2. Azerbaijan (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Azerbaijan.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Mr President, this is another occasion when we find ourselves looking into the situation in Azerbaijan. The democratic situation in that country is dramatic enough. However, this is a country that is a not insignificant partner within the European Union's Eastern Partnership.
Opposition parties and non-governmental organisations continue to denounce attacks on human rights and the political repression which is rife there, not to mention the corruption of the regime in power. The values of democracy and human rights form an integral part of the values of the European Union, in theory.
Should we not draw lessons from what is happening in what are called the Arab countries and not demand of our Eastern partners what we did not demand of some governments, notably those of Tunisia, Libya or Egypt? Should we not, Mr Andor, see to it that democracy can finally rule in those countries, that we have minimum requirements in the matter?
For my part, I find that the resolution we have before us is, at best, a resolution with as low a profile as it is possible to have. For this reason, we have dissociated ourselves from it and we shall make do with abstaining on the vote.
Charles Tannock
author. - Mr President, Azerbaijan is, regrettably, a one-party, semi-authoritarian state where political opposition to the dynastic rule of the Aliyev family is barely tolerated.
Last December's elections predictably delivered an overwhelming majority for Heydar Aliyev's New Azerbaijan Party. In response, the OSCE stated that the conduct of these elections overall was not sufficient to constitute meaningful progress in the democratic development of that country. The OSCE's report went on to say that freedom of expression was limited and that normal political discourse was almost impossible, partly because of tight constraints on the media.
Now we are hearing new reports about the targeting of opposition parties and journalists. This is nothing new, but it is good from time to time in this House to remind ourselves of the true nature of the Aliyev regime. After all, this is a country which, like all EU countries, enjoys membership of the Council of Europe and is part of our eastern EU partnership.
Supposedly, Azerbaijan is committed to democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The truth is quite different. Azerbaijan spends countless petro-dollars trying to convince outsiders of the benign nature of the regime but I, for one, am not fully taken in.
Cristian Dan Preda
Mr President, I will begin with some encouraging news. I am referring specifically to the release of the two bloggers, Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli, whom we have discussed in this Chamber. Otherwise, however, the situation is more than worrying in Azerbaijan. We are hearing about the harassment of journalists and the intimidation of human rights activists, who are facing criminal charges. In addition, there were 200 arrests made in the wake of the recent protests in Baku in March and April. All these incidents raise serious question marks with us, especially as we must not forget that Azerbaijan has signed up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The Azeri authorities have seemingly failed to understand that dialogue needs to be established between them and civil society, and not pressure being exerted by the authorities on society. Nevertheless, I hope that ultimately, we can establish cooperation within the Eastern Partnership and in the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Mr President, while we welcome the release from prison of Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli, the good news about Azerbaijan ends about there. The European Parliament is very concerned about the massive crackdown on freedom of expression and assembly carried out in Azerbaijan following the peaceful protest against the government in March and April of this year. Young people, civil society activists, media professionals and opposition politicians are being harassed and intimidated. Some demonstrators have been sentenced in mass trials which took place late at night and while people did not have access to a lawyer. Most of these lawyers, in turn, were not informed of the locations where the trials were being held. The Human Rights House of Azerbaijan has been closed down by order of the Ministry of Justice.
This climate of fear and intimidation and the breaches of human rights must end. The Azerbaijani Government is losing its credibility by breaching conventions it has itself signed up to, such as the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights. We want President Aliyev to keep his word. Europe also loses credibility if we do not act upon these breaches. They should have real consequences for the relations between the EU and Azerbaijan.
Ulrike Lunacek
Mr President, a few days ago, we celebrated the grand opening of Euronest at the European Parliament in Brussels. Azerbaijan is a founding member of that assembly and as such, has committed itself to democracy, human rights, the rule of law and freedom of assembly and the media. This is also a fundamental element of the negotiations on an association agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan that have been taking place since July 2010.
In light of this, it is really quite staggering how the Azerbaijani Government has behaved towards peacefully demonstrating people over the last two months. Here we have young people - who organised themselves via social networks like Facebook - arrested and sentenced to up to two and a half years imprisonment because they peacefully demonstrated under the slogan 'drug abuse'. Others are threatened with a similar fate. At least 30 people, who likewise protested peacefully, have been sentenced to five to eight days of imprisonment without being able to contact their legal representatives in a cloak and dagger operation that excludes the public.
Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, that is unacceptable! In a joint resolution of the five largest groups in Parliament, we are calling for all these people to be released immediately and for the rule of law, freedom of expression and of the media to actually be ensured so that, as President Aliyev assured us years ago - in 2005 - 'No journalist is persecuted in Azerbaijan'. He must finally keep these promises.
I really hope that, by the time of the inter-parliamentary assembly scheduled for June, we will succeed in having all these people released, including newspaper editor Eynulla Fatullayev, and that the government and the governing parties finally keep to their promises. Otherwise, there must be consequences.
Eduard Kukan
Mr President, the democracy and human rights situation in Azerbaijan is raising legitimate concerns. These include freedom of expression, media freedom, freedom of association and many other areas. We are monitoring incidents involving arrests and political pressure on democratic activists, journalists and the political opposition. Azerbaijan and other countries in the region need to get a clear signal that violations of human and civil rights cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. If they want to be partner countries of the EU, they must respect its values.
The debate on violations of human rights and democratic standards should therefore cover the entire region of the South Caucasus. In this context, I would also like to draw attention to the re-escalation of tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. This situation now represents a security risk for the entire region. It is therefore important for this reason as well to adopt the resolution now. The Union should take a more active and more responsible approach, not only in Azerbaijan, but also in the whole region. We should learn from the experience of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, and prevent a repeat of similar tragedies.
Kristian Vigenin
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, it is true that the situation in Azerbaijan is difficult, and we have reasons for concern. Here, I would specially mention the case of Mr Hajiyev. I think the authorities should understand that peaceful demonstrations are a natural part of political life in any democratic country and that the pluralism of opinions and political beliefs is a fundamental part of a democratic society.
On the other hand, I must say that it is rather unfortunate that we have put the urgent issues of Azerbaijan and Belarus one after the other - one week after Azerbaijan became - and was welcomed as - a founder of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly together with us, the European Parliament. We need engagement both with the authorities and with civil society, and we have to do more, in addition to adopting urgent measures and resolutions.
The Eastern Partnership and the Euronest Assembly are a good platform for such an engagement, and I feel that there is a new wind coming from Azerbaijan, a renewed wish for political dialogue. The PCC, which is going in June to Azerbaijan, should use this opportunity to raise the human rights issue but also to establish a more consistent dialogue with the country.
Graham Watson
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I venture to suggest that were Azerbaijan known as Azeria, as with Georgia and Armenia, European citizens' concern for democratic standards there would be higher.
However, my group cannot share Mr Vigenin's view. The media in Azerbaijan is not free. Its elections are not fair. Its people are subject to arbitrary and sometimes violent treatment by officials. Peaceful demonstrations in recent weeks have met with repression more common to an Arab than to a European country, from an 18-year-old regime which has slowly stifled hope of progress. This country's continued participation in the European Neighbourhood Policy must be made conditional on democratic reforms rather than on its willingness to supply oil for the Nabucco pipeline.
Heidi Hautala
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law are an integral part of the new association agreement which is currently being negotiated between Azerbaijan and the European Union.
Without respect for these principles, it is impossible to see how Azerbaijan can have a common future with its European partners. Let me also join those colleagues who point out that we need to be very clear and objective when we talk to our partners in the Eastern Partnership countries. We should not believe that we can get away with simply bashing Belarus, because there are severe problems in Azerbaijan and in several other Eastern Partnership countries, and I hope that the forthcoming study commissioned by the Subcommittee on Human Rights will give some guidance on how we should talk to these countries about their human rights situation.
Jaroslav Paška
Mr President, Azerbaijan is one of the special partners of the EU and a founding member of the Euronest grouping, and therefore benefits considerably from privileged relations with the EU.
As a country with such an exceptional status, however, it has promised, in the signing of mutual agreements as a partner of the EU, to uphold the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which are fundamental preconditions for such cooperation. The unjustified arrests of journalists, representatives of youth organisations and civil activists, the banning of peaceful protests and the use of physical force against protestors are therefore unacceptable.
I expect that the High Representative and Vice President of the Commission, Baroness Ashton, as well as the Commission itself, will convey and represent to the Azerbaijani Government our disquiet over the suppression of democracy in the country, and demand immediate corrective action. By adopting the drafted resolution, we will give both the Commission and the High Representative the necessary mandate for this.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, it is somehow grotesque that our Euronest partners, Azerbaijan and Belarus, are both being discussed in succession here as urgent human rights cases. Surely the partnership ought to require a respect for European values.
According to the human rights organisation, Amnesty International, the Azerbaijani authorities are trying to stifle critical voices with a view to preventing wider protests, the like of which have been seen in the Arab world in recent months. In the past few weeks, the Azerbaijani police have broken up several demonstrations in the country and have also arrested representatives of the opposition on trumpedup charges, frequently, the possession of drugs.
The Savalan case and the cases of demonstrators arrested recently show how basic rights in Azerbaijan remain weak and how far the authorities are prepared to silence dissidents.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, the situation in Azerbaijan is very disappointing. Here is a country that has not really moved forward in terms of political rights since the break-up of the Soviet Union. There are just too many examples of lack of freedom - freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are fundamental to any properly functioning democracy - as well as evidence of the torture of prisoners, court cases where illegally acquired evidence is always admitted, and so on.
Because we have a close relationship with this country, we certainly have to engage in dialogue, but my position is closer to Mr Watson's thinking: that we need to take a tough hand as well, because if you go 'softly, softly' on a continuous basis, you will get nowhere. So I would hope, yes, for dialogue and, yes, for engagement, but we have to up the ante in terms of making demands for freedom: freedom of expression, freedom of speech and, above all, freedom of the press.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are universal fundamental rights and the cornerstones of a democratic society. It is sad that harassment, intimidation and arrests are used as a means of suppressing the diversity of civil society.
Azerbaijan is party to the European Convention on Human Rights and a member of the Council of Europe, and it has a responsibility to safeguard its citizens' human rights and respect them. Bloggers, journalists and civil society activists are denied freedom of speech in Azerbaijan and peaceful protests are prevented. Young people are prevented from using new communications technology and social media, and are even punished if they do use them.
This is ironical, because the state would definitely benefit from an active and diverse civil society. Azerbaijan should be supported in its democratic and human rights development within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership.
Vytautas Landsbergis
Mr President, the resolution on Azerbaijan expresses our concern about eventual North African echoes in this, a European partnership country.
The leadership there should avoid, in its approaches to the opposition and peaceful protestors, any similarity with the regimes in North Africa, Russia or Belarus. That suggestion and warning can be read in the document before us, certain points of which could express that criticism with more clarity.
The wording on the worsening human rights situation and the increased number of incidents should be preceded by the word 'recently', as this is not about general developments over the years going from bad to worse. On the contrary, until the spring events, Azerbaijan was making relatively good progress and was not listed by Human Rights Watch among such poorly-viewed states as China, Iraq, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan. As it was not mentioned, Azerbaijan looked better, but now we need a little more balance.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă
(RO) Mr President, not only as an active partner of the European Union within the European Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership, but also as a founding member of Euronest, Azerbaijan must fulfil the commitments it has made to the European Union. This includes having respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as for the basic freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international treaties to which Azerbaijan is party. A country aspiring to become a globally recognised democracy cannot operate without allowing its citizens to demonstrate peacefully, especially young people. It is not normal either to ban them from taking their exams just because they hold different political opinions to those of the country's current leaders.
We European partners would like to see in Azerbaijan an ongoing dialogue with civil society, a press which enjoys freedom of expression and can report without any political pressure so as to provide the public with correct information, as well as free, uncensored access to the Internet to facilitate communication between Azerbaijan and Europe.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
(LT) Mr President, there are two faces to modern Azerbaijan. On the one hand, Azerbaijan demonstrates impressive economic growth, which highlights the huge amount of oil, progress in negotiations with the European Union on an association agreement and participation in the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly. On the other hand, there are arrests, press restrictions, in other words, a situation that is dangerously reminiscent of the one in Belarus, which my fellow Members spoke about. I believe that the authorities in Baku must resolve to listen to public opinion, because sitting on the fence is not an option, and the European Union, with all its instruments, should help it choose the right direction.
László Andor
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, developments in Azerbaijan regarding democracy and human rights continue to be a matter of serious concern to all of us. Over the last few years, we have noted a worrying trend of increasing restrictions in this domain. Parliamentary elections held on 7 November 2010 were not sufficient to constitute meaningful progress in the democratic development of that country.
There are other areas where we believe that Azerbaijan needs to improve its record of meeting fully its Council of Europe and OSCE commitments. First of all, media freedom: overall, there is a lack of media pluralism. There are also reports of harassment of, and violence against, journalists, as well as questionable judicial proceedings against media representatives. Individual cases in this field remain a concern.
Freedom of assembly is another area where I am deeply worried. The recent months have witnessed several severe actions taken by the authorities vis-à-vis organised protests, as well as attempts to organise protests inspired by the Arab Spring revolutions. The detention of activists and other repressive measures against protesters are deeply deplorable.
The European Union has a responsibility to convey clear messages on the importance of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law. Such messages were passed on by President Barroso himself during his visit to Baku in January, and will be high on our agenda for future visits.
Human rights and democracy are cornerstones in our cooperation with Azerbaijan under the existing partnership and cooperation agreement. Last year, we established a new Subcommittee on Justice, Freedom, Security and Human Rights and Democracy. Democracy and human rights are also a central theme in our negotiations on a new association agreement.
I welcome the willingness of Azerbaijan to discuss these methods. I also welcome the role the European Parliament plays in advocating democratic values to the partners in Azerbaijan, including through its work in the EU-Azerbaijan Cooperation Committee.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Monica Luisa Macovei
Anyone in Azerbaijan criticising the government is silenced. The European Parliament resolution and reports from human rights organisations highlight serious human rights violations. One such violation which I have drawn the Council's attention to in a written question concerns the journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, who is still being held in detention, even though a decision was issued by the European Court of Human Rights for him to be released. I pointed this out then and I now urge the removal from the Criminal Code of the provisions concerning defamation, slander and insult (Art. 147-148). A recent report about Azerbaijan from Transparency International indicates that the government is not taking measures to combat corruption and that the independence of the judiciary is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the authorities responded to the recent protests which took place on 11 March and 2 April with arrests and harassment. Democracy is based on people's freely expressed desire. I call on the Council and Commission to urge the authorities in Azerbaijan to respect human rights, especially those relating to the freedom of expression and peaceful demonstration, as well as to take concrete measures to combat corruption and reform the justice system. The European Union must support all those who risk their lives and freedom in this country for the values which we share.
Fiorello Provera
Azerbaijan actively participates in the European Neighbourhood Policy, is one of the EU's six Eastern partners, and is among the founders of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly. The core values of these three initiatives are respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These initiatives are intended to foster a continuous political dialogue that can deepen ties between member countries and enable Europe to accompany them along the path to reform. We believe that the instrument of the emergency resolution may be inadequate or even counterproductive to the achievement of the desired goal, namely, Azerbaijan steadily progressing towards its objectives of full and modern democracy. The institutions set up under the agreements reached at interparliamentary and intergovernmental level are intended to achieve these ends; these are the right place to demand explanations for possible infringements of rights and effectively encourage good behaviour and democratic reforms.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
Once again, we are calling attention to the question of free speech and freedom of the press and to the general policy of treating journalists in Azerbaijan. Reports from a variety of sources indicate that the situation of journalists and every kind of political activist in Azerbaijan is becoming increasingly difficult. As far back as 2005, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, pledged that all the rights of journalists would be respected and that they would be able to count on help in the event of any kind of danger. The facts reveal, however, that those words are just an empty promise.
As someone who, for many years, worked as a journalist and has a thorough knowledge of the job, this matter is of particular importance to me. In Azerbaijan, journalists are constantly hindered from fulfilling their basic role - the reliable and credible provision of information. It is unacceptable that journalists are carrying out their work under the threat of arrests and body searches. The Azerbaijani authorities have to realise that the activity of free and independent media is a clear signal to the international community that a country is a credible partner on the world stage.
The message given by the European Parliament should be clear - the benefits of economic cooperation with the European Union must not obscure expectations regarding the need to move towards European standards of respect for fundamental human rights, in particular, free speech and freedom of the press, which are a pillar of democracy and without which it is impossible for a modern democratic society to exist.


Welcome
President
I should like to welcome a delegation from the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, led by Mr Carlos Alberto Leréia, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and National Defence, who have taken their seats in the gallery.
(Applause)
(Banners were displayed in the gallery)
Elmar Brok
Mr President, is it possible to find out whether Members of this House were responsible for the incident upstairs there?
President
I think that if anyone has any information which might help the European Parliament to establish who was responsible for their entry, that is a very useful suggestion. Perhaps you would like to communicate with the President's Office.
I am going to continue.
They are attending the first European Parliament-Brazil interparliamentary meeting, which is a faithful reflection of the regular structured dialogue between Members of the European Parliament and the Brazilian National Congress, as foreseen in the joint action plan of the EU-Brazil strategic partnership. It will also provide a parliamentary forum for debating the state of play and prospects for the negotiations of the EU-Mercosur association agreement, with a view to guaranteeing the balanced and far-reaching nature of such an agreement.
You are very welcome.


Relations between EU and Switzerland (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission statement on relations between the European Union and Switzerland.
Joaquín Almunia
Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, I am going to read the Commission statement on relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and although you and I speak the same language, I shall do so in English.
Mr President, the Commission is pleased that this item has been put on the agenda because it is now more than two years since we last discussed Switzerland. It was in 2004, on the occasion of the conclusion of the 10 new bilateral agreements. Let me start, therefore, with a general remark.
The bilateral and multilateral relations that link the EU and Switzerland are very good. Switzerland is a highly valued partner for the EU in many areas. Our bilateral relations are based on a solid foundation of around 20 important and over 100 smaller sector-specific agreements. These agreements range from free trade in goods and the free movement of persons to Swiss participation in our research and Schengen cooperation. Any existing differences should not have an inordinate impact on our relations.
In February, the Commission adopted a state aid decision on Swiss cantonal tax favours for certain types of companies, in particular holding companies. This decision has received much media attention in Switzerland and has been dramatised, by some, into a major conflict.
Legally, the Commission has no doubts that the cantonal tax schemes qualify as subsidies, because these tax regimes offer unfair tax advantages to companies established in Switzerland for profits generated in the European Union. Income generated in Switzerland is taxed higher than profits made in the EU. This unequal treatment is at the heart of the state aid problem. The rules in question are liable to distort competition and may affect trade between Switzerland and the EU. All criteria of Article 23 of the agreement of 1972, the provision which declares such state aid incompatible with the proper functioning of the agreement, are therefore fulfilled.
Politically, too, it seems hard to accept that a neighbouring country that enjoys privileged access to our internal market and takes part in a large number of our programmes and other activities should grant such tax favours. The benefiting companies are often set up with the sole aim of avoiding the taxation of profits in our Member States. I would like to point out that tax schemes of this kind or similar are not allowed inside the EU, pursuant to the state aid rules set out in the EC Treaty. In the past, the Commission has adopted decisions against them. We are not against tax competition, which also takes place among the Member States, but it must be fair.
The Commission wants to find a mutually acceptable solution. Therefore, we also asked the Council in February for a mandate to start negotiations with Switzerland on this topic. Member States support the Commission in this respect, and such a mandate is currently being prepared in the Council. I am also counting very much on Parliament's support in this matter. We proceed from the belief that we will find a solution for this problem, just as we have always found solutions for problems in our relations with Switzerland in the past.
On a different matter of importance, I would like to express the Commission's expectation that Switzerland will, hopefully, soon be ready to negotiate the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons. If Switzerland were to exclude the citizens of two Member States from this very important agreement, it would be unacceptable for legal, institutional and political reasons.
Bulgaria and Romania should also receive a financial contribution from Switzerland for the reduction of economic and social disparities, on the same terms as the other 10 new Member States.
In view of the Swiss position on EU accession and the European Economic Area, there is currently no alternative to further strengthening of bilateral relations. With that in mind, the Commission is prepared to look into the Swiss proposal for the negotiation of a general framework agreement, provided that it brings an added value to our relations, for instance with regard to the updating of existing agreements in line with the evolving Community acquis.
Andreas Schwab
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the statements made today by Commissioner Almunia. I believe that these statements also largely meet with the consent of my group. The relationship between the European Union and Switzerland has been a special one since time immemorial. Commissioner Almunia touched on the various agreements.
In this respect, our partnership with Switzerland is characterised by particularly close cooperation but which has not, as yet, ended up with Switzerland becoming a member of the European Union. Nevertheless, Switzerland is an extremely important trading partner as well as being a friend and neighbour. I find this particularly congenial since my electoral district directly borders Switzerland. I would therefore like to appeal to all sides not to jeopardise these good neighbourly relations by means of stubbornness or excessive demands placed on one side or the other.
The tax dispute has already been touched on. The topic of Switzerland would certainly also be cause for a comprehensive discussion here in Parliament. Today, however, as has been described by Commissioner Almunia, we are obviously concerned with the subject of fiscal practices. On this theme, I would like to say that, unlike our colleagues from Great Britain, for instance, and representations to the contrary coming out of Switzerland, we are of the opinion that this issue does not involve intervention in a country's right to levy taxes, but is more an issue of whether enterprises which belong to the European single market, and which may enjoy the advantages afforded by this single market, are receiving unjustified subsidies. We are talking about the principle of equal treatment and the abolition of hidden subsidies. In this respect, the approach adopted by the Commission, that the Swiss have to apply some finishing touches here, is the correct one, even if it may have been more prudent to begin with negotiations instead of a procedure. The statement that it is a matter for the canton is neither applicable nor effective in my opinion because what we are talking about are hidden subsidies which must be abolished.
For its part, the EU must clarify the fact that while it naturally respects Switzerland's sovereignty on tax matters, the EU's basic principles, which Swiss enterprises also benefit from, must apply to all enterprises within the internal market.
Finally, I would like to point out that we must find a solution to this problem in the interests of European enterprises, as well as its citizens, to which both parties have contributed. That is why I am calling on both the Commission and our Swiss neighbours.
Pervenche Berès
Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome your statement, because you have taken note of what we have been saying for some time now, namely that the practice that is being developed in certain Swiss cantons - without mentioning the main ones of Zug, Vaud and Schwyz - constitutes a violation of the 1972 agreement on forms of State aid that contradict the rules of fair competition and that affect the nature of trade between the European Union and Switzerland. The fact is that Switzerland, as a friend of the European Union, benefits from the same conditions of access to the EU internal market as any Member State. You cannot have your cake and eat it, meaning, in this case, that you cannot have both the internal market and exceptions for certain Swiss cantons.
It is not a question here of referring to this or that media figure among natural persons, but indeed of referring to substantial sums that are at stake due to the practices being developed by certain legal persons. Therefore, once a problem has been identified between friends, it should be dealt with. This is what you are proposing to do. You will have my group's full support in this matter, and I am delighted that other groups in this House share this approach.
As far as Switzerland is concerned, we are told that Swiss internal affairs are being interfered with. However, in an international trade environment, freedom is not unilateral. Account must be taken of others' circumstances, and the freedom of one party stops where that of the other begins. I believe that, when it comes to our excellent relations with Switzerland - and President Barroso reiterated this when he was in Bern the other day - this is how we must act.
At times, Switzerland has been able to divide and rule among Europeans, and everyone will recall the circumstances in which, after the Feira conclusions had come out and we wanted to adopt the Directive on the taxation of savings within the Union, some people used Switzerland to divide us. I am delighted that the conditions for negotiating the mandate granted to the Commission will clearly enable the Member States to speak with one voice, while showing respect for Swiss sovereignty. That is a very good sign, in my view.
To conclude, I should like simply to make an obvious point: when one considers the logic of the Swiss taxation system, the idea that a taxation system should take account of external costs is absolutely integral to the Swiss thinking on taxation. To put it plainly, certain Swiss practices confirm the fact that, from the moment that production does not take place on Swiss soil, the cost of infrastructure or of employing qualified workers does not have to be incorporated in the taxation system. We must - at the very least in terms of trade with the European Union - highlight the following situation: as the taxation system developed in certain Swiss cantons currently stands in relation to that of the EU Member States, we are losing revenue, since these production activities are being developed on our territory and the tax on the capital gains generated in this way is being channelled into Switzerland to avoid the need to provide any funding for these external costs. I wish you luck in the negotiations.
Diana Wallis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner for his statement.
Here in Parliament we have long wanted to discuss the whole of our relationship with Switzerland and to celebrate Swiss success in three successive referendums on EU issues - referendums that would scarcely have passed in many of our Member States. Although Switzerland is not a Member State, Swiss people are informed Europeans.
We wanted to discuss the interesting government report on European policy last autumn to recognise that, yes, the Swiss wish at present to pursue their own national interests outside membership, but also perhaps to counter some misconceptions about what might be on offer here. In my view it amounts, as the Commissioner has said, to building on the bilaterals and perhaps a framework agreement that simplifies the administrative load on both sides. However, what some of us would call 'membership-light' is not on offer, and that is where the current difficulties over cantonal tax might stem from.
Either you are a member of the European Union or you are not. Switzerland is not, and both sides do well to recall that. Switzerland does not enjoy the benefits of membership, nor is that country subject to all of the obligations. That is the difficulty of such an atypical, variable geometry: it will forever throw up problems and sources of irritation. However, those problems should be solved with goodwill.
Let us take the tax issue head on. If what the Commission really wants from Switzerland - which I suspect to be the case - is to extend the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation, then let us talk about that. Even between Member States it is a voluntary code. I have no doubt that there are offshore taxation arrangements in a Member State I know only too well that would not bear close scrutiny, yet I do not see such activity from the Commission in that direction.
We need a discussion as benefits the relationship between the EU and our nearest geographic neighbour in the heart of Europe, a country providing our second largest export market and an inspiration to us and many in terms of its democratic structures and internationalism. Instead, we tell the Swiss that their cantonal tax systems are 'predatory'. That is a strong and unpleasant word. If they are indeed predatory, I would expect to see a line of obvious cases of actual harm to Community trade: practical examples that could be cited and demonstrated as having this predatory effect. I have seen none mentioned. Indeed, the Commission relies instead on an argument that it does not have to demonstrate but merely show that the structures could have this effect. However, there are no actual examples and I wonder whether that is because, under examination, they would not stand up against the strained argument that is put forward - an argument against a non-member state, based on an old free trade agreement, designed primarily to deal with the trade in goods.
Let us look at it in another way. Perhaps my voters in Yorkshire might wonder why I spend so much time on Switzerland. However, if my northerly region of England had enjoyed over the years the level of fiscal autonomy vis-à-vis London that Swiss cantons have in their country, maybe we would not have been such a drain on EU Structural Funds.
Switzerland contributes financially to our enlargement process with popular consent. This is a deep and complicated relationship, one that over the years I have found exasperating and frustrating, but never, ever dull! We are often told to be nice to the Swiss before a referendum. We are asked continuously what we will do if they vote 'no'. The answer is that the choice is always that of the Swiss people, but if they wish to work with us, we have to work with them in a respectful and proper way. The best I would like to see is that one day there are Swiss ministers in the Council, a Swiss Commissioner and Swiss colleagues here with us to debate these issues, not us doing so at second remove.
Mario Borghezio
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on relations between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation provides us with an interesting and timely opportunity to reflect briefly on what we can learn from the ancient democracy of the small, yet historically important federal republic of Switzerland.
If the Swiss federal tax system were well known to the taxpayers of the EU Member States, it would be a model to be imitated - as indeed it is - especially with a view to protecting economic freedom.
I would remind the Member States' taxpayers that Swiss legislation is based on important principles, such as the principle of legal equality, the principle of economic freedom and, above all, the principle of the guarantee to property.
The principle of legal equality imposes the duty to tax according to economic capacity. Thanks to constitutional provisions, the principle of economic freedom forbids the collection of certain taxes on trade that would be prohibitive in the context of trade policy. Lastly, the important principle of the guarantee to property, enshrined in Article 26 of the Federal Constitution, forbids the imposition of tax when it takes the form of expropriation; thus the guarantee to property constitutes a limit to taxation.
That is what needs to be learnt by those Member States which, like Italy, still oppress taxpayers with their tax legislation and tax burden, which in Italy exceeds 40%. From this great historical experience, we need to learn the principles of economic freedom contained in the Swiss Constitution. Those of us from Padania have the good fortune to be the next-door neighbours of those free people of Switzerland.
Lastly, let us also think about the principle of freedom of belief, on the basis of which people are not obliged to contribute taxes to pay for the costs of religion if they do not belong to that religion, and also the fundamental right to express one's wishes directly through the referendum on taxes. It is time to do away with the Member States' fiscal dictatorship over taxpayers! Let the people have their say on taxes!
Andreas Mölzer
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when Swiss citizens rejected entry to the European Economic Area back in 1992, no one would have been able to imagine today's emerging developments. On the one hand, both the EU and Switzerland are benefiting from cooperation and bilateral agreements, for instance, in connection with security and asylum. On the other, we have relentless negotiations, demands and even blackmailing, for example, in connection with the extended freedom of movement of persons and the taxation of savings income, or currently in connection with company taxation as regards which, it is the intention to use derogations relating to rail transit, which are so important as far as Switzerland is concerned, as a means of exerting pressure.
When Switzerland tightened its Asylum Act many years ago, the European Union did not hold back with its criticism. This was designed to clamp down on the 75% of applications for asylum which were incorrectly submitted every year, which is actually what happened. This about-turn by Switzerland, which has traditionally been so welcoming to visitors, forced those persons within our Union who dream of multiculturalism to reconsider, and the Union actually had to make an example of this Swiss Asylum Act.
Now is the time for us to seek solutions together to common problems which we face in the tax sector, as well as with regard to migration and integration. Above all, we should use Switzerland as an example in terms of direct democracy, for only if EU citizens are once again under the impression that their intentions are being taken seriously, that they can have their say in matters, might we then be able to extricate ourselves from the crisis currently facing the EU.
The disputes surrounding the EU Constitution and additional EU enlargement offer adequate opportunity to use Switzerland as an example.
James Nicholson
Mr President, the European Union has many bilateral agreements with Switzerland. These have seen the prospering of both the Swiss and Member States of the European Union. The bilateral agreements should be recognised by all representatives of a joint and shared desire for prosperity. There are further indicators that show the things we share and the direction we are heading: amongst other things, Switzerland is the second-largest trading partner of the European Union after the United States. 900 000 EU citizens live and work in Switzerland, while many more travel between these borders on a regular basis. However, the present disagreement between the Commission and the Swiss Government is disconcerting and should be addressed swiftly.
I realise that the issue of double taxation which the EU and Switzerland are facing is no small one, but I would not like to see threats made in the preliminary rounds of negotiations, or in later rounds for that matter. The issue of double taxation does not offer an easy way to investment, jobs and revenue for the Swiss cantons that allow the double standards. The Council and Commission and Parliament should do its utmost to protect the interests of the Member States.
I wish you well in your negotiations and look forward to a positive outcome.
Aloyzas Sakalas
(LT) First of all, I would like to thank Commissioner Almunia for the information he has presented about relations between the European Union and Switzerland.
However, I would like to hear what Mr Almunia has to say about the ultimate political goal of these relations. In other words, is the development of closer relations between the European Union and Switzerland undertaken with an eye to membership of Switzerland in the European Union at a future date; if so, when can we expect this, and what must Switzerland and the European Union do before then? If the development of closer relations is not aimed at Switzerland's membership, but is aimed instead at a privileged partnership for Switzerland with the European Union, then what should be the principles of such a partnership?
I do not think that bilateral agreements definitively solve the problem of Switzerland's political future; therefore, I would like to hear from Mr Almunia something similar to a road map, from which one would be able to see the direction of the Commission's work in developing the European Union's relations with Switzerland. From the material presented it is hard for me to say whether the Commission has such a road map, or whether temporary agreements are a substitute for it.
My proposal would be as follows: it is necessary to produce a road map of the development of relations between the European Union and Switzerland, the ultimate goal of which would be either Switzerland's membership in the EU, or its privileged partnership in terms of the yet-to-be approved Constitutional agreement. In order to choose either solution, it is essential to know the Swiss people's own opinion about the prospects for their country.
Until we solve this political problem, we will continue to make various agreements, and both parties to the negotiations will try to demand more favourable conditions for themselves at the expense of the other party.
As I study the existing and planned agreements, I have serious doubts as to whether we might just be making greater demands on Switzerland, which is still not a member of the European Union, than on the European Union Member States themselves. In my opinion, the opposite should be the case.
I hope that Commissioner Almunia might disperse my stated doubts by responding to the issues I have raised.
Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
(PL) Mr President, Switzerland is viewed as a historic example of European integration by many people. We need only to think of Jean Jacques Rousseau or Johannes von Müller. However, it seems to remain an island, a Sonderfall, beyond the united Europe which surrounds it on all sides.
Let us remember that, in a referendum held in 1992, 50.3% of Swiss citizens themselves voted against their country joining the European Economic Area. I do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of the Confederation in any way. In highlighting the good cooperation between Switzerland and the European Union in almost all areas, I hope that the right solution can also quickly be found in terms of taxation. This is extremely important in order to achieve transparency in terms of our cooperation.
On behalf of the new Member States, including my own country, I would specifically like to welcome the outcome of the referendum held on 26 November 2006, which accepted the establishment of a Swiss Financial Instrument to the tune of one billion francs. For their part, these countries have flung open their doors to Swiss capital investments. In Poland, for example, imports from Switzerland rose by 20% during this period, while exports increased by only 5% less. I am sure that Swiss funds will be used sensibly for innovative purposes, including scientific research, providing support for small and medium-sized companies, as well as protecting the environment and fostering regional development.
Finally, I would like to add that Switzerland has a particularly positive image in the European Union. According to my data, around 72% of Europeans would be happy to welcome the Swiss Confederation into our common European home. Perhaps it would be wise to make the most of this positive attitude.
Daniel Hannan
Mr President, why are the Swiss doing so much better than us? Why is the Helvetic Confederation richer, more content, more orderly and better administered than the European Union? Allow me to suggest a reason. Switzerland is founded on what one might call the 'Jeffersonian principle': the notion that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect. The European Union, by contrast, is founded on the converse principle. The very first line of the very first article of the Treaty of Rome commits us to an ever-closer union. Whereas power in Switzerland is dispersed, power in the EU is concentrated, and from that one structural flaw come most of our present discontents: the unintended consequences of our directives and regulations, the inflexibility of our policies, the sense that the government has become remote from the governed, the determination of our national electorates to vote 'no' to Brussels at every opportunity.
Why then do we keep bullying and hectoring the Swiss over their refusal to join us? Why do we attack their success in keeping their cantonal taxes down? Why do we encourage that minority of Swiss legislators who see EU membership precisely as a way of sidestepping their voters and escaping their system of direct democracy? Is it that we envy our neighbours their success or is it that we fear that our own citizens will be encouraged by their example to demand independence for their own states?
Let me propose an alternative approach. Instead of seeking to drag Switzerland into our Union, why do our Member States not instead apply to become cantons of their confederation? They are, after all, getting something right, these Switzers!
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, there are many referenda in Switzerland and this is one of the reasons why I would not want to be a canton in even such a pleasant country. Switzerland is a wealthy country, which does not have to be a member of the Union and, at the moment, does not wish to join the Union. At the same time, it is a good, strategic partner for the European Union. When one has such a partner, Commissioner, one negotiates and discusses, rather than initiating proceedings. I agree here with my colleague from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. As a Polish MEP, the case of Switzerland reminds me of the unfortunate and, until now, unsuccessful attempts of certain German and French politicians, such as Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, to unify taxation in the European Union, which would de facto lead to an increase in tax in my country. There will be no consent to this move. I am therefore not surprised that the Swiss now complain about Brussels interfering in the internal affairs of their country. This whole matter shows that the Union should take a look at itself. It should reform its own economy in such a way as to make it truly competitive, without resorting to proceedings, penalties and demands addressed to third countries or its own members.
Joaquín Almunia
Mr President, allow me just a few words.
Firstly, I wish to insist that the Commission considers relations between the EU and Switzerland to be very good. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner had the opportunity to meet the President of the Helvetic Confederation on 3 April. They discussed these very good relations, which do not exclude some legal problems, which can be likened to those which exist among the EU Member States.
Every time the Commission considers that the Treaties or Community legal provisions are not fully respected, as guardian of the Treaties, it is obliged to react. This has been the case with the issue under discussion: the tax decisions adopted in some cantons of the Helvetic Confederation. It is not about tax competition. It is about the enforcement of the rules that were adopted in our Agreement with Switzerland of 1972. It is not about tax competition but state aid. The Commission very often opens this kind of procedure on the grounds of failure to enforce state aid rules in the Member States, and it is a very important issue.
I do not know whether you are aware that over 20 000 letter-box companies have been established in Switzerland with the sole purpose of avoiding taxation in the European Union Member States. We have been discussing this issue with the Swiss authorities since 2005. We have not found a solution other than to open this procedure. We are asking the Council for a mandate to negotiate with the Swiss authorities to reach a solution to this conflict. I hope that, in the coming weeks, the Council will give us this mandate with the backing of a very large majority of the Member States. I hope that during the negotiations, these issues, which constitute sizeable problems for thousands of European companies, will be resolved.
President
That concludes this item.


3. Situation in Belarus (
Before the vote on paragraph 2:
Justas Vincas Paleckis
Mr President, we suggest one important and short addition to paragraph 2: 'is particularly concerned about the health of Mikalay Statkevich, who has been on hunger strike for the last 31 days'.
Jacek Protasiewicz
Mr President, this is a very similar amendment to the one by Justas Paleckis. Since the resolution is not only a political statement by Parliament, but also offers moral support for those who are jailed, we would like to propose the inclusion in our resolution of the names of four former presidential candidates who are still in the custody of the KGB.
They are Vladimir Nekliayev, Andrei Sannikov, Nikolai Statkevich and Alexei Mikhalevich, as well as two leaders of the democratic opposition parties, Pavel Severinets, co-chairman of the Belarusian Christian Democrats, and Anatoly Lebedko, the leader of the United Civic Party. We would ask for your support, colleagues, for those six names to be included in paragraph 3.
Vytautas Landsbergis
Mr President, it would be appropriate to keep in mind, or maybe to include in the text, in paragraph 9, the following idea: 'at the same time, the Commission should finance the reprinting and distribution of poetry books by Uladzimir Niakliayeu, which were recently confiscated and thrown into fires by the Belarusian authorities'. If possible, please do not oppose this.
Kristiina Ojuland
Mr President, we would like to move an oral amendment and to add the words 'no later than' after the words 'Eastern Partnership activities' in paragraph 13. We need this amendment because we need fast decisions concerning the relationship with Belarus and especially concerning the decision on the Eastern Partnership and continued Belarusian participation. We would like to ask for your support.