142(INI))


– having regard to Article 215 of the TFEU,

– having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Guy Verhofstadt and Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group (B7-0196/2012),

– having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on the rule of law in Russia1,

– having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2010 on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2009 and the European Union’s policy on the matter2,

– having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the upcoming EU-Russia Summit on 15 December 2011 and the outcome of the Duma elections on 4 December 20113,

– having regard to its recommendation of 2 February 2012 to the Council on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures4,

– having regard to the adoption of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act by the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, seeking to impose visa bans and asset freezes on Russian officials allegedly involved in the detention, abuse and death of Sergei Magnitsky,

– having regard to the draft resolution entitled ‘Rule of law in Russia: case of Sergei Magnitsky’, which was presented to the 2012 annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, calling on national parliaments to take action to impose visa sanctions and asset freezes,

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

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0285/2012),

A. whereas the arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights;

1 OJ C 188 E, 28.6.2012, p. 37.2 OJ C 169 E, 15.6.2012, p. 81.3 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0575.4 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0018.

79

B. whereas the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system;

C. whereas the Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe and of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, and whereas the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order;

D. whereas, despite the 2011 conclusions of the inquiry conducted by the Russian President’s Human Rights Council on the illegality of Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest, detention and being denied access to justice, the investigations are stalled and the officials involved have been exonerated and even assigned to the posthumous case; whereas such actions on the part of the authorities demonstrate the politically motivated nature of Magnitsky’s prosecution;

E. whereas the European Union has urged the Russian authorities on many occasions and formats, from regular human rights consultations to summit-level meetings, to conduct thorough independent investigations in this special, well documented case, and to put an end to the current climate of impunity;

F. whereas the case of Sergei Magnitsky is only one but the most prominent and well documented case of abuse of powers by the Russian law enforcement authorities, heavily violating the rule of law; whereas a multitude of other juridical cases exist using systematically the pretext of economic crimes and alleged corruption for eliminating business competitors or political rivals;

G. whereas visa restrictions and other restrictive measures are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, but constitute a political signal of the EU’s concern to a larger target audience and thus remain a necessary and legitimate foreign policy tool;

H. whereas EU sanctions on the Magnitsky case could prompt the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to address, in a more concrete and convincing manner, the question of the rule of law in Russia and the current climate of impunity;

I. whereas several national parliaments of EU Member States – among them the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Poland – have already passed resolutions urging their governments to introduce sanctions on the Magnitsky case, while several other national parliaments, such as those in Portugal, France, Spain and Latvia, are at the initial drafting stage for such resolutions;

1. Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

(a) to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow;

(b) to impose and implement an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and to freeze any financial assets they or their immediate family may hold inside the European Union;

(c) to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case, and to bring all those responsible to justice;

80

(d) to urge the Russian authorities to put an end to the widespread corruption and to reform the judicial system, and bring it into line with international standards, by creating an independent, just and transparent system that cannot, under any circumstances, be misused for political reasons;

(e) to raise, in the course of bilateral meetings with Russian authorities, this issue as well as the issue of intimidation and impunity in cases involving human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers, in a more determined, resolute and result-oriented manner;

2. Encourages the Council to take a coherent and proactive stance on other serious human rights violations in Russia, on the basis of well documented, converging and independent sources and convincing evidence, and to introduce similar restrictive measures against offenders as a last resort measure;

3. Underlines that the commitment of the Russian authorities to basic values such as the rule of law, and respect for human rights and basic freedoms, remains the main prerequisite for EU-Russia relations and for the development of a stable and reliable partnership between the two parties;

4. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the Member States, the Russian State Duma and the Government of the Russian Federation.

81

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0370

Implementation of the Single European Sky legislation

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Implementation of the Single European Sky Legislation (2012/2005(INI))


– having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Single Sky legislation: time to deliver (COM(2011)0731),

– having regard to the communication from the Commission on governance and incentive mechanisms for the deployment of SESAR, the Single European Sky’s technological pillar (COM(2011)0923),

– having regard to the white paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’ (COM(2011)0144),


– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0254/2012),

A. whereas the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) has already taken many positive steps forward;

B. whereas 2012 is expected to be a pivotal year for the implementation of the SES;

C. whereas the completion of the SES will lead to considerable economic, safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level;

D. whereas the volume of air traffic is constantly increasing, resulting in insufficient capacity and an increase in delays for passengers, whilst airlines’ growth plans are also affected; whereas Europe’s airspace is among the busiest in the world, with over 750 million passengers using EU airports, and this figure is expected to double by 2030;

E. whereas the success of the SES depends on an integrated approach without individual Member States putting at risk its implementation as a whole;

F. whereas 4 December 2012 is the deadline for completion of implementation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs), but the latest reports indicate that the situation is far from complying with this provision of the SES legislation;

G. whereas according to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010, four months after the reception of the performance plans from the Member States the Commission should issue recommendations concerning the adoption of revised performance targets for those not consistent with the EU-wide targets;

82

H. whereas currently the national Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) providing air traffic control services mirror the fragmented political geography of the continent, thus unfortunately creating inefficiencies and congestion;

I. whereas in order to complete the implementation of the SES it is necessary to take measures to achieve the EU’s air safety objectives, so as to improve current standards and ensure a uniformly high degree of safety for the public;

J. whereas other programmes such as Galileo and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) are swiftly moving ahead;

K. whereas the required funding and financial frameworks should be agreed as soon as possible;

Timeframe

1. Recognises the constraints that exist with regard to the implementation of the SES legislation; considers, nonetheless, that it is necessary to build significantly on the progress made so far, laying down binding timeframes for the implementation of the SES but also taking account of business considerations;

2. Underlines the need to move quickly and to push ahead with the implementation of the SES legislation, as well as with the performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions in particular;

3. Points out that the critical phase of deployment is on the horizon and must be tackled in a timely, synchronised and coordinated manner;

4. Warns that the increase in air traffic means that Europe’s airspace is fast approaching its maximum capacity and that this problem needs to be urgently addressed, in order to guarantee high-quality air transport services for the European public and ensure that the impact on the environment and climate does not intensify;

5. Highlights the importance of airports as entry and exit points for the European network; calls for them to be fully taken into account in the development of the SES, including regional airports, given their role in helping remove network congestion and increase capacity;

6. Draws attention to the urgent need to implement the SES legislation successfully, in order to avoid increased congestion with ever heavier traffic flows and outdated technologies and ensure greater consistency in European air safety provisions;

7. Notes that maintaining Europe’s consistently high levels of safety and operational conditions is becoming more and more of a challenge; urges the Member States and the Commission to clarify the role of the relevant European bodies, so as to ensure that reliable and transparent international air safety standards are maintained;

8. Recalls the need to make Europe’s airspace as efficient as possible, from the viewpoint not only of economic advantages but also of environmental, energy and social benefits, including those to air passengers;

83

9. Highlights the fact that in the Commission’s latest communication on the subject it was estimated that there could be a cumulative impact on EU GDP of EUR 419 billion during the period 2013-2030 in the EU-27, with 328 000 jobs being created directly or indirectly and a net saving in CO2 emissions of some 50 million tonnes, if there is a full and timely deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) technology;

10. Points out that, according to the Commission, the timely introduction of SESAR will bring practical benefits for passengers, resulting in flight times being shortened by approximately 10 % (or nine minutes), 50 % fewer flight cancellations and delays, and a possible reduction in air fares; stresses, however, that should the deployment of SESAR be delayed by ten years the overall impact would be catastrophic, since there would be a loss of around EUR 268 billion as a result of a reduced cumulative impact on EU GDP, with some 190 000 fewer jobs being created and some 55 million tonnes less saved in CO2 emissions;

11. Notes that other key countries and regions are racing ahead in terms of research and developing innovative technology, and therefore regrets that the EU may lose its lead to other international players unless the implementation of the SES legislation is accelerated;

12. Takes the view that the proper functioning of the SES can only be assured if the various implementation dates are strictly honoured by all concerned;

13. Stresses that pilot programmes have been undertaken and that the results of these were positive;

14. Asks the Commission to report back to the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the progress made towards the implementation of the performance scheme by all ANSPs by December 2012;

15. Asks the Commission to report back to the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the progress made with regard to the implementation of the SES legislation by March 2013, including an evaluation of the consequences of the delays in implementing the FABs;

Political input

16. Reminds the Member States that they have publicly committed themselves to achieving the goal of a Single European Sky, overwhelmingly supporting the relevant legislation, and insists that they must remain proactive and involved in the implementation of this legislation; calls on the Member States, in this connection, to submit national performance plans in line with EU performance targets, and to adopt the revised performance targets proposed by the Commission; calls on the Commission to initiate appropriate action in case of failure to meet the deadlines for the implementation of this legislation;

17. Recalls the objectives for aviation described in both the white paper on transport policy and the document ‘Flightpath 2050 - Europe’s Vision for Aviation - Report of the High Level Group on Aviation Research’;

18. Insists that enhanced priority should be accorded to this issue and that proactive political support on the part of the Member States and of all those involved is needed for the full and timely delivery of the SES;

84

19. Stresses that successful implementation of the SES legislation will have a positive and encouraging impact on competition throughout the EU and worldwide, fostering growth and employment, particularly in the aeronautics and aviation industries;

20. Regrets the fact that despite its considerable social and environmental benefits the SES project is not sufficiently known or understood by the public, and invites the Commission, the Member States and stakeholders to increase their public communication efforts;

21. Recognises the challenges of the European Air Traffic Managements (ATMs), and acknowledges the critical role of the human factor and of an efficient social dialogue in delivering the SES; recognises the need for continued emphasis on open reporting procedures; stresses that implementation of the SES will bring with it a strong demand for high-end and highly-skilled jobs;

22. Respects fully the sovereignty and national prerogatives of the Member States as regards ATMs relating to military and other state aircraft operations and training; notes the Member States’ commitment to ensuring that the concept of flexible use of airspace1 is fully and uniformly applied, and recognises the need to support their efforts to that end; highlights the fact that state aircraft include, in addition to military aviation, those on police, firefighting, coastguard, customs, civil protection and other missions, thus bringing a wide range of security and crisis management activities within the scope of their operations;

23. Believes that the successful implementation of the SES will bring benefits to the entire supply chain, including manufacturers, airlines, SMEs, the whole of the tourism sector, etc;

24. Remains extremely concerned that the creation of FABs across Europe is not only behind schedule but also lacks substance, and therefore, supports the efforts of the coordinator; highlights the importance of cooperation, coordination and political action by and between Member States in order to achieve the objective of implementing the FABs by 4 December 2012; calls on the Commission to thoroughly monitor developments and, if necessary, take legal action, including sanctions, vis-à-vis Member States violating their obligations under the SES legislation;

25. Stresses that the creation of FABs needs to be understood not as a standalone requirement but as a means towards fulfilling the objectives of defragmenting Europe’s airspace and improving performance, and that without them the SES cannot be completed; asks the Commission to propose a strategy to accelerate the implementation of the FABs which includes the full implementation of centralised models (e.g. Network Manager, SESAR Joint Undertaking, Deployment Manager); calls on the Commission to make greater use of its cautioning methods, and, should these not succeed, take out infringement proceedings against those Member States which have not yet signed the agreements for establishing their FABs;

26. Considers that the most effective and efficient way of creating the SES is by means of a top-down approach, and therefore asks the Commission, on the basis of the report referred to in paragraph 15, to propose measures to eliminate the consequences of the delay in the implementation of FABs, and to switch from the bottom-up to the top-down approach swiftly, in order to ensure that the objectives of the SES II legislative package are achieved;

1 Statement by the Member States on military issues related to the Single European Sky of 10 March 2004, (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 9).

85

27. Calls on the Member States to ensure that the issue of lack of resources, especially with regard to the National Supervisory Authority, is addressed swiftly at national political level;

28. Emphasises that in order to adequately fulfil their role in the SES, the National Supervisory Authorities must be functionally separate from the ANSPs and must exercise their powers impartially, independently and transparently;

29. Points out that it is important to call on the national ANSPs to be proactive in the implementation of the SES legislation;

30. Reaffirms that the safe, efficient and flexible use of airspace can only be achieved through close cooperation and coordination between civil and military users of airspace;

31. Invites the Member States, with the aid of the relevant European agencies, to focus on enhancing civil-military cooperation and coordination with neighbouring countries;

32. Insists that the Member States provide the necessary funding as soon as possible for the completion of the SES; welcomes the fact that the Commission has proposed that the SES and SESAR be treated as a horizontal priority for funding in the Connecting Europe Facility;

SESAR Deployment Strategy

33. Acknowledges that there has been substantial financial investment by both industry and the EU in research and development for the SESAR technology, and believes it is now time to put in place the measures necessary to reap the benefits of that investment with the implementation of the SES legislation;

34. Recalls the need for coordination between the schedule for implementation of the SES and the development and deployment phase of SESAR as part of the SES, as stated in Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009;

35. Insists that, despite the requisite major investment, a number of important and tangible benefits stem from harmonisation, including flight optimisation, fuel efficiency, noise reduction, less air pollution and a reduced impact on climate change, as well as the flexible and safe use of a less fragmented sky; highlights the efficiency that greater civil-military coordination would achieve, since using joint infrastructure would result in cost-cutting; emphasises that enhanced interoperability between Member States and the realisation of FABs would also produce benefits in terms of crossborder operations;

36. Understands that the SESAR technology and the implementation of the SES are intrinsically related policies which need to be developed in order to reap full benefit, and therefore urges the industry to take the deployment phase of the SESAR project seriously;

37. Points out that the technologies have already been developed by the manufacturers and are currently available, which makes the successful implementation of SESAR an achievable goal;

38. Acknowledges that the business case for investment in SESAR technologies is stronger in larger and more congested hubs than in smaller regional airports or airports serving seasonal

86

routes; maintains, however, that the performance of the overall network would be improved by a wider spread of SESAR capabilities, aided by public funding;

39. Believes there needs to be a globally coordinated approach in response to efforts to achieve standardisation, such as those being sought by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), in order to ensure that existing and new technologies are interoperable worldwide and encourage the signature of cooperation protocols in the area of research and development;

40. Considers that, in order to allow ANSPs and other stakeholders to best develop their strategic partnerships and receive incentives for achieving their objectives, the performance pillar needs to be further promoted;

41. Stresses that the military community is a key actor in the SES context and should be fully involved at all levels and at a very early stage; recognises the progress made in the implementation of SES legislation, and urges the Member States to speed up their efforts to achieve coordination on the military side; while acknowledging the national specificities of civil-military relations, calls on the Member States to focus on enhancing civil-military cooperation and interoperability and apply best practice in that area;

42. Is of the opinion that there is a need to foster cooperation with neighbouring countries with a view to extending the SES beyond the borders of the EU;

43. Underlines the need for defragmentation of European airspace through the implementation of technological innovations, strengthening of the performance scheme for air navigation services, and implementation of the FABs on schedule so as to unleash the beneficial effects of the SES;

44. Commends the continued support of the Member States and the stakeholders who are helping achieve harmonisation of the interpretation and implementation of the SES legislation;

45. Supports the public-private partnership (PPP) approach, as this can create a win-win situation for all when structured and executed appropriately and effectively, on a basis of working together with incentives and commitment;

46. Insists that the implementation of the SES legislation will be highly beneficial to all stakeholders, with, for instance, reduced user charges that are passed on to the end consumer, i.e. the passenger;

47. Believes there should be close cooperation at all times and no conflict between the bodies responsible for the implementation of the SES;

48. Calls for the preparations for a legislative proposal on the future role of the SESAR Joint Undertaking to be completed in good time so that it can continue its current role well into the future, as it has a vital part to play in ensuring the success of the SES; stresses the efforts made so far to demonstrate its effectiveness;

49. Urges the Commission to rapidly set up the governance, incentive and financial mechanisms, including public funding, that are needed to ensure the timely and effective

87

deployment of SESAR technologies, involving the relevant authorities and stakeholders and paying particular attention to the implementation of innovative financial instruments;

50. Notes that, while military and civil-military expertise is present at different levels within the various stakeholder institutions such as the Single Sky Committee, Eurocontrol and the SESAR Joint Undertaking, there is still a need for a coordinated and comprehensive analysis of the implications of SES/SESAR for the military; notes the need to include the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) in this process, as this will ensure that defence chiefs are adequately informed;

51. Recognises, in this regard, the natural roles of the European Defence Agency (EDA) as a bridge between the defence community and the Commission and as a facilitator between military stakeholders; is in favour of strengthening the EDA’s role in building political awareness, networking, assisting with the deployment phase of SESAR and supporting Member States in financial and operational risk analysis; notes that the EDA is well placed to contribute to future SES challenges, for example in the field of equipment and training; welcomes the decision by Member States to involve the EU Military Staff (EUMS) in supporting the EDA in connection with SESAR; welcomes the establishment of the SES/SESAR Military Implementation Forum facilitated by the EDA, and encourages its further effective continuation, as it has the strong merit of bringing all relevant actors in the defence community to the table; emphasises that cooperation with NATO is indispensable and welcomes ongoing developments in this regard;

o

o o

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

88

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0371

Passenger rights in all transport modes

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on passenger rights in all transport modes (2012/2067(INI))


– having regard to Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), concerning the free movement of persons,

– having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘A European vision for Passengers: Communication on Passenger Rights in all transport modes (COM(2011)0898),

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 May 2012,1

– having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

– having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy2,

– having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and to the European Disability Strategy 2010-20203,

– having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2012 on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air4,


– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0287/2012),

A. whereas since the relevant goals were charted in the Commission’s 2001 White Paper, a comprehensive EU passenger rights package has been developed for all modes, namely air, rail, waterborne and road transport, affording basic protection to passengers while ensuring a level playing field for carriers;

B. whereas, however, some of these passenger rights are still not being applied completely by all carriers, nor are they being monitored in a harmonised fashion or enforced properly by all national authorities; whereas some of the existing regulations have failed to provide clarity on passenger rights or the responsibilities of service providers and therefore require revision; whereas, in addition, passengers are not well informed about their rights and the

1 OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 122.2 OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 42.3 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0453.4 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0099.

89

quality of service they are entitled to expect, and their legal claims are often difficult to lodge and enforce;

C. whereas this assessment is confirmed by a survey of Members and EP staff carried out by the rapporteur;

D. whereas with its latest communication and other very recent initiatives (revision of Air Passenger Rights Regulation (EC) No 261/2004; Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC), the Commission is seeking to clarify and strengthen passenger rights in all modes;

E. whereas care needs to be taken to avoid too much bureaucracy for smaller bus operators in rural areas, who often provide a valuable community service for isolated areas;

F. whereas it is essential to strike a balance between the need for passenger rights in the case of rural bus services and the need to ensure that the burden is not so heavy as to make such services unviable in the future;

G. whereas a high level of consumer protection is guaranteed by Article 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

H. whereas there is still an ongoing problem with price transparency for consumers booking tickets on the internet,

General framework

1. Endorses the Commission’s intention to enforce the current rules on passenger rights more firmly and improve them where necessary, and welcomes its communication as a useful summary of achievements to date;

2. Emphasises that passengers have not only rights but also responsibilities, and that meeting these helps ensure that everything runs safely and smoothly for them and other travellers before, during and after the journey;

3. Is of the opinion that the common criteria (non-discrimination, equal treatment, physical and ICT accessibility, the requirements of ‘design for all’, fulfilment of the transport contract, exact and accessible information given in good time before, during and after travel, and appropriate assistance without delay in the event of problems and possible compensation), together with the ten specific passenger rights listed in the Commission communication, correspond to the main rights cutting across modes and form a solid basis for establishing a legally enforceable charter of passenger rights;

4. Notes that the preconditions of safety and security, including both the technical safety of the transport equipment and the physical safety of passengers, must continue to have priority;

5. Recommends that the Commission include in its list of passenger rights the right to a minimum quality services standard on the part of carriers and that it set out a clear definition of such a standard;

6. Points to the need for the forthcoming Commission initiatives concerning passenger rights to tackle what is missing in the fragmented state of the existing regulations, namely a seamless travel chain for all passengers across all modes of transport; in the upcoming

90

reviews of the EU rules on passenger rights (for air, rail, waterborne and road transport), improved convergence between the different legislation in those four areas should be considered as a priority and amendments introduced accordingly;

7. Calls on the Commission to carefully review and oversee the implementation of comprehensive regulations which avoid ambiguities and misunderstandings relating to passenger rights and the responsibilities of service providers;

8. Considers in particular that the definitions of delays and cancellation should not create any distortion between the rights applicable in different transport modes;

9. Is aware that there are structural differences within individual transport modes and that any single cross-cutting regulation on passenger rights must take this into account; recognises that such a regulation cannot be drawn up at present, as the regulations on passenger rights in waterborne and bus and coach transport have not yet entered into force, although it must be the declared aim in the medium term; believes, however, that a holistic approach is needed, so as to integrate all passenger rights – inter alia to compensation, reimbursement and information – into a common legislative framework providing conditions for fair competition between the different transport modes;

10. Calls on the Commission therefore, at this stage, to draw up guidelines on the application and implementation of rights in all transport modes which will not have the effect of either standardising the laws or watering down passenger rights, and which recognise the differing requirements of each mode as well as aspects common to all;

11. Recommends that the Commission prepare a Common Frame of Reference (CFR) for passenger law, containing principles, definitions and model rules for passenger legislation for all modes of transport, in order to form a basis for the further consolidation of passenger law; the Passenger CFR should thus follow the example of the CFR on European contract law;

12. Takes the view that passengers’ rights and passenger service must be adapted to changes in patterns of travel, and draws particular attention in this regard to the new challenges posed by intermodal travel and the associated information and reservation systems for both passengers and travel companies; underlines the need to adapt travellers’ rights and operators’ obligations, inter alia in the field of package travel,1 to reflect the current state of affairs, and calls on the Commission speedily to put forward a revised proposal to remedy, as a matter of priority, the current shortcomings affecting the scope of rules, the online sale of travel packages and abusive clauses in contracts;

13. Stresses the importance of the EU continuing to address passenger rights in bilateral and international agreements in relation to all modes of transport, with a view to the improvement of passenger protection beyond its borders;

Information

14. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to maintain its information campaign on passenger rights up to 2014; recommends that national consumer protection authorities and travel agencies be involved in the campaign, since they can do a great deal to educate passengers

1 Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p.59).

91

about their rights (for instance by producing literature for travel agencies or web content); maintains, meanwhile, that key information including passenger rights and, possibly, operator performance reviews should be made accessible by the same sources so as to facilitate passenger enquiries; invites public authorities, national consumer protection agencies and organisations representing all passengers to launch similar campaigns;

15. Calls for the list of rights common to all modes to be circulated widely, in a concise form and in all official EU languages;

16. Points out that a trip is a contract between the service provider and the consumer that can take various forms, and that the consumer should therefore know all the details of this contract at the point when the contract is drawn up, while any subsequent changes should be made known to those involved in a timely manner; considers that this contract should contain information on relevant aspects of the trip and on the passenger’s rights in case of problems;

17. Calls on all transport operators and other service providers concerned to make greater efforts to inform passengers more fully, particular in cases of crossborder travel; considers that information must be readily understandable, accurate, complete, easily accessible for all and available in different formats and in the national language as well as in English, and should include details regarding relevant websites and smartphone applications, as well as postal addresses for complaints and complaint forms;

18. Calls, moreover, for passengers to be informed of their rights in the same way as they are informed of their obligations;

19. Stresses that the rights and obligations of passengers and of other relevant stakeholders (e.g. transport operators, infrastructure managers, persons accompanying disabled passengers) must be set out, and all pre-journey travel information (including websites), reservation systems, real-time travel information and online services must be made available to the passenger in formats that are accessible to persons with disabilities or reduced mobility;

20. Calls on carriers to provide information on passenger rights on travel tickets, especially contacts details for help and assistance;

21. Stresses that where through-ticketing applies, clear information should be provided on the liability of the carriers in the event of damage to baggage during the journey, as well as on differentiated baggage allowances, compensation for delays, and the rules applying between carriers, and also on adequate rerouting in case of travel disruption or missed connections, including intermodal rerouting;

22. Welcomes the Commission’s new smartphone application, which provides information on passenger rights in several languages and in a format accessible to passengers with disabilities; calls on the Member States and carriers to press ahead with the development and use of similar modern technologies (including SMS and the use of social networks, video-based sign language services, and text-based services to ensure the inclusion of deaf, hard-of-hearing and speech-disabled users); calls on public authorities, consumer protection bodies and organisations representing the interests of all passengers to launch similar initiatives; invites the Commission, furthermore, to take account at all moments of the circumstances of elderly people, who are not always equipped with modern technology when travelling; takes the view, moreover, that consideration should be given to making the

92

internet available free of charge at airports, stations and other major departure points, so as to enable fuller use of these services;

23. Urges the Commission to promote the use of new technologies for all modes of transport, to be applied to the issuing of boarding cards that can be retained, are valid and can be shown using electronic devices, in order to speed up boarding procedures and make travel more environmentally sustainable;

24. Recommends that adequately staffed information points and helpdesks which are physically and ICT-accessible and whose staff are adequately trained to respond to persons with disabilities or with reduced mobility need be set up at visible and centrally located places of departure and arrival (airports, railway stations, bus terminals, and ports) in order to provide more comprehensive assistance to passengers in the event of individual or collective travel disruption, paying particular attention to passengers travelling with children and to persons with disabilities or reduced mobility; recommends that there should be properly trained personnel at hand who are able to take immediate decisions on rerouting or rebooking, assist in cases of lost, delayed or damaged luggage, and deal with claims for compensation or reimbursement; at small and unstaffed railway and bus stations, alternative solutions, such as an information phone number or a web-page, should be made available;

25. Takes the view that all transport companies must provide accessible and effective telephone assistance for all passengers once a trip has been booked; such assistance must include the provision of information and alternative proposals in the event of disruption and, in the case of air, maritime and rail transport, its cost should in no circumstances exceed that of a local call;

26. Believes that when buying tickets passengers should be properly informed about overbooking;

27. Calls on the Commission to update all sources of information ((its website, documents, brochures) regarding passenger rights as applying to the different transport modes, taking account of the latest legal decisions and particularly those of the European Court of Justice;

Transparency

28. Calls on the Commission to extend the obligation to report on the standard of service, which already applies to railway undertakings, so as to cover carriage by other modes, taking account of their respective specificities; is of the opinion that published comparative data could help to guide passengers and could be used by carriers for advertising purposes;

29. Calls on the Commission to oblige the Member States to gather statistical data on infringements of passenger rights and ways of dealing with all complaints, on the number and length of delays, and on lost, delayed or damaged baggage; calls on it to analyse the statistical data as provided by the Member States, publish the results and create a data bank for the exchange of information; also calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and the national enforcement bodies, to take the necessary measures in this regard;

30. Considers that the websites of many transport operators are still rather unclear and can mislead consumers when they are booking tickets; calls on the Commission to enable the current legislation on price transparency and unfair commercial practices to be implemented

93

and enforced effectively, in accordance with Directives 2011/83/EU and 2005/29/EC, and to consider introducing a system of penalties to be applied should it be established that EU legislation on price transparency has been infringed;

31. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, notably in computerised reservation systems governed by Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, non-optional operational costs are included in fares, and that genuinely optional items are published and bookable with all necessary information and fees for ancillary services (such as charges for payment by credit card or handling luggage), so that no extra costs are added just before a purchase is made and passengers can clearly differentiate between non-optional operational costs included in fares and bookable optional items;

32. Calls on the Commission to ensure closer monitoring of websites and to notify the national enforcement bodies where there are misapplications of the existing regulations, with a view to their reinforcement;

33. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the national authorities, to consider the implementation of a harmonised, intermodal vision of the content of passenger transport services and of the elements of the price to be included in the basic fare for all transport modes;

34. Believes that the hard core of services to be included in the basic fare should at least cover all operational costs indispensable to transport passengers (including those linked to the carrier’s legal obligations, such as safety, security and passenger rights), all aspects essential for travel from the passenger’s perspective (such as the provision of tickets and boarding cards and the carrying of a minimum amount of luggage and personal belongings), and all costs related to payment (such as credit card costs);

35. Calls on the Commission to address the proliferation of unfair terms in air carrier contracts, such as the unfair requirement that passengers must use the outgoing part of a return ticket in order to be able to use the return part and that they must use all the tickets for a journey in consecutive order;

36. Calls on the Commission to ensure that ticketing and transparent pricing are available to everybody without discrimination, independently of the location or nationality of the consumer or the travel agency, and that price discrimination against passengers on the basis of their country of residence is more thoroughly investigated and, where identified, fully eliminated;

37. Calls on the Commission to deal with the transparency and neutrality of distribution channels which have developed outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 80/2009 on computerised reservation systems;

38. Reiterates its call on the Commission to propose measures for the introduction of common standards for the carriage of hand luggage, so as to protect passengers against excessive restrictions and allow them to carry on board a reasonable amount of hand luggage, including purchases from airport shops;

39. Urges the Commission to accelerate the tabling of a legislative proposal revising the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC, in order to ensure that consumers and firms in the sector have a clear legal framework, for both standard situations and exceptional situations;

94

believes, moreover, that in its revision the Commission should consider making the same legislation applicable to all parties offering tourism services, since the quality of services provided to the consumer and fair competition should be prime factors in this context;

40. Expects the Commission, in its revision of the Package Travel Directive, to fully examine the impact of e-commerce and digital markets on consumer behaviour within the European tourism industry; believes it should step up its efforts to improve the quality and content of information provided to tourists and that such information should be reliable and easily accessible to consumers;

Application and enforcement

41. Notes that EU passenger rights law is still not being applied and enforced in the same way in all transport modes and in all parts of the EU, a fact which impedes free movement within the internal market, since it affects the confidence of citizens when travelling and undermines fair competition among carriers;

42. Urges the Commission to provide a clear set of rules for the establishment of national enforcement bodies, in order to facilitate a more transparent and easier access of passengers to those bodies;

43. Considers the fusion of national enforcement bodies from different modes of transport to be a necessary step towards achieving a consistent implementation of passenger rights;

44. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the national enforcement bodies work more closely together, adopt more uniform working methods, and exchange information intensively at national level and EU-wide with a view to networking and implementing, and to use all its powers, including resort to the infringement procedure where necessary, to ensure that the relevant EU legislation is implemented more consistently;

45. Recalls that the application of a uniform working method for all national enforcement bodies will ensure the harmonised enforcement of passenger rights in all Member States;

46. Calls on the Member States to deploy adequate resources so as to ensure effective enforcement and collaboration with national enforcement bodies in other Member States; underlines the importance of uniform, effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions and compensation schemes in order to create a level playing field and introduce powerful economic incentives for all actors involved to comply with the provisions on passenger rights;

47. Calls on the Commission to use its influence to create joint complaint-handling machinery for the national enforcement bodies, in the form of a central electronic clearing house; believes that this clearing house should advise passengers lodging complaints and, to save time and costs, refer them to the appropriate national enforcement body; recommends, as regards the information and advice to be obtained through the clearinghouse, that a standard email address be adopted and a free EU-wide hotline set up;

48. Calls on the Commission to promote guidelines for the prompt settlement of complaints using simplified procedures;

95

49. Calls on the Commission to produce, in cooperation with the Member States and in consultation with all stakeholders concerned, a specific standard EU-wide complaint form for each transport mode, which should be translated into all EU Member States’ official languages and should be accessible for all passengers, including the blind, and available in different modes, at the booking stage, at all terminals and online; calls on the Commission to propose a maximum time limit which should be laid down for all modes and should apply to both passengers submitting complaints and transport operators and national enforcement bodies handling complaints;

50. Asks the Commission to ensure that all passengers have the possibility to get in touch with the transport operator, particularly for information or complaint purposes, at non-premium rates by all the methods of communication that can be used when booking;

51. Considers that contact details for the after-sales services provided by transport operators, such as passenger information and complaint-handling services, should be clearly indicated on the ticket, in the same way as all the indispensable features of a transport service such as the price and the summary of terms and conditions of travel;

52. Urges the Commission, together with the Member States, to locate any structural or procedural flaws in the national complaint-handling services and eliminate them, and to ensure that the legislation is implemented in conjunction with the planned EU measures in the area of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and that there is an effective collective redress mechanism to ensure that passengers can exercise their rights to an affordable, expedient and accessible Europe-wide system, with the proviso that the parties to a dispute must continue to have the option of appealing to the courts; urges the Member States, with the support of the Commission, to set up and develop well-regulated mediation instruments for dealing with conflicts between passengers and service providers, for all transport modes managed by enforcement bodies and other independent bodies;

53. Commends the increased use of mobile applications for core services, especially in air transport, such as ticket purchases and check-in, and urges the industry to speed up the development of similar tools for complaint handling and missing baggage management;

Liability

54. Points to the need, for all modes, for a unambiguous definition of the relevant terms and especially of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, as this would enable carriers to apply the rules more consistently, give passengers a valid tool with which to assert their rights, and reduce the variations that now exist as regards national enforcement, as well as the scope for legal challenges to compensation rules; calls on the Commission to draw up the necessary legislative proposals, involving transport stakeholders and taking note of the relevant ECJ rulings; emphasises that such a definition needs to take into consideration the differences between modes of transport; notes that technical failure should not be considered as an extraordinary circumstance and falls within the liability of a carrier; emphasises that carriers should not be made liable for disruption they did not cause if they took all reasonable steps to avoid its occurrence;

55. Considers that current levels of consumer protection in the event of airline bankruptcy or insolvency are inadequate, and that optional insurance policies are not a substitute for statutory entitlements; calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal encompassing suitable measures to protect passengers in the event of the insolvency or

96

bankruptcy of an airline or the withdrawal of an airline’s operating licence, which would cover such areas as the repatriation of stranded passengers in the event of cessation of operations, compulsory airline insurance or the creation of a guarantee fund; draws attention, in this connection, to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy; urges the Commission to work towards an international agreement extending the provisions for such action to third-country airlines;

56. Reminds the Member States of their obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to carry out regular assessments of air carriers’ financial situation and to take the steps provided for in cases of failure to meet the stipulated conditions, including the possible withdrawal of an airline’s operating licence; urges the Commission to ensure that national authorities comply with these obligations;

57. Urges the Commission to propose an obligation on service providers in the different transport modes to provide for a final guarantee to cover their liability in the case of insolvency, bankruptcy or removal of an operating licence;

58. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to revise Regulation (EC) No 261/2004; asks it, in this context, to examine the effects of the Sturgeon judgment as part of its assessment of the impact of its legislative proposal1;

59. Requests the Commission to deal with the matter of liability for damage to baggage and specifically to mobility or other assistive devices, given that the cost of replacing these frequently exceeds the maximum reimbursement permitted by international law; insists that any damage to the mobility equipment of persons with reduced mobility or persons with disabilities resulting from handling by carriers/service providers must be compensated in full, since such equipment is important for their integrity, dignity and independence and is therefore in no way comparable with luggage;

60. Calls on the Member States to clarify the competences of their national enforcement bodies with respect to handling complaints related to mishandled luggage in maritime and aviation transport;

61. Considers that if luggage is lost, delayed or damaged, airlines must in the first instance compensate the passengers with whom they have concluded a contract, but that at a later stage airlines must have a right to seek redress from the airports or service providers where they are not necessarily responsible for any prejudice that has occurred;

People with disabilities or reduced mobility

62. Calls on carriers to pay the utmost attention to safety and security issues, including both the technical safety of the transport equipment and the physical safety of passengers, and to train their staff to enable them to cope with emergencies, including maintaining contact with persons with reduced mobility and persons with disabilities; stresses that such training must be carried out in cooperation with representative organisations of persons with reduced mobility and persons with disabilities;

1 The Sturgeon judgment made compensation compulsory in the event of delays of more than three hours. This has had a considerable financial impact on airlines, as well as consequences for passengers (cancellations, reduction in the number of routes available, etc). The impact of this judgment ought therefore to be examined critically.

97

63. Calls on the Commission to review, in cooperation with the carriers, the safety standards relating to persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility in order to set specific standards to apply to the various transport sectors, primarily air transport;1

64. Calls on carriers, together with representatives of industry, service providers and representative organisations of persons with disabilities, to devise comprehensible standard notification procedures and, if possible, set up coordinated notification systems, so as to make travel, and in particular intermodal travel, easier and barrier-free for people with disabilities or reduced mobility and enable them to easily communicate their assistance needs in advance at no additional cost, so that carriers can adapt to specific requirements and thus meet their obligation to assist;

65. Considers it essential to establish minimum standards for assisting people with disabilities and reduced mobility in all modes of transport, so as to ensure a harmonised approach throughout the EU;

66. Calls on the Commission to establish harmonised minimum rules across modes on the minimum level of care to be provided in case of long delays at the transport terminal/station or on the vehicle/train/boat/plane; accommodation or alternative transport arrangements for persons with disabilities must be accessible, and adequate assistance must be provided;

67. Notes that accessibility has a direct impact on the quality of health and social life of older persons, who are often faced with mobility, sensory or mental impairments that affect their ability to travel and continue to be active participants in society;

68. Calls on the Commission to formulate a general set of standards regarding the accessibility of transport infrastructure and services, including aspects such as the issuing of tickets, real-time travel information and online services, so as to ensure equal and unrestricted access for people with disabilities to products and services in the transport sector;

69. Maintains that transport infrastructures must be of such a nature as to enable people with disabilities or reduced mobility to have barrier-free access without discrimination and ensuring accessible formats (e.g. Braille, easy-to-read) to all means of transport and related services complying with the requirements of ‘design for all’, including transfer from one mode to another and at all stages of travel, from being able to book a ticket, access the platform, and board the vehicle to being able to lodge a complaint if needed;

70. Takes the view that, although much progress has been made in the quality of assistance, there are still too many architectural barriers which prevent people with reduced mobility from fully benefiting from services, in particular as regards access to transport vehicles (planes, trains, coaches, etc); believes that carriers must improve the quality of assistance for people with disabilities or reduced mobility, and train their staff to be more aware of and capable of responding to the needs of people in those categories; stresses that such training must be carried out in cooperation with representative organisations of persons with reduced mobility and persons with disabilities;

1 For example, recent experience points to discrepancies in the maximum numbers of deaf people allowed by different air carriers, the justifications for which are unclear. See the relevant written question to the Commission: E-005530/12.

98

71. Urges carriers to take account of the needs of people with disabilities or reduced mobility in the development of any new service, notably of new means of payment such as smartphones and smart cards;

72. Wishes to see the elimination of the abusive and/or discriminatory practices pursued by some carriers that require people with reduced mobility to be accompanied; emphasises that a carrier may not routinely require such passengers to be accompanied by another person; regarding the cases where unaccompanied people with disabilities are denied boarding on grounds of safety regulations, draws attention to the judgment handed down by the High Court of Bobigny on 13 January 2012;

73. Is of the opinion that where it is necessary for a disabled passenger to travel accompanied, the accompanying person should travel free of charge, since that person’s presence is needed for the passenger to travel;

74. Emphasises that, in this regard, the right to use mobility devices as well as to be accompanied by a recognised guide dog or assistance dog should be guaranteed in all circumstances;

75. Believes that in case of travel disruption, information regarding delays or cancellations, hotel accommodation, alternative transport arrangements, reimbursement schemes and continuation or rerouting options must be communicated in formats accessible for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility;

76. Calls for specific facilities for severely disabled passengers requiring changing and toilet facilities (so-called ‘changing places’) to be provided at no cost to the passenger at all airports in the EU having an annual passenger throughput of more than 1 000 000;

Intermodality

77. Recognises that, with the entry into force of the Waterborne1 and Bus2 Regulations in December 2012 and March 2013 respectively, the EU will have established the first integrated area of passenger rights for all modes of transport in the world; notes that the relevant EU legislation will now need to be implemented fully in a concerted and coordinated manner by all Member States in order to transform the Union’s passenger transport policy from being strategically purely modal to being intermodal;

78. Calls on the Commission to create new models of communication embracing passenger representative bodies, carriers and transport stakeholders, in order to promote the principle of intermodality in practice;

79. Calls on the Member States, when applying the Rail and Bus Regulations, to make every effort to refrain from making use of derogations, in order to reduce the problems posed by intermodal travel from the point of view of passenger rights;

80. Stresses that intermodality should be facilitated by the carriage of bicycles, wheel-chairs and prams in all modes and all services, including transborder and long-distance connections as well as high-speed trains;

1 OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 1.2 OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1.

99

81. Calls on the Commission to create an intermodal stakeholder group to provide advisory support on issues relating to the application of the respective regulations;

82. Urges the industry to develop a clear infrastructure which is ICT-accessible to everyone for ‘through tickets’ (i.e. transport contracts for several legs of a journey using the same mode) and integrated tickets (i.e. contracts for intermodal transport chains), with an emphasis on smart cards; draws attention in this connection to the Rail Regulation, which requires computer-assisted information and reservation systems to be adapted to common standards, so as to enable travel information and ticketing services to be organised on an EU-wide basis;

83. Urges the Commission strongly to continue its efforts to develop a European multimodal travel planner, considered as a key element of the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), in order to provide passengers with ‘door-to-door’ information covering both cost and duration of journeys, and calls on the Member States, together with the Commission, to remove the obstacles now existing to access to public traffic data and data transfer, without prejudice to appropriate data protection arrangements;

o

o o

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

100

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0372

Discharge 2010: EU general budget, Council

1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council (COM(2011)0473 – C7-0258/2011 – 2011/2203(DEC))


– having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 20101,

– having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011)0473 - C7-0258/2011)2,

– having regard to the Council’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010,

– having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies3,

– having regard to the statement of assurance4 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to its decision of 10 May 20125 postponing its decision on granting discharge for the financial year 2010, and the accompanying resolution,

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

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities6, and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

– having regard to Decision No 31/2008 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members7,

1 OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.2 OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.3 OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.4 OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134. 5 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 22.6 OJ L 248, 16.09.2002, p. 1.7 Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230,

28.8.2002, p. 7).

101

– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management8,


– having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0301/2012),

1. Refuses to grant the Council’s Secretary-General discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010;


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

8 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

102

2. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II - Council (COM(2011)0473 – C7-0258/2011 – (2011)2203(DEC))


– having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 20101,

– having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011)0473 - C7-0258/2011)2,

– having regard to the Council’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010,

– having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies3,

– having regard to the statement of assurance4 as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to its decision of 10 May 20125 postponing its decision on granting discharge for the financial year 2010, and the accompanying resolution,

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

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities6, and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

– having regard to Decision No 31/2008 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members7,

– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management8,

1 OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.2 OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.3 OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.4 OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.5 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 22.6 OJ L 248, 16.09.2002, p. 1.7 Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230,

28.8.2002, p. 7).8 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

103


– having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0301/2012),

A. whereas ‘citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled’1,

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

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

1. Highlights the role that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives Parliament in respect of budget discharge;

2. Points out that, under Article 335 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ‘the Union shall be represented by each of the institutions, by virtue of their administrative autonomy, in matters relating to their respective operation’, and that accordingly, taking into account Article 50 of the Financial Regulation, the institutions are individually responsible for the implementation of their budgets;

3. Notes that, under Rule 77 of its Rules of Procedure, ‘[the] provisions governing the procedure for granting discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget shall likewise apply to the procedure for granting discharge to: [...]

– the persons responsible for the implementation of the budgets of other institutions and bodies of the European Union such as the Council (in its executive capacity), the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions’;

Opinion of the Court of Auditors on the Council in its statement of assurance for 2010

4. Underlines that in its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors criticised the financing of the Residence Palace building project because of the advance payments made (paragraph 7.19); notes that the Court of Auditors made the observation that during the period 2008–2010 advance payments made by the Council totalled EUR 235 000 000; notes that the amounts paid came from under-utilised budget lines; points out that ‘under-utilised’ is the politically correct term for ‘over-budgeted’; underlines that in 2010 the Council increased the budget line ‘Acquisition of immovable property’ by EUR 40 000 000;

5. Notes the Council’s explanation concerning the fact that the appropriations were made available by budget transfers authorised by the budget authority in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 22 and 24 of the Financial Regulation;

6. Shares the Court of Auditors’ view that such a procedure does not comply with the principle of budget accuracy, despite the savings made in paying rent;

1 The European Transparency Initiative.

104

7. Notes the Council’s reply that the amounts for the budget lines for interpretation and delegations’ travel expenses should be more in line with real consumption and calls for a better budgetary planning in order to avoid current practices in the future;

8. Reminds the Court of Auditors of Parliament’s request to carry out an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments it carried out in relation to the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor in the course of preparation of the Court of Auditors’ annual report concerning the financial year 2010;

9. Reiterates that an efficient supervision over the budgetary implementation process is a matter of high responsibility and its fulfilment depends entirely on an unhindered inter-institutional cooperation between the Council and Parliament;

Pending issues

10. Regrets the continual difficulties encountered with the Council in the discharge procedures for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 financial years in terms of an open and formal dialogue with the Committee on Budgetary Control and responses to the Committee’s questions; points out that Parliament refused to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 10 May 20111 and 25 October 20112;

11. Acknowledges receipt of a series of documents for the 2010 discharge procedure (final financial statements for 2010, including the accounts, the financial activity report and the summary of the 2010 internal audits); is still waiting to receive all the necessary documents for discharge (in particular those relating to the complete internal audit carried out in 2010);

12. Points out that, on 31 January 2012, the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control sent a letter3 to the Presidency-in-Office of the Council requesting that the Council respond to the questions attached to the letter as part of the discharge procedure;

13. Notes that, in its resolution with observations forming an integral part of the above-mentioned decision of 10 May 2012 on the discharge for implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council, Parliament asked 26 supplementary questions linked to the discharge procedure;

14. Regrets that the Council refuses to answer these questions;

15. Regrets, too, that the Council did not accept Parliament’s invitation to a meeting where the Committee on Budgetary Control debated the 2010 discharge for the Council;

16. Deplores the fact that the attitude of the Council obstructs democratic control as well as transparency and accountability vis-à-vis Union taxpayers;

17. Welcomes, however, the fact that the Presidency-in-Office of the Council accepted Parliament’s invitation to the debate held in plenary on 10 May 2012 on the 2010 discharge reports; shares the Presidency’s opinion that it would be desirable for Parliament and the

1 OJ L 250, 27.09.2011, p. 25.2 OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 13.3 Letter No 301653 of 31 January 2012.

105

Council to reach an agreement as soon as possible on the way in which discharge is prepared;

18. Thanks the Danish Presidency for its constructive input throughout the 2010 discharge procedure; regrets, however, that the Danish Presidency has not been able to uphold the achievements of the Spanish and Swedish presidencies;

The right of Parliament to grant discharge

19. Emphasises the right of Parliament to grant discharge in accordance with Articles 316, 317 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which must be interpreted in the light of their context and their purpose, which is to submit the implementation of the entire budget of the European Union to parliamentary control and scrutiny without exception, and to grant discharge autonomously, not only in respect of the section of the budget implemented by the Commission, but also in respect of the sections of the budget implemented by the other institutions, as referred to in Article 1 of the Financial Regulation;

20. Notes that the Commission, in its reply of 25 November 2011 to the letter from the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, says it is desirable for Parliament to continue to give, postpone or refuse discharge to the other institutions as has been the case up until now, which make it even harder to understand the Council’s extraordinary position;

21. Is of the opinion that, in any event, an assessment must be carried out of the Council’s management as an institution of the Union during the financial year under examination, thereby upholding Parliament’s prerogatives, in particular the assurance of democratic accountability towards Union citizens;

22. Notes that the expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of other institutions, and is of the opinion that the fundamental elements of such scrutiny should include in particular:

(a) an official meeting on the basis of a written questionnaire between representatives of the Council and of Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure, in order to answer committee members’ questions;

(b) in line with its resolution of 16 June 20101 on the discharge procedure in respect of the Council for the financial year 2008, the discharge is based on the following written documents submitted by the various institutions:

accounts of the preceding financial year relating to the implementation of their budgets,

a financial statement of their assets and liabilities,

the annual activity report on their budgetary and financial management,

the annual report of their internal auditor,

– the publication of the internal budget decisions of the Council;

1 OJ L 252, 25.09.2010, p. 24.

106

23. Deplores that, during negotiations on a revised Financial Regulation, no agreement could be reached on ways in which the discharge procedure could be improved;

24. Welcomes the organisation by the Committee on Budgetary Control of a seminar on the different roles played by Parliament and the Council in the discharge procedure, which could cover, among others, the following points:

– Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union calls on the institutions to practice mutual sincere cooperation,

– Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union defines the role of the Council and the European Parliament in the discharge procedure:

(i) the role of the Council is to issue a recommendation to the European Parliament on granting discharge to all the institutions and bodies of the European Union,

(ii) the role of the European Parliament is to take a decision on discharge in respect of all the institutions and bodies of the European Union,

– the administrative autonomy enjoyed by each of the Union’s institutions as regards its own functioning,

– the articles of the Financial Regulation relating to discharge (Articles 145 to 147),

– the fundamental democratic principles of transparency and accountability,

– the objective of increasing the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of budgetary implementation,

– in order for Parliament and the Council to be able to carry out their respective roles, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Financial Regulation state that a certain number of documents must be made available to the discharge authority:

(i) the annual report by the Court of Auditors together with the replies of the institutions under audit to the observations of the Court of Auditors, including the statement of assurance, and any other special reports by the Court of Auditors,

(ii) an Annual Activity Report based on the results achieved, in particular in relation to the indications given by Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

(iii) accounts of the preceding financial year relating to the implementation of the budget,

(iv) a financial statement of assets and liabilities,

(v) the annual activity report on budgetary and financial management,

(vi) a report summarising the number and type of internal audits carried out, the recommendations made and the follow-up given to these recommendations,

107

– the Council should submit to Parliament, as the authority responsible for taking a decision on discharge, all information requested by the latter in respect of discharge,

– the Council responds in writing to Parliament’s questions about discharge,

– all European Union institutions and bodies must be treated equally when the Council drafts its recommendation on discharge,

– before the end of January 2013, a meeting will be organised between Parliament and the Council on issues relating to discharge, covering the above-mentioned points,

– the Presidency-in-Office of the Council should actively attend the presentation of the annual report of the Court of Auditors and Parliament’s debate in plenary on the discharge.

108

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0373

Discharge 2010: European Environment Agency

1. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0278/2011 – 2011/2217(DEC))


– having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010,

– having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010, together with the Agency’s replies1,


– having regard to its Decision of 10 May 20122 postponing the discharge decision in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010, its accompanying Resolution and the replies by the Executive Director of the Agency,



– having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network4, and in particular Article 13 thereof,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network5, and in particular Article 13 thereof,


1 OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 57.2 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 356.3 OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.4 OJ L 120, 11.5.1990, p. 1.5 OJ L 126, 21.5.2009, p. 13.6 OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

109




1. Grants the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2010;


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

110

2. European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0278/2011 – 2011/2217(DEC))











– having regard to the Joint Statement on decentralised agencies and the Common Approach annexed thereto, agreed in June 2012 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, resulting from the work of the Inter-Institutional Working Group on


111

decentralised agencies created in March 2009, and in particular the sections on governance, operation, programming, accountability and transparency of the Common Approach,



1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010;

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

112

3. European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010 (C7-0278/2011 – 2011/2217(DEC))











– having regard to the Joint Statement on decentralised agencies and the Common Approach annexed thereto, agreed in June 2012 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, resulting from the work of the Inter-Institutional Working Group on


113

decentralised agencies created in March 2009, and in particular the sections on governance, operation, programming, accountability and transparency of the Common Approach,



A. whereas on 10 May 2012, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge and closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency ('the Agency') for the financial year 2010,

B. whereas the Agency provided replies to the discharge authority by letters of 24 May, 15 June and 3 July 2012; whereas the Management Board of the Agency provided the discharge authority with information on the measures undertaken following the postponement of the discharge by letter of 6 June 2012,

C. whereas the discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament to assess the proper spending of Union subsidies based on factual and substantive arguments; recalling, in this context, the existing rules, i.e. the Staff Regulations for Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community, the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, the Agency's founding regulation and specific policies and procedures set up by the Agency;

D. whereas the budget of the Agency for the year 2010 was EUR 50 600 000, which is 26 % higher than in 2009; whereas the contribution of the Union to the budget of the Agency for 2010 was EUR 35 258 000, compared to EUR 34 560 000 in 2009, which represents an increase of 2 %;

1. Has always welcomed the professional, reliable and independent provision of information by the Agency for all institutions, the Member States and Union policy-making bodies, and will further expect this kind of professionalism in the future;

2. Notes that the Agency's levels of budget execution in terms of committed appropriations and payment appropriations were respectively 100 % and 90,75 %;

3. Points to paragraph 16 of the Common Approach annexed to the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on decentralised agencies; expects, without prejudice to the Agency's independence, an open and transparent selection procedure regarding the appointment of the Executive Director in June 2013 that guarantees a rigorous evaluation of candidates and a high level of independence; suggests, therefore, that a hearing of the candidates by the competent committees in Parliament will be part of the appointment procedure to the position of Executive Director;

Budget and financial management

4. Reminds that for five months, from 22 May 2010 to October 2010, the Agency covered its building with a Green Façade at a cost of EUR 294 641, and that no public tender was issued;

114

5. Recalls that in order to cover the costs related to the Green Façade, the budget line '2140 - Fitting-out of premises' has been reinforced by a budget transfer of EUR 180 872 taken from the budget line '2100 - Rent' on 9 April 2010;

6. Calls therefore on the Agency to establish clear internal rules for resorting to Article 126(1)(b) of the implementing rules of the Financial Regulation; notes that the Management Board decided to implement ex ante controls on exceptional expenditures;

7. Is firmly convinced that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur; believes that, in such cases, the Agency should draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aiming to remedy the shortcomings, that its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament, and that these problems should be addressed by changing the existing rules and regulations in order to eliminate possible loopholes;

Human Resources

8. Takes note that the Agency hosted 12 guest scientists working at its premises without publishing for 11 of them their curriculum vitae, including at least the educational and work background; acknowledges the Management Board's statement that rules for the selection and conduct of visiting scientists will be strengthened in order to ensure greater clarity and transparency and that the Agency's current policy on hosting guest scientist is under revision;

9. Recalls that from June 2010 until April 2011, the Executive Director of the Agency was a trustee and a member of the International Advisory Board of the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Earthwatch, an international environmental charity, and was erroneously reported to be a member of the European Advisory Board of Worldwatch Europe; acknowledges that she stepped down from her positions in Earthwatch following advice from the President of the Court of Auditors in the context of a possible conflict of interests;

10. Notes that in February 2010, before the Executive Director of the Agency was directly involved with Earthwatch, training was contracted for 29 staff members of the Agency, including the Executive Director, who went for up to 10 days of research on different biodiversity projects in the Caribbean or Mediterranean managed by Earthwatch and that the Agency paid a total of EUR 33 791,28 to the NGO, as stated by the Executive Director of the Agency; further notes that the Court of Auditors' final report for 2010 contained no findings about any conflict of interest in this connection;

11. Acknowledges the decision of the Management Board to implement ex ante controls on the membership of the Executive Director in external boards and on the Agency's training policy;

12. Notes the Agency's assurance that in November 2010 Worldwatch Institute Europe registered as its contact address that of the Agency without the Agency's consent; further notes that the Executive Director of Worldwatch Institute Europe was a guest scientist of the Agency; calls on the Agency to ensure absolute clarity in any future guest scientist arrangements; further notes that:

115

– in the letter of 11 April 2012, the Executive Director of the Agency stated that "when it came to the attention of the EEA that World Watch Institute Europe had published on their own website that a European office had been set up at the Agency's premises immediate action was taken...";

– the founding act of Worldwatch Institute Europe proves that it was established on 5 November 2010 in the premises of the Agency;

– moreover, the launch of Worldwatch Institute Europe took place at the Agency's premises on 25 February 2011 and the Executive Director of the Agency was a guest speaker, as shown by World Watch Institute Europe's website;

13. Takes note that the Agency prepared an updated conflicts of interest policy and action plan in line with the European Ombudsman's recommendations; calls on the Agency to make the draft public and to foster a debate on the policy and action plan prior their submission to the Management Board;

14. Notes that the curriculum vitae of the management staff and of the members of the scientific committee have been made available on the Agency's website; notes, moreover, that the declarations of interest of the members of the scientific committee have also been made available; underlines that, contrary to the Agency's statement by letter of 15 June 2012, none of the curriculum vitae of the Management Board members is currently available on its website and observes that only a link to their organisation is provided; calls on the Agency, in an effort to promote greater transparency in terms of preventing and combating conflict of interests, to publish on its website the declarations of interest and curriculum vitae of the experts, future guest scientists and members of the Management Board; is of the opinion that such measures would allow the discharge authority and the public to observe their qualifications and to prevent potential conflict of interest;

15. Expects to receive information on ongoing administrative investigations related to the Agency;

16. Points out that the committee responsible is in close contact with the Agency by inviting the Executive Director for an exchange of views at least once a year, by having appointed a contact person from amongst its members and by visiting the Agency on a regular basis; notes that the last visit took place in September 2011;

17. Stresses that the Agency is required to establish appropriate contacts with interested parties and to cooperate with stakeholders such as external organisations; notes that those activities have not been accompanied by respective measures and rules in order to excluding the possible reputational risk; welcomes, therefore, the commitment by the Management Board and the Executive Director to take appropriate steps in order to eliminate those risks immediately;


Performance

116

19. Is aware that the Agency is currently under a periodic external evaluation which should be delivered to the discharge authority in 2013; takes note of the Management Board's statement that the internal processes of the Agency will be included in the evaluation;

o

o o


1 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 388.

117

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0374

Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors (Leonard Orban)

European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the appointment of Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0153/2012 – 2012/0805(NLE))

(Consultation)


– having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0153/2012),


– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0296/2012),

A. whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

B. whereas at its meeting of 26 September 2012 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;

1. Delivers a negative opinion on the Council’s appointment of Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

118

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0375

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk from Ireland) (COM(2012)0423 – C7-0204/2012 – 2012/2157(BUD))


– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0423 – C7-0204/2012),

– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management1 (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund2 (EGF Regulation),

– having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006,

– having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,


A. whereas the European Union has set up the appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

B. whereas the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis,

C. whereas the Union’s financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the IIA of 17 May 2006 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the EGF,

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

119

D. whereas Ireland has requested assistance for 592 redundancies, 432 of which are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited ("Talk Talk") and three of its suppliers in Ireland,

E. whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation,

1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Ireland is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2. Notes that the Irish authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 29 February 2012, supplemented by additional information up to 15 May 2012, and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 27 July 2012; welcomes the fact that the evaluation process and submission of additional information by Ireland were speedy and accurate;

3. Notes that Talk Talk facility was located on the outskirts of Waterford City in the NUTS III South East Region of Ireland, and that this region has had persistently higher than average levels of unemployment compared to the rest of the country; furthermore, it has fared disproportionately badly as a result of the financial and economic crisis, for example, since 2007, the region’s unemployment rate has jumped from 4,9 % to 18,2 % in 2011 compared to a national average of 14,3 %;

4. Notes that the dismissals took place in the South East region which has seen its employment rates decreased from 62,7 to 58,1 % over the period 2007-2011 and suffers from the unemployment rate higher then the state average;

5. Regrets Talk Talk's decision to form alliances with three key non-EU providers where a significant bulk of work is being transferred, reflecting a strategy that is detrimental to EU industrial jobs and to the Europe 2020 strategy;

6. Notes that there were two previous rounds of redundancy (April 2010 and April 2011) in Talk Talk with an estimated 50 persons per instance; however, these were viewed as representing management restructuring which would allow for the Waterford operation to be managed directly from UK headquarters; in addition, there was an estimated 40 % decrease in the volume of calls to the Talk Talk centre in Waterford;

7. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be tailored to the level and needs of the dismissed workers, especially since the majority of the dismissed workers were employed in customer services and technical support;

8. Regrets that TalkTalk's decision to close the Waterford site was abrupt and left the workers only 30 day notice, not allowing for proper discussion on the redundancy plan nor the involvement of the social partners; regrets that no social partners were involved in the planning and design of the EGF application as no trade unions existed at Talk Talk level; notes however that the concerned workers were consulted directly;

120

9. Welcomes the fact that the Irish authorities decided to start the implementation of the coordinated package already on 7 September 2011 well in advance of the decision of the budgetary authority on granting the support;

10. Notes that the Irish authorities complain about time constraints for EGF implementation which prevents from providing training courses exceeding the 24-month implementation period; welcomes the fact that an accelerated bachelor course has been designed for the targeted workers that addresses identified skills shortages and which can be concluded within the EGF implementation period;

11. Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals;

12. Regrets that the EGF regulation allows EGF support to substitute social welfare payments required under national law; emphasises that the EGF should be primarily allocated to training and job search as well as occupational orientation programs and promotion of entrepreneurship, acting complementarily to national institutions and not substituting employment benefit or any other social welfare payments which are the responsibility of national institutions under national laws;

13. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the EGF (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;

14. Recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have been made redundant as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market;

15. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into long-term employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to durable, long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores the fact that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

16. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to the Commission to present a comparative evaluation of those data in its annual reports in order to ensure full respect of the existing regulations and that no duplication of Union-funded services can occur;

121

17. Welcomes the fact that following repeated requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

18. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;

19. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

20. Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

21. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

122

ANNEX: DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of xxx

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European

Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk from Ireland)


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management1, and in particular point 28 thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund2, and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,


Whereas:

(1) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.

(2) The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.

(3) Ireland submitted an application on 29 February 2012 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers, and supplemented it by additional information up to 15 May 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 696 382.

(4) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Ireland,

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

123


Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 696 382 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at

For the European Parliament For the CouncilThe President The President

124

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0376

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/015/SE/AstraZeneca

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/015 SE/AstraZeneca from Sweden) (COM(2012)0396 – C7-0191/2012 – 2012/2155(BUD))











1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

125

D. whereas Sweden has requested assistance for 987 redundancies, 700 of which are targeted for assistance, in AstraZeneca pharmaceutical company in Sweden,


1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Sweden is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2. Welcomes this call for the EGF financial contribution by the Swedish Government even though this Member State is opposed to the EGF after 2013;

3. Notes that the Swedish authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 23 December 2011, supplemented by additional information up to 16 April 2012, and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 16 July 2012; welcomes the fact that the evaluation process and submission of additional information by Sweden were speedy and accurate;

4. Notes that the affected enterprises are located in four of the 290 Swedish municipalities with the majority of the staff made redundant in Lund in southern Sweden; the closure of the AstraZeneca site is a heavy burden for Lund and also affects the entire pharmaceutical sector in Sweden; this development causes an imbalance in the regional labour market; unemployment increased in all affected municipalities from January 2009 to November 2011: in Lund from 2 467 to 3 025, Umeå from 3 725 to 4 539, Sodertalje from 3 100 to 5 555 and Mölndal from 1 458 to 1 663;

5. Notes that Sweden has had a strong position in medical research and the collective redundancies in AstraZeneca had not been expected; while the worsening situation in the pharmaceutical sector due to the rising dominance of generics and outsourcing of research and development activites outside of Europe had been foreseen, the impact on AstraZeneca was more severe than anticipated;

6. Notes that the R&D activities carried out in Lund site have been transferred by AstraZeneca to Mölndal site; inquires if any of the Lund workers were offered the possibility to be employed in the enlarged site of Mölndal instead of being dismissed;

7. Welcomes the fact that, in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Swedish authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures on 26 October 2011 well ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;

8. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted to the level and needs of the dismissed workers, especially since the majority of the dismissed workers were specialized science professionals and engineering technicians;

9. Notes that the workers dismissed from Astra Zeneca are highly skilled and educated and therefore require specific approach; regrets that the Swedish authorities do not inform about the areas in which the training measures and occupational guidance have been planned and if and how these have been adapted to the local labour markets affected by the dismissal;

126

10. Welcomes the fact that the social partners participated in the discussions concerning the EGF application and are expected to participate in the steering group overseeing the implementation of EGF assistance.

11. Welcomes the fact that Swedish authorities plan to organise an awareness raising campaign about activities supported by the EGF;

12. Notes that the coordinated package foresees several participation incentives to encourage participation in the measures: job search allowance of EUR 7 170 (calculated for an average of 6 months of participation) mobility allowance of EUR 500; recalls that the EGF support should be primarily allocated to training and job search as well as training programs instead of contributing directly to unemployment benefits which are the responsibility of national institutions;

13. Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals, especially with respect to the activities in anticipation of redundancies and timeliness of the preparation of EGF applications;

14. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency, visibility and follow-up of the EGF will be achieved;

15. Recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have been made redundant as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into in the labour market;

16. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into long-term employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to durable, long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores the fact that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more precarious and short-term one;


18. Welcomes the fact that following repeated requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that

127

the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

19. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65 % of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;




128


of xxx

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European

Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/015 SE/AstraZeneca from Sweden)


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Whereas:


(2) The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.


(4) Sweden submitted an application on 23 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise AstraZeneca and supplemented it by additional information up to 16 April 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 4 325 854.

(5) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Sweden,

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

129


Article 1


Article 2


Done at



130

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0377

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia Metal

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia Metal from Spain) (COM(2012)0451 – C7-0214/2012 – 2012/2160(BUD))











1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

131

D. whereas Spain has requested assistance for 878 redundancies, 450 of which are targeted for assistance from the EGF, following redundancies in 35 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 25 ('Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment')1 in the NUTS II region of Galicia (ES11) in Spain,


1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2(b) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Spain is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2. Notes that the Spanish authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 28 December 2011, supplemented by additional information up to 28 May 2012, and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 9 August 2012; observes that the evaluation process of the application could have been more expeditious;

3. Notes that the redundancies in the shipbuilding ancillary industry will exacerbate the difficult employment situation in the region of Galicia; observes that traditionally the major economic sectors in Galicia have been fisheries along with automotive, textile, natural stone and shipyards; however, given the impact of the crisis, the perspectives for future reintegration into employment of the dismissed workers in this territory do not seem very encouraging;

4. Notes that the employment situation in the region is difficult as the unemployment rates reached 18 % for women and 16,32 % for men in the end of 2011; welcomes the fact that EGF is seen as an efficient tool to support local labour markets and that the region has already applied for the EGF support (EGF/2010/003 ES Galicia / Textile sector);

5. Notes that, while the forecast at the EU level about the recovery of the shipbuilding sector was reasonably optimistic, in 2011 new orders unexpectedly fell by 43 %;

6. Welcomes the fact that, in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Spanish authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures on 23 March 2012, well ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;

7. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be tailored not only to the needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

8. Welcomes the fact that the regional authorities engaged in dialogue with the social partners in order to plan and implement the coordinated package of personalised services;

9. Welcomes the fact that the social partners participated in the planning of the measures concerning the EGF application and are expected to participate in the monitoring of the implementation of the measures;

1 Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC regulations on specific statistical domains (OJ L 393, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

132

10. Notes that the coordinated package foresees several participation incentives to encourage participation in the measures: job search allowance (EUR 400) (lump sum) outplacement incentive (EUR 200), mobility allowance (EUR 180), on-the-job training allowance (EUR 300); recalls that the EGF support should be primarily allocated to training and job search as well as training programs instead of contributing directly to unemployment benefits which are the responsibility of national institutions;

11. Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals, especially concerning a large number of small and medium-size enterprises in one economic sector;

12. Regrets that the information on the training measures does not describe in which sectors the workers are likely to find employment and if the package has been adapted to the future economic prospects in the region;

13. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the EGF (2014-2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency, visibility and follow-up of the EGF will be achieved;


15. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into stable and long-term employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to durable, long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores the fact that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more precarious and short-term one;


17. Welcomes the fact that following repeated requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

133





134


of xxx


Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia Metal from Spain)


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Whereas:




(4) Spain submitted an application on 28 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of 878 redundancies in 35 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 25 ('Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment') in the NUTS II region of Galicia (ES11), and supplemented it by additional information up to 28 May 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 029 235.

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

135

(5) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Spain,


Article 1


Article 2


Done at



136

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0378

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland Construction from the Netherlands). (COM(2012)0395 – C7-0190/2012 – 2012/2154(BUD))






– having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employments and Social Affairs,





1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

137

D. whereas the Netherlands has requested assistance for 516 redundancies, 435 of which are targeted for assistance, in 54 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 ('Construction of buildings')3 in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22) in the Netherlands.


1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2(b) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, the Netherlands is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2 Welcomes this call for the EGF financial contribution by the Dutch Government even though this Member State has opposed the extension of the crisis derogation for the current EGF and jeopardises the future oft the EGF after 2013;

3. Notes that the Dutch authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 15 December 2011 and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 16 July 2012; observes that the evaluation process and submission of additional information by the Member State could have been more expeditious;

4. Notes that, considering the importance of the construction sector in Gelderland, the redundancies are deeply felt; there are relatively many people working in construction (approximately 60 000 in 2011) compared with other sectors of industry such as chemical (9 000), food (15 000) and metal / electrical (40 300) industries; the unemployment rate in 2011 in Gelderland was 5,9 %, a fraction higher than the Dutch average; in 2010, 4 100 jobs were lost in the construction sector (drop by 6,5 %); youth unemployment increased by 10 % in 2011;

5. Notes that Gelderland is the biggest province of the Netherlands, counting approximately 2 million inhabitants; the region has a well-educated population and counts about 146 000 companies; the vast majority of redundant workers come from elementary professions; therefore, there is a necessity for further training and education in order to allow them to re-integrate in the labour market;

6. Notes, however, that according to Eurostat, the national unemployment rate in the Netherlands in July 2012 stood at 5,3 % and is the second lowest in the EU;

7. Welcomes the fact that, in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Dutch authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;

8. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of workers, in particular - in elementary professions, by means of tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained through out the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted to the level and needs of the dismissed workers;

3 Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2 and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 as well as certain EC regulations on specific statistical domains (OJ L 393, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

138

9. Welcomes the involvement of the social partners in the design and in the implementation of the coordinated package which makes a part of a social plan agreed by the social partners;

10. Welcomes more extensive explanations of the modules included in the coordinated package compared to the previous Dutch applications; notes however, the very high cost of training amounting to EUR 18 000 per worker (foreseen for 75 workers) and the outplacement assistance - EUR 8 500 per worker (foreseen for 150 workers) and requests more information concerning those two measures and operators carrying them out;

11. Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals in a high number of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in one sector, in particular, in terms of the eligibility of self-employed and owners of the SMEs for EGF support in the future regulation and the arrangements used by the regions and the Member States to quickly come up with sectoral applications covering a large number of enterprises;

12. Welcomes the fact that the EGF contribution is planned to support solely active labour measures (training and counselling) and will not be used for subsistence allowances;

13. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the EGF (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;

14. Welcomes the fact that in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Dutch authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures on 1 January 2012 well ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;


16. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into long-term employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to durable, long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores the fact that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

17. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to the Commission to present a comparative

139

evaluation of those data in its annual reports in order to ensure full respect of the existing regulations and that no duplication of Union-funded services can occur;






140


of xxx


Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland Construction 41 from the

Netherlands)






Whereas:

(1) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market;

(2) The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis;

(3) The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million;

(4) The Netherlands submitted an application on 15 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 54 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 ('Construction of buildings') in the NUTS II region of Gelderland (NL22), and supplemented it by additional information up to 11 June 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 898 594;

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

141

(5) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands;


Article 1


Article 2


Done at


142

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0379

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco from the Netherlands) (COM(2012)0450 – C7-0220/2012 – 2012/2164(BUD))











1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

143

D. whereas the Netherlands has requested assistance for 616 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, of which 478 redundancies are in Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV, 18 redundancies in its supplier ECL Services Netherlands bv and 120 in Start during the short reference period from 1 to 27 December 2011,


1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, the Netherlands is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2. Welcomes this call for the EGF financial contribution by the Dutch Government even though this Member State has opposed the extension of the crisis derogation for the current EGF and jeopardises the future of the EGF after 2013;

3. Notes that the Dutch authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 28 December 2011 and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 9 August 2012; regrets the lengthy evaluation period;

4. Notes that the territory concerned by the redundancies is within the NUTS II region of Zeeland, a province in the southwest of the Netherlands; Zeeland can be regarded as a small labour market: its peripheral location within the Netherlands, its situation as a border region with huge areas under water, and the relative vastness of Zeeland with its island structure, results in rather limited access and mobility; the dismissed workers live in relatively small towns (up to about 50 000 inhabitants), so that the redundancies will have a noticeable local impact;

5. Notes that the Court in Middelburg has pronounced Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV as bankrupt on 13 December 2011; social partners expect that other workers in upstream or downstream companies may be dismissed as a direct result of the Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV bankruptcy;

6. Welcomes the fact that in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Dutch authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures on 2 January 2012 well ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;

7. Notes that the redundancies will have a noticeable impact on local communities and the number of open positions compared to the number of unemployed; regrets that the application does not provide any statistical data about the labour market concerned;

8. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

9. Welcomes the fact that the relevant social partners and local municipalities were consulted on the application for the EGF assistance;

10. Welcomes the involvement of the social partners in the design of the coordinated package via the Mobility Center Zalco, a collective initiative of the parties involved in the Zeeland

144

labour market;

11. Welcomes the fact that the EGF contribution is planned to support solely active labour measures (training and counselling) and will not be used for allowances;


13. Regrets that the information on the training measures does not describe in which sectors the workers are likely to find employment and if the package has been adapted to the future economic prospects in the region;

14. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the EGF (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;





19. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current

145

financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;




146


of xxx


Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco from the Netherlands)






Whereas:




(4) The Netherlands submitted an application on 28 December 2011 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Zalco Aluminium Zeeland Company NV and in two supplier firms (ECL Services Netherlands bv and Start), and supplemented it by additional information up to 18 June 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 494 008.

(5) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands.

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

147


Article 1


Article 2


Done at



148

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0380

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot from France) (COM(2012)0461 – C7-0222/2012 – 2012/2165(BUD))











1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

149

D. whereas France has requested assistance for 2 089 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, of which 649 redundancies took place in the two branches of PSA Peugeot Citroën (Peugeot Citroën Automobiles and Sevelnord) during the reference period between 1 November 2009 and 28 February 2010 and a further 1 440 workers were made redundant by the same companies before and after the reference period under the same redundancy plan based on voluntary departures,


1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, France is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2. Notes that the French authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 5 May 2010, supplemented by additional information up to 13 April 2012, and that its final assessment was made available by the Commission on 21 August 2012; notes the fact that the evaluation process was very long and protracted;

3. Regrets the period of 27 months of assessment between the submission of the application on 5 May 2010 and the adoption of the proposal for a decision of the budgetary authority on 21 August 2012; notes that this is so far the longest period of assessment of an application for EGF mobilisation since its creation in 2007;

4. Notes that redundancies targeted by this application affect 10 regions in France, most of which are situated in the northern half of the territory, however, the voluntary departures mostly affect Brittany (32 % of voluntary redundancies), Ile-de-France (25 %) and Franche-Comté (13 %);

5. Notes that the coordinated package of personalised services supported by the EGF is part of the voluntary redundancy plan launched to help 5 100 workers to leave PSA and which comprises also measures required by French national law in case of mass redundancies, like early retirement schemes;

6. Notes that Peugeot Citroën Automobiles, which is a subsidiary of PSA Peugeot Citroën group, is required by French law to contribute to the revitalisation of these regions, contributing to the creation of new activities and new jobs, so as to attenuate the effects of redundancies;

7. Notes that the EGF will only support measures additional to those required by virtue of national law falling within three strands of the redundancy plan: "professional or personal project", "redeployment leave" and "setting up or taking over a business"; requests more information on the features of the measures included in the coordinated package of personalised service making them additional compared to the measures obligatory under national legislation or collective agreements;

8. Welcomes the fact that, in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the French authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;

9. Notes that the coordinated package includes allowances provided under the category "redeployment leave" amounting to an average of EUR 5 105,18 per worker offered to

150

1 080 workers; recalls that the EGF support should be primarily allocated to training and job search as well as training programs instead of contributing directly to unemployment benefits which are the responsibility of national institutions;

10. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be tailored not only to the needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

11. Requests more information on the types of training provided, especially for employees older than 55 years, who represent more than 41,55 % of targeted workers and highlights the importance of (re)training for active labour market measures in line with the future needs of the labour market so as to promote sustainable employment;

12 Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals;

13. Notes that the measures will not replace measures within the responsibility of the company under national law or collective agreements and that the measures target individual workers and will not be used for restructuring of PSA;


15. Recalls that the Commission in its Communication "Responding to the crisis in the European automotive industry" (COM(2009)0104) has presented an integrated approach to address structural problems by making the sector more competitive and more in tune with the needs of the future, to which EGF measures can positively contribute, albeit on a small scale;



151


19. Welcomes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;





152


of xxx

on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot from France)






Whereas:




(4) France submitted an application on 5 May 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the PSA Peugeot Citroën group in France and supplemented it by additional information, up to 13 April 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions al laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 11 949 666;

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

153

(5) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by France,


Article 1


Article 2


Done at


154

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0381

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/003 DK/VESTAS

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(application EGF/2012/003 DK/Vestas from Denmark) (COM(2012)0502 – C7-0292/2012 – 2012/2228(BUD))


– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0502 – C7-0292/2012),






A. whereas the European Union has set up the appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market;

B. whereas the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis;

C. whereas the Union’s financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the IIA of 17 May 2006 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the EGF;

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

155

D. whereas Denmark has requested assistance for 720 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group in Denmark;

E. whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation;

1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2 (a) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Denmark is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2. Notes that the Danish authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 14 May 2012 and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 13 September 2012; welcomes the speedy evaluation process;

3. Notes that attracting an innovative enterprise such as Vestas provided many high-skilled and high-quality industrial jobs for workers in the municipalities concerned and that the loss of these jobs has put the region into difficulties; notes that the redundancies have occurred at a time when unemployment is rising rapidly, for instance, in February 2012, it was 36 426 in Midtjylland and 40 004 in Syddanmark (compared with 28 402 and 29 751 respectively in August 2011);

4. Welcomes the fact that, in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Danish authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;

5. Welcomes the fact that the implementation of the coordinated package of personalised services started on 12 August 2012 - well ahead of the decision to grant EGF support by the budgetary authority;

6. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained through out the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be tailored not only to the needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment, especially, considering that many of the dismissed workers were highly-skilled experts and technicians;

7. Notes that this is the third EGF application addressing the layoffs in the wind turbine industry, all of them from Denmark (EGF/2010/017 DK/Midtjylland Machinery and EGF/2010/022 DK/LM Glasfiber);

8. Welcomes the fact that the social partners have been consulted during the design phase of the package and that they will be briefed on the implementation of the project;

9. Notes that the dismissals in the municipality of Ringkøbing-Skjern are the direct result of the strategic decision taken by Vestas group in November 2011 to reorganise its structure and increase proximity to its customers in the regional markets, especially in China; notes that this reorganisation will result in 2 335 layoffs world-wide and is estimated to bring EUR 150 million reduction in fixed costs to the group;


156

11. Notes that the EGF has already supported 325 of 825 Vestas group workers made redundant in the first round of dismissals taking place in 2009; inquires about the results of the coordinated package in terms of the reintegration rate of the dismissed workers on the labour market and if any lessons were learnt for the new deployment of the EGF in the region;

12. Welcomes the fact that the package contains considerable financial incentives for setting-up own businesses which will strictly be linked to participation in entrepreneurship courses and monitoring exercise at the end of the EGF project;

13. Notes, however, that more than half of the EGF support will possibly be spent on financial allowances - 720 workers are said to receive subsistence allowance (including student grants) which is estimated at EUR 10 400 per worker;

14. Recalls that that the EGF support should primarily be allocated to job search and training programs instead of contributing directly to financial allowances; considers that, if included in the package, the EGF support should be of complementary nature and should never replace allowances under the responsibility of Member States or companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements;



17. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to durable, long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores the fact that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;


157

19. Welcomes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01;




158


of xxx

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2012/003 DK/Vestas from Denmark)






Whereas:



(4) Denmark submitted an application on 14 May 2012 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Vestas Group and supplemented it by additional information up to 10 July 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 7 488 000.

(5) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Denmark,

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

159


Article 1


Article 2


Done at


160

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0382

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/002 DE/manroland

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2012/002 DE/manroland from Germany) (COM(2012)0493 – C7-0294/2012 – 2012/2230(BUD))


– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0493 – C7-0294/2012),







B. whereas the scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis,


1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

161

D. whereas Germany has requested assistance for 2 284 redundancies, 2 103 of which are targeted for assistance, in printing machinery manufacturer manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries as well as one supplier in Germany,

E. whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Germany is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation;

2. Notes that the German authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 4 May 2012 and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 13 September 2012; welcomes the speedy evaluation process;

3. Notes these redundancies concern three different regions of Germany - Augsburg (Bavaria), Offenbach (Hessen) and Plauen (Saxony), with other neighbouring major towns also being affected by the closure and the redundancies, including Aschaffenburg, Wiesbaden, Darmstadt and Frankfurt / Main; notes that the weakest of the regions is Plauen, located in the eastern part of Germany, with a small population but a high dependency on social welfare payments; notes that the insolvency of manroland removes the third largest employer of the area (700 workers prior to the closure) and one of only three that were of a sufficient size to have collective wage agreements with their workers;

4. Welcomes the fact that social partners adopted a social plan for the redundancies in Manroland and that two transfer companies will design and manage the coordinated package of personalised services;

5. Notes that manroland before its insolvency employed 6,500 workers and that it was a modern manufacturer of machinery with modern know-how and attractive pay rates; considers that the break-up of this enterprise (with a loss of one third of its workforce) will cause a loss of skills, potentially affecting other employers and the regions concerned; considers that workers finding a new job will have to accept a lower wage level, which will in turn reduce their purchasing power and the cash-flow within the local economy; considers that the three regions will in addition lose one of the most influential employers, with no immediate prospect of an equivalent successor arising in the near future;

6. Notes that more than half of the EGF support will be spent on allowances - 2001 workers are said to receive during their active participation in the measures a short-time allowance (estimated cost EUR 2 727,67 per worker over 6 to 8 months) to complement a subsistence allowance paid by the public employment services on the basis of the net salary earned; further notes that the application includes a lump sum between EUR 4 000 and EUR 1 000 as activation premium for 430 workers who accept a work contract with a lower salary than the one in their previous job;

7. Welcomes the fact that the implementation of the coordinated package of personalised services started on 1 August 2012 - well ahead of the decision to grant EGF support by the budgetary authority; notes that redundant workers have also benefitted to from the ESF support before participating in the EGF measures; notes that the German authorities confirmed that necessary precautions have been taken to avoid double financing from Union funds;

162

8. Recalls that that the EGF support should primarily be allocated to job search and training programs instead of contributing directly to financial allowances; believes that, if included in the package, EGF support should be of complementary nature and never replace allowances under the responsibility of Member States or companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements;

9. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be tailored not only to the needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

10. Welcomes the fact that the relevant social partners and stakeholders have been involved in the planning and implementation of the EGF application from the outset;

11. Welcomes the fact that the coordinated package of personalised measures seeks to enhance transborder mobility by supporting international job-search;


13. Notes that according to the German authorities the EGF coordinated package of personalised services constitutes a significant added value to the measures available under national and ESF funds;

14. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;


16. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to durable, long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores the fact that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

17. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to the Commission to present a

163

comparative evaluation of those data in its annual reports in order to ensure full respect of the existing regulations and that no duplication of Union-funded services can occur;

18. Welcomes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;


20. Approves the Decision annexed to this resolution;



164


on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2012/002 DE/manroland from Germany).





Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission3,

Whereas:



(8) Germany submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise manroland AG and two of its subsidiaries, as well as one supplier, on 4 May 2012 and supplemented it by additional information up to 10 July 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 5 352 944.

(9) The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Germany,

1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.2 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.3 OJ C […], […], p. […].

165


Article 1


Article 2


Done at


166

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0383

Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (COM(2011)0704 – C7-0395/2011 – 2011/0310(COD))







– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0231/2012),




167

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulationRecital 9

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment

(9) The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.

(9) The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation on its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point -1 (new)Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)


-1. In Article 4, the following paragraph is inserted:

"3a. An authorisation shall also be required for the export of dual-use items not listed in Annex I if the exporter has been informed by the authorities referred to in points 1 and 2 or by the Commission that the items in question are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part, for use in connection with a violation of human rights, democratic principles or freedom of speech as defined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the

168

European Union, by using interception technologies and digital data transfer devices for monitoring mobile phones and text messages and targeted surveillance of internet use (e.g. via monitoring centres or lawful interception gateways)."

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point -1 a (new)Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 4 – paragraph 6


-1a. In Article 4, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

"6. A Member State which imposes an authorisation requirement, in application of paragraphs 1 to 5, on the export of a dual use item not listed in Annex I, shall, where appropriate, inform the other Member States and the Commission. The other Member States shall give all due consideration to this information, shall inform their customs administration and other relevant national authorities and impose the same authorisation requirement."

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point -1 b (new)Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 5 – paragraph 2


-1b. In Article 5, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

"2. A Member State may extend the application of paragraph 1 to non-listed dual-use items for uses referred to in Article 4(1) and to dual-use items for military end use and destinations referred to in Article 4(2), (3) and (3a)."

169

Amendment 14

Proposal a regulationArticle 1 – point -1 c (new)Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 5 – paragraph 3


-1c. In Article 5, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

"3. A Member State may adopt or maintain national legislation imposing an authorisation requirement on the brokering of dual-use items, if the broker has grounds for suspecting that these items are or may be intended for any of the uses referred to in Article 4(1) and (3a)."

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point -1 e (new)Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 6 – paragraph 3


-1e. In Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

"3. A Member State may extend the application of paragraph 1 to non-listed dual-use items for uses referred to in Article 4(1) and to dual-use items for military end use and destinations referred to in Article 4(2) and (3a)."

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point -1 f (new)Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 8 – paragraph 1


-1f. In Article 8, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

170

"1. A Member State shall prohibit or impose an authorisation requirement on the export of dual-use items not listed in Annex I for reasons of public security or human rights considerations."

Amendment 4/rev

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point 1Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2


The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 23a concerning the removal of destinations and items from the scope of EU General Export Authorisations included in Annex II.

In order to ensure that only low-risk transactions are covered by the EU General Export Authorisations included in Annex II, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 23a to remove destinations from the scope of those General Export Authorisations if such destinations become subject to an arms embargo as referred to in Article 4(2).

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point 1 a (new)Regulation (EC) No 428/2009Article 15 – paragraph 1


1a. In Article 15, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

"1. The list of dual-use items set out in Annex I shall be updated in conformity with the relevant obligations and commitments, and any modification thereof, that Member States have accepted as members of the international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements, or by ratification of relevant international treaties, as well as in conformity with any restrictive measure adopted based on Article 215 TFEU."

171

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point 2Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 Article 15 – paragraph 3


3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 23a concerning updating the list of dual-use items set out in Annex I. The updating of Annex I shall be performed within the scope set out in paragraph 1.

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 23a concerning updating the list of dual-use items set out in Annex I. The updating of Annex I shall be performed within the scope set out in paragraph 1. Where the updating of Annex I concerns dual-use items which are also listed in Annexes IIa to IIg or IV, those Annexes shall be amended accordingly.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulationArticle 1 – point 3Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 Article 23a – paragraph 2


2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 9(1) and 15(3) shall be conferred for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No ../… [this Regulation].

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 9(1) and Article 15(3) 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 not 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 not later than three months before the end of each period.

__________* OJ: Please insert the date of entry into force of the amending Regulation.

172

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0384

Minimum level of training of seafarers ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers (COM(2011)0555 – C7-0246/2011 – 2011/0239(COD))






– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 7 December 20111,

– having consulted the Committee of the Regions,

– having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 27 June 2012 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0162/2012),




1 OJ C 43, 15.2.2012, p. 69.

173

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0239

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2012/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers

(Text with EEA relevance)



100(2) thereof,




After consulting the Committee of the Regions,


1 OJ C 43, 15.2.2012, p. 69.2 Position of the European Parliament of 23 October 2012.

174

Whereas:

(1) The training and certification of seafarers is regulated by the International Maritime

Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 ('the 'STCW Convention'), which entered into force

in 1984 and which was significantly amended in 1995.

(2) The STCW Convention was incorporated into Union law for the first time by Council

Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November 1994 on the minimum level of training of

seafarers1. The Union rules on training and certification of seafarers were later adapted

to the subsequent amendments to the STCW Convention, and a common Union

mechanism for the recognition of the systems of training and certification of seafarers

in third countries was set up. Those rules are, as the result of a recast, contained in

Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council2.

1 OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 28.2 OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 33.

175

(3) A Conference of Parties to the STCW Convention ▌held in Manila in 2010 introduced

▌significant amendments to the STCW Convention (the 'Manila amendments'),

namely on the prevention of fraudulent practices for certificates, in the field of medical

standards, in the matter of training on security, including piracy and armed robbery,

and with respect to training in technology-related matters. The Manila amendments

also introduced requirements for able seafarers and established new professional

profiles, such as electro-technical officers.

(4) All Member States are parties to the STCW Convention and none of them has objected

to the Manila amendments under the procedure foreseen to that effect. Member States

should therefore align their national rules with the Manila amendments. A conflict

between the international commitments of Member States and their Union

commitments should be avoided. Moreover, given the global nature of shipping, Union

rules on training and certification of seafarers should be kept in line with international

rules. Several provisions of Directive 2008/106/EC should, therefore, be amended in

order to reflect the Manila amendments.

(5) Improved training for seafarers should cover proper theoretical and practical

training so as to ensure that seafarers are qualified to meet security and safety

standards and are able to respond to hazards and emergencies.

176

(6) Quality standards and quality standards systems should be developed and

implemented taking into account, where applicable, the Recommendation of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment of a

European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and

Training1 and related measures adopted by the Member States.

(7) European social partners have agreed on minimum hours of rest applicable to

seafarers and Directive 1999/63/EC2 was adopted with a view to implementing that

agreement. That Directive also allows for the possibility to authorise exceptions to

the minimum hours of rest for seafarers. The possibility to authorise exceptions,

should, however, be limited in terms of maximum duration, frequency and scope.

The Manila amendments aimed, amongst others, to set objective limits to the

exceptions to the minimum rest hours for watchkeeping personnel and seafarers with

designated tasks related to safety, security and prevention of pollution with a view to

preventing fatigue. The Manila amendments should be incorporated in Directive

2008/106/EC in a manner that ensures coherence with Directive 1999/63/EC, as

amended by Directive 2009/13/EC 3.

(8) Further recognising the importance of setting out minimum requirements governing

the living and working conditions of all seafarers, Directive 2009/13/EC will take

effect as specified therein when the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, enters into

force.

1 OJ C 155, 8.7. 2009, p. 1.2 Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the

organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in the European Union (FST) - Annex: European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers ( OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33).

3 Council Directive 2009/13/EC of 16 February 2009 implementing the Agreement concluded by the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006,( OJ L 124, 20.5.2009, p. 30).

177

(9) Directive 2008/106/EC also contains a mechanism for the recognition of the systems

of training and certification of seafarers of third countries. The recognition is granted

by the Commission in accordance with a procedure under which the Commission is

assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (the 'Agency') established by

Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 and by

the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS),

established by Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the European Parliament and of the

Council 2. Experience gained in applying that procedure suggests that it should be

changed , namely with respect to the deadline for the Commission decision. Since the

recognition requires an inspection to be performed by the Agency, which has to be

planned and carried out, and, in most cases, involves significant adjustments to the

STCW Convention requirements by the third country concerned, the whole process

cannot be completed in three months. On the basis of experience, a more realistic time-

frame in this respect appears to be 18 months. The deadline for the Commission

decision should therefore be changed accordingly, while the possibility for the

requesting Member State to provisionally recognise the third country's STCW system

should be kept in order to maintain flexibility. Furthermore, the provisions for

recognition of professional qualifications under Directive 2005/36/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of

professional qualifications3 are not applicable with regard to the recognition of

certificates of seafarers under Directive 2008/106/EC.

1 OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1.2 OJ L 324, 29.11.2002, p. 1.3 OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22.

178

(10) Available statistics on seafarers in the Union are incomplete and often inaccurate,

which makes policy-making in this ▌sector more difficult. Detailed data on

certification of seafarers cannot entirely solve this problem but they would clearly

help. Under the STCW Convention ▌Parties are obliged to maintain registers of all

certificates and endorsements and the relevant revalidations or other measures

affecting them. Member States are obliged to maintain a register of issued certificates

and endorsements. In order to have information that is as complete as possible on the

employment situation in the Union and exclusively with a view to facilitating policy

making by Member States and the Commission, Member States should be required to

send to the Commission selected information already contained in their registers of

seafarers' certificates of competency. That information should be communicated for

the purposes of statistical analysis only, and is not to be used for administrative,

legal or verification purposes. That information must be in line with the data

protection requirements of the Union and, therefore, a provision to that effect should

be introduced in Directive 2008/106/EC.

(11) The results of the analysis of such information should be used to anticipate trends in

the labour market with a view to improving the options for seafarers with regard to

career planning and taking advantage of available vocational education and

training opportunities. Such results should also contribute to the improvement of

vocational education and training.

179

(12) In order to gather data on the seafaring profession in line with its evolution and with

that of technology, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the

Commission in respect of adaptations of Annex V of Directive 2008/106/EC. The use

of such delegated acts should be limited to cases in which amendments to the STCW

Convention and Code require changes to that Annex. Additionally, such delegated

acts should not modify the provisions on anonymising data referred to in that

Annex. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate

consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission,

when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely

and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and

Council.

(13) The Union shipping sector has maritime expertise of high quality which helps to

underpin its competitiveness. The quality of training for seafarers is important for

the competitiveness of this sector and for attracting Union citizens, in particular

young people, to the maritime professions.

180

(14) In order to uphold quality standards regarding training for seafarers, measures to

prevent fraudulent practices associated with certificates of competency and of

proficiency need to be improved.

(15) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Directive

2008/106/EC implementing powers have been conferred on the Commission in the

field of training and certification of seafarers. For the same reason implementing

powers should also be conferred on the Commission in relation to the statistical data

on seafarers to be supplied by Member States to the Commission. Those powers

should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general

principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the

Commission's exercise of implementing powers1.

(16) The examination procedure should be used for the adoption of technical requirements

necessary to ensure the appropriate management of statistical data referred to in

Annex V to Directive 2008/106/EC and for the adoption of implementing decisions

on the recognition and withdrawal of recognition of third countries' STCW systems.

1 OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.

181

(17) The Manila amendments ▌entered into force on 1 January 2012, whilst transitional

arrangements may be applied until 1 January 2017. In order to allow for a smooth

transition to the new rules, this Directive should provide for the same ▌transitional

arrangements as those established in the Manila amendments.

(18) The IMO Maritime Safety Committee at its 89th session noted the need for

clarification with regard to the implementation of the Manila amendments, taking

into account the transitional arrangements established therein and Resolution 4 of

the STCW Conference which recognises the need for full compliance to be achieved

by 1 January 2017. Such clarification was provided by the IMO Circulars

STCW.7/Circ.16 and STCW.7/Circ.17. In particular, STCW.7/Circ.16, states that the

validity of any revalidated certificate should not extend beyond 1 January 2017 for

seafarers holding certificates issued in accordance with the provisions of the STCW

Convention which applied immediately prior to 1 January 2012, and who have not

met the requirements of the Manila amendments, and for seafarers who commenced

approved seagoing service, an approved education and training programme or an

approved training course before 1 July 2013.

182

(19) Further delays in incorporating the Manila amendments in Union law should be

avoided, in order to maintain the competitiveness of seafarers from the Union as

well as to uphold safety on-board ships through up-to-date training.

(20) For the sake of uniform implementation of the Manila amendments within the

Union, it is advisable that, when transposing this Directive, Member States should

take into account the guidance contained in the IMO circulars STCW.7/Circ.16 and

STCW.7/Circ.17.

(21) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the alignment of the current rules of the

Union with international rules on training and certification of seafarers, cannot be

sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or

effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures,

in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on

European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that

Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

(22) Directive 2008/106/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

183

Article 1

Amendments to Directive 2008/106/EC

Directive 2008/106/EC is amended as follows:

(1) Article 1 is amended as follows:

(a) points 18 and 19 are replaced by the following:

'(18) 'Radio Regulations'means the Radio Regulations annexed to, or regarded

as being annexed to the International Telecommunication Convention,

as amended;

(19) 'passenger ship' means a ship as defined in the International Convention

for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74), as amended;';

(b) point 24 is replaced by the following:

'(24) 'STCW Code' means the Seafarers’ Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping (STCW) Code as adopted by ▌the 1995 Conference

resolution 2, in its up-to-date version;';'

(c) point 27 is deleted;

184

(d) point 28 is replaced by the following:

'(28). 'seagoing service' means service on board a ship relevant to the issue or

revalidation of a certificate of competency, certificate of proficiency or

other qualification;';

(e) the following points are added:

'(32) 'GMDSS radio operator' means a person qualified in accordance with

Chapter IV of Annex I;

(33) 'ISPS Code' means the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

adopted on 12 December 2002, by resolution 2 of the Conference of

Contracting Governments to SOLAS 74, in its up-to-date version;

(34) 'ship security officer' means the person on board the ship, accountable to

the master, designated by the company as responsible for the security of

the ship including implementation and maintenance of the ship security

plan and liaison with the company security officer and port facility security

officers;

(35) 'security duties' include all security tasks and duties on board ships as

defined by Chapter XI/2 of SOLAS 74, as amended ▌and by the ISPS

Code;

185

(36) 'certificate of competency' means a certificate issued and endorsed for

masters, officers and GMDSS radio operators in accordance with the

Chapters II, III, IV or VII of ▌Annex I, and entitling the lawful holder

thereof to serve in the capacity and perform the functions involved at the

level of responsibility specified therein;

(37) 'certificate of proficiency' means a certificate, other than a certificate of

competency, issued to a seafarer stating that the relevant requirements of

training, competencies or sea-going service in this Directive have been

met;

(38) 'documentary evidence' means documentation, other than a certificate of

competency or certificate of proficiency, used to establish that the relevant

requirements of this Directive have been met;

(39) 'electro-technical officer' means an officer qualified in accordance with

Chapter III of Annex I;

(40) 'able seafarer deck' means a rating qualified in accordance with Chapter II

of Annex I;

(41) 'able seafarer engine' means a rating qualified in accordance with Chapter

III of Annex I;

(42) 'electro-technical rating' means a rating qualified in accordance with

Chapter III of Annex I.'.

186

(2) In Article 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

'1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that seafarers serving

on ships as referred to in Article 2 are trained as a minimum in accordance with

the requirements of the STCW Convention, as laid down in Annex I to this

Directive, and hold certificates as defined in points (36) and (37) of Article 1,

and/or documentary evidence as defined in point (38) of Article 1.'.

(3) Article 4 is deleted.


(a) the title is replaced by the following:

'Certificates of competency, certificates of proficiency and endorsements';

(b) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

'1. Member States shall ensure that certificates of competency and certificates

of proficiency are issued only to candidates who comply with the

requirements of this Article.';

187

(c) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

'3. Certificates of competency and certificates of proficiency shall be issued

in accordance with Regulation I/2, paragraph 3 of the Annex to the STCW

Convention.';

(d) the following paragraph is inserted:

'3a. Certificates of competency shall be issued only by the Member States,

following verification of the authenticity and validity of any necessary

documentary evidence and in accordance with the provisions laid down in

this Article.';

(e) at the end of paragraph 5, the following sentence is added:

'Endorsements attesting the issue of a certificate of competency and

endorsements attesting a certificate of proficiency issued to masters and

officers in accordance with the Regulations V/1-1 and V/1-2 of Annex I shall

be issued only if all the requirements of the STCW Convention and this

Directive have been complied with.';

188

(f) paragraphs 6 and 7 are replaced by the following:

'6. A Member State which recognises a certificate of competency, or a

certificate of proficiency, issued to masters and officers in accordance with

Regulations V/1-1 and V/1-2 of the Annex to the STCW Convention

under the procedure laid down in Article 19(2) of this Directive shall

endorse that certificate to attest its recognition only after ensuring the

authenticity and validity of the certificate. The form of the endorsement

used shall be that set out in paragraph 3 of Section A-I/2 of the STCW

Code.

7. The endorsements referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6:

(a) may be issued as separate documents;

(b) shall be issued by Member States only;

(c) shall each be assigned a unique number, except for endorsements

attesting the issue of a certificate of competency, which may be

assigned the same number as the certificate of competency

concerned, provided that that number is unique; and

189

(d) shall each expire as soon as the endorsed certificate of competency

or certificate of proficiency issued to masters and officers in

accordance with Regulations V/1-1 and V/1-2 of the Annex to the

STCW Convention expires or is withdrawn, suspended or cancelled

by the Member State or third country which issued it and, in any

case, within five years of their date of issue.';

(g) the following paragraphs are added:

'11. Candidates for certification shall provide satisfactory proof:

(a) of their identity;

(b) that their age is not less than that prescribed in the Regulations listed

in Annex I relevant to the certificate of competency or certificate of

proficiency applied for;

(c) that they meet the standards of medical fitness, specified in Section

A-I/9 of the STCW Code;

(d) that they have completed the seagoing service and any related

compulsory training prescribed in the Regulations listed in Annex I

for the certificate of competency or certificate of proficiency applied

for; and

190

(e) that they meet the standards of competence prescribed in the

Regulations listed in Annex I for the capacities, functions and levels

that are to be identified in the endorsement of the certificate of

competency.

This paragraph shall not apply to recognition of endorsements under Regulation I/10 of the STCW Convention.

12. Each Member State shall undertake:

(a) to maintain a register or registers of all certificates of competency

and certificates of proficiency and endorsements for masters and

officers and, where ▌applicable, ratings which are issued, have

expired or have been revalidated, suspended, cancelled or reported as

lost or destroyed, as well as of dispensations issued;

(b) to make available information on the status of ▌certificates of

competency, endorsements and dispensations to other Member States

or other Parties to the STCW Convention and companies which

request verification of the authenticity and validity of certificates of

competency and/or certificates issued to masters and officers in

accordance with Regulations V/1-1 and V/1-2 of Annex I produced

to them by seafarers seeking recognition, under Regulation I/10 of

the STCW Convention, or employment on board ship.

13. As of 1 January 2017, the information required to be available in

accordance with point (b) of paragraph 12 shall be made available by

electronic means.'.

191

(5) The following Article is inserted:

"Article 5a

Information to the Commission

Each Member State shall make available to the Commission on a yearly basis the

information indicated in Annex V to this Directive on certificates of

competency, endorsements attesting the recognition of certificates of

competency as well as, on a voluntary basis, certificates of proficiency issued

to ratings in accordance with Chapters II, III, and VII of the Annex to the

STCW Convention, for the purposes of statistical analysis only and exclusively

for use by Member States and the Commission in policy-making.".


(a) the following paragraph is inserted:

'1a. A Member State, for ships afforded the benefits of the near-coastal voyage

provisions of the STCW Convention, which includes voyages off the coast

of other Member States or of Parties to the STCW Convention within the

limits of their near-coastal definition, shall enter into an undertaking with

the Member States or Parties concerned specifying both the details of the

trading areas involved and other relevant provisions.';

192

(b) the following paragraphs are inserted :

'3a. The certificates of competency of seafarers issued by a Member State or a

Party to the STCW Convention for its defined near-coastal voyage limits

may be accepted by other Member States for service in their defined near-

coastal voyage limits, provided the Member States or Parties concerned

enter into an undertaking specifying the details of the trading areas

involved and other relevant conditions thereof.

3b. Member States defining near-coastal voyages, in accordance with the

requirements of this Article, shall:

(a) meet the principles governing near-coastal voyages specified in

Section A-I/3 of the STCW Code;

(b) incorporate the near-coastal voyage limits in the endorsements issued

pursuant to Article 5.'.


'1. Member States shall take and enforce appropriate measures to prevent fraud

and other unlawful practices involving certificates and endorsements issued,

and shall provide for penalties that are effective, proportionate and

dissuasive.'.

193


(a) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

'1. Member States shall establish processes and procedures for the impartial

investigation of any reported incompetence, act, omission or compromise

to security that may pose a direct threat to safety of life or property at sea

or to the marine environment, on the part of the holders of certificates of

competency and certificates of proficiency or endorsements issued by that

Member State in connection with their performance of duties relating to

their certificates of competency and certificates of proficiency and for the

withdrawal, suspension and cancellation of such certificates of competency

and certificates of proficiency for such cause and for the prevention of

fraud.

2. Member States shall take and enforce appropriate measures to prevent

fraud and other unlawful practices involving certificates of competency

and certificates of proficiency and endorsements issued.';

194

(b) in paragraph 3, the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

'Penalties or disciplinary measures shall be prescribed and enforced in cases

in which:'.


(a) paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

(i) point (a) is replaced by the following:

'(a) all training, assessment of competence, certification, including

medical certification, endorsement and revalidation activities carried

out by non-governmental agencies or entities under their authority

are continuously monitored through a quality standards system to

ensure the achievement of defined objectives, including those

concerning the qualifications and experience of instructors and

assessors, in accordance with the Section A-I/8 of the STCW

Code;';

(ii) point (b) is replaced by the following:

'(b) where governmental agencies or entities perform such activities,

there is a quality standards system in accordance with Section A-

I/8 of the STCW Code;';

195

(iii) point (c) is replaced by the following:

'(c) education and training objectives and related quality standards of

competence to be achieved are clearly defined and that the levels of

knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the examinations

and assessments required under the STCW Convention are identified

▌;';

(b) in paragraph 2, the following point is added:

'(d) all applicable provisions of ▌the STCW Convention and Code, including

amendments are covered by the quality standards system. Member States

may also include within this system the other applicable provisions of

this Directive.';


'3. A report relating to each evaluation carried out pursuant to paragraph 2

shall be communicated by the Member State concerned to the

Commission, in accordance with the format specified in Section A-I/7 of

the STCW Code, within six months of the date of the evaluation.'.

196

(10) Article 11 is replaced by the following:

'Article 11

Medical standards

1. Each Member State shall establish standards of medical fitness for seafarers and

procedures for the issue of a medical certificate in accordance with this Article

and Section A-I/9 of the STCW Code, taking into account, as appropriate,

Section B-I/9 of the STCW Code.

2. Each Member State shall ensure that those responsible for assessing the medical

fitness of seafarers are medical practitioners recognised by that Member State for

the purpose of seafarer medical examinations, in accordance with the Section A-

I/9 of the STCW Code.

3. Every seafarer holding a certificate of competency or a certificate of

proficiency, issued under the provisions of the STCW Convention, who is

serving at sea shall also hold a valid medical certificate issued in accordance

with this Article and Section A-I/9 of the STCW Code.

197

4. Candidates for medical certification shall:

(a) be not less than 16 years of age;

(b) provide satisfactory proof of their identity; and

(c) meet the applicable medical fitness standards established by the Member

State concerned.

5. Medical certificates shall remain valid for a maximum period of two years unless

the seafarer is under the age of 18, in which case the maximum period of validity

shall be one year.

6. If the period of validity of a medical certificate expires in the course of a voyage,

Regulation I/9 of the Annex to the STCW Convention shall apply.

7. In urgent cases, a Member State may permit a seafarer to work without a valid

medical certificate. In such cases, Regulation I/9 of the Annex to the STCW

Convention shall apply.'.

▌

198



'Revalidation of certificates of competency and certificates of proficiency';

(b) the following paragraph is inserted:

'2a. Every master and officer shall, for continuing seagoing service on board

tankers, meet the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article and be

required, at intervals not exceeding five years, to establish continued

professional competence for tankers in accordance with Section A-I/11,

paragraph 3 of the STCW Code.';


'3. Each Member State shall compare the standards of competence which

are required of candidates for certificates of competency issued until 1

January 2017 with those specified for the relevant certificate of

competency in Part A of the STCW Code, and shall determine the need to

require the holders of such certificates of competency to undergo

appropriate refresher and updating training or assessment.';

199

(d) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

'5. For the purpose of updating the knowledge of masters, officers and radio

operators, each Member State shall ensure that the texts of recent changes

in national and international regulations concerning the safety of life at sea,

security and the protection of the marine environment are made available

to ships entitled to fly its flag, while respecting Article 14(3)(b) and

Article 18.'.

(12) In Article 13, paragraph 2 is deleted.


(a) in paragraph 1, the following points are added:

'(f) seafarers assigned to any of its ships have received refresher and updating

training as required by the STCW Convention;

(g) at all times on board its ships there shall be effective oral communication

in accordance with Chapter V, Regulation 14, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the

SOLAS 74, as amended.';

200

(b) the following paragraph is added:

'4. Companies shall ensure that masters, officers and other personnel assigned

specific duties and responsibilities on board their ro-ro passenger ships

shall have completed familiarisation training to attain the abilities that are

appropriate to the capacity to be filled and duties and responsibilities to be

taken up, taking into account the guidance given in Section B-I/14 of the

STCW Code.'.


'Article 15

Fitness for Duty

1. For the purpose of preventing fatigue, Member States shall:

(a) establish and enforce rest periods for watchkeeping personnel and those

whose duties involve designated safety, security and prevention of

pollution duties in accordance with paragraphs 3 to 13;

(b) require that watch systems are arranged in such a way that the efficiency of

watchkeeping personnel is not impaired by fatigue, and that duties are

organised in such a way that the first watch at the start of a voyage and

subsequent relieving watches are sufficiently rested and otherwise fit for

duty.

201

2. Member States shall, for the purpose of preventing drug and alcohol abuse,

ensure that adequate measures are established in accordance with the provisions

laid down in this Article.

3. Member States shall take account of the danger posed by fatigue of seafarers,

especially those whose duties involve the safe and secure operation of a ship.

4. All persons who are assigned duty as officer in charge of a watch or as a rating

forming part of a watch, and those whose duties involve designated safety,

prevention of pollution and security duties shall be provided with a rest period of

not less than:

(a) a minimum of 10 hours of rest in any 24-hour period; and

(b) 77 hours in any seven-day period.

5. The hours of rest may be divided into no more than two periods, one of which

shall be at least six hours in length, and the intervals between consecutive

periods of rest shall not exceed 14 hours.

202

6. The requirements for rest periods laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 need not be

maintained in the case of an emergency or ▌in other overriding operational

conditions. Musters, fire-fighting and lifeboat drills, and drills prescribed by

national laws and regulations and by international instruments, shall be

conducted in a manner that minimises the disturbance of rest periods and does

not induce fatigue.

7. Member States shall require that watch schedules be posted where they are easily

accessible. The schedules shall be established in a standardised format in the

working language or languages of the ship and in English.

8. When a seafarer is on call, such as when a machinery space is unattended, the

seafarer shall have an adequate compensatory rest period if the normal period of

rest is disturbed by call-outs to work.

9. Member States shall require that records of daily hours of rest of seafarers be

maintained in a standardised format, in the working language or languages of the

ship and in English, to allow monitoring and verification of compliance with this

Article. Seafarers shall receive a copy of the records pertaining to them, which

shall be endorsed by the master, or by a person authorised by the master, and by

the seafarers.

203

10. Notwithstanding the rules laid down in paragraphs 3 to 9, the master of a ship

shall be entitled to require a seafarer to perform any hours of work necessary for

the immediate safety of the ship, persons on board or cargo, or for the purpose of

giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea. Accordingly, the

master may suspend the schedule of hours of rest and require a seafarer to

perform any hours of work necessary until the normal situation has been

restored. As soon as practicable after the normal situation has been restored, the

master shall ensure that any seafarers who have performed work in a scheduled

rest period are provided with an adequate period of rest.

204

11. With due regard for the general principles of the protection of the health and

safety of workers and in line with Directive 1999/63/EC Member States may, by

means of national laws, regulations or a procedure for the competent

authority, authorise or register collective agreements permitting exceptions to

the required hours of rest set out in paragraphs 4(b) and 5 of this Article provided

that the rest period is no less than 70 hours in any seven-day period and respects

the limits set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 of this Article. Such exceptions shall,

▌as far as possible, follow the standards set out but may take account of more

frequent or longer leave periods, or the granting of compensatory leave for

watchkeeping seafarers or seafarers working on board ships on short voyages.

Exceptions shall, as far as possible, take into account the guidance regarding

prevention of fatigue laid down in Section B-VIII/1 of the STCW Code.

Exceptions to the minimum hours of rest provided for in paragraph 4(a) of this

Article shall not be allowed.

12. Exceptions referred to in paragraph 11 to the weekly rest period provided for in

paragraph 4(b) shall not be allowed for more than two consecutive weeks. The

intervals between two periods of exceptions on board shall not be less than twice

the duration of the exception.

205

13. In the framework of possible exceptions to paragraph 5 referred to in paragraph

11, the minimum hours of rest in any 24-hour period provided for in paragraph

4(a) may be divided into no more than three periods of rest, one of which shall

be at least six hours in length and neither of the two other periods shall be less

than one hour in length. The intervals between consecutive periods of rest shall

not exceed 14 hours. Exceptions shall not extend beyond two 24-hour periods in

any seven-day period.

14. Member States shall establish, for the purpose of preventing alcohol abuse, a

limit of not greater than 0,05 % blood alcohol level (BAC) or 0,25 mg/l alcohol

in the breath or a quantity of alcohol leading to such alcohol concentration for

masters, officers and other seafarers while performing designated safety, security

and marine environmental duties.'.

(15) In Article 17(1), point (c) is replaced by the following:

'(c) issue the certificates referred to in Article 5;'.

206



'Recognition of certificates of competency and certificates of proficiency';

(b) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

'1. Seafarers who do not possess the certificates of competency issued by

Member States and/or the certificates of proficiency issued by Member

States to masters and officers in accordance with Regulations V/1-1 and

V/1-2 of the STCW Convention, may be allowed to serve on ships flying

the flag of a Member State provided that a decision on the recognition of

their certificates of competency and certificates of proficiency has been

adopted through the procedures set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 of this

Article.';

(c) in paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

'A Member State which intends to recognise, by endorsement, the certificates

of competency and/or the certificates of proficiency referred to in paragraph 1

issued by a third country to a master, officer or radio operator, for service on

ships flying its flag, shall submit a request for recognition of that third country

to the Commission, stating its reasons.';

207

(d) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

'3. The decision on the recognition of a third country shall be taken by the

Commission. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with

the examination procedure referred to in Article 28(2), within 18 months

from the date of the request for the recognition. The Member State

submitting the request may decide to recognise the third country

unilaterally until a decision is taken under this paragraph.'.


'6. The decision on the withdrawal of the recognition shall be taken by the

Commission. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the

examination procedure referred to in Article 28(2). The Member States

concerned shall take appropriate measures to implement the decision.'.


'1. Irrespective of the flag it flies, each ship, with the exception of those types of

ships excluded by Article 2, shall, while in the ports of a Member State, be

subject to port State control by officers duly authorised by that Member State

to verify that all seafarers serving on board who are required to hold a

certificate of competency and/or a certificate of proficiency and/or

documentary evidence under the STCW Convention, hold such a certificate of

competency or valid dispensation and/or certificate of proficiency and/or

documentary evidence .'.

208

(19) In Article 23(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:

'(a) verification that every seafarer serving on board who is required to hold a

certificate of competency and/or a certificate of proficiency in accordance with

the STCW Convention holds such a certificate of competency or valid

dispensation and/or certificate of proficiency, or provides documentary proof

that an application for an endorsement attesting recognition of a certificate of

competency has been submitted to the authorities of the flag State;'.

(20) In Article 23, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

(a) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

'2. The ability of the ship’s seafarers to maintain watchkeeping and security

standards, as appropriate, as required by the STCW Convention shall be

assessed in accordance with Part A of the STCW Code if there are clear

grounds for believing that such standards are not being maintained because

any of the following has occurred:';

(b) point (d) is replaced by the following:

'(d) the ship is otherwise being operated in such a manner as to pose a danger

to persons, property or the environment, or to compromise security;'.

209


'Article 25a

Information for statistical purposes

1. The Member States shall communicate the information listed in Annex V to the

Commission for the purposes of statistical analysis only. Such information may

not be used for administrative, legal or verification purposes, and is exclusively

for use by Member States and the Commission in policy-making.

2. This information shall be made available by Member States to the Commission

on a yearly basis and in electronic format and shall include information

registered until 31 December of the previous year. Member States shall retain

all property rights to the information in its raw data format. Processed

statistics drawn up on the basis of such information shall be made publicly

available in accordance with the provisions on transparency and protection of

information set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002.

2a. In order to ensure the protection of personal data, Member States shall

anonymise all personal information as indicated in Annex V by using software

provided or accepted by the Commission before transmitting it to the

Commission. The Commission shall use this anonymised information only.

210

3. Member States and the Commission shall ensure that measures for collecting,

submitting, storing, analysing and disseminating such information are designed

in such a way that statistical analysis is made possible.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the Commission shall adopt

detailed measures regarding the technical requirements necessary to ensure

the appropriate management of the statistical data. Those implementing acts

shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in

Article 28(2).'.


'The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with

Article 27a, amending Annex V to this Directive with respect to specific and relevant

content and details of the information that needs to be reported by Member States

provided that such acts are limited to taking into account the amendments to the

STCW Convention and Code and respect the safeguards on data protection. Such

delegated acts shall not change the provisions of anonymisation of data as required

by Article 25a(2a).'.

211


'Article 27a

Exercise of the delegation

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the

conditions laid down in this Article.

2. The delegation of power referred to in Article ▌27 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 not later than …++. The

delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical

duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such

extension not later than three months before the end of each period.

3. The delegation of power referred to in Article ▌27 may be revoked at any time

by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an

end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect

the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the

European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity

of any delegated acts already in force.

+ OJ: please insert date of entry into force of this Directive.+ + OJ: please insert date -51 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

212

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it

simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to ▌Article 27 shall enter into force only if no

objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council

within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European

Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European

Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will

not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the

European Parliament or the Council.'.


'Article 28

Committee procedure

1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on Safe Seas and the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS) established by Regulation (EC) No

2099/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council*. That committee shall

be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU ) No 182/2011 of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the

rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member

States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers**.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No

182/2011 shall apply. Where the Committee delivers no opinion, the

Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third

subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.

__________________

* OJ L 324, 29.11.2002, p. 1** OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.'.

213


'Article 29

Penalties

Member States shall lay down systems of penalties for breaching the national

provisions adopted pursuant to Articles 3, 5, 7, 9 to 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and

Annex I, and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented.

The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.'.


'Article 30

Transitional provisions

In respect of those seafarers who commenced approved seagoing service, an approved

education and training programme or an approved training course before 1 July 2013,

Member States may continue to issue, recognise and endorse, until 1 January 2017,

certificates of competency in accordance with the requirements of this Directive as

they were before …+.

Until 1 January 2017, Member States may continue to renew and revalidate certificates

of competency and endorsements in accordance with the requirements of this Directive

as they were before …+.'.

+ OJ: please insert date of entry into force of this Directive.

214

(27) Article 33 is deleted.

(28) This point does not concern the English version.

(29) The Annexes are amended as follows:

(a) Annex I to Directive 2008/106/EC is replaced by Annex I to this Directive.

(b) Annex II to Directive 2008/106/EC is amended as laid down in Annex II to this

Directive.

(c) The text set out in Annex III to this Directive is added as Annex V to Directive

2008/106/EC.

▌

215

Article 2

Transposition

1. Without prejudice to Article 30 of Directive 2008/106/EC, as amended by point 26 of

Article 1 of this Directive, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations

and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by …*., and

with respect to point 5 of Article 1 of this Directive by ...**. They shall forthwith

communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions ▌.

When Member States adopt such provisions, they shall contain a reference to this

Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official

publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions

of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

* OJ: please insert date: 18 months after the entry into force of this Directive.* * OJ: please insert date: 24 months after the entry into force of this Directive.

216

Article 3

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the


Article 4

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at ...


217

ANNEX I

'ANNEX I

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF THE STCW CONVENTION,

REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3

CHAPTER I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. 1. The Regulations referred to in this Annex are supplemented by the mandatory

provisions contained in Part A of the STCW Code with the exception of Chapter VIII,

Regulation VIII/2.

Any reference to a requirement in a Regulation also constitutes a reference to the

corresponding Section of Part A of the STCW Code.

Part A of the STCW Code contains standards of competence required to be

demonstrated by candidates for the issue, and revalidation of certificates of

competency under the provisions of the STCW Convention. To clarify the linkage

between the alternative certification provisions of Chapter VII and the certification

provisions of Chapters II, III and IV, the abilities specified in the standards of

competence are grouped as appropriate under the following seven functions:

(1) Navigation;

218

(2) Cargo handling and stowage;

(3) Controlling the operation of the ship and care for persons on board;

(4) Marine engineering;

(5) Electrical, electronic and control engineering;

(6) Maintenance and repair;

(7) Radio communications,

at the following levels of responsibility:

(1) Management level;

(2) Operational level;

(3) Support level.

Functions and levels of responsibility are identified by subtitle in the tables of standards of

competence given specified in Chapters II, III and IV of the Part A of the STCW Code.

219

CHAPTER II

MASTER AND DECK DEPARTMENT

Regulation II/1

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of officers in charge of a navigational

watch on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more

1. Every officer in charge of a navigational watch serving on a seagoing ship of 500 gross

tonnage or more shall hold a certificate of competency.

2. Every candidate for certification shall:

2.1. be not less than 18 years of age;

2.2. have approved seagoing service of not less than 12 months as part of an

approved training programme which includes on-board training which meets the

requirements of Section A-II/1 of the STCW Code and is documented in an

approved training record book, or otherwise have approved seagoing service of

not less than 36 months;

2.3. have performed, during the required seagoing service, bridge watchkeeping

duties under the supervision of the master or a qualified officer for a period of

not less than six months;

220

2.4. meet the applicable requirements of the regulations in Chapter IV, as

appropriate, for performing designed radio duties in accordance with the Radio

Regulations;

2.5. have completed approved education and training and meet the standard of

competence specified in Section A-II/1 of the STCW Code; and

2.6. meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-VI/1, paragraph 2,

Section A-VI/2 paragraphs 1 to 4, Section A-VI/3 paragraphs 1 to 4 and Section

A-VI/4 paragraphs 1 to 3 of the STCW Code.

Regulation II/2

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of masters and chief mates on ships

of 500 gross tonnage or more

Master and chief mate on ships of 3 000 gross tonnage or more

1. Every master and chief mate on a seagoing ship of 3.000 gross tonnage or more shall

hold a certificate of competency.

221


2.1. meet the requirements for certification as an officer in charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more and have approved seagoing service in that capacity:

2.1.1. for certification as chief mate, not less than 12 months; and

2.1.2. for certification as master, not less than 36 months; however, this period may be reduced to not less than 24 months if not less than 12 months of such seagoing service has been served as chief mate; and

2.2. have completed approved education and training and meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-II/2 of the STCW Code for masters and chief mates on ships of 3.000 gross tonnage or more.

Master and chief mate on ships of between 500 and 3 000 gross tonnage

222

3. Every master and chief mate on a seagoing ship of between 500 and 3 000 gross

tonnage shall hold a certificate of competency.


4.1. for certification as chief mate, meet the requirements of an officer in charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more;

4.2. for certification as master, meet the requirements of an officer in charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more and have approved seagoing service of not less than 36 months in that capacity; however, this period may be reduced to not less than 24 months if not less than 12 months of such seagoing service has been served as chief mate; and

4.3. have completed approved training and meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-II/2 of the STCW Code for masters and chief mates on ships of between 500 and 3.000 gross tonnage.

223

Regulation II/3

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of officers in charge of a navigational

watch and of masters on ships of less than 500 gross tonnage

Ships not engaged on near-coastal voyages

1. Every officer in charge of a navigational watch serving on a seagoing ship of less than

500 gross tonnage not engaged on near-coastal voyages shall hold a certificate of

competency for ships of 500 gross tonnage or more.

2. Every master serving on a seagoing ship of less than 500 gross tonnage not engaged on

near-coastal voyages shall hold a certificate of competency for service as master on

ships of between 500 and 3 000 gross tonnage.

Ships engaged on near-coastal voyages

Officer in charge of a navigational watch

3. Every officer in charge of a navigational watch on a seagoing ship of less than 500

gross tonnage engaged on near-coastal voyages shall hold a certificate of competency.

224

4. Every candidate for certification as officer in charge of a navigational watch on a

seagoing ship of less than 500 gross tonnage engaged on near-coastal voyages shall:


4.2. have completed:

4.2.1.special training, including an adequate period of appropriate seagoing

service as required by the Member State; or

4.2.2.approved seagoing service in the deck department of not less than 36

months;

4.3. meet the applicable requirements of the regulations in Chapter IV, as

appropriate, for performing designated radio duties in accordance with the

Radio Regulations;


competence specified in Section A-II/3 of the STCW Code for officers in

charge of a navigational watch on ships of less than 500 gross tonnage

engaged on near-coastal voyages; and


Section A-VI/2 paragraphs 1 to 4, Section A-VI/3 paragraphs 1 to 4 and

Section A-VI/4 paragraphs 1 to 3 of the STCW Code;

225

Master

5. Every master serving on a seagoing ship of less than 500 gross tonnage engaged on

near-coastal voyages shall hold a certificate of competency.

6. Every candidate for certification as master on a seagoing ship of less than 500 gross

tonnage engaged on a near-coastal voyages shall:


6.2. have approved seagoing service of not less than 12 months as officer in charge of

a navigational watch;


competence specified in Section A-II/3 of the STCW Code for masters on ships

of less than 500 gross tonnage engaged on near-coastal voyages; and


Section A-VI/2 paragraphs 1 to 4, Section A-VI/3 paragraphs 1 to 4 and Section

A-VI/4 paragraphs 1 to 3 of the STCW Code.

226

Exemptions

7. The Administration, if it considers that a ship’s size and the conditions of its voyage

are such as to render the application of the full requirements of this regulation and

Section A-II/3 of the STCW Code unreasonable or impracticable, may to that extent

exempt the master and the officer in charge of a navigational watch on such a ship or

class of ships from some of the requirements, bearing in mind the safety of all ships

which may be operating in the same waters.

Regulation II/4

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of ratings forming part of a

navigational watch

1. Every rating forming part of a navigational watch on a seagoing ship of 500 gross

tonnage or more, other than ratings under training and ratings whose duties while on

watch are of an unskilled nature, shall be duly certificated to perform such duties.

227




2.2.1.approved seagoing service including not less than six months training and

experience; or

2.2.2. special training, either pre-sea or on board ship, including an approved

period of seagoing service which shall not be less than two months; and

2.3. meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-II/4 of the STCW

Code.

3. The seagoing service, training and experience required by points 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 shall

be associated with navigational watchkeeping functions and involve the performance

of duties carried out under the direct supervision of the master, the officer in charge of

the navigational watch or a qualified rating.

228

Regulation II/5

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of ratings as able seafarer deck

1. Every able seafarer deck serving on a seagoing ship of 500 gross tonnage or more shall

be duly certificated.



2.2. meet the requirements for certification as a rating forming part of a navigational

watch;

2.3. while qualified to serve as a rating forming part of a navigational watch, have

approved seagoing service in the deck department of:

2.3.1.not less than 18 months, or

2.3.2.not less than 12 months and have completed approved training; and

2.4. meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-II/5 of the STCW Code.

229

3. Every Member State shall compare the standards of competence which it required of

Able Seamen for certificates issued before 1 January 2012 with those specified for the

certificate in Section A-II/5 of the STCW Code, and shall determine the need, if any,

for requiring these personnel to update their qualifications.

4. Until 1 January 2017, a Member State which is also a party to the International Labour

Organisation Certification of Able Seamen Convention, 1946 (No 74) may continue to

renew and revalidate certificates and endorsements in accordance with the provisions

of the aforesaid Convention.

5. Seafarers may be considered by the Member State to have met the requirements of this

regulation if they have served in a relevant capacity in the deck department for a period

of not less than 12 months within the last 60 months preceding the entry into force of

the present directive

230

CHAPTER III

ENGINE DEPARTMENT

Regulation III/1

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of officers in charge of an

engineering watch in a manned engine-room or designated duty engineers in a

periodically unmanned engine-room

1. Every officer in charge of an engineering watch in a manned engine-room or

designated duty engineer officer in a periodically unmanned engine-room on a

seagoing ship powered by main propulsion machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or

more shall hold a certificate of competency.



231

2.2. have completed combined workshop skill training and an approved seagoing

service of not less than 12 months as part of an approved training programme

which includes onboard training which meets the requirements of Section A-III/1

of the STCW Code and is documented in an approved training record book, or

otherwise have completed combined workshop skill training and an approved

seagoing service of not less than 36 months of which not less than 30 months

will be seagoing service in the engine department;

2.3. have performed, during the required seagoing service, engine-room

watchkeeping duties under the supervision of the chief engineer officer or a

qualified engineer officer for a period of not less than six months;

2.4. have completed approved education and training and meet the standards of

competence specified in Section A-III/1 of the STCW Code; and

2.5. meet the standards of competence specified in Section A-VI/1, paragraph 2,

Section A-VI/2, paragraphs 1 to 4, Section A-VI/3, paragraphs 1 to 4 and Section

A-VI/4, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the STCW Code.

232

Regulation III/2

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of chief engineer officers and second

engineer officers on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of 3 000 kW propulsion

power or more

1. Every chief engineer officer and second engineer officer on a seagoing ship powered

by main propulsion machinery of 3 000 kW propulsion power or more shall hold a

certificate of competency.


2.1. meet the requirements for certification as an officer in charge of an engineering

watch on seagoing ships powered by main propulsion machinery of 750 kW

propulsion power or more and have approved seagoing service in that capacity:

2.1.1. for certification as a second engineer officer, not less than 12 months as

qualified engineer officer; and

2.1.2. for certification as chief engineer officer, not less than 36 months,

however, this period may be reduced to not less than 24 months if not less

than 12 months of such seagoing service has been served as second

engineer officer; and

233


competence specified in Section A-III/2 of the STCW Code.

Regulation III/3

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of chief engineer officers and second

engineer officers on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of between 750 kW and

3 000 kW propulsion power

1. Every chief engineer officer and second engineer officer on a seagoing ship powered

by main propulsion machinery of between 750 and 3 000 kW propulsion power shall

hold a certificate of competency.


2.1. meet the requirements for certification as an officer in charge of an engineering

watch and:

2.1.1. for certification as second engineer officer, shall have not less than 12

months approved seagoing service as assistant engineer officer or engineer

officer; and

2.1.2. for certification as chief engineer officer, shall have not less than 24

months approved seagoing service of which not less than 12 months shall

be served while qualified to serve as second engineer officer; and

234


competence specified in Section A-III/3 of the STCW Code.

3. Every engineer officer who is qualified to serve as second engineer officer on ships

powered by main propulsion machinery of 3 000 kW propulsion power or more, may

serve as chief engineer officer on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of less

than 3 000 kW propulsion power, provided that the certificate is so endorsed.

Regulation III/4

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of ratings forming part of a watch in

a manned engine-room or designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned

engine-room

1. Every rating forming part of an engine-room watch or designated to perform duties in

a periodically unmanned engine-room on a seagoing ship powered by main propulsion

machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more, other than ratings under training and

ratings whose duties are of an unskilled nature, shall be duly certificated to perform

such duties.

235




2.2.1.approved seagoing service including not less than six months training and

experience; or

2.2.2.special training, either pre-sea or on board ship, including an approved

period of seagoing service which shall not be less than two months; and

2.3. meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-III/4 of the STCW Code.

3. The seagoing service, training and experience required by points 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 shall

be associated with engine-room watchkeeping functions and involve the performance

of duties carried out under the direct supervision of a qualified engineer officer or a

qualified rating.

236

Regulation III/5

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of ratings as able seafarer engine in a

manned engine-room or designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned engine-

room

1. Every able seafarer engine serving on a seagoing ship powered by main propulsion

machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more shall be duly certificated.



2.2. meet the requirements for certification as a rating forming part of a watch in a

manned engine-room or designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned

engine-room;

2.3. while qualified to serve as a rating forming part of an engineering watch, have

approved seagoing service in the engine department of:

2.3.1.not less than 12 months, or

237

2.3.2.not less than 6 months and have completed approved training; and

2.4. meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-III/5 of the STCW Code.


ratings in the engine department for certificates issued before 1 January 2012 with

those specified for the certificate in Section A-III/5 of the STCW Code, and shall

determine the need, if any, for requiring these personnel to update their qualifications.


regulation if they have served in a relevant capacity in the engine department for a

period of not less than 12 months within the last 60 months preceding the entry into

force of this Directive.

238

Regulation III/6

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of electro-technical officer

1. Every electro-technical officer serving on a seagoing ship powered by main propulsion

machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more, shall hold a certificate of

competency.



2.2. have completed not less than 12 months of combined workshop skills training

and approved seagoing service of which not less than 6 months will be seagoing

service as part of an approved training programme which meets the requirements

of Section A-III/6 of the STCW Code and is documented in an approved training

record book, or otherwise not less than 36 months of combined workshop skills

training and approved seagoing service of which not less than 30 months will be

seagoing service in the engine department;

2.3. have completed approved education and training and meet the standards of

competence specified in Section A-III/6 of the STCW Code; and

239

2.4. meet the standards of competence specified in Section A-VI/1, paragraph 2,

Section A-VI/2, paragraphs 1 to 4, Section A-VI/3 paragraphs 1 to 4 and

Section A-VI/4 paragraphs 1 to 3 of the STCW Code.


electro-technical officers for certificates issued before 1 January 2012 with those

specified for the certificate in Section A-III/6 of the STCW Code, and shall determine

the need for requiring those personnel to update their qualifications.


regulation if they have served in a relevant capacity on board a ship for a period of not

less than 12 months within the last 60 months preceding the entry into force of this

Directive and meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-III/6 of the

STCW Code.

5. Notwithstanding the above requirements of Paragraphs 1 to 4, a suitably qualified

person may be considered by a Member State able to perform certain functions of

Section A-III/6.

240

Regulation III/7

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of electro-technical rating

1. Every electro-technical rating serving on a seagoing ship powered by main propulsion

machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more shall be duly certificated.



2.2. have completed approved seagoing service including not less than 12 months

training and experience, or

2.3. have completed approved training, including an approved period of seagoing

service which shall not be less than 6 months; or

2.4. have qualifications that meet the technical competences in table A-III/7 of the

STCW Code and an approved period of seagoing service, which shall not be less

than 3 months; and

2.5. meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-III/7 of the STCW

Code;

241


electro-technical ratings for certificates issued before 1 January 2012 with those

specified for the certificate in Section A-III/7 of the STCW Code, and shall determine

the need, if any, for requiring these personnel to update their qualifications.


regulation if they have served in a relevant capacity on board a ship for a period of not

less than 12 months within the last 60 months preceding the entry into force of this

Directive and meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-III/7 of the

STCW Code.

5. Notwithstanding the above requirements of Paragraphs 1 to 4, a suitably qualified

person may be considered by a Member State able to perform certain functions of

Section A-III/7.

242

CHAPTER IV

RADIO COMMUNICATION AND RADIO OPERATORS

Explanatory note

Mandatory provisions relating to radio watchkeeping are set forth in the Radio Regulations and

in the SOLAS 74, as amended. Provisions for radio maintenance are set forth in the SOLAS 74,

as amended, and the guidelines adopted by the International Maritime Organisation.

Regulation IV/1

Application

1. Except as provided in point 2, the provisions of this chapter apply to radio operators on

ships operating in the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) as

prescribed by the SOLAS 74, as amended.

243

2. Radio operators on ships not required to comply with the provisions of the GMDSS in

Chapter IV of the SOLAS 74 are not required to meet the provisions of this chapter.

Radio operators on these ships are, nevertheless, required to comply with the Radio

Regulations. Member States shall ensure that the appropriate certificates as prescribed

by the Radio Regulations are issued to or recognised in respect of such radio operators.

Regulation IV/2

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of GMDSS radio operators

1. Every person in charge of or performing radio duties on a ship required to participate

in the GMDSS shall hold an appropriate certificate related to the GMDSS, issued or

recognised by the Member State under the provisions of the Radio Regulations.

2. In addition, every candidate for certification of competency under this regulation for

service on a ship which is required by the SOLAS 74, as amended, to have a radio

installation shall:

2.1. be not less than 18 years of age; and


competence specified in Section A-IV/2 of the STCW Code.

244

CHAPTER V

SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL ON

CERTAIN TYPES OF SHIPS

Regulation V/1-1

Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualifications of masters, officers

and ratings on oil and chemical tankers

1. Officers and ratings assigned specific duties and responsibilities related to cargo or

cargo equipment on oil or chemical tankers shall hold a certificate in basic training for

oil and chemical tanker cargo operations.

2. Every candidate for a certificate in basic training for oil and chemical tanker cargo

operations shall have completed basic training in accordance with provisions of

Section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code and shall have completed:

2.1. at least three months of approved seagoing service on oil or chemical tankers and

meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-V/1-1, paragraph 1 of

the STCW Code; or

245

2.2. an approved basic training for oil and chemical tanker cargo operations and meet

the standard of competence specified in Section A-V/1-1, paragraph 1 of the

STCW Code.

3. Masters, chief engineer officers, chief mates, second engineer officers and any person

with immediate responsibility for loading, discharging, care in transit, handling of

cargo, tank cleaning or other cargo-related operations on oil tankers shall hold a

certificate in advanced training for oil tanker cargo operations.

4. Every candidate for a certificate in advanced training for oil tanker cargo operations

shall:

4.1. meet the requirements for certification in basic training for oil and chemical

tanker cargo operations; and

4.2. while qualified for certification in basic training for oil and chemical tanker

cargo operations have:

4.2.1.at least three months of approved seagoing service on oil tankers, or

4.2.2.at least one month of approved onboard training on oil tankers in a

supernumerary capacity which includes at least three loading and three

unloading operations and is documented in an approved training record

book taking into account guidance in Section B-V/1 of the STCW Code;

and

246

4.3. have completed approved advanced training for oil tanker cargo operations and


the STCW Code.



cargo, tank cleaning or other cargo-related operations on chemical tankers shall hold a

certificate in advanced training for chemical tanker cargo operations.

6. Every candidate for a certificate in advanced training for chemical tanker cargo

operations shall:

6.1. meet the requirements for certification in basic training for oil and chemical

tanker cargo operations; and

6.2. while qualified for certification in basic training for oil and chemical tanker

cargo operations have:

6.2.1.at least three months of approved seagoing service on chemical tankers, or

247

6.2.2.at least one month of approved onboard training on chemical tankers in a

supernumerary capacity which includes at least three loading and three



and

6.3. have completed approved advanced training for chemical tanker cargo operations

and meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-V/1-1, paragraph 3

of the STCW Code.

7. Member States shall ensure that a certificate of proficiency is issued to seafarers, who

are qualified in accordance with paragraphs 2, 4 or 6 as appropriate, or that an existing

certificate of competency or certificate of proficiency is duly endorsed.

Regulation V/1-2

Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualifications of masters, officers

and ratings on liquefied gas tankers

1. Officers and ratings assigned specific duties and responsibilities related to cargo or

cargo equipment on liquefied gas tankers shall hold a certificate in basic training for

liquefied gas tanker cargo operations.

248

2. Every candidate for a certificate in basic training for liquefied gas tanker cargo

operations shall have completed basic training in accordance with provisions of

Section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code and shall have completed:

2.1. at least three months of approved seagoing service on liquefied gas tankers and


the STCW Code; or

2.2. an approved basic training for liquefied gas tanker cargo operations and meet the

standard of competence specified in Section A-V/1-2, paragraph 1 of the STCW

Code.



cargo, tank cleaning or other cargo-related operations on liquefied gas tankers shall

hold a certificate in advanced training for liquefied gas tanker cargo operations.

4. Every candidate for a certificate in advanced training for liquefied gas tanker cargo

operations shall:

249

4.1. meet the requirements for certification in basic training for liquefied gas tanker

cargo operations; and

4.2. while qualified for certification in basic training for liquefied gas tanker cargo

operations have:

4.2.1.at least three months of approved seagoing service on liquefied gas tankers,

or

4.2.2.at least one month of approved onboard training on liquefied gas tankers in

a supernumerary capacity which includes at least three loading and three



and

4.3. have completed approved advanced training for liquefied gas tanker cargo

operations and meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-V/1-2,

paragraph 2 of the STCW Code.

5. Member States shall ensure that a certificate of proficiency is issued to seafarers, who

are qualified in accordance with paragraphs 2 or 4 as appropriate, or that an existing

certificate of competency or certificate of proficiency is duly endorsed.

250

Regulation V/2

Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualifications of masters, officers,

ratings and other personnel on passenger ships

1. This Regulation applies to masters, officers, ratings and other personnel serving on

board passenger ships engaged on international voyages. Member States shall

determine the applicability of these requirements to personnel serving on passenger

ships engaged on domestic voyages.

2. Prior to being assigned shipboard duties on board passenger ships, seafarers shall have

completed the training required by Paragraphs 4 to 7 below in accordance with their

capacities, duties and responsibilities.

3. Seafarers who are required to be trained in accordance with Paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 shall

at intervals not exceeding five years undertake appropriate refresher training or be

required to provide evidence of having achieved the required standard of competence

within the previous five years.

4. Masters, officers and other personnel designated on muster lists to assist passengers in

emergency situations on board passenger ships shall have completed training in crowd

management as specified in Section A-V/2, paragraph 1, of the STCW Code.

251

5. Personnel providing direct service to passengers in passenger spaces on board

passenger ships shall have completed the safety training specified in Section A-V/2,

paragraph 2, of the STCW Code.


designated on muster lists of having responsibility for the safety of passengers in

emergency situations on board passenger ships shall have completed approved training

in crisis management and human behaviour as specified in Section A-V/2, paragraph 3

of the STCW Code.

7. Masters, chief mates, chief engineer officers, second engineer officers and every

person assigned immediate responsibility for embarking and disembarking passengers,

loading, discharging or securing cargo, or closing hull openings on board ro-ro

passenger ships shall have completed approved training in passenger safety, cargo

safety and hull integrity as specified in Section A-V/2, paragraph 4, of the STCW

Code.

8. Member States shall ensure that documentary evidence of the training which has been

completed is issued to every person found qualified under the provisions of this

regulation.

252

CHAPTER VI

EMERGENCY, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, SECURITY,

MEDICAL CARE AND SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS

Regulation VI/1

Mandatory minimum requirements for safety familiarisation, basic training and

instruction for all seafarers

1. Seafarers shall receive familiarisation and basic training or instruction in accordance

with Section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code and shall meet the appropriate standard of

competence specified therein.

2. Where basic training is not included in the qualification for the certificate to be issued,

a certificate of proficiency shall be issued indicating that the holder has attended the

course in basic training.

253

Regulation VI/2

Mandatory minimum requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency in survival

craft, rescue boats and fast rescue boats

1. Every candidate for a certificate of proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats other

than fast rescue boats shall:


1.2. have approved seagoing service of not less than 12 months or have attended an

approved training course and have approved seagoing service of not less than six

months; and

1.3. meet the standard of competence for certificates of proficiency in survival craft

and rescue boats set out in Section A-VI/2, paragraphs 1 to 4, of the STCW

Code.

254

2. Every candidate for a certificate of proficiency in fast rescue boats shall:

2.1. be the holder of a certificate of proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats

other than fast rescue boats;

2.2. have attended an approved training course; and

2.3. meet the standard of competence for certificates of proficiency in fast rescue

boats set out in Section A-VI/2, paragraphs 7 to 10, of the STCW Code.

Regulation VI/3

Mandatory minimum requirements for training in advanced firefighting

1. Seafarers designated to control firefighting operations shall have successfully

completed advanced training in techniques for fighting fire with particular emphasis on

organisation, tactics and command in accordance with the provisions of Section A-

VI/3 paragraphs 1 to 4 of the STCW Code and shall meet the standard of competence

specified therein.

2. Where training in advanced firefighting is not included in the qualifications for the

certificate to be issued, a certificate of proficiency, shall be issued indicating that the

holder has attended a course of training in advanced firefighting.

255

Regulation VI/4

Mandatory minimum requirements relating to medical first aid and medical care

1. Seafarers designated to provide medical first aid on board ship shall meet the standard

of competence in medical first aid specified in Section A-VI/4, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3,

of the STCW Code.

2. Seafarers designated to take charge of medical care on board ship shall meet the

standard of competence in medical care on board ships specified in Section A-VI/4,

paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, of the STCW Code.

3. Where training in medical first aid or medical care is not included in the qualifications

for the certificate to be issued, a certificate of proficiency shall be issued indicating

that the holder has attended a course of training in medical first aid or in medical care.

256

Regulation VI/5

Mandatory minimum requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency for ship

security officers

1. Every candidate for a certificate of proficiency as ship security officer shall:

1.1. have approved seagoing service of not less than 12 months or appropriate

seagoing service and knowledge of ship operations; and

1.2. meet the standard of competence for certification of proficiency as ship security

officer, set out in Section A-VI/5, paragraphs 1 to 4, of the STCW Code.

2. Member States shall ensure that every person found qualified under the provisions of

this regulation is issued with a certificate of proficiency.

Regulation VI/6

Mandatory minimum requirements for security related training and instruction for all

seafarers

1. Seafarers shall receive security-related familiarization and security-awareness training

or instruction in accordance with Section A-VI/6, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the STCW Code

and shall meet the appropriate standard of competence specified therein.

257

2. Where security awareness is not included in the qualification for the certificate to be

issued, a certificate of proficiency shall be issued indicating that the holder has

attended a course in security awareness training.

3. Every Member State shall compare the security-related training or instruction it

requires of seafarers who hold or can document qualifications before the entry into

force of this Directive, with those specified in Section A-VI/6, paragraph 4 of the

STCW Code, and shall determine the need for requiring these seafarers to update their

qualifications.

Seafarers with designated security duties

4. Seafarers with designated security duties shall meet the standard of competence

specified in Section A-VI/6, paragraphs 6 to 8 of the STCW Code.

5. Where training in designated security duties is not included in the qualifications for the

certificate to be issued, a certificate of proficiency shall be issued indicating that the

holder has attended a course of training for designated security duties.

6. Every Member State shall compare the security training standards required of seafarers

with designated security duties who hold or can document qualifications before the

entry into force of this directive with those specified in Section A-VI/6, paragraph 8 of

the STCW Code, and shall determine the need for requiring these seafarers to update

their qualifications.

258

CHAPTER VII

ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION

Regulation VII/1

Issue of alternative certificates

1. Notwithstanding the requirements for certification laid down in Chapters II and III of

this Annex, Member States may elect to issue or authorise the issue of certificates

other than those mentioned in the regulations of those chapters, provided that:

1.1. the associated functions and levels of responsibility to be stated on the

certificates and in the endorsements are selected from and identical to those

appearing in Sections A-II/1, A-II/2, A-II/3, A-II/4, A-II/5, A-III/1, A-III/2, A-

III/3, A-III/4, A-III/5, and A-IV/2 of the STCW Code;

1.2. the candidates have completed approved education and training and meet the

requirements for standards of competence, prescribed in the relevant Sections of

the STCW Code and as set forth in Section A-VII/1 of this Code, for the

functions and levels that are to be stated on the certificates and in the

endorsements;

259

1.3. the candidates have completed approved seagoing service appropriate to the

performance of the functions and levels that are to be stated on the certificate.

The minimum duration of seagoing service shall be equivalent to the duration of

seagoing service prescribed in Chapters II and III of this Annex. However, the

minimum duration of seagoing service shall be not less than as prescribed in

Section A-VII/2 of the STCW Code;

1.4. the candidates for certification who are to perform the function of navigation at

the operational level shall meet the applicable requirements of the regulations in

Chapter IV, as appropriate, for performing designated radio duties in accordance

with the Radio Regulations;

1.5. the certificates are issued in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of this

Directive and the provisions set forth in Chapter VII of the STCW Code.

2. No certificate shall be issued under this chapter unless the Member State has

communicated the information required by the STCW Convention to the Commission.

260

Regulation VII/2

Certification of seafarers

Every seafarer who performs any function or group of functions specified in tables A-II/1, A-

II/2, A-II/3, A-II/4 or A-II/5 of Chapter II or in tables A-III/1, A-III/2, A-III/3, or A-III/4 or A-

III/5 of Chapter III or A-IV/2 of Chapter IV of the STCW Code shall hold a certificate of

competency or certificate of proficiency, as applicable.

Regulation VII/3

Principles governing the issue of alternative certificates

1. A Member State which elects to issue or authorise the issue of alternative certificates

shall ensure that the following principles are observed:

1.1. no alternative certification system shall be implemented unless it ensures a

degree of safety at sea and has a preventive effect as regards pollution at least

equivalent to that provided by the other chapters; and

1.2. any arrangement for alternative certification issued under this chapter shall

provide for the interchangeability of certificates with those issued under the other

chapters.

261

2. The principle of interchangeability in point 1 shall ensure that:

2.1. seafarers certificated under the arrangements of Chapters II and/or III and those

certificated under Chapter VII are able to serve on ships which have either

traditional or other forms of shipboard organisation; and

2.2. seafarers are not trained for specific shipboard arrangements in such a way as

would impair their ability to take their skills elsewhere.

3. In issuing any certificate under the provisions of this chapter the following principles

shall be taken into account:

3.1. the issue of alternative certificates shall not be used in itself:

3.1.1. to reduce the number of crew on board;

3.1.2. to lower the integrity of the profession or "deskill" seafarers; or

3.1.3. to justify the assignment of the combined duties of the engine and deck

watchkeeping officers to a single certificate holder during any particular

watch; and

262

3.2. the person in command shall be designated as the master and the legal position

and authority of the master and others shall not be adversely affected by the

implementation of any arrangement for alternative certification.

4. The principles contained in points 1 and 2 shall ensure that the competency of both

deck and engineer officers is maintained.'

263

ANNEX II

Point 3 of Annex II is replaced by the following:

'3. The Commission, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency and with the possible

involvement of any Member State concerned, has confirmed, through an evaluation of

that Party, which may include inspection of facilities and procedures, that the

requirements of the STCW Convention regarding standards of competence, training and

certification and quality standards are fully complied with.'.

264

ANNEX III

'ANNEX V

TYPE OF INFORMATION TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE COMMISSION FOR

STATISTICAL PURPOSES

1. Where reference is made to this Annex, the following information specified in Section

A-I/2, paragraph 9 of the STCW Code for all certificates of competency or endorsements

attesting their issue, all endorsements attesting the recognition of certificates of competency

issued by other countries, ▌shall be provided and where marked (*) this provision shall be in

an anonymised form as required by Article 25a (2a):

Certificates of competency (CoC) / Endorsements attesting their issue (EaI):

– seafarer’s unique identifier, if available*;

– seafarer’s name*;

– seafarer’s date of birth;

– seafarer’s nationality;

– seafarer’s gender;

– CoC endorsed number*;

265

– EaI number*;

– capacity(ies);

– date of issue or the most recent date of revalidation of the document;

– date of expiry;

– status of the certificate ▌;

– limitations.

Endorsements attesting the recognition of certificates of competency issued by other

countries (EaR):






266

– country issuing the original CoC;

– original CoC number*;

– EaR number*;

– capacity(ies);

– date of issue or the most recent date of revalidation of the document;

– date of expiry;

– status of the endorsement;

– limitations.

2. Member States may provide, on a voluntary basis, information on the certificates of

proficiency (CoP) issued to ratings in accordance with Chapters II, III, and VII of

the Annex to the STCW Convention, such as:




267



– CoP number*;

– capacity(ies);

– date of issue or date of the most recent revalidation of the document;

– date of expiry;

– status of the CoP.'.

268

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0385

Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the EC and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) (12428/2012 – C7-0205/2012 – 2009/0155(NLE))

(Consent)


– having regard to the draft Council decision (12428/2012),

– having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part1, which entered into force on 20 November 1995,

– having regard to the draft Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) (05212/2010),

– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207, Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0205/2012),

– having regard to question for oral answer O-000129/2012 tabled by the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Foreign Affairs whereby the Commission was asked to define the scope of the territorial competence of the Israeli Responsible Authority,

– having regard to the replies to the question for oral answer, given by Commissioner for Trade Karel De Gucht in Plenary Session on 3 July 2012, in which the Commission clarified all the concerns of INTA and AFET Committees,

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

– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0289/2012),

1. Consents to conclusion of the Protocol;

1 OJ L 147, 21.6.2000, p. 3.

269

2. Calls on the Commission to regularly report to the Parliament on any progress in the implementation of the Protocol;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the State of Israel.

270

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0386

Future of EU development policy

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy (2012/2002(INI))


– having regard to the Commission communication of 13 October 2011 entitled ‘Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’ (COM(2011)0637 – SEC(2011)1172 – SEC(2011)1173),

– having regard to the Council’s conclusions on ‘Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’1,

– 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 the Council’s conclusions on ‘The Future Approach to EU Budget Support to Third Countries’2,

– having regard to the Council’s conclusions on ‘Policy Coherence for Development’3,

– having regard to the joint communication 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 joint statement of 20 December 2005 by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament, and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: ‘The European Consensus’4,

– having regard to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of 2 March 2005: ‘Ownership, Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability’5,

– having regard to the Accra Agenda for Action of 4 September 20086,

– having regard to the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation agreed on 1 December 20117,

1 3166th Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 14 May 2012.2 3166th Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 14 May 2012.3 3166th Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 14 May 2012.4 OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1.5 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf6 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf

7 Final Declaration of the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November–1 December 2011.

271

– having regard to the Commission communication of 28 February 2007 entitled ‘EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour in Development Policy’ (COM(2007)0072),

– having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council Directive on a common system of financial transaction tax and amending Directive 2008/7/EC (COM (2011)0594),

– having regard to the commitments made by the international community in terms of development and cooperation within the UN and other relevant international organisations, to which the EU and the Member States have subscribed,

– having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2010 on ‘Progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: mid-term review in preparation of the UN high-level meeting in September 2010’1,

– having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on ‘Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation: lessons learned and perspectives for the future’2,

– having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on increasing the impact of EU development policy3,

– having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges4,

– having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness5,

– having regard to the DAC Peer Review of the Development Cooperation Policies and Programmes of the EU, published on 24 April 2012 by the Development Aid Committee (DAC) of the OECD6,

– having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the future of EU budget support to developing countries7,

– having regard to the opinion delivered by the Committee of the Regions on 16 February 20128,


– having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A7-0234/2012),

A. whereas according to the Treaty of Lisbon the primary aim of the development policy of the European Union is the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty,

1 OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 48.2 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0261.3 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0320.4 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0410.5 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0460.6 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/46/50155818.pdf7 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0317.8 OJ C 113, 18.4.2012, p. 52.

272

B. whereas the European Consensus for Development, signed by the Commission, the Council and the Parliament is an acquis; recalling the importance and scope of this document, which enshrines the European Roadmap for development, as well as the acquis and the guidelines arising from it,

C. whereas 2015 is the deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals,

D. whereas the Agenda for Change should provide answers for a world that has fundamentally changed and in which the gap between rich and poor in every country continues to widen, particularly in developing countries,

E. whereas globalisation, though a major source of wealth, particularly in middle-income countries, has not contributed sufficiently to reducing insecurity or indeed poverty, a stark demonstration of which is the increase in absolute numbers of hungry and malnourished people in the world, many middle-income countries included,

F. whereas the Commission communication states that respect for human rights and good governance continue to be preconditions for development; whereas this includes the need to find appropriate measures and conditions corresponding to the circumstances in each country, with the form and level of development cooperation being designed to suit each partner country’s specific situation, including its ability to conduct reforms,

G. whereas development cooperation consists of promoting human development and the fulfilment of human beings in all their dimensions, including the cultural dimension,

H. whereas reinforcing synergies and establishing a strategic link between humanitarian aid and development aid is a necessary condition for developing resilience and initiating a process of sustainable development in fragile or transition countries whose populations are among the poorest and most vulnerable,

I. whereas, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Treaty on European Union, one of the aims of the Union is to encourage a sustainable social market economy, and this approach applies to both development policy and neighbourhood policy,

J. whereas, in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon, the implementation of development policy should be cohesive, and the measures aimed at encouraging economic growth in developing countries should contribute first and foremost to combating poverty and exclusion, particularly through access to education and healthcare,

K. whereas it is necessary to reject any attempt to broaden the ODA definition designed to include the ‘Whole of the Union’ and ‘ODA+’ approaches recently proposed by the Commission, as well as non-aid items such as financial flows, military spending, debt cancellation and particularly the cancellation of export credit debts and money spent in Europe on students and refugees,

L. recalling the willingness of the Commission to cease ODA to middle-income countries within the scope of the differentiation as provided for in the Agenda for Change,

M. whereas since the objective of the Agenda for Change proposed by the Commission is to strengthen the impact of current development policy, achievement of the Europe 2020

273

strategy and the other interests of the European Union in the area of the Union’s external activity should be planned in accordance with the objectives of its development policy,

N. whereas at international level, particularly within the G20, there is a democratic deficit in decision-making structures based on a form of governance that excludes the poorest developing countries,

O. having regard to the Commission’s analysis of the current deficiencies in development policy (fragmentation of aid and duplication, arising because since the division of labour among donors is far from ideal),

P. whereas the new Agenda includes a limited number of priorities, making it better able to meet new challenges, including the impact of the financial crisis, climate change, energy problems and recurring food crises,

1. Believes that the Agenda for Change is innovative in that it focuses, inter alia, on the use of budget support, on combining grants and loans and on promoting the private sector; believes that using these mechanisms should essentially contribute to lifting the citizens of developing countries out of poverty and aid dependence and to the dissemination and application of principles of good administrative and fiscal governance;

2. Congratulates the Council on having taken account, in its conclusions of 14 May 2010, of both basic principles underlying EU development cooperation and some of the positions expressed by Parliament in its recent resolutions on development cooperation;

3. Deplores the lack of political dialogue between institutional actors, which is particularly harmful to Policy Coherence for Development (PCD); deplores, in this context, the fact that the Commission’s communication failed to put forward proposals to implement Policy Coherence for Development in practice by linking development aid with other EU policy areas, notably the trade policy, agricultural policy and fisheries policy of the Union; agrees, in this regard, with the Council’s observation that ‘close cooperation between the European External Action Service and the European Commission is necessary to ensure greater consistency of EU external action and PCD’;

4. Observes that the blending mechanism, as it stands now, is proposed to mix public grants with financial institutions’ loans and other risk-sharing mechanisms, at a time of financial crisis implying budget constraints for development; requests the Commission, therefore, to provide clear information on how this mechanism serves the purpose of a development policy based on ODA criteria and how the power of scrutiny of Parliament will be exercised;

5. Notes the Commission’s intention to promote ‘inclusive and sustainable growth in the service of human development’, but regrets that the document does not contain any references to the need to promote better redistribution; emphasises that, from a development perspective, this new instrument should have no objective besides that of poverty reduction and the fight against inequality; warns that exclusive attention to economic growth and excessive confidence in the effects of automatic redistribution of development in the private sector could lead to unbalanced, non-inclusive growth without having a real impact on poverty reduction; requests the EU to reconsider this policy in favour of sustainable development policies including trade, redistribution of wealth and social justice, with the

274

aim of improving the living and working conditions of the whole population, in both urban and in rural areas;

6. Considers that, from a financial, regulatory, administrative, and social point of view, the setting up of microbusinesses and SMEs in developing countries, in order to boost entrepreneurship and development of the private sector, is essential for creating favourable business environments in developing countries; considers that the EU should focus on reducing excessive regulatory burdens on SMEs and microbusinesses, and, in this context, should encourage and further strengthen access to microcredit and microfinancing;

7. Considers that the Agenda for change should bring about a real policy shift, by focusing on fulfilling individual and collective rights of the population in developing countries, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as in the treaties on environmental protection;

8. Considers that effective land rights systems in developing countries are essential for eradicating poverty and creating a fair and inclusive society; to this end, one of the objectives of the Agenda for Change should be to ensure that secure land rights systems are in place in developing countries and that they are monitored accordingly;

9. Reaffirms its commitment, in this regard, to social inclusion, as well as to the decision to allocate at least 20 % of EU aid in its entirety to basic social services as defined by the UN in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);

10. Observes that some 82 % of people with disabilities in developing countries live below the poverty line; therefore considers it essential that the Agenda for Change should implement Article 32 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), already signed by the EU, which recognises the need to make international cooperation accessible to and inclusive of people with disabilities;

11. Invites representatives of the national parliaments of the EU Member States to hold structured annual meetings with the European Parliament in order to ensure consistency in the spending of development aid and strengthen Policy Coherence for Development;

12. Notes that the Commission makes poverty a central issue in its new policy of ‘differentiation’; observes, however, that 70 % of people whose income is below the poverty threshold live in middle-income countries, many of whom remain fragile and vulnerable, notably the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and hence deplores the fact that the poor in those countries continue to be deprived of access to education, healthcare and other benefits of internal economic growth, the liability for which lies with these states; calls on the Commission to set, for the implementation of the differentiation concept, vulnerability criteria in the common programming guidelines of the new DCI and the 11th EDF currently under discussion, and to take account of the realities of poverty, human development and inequalities inside a country, and not only of national GNI;

13. Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to live up to their pledge of a ‘human rights-based approach’ across the entire development cooperation process;

14. Emphasises the responsibility of all state and non-state actors to focus their strategies on eliminating poverty; stresses, on the one hand, the responsibility of the EU to meet its target

275

of 0.7 % by 2015 and, on the other, the essential nature of the fight against poverty in emerging economies using means relevant to their internal solidarity; in this regard, welcomes the conclusions of the Council, which encourage the Union to ‘continue its political dialogue on poverty reduction and the fight against inequalities with more advanced countries’;

15. Emphasises the importance of solidarity between generations; in this respect, invites the Commission to adopt family mainstreaming as a universal guiding principle for achieving the EU development goals;

16. Calls for the further development of a clear linkage between relief, rehabilitation and development, particularly in the light of the continuing nutrition crisis, and underlines the need for effective and sustained assistance through a combination of public-private partnerships and corporate social responsibility; reiterates Parliament’s and the Council’s call on the Commission to ensure a clearer and more focused strategy on nutrition, tackling food security governance and reducing food price volatility by the end of 2012;

17. Considers that addressing the issue of malnutrition is of critical importance, as it continues to be a major health burden in developing countries; to this end, calls for specific investments in food, health and nutrition, recognising that improving the nutrition of mothers and children is key to eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable growth;

18. Believes it essential for middle-income countries to commit an increasing proportion of their revenue to social purposes, particularly through developing taxation systems and other internal redistribution and social protection systems, thereby enabling the EU to gradually scale back its current development programmes so as to benefit the poorest countries while maintaining a close partnership with middle-income countries, in particular in areas of social policy;

19. Approves the concept of differentiation; invites the Commission, however, to negotiate a roadmap for the gradual reduction of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in the case of middle-income countries and to involve them progressively in North–South–South triangular cooperation arrangements; also requests that this gradual reduction be carried out in all cases taking account of the principle of aid predictability; additionally, calls on the EU to consider means of cooperating directly with the regional clusters of poverty in the middle-income countries;

20. Considers it appropriate to evaluate the need for an international conference be held with the BRICS countries which would on the one hand focus on the future financing of the MDGs, and on the other promote triangular cooperation arrangements involving one northern donor country, one emerging country and one developing country; points out that the concept of ‘development effectiveness’ is not only useful for measuring Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), but also provides an opportunity to deepen the dialogue with the BRICS countries, given that this is the concept preferred by emerging donors in development cooperation;

21. Welcomes the special relevance assigned to human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the Agenda for Change; urges the EU to undertake additional efforts in order to more effectively mainstream human rights and democracy across development cooperation and ensure that EU development programmes contribute to the fulfilment by partner countries of their international human rights obligations;

276

22. Supports the Commission’s desire to allocate budget aid to partner countries as soon as they have made a commitment, as part of a political dialogue with a view to refocusing their budget priorities on development objectives in basic social sectors; takes the view that budget support should be more closely linked to the human rights record and governance situation of recipient countries; reiterates its call for establishing more detailed criteria in this respect for the award of budget support;

23. While recognising the development-security nexus, is convinced that the EU budget for development should remain separate from the financing of military security-related issues, which is a matter for home affairs;

24. Requests the Commission to clarify the development-migration nexus; insists that development budgets in this field should support the goal of an integrated regional development plan for the main immigration-related areas, such as job creation, installation of infrastructures for drinking water, electricity, health centres, schools, etc;

25. Believes that the new Strategy on Human Rights, which focuses on economic, social and cultural rights as well as those codified in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, should have an impact on budget support methods; advocates positive and weighted conditionality in this area, based on a dynamic approach – concerned with safeguarding the gains won after years of partnership – and taking place within the framework of a partnership grounded in a political dialogue concerning use of the various methods of implementation of EU financial support;

26. Calls on the Commission, the European Council and the Member States to pay particular attention to the rights of minorities, and insists that non-negotiable human rights and non-discrimination clauses be inserted into development programmes, inter alia with regard to discrimination on grounds of gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation and that affecting people living with HIV/AIDS;

27. Agrees with the Council’s call for the adoption of a rights-based approach to development, through which the EU recognises, in particular, the rights to universal, non-discriminatory access to basic services, participation in democratic political processes, transparency and accountability, and justice and the rule of law, with an emphasis on poor and vulnerable groups;

28. Regrets, however, that in the Commission communications human rights mainly appear as part of a broader good governance conditionality, which seems to have only instrumental value for development; points out that a human rights-based approach to development cannot be limited to conditionality, and that an integrated understanding of human rights is needed, whereby equal attention is paid to civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights and development is understood in the first place as human development;

29. Recalls, in this context, the importance of recognition by the EU of the right to development of these partner countries and the obligations arising from this right for donor countries;

30. In line with the Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), held in Cairo in 1994, calls on the Commission to continue supporting a rights-based approach to the population and development agenda, notably through collaboration with CSOs and UN agencies like UNFPA;

277

31. Encourages the Council to take action on the Commission’s proposal for a well-designed, effective financial transaction tax designed to raise revenue in order to meet inclusive global development priorities;

32. Firmly reminds the Commission and the Member States that ODA has to remain the backbone of the European development cooperation policy aiming at eradicating poverty; therefore underlines that if innovative sources of development financing are to be widely promoted they must be additional, must be used on the basis of a pro-poor approach, and cannot be used to replace ODA in any circumstances;

33. Believes that the imposition of conditions for the use of certain kinds of ODA disbursement and budget support should go hand in hand with sound operational institutions and the democratic monitoring of budgets by parliaments, courts of auditors, civil society and regional and local authorities in recipient countries, and with guarantees from the EU concerning the continuity and predictability of aid provided by the Union; welcomes the fact that the Council has included these recommendations in its conclusions; stresses the need to continue and expand the ‘MDG contracts’ system;

34. Believes that the official ODA publication does not sufficiently reflect the means that are truly available in this regard;

35. Emphasises the need to strengthen the political dialogue, particularly among the three EU institutions, in order to reinforce the existing levels of consensus and involvement regarding the adoption of the ‘European Consensus on Development’ in 2005, which should remain the doctrinal framework for Policy Coherence for development (PCD); believes, therefore, that the new programme can only be an instrument that is compatible with the ‘Consensus’, leading to a more effective development policy that serves the overarching cooperation development objective of the EU, i.e. to eradicate poverty – in particular, through efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and through the role played by healthcare and education – in a context of sustainable development;

36. Wishes to preserve the consensual character of all EU institutions regarding cooperation development as defined on 20 December 2005, and, in this spirit, calls on the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to add her signature to the European Consensus on Development, since the European External Action Service over which she presides has significant programming responsibilities;

37. Considers that the Union should fully assume the responsibility incumbent on it as the world’s leading donor of development aid, and turn its political potential to better effect, further developing its leading role at international level on development issues, particularly by spreading the principles of good governance and training local actors, and by making resolute use of the powers conferred on it by Article 210 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to take every appropriate initiative to foster the coordination of the development cooperation policies of the EU and its Member States and to synchronise their aid programmes;

38. Regrets that the Commission has only called on the Council to approve its Agenda for Change, despite the circumstance that democratic control, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, should be fully applied in the field of development policy implementation; stresses that in order to become operational, all changes in the geographic, thematic and sectoral development priorities of the Union must be decided through codecision by Parliament and

278

the Council within the framework of instruments for the financing of development cooperation which fall within the ordinary legislative procedure;

39. Welcomes the focus on closer coordination among Member States through the development of joint programming, single EU contracts for budget support, and common EU frameworks for measuring and communicating results and for human rights conditionality;

40. Believes that maintaining high levels of funding for development education is crucial as it promotes the necessary public awareness of development issues;

41. Welcomes the Commission’s intention that ‘the EU should strive to help countries in situations of fragility’; notes, however, that a bilateral relationship might not be sufficient for doing so, given the new budgetary framework and the fact that countries in such a situation often lack a functioning government or legal system; therefore, calls on the EU to work with third countries in a given region in order to support the development and functioning of institutions, the rule of law and judicial systems in the partner country;

42. Calls on the Commission to develop the tools necessary to guarantee a strategic link between humanitarian aid and development in situations of fragility, crisis and post-crisis, so as to strengthen the resilience of the populations of the countries concerned;

43. Recalls that, when it comes to the proposal for the 11th EDF, any new political orientation following the adoption of the Agenda for Change must be compatible with the spirit and the letter of the Cotonou Agreement;

44. Considers it essential to highlight the comparative advantages of the EU’s development cooperation policy and, in this regard, calls on the Commission, with the aid of the OECD, to define a methodology that will allow it to assess the impact of its own policy and compare it with that of the policies of other actors, particularly the so-called ‘emerging’ economies;

45. Recalls the need for a consistent approach by the 28 actors that have already been united by the Consensus, and calls for a common reading of the situation and a common perception of the strategic issues;

46. Calls for the creation of an independent think-tank, administratively linked to the Commission, with the objective of developing analytical and advisory abilities for all European cooperation actors in order to ensure the added value of a well-coordinated, consistent policy;

47. Supports the Commission’s intention to focus activities led by the EU in each partner country on a limited number of priority sectors, but recalls that, in order to achieve the best results, it is necessary to identify these priorities in the partnership framework and to respect fully the ownership and priorities of the partner;

48. Supports the Council’s recollection of ‘the Treaty obligation to take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies which are likely to affect developing countries, and to pursue these objectives in the overall framework of the Union’s external action’;

279

49. Emphasises the importance of promoting and defending good governance; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to support the training programmes for legal professionals and legislation modernisation programmes, in particular for legislation on land use;

50. Is of the view that sustainable development implies effective domestic tax collection, automatic disclosure of transnational corporations’ profit and tax payments in the individual developing countries where they operate, and fighting abuse of tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight; welcomes, in this regard, the EU’s draft legislation on country-by-country and project-by-project reporting, which should be included in the EU Agenda for Change policy;

51. Believes that the EU Aid for Trade and trade facilitation instruments, which currently target only the export sectors, need to change in order to facilitate trade for local and regional markets;

52. Recalls that an active and inclusive civil society is the best guarantee – in both the countries of the North and those of the South – of good democratic governance, protection of vulnerable groups (in particular disabled people and minorities), private-sector responsibility and an improved capacity to distribute the benefits of economic growth;

53. Regrets that the Commission does not put enough emphasis on the gender dimension of poverty; believes the EU must invest in the specific needs of women and design social protection packages that address the challenges faced by women; emphasises that gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) are essential to the attainment of international development goals; highlights the fact that the economic and political empowerment of women is not only a driving force for gender equality but is also fundamental to achieving overall economic growth in developing countries and reducing poverty; urges the Commission to ensure that gender equality and the empowerment of women will be mainstreamed in all EU development policies and programmes through its 2010 Gender Action Plan;

54. Would like the Agenda for Change to specify the important and independent role of regional and local authorities and civil society, not only in implementing development programmes and projects, but also as fundamental players in the process of developing evidence-based development policies; highlights the importance of improving cooperation with them and calls for regular dialogue and consultations with them in policy-making; in this regard, underlines the importance of establishing dialogue between the EU and civil society organisations and regional and local authorities;

55. Calls for greater awareness in the new Member States of the importance of development aid;

56. Expresses its hope that development cooperation will be a more prominent topic during the course of 2015, a key year in which deep reflection will be required, particularly with regard to following up on the MDGs; would like to see the Commission name 2015 the ‘European Year for Development’;

57. Points out that a better understanding of the impacts of non-development policies on development is instrumental in establishing and monitoring an effective development framework; therefore considers it essential that the Agenda for Change should promote evidence-based Policy Coherence for Development (PCD);

280

58. Demands that any support provided to the private sector in the form of ODA come within the framework of the national plans and/or strategies of the partner countries, and that the amounts allocated be focused on the development of human resources, decent work, the sustainable management of natural resources and the development of high-quality inclusive public services for the benefit of the population; advocates safeguards to ensure that private companies respect human rights, offer decent jobs and pay their taxes in the countries where they operate;

59. Welcomes the proposals of the Agenda for change concerning aid effectiveness, in view of the importance of aid effectiveness in terms of improving quality of life, reducing poverty in recipient countries and achieving the MDGs, and urges more resolute EU action in this respect; underlines the importance of swift implementation of the Busan Partnership for effective development cooperation; takes the view that moving successfully from the concept of effective aid to that of cooperation for effective development requires a strong commitment from the EU and its international partners; hopes for a rapid international consensus on the working arrangements for the Global Partnership;

60. Believes that certain new challenges, particularly climate change and universal access to energy, are not sufficiently covered by the sectors of intervention selected in the Commission’s proposal;

61. Reiterates its demand to include in the Agenda for Change the obligations and duties of foreign investors operating in developing countries to respect human rights and environmental and ILO core labour standards; considers that EU companies should be legally liable in their home countries for violation of these obligations and duties by their subsidiaries abroad and for the entities they control;

62. Calls on the EU to recognise the right of developing countries to regulate investment, favour investors who support the partner country’s development strategy, and give preferential treatment to domestic and regional investors in order to promote regional integration;

63. Regrets that the Agenda for Change has not addressed the issue of land leasing in developing countries, which threatens local food security; expresses its deep concern over the current phenomenon of farmland acquisition by government-backed foreign investors, some of them from the EU, which risks undermining the EU’s policy for combating poverty;

64. Stresses the need to take account of the cross-sectional dimension of culture and the importance of including it in all external policies of the EU in general and in development policy in particular;

65. Believes that the Commission must maintain the monopoly of programming in the area of development and cooperation policies;

66. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EEAS and the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States.

281

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0387

SMEs: competitiveness and business opportunities

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities (2012/2042(INI))


– having regard to the European Charter for Small Enterprises, adopted by the European Council at its meeting in Feira on 19 and 20 June 2000,

– having regard to the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)1,

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 14 October 2011 entitled ‘Industrial Policy: Reinforcing competitiveness’ (COM(2011)0642),

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 9 November 2011 entitled ‘Small Business, Big World – A new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities’ (COM(2011)0702),

– having regard to the Commission Report of 23 November 2011 entitled ‘Minimising regulatory burden for SMEs – Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises’ (COM(2011)0803),

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 23 February 2011 entitled ‘Review of the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe’ (COM(2011)0078),

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

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

– having regard to the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation of 30 November 2011 establishing a Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (2014-2020) (COM(2011)0834),

– having regard to the Commission’s ‘European Competitiveness Report 2011’ (COM(2011)0642),

– having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2011 on practical aspects regarding the revision of EU instruments to support SME finance in the next programming period2,

1 1 OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36.2 OJ C 188 E, 28.6.2012, p. 7.

282

– having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era3,

– having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on the Small Business Act Review2,


– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0293/2012),

A. whereas micro-enterprises and SMEs suffer, in times of economic crisis, from difficulties in accessing funding, particularly small loans, to support their development;

B. whereas 25% of EU SMEs have been internationally active within the single market but only 13 % have been internationally active outside the EU; whereas only 24 % of micro-firms export goods or services compared to 38 % of small firms and 53% of medium-sized firms;

C. whereas almost one third of the administrative burdens deriving from EU legislation stems primarily from disproportionate and inefficient national implementation, which means that up to EUR 40 billion could be saved if Member States transposed EU legislation more efficiently3;

D. whereas more than 96 % of SMEs in the European Union have fewer than 50 employees and less than EUR 10 million in annual turnover; whereas their ability to export goods and services across national borders is limited, mainly due to high fixed costs linked to international trade, legal insecurity and regulatory fragmentation;

E. whereas 85 % of all new jobs in the EU between 2002 and 2010 were created by SMEs, in particular by new firms; whereas 32,5 million people in the EU are self-employed;

F. whereas industry plays a key role in the European economy and generates 25 % of direct jobs in the EU’s private sector and accounts for 80 % of private R&D;

G. whereas job creation in eco-industries has been positive throughout the recession in comparison to many other sectors and is forecasted to continue to remain sound in future years;4

H. whereas internet and information and communication technologies (ICTs) facilitate SMEs opportunities to sell services around the globe and play a vital role in making SMEs more potent contributors to economic growth and job creation.

3 OJ C 199 E, 7.7.2012, p. 131.2 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0235.3 "Europe can do better" – A report on best practice in Member States to implement EU

legislation in the least burdensome way; by the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, 15 November 2011.

4 Eurostat estimates total numbers employed have grown from 2,4 million in 2000 and 3,0 million in 2008 and are forecast to reach 3,4 million in 2012 - (April 2012).

283

I. whereas the Commission estimated that policies promoting a transition to a green economy such as resource efficiency, energy efficiency, and climate change policies could generate more than 9 million jobs by 2020, in particular in the SME sector;

1. ‘Small business – big world’

1. Notes the common structural and regulatory challenges faced by SMEs, such as access to finance, human capital and organisational resources; welcomes, in this respect, the fact that the Commission endeavours to promote and support SMEs’ economic activities in the single market and third country markets; points out that, in general, SME internationalisation should be considered a process; points out that in order to be successful to expand their business outside the EU, SMEs need advice services already at their local level and not only on third markets; stresses that this necessity must be reflected in EU support policies;

2. Points to the fact that SMEs are extremely varied; stresses, therefore, that when designing new policies for SMEs, the Commission should take into account the different challenges faced by companies depending on size and sector;

3. Recalls that SMEs , more than bigger businesses, benefit from internationalisation through exposure to best practices, a better take-up of excess production, an improved supply of input products through imports, and thereby better competitiveness, to the point that exporting SMEs consistently perform better than their non-exporting peers, resulting in greater welfare gains for the economy as whole and for consumers;

4. Rejects the belief that sheltering EU SMEs from international competition could help them grow and perform better on the international stage; believes, rather, that the EU should support a positive agenda benefitting its SMEs in international negotiations in order to lower barriers, on a reciprocal basis, in the interests of SMEs globally;

5. Considers that the effective protection of SMEs against unfair trading practices by EU partner states is just as important as helping SMEs wishing to internationalise; considers internationalisation and protection as two sides of the same coin of the globalisation process;

6. Emphasises that the Communication should have recognised the differences between sectors, since internationalisation for service SMEs is fundamentally different from internationalisation for manufacturing SMEs; notes that many services SMEs, which represent the bulk of SMEs, often do not need to reach a critical size for starting exports, and would benefit above all from more open regulations and access to ICTs in the target countries, whereas industrial SMEs would benefit more from enhanced conditions in transport logistics and from trade facilitation;

7. Notes that most public policies in support of EU SMEs’ internationalisation are focused on manufacturing, and recommends therefore that they are readjusted to take into account services SMEs’ different needs; recommends in particular rethinking the minimum size requirements for SME trade support programmes, which have usually been based on the industry SMEs’ export model, under which the firm can expand internationally after reaching a critical size;

284

8. Takes the view that that while the Communication does try to address the difficulties faced by SMEs in identifying foreign business opportunities, it does not emphasise sufficiently that providing SMEs with guidance, suggestions and incentives to internationalise is a desirable path of public action; believes that the EU, again in concert with the Member States, should support and promote incentives to develop SMEs in strategic sectors in a proactive fashion by adding value to already existing initiatives, especially when it concerns high-value-added and technologically advanced manufacturing activities offering a competitive edge over emerging economies; stresses the need, therefore, to identify promising niche-markets, which has already started to be integrated in other EU policy documents such as the report of the high-level group on Key Enabling Technologies;

Information for SMEs

9. Urges the Commission to launch the multilingual online portal foreseen in the Communication as soon as possible and to be fully up and running by the end of 2013 at the latest; believes, whilst recognising the huge variety of SMEs and their questions, that the portal should not duplicate but rather interlink existing portals, should be easily accessible and user-friendly and should not cause additional search costs for SMEs; stresses that the portal should be likely to raise the number of EU SMEs that do engage internationally;

10. Calls for increased and more efficient support for SMEs in access to the single and third country markets at the EU, national and regional level, particularly as regards promotion activities and access to information, the protection of intellectual property rights, participation in public tenders, ICT, standardisation, and regulatory issues; believes that the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) is an effective tool to achieve these objectives; shares the view that, based on a thorough evaluation, a new governance model for EEN should be put in place with the view to increase effectiveness, reduce the administrative and management burdens and allow for tailor-made support; believes that this support should assist businesses in acquiring the necessary skills and in defining a strategy for expanding in foreign markets, and should promote cooperation between businesses by encouraging the matching of supply and demand;

11. Is convinced that the EEN will only maximise its value to SMEs in the EU if the functioning and governance of its constituent organisations is strengthened and if awareness of its support services is raised;

12. Urges the Member States to adopt a single network of export helpdesks at a local and regional level, run in cooperation with businesses, chambers of commerce, universities and other interested stakeholders, so that SMEs can have an easily identifiable single contact person and receive, in their own language and for immediate use, personalised advice and economic analyses of overseas markets, information regarding assistance, export opportunities, existing barriers to trade (both tariffs and non-tariffs), investment protection and dispute settlement provisions in force, administrative formalities, and competitors in third markets; believes that these helpdesks should contribute to exchanges of good practices, in accordance with the European Charter for Small Enterprises;

13. Recommends that more information be targeted to small and micro-enterprises, these being the SME grouping that is least active internationally and least aware of its export potential and of the benefits it would gain from internationalisation;

285

Mapping of support services

14. Shares the view that support programmes funded with public resources should be delivered in the most cost-effective possible form, especially at a time when the EU economy is still recovering from its worst crisis in decades; points out, in this regard, that the quality of the programmes should remain at the very least at the same level;

15. Supports the proposal that a large number of local, regional, national and EU support schemes should undergo a “mapping exercise”; believes that this exercise should include private-sector and local initiatives to help SME access funding, in particular initiatives facilitating access to loans for micro-enterprises, as well an assessment of the effectiveness of existing EU support schemes; believes that the mapping should be conducted in regular intervals and serve as basis for a benchmark and scoreboard system; believes that the initial mapping exercise should serve as a basis for the assessment of the effectiveness of existing EU support schemes; notes that any mapping exercise may not capture all initiatives, in particular if they are small or informal and if the cost and/or practicality of doing so is not viable;

16. Expects first specific proposals by the end of 2012 to streamline and coordinate the existing EU support schemes in order to make them effective and responsive to the needs of EU SMEs; believes that EU action must avoid any duplication or development of parallel structures and demonstrate a clear European value added; believes that existing national support structures should be respected in consideration of the subsidiarity principle; believes that the servicing of single EU SMEs must be focused to the organisation identified as closest to their individual business needs; asks the Commission to inform the responsible committees of Parliament regularly about the progress of this ongoing exercise;

17. Points out that new EU activity such as this must have proven added value over existing instruments; believes that such added value can be found where there is geographic or substantive market failure (‘blank spots’), or where representation of the EU’s trade policy interests, or efforts to gather information for a market access database, need to be boosted;

18. Stresses the need to make SMEs co-owners of the review of the existing support framework; calls for SMEs, together with EEN and EU business organisations, to be closely involved in the implementation of the review;

19. Insists that tools currently available to all EU firms when they export, such as the Market Access Database and the Export Helpdesk, should be adapted to suit the needs of SMEs; appreciates the opening of a SME-dedicated helpdesk for issues pertaining to trade defence instruments (the SME TDI helpdesk); recommends more effective coordination between the various support structures for European SMEs in third countries;

20. Considers that practical and cost-effective solutions to help SMEs in overcoming the shortage of working capital, especially capital to make the initial investment required and to start financing exports, should be designed and implemented through the EU common commercial policy or other suitable EU instruments if, on the basis of the mapping, it is deemed necessary and feasible;

286

21. Believes that while making effective use of existing national structures, EU-initiatives are necessary in third markets where there is shown to be added value; encourages cooperation among experts in both the public and the private spheres, including the EU Market Access Teams; agrees that SMEs from some smaller and newer Member States are at a disadvantage because they may lack either diplomatic representation, experienced partners or both in some third markets; stresses, nonetheless, that EU-initiatives shall not interfere in competition between individual companies from different Member States on third markets;

22. Stresses that the internationalisation of SMEs is a process, and that, in order to be successful, SMEs already need support measures at local level and not only on third markets; recognises that on third markets, common EU efforts concerning lobbying, trade policy and market access, as well as complementary programmes to address market failure, can add substantial value to this process;

23. Calls on the Commission, in order to avoid duplication, to create new structures only after having conducted a review of funding, an inventory of available advisory services in the Member States and a proper analysis of their effectiveness and of any proven need for creating new structures;

Promoting EU clusters and networks

24. Supports the Commission’s suggestion to enhance cooperation between various company associations, chambers of commerce and other actors active in the single market and in third countries in order to facilitate business partnerships and promote clusters and access to new markets, encouraging the process of internationalisation from the level of the individual business to that of networks or multi-location chains, in order to encourage more complex and sustainable internationalisation projects involving multiple businesses and other public support organisations and institutions;

25. Emphasises the importance of the territory in which SMEs work, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate on an ongoing basis with local authorities in order to enhance networking;

26. Considers that the creation of joint ventures or other partnership agreements between or with SMEs should be fostered as a strategy for penetrating new markets, developing direct investment projects in the single market and third countries and taking part in invitations to tender; calls on the Commission to mobilise resources in order to promote such transnational cooperation;

27. Notes that clusters and networks can often be created virtually as well as physically; encourages the Member States to promote the necessary tools and resources to facilitate virtual clusters and networks;

28. Encourages the Member States to actively support the Commission’s role in boosting SMEs access to third country markets in international forums and conferences;

Future steps

29. Recommends that the Commission consider all dimensions related to internationalisation, namely exporting and importing, including various forms of economic partnerships and

287

cooperation; notes that there is not sufficient emphasis on this second dimension in the Communication;

30. Calls for the greater integration of Union policies in favour of SMEs, with particular reference to innovation, growth, internationalisation, productivity, containing costs and reducing bureaucracy, the quality of human resources, and social responsibility;

31. Welcomes the new programme for the competitiveness of SMEs (COSME); notes the successful actions of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP); believes that these actions – such as the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders for Administrative Burden Reduction and the Enterprise Europe Network –should be continued and further expanded under the new programme; underlines the need to improve access to finance for SMEs and strengthen the role that the private sector could play; calls for the simplification and rationalisation of the various Union instruments devoted to access to credit, guarantees or venture capital, in particular for SMEs with internationalisation plans; calls for a review of the costs and availability of basic banking services for SMEs involved in cross-border – especially cross-currency – trade, including outside the EU; encourages the Member States to explore the possibility of using parts of their national corporate tax revenues to facilitate access to loan guarantees for SMEs; stresses that all instruments, in particular the non-financial instruments, should be adopted based on a critical evaluation of the CIP and in close cooperation with SME organisations;

32. Stresses the need to increase significantly the budget for COSME foreseen in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), considering in particular the significant market failures with regard to SME financing and the need to increase EU support for business transfers; believes, in this regard, that the delineation between COSME and Horizon 2020, in terms of activities and budget, deserves further consideration in order to facilitate orientation for SME;

33. Calls on the Member States to ensure that sufficient export guarantee facilities are available for SMEs;

34. Notes the importance of skilled and trained entrepreneurs in facing the challenges of international business; calls on the Commission to promote the ‘Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs’ programme and to study the possibility of an ‘Erasmus Mundus for Entrepreneurs’ in order to give talented entrepreneurs the opportunity to acquire experience in, and network with, centres of excellence outside the EU, also through advanced business culture training, which allows an international entrepreneurial vision to be gained, in order to acquire the necessary and fundamental tools to compete in a global market; calls on the Commission and the Member States to include young entrepreneurs and industrial policy in the relevant EU policies for the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme;

35. Welcomes the Commission proposal on the review of European standardisation; stresses the need for a more coherent system of international standards in order to enable interoperability and reduce obstacles to SMEs going international;

36. Supports a European standardisation system that includes SMEs more systematically in the decision making processes, while also making use of the proven principle of national delegation; calls on the Commission to take the necessary measures to make the standards developed by the European standardisation bodies more accessible, and at a lower cost to

288

SMEs, in order to enable interoperability and reduce some of the substantial obstacles faced by SMEs going international; emphasises that the adaptation of EU ICT standardisation policy to market and policy developments is an important tool for the involvement of SMEs in the e-business, e-commerce, e-Freight and intelligent transport systems (ITS), etc.;

37. Emphasises that a simple, efficient and affordable intellectual property rights (IPR) and copyright regime is key for promoting the internationalisation of SMEs; considers that SMEs need effective IPR protection to encourage the development of new technologies as the basis for their international activities;

38. Stresses the lack of resources at SMEs’ disposal to fight breaches of IPR affecting them on third markets; calls for concrete initiatives on the part of the EU to improve the protection of SMEs’ intellectual property rights in these third countries, such as has been achieved with the SME IPR helpdesk in China; observes that this model of helpdesk is currently being extended, in a pilot initiative, to a selection of ASEAN and South America countries; stresses the need to conduct a proper evaluation of existing helpdesks, with a view to optimising the functioning of the model before extending it further; urges the Commission, once lessons have been drawn from this assessment, to adopt similar helpdesks in priority markets where IPR is an important issue; urges the Commission and the Member States to step up customs cooperation in the EU and with third countries on the seizure of counterfeit goods, and to simplify customs procedures;

39. Notes the importance of the creation of a simplified and transparent EU regulatory framework for public procurement, so that SMEs gain better access to public contracts both within the EU and in third countries, including through the application of the “only once principle” and the use of electronic transmission systems, as well as by applying the “European code of best practices facilitating access by SMEs to public procurement contracts”; considers that public procurement is an effective public policy instrument to support domestic SMEs’ technical innovation capacities and to provide for their growth to the size needed for them to engage in internationalisation; calls for a better definition of tenders as well as for the opening up of services to public tenders;

40. Expects the Commission to take an initiative to ensure that EU SMEs enjoy access to public procurement on third markets on an equal footing with other companies; hopes that the recently published proposal for a regulation on the EU public procurement market will foster reciprocity in openness, which would benefit EU SMEs; requests that the EU develop an ambitious common industrial policy based on fostering research and innovation that benefits from innovative financing arrangements, such as project bonds, and that supports the development of SMEs, particularly via access to public procurement, in order that they maintain their competiveness vis-à-vis new major players in industry and research; calls on the EU to enhance the value of European production by providing better quality-information to consumers, particularly through the adoption of the regulation on origin marking (‘made-in’) of products imported into the EU;

41. Strongly urges the Member States to finalise as soon as possible, and at the latest by the end of 2012, an agreement on the common patent, as it is vital for the EU to offer businesses easy and affordable access to patent protection in the single market, similar to the protection available to their competitors in the United States, China and Japan;

289

42. Recommends that the existing EU SME Centres should only be expanded with due consideration for the conclusions of the assessment of the existing Centres’ effectiveness and the general guiding principles; notes that these Centres would function better in conjunction with joint helpdesks tailored to needs as one-stop-shops with single contact points for EU SMEs in third countries; considers that EU initiatives should be focused on areas where SMEs actually operate;

43. Calls for a clearer definition of SME priority markets on the basis of the agenda for the EU’s trade negotiations; recalls that priority markets should of course include high-growth markets, such as the BRIC countries, but also take into account SMEs’ perception of opportunities for internationalisation in developed countries and in neighbouring regions; sees, therefore, the growth of host markets and gaps in existing support structures as the main criteria for making the list of priority markets; recommends that several of the EU’s neighbouring countries, especially those in the Western Balkans and in Mediterranean area, or those sharing borders with the EU, should be added to the list, since most SMEs initially export to trading partners in neighbouring countries and since EU trade with these countries plays a strong role in their growth and stability;

44. Urges the Commission to ensure that the specific needs and interests of SMEs are reflected in all trade negotiations; observes that this would imply identifying the areas of negotiations where problems affect SMEs more than other categories of businesses, and focusing on them in the process of negotiating commercial agreements with third countries; supports a reform of the multilateral framework for involving SMEs at the WTO and for ensuring faster arbitration and settlement of disputes for SMEs;

45. Stresses that investing abroad is the most challenging form of internationalisation for SMEs; recommends that, when the EU comes to negotiate bilateral investment treaties in the future, SMEs’ need for greater safety for their foreign direct investments should be taken into account;

46. Regards better, less costly and faster access of SMEs to anti-dumping procedures as key to better protecting them from unfair trade practices by trade partners; calls on the Commission to pay due consideration to this concern when reforming the EU’s TDIs;

47. Appreciates the initiatives to foster business-to-business contacts foreseen in bilateral free-trade agreements; recalls that the challenges of locating and contacting potential customers overseas, and of establishing reliable supply chains, pose high hurdles for SMEs wishing to enter export markets, and that in particular smaller firms and micro-enterprises rely on intermediaries to sell goods abroad;

2. Administrative burdens

Regulatory approach

48. Welcomes the achievement of the 2012 target on minimising administrative burdens but believes that there is a great deal more to achieve; urges the Commission to review existing legislation and to come up with a new and ambitious reduction target in accordance with the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe (SBA) and the ‘Think Small First’ principle; considers that such a new target should be a net target taking into account new legislation which is adopted after the target is set; recommends that the new target should be measurable and verifiable, and should achieve a qualitative improvement, for instance

290

by reducing the amount of documentation required from SMEs and ensuring that SMEs are not faced with unrealistic deadlines for submitting documentation; believes that the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders should have a central and continuous role in supervising the progress on such a reduction target.

49. Calls on Member States and the Commission to secure agreements enabling SMEs to operate all over Europe and commercialise their ideas by granting them better access to markets and reducing red tape;

50. Stresses its disappointment concerning the shallow and inconsistent application of the SME test by the Commission; insists that the SME test should systematically feature as a fixed chapter of the impact assessment; calls on the Commission to clarify why no proper SME test has been conducted for the data protection package, and to take swift, concrete action to remedy this omission;

51. Strongly supports the focus on micro-enterprises in a strengthened SME test, and notes the concept of excluding micro-enterprises by default from any proposed legislation; believes, however, that an exemption could only be applied, where the specific needs of micro-enterprises cannot be addressed by adapted solutions or lighter regimes, as demonstrated by the SME test; insists, therefore, on the establishment of a micro-dimension as an inherent part of the SME test in order to assess systematically all available options; recalls that any exemption or adapted solution should not interfere with fundamental EU health and safety at work requirements, fundamental EU workers’ rights or fundamental principles of EU environmental legislation; stresses that when micro businesses are included in the scope of a provision to the full extent, the reasons for including them thus should be clearly demonstrated by the SME test results;

52. Highlights the need to improve the efficiency of the transposition of EU legislation into national law; calls on the Commission for more harmonisation of legislation in order to reduce the scope for gold-plating and a more systematic use of the SME test; asks the Commission to assess to what extent the application of the “checklist for good implementation of EU legislation”1 can be introduced as a requirement for the Member States, to the benefit of the single market;

53. Urges national governments to apply a ‘comply or explain’ approach similar to the corporate governance provisions; stresses that, under this approach, governments would need duly to justify implementing provisions additional to those required by EU legislation;

54. Regrets that only a few Member States systematically apply an SME test in their national decision making process; calls on the Commission to submit, and on the Council to support, a proposal for minimum requirements, including guidelines for the implementation of SME tests at national level, based on best practices obtained from the SME test applied by the Commission as well as at national level;

55. Calls for a “fitness check” of existing EU legislation in order to eliminate inconsistencies and outdated or ineffective rules;

1 As suggested by the High Level Group on Administrative Burden.

291

56. Calls, in the context of fitness checks, for the identification of areas characterised by excessive burdens, inconsistencies or ineffective legislation that impact adversely on SMEs; calls on the Commission to ensure that the objectives of health, safety and equality and social provisions are met;

57. Strongly supports the idea of “one in, one out” as a guiding principle for EU single market legislation, to ensure that no new legislation which imposes costs on SMEs can be brought in without the identification of existing regulations within a given field and of an equivalent value that can be removed;

58. Calls for the role of the SME Envoy network to be reinforced as it brings real added value to communication and coordination between the Member States, and between the national and the European level, from policy formulation to the implementation of legislation; calls on the Commission and the national administration to ensure that SME Envoys can act independently and follow a cross-cutting approach to ensure that SMEs interests are taken into account in all areas of law and policy-making; insists that SME Envoys are strongly involved in the SME test procedures; encourages, furthermore, the strengthening of civil society organisations operating for the purposes of uniting EU SMEs, and calls for the needs of civil society organisations to be considered in the administrative and legislative processes;

59. Underlines the importance of discussions with the social partners in the planning of national actions aimed at strengthening and promoting small and medium entrepreneurship;

SME definition

60. Takes note of the current evaluation of the SME definition which already covers more than 99 % of all EU businesses; calls on the Commission to examine the impact of: a) increasing flexibility and mitigating disincentives to growth (e.g. by extending transition periods to 3 years), b) adapting the turnover and balance sheet ceilings to economic developments and c) allowing for a more differentiated consideration of each of the sub-categories;

61. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a separate visa regime within the framework of the Schengen Agreement in relation to import and export activities;

Further measures

62. Highlights the single market as key enabler in creating the best possible environment for SMEs; deplores that it is still not a reality in many areas, in particular as regards its digital dimension; calls, therefore, on the Commission to push for the implementation of the digital single market by 2015, including by promoting the development of broadband infrastructure and technologies, in order to force Member States to implement and apply existing legislation and to make new proposals, where internal market legislation is still missing, in particular with a view to reducing the costs and bureaucracy of doing business;

63. Calls on the Commission to accelerate the high-speed broadband links in EU regions in order to ensure maximum participation of SMEs in a digitalising internal market;

292

64. Recognises that cloud computing can significantly boost the efficiency and productivity of SMEs; calls, therefore, on the Commission to develop a Europe-wide framework for cloud computing that is open to other global clouds;

65. Regrets that the EU is lagging behind other global actors, such as Japan and South-Korea, having only 2 % of internet connections operating on fibre; calls, therefore, on the Member States and the Commission to accelerate the spread and adoption of ultra high-speed broadband;

66. Recognises that e-commerce is an enabling tool for SMEs that want to enter new markets and expand their customer base; calls, therefore, on the Commission to facilitate cross-border e-commerce by, for example, creating a reliable, safe and efficient online payment system;

67. Stresses the urgent need for the EU to provide SMEs and entrepreneurs with confidence and means to trade online in order to increase cross-border trade; calls, therefore, for a simplification of licensing systems and the creation of an efficient framework for copyright;

68. Calls on the Commission to encourage the free movement of services by extending and fully implementing the Service Directive in order to give SMEs and entrepreneurs a real possibility to scale up and sell services and products to the EU’s 500 million consumers;

69. Calls on the Member States to take advantage of the benefits offered by electronic administration and to introduce e-governance solutions;

70. Encourages the Commission Secretariat-General, in cooperation with business associations and other stakeholders, to establish an annual award within the College of Commissioners to honour the Member of the Commission or the Member State that has applied the ‘Think Small First’ principle in the most effective and successful manner within the framework of the European semester;

71. Calls for the simplification of EU instruments for SMEs, and for these instruments to be made more accessible; notes that, all too often, EU programmes can be too bureaucratic to be exploited by SMEs;

72. Stresses that it is necessary to implement and apply extensive simplification measures, including simplified reimbursement methods, to help SMEs take part in EU-funded programmes;

3. Reinforcing industrial and SME competitiveness

73. Welcomes the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Industrial policy: Reinforcing competitiveness’ (COM(2011)0642), as well as the Commission’s working document on ‘competitiveness proofing’ (SEC(2012)0091);

74. Recognises that the Commission has begun to implement competitiveness-proofing and the ex-post evaluation of legislation; insists that the Commission should apply this concept consistently and thoroughly, even in cases in which changes to the implementation provisions of EU legislation impact on industrial competitiveness (for

293

example in the event of changes to the auction rules in emissions trading); calls on the Commission to report regularly on progress achieved in this field;

75. Believes that regional road shows, with the inclusion of local civil organisations for business ventures, should be organised in order to stimulate entrepreneurial spirit, where entrepreneurial culture could be demonstrated in the region by presenting best practices and through roundtable discussions with the participation of successful business persons;

76. Stresses that free trade and access to global markets is an important catalyst for jobs and growth, and a decisive factor enabling EU SMEs to take a leading position on world markets; underlines, therefore, the importance of progress in trade negotiations that further reduce regulatory barriers to trade, which effect SMEs disproportionally.

77. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has, in its various strategies and communications, acknowledged the importance of the manufacturing sector for sustainable growth and employment in the EU ; reiterates the need for an integrated industrial policy based on the principles of social market economy and in support of a transition to a sustainable, resources efficient and resilient economy;

78. Points out the importance of encouraging, at local and regional levels, the involvement of SMEs in energy efficiency and environmental plans, as their participation in these sectors will significantly increase business opportunities;

79. Recognises that if the Member States are to attain the targets for an innovative, smart and inclusive Europe contained in the EU 2020 strategy, it is necessary for them to take into account, and facilitate the creation, of SMEs and microenterprises, given the enormous potential of such enterprises to create employment, in particular youth employment, and thereby reduce poverty and social exclusion; notes that becoming self-employed and establishing a micro-business can be a good and flexible option, particularly for women;

80. Recognises that SMEs play an important role in achieving social stability, cohesion and integration, particularly in areas that are faced with negative effects in their demographic development; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support SMEs in establishing a working atmosphere that will encourage workers to comply with the standards of labour law, worker protection and health protection, thus also contributing to social prosperity and the fight against poverty;

81. Stresses that easier access to micro-credit through the European Microfinance Facility, and the further development of this instrument – in the context of the Programme for Social Change and Innovation for the period 2014-20 and the future of the European Social Fund (ESF) – should be encouraged, so that the founders of microenterprises from socially disadvantaged sections of the population in particular can gain access to appropriate financial instruments; calls, in this context, on the Commission to include special information on cooperatives in the financial instruments managed by the European Investment Fund;

82. Notes that when it comes to cross-border services, the one-stop shop can also, together with the social partners, provide comprehensive information about the working conditions in the destination country where services are to be provided;

294

83. Considers that entrepreneurship and the right framework conditions for SMEs’ competitiveness and growth, including through infrastructure investments such as in green infrastructure, can greatly facilitate the way out of the economic crisis; underlines the need to encourage entrepreneurial potential where the level of SME start-ups is below average across all segments of society as well as where entrepreneurship is wanted in specific target group, notably young people and women;

84. Believes that any revision of financial markets regulation should improve the ability of SMEs to raise finance through capital markets in order to be less dependent on bank loans;

85. Believes that, in the ongoing reform of the structural funds, SMEs should be taken into account in a serious way where it is appropriate, where it contributes to regional framework conditions for growth, and where it creates synergies with other EU programmes and initiatives; believes that red tape needs to be reduced, for example by accepting proportionate corporate auditing and reporting standards and by introducing common rules for all funds and programmes in the revision of the Financial Regulation;

86. Calls on the Member States to transpose, as soon as possible, the Late Payments Directive into national law, in order to help give additional liquidity to SMEs in the current economic crisis;

87. Calls for more effective, simpler and better-coordinated EU instruments devoted to access to credit or risk capital, in particular for SMEs with internationalisation plans;

88. Calls for efficient safeguards for SME portfolios, in view of the increased capital requirements for banks, as part of the implementation of the Basel III monitoring exercise and the deleveraging process currently carried out by a number of banks, while considering the cumulative effect of financial services legislation;

89. Emphasises that the EU’s SME activity is not a substitute for but rather a complement to Member States’ and region’s actions, and is intended to enforce these efforts on the basis of a “more for more and less for less” principle, whereby Member States giving more support to SMEs should receive more EU support; urges, therefore, the Member States to implement ambitious programmes based on incentives to promote entrepreneurship further; calls for such programmes to include measures that improve access to finance and markets, to ease administrative requirements and to better include entrepreneurial education in school curricula at all levels; believes that these measures should support private-sector initiatives that make it possible to reduce the time required to obtain small-scale funding, such as partnerships between banks and accountancy professionals; recommends that practice-oriented academic competitions should be organised regularly for students, where in addition to their lexical knowledge their entrepreneurial way of thinking can also be assessed;

90. Supports private-sector initiatives designed to facilitate the access of SMEs – in particular micro-enterprises – to funding, such as partnerships between banks and accountancy professionals designed to reduce to 15 days the time required to obtain a small loan (less than EUR 25 000); believes that such partnerships are effective for micro-enterprises because, firstly, accountancy professionals prepare and send online all the financial documents required by the bankers and provide a certain level of assurance on the

295

forecasts supplied by the micro-enterprises, and, secondly, the banks place standardised funding applications online and provide reasons for refusals of funding applications;

91. Calls on the Commission to look into new fund-raising initiatives for entrepreneurs and start-ups such as crowd funding, in order to assess how these could benefit SMEs and to determine whether they should be promoted; points, furthermore to the need to evaluate the whether a legislative framework to frame such practices in the EU would be needed;

92. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure, in the future multiannual financial framework, easier access by SMEs to European funds, an access that should consolidate their access to the internal market;

93. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to facilitate investment opportunities for innovative start-ups by removing obstacles that hinder the emergence of an EU-wide venture capital market;

94. Points out that it is necessary to be aware of, and remove, obstacles that hinder micro-enterprises from growing into SMEs and SMEs from growing further;

95. Urges the Commission to tackle SME knowledge and skill gaps in relation to green technologies, practices and business models; points out that action is needed to identify skill needs and to address the gaps in the labour market through education and professional training strategies and the development of training and skills development programs targeted to SMEs;

96. Believes that the future COSME, Horizon 2020, as well as Structural Funds Programmes under the next MFF, should earmark sufficient amounts to support SME efforts to innovate and generate employment in a resource-efficient and sustainable way;

97. Calls for new financial instruments to be developed in support programmes for SMEs, such as COSME, that take account not only of the financial position of SMEs but also of the so-called ‘intangible values’, so that access to credit provides for forms of recognition of the intellectual capital of SMEs;

98. Calls for an ambitious budget to be allocated to the SME instrument established under Horizon 2020, which will provide targeted support to innovative SMEs with high growth potential; believes that the instrument should be delivered through a single dedicated structure tailored to the needs of SMEs;

99. Stresses that the potential of the financial engineering instruments should be developed further so as to allow both the development of qualitative strategic projects and the participation of private actors – especially SMEs – and private capital in European projects; draws attention to the fact that the current under-utilisation of financial engineering instruments, due to their excessive complexity, makes the debate on their governance very urgent;

100. Stresses that the Structural Funds – through the Financial Instruments – should continue to provide financing to SMEs by means of equity, guarantees and soft loans, and stresses that complex administrative procedures, especially at national level, should be simplified and that significant differences in the way that provisions are applied by, respectively, managing authorities and intermediate bodies, should be avoided;

296

101. Calls on the Commission to establish a roadmap on competitive SME taxation, encouraging Member States to adapt their taxation schemes with a view to lowering the non-labour wage costs for young companies, and allowing such companies to keep a larger proportion of their profits for reinvestment in the company; suggests that the roadmap be based on best practices and include pilot projects;

102. Calls for increased efforts to be made in implementing mutual recognition in order to facilitate cross-border activities of SMEs; calls for the establishment of a ‘one-stop-shop’ for VAT in order to make it possible for entrepreneurs to fulfil their responsibilities in the business country of origin;

103. Calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States to establish a level playing field for all forms of finance; points out that urgent measures are needed so that businesses are not so reliant on debt; supports the establishment of tax neutrality between equity and debt;

104. Urges the Commission and the Member States to promote the continuity of SMEs via a regulatory environment that facilitates business transfers; recommends that fiscal barriers (inheritance tax, gift tax, etc.) that could put the continuity of family businesses in jeopardy be removed;

105. Underlines the need for lower taxes on labour and investments;

106. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take concrete measures to promote social entrepreneurship in Europe, in particular by improving access to public and private finance, reducing salary discrimination between the genders, promoting measures for balancing work and family life and improving the mobility and recognition of skilled workforce, and improving the quality and the availability of corporate social responsibility (CSR) advice for SMEs; calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt specific measures to promote social entrepreneurship in Europe, in particular through improved access to public and private finance and by improving the mobility and recognition of skilled workers and apprentices; points out, however, that this should not lead to a categorisation of “good” and “bad” entrepreneurs;

107. Emphasises the importance of a reliable supply of raw materials for medium-sized enterprises in the industrial sector as well; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take specific steps to secure, in a sustainable fashion, the supply of raw materials, and to increase raw materials efficiency, in particular by ensuring free and fair access to internationally traded raw materials and by developing resource efficiency and recycling while considering a cost/benefit ratio;

108. Calls on the European Council to preserve the cohesion policy budget for the next programming period, as the Structural and Cohesion Funds are among the EU’s most effective instruments for creating growth and jobs, increasing competitiveness of the European economy and supporting SMEs;

109. Calls on the Member States to encourage the development and the competitiveness of the different types of SMEs, and to address their particular needs through tailor-made measures; underlines the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund to the development and improvement of transport, energy, environmental and broadband infrastructure, and thus to the creation of a

297

favourable businesses environment that encourages investments and strengthens competitiveness; highlights the need to promote entrepreneurship and increase the support given to SMEs, recognising the key role they play in fostering economic competitiveness;

110. Underlines the need for better coordination and synergy between different EU, national, regional and local polices and instruments directly addressing SMEs; points out that existing policies and financial instruments for SME support should be addressed in a more coherent way, and should complement each other; stresses the need to reduce fragmentation, and to consolidate and promote financial support schemes for SMEs, in order to ensure greater pooling and coordination of resources at EU, national, regional and local levels; emphasises that competitiveness would also increase if investments and aid for SMEs are adapted to regional diversity;

111. Takes the view that the objective of financing SMEs through the ERDF is to boost competitiveness in all regions of the Union, so as to achieve economic, social and territorial development in line with cohesion policy objectives;

112. Underlines that the Structural Funds, and in particular the ERDF, are an important instrument for supporting innovative SMEs by boosting their competitiveness and, especially, their internationalisation, and stresses that eligibility for such support should therefore be interpreted as broadly as possible; calls on the regions to make use of the opportunities that the regulations provide to support their operational programmes;

113. Emphasises the need to apply financial incentives to stimulate the creation of new jobs in SMEs;

114. Points out that European Territorial Cooperation programmes support networking, knowledge and know-how exchange activities between organisations in different European regions and could serve as a useful instrument for creating new business opportunities;

115. Considers that Structural Funds, and in particular ESF, play an important role in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, networking and exchange of good practices; believes that investments in human capital and cooperation projects make a major contribution to strengthening European SMEs’ competitiveness;

o

o o

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

298

P7_TA-PROV(2012)0388

Trade and economic relations with the United States

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on trade and economic relations with the United States (2012/2149(INI))


– having regard to the Joint Statement of the EU-US Summit issued on 28 November 20111 and the Joint Statement of the EU-US Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) issued on 29 November 20112,

– having regard to the bipartisan letters of 22 February 2012, from 20 US Senators, and of 14 May 2012, from 51 Members of the US House of Representatives, to US President Barack Obama,

– having regard to the letter of 19 March 2012 from four Members of the Committee on International Trade of the Parliament to Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy in support of the EU-US High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG),

– having regard to the Joint Declaration of the G8 Summit held in Camp David, United States, on 18-19 May 20123, and to the Joint Declaration of the G20 Summit held in Los Cabos, Mexico, on 18-19 June 20124,

– having regard to the ‘Interim Report to Leaders’ of 19 June 2012 from the HLWG5,

– having regard to the Joint Statement of 19 June 2012 by US President Barack Obama, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy6,

– having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 28-29 June 2012, as well as the ‘Compact for Growth and Jobs’ annexed thereto7,

– having regard to its earlier resolutions, in particular the resolution of 1 June 2006 on EU-US transatlantic economic relations8, of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness9, of 19 February 2008 on the EU’s strategy to deliver market access for European companies10, of 5 June 2008 on implementing trade policy through efficient

1 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/126389.pdf 2 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/november/tradoc_148385.pdf 3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/19/camp-david-declaration4 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131069.pdf 5 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149557.pdf6 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/462 7 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf 8 OJ C 298 E, 8.12.2006, p. 235.9 OJ C 102 E, 24.4.2008, p.128.10 OJ C 184 E, 6.8.2009, p. 16.

299

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/462

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149557.pdf

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131069.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/19/camp-david-declaration

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/november/tradoc_148385.pdf

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/126389.pdf

import and export rules and procedures1, of 9 July 2008 on the World Trade Organisation disputes between the European Union and the United States on alleged subsidies to Airbus and Boeing2, of 5 February 2009 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade3, of 11 November 2010 on the forthcoming EU-US Summit and the Transatlantic Economic Council4, of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy5, of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy6, of 17 November 2011 on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 20117, and of 13 December 2011 on trade and investment barriers8,

– having regard to the Joint Statement of the 72nd Interparliamentary Meeting of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) held in Copenhagen on 9-10 June 2012 and in Strasbourg on 11 June 2012,

– having regard to the study of 11 December 2009, prepared for the Commission by ECORYS Nederland, entitled ‘Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment – An Economic Analysis’9,

– having regard to Articles 207(3) and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0321/2012),

A. whereas the EU and the US are each-others main trading partners, the two economies together accounting for about half of the global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows, making it the largest economic relationship in the world;

B. whereas, although the economic relationships between the EU and the US are among the most open in the world, and although transatlantic markets are deeply integrated through large flows of trade and investment (with a bilateral trade volume of EUR 702,6 billion, and a bilateral investment stock valued at EUR 2,394 trillion, in 2011), there is a general consensus that the potential of the transatlantic relationship is far from being fully exploited, whereas the EU and US share common values, similar legal systems and high standards of labour and environmental protection, and should exploit these synergies to secure the growth and jobs both partners need, and whereas a study carried out in 2009 for the Commission identified the most important non-tariff measures that affect trade between the EU and the US, and estimated their economic impact, suggesting that the removal of half of such existing measures and regulatory divergences would translate into an increase in GDP of EUR 163 billion until 2018 on both sides of the North Atlantic;

1 OJ C 285 E, 26.11.2009, p.1. 2 OJ C 294 E, 3.12.2009, p.33.3 OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 101.4 OJ C 74 E, 13.3.2012, p. 1.5 OJ C 296 E, 2.10.2012, p. 34.6 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0412.7 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0510.8 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0565.9 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/december/tradoc_145613.pdf

300

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/december/tradoc_145613.pdf

C. whereas, in the continuing economic crisis, the global economy remains vulnerable, seriously affecting jobs, trade, development, and the environment; whereas the ongoing financial and economic crises, both in the EU and in the US, are threatening the stability and prosperity of our economies and the welfare of our citizens, and the lack of coordination of financial regulation is causing unnecessary barriers to trade, calling for a closer economic cooperation between the EU and the US, in order to make use of the benefits of international trade in overcoming these crises;

D. whereas the moderate growth of global trade exchanges over the past three years has significantly contributed to mitigating the negative effects of the economic crisis, in particular in the EU and the US, proving that trade plays an important role in determining growth and employment;

E. whereas, following the EU-US Summit in November 2011, the TEC established the HLWG and tasked it to identify options for increasing trade and investment to support mutually beneficial job creation, economic growth and competitiveness;

F. whereas the bipartisan letters sent to the US President by US Senators and by Members of the US House of Representatives, as well as the letter by four Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, including its Chairman, urged the HLWG to quickly formulate ambitious proposals to stimulate trade and investment between EU and US, and to remove unnecessary barriers to transatlantic trade and investment; whereas both letters emphasise a need to make increased trade and investment with the EU a priority, and specifically support efforts to address regulatory barriers (and, to achieve closer cooperation between regulators, non-tariff barriers), the reduction of tariffs to zero where possible, the trade in services, investment, and the further opening up of our public procurement markets to each other;

G. whereas, in its resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy, the European Parliament called for further development of the ambitious evolving Transatlantic Growth and Jobs Initiative;

H. whereas also the private sector in the US has expressed support for making Europe a priority in US trade policy again, and whereas the private stakeholders in both the EU and the US have shown support for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement and believe that advancing a closer EU-US economic cooperation would send a powerful pro-growth signal to investors and business within the EU and the US as well as internationally;

I. whereas the development of common standards between the EU and the US would have an automatic positive spill-over effect on North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries, a more harmonised regulatory environment between the EU and the US would be beneficial in general, and the further integration of the world’s most integrated commercial market would be historically unprecedented;

J. whereas the US is the EU’s second-largest trading partner in agricultural products, while the EU exports mainly high quality products to the US, which means that non-tariff trade barriers and geographical indications of origin are of the greatest significance to the EU’s agricultural sector;

K. whereas the HLWG has jointly analysed a wide range of potential options for expanding transatlantic trade and investment, and has in its Interim Report of June 2012 reached the

301

preliminary conclusion that a comprehensive agreement that addresses a broad range of bilateral trade and investment policies, as well as issues of common concern with respect to third countries, would, if achievable, provide the most significant benefit;

L. whereas the Joint Statement of presidents Obama, Barroso and Van Rompuy welcomes the Interim Report of the HLWG, stating that a bold initiative to expand trade and investment could make a significant contribution to transatlantic strategy to strengthen growth and create jobs;

M. whereas the EU is determined to promote free, fair and open trade whilst, at the same time, asserting its interests in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit, especially in relation to the world’s largest economies;

N. whereas the HLWG has entered the last leg of mapping out how to tackle any eventual negotiation to boost growth and jobs through a EU-US trade partnership, and is expected to present its final report before the end of 2012;

O. whereas the Commission has expressed hopes of starting possible negotiations already early in 2013 and to complete the negotiations before the end of the term of the current Commission;

P. whereas an open, predictable, rule-based and transparent multilateral trading system established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) continues to represent the most suitable framework for achieving free, fair and equitable trade on a global basis, whereas it has so far proven impossible to conclude the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations, and whereas even though strengthening the multilateral system remains a crucial objective, it does not preclude bilateral agreements going beyond WTO commitments and being complementary to multilateral rules;

1. Considers that trade and foreign investment must be better used to stimulate smart, strong, sustainable, balanced, inclusive and resource-efficient growth, leading to higher job creation and increasing the welfare of people across the world; welcomes the commitment of the G8 and G20 leaders to open trade and investment, expand markets and resist protectionism in all its forms, which are necessary conditions for sustained global economic recovery, jobs and development;

2. Welcomes the ongoing joint discussion between the EU and the US on how to work collectively to increase growth potential and foster financial stability in order to create high quality jobs; underlines that in order to ensure long-term prosperity and employment, a joint commitment, and effort, is needed to create new opportunities for businesses both large and small, to promote entrepreneurship and to capitalise on the advantages offered by the uniquely integrated transatlantic market; calls for negotiations between the EU and the US and other partners on how to work collectively to tackle the environmental crisis and climate change; calls also for more joint commitment to achieve financial market stability;

3. Welcomes the Interim Report of the HLWG and the preliminary recommendations contained therein, and agrees that a comprehensive agreement should include an ambitious reciprocal market opening in goods, services and investment, and address the challenges of modernising trade rules and enhancing the compatibility of regulatory regimes; encourages the HLWG to continue its work preparing an ambitious yet feasible set of objectives and concrete deliverables for the negotiations of such a comprehensive bilateral trade and

302

investment agreement, which would be consistent with (and supportive of) the WTO framework; stresses the importance of mutual respect and recognition of each other’s laws and regulations, and jurisdictional autonomy, for a fruitful process and successful outcome;

4. Stresses the importance of continuing with the strengthening of transatlantic economic relations, while supporting EU interests, in fields such as environmental, health and animal protection standards, food safety, cultural diversity, labour rights, consumers’ rights, financial services, public services or geographical indications, among others;

5. Emphasises that while the specific interests and sensitivities of both partners must be safeguarded in a balanced way, there are many areas where progress would be greatly beneficial, in particular regarding the removal of trade barriers, the introduction of measures to ensure better market access, including for investment, the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), the opening up of public procurement markets to ensure full reciprocity, the clarification, simplification and harmonisation of rules of origin, and the convergence on mutual recognition of regulatory standards, and not simply to adhering to a minimum required standard based on the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), but rather to strive in jointly to enhancing quality and cooperation when dealing with EU and US divergent standards; considers that such an intensification of economic relations would also allow for greater alignment of EU and US approaches towards addressing global economic challenges;

6. Stresses that the protection of geographical indications in bilateral agricultural trade will be a key issue in which significant progress is possible if both parties approach the matter in a constructive spirit of compromise; and considers protection of geographical indication as a key component that is directly related to an ambitious outcome regarding agricultural market access; supports the complete cancelation of export refunds in EU-US agricultural trade;

7. Recognises that even though the average tariffs on transatlantic trade in goods are comparatively low, the vast size of the EU-US commercial relationship means that the potential economic benefits would be far larger than any previous trade agreement and that there is a strong interest in both the EU and US business communities to eliminate remaining tariffs;

8. Takes the view, however, that a tariff-only free trade agreement would not be ambitious enough given that the largest economic gains are to be had in reducing the level of non-tariff barriers; supports the goal proposed by the HLWG of eliminating all duties on bilateral trade, with the objective of achieving a substantial elimination of tariffs upon entry into force of the agreement and a phasing out of all but the most sensitive tariffs in short time-frame, which could deliver significant gains, considering that EU-US bilateral trade to a large extent consists of intra-firm trade, and enhance the global competitiveness of the EU and US companies on the world stage;

9. Supports the view that, given already-existent low average tariffs, the key to unlocking the potential of the transatlantic relationship lies in the tackling of non-tariff barriers (NTBs), consisting mainly of customs procedures and behind-the-border regulatory restrictions; supports the ambition proposed by the HLWG to move progressively towards an even more integrated transatlantic marketplace;

303

10. Recognises that, while an agreement may not resolve all existing regulatory issues immediately, an institutionalisation of inter-compatibility between EU and US regulatory regimes would greatly facilitate transatlantic commerce while setting a bold global standard; reiterates as well the necessity of fully respecting the right of each side to regulate in a manner that ensures the protection of health, product safety and environment at the level that each side deems appropriate, as well as taking into historical account transatlantic divergence on issues such as the planting of genetically modified organisms and certain questions regarding animal welfare;

11. Recognises that overly burdensome regulatory standards serve as significant barriers to trade, and that additional growth could follow from addressing such barriers; emphasises that an alignment of EU and US regulatory standards should aim at reaching the highest common standard and, thereby, also improve the product safety for consumers; underlines the need to avoid creating new (even if unintended) barriers to trade and investment, especially in key emerging technologies and innovative sectors;

12. Supports efforts towards maximum upstream regulatory cooperation on standards, regulatory coherence and better alignment of standards, to further promote trade and growth that could improve efficiency and effectively address NTBs; reinforces the HLWG’s claim that any deal negotiated that would exclude regulatory cooperation and reform would be economically insignificant and politically untenable on both sides; stresses that regulatory compatibility is the foremost challenge of an ambitious transatlantic agreement, and recalls in this respect that regulatory differences and behind-the-border measures constitute a particular barrier to trade for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

13. Notes the importance of establishing data sharing protocols between the US Consumer Product Safety Commission and the European Commission in order to deal speedily and effectively with unsafe products placed on the market in either region;

14. Welcomes the initiatives taken in the framework of the TLD, to develop common standards in key areas of evolving technology including nanotechnology, electric vehicles, smart grids and e-health;

15. Calls on the stakeholders to make full use of the invitation launched by the HLWG to present, before the end of 2012, concrete proposals to address the impact on trade of the regulatory differences that unnecessarily impede trade; urges stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic to work together where possible to establish joint positions;

16. Takes the view that given the increasing importance of e-commerce, data protection standards play an essential role in protecting customers both in the EU and US; stresses that both the EU and the US need to address rising cyber security threats in a concerted manner and in an international context; points out that interoperability and standards in the domain of e-commerce, recognised at global scale, can help to promote more rapid innovation by lowering the risks and costs of new technologies;

17. Recognises that expanding trade in services, and taking steps to promote investment and procurement, should be a key component of any future transatlantic agreement, in order to bring additional benefits to both economies as well as create opportunities for collaboration on trade issues of common concern;

304

18. Notes that the service sector represents the predominant source of employment and GDP in both the EU and the US; supports the ambition of the HLWG to go beyond the level of services liberalisation achieved by the EU and the US in existing free trade agreements by addressing remaining long-standing barriers, including modes of services delivery, while also recognising the sensitive nature of certain sectors;

19. Underlines that the EU and the US maintain highly different definitions of public services and services of general economic interest, and recommends precise definitions of these terms; considers that these provisions should be rooted in the framework of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and remain consistent with the multilateral system; believes that increased regulatory coherence in services could also improve the integration of the single market in services within the EU and the US; calls for greater cooperation in the exchange of best practices in order to improve transatlantic public sector efficiency; recommends increased mutual dialog on the future of cloud computing, as well as the advances and production of electric vehicles;

20. Calls, in particular, for every effort to be made towards the creation of truly open and integrated transatlantic financial services and digital markets, given the positive effects this would have on both sides of the Atlantic in a reasonably short time frame; encourages the discussion of the inclusion of a financial services chapter, given the interconnected nature of our markets; highlights the importance of intensified exchanges and cooperation of financial services regulators on both side of the Atlantic in order to share best practices and identify regulatory gaps;

21. Is strongly convinced that it is necessary to tackle the issues of equivalence, convergence and extraterritoriality as those are critical to understanding how the EU and the US can face both the uncertainty of their own current economic and financial problems as well as facing global standard setting and competing models to financial regulation and supervision;

22. Calls for the restrictions on foreign ownership of US airlines to be reformed, and argues that the lack of reciprocity between EU and US rules in both maritime and air transport, as well as the ongoing imbalance between EU firms’ ability to undertake cabotage in the US market and US firms’ ability to do so here, is a hurdle that must be overcome in order to unlock the true potential of the transatlantic economic relationship;

23. Calls on both parties to open up further their respective public procurement markets to each other in a bid to achieve full reciprocity and transparency, and supports the goal proposed by the HLWG of enhancing business opportunities through substantially improved access to public procurement opportunities at all levels of government on the basis of national treatment;

24. Considers that the procurement chapter should not only address existing market access issues but also include a mechanism to prevent the development of new barriers; understands that US public procurement also falls under the jurisdiction of individual states; recalls the significance for transatlantic trade of open procurement markets that offer equal access to all suppliers, in particular to SMEs; reiterates the view that EU SMEs should have the same level of advantages and possibilities as regards public tenders in the US as they enjoy inside the EU, and recalls that the HLWG has specifically identified horizontal provisions on SMEs as an area with a high possibility of receiving transatlantic support; underlines the importance of both sides complying with the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA);

305

25. Affirms the importance of IPR to stimulate job and economic growth, and the significance, therefore, that high standards be maintained for IPR protection and enforcement, while promoting the free flow of information and access to the internet;

26. Notes the assessment of the HLWG that even though both the EU and US are committed to high level of IPR protection and enforcement, it might not be feasible, in eventual negotiations, to seek to reconcile across-the-board differences with regards to the IPR obligations typically included in EU and US trade agreements; underlines, however, that the approach proposed for negotiations should be ambitious, aiming at solving the areas of divergence, and at dealing with the IPR matters in a mutually satisfactory manner, while ensuring a satisfactory level of protection for economic operators; reiterates that both EU and US growth and job creation efforts rely on the ability to innovate and produce creatively, and, that being the case, that the transatlantic economy is threatened by counterfeiting and piracy; considers the new EU-US Information and Communication Technology principles as an encouragement for increased synergy;

27. Supports, in principle, the aim proposed by the HLWG also to develop new trade rules in a number of areas, as this could be of relevance to bilateral commerce as well as contribute to rule-making both in the context of third-country policies and trade agreements and at the multilateral level;

28. Notes that the EU has negotiated or is negotiating free trade agreements with the other two members of NAFTA, Mexico and Canada; asks, therefore, the Commission and its US counterparts to consider formulating a provision in the potential EU-US free trade agreement allowing for a future harmonisation of these agreements to form a region-to-region EU-NAFTA agreement;

29. Underlines its full commitment to the multilateral trading system, embodied in the WTO, which remains by far the best framework for achieving free and fair trade on a global basis, and which must remain the basis for exchanges in the 21st Century despite the emergence of a multi-polar world;

30. Takes the view, however, that due to the persistent deadlock with regard to the original architecture and objectives of the DDA, the debate on how to strengthen the WTO, with a view to making it more effective, and on how to prepare it for the upcoming challenges, must be resumed as soon as possible; believes, nevertheless, that strengthened bilateral relations aimed at the promotion of growth and employment, in the face of the current economic difficulties, are compatible with and supportive of future and ongoing multilateral discussions and negotiations, as they too are rules-based as well as open and transparent in nature;

31. Agrees that careful preparation is needed to ensure that such a negotiation for a comprehensive bilateral trade and investment agreement, if undertaken, would deliver concrete results and would be concluded in a timely manner; looks forward to the final report (including a recommendation on a decision as to the negotiations) of the HLWG; asks the Commission and the US Administration to present the final result of HLWG’s work at the 73rd meeting of the TLD by the end of 2012;

32. Calls for the HLWG to build on the experience and achievements of the TEC and underlines the need for close involvement of the relevant parliamentary committees; considers that the transatlantic dialogue, in order to be successful, needs to be further intensified at all levels,

306

and that high-level meetings, not only between the Commission and US Administration but also between members of relevant committees of Parliament and the US Congress, should be held on a more regular basis; considers that it would be a welcome development should the US Congress decide to follow the example of Parliament, which has, since January 2010, been represented in Washington through its Liaison Office;

33. Calls, following careful and thorough preparation and consultation, for negotiations to be launched in the first half of 2013, building on the present political momentum, and on the support of industry, to enable a swift and successful conclusion to the negotiations;

34. Requests all stakeholders representing the business communities, once these negotiations have been opened, to organise themselves in such a way as to provide maximum support, in a coordinated, broad-based manner, to underpin an open, transparent dialogue to make progress on the initiative; is convinced that dialogues with consumers as well as SMEs will be of particular relevance and should be opened and coordinated without delay to build momentum across all levels behind the negotiations;

35. Is committed to working closely with the Council, the Commission, the US Congress, the US Administration and the stakeholders to achieve the full economic potential of the transatlantic economic relationship in order to create new opportunities for businesses and workers on both sides of the Atlantic and strengthen EU and US leadership in the global economy;

36. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the US Congress and the US Trade Representative.

307

Inhaltsverzeichnis€¦ · Web viewPart II at the sitting of Tuesday 23 October 2012...

Documents

Transcript of Inhaltsverzeichnis€¦ · Web viewPart II at the sitting of Tuesday 23 October 2012...