# Official Journal C 68E/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2014.068.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 68E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 577 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2014.068.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 68E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 577 March 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | European Parliament2012-2013 SESSIONSitting of 23 October 2012The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 10 E, 15.1.2013.
  The texts adopted on 23 October 2012 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2010 have been published in OJ L 350, 20.12.2012.
  TEXTS ADOPTED |
| | Tuesday 23 October 2012 |
| 2014/C 068E/01 | Multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure (COM(2011)0398 – COM(2012)0388 – 2011/0177(APP)) | 1 |
| 2014/C 068E/02 | Common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky caseEuropean 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)) | 13 |
| 2014/C 068E/03 | Implementation of the Single European Sky legislationEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Implementation of the Single European Sky Legislation (2012/2005(INI)) | 15 |
| 2014/C 068E/04 | Passenger rights in all transport modesEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on passenger rights in all transport modes (2012/2067(INI)) | 21 |
| 2014/C 068E/05 | Future of EU development policyEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy (2012/2002(INI)) | 30 |
| 2014/C 068E/06 | SMEs: competitiveness and business opportunitiesEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities (2012/2042(INI)) | 40 |
| 2014/C 068E/07 | Trade and economic relations with the United StatesEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on trade and economic relations with the United States (2012/2149(INI)) | 53 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

European Parliament2012-2013 SESSIONSitting of 23 October 2012The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 10 E, 15.1.2013.
  The texts adopted on 23 October 2012 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2010 have been published in OJ L 350, 20.12.2012.
  TEXTS ADOPTED

The texts adopted on 23 October 2012 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2010 have been published in OJ L 350, 20.12.2012.

Tuesday 23 October 2012

2014/C 068E/01

Multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure (COM(2011)0398 – COM(2012)0388 – 2011/0177(APP))

1

2014/C 068E/02

Common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky caseEuropean 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))

13

2014/C 068E/03

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

15

2014/C 068E/04

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

21

2014/C 068E/05

Future of EU development policyEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy (2012/2002(INI))

30

2014/C 068E/06

SMEs: competitiveness and business opportunitiesEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities (2012/2042(INI))

40

2014/C 068E/07

Trade and economic relations with the United StatesEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on trade and economic relations with the United States (2012/2149(INI))

53

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| | Tuesday 23 October 2012 |
| 2014/C 068E/08 | Request for waiver of the immunity of Martin EhrenhauserEuropean Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser (2012/2152(IMM)) | 61 |
| 2014/C 068E/09 | General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sectionsEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections (12749/2012 – C7-0233/2012 – 2012/2092(BUD)) | 63 |
| 2014/C 068E/10 | Eligibility for membership of the bureau of a committee (interpretation of Rule 191(1))European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 concerning eligibility for membership of the bureau of a committee (interpretation of Rule 191(1) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure) | 77 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

Tuesday 23 October 2012

2014/C 068E/08

Request for waiver of the immunity of Martin EhrenhauserEuropean Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser (2012/2152(IMM))

61

2014/C 068E/09

General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sectionsEuropean Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections (12749/2012 – C7-0233/2012 – 2012/2092(BUD))

63

2014/C 068E/10

Eligibility for membership of the bureau of a committee (interpretation of Rule 191(1))European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 concerning eligibility for membership of the bureau of a committee (interpretation of Rule 191(1) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure)

77

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT |
| | Tuesday 23 October 2012 |
| 2014/C 068E/11 | Own resource based on the value added tax *European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax (COM(2011)0737 – C7-0504/2011 – 2011/0333(CNS)) | 78 |
| 2014/C 068E/12 | Financial rules applicable to the annual budget ***IEuropean Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union (COM (2010)0815 – C7-0016/2011 – 2010/0395 (COD)) | 80 |
| P7_TC1-COD(2010)0395Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 | 81 |
| Annex to the legislative resolution | 81 |
| 2014/C 068E/13 | Draft amending budget 4/2012European 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)) | 82 |
| 2014/C 068E/14 | Forest reproductive material ***IEuropean 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)) | 84 |
| P7_TC1-COD(2012)0172Position 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 | 85 |
| 2014/C 068E/15 | European Year of Citizens (2013) ***IEuropean 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)) | 85 |
| P7_TC1-COD(2011)0217Position 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) | 86 |
| 2014/C 068E/16 | 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)) | 86 |
| 2014/C 068E/17 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk TalkEuropean 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)) | 87 |
| ANNEX | 90 |
| 2014/C 068E/18 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/015/SE/AstraZenecaEuropean 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)) | 90 |
| ANNEX | 93 |
| 2014/C 068E/19 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia MetalEuropean 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)) | 93 |
| ANNEX | 96 |
| 2014/C 068E/20 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2011/009 NL/GelderlandEuropean 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)) | 96 |
| ANNEX | 99 |
| 2014/C 068E/21 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/021 NL/ZalcoEuropean 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)) | 100 |
| ANNEX | 103 |
| 2014/C 068E/22 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2010/015 FR/PeugeotEuropean 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)) | 103 |
| ANNEX | 106 |
| 2014/C 068E/23 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/003 DK/VESTASEuropean 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)) | 106 |
| ANNEX | 109 |
| 2014/C 068E/24 | European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/002 DE/manrolandEuropean 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)) | 109 |
| ANNEX | 112 |
| 2014/C 068E/25 | Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items ***IEuropean 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)) | 112 |
| P7_TC1-COD(2011)0310Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 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 | 113 |
| 2014/C 068E/26 | Minimum level of training of seafarers ***IEuropean 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)) | 118 |
| P7_TC1-COD(2011)0239Position 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 | 119 |
| 2014/C 068E/27 | 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)) | 119 |

III   Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Tuesday 23 October 2012

2014/C 068E/11

Own resource based on the value added tax *European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax (COM(2011)0737 – C7-0504/2011 – 2011/0333(CNS))

78

2014/C 068E/12

Financial rules applicable to the annual budget ***IEuropean Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union (COM (2010)0815 – C7-0016/2011 – 2010/0395 (COD))

80

P7_TC1-COD(2010)0395Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002

81

Annex to the legislative resolution

81

2014/C 068E/13

Draft amending budget 4/2012European 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))

82

2014/C 068E/14

Forest reproductive material ***IEuropean 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))

84

P7_TC1-COD(2012)0172Position 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

85

2014/C 068E/15

European Year of Citizens (2013) ***IEuropean 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))

85

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0217Position 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)

86

2014/C 068E/16

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))

86

2014/C 068E/17

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk TalkEuropean 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))

87

ANNEX

90

2014/C 068E/18

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/015/SE/AstraZenecaEuropean 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))

90

ANNEX

93

2014/C 068E/19

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia MetalEuropean 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))

93

ANNEX

96

2014/C 068E/20

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2011/009 NL/GelderlandEuropean 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))

96

ANNEX

99

2014/C 068E/21

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/021 NL/ZalcoEuropean 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))

100

ANNEX

103

2014/C 068E/22

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2010/015 FR/PeugeotEuropean 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))

103

ANNEX

106

2014/C 068E/23

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/003 DK/VESTASEuropean 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))

106

ANNEX

109

2014/C 068E/24

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/002 DE/manrolandEuropean 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))

109

ANNEX

112

2014/C 068E/25

Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items ***IEuropean 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))

112

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0310Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 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

113

2014/C 068E/26

Minimum level of training of seafarers ***IEuropean 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))

118

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0239Position 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

119

2014/C 068E/27

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))

119

| Key to symbols used






  - | Consultation procedure |
| --- | --- |
| **I | Cooperation procedure: first reading |
| **II | Cooperation procedure: second reading |
| *** | Assent procedure |
| ***I | Codecision procedure: first reading |
| ***II | Codecision procedure: second reading |
| ***III | Codecision procedure: third reading |

Key to symbols used

*

Consultation procedure

**I

Cooperation procedure: first reading

**II

Cooperation procedure: second reading

***

Assent procedure

***I

Codecision procedure: first reading

***II

Codecision procedure: second reading

***III

Codecision procedure: third reading

(The type of procedure is determined by the legal basis proposed by the Commission.)

Political amendments: new or amended text is highlighted in bold italics; deletions are indicated by the symbol ▐.

Technical corrections and adaptations by the services: new or replacement text is highlighted in italics and deletions are indicated by the symbol ║.

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

European Parliament 2012-2013 SESSION Sitting of 23 October 2012 The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 10 E, 15.1.2013. The texts adopted on 23 October 2012 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2010 have been published in OJ L 350, 20.12.2012. TEXTS ADOPTED

Tuesday 23 October 2012

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/1

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020

P7_TA(2012)0360

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure (COM(2011)0398 – COM(2012)0388 – 2011/0177(APP))

2014/C 68 E/01

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to Articles 311 and 312 TFEU, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Articles 311 and 312 TFEU,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal of 29 June 2011 and the amended Commission proposal of 6 July 2012 for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (COM(2011)0398 and COM(2012)0388), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 29 June 2011 and the amended Commission proposal of 6 July 2012 for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (COM(2011)0398 and COM(2012)0388),

| — | having regard to the Commission’s proposal of 29 June 2011 for an Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on cooperation in budgetary matters and sound financial management (COM(2011)0403), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission’s proposal of 29 June 2011 for an Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on cooperation in budgetary matters and sound financial management (COM(2011)0403),

| — | having regard to the communication from the Commission of 29 June 2011 on a Budget for Europe 2020 (COM(2011)0500), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission of 29 June 2011 on a Budget for Europe 2020 (COM(2011)0500),

| — | having regard to the Commission report of 27 April 2010 to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0185), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission report of 27 April 2010 to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0185),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of the European Union’s own resources (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of the European Union’s own resources (1),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 entitled "Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe" (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 entitled "Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe" (2),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2012 on the Multiannual Financial Framework and own resources (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2012 on the Multiannual Financial Framework and own resources (3),

| — | having regard to the joint statement on MFF-related issues annexed to the revised financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the joint statement on MFF-related issues annexed to the revised financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union,

| — | having regard to Rule 81(3) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 81(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the interim report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development, the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Regional Development, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Fisheries, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0313/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the interim report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development, the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Regional Development, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Fisheries, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0313/2012),

| A. | whereas, pursuant to Article 312(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall adopt a regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), acting unanimously, after obtaining the consent of Parliament; whereas, pursuant to Article 312(2) TFEU, the European Council may, unanimously, adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority when adopting the regulation laying down the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, pursuant to Article 312(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall adopt a regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), acting unanimously, after obtaining the consent of Parliament; whereas, pursuant to Article 312(2) TFEU, the European Council may, unanimously, adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority when adopting the regulation laying down the MFF;

| B. | whereas, pursuant to Article 310(1) TFEU, all items of revenue and expenditure of the Union must be shown in the budget; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas, pursuant to Article 310(1) TFEU, all items of revenue and expenditure of the Union must be shown in the budget;

| C. | whereas, pursuant to Article 295 TFEU, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall consult each other and by common agreement make arrangements for their cooperation, and, whereas to this end, an interinstitutional agreement should be adopted to improve the functioning of the annual budgetary procedure and cooperation between the institutions on budgetary matters; |
| --- | --- |

C.

whereas, pursuant to Article 295 TFEU, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall consult each other and by common agreement make arrangements for their cooperation, and, whereas to this end, an interinstitutional agreement should be adopted to improve the functioning of the annual budgetary procedure and cooperation between the institutions on budgetary matters;

| D. | whereas Article 312(5) TFEU calls on the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to take any measure necessary to facilitate the adoption of the financial framework; |
| --- | --- |

D.

whereas Article 312(5) TFEU calls on the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to take any measure necessary to facilitate the adoption of the financial framework;

| E. | whereas, pursuant to Article 311 TFEU, the Union must provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies, and is to be financed wholly from own resources; whereas the Council is required to consult Parliament before it adopts a new decision on the reform of own resources and, furthermore, the Council must obtain the consent of Parliament before adopting a regulation on measures to implement the own-resources system; |
| --- | --- |

E.

whereas, pursuant to Article 311 TFEU, the Union must provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies, and is to be financed wholly from own resources; whereas the Council is required to consult Parliament before it adopts a new decision on the reform of own resources and, furthermore, the Council must obtain the consent of Parliament before adopting a regulation on measures to implement the own-resources system;

| F. | whereas this will be the first time that an MFF regulation is adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, entailing in consequence new cooperation arrangements between the institutions aimed at reconciling efficient decision-making with respect for Treaty prerogatives; |
| --- | --- |

F.

whereas this will be the first time that an MFF regulation is adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, entailing in consequence new cooperation arrangements between the institutions aimed at reconciling efficient decision-making with respect for Treaty prerogatives;

| G. | whereas the Treaty of Lisbon confers significant new prerogatives on the European Union in fields such as external action (Article 27(3) TEU), sport (Article 165 TFEU), space (Article 189 TFEU), climate change (Article 191 TFEU), energy (Article 194 TFEU), tourism (Article 195 TFEU) and civil protection (Article 196 TFEU); |
| --- | --- |

G.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon confers significant new prerogatives on the European Union in fields such as external action (Article 27(3) TEU), sport (Article 165 TFEU), space (Article 189 TFEU), climate change (Article 191 TFEU), energy (Article 194 TFEU), tourism (Article 195 TFEU) and civil protection (Article 196 TFEU);

| H. | whereas in its resolution of 8 June 2011, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament established its general political priorities for the next MFF, in both legislative and budgetary terms; |
| --- | --- |

H.

whereas in its resolution of 8 June 2011, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament established its general political priorities for the next MFF, in both legislative and budgetary terms;

| I. | whereas in its resolution of 13 June 2012, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament expressed its general priorities for the next MFF in budgetary terms in both the expenditure and the revenue side; |
| --- | --- |

I.

whereas in its resolution of 13 June 2012, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament expressed its general priorities for the next MFF in budgetary terms in both the expenditure and the revenue side;

| J. | whereas the relevant parliamentary committees have carried out a full in-depth analysis of needs in order to identify political priorities, as evidenced in their annexed opinions; |
| --- | --- |

J.

whereas the relevant parliamentary committees have carried out a full in-depth analysis of needs in order to identify political priorities, as evidenced in their annexed opinions;

| K. | whereas the Cypriot Presidency-in-Office intends to submit a "negotiating box", including ceiling figures (but also policy choices falling within the ordinary legislative procedure) to an Extraordinary European Council in November 2012; |
| --- | --- |

K.

whereas the Cypriot Presidency-in-Office intends to submit a "negotiating box", including ceiling figures (but also policy choices falling within the ordinary legislative procedure) to an Extraordinary European Council in November 2012;

| L. | whereas the EU budget already provides guarantees for medium-term balance of payments financial assistance to non-eurozone Member States, for up to EUR 50 billion, as well as guarantees for the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) for up to EUR 60 billion (total outstanding amount of loans); |
| --- | --- |

L.

whereas the EU budget already provides guarantees for medium-term balance of payments financial assistance to non-eurozone Member States, for up to EUR 50 billion, as well as guarantees for the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) for up to EUR 60 billion (total outstanding amount of loans);

| M. | whereas it is necessary for the EU to have both a budget and a budgetary procedure which fully reflect the transparent and democratic essence of the parliamentary decision-making and control process, on the basis of respect for the general principles of unity and universality, which require that all revenue and expenditure be entered in full with no adjustment against each other, and that there be a parliamentary debate and vote on both revenue and expenditure in line with Treaty competences; |
| --- | --- |

M.

whereas it is necessary for the EU to have both a budget and a budgetary procedure which fully reflect the transparent and democratic essence of the parliamentary decision-making and control process, on the basis of respect for the general principles of unity and universality, which require that all revenue and expenditure be entered in full with no adjustment against each other, and that there be a parliamentary debate and vote on both revenue and expenditure in line with Treaty competences;

The EU budget as a key tool to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for the entire EU

| 1. | Is fully aware that the negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020 are taking place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context, in which Member States are engaging in considerable efforts to make fiscal adjustments to their national budgets, with a view to the sustainability of public finances and the stability of the banking sector and the single currency; insists that the Union cannot be seen as adding an extra fiscal burden on taxpayers; is, however, convinced that the EU budget is a part of the solution to enable Europe to emerge from the current crisis by promoting investments in growth and jobs and helping Member States tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion and on a sustainable basis, the present structural challenges, in particular loss of competitiveness, rising unemployment and poverty; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is fully aware that the negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020 are taking place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context, in which Member States are engaging in considerable efforts to make fiscal adjustments to their national budgets, with a view to the sustainability of public finances and the stability of the banking sector and the single currency; insists that the Union cannot be seen as adding an extra fiscal burden on taxpayers; is, however, convinced that the EU budget is a part of the solution to enable Europe to emerge from the current crisis by promoting investments in growth and jobs and helping Member States tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion and on a sustainable basis, the present structural challenges, in particular loss of competitiveness, rising unemployment and poverty;

| 2. | Considers, however, that balanced structural reforms at both national and EU level represent an essential precondition for the sound and efficient implementation of EU funding, while recalling the importance of sound public finances; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Considers, however, that balanced structural reforms at both national and EU level represent an essential precondition for the sound and efficient implementation of EU funding, while recalling the importance of sound public finances;

| 3. | Recalls that the European Council has, on numerous occasions, insisted on the need for a strengthened European economic governance and has endorsed the objectives set out in the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, namely promoting employment, improving the conditions for – and public spending on – innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, improving education levels and promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Recalls that the European Council has, on numerous occasions, insisted on the need for a strengthened European economic governance and has endorsed the objectives set out in the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, namely promoting employment, improving the conditions for – and public spending on – innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, improving education levels and promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty;

| 4. | Recalls that the European Council itself adopted, in June 2012, a ‘Growth and Jobs Compact’, which acknowledges the leverage effect of the EU budget in terms of strengthening growth and employment and places major emphasis on its contribution to helping the entire Union overcome the current economic and financial crisis; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Recalls that the European Council itself adopted, in June 2012, a ‘Growth and Jobs Compact’, which acknowledges the leverage effect of the EU budget in terms of strengthening growth and employment and places major emphasis on its contribution to helping the entire Union overcome the current economic and financial crisis;

| 5. | Considers that the Union has been particularly affected by the successive financial crises of the past four years partly because financial operators, international partners and public opinion have questioned the level of solidarity within the EU; believes that the EU budget should be at the heart of such solidarity; is convinced, therefore, that the decision on the next MFF will either have a significant positive impact on the efforts made by national governments to overcome the crisis or lead to a further recession in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Considers that the Union has been particularly affected by the successive financial crises of the past four years partly because financial operators, international partners and public opinion have questioned the level of solidarity within the EU; believes that the EU budget should be at the heart of such solidarity; is convinced, therefore, that the decision on the next MFF will either have a significant positive impact on the efforts made by national governments to overcome the crisis or lead to a further recession in the EU;

| 6. | Recalls that all the macroeconomic financial stabilisation measures taken since 2008 have not yet brought an end to the economic and financial crisis; believes, therefore, that in order to return to growth and generate employment in Europe, Member States should continue their efforts to unlock their potential for sustainable growth and that a well-targeted, robust and sufficient EU budget is needed to further help coordinate and enhance the national efforts; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Recalls that all the macroeconomic financial stabilisation measures taken since 2008 have not yet brought an end to the economic and financial crisis; believes, therefore, that in order to return to growth and generate employment in Europe, Member States should continue their efforts to unlock their potential for sustainable growth and that a well-targeted, robust and sufficient EU budget is needed to further help coordinate and enhance the national efforts;

| 7. | Notes that the EU budget represents only some 2 % of total government expenditure in the Union, and is hence more than 45 times smaller than the sum of government expenditure in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Notes that the EU budget represents only some 2 % of total government expenditure in the Union, and is hence more than 45 times smaller than the sum of government expenditure in the Member States;

| 8. | Recalls that, pursuant to Article 310 TFEU, the revenue and expenditure shown in the EU budget must be in balance and that, therefore, the budget cannot generate deficit and public debt; |
| --- | --- |

8.

Recalls that, pursuant to Article 310 TFEU, the revenue and expenditure shown in the EU budget must be in balance and that, therefore, the budget cannot generate deficit and public debt;

| 9. | Stresses that the EU budget is primarily an investment budget and that 94 % of its total returns are invested in the Member States themselves or for external priorities of the Union; emphasises that, for the regions and Member States, public investment would be minimised or impossible without the contribution of the EU budget; believes that any decrease of the EU budget would inevitably increase imbalances and hamper the growth and competitive strength of the entire Union economy, as well as its cohesiveness, and would undermine the principle of solidarity as a core EU value; |
| --- | --- |

9.

Stresses that the EU budget is primarily an investment budget and that 94 % of its total returns are invested in the Member States themselves or for external priorities of the Union; emphasises that, for the regions and Member States, public investment would be minimised or impossible without the contribution of the EU budget; believes that any decrease of the EU budget would inevitably increase imbalances and hamper the growth and competitive strength of the entire Union economy, as well as its cohesiveness, and would undermine the principle of solidarity as a core EU value;

| 10. | Underlines the fact that the Lisbon Strategy has failed to achieve its goals, owing inter alia to the insufficient coordination and commitments from all levels in both budgetary and legislative terms; strongly believes that, in order to be effective, the Europe 2020 strategy needs to be implemented now and not delayed any longer; |
| --- | --- |

10.

Underlines the fact that the Lisbon Strategy has failed to achieve its goals, owing inter alia to the insufficient coordination and commitments from all levels in both budgetary and legislative terms; strongly believes that, in order to be effective, the Europe 2020 strategy needs to be implemented now and not delayed any longer;

| 11. | Recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives will require a substantial amount of future-oriented investment, estimated at no less than EUR 1 800 billion up to 2020 (4); stresses that one of the main objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, namely, to promote growth and high-quality employment for all Europeans, will only be achieved if the necessary investment in education, in favour of a knowledge society, and in research and innovation, SMEs, and green and new technologies, while promoting social inclusion, is made now and not delayed any longer; favours combining a twin-track approach of growth-friendly fiscal consolidation measures in order to reduce deficits and public debt with the promotion of such investments; |
| --- | --- |

11.

Recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives will require a substantial amount of future-oriented investment, estimated at no less than EUR 1 800 billion up to 2020 (4); stresses that one of the main objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, namely, to promote growth and high-quality employment for all Europeans, will only be achieved if the necessary investment in education, in favour of a knowledge society, and in research and innovation, SMEs, and green and new technologies, while promoting social inclusion, is made now and not delayed any longer; favours combining a twin-track approach of growth-friendly fiscal consolidation measures in order to reduce deficits and public debt with the promotion of such investments;

| 12. | Considers that the alarming situation young people face across the EU, including an unprecedentedly high unemployment rate, increasing poverty and educational challenges, requires a particular effort, through mainstreaming measures, to keep the new generations committed to the EU values of peace, democracy and human rights, economic prosperity and social justice, and by providing adequate budgetary support programmes; |
| --- | --- |

12.

Considers that the alarming situation young people face across the EU, including an unprecedentedly high unemployment rate, increasing poverty and educational challenges, requires a particular effort, through mainstreaming measures, to keep the new generations committed to the EU values of peace, democracy and human rights, economic prosperity and social justice, and by providing adequate budgetary support programmes;

| 13. | Stresses that a strong, diversified, competitive industrial base is key to achieving a smart, sustainable, inclusive European economy; underlines the importance of the industrial sector in supporting competitiveness and job creation in the EU and its resulting crucial contribution towards overcoming the economic crisis; |
| --- | --- |

13.

Stresses that a strong, diversified, competitive industrial base is key to achieving a smart, sustainable, inclusive European economy; underlines the importance of the industrial sector in supporting competitiveness and job creation in the EU and its resulting crucial contribution towards overcoming the economic crisis;

| 14. | Strongly supports the Commission’s proposal to mainstream measures to combat climate change with the aim of at least 20 % of expenditure being climate-related; considers it essential that the EU budget be able to mobilise investment for a sustainable and prosperous low-carbon economy, provide adequate support for achieving the EU 2020 targets for climate, energy, resource-efficiency and biodiversity, and benefit the EU’s citizens by ensuring a more healthy environment; |
| --- | --- |

14.

Strongly supports the Commission’s proposal to mainstream measures to combat climate change with the aim of at least 20 % of expenditure being climate-related; considers it essential that the EU budget be able to mobilise investment for a sustainable and prosperous low-carbon economy, provide adequate support for achieving the EU 2020 targets for climate, energy, resource-efficiency and biodiversity, and benefit the EU’s citizens by ensuring a more healthy environment;

| 15. | Calls, therefore, on the Member States to consider synergies between the national consolidation effort and the added value of a well-prioritised EU budget, allowing the implementation of the political commitments already made at the highest level; |
| --- | --- |

15.

Calls, therefore, on the Member States to consider synergies between the national consolidation effort and the added value of a well-prioritised EU budget, allowing the implementation of the political commitments already made at the highest level;

Level of expenditure

| 16. | Stresses that since 1988 national budgets have grown on average more rapidly than the EU budget; notes that even since the start of the crisis in 2008 total government expenditure in the Member States has risen at an annual nominal rate of 2 %; draws the conclusion that this shrinkage of the EU budget with respect to the national budgets is in flagrant contradiction with the extension of competences and tasks conferred on the Union by the Treaty and with major political decisions taken by the European Council itself, notably the development of a strengthened European economic governance; |
| --- | --- |

16.

Stresses that since 1988 national budgets have grown on average more rapidly than the EU budget; notes that even since the start of the crisis in 2008 total government expenditure in the Member States has risen at an annual nominal rate of 2 %; draws the conclusion that this shrinkage of the EU budget with respect to the national budgets is in flagrant contradiction with the extension of competences and tasks conferred on the Union by the Treaty and with major political decisions taken by the European Council itself, notably the development of a strengthened European economic governance;

| 17. | Emphasises that since 2000 the gap between the EU own resources ceiling (1,29 % of GNI in commitment and 1,23 % in payment appropriations) and the MFF ceilings has grown dramatically; furthermore notes that the MFF only sets maximum levels of expenditure, while the EU budget has always remained far below those levels; |
| --- | --- |

17.

Emphasises that since 2000 the gap between the EU own resources ceiling (1,29 % of GNI in commitment and 1,23 % in payment appropriations) and the MFF ceilings has grown dramatically; furthermore notes that the MFF only sets maximum levels of expenditure, while the EU budget has always remained far below those levels;

| 18. | Considers that the Commission proposal, which represents a freeze of the MFF 2014- 2020 ceilings at the level of the 2013 ceilings, will not be sufficient to finance existing policy priorities linked to Europe's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, or unforeseen events, not to mention the political objectives and commitments set by the European Council itself; |
| --- | --- |

18.

Considers that the Commission proposal, which represents a freeze of the MFF 2014- 2020 ceilings at the level of the 2013 ceilings, will not be sufficient to finance existing policy priorities linked to Europe's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, or unforeseen events, not to mention the political objectives and commitments set by the European Council itself;

| 19. | Recalls its position, as stated on 8 June 2011, that without an adequate increase in the budget above the level of the 2013 ceilings, several EU priorities and policies will have to be revised downwards or even abandoned; |
| --- | --- |

19.

Recalls its position, as stated on 8 June 2011, that without an adequate increase in the budget above the level of the 2013 ceilings, several EU priorities and policies will have to be revised downwards or even abandoned;

| 20. | Warns the Council against any attempt to reduce further the level of EU expenditure as proposed by the Commission; firmly opposes any plea for linear, across-the-board cuts that would jeopardise the implementation and effectiveness of all EU policies, irrespective of their European added value, political weight or performance; instead, challenges the Council, in case it proposes cuts, to clearly and publicly identify which of its political priorities or projects should be dropped altogether; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Warns the Council against any attempt to reduce further the level of EU expenditure as proposed by the Commission; firmly opposes any plea for linear, across-the-board cuts that would jeopardise the implementation and effectiveness of all EU policies, irrespective of their European added value, political weight or performance; instead, challenges the Council, in case it proposes cuts, to clearly and publicly identify which of its political priorities or projects should be dropped altogether;

| 21. | Stresses the key role that the EU budget must play in achieving the jointly agreed EU 2020 Strategy objectives; strongly believes that EU funding, if well devised, can actually trigger and catalyse actions having clear Union added value which Member States are unable to carry out on their own, as well as creating synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities by helping them focus on key future-oriented investment; |
| --- | --- |

21.

Stresses the key role that the EU budget must play in achieving the jointly agreed EU 2020 Strategy objectives; strongly believes that EU funding, if well devised, can actually trigger and catalyse actions having clear Union added value which Member States are unable to carry out on their own, as well as creating synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities by helping them focus on key future-oriented investment;

| 22. | Reaffirms, in this context, its position in favour of a significant increase in the funding available for the Union programmes in the fields of competiveness, SMEs, entrepreneurship and sustainable infrastructures, which are at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy; strongly believes that further cuts with respect to the Commission proposal will seriously jeopardise the EU’s credibility and its political commitment in favour of growth and jobs; |
| --- | --- |

22.

Reaffirms, in this context, its position in favour of a significant increase in the funding available for the Union programmes in the fields of competiveness, SMEs, entrepreneurship and sustainable infrastructures, which are at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy; strongly believes that further cuts with respect to the Commission proposal will seriously jeopardise the EU’s credibility and its political commitment in favour of growth and jobs;

| 23. | Warmly welcomes the Commission's proposal on the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and its realistic financial allocation for the purpose of improving Europe's transport, energy and digital networks; urges, in this context, that the amount transferred from the Cohesion Fund to CEF should be spent – during the first years – in full accordance with the national allocations under this Fund; |
| --- | --- |

23.

Warmly welcomes the Commission's proposal on the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and its realistic financial allocation for the purpose of improving Europe's transport, energy and digital networks; urges, in this context, that the amount transferred from the Cohesion Fund to CEF should be spent – during the first years – in full accordance with the national allocations under this Fund;

| 24. | Underlines the importance of research and innovation in accelerating the transition towards a sustainable, world-leading, knowledge-based economy which uses its natural resources efficiently and responsibly; calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to agree on a specific roadmap for achieving the 3 % GDP target of investment in research; points to the massive economic commitment that this target would entail, in terms of additional expenditure totalling EUR 130 billion, annually and funded from all sources; stresses, consequently, the need to enhance, stimulate and secure the financing of research and innovation in the Union via a significant increase in expenditure, and in EU research and innovation funding – notably through the Horizon 2020 programme; |
| --- | --- |

24.

Underlines the importance of research and innovation in accelerating the transition towards a sustainable, world-leading, knowledge-based economy which uses its natural resources efficiently and responsibly; calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to agree on a specific roadmap for achieving the 3 % GDP target of investment in research; points to the massive economic commitment that this target would entail, in terms of additional expenditure totalling EUR 130 billion, annually and funded from all sources; stresses, consequently, the need to enhance, stimulate and secure the financing of research and innovation in the Union via a significant increase in expenditure, and in EU research and innovation funding – notably through the Horizon 2020 programme;

| 25. | Recalls that SMEs are key drivers of economic growth, competitiveness, innovation and employment, and recognises their important role in ensuring recovery and boosting a sustainable EU economy; welcomes, therefore, the emphasis put by the Europe 2020 strategy on innovation and industrial policy; strongly rejects any attempt to further decrease the allocation for programmes, such as COSME, that are at the heart of European competitiveness and employment; |
| --- | --- |

25.

Recalls that SMEs are key drivers of economic growth, competitiveness, innovation and employment, and recognises their important role in ensuring recovery and boosting a sustainable EU economy; welcomes, therefore, the emphasis put by the Europe 2020 strategy on innovation and industrial policy; strongly rejects any attempt to further decrease the allocation for programmes, such as COSME, that are at the heart of European competitiveness and employment;

| 26. | Considers that EU cohesion policy (structural funds and cohesion fund), is a strategic tool for investment, sustainable growth and competitiveness, and a main pillar of European solidarity, with an undisputed EU added value; notes also the significant spill-over effects of cohesion funding for all EU Member States; insists that, in order to effectively reduce macroeconomic imbalances within the EU and contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion, it should be able to rely on a stable, solid and sustainable financial framework; reaffirms its position that cohesion policy funding, given the pressing need to secure public investment in growth and jobs, should be maintained at least at the level of the 2007-2013 period and continue to cover all EU regions, with a focus on the less developed regions; endorses the Commission proposal to earmark 25 % of the total cohesion policy allocation to the ESF; |
| --- | --- |

26.

Considers that EU cohesion policy (structural funds and cohesion fund), is a strategic tool for investment, sustainable growth and competitiveness, and a main pillar of European solidarity, with an undisputed EU added value; notes also the significant spill-over effects of cohesion funding for all EU Member States; insists that, in order to effectively reduce macroeconomic imbalances within the EU and contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion, it should be able to rely on a stable, solid and sustainable financial framework; reaffirms its position that cohesion policy funding, given the pressing need to secure public investment in growth and jobs, should be maintained at least at the level of the 2007-2013 period and continue to cover all EU regions, with a focus on the less developed regions; endorses the Commission proposal to earmark 25 % of the total cohesion policy allocation to the ESF;

| 27. | Recalls its position that, given the wide array of tasks, challenges and objectives that the CAP is called on to respond to, the amounts allocated to the CAP in the budget year 2013 should be at least maintained during the next financial programming period; believes that the new CAP should aim at a more effective and efficient allocation of its budget, inter alia via a fair distribution of direct payments and rural development allocations between Member States, regions and farmers, in order to reduce the existing gap; stresses, in this context, the important role played by the second pillar of the CAP, which makes a significant contribution to investment and job creation in rural areas, to enhancing the effectiveness and competitiveness of the farming industry, particularly in the light of the new challenges referred to in the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as to managing environment and preserving biodiversity; |
| --- | --- |

27.

Recalls its position that, given the wide array of tasks, challenges and objectives that the CAP is called on to respond to, the amounts allocated to the CAP in the budget year 2013 should be at least maintained during the next financial programming period; believes that the new CAP should aim at a more effective and efficient allocation of its budget, inter alia via a fair distribution of direct payments and rural development allocations between Member States, regions and farmers, in order to reduce the existing gap; stresses, in this context, the important role played by the second pillar of the CAP, which makes a significant contribution to investment and job creation in rural areas, to enhancing the effectiveness and competitiveness of the farming industry, particularly in the light of the new challenges referred to in the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as to managing environment and preserving biodiversity;

| 28. | Emphasises that strengthening the well-targeted and effective Union programme for environment and climate is indispensable and that integrated spending on climate and environment should be actively supported within relevant Union funds; |
| --- | --- |

28.

Emphasises that strengthening the well-targeted and effective Union programme for environment and climate is indispensable and that integrated spending on climate and environment should be actively supported within relevant Union funds;

| 29. | Recognises the serious challenges that young people in the EU face with the economic crisis; considers that participation, employment, education, non-formal education, training, mobility and the social inclusion of young Europeans are issues of strategic importance for the development of the EU and European society; insists on mainstreaming and prioritising these issues in all relevant policies and programmes financed from the EU budget, alongside the necessary increase in the financing of the concrete youth-specific instruments proposed by the Commission, such as the introduction of a youth guarantee scheme to ensure that every young person in Europe not able to find a job is offered the possibility of further education and training; |
| --- | --- |

29.

Recognises the serious challenges that young people in the EU face with the economic crisis; considers that participation, employment, education, non-formal education, training, mobility and the social inclusion of young Europeans are issues of strategic importance for the development of the EU and European society; insists on mainstreaming and prioritising these issues in all relevant policies and programmes financed from the EU budget, alongside the necessary increase in the financing of the concrete youth-specific instruments proposed by the Commission, such as the introduction of a youth guarantee scheme to ensure that every young person in Europe not able to find a job is offered the possibility of further education and training;

| 30. | Stresses the need to continue the programme for the most deprived persons; reminds the Commission of its commitment to submit, in good time, a legislative proposal in this regard in order to ensure continuity of the support for such a programme after 2013 on a new legal basis and with independent funding; |
| --- | --- |

30.

Stresses the need to continue the programme for the most deprived persons; reminds the Commission of its commitment to submit, in good time, a legislative proposal in this regard in order to ensure continuity of the support for such a programme after 2013 on a new legal basis and with independent funding;

| 31. | Takes the view that the overall amount dedicated by the Commission to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice does not adequately reflect the strengthening of this area with the Treaty of Lisbon and its growing tasks and challenges; stresses that funded activities must have European added value and that a fair, balanced, transparent share of funding between the various objectives pursued by these programmes must be secured; |
| --- | --- |

31.

Takes the view that the overall amount dedicated by the Commission to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice does not adequately reflect the strengthening of this area with the Treaty of Lisbon and its growing tasks and challenges; stresses that funded activities must have European added value and that a fair, balanced, transparent share of funding between the various objectives pursued by these programmes must be secured;

| 32. | Recalls that the EU’s education, youth, media and culture programmes are close to the citizens, enjoy extraordinarily high implementation rates, produce noticeable leverage and spillover effects including significant economic results, and generate clear and proven European added value by pooling resources, encouraging mobility and active citizenship, and enhancing cooperation among different sectors and stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

32.

Recalls that the EU’s education, youth, media and culture programmes are close to the citizens, enjoy extraordinarily high implementation rates, produce noticeable leverage and spillover effects including significant economic results, and generate clear and proven European added value by pooling resources, encouraging mobility and active citizenship, and enhancing cooperation among different sectors and stakeholders;

| 33. | Reiterates its position that the new responsibilities conferred on the EU by the Treaties will require appropriate additional funding compared to MFF 2007-2013, so as to allow the Union to fulfil its role as a global actor whilst upholding the undertakings it has already given, notably the achievement of Member States’ 0,7 % GNI spending targets for Official Development Aid and the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015; highlights the Union’s role in promoting democracy, peace, solidarity, stability and poverty reduction in neighbourhood and partner countries; underlines the complementarity between the EU assistance and that provided by the Member States, and its catalyst effect in terms of intervening in regions where bilateral assistance is not delivered; is particularly supportive of joint programming between Member States and EU actions; stresses, therefore, that the Commission's proposals for "Global Europe' and the European Development Fund must be considered the bare minimum needed to achieve Europe’s ambition in the world; notes, in particular, the need to match the responsibilities of EEAS with adequate budgetary resources; |
| --- | --- |

33.

Reiterates its position that the new responsibilities conferred on the EU by the Treaties will require appropriate additional funding compared to MFF 2007-2013, so as to allow the Union to fulfil its role as a global actor whilst upholding the undertakings it has already given, notably the achievement of Member States’ 0,7 % GNI spending targets for Official Development Aid and the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015; highlights the Union’s role in promoting democracy, peace, solidarity, stability and poverty reduction in neighbourhood and partner countries; underlines the complementarity between the EU assistance and that provided by the Member States, and its catalyst effect in terms of intervening in regions where bilateral assistance is not delivered; is particularly supportive of joint programming between Member States and EU actions; stresses, therefore, that the Commission's proposals for "Global Europe' and the European Development Fund must be considered the bare minimum needed to achieve Europe’s ambition in the world; notes, in particular, the need to match the responsibilities of EEAS with adequate budgetary resources;

Large-scale projects

| 34. | Underlines the strategic importance of large-scale infrastructure projects such as ITER, Galileo, and GMES for the future of the EU’s competitiveness; rejects, consequently, any attempt to transform GMES into an intergovernmental programme; |
| --- | --- |

34.

Underlines the strategic importance of large-scale infrastructure projects such as ITER, Galileo, and GMES for the future of the EU’s competitiveness; rejects, consequently, any attempt to transform GMES into an intergovernmental programme;

| 35. | Is of the firm opinion that the financing of these large-scale projects should be secured in the EU budget but, at the same time, ring-fenced, so as to ensure that possible cost overruns do not threaten the funding and successful implementation of other Union policies; |
| --- | --- |

35.

Is of the firm opinion that the financing of these large-scale projects should be secured in the EU budget but, at the same time, ring-fenced, so as to ensure that possible cost overruns do not threaten the funding and successful implementation of other Union policies;

| 36. | Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to fix a maximum amount for Galileo in the MFF regulation, thereby ring-fencing the budgetary allocation for this project; believes, likewise, that the maximum amounts for ITER and GMES should also be fixed in the regulation; considers that the financial envelopes for these three projects should be allocated over and above the MFF ceilings, so as to make the provision of additional funding by Member States easier, if needed; |
| --- | --- |

36.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to fix a maximum amount for Galileo in the MFF regulation, thereby ring-fencing the budgetary allocation for this project; believes, likewise, that the maximum amounts for ITER and GMES should also be fixed in the regulation; considers that the financial envelopes for these three projects should be allocated over and above the MFF ceilings, so as to make the provision of additional funding by Member States easier, if needed;

Better spending

| 37. | Reiterates that achieving European added value and ensuring sound financial management - efficiency, effectiveness, economy - should be, now even more than ever, guiding principles of the EU budget; welcomes, in this respect, the Commission’s set of legislative proposals on the new generation of multiannual programmes to be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure; insists that synergies among EU support programmes and national investments must be maximised; |
| --- | --- |

37.

Reiterates that achieving European added value and ensuring sound financial management - efficiency, effectiveness, economy - should be, now even more than ever, guiding principles of the EU budget; welcomes, in this respect, the Commission’s set of legislative proposals on the new generation of multiannual programmes to be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure; insists that synergies among EU support programmes and national investments must be maximised;

| 38. | Believes that in the present context of public budgetary constraints, the leverage of other sources of funding is absolutely necessary in order to realise the long-term investments that are needed to achieve the goals of the EU 2020 strategy; strongly believes that Union added value is to be found notably in long-term investments that are beyond the reach of individual Member States; highlights, in this respect, the conclusions and recommendations of its resolution on innovative financial instruments in the context of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (5); |
| --- | --- |

38.

Believes that in the present context of public budgetary constraints, the leverage of other sources of funding is absolutely necessary in order to realise the long-term investments that are needed to achieve the goals of the EU 2020 strategy; strongly believes that Union added value is to be found notably in long-term investments that are beyond the reach of individual Member States; highlights, in this respect, the conclusions and recommendations of its resolution on innovative financial instruments in the context of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (5);

| 39. | Stresses the need to ensure coherence between sector-specific rules and the overall framework of the Financial Regulation and to strike a balance between simplification and sound financial management; takes note of the simplification scoreboard issued by the Commission, and confirms its determination to support the simplification agenda; is convinced of the need to further reduce the administrative burdens on beneficiaries, and calls for the implementation of thorough "bureaucracy checks' on the new generation of multiannual programmes so as to prevent any additional administrative burden at EU and national level alike; |
| --- | --- |

39.

Stresses the need to ensure coherence between sector-specific rules and the overall framework of the Financial Regulation and to strike a balance between simplification and sound financial management; takes note of the simplification scoreboard issued by the Commission, and confirms its determination to support the simplification agenda; is convinced of the need to further reduce the administrative burdens on beneficiaries, and calls for the implementation of thorough "bureaucracy checks' on the new generation of multiannual programmes so as to prevent any additional administrative burden at EU and national level alike;

| 40. | Believes that the effectiveness of EU expenditure depends on sound policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks at all levels; insists that, in accordance with Articles 310(5) and 317 TFEU, Member States must implement the budget in accordance with the principle of sound financial management; reminds Member States of their legal obligation to ensure that appropriations entered in the budget are used in accordance with this principle and that they must shoulder their share of responsibility in making EU funding more effective; recalls that 90 % of the errors detected by the European Court of Auditors have been in Member States, and that the majority of those errors could have been avoided; urges all Member States to issue national declarations of assurances signed at the appropriate political level; |
| --- | --- |

40.

Believes that the effectiveness of EU expenditure depends on sound policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks at all levels; insists that, in accordance with Articles 310(5) and 317 TFEU, Member States must implement the budget in accordance with the principle of sound financial management; reminds Member States of their legal obligation to ensure that appropriations entered in the budget are used in accordance with this principle and that they must shoulder their share of responsibility in making EU funding more effective; recalls that 90 % of the errors detected by the European Court of Auditors have been in Member States, and that the majority of those errors could have been avoided; urges all Member States to issue national declarations of assurances signed at the appropriate political level;

| 41. | Supports the introduction of ex ante conditionality provisions to ensure that EU funding, particularly in respect of the Cohesion Fund, the Structural Funds and the rural and fisheries funds, are better targeted to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives; believes that if their implementation is based, on the one hand, on a reinforced partnership principle through the stronger involvement of local and regional authorities and, on the other hand, on conditions which are relevant to the objectives of the different funds, these conditionality provisions could improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of EU support; |
| --- | --- |

41.

Supports the introduction of ex ante conditionality provisions to ensure that EU funding, particularly in respect of the Cohesion Fund, the Structural Funds and the rural and fisheries funds, are better targeted to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives; believes that if their implementation is based, on the one hand, on a reinforced partnership principle through the stronger involvement of local and regional authorities and, on the other hand, on conditions which are relevant to the objectives of the different funds, these conditionality provisions could improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of EU support;

| 42. | Calls for funding under the partnership agreements to be made subject to certain specific commitments predetermined in a dialogue between the Commission and the Member States; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform; all conditions should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership; |
| --- | --- |

42.

Calls for funding under the partnership agreements to be made subject to certain specific commitments predetermined in a dialogue between the Commission and the Member States; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform; all conditions should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership;

| 43. | Stresses, however, that there is no direct relation between the regional policy performance and the macroeconomic performance of a Member State, and that the regions should not be punished for the failure of the national level to comply with procedures related to economic governance; believes that imposing additional penalties could thus exacerbate the problems of Member States already facing macroeconomic difficulties, and, therefore, that macroeconomic conditionalities are not acceptable; |
| --- | --- |

43.

Stresses, however, that there is no direct relation between the regional policy performance and the macroeconomic performance of a Member State, and that the regions should not be punished for the failure of the national level to comply with procedures related to economic governance; believes that imposing additional penalties could thus exacerbate the problems of Member States already facing macroeconomic difficulties, and, therefore, that macroeconomic conditionalities are not acceptable;

| 44. | Underlines the crucial work of the decentralised EU agencies in supporting the Union’s objectives and the need to match their responsibilities with adequate budgetary resources; |
| --- | --- |

44.

Underlines the crucial work of the decentralised EU agencies in supporting the Union’s objectives and the need to match their responsibilities with adequate budgetary resources;

| 45. | Believes, at the same time, that the work of the decentralised EU agencies should result in significantly higher savings at national level; urges the Member States to assess the efficiency gains generated by these agencies at national level and to make full use of them, thus rationalising their national expenditure; calls, also, on the Member States to identify possible areas of duplication of work or reduced added value in relation to the agencies, with a view to streamlining their functioning; |
| --- | --- |

45.

Believes, at the same time, that the work of the decentralised EU agencies should result in significantly higher savings at national level; urges the Member States to assess the efficiency gains generated by these agencies at national level and to make full use of them, thus rationalising their national expenditure; calls, also, on the Member States to identify possible areas of duplication of work or reduced added value in relation to the agencies, with a view to streamlining their functioning;

| 46. | Is convinced that the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) should result in economies of scale at EU level and significant savings at national level, especially in the national diplomatic services in third countries; |
| --- | --- |

46.

Is convinced that the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) should result in economies of scale at EU level and significant savings at national level, especially in the national diplomatic services in third countries;

| 47. | Suggests that an independent assessment be conducted on the effectiveness of public spending at three levels – national, regional and European – in order to examine in depth added value and possibilities for pooling resources and for cost savings in areas such as defence, development policy, decentralised agencies, the European External Action Service, and scientific research by means not only of encouraging economies of scale at EU level, but also of respecting the subsidiarity principle; believes that this assessment should lead to cost savings; recalls that the assessment regarding decentralised agencies should take into account the relevant provisions of the Common Approach annexed to the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised agencies signed on 19 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

47.

Suggests that an independent assessment be conducted on the effectiveness of public spending at three levels – national, regional and European – in order to examine in depth added value and possibilities for pooling resources and for cost savings in areas such as defence, development policy, decentralised agencies, the European External Action Service, and scientific research by means not only of encouraging economies of scale at EU level, but also of respecting the subsidiarity principle; believes that this assessment should lead to cost savings; recalls that the assessment regarding decentralised agencies should take into account the relevant provisions of the Common Approach annexed to the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised agencies signed on 19 July 2012;

| 48. | Agrees with the Commission’s view on the need to rationalise administrative expenditure; stresses, however, that it is vital to strike a balance between making further savings and ensuring that the institutions can perform their tasks and duties in accordance with their obligations and powers under the Treaties, taking account of the difficult challenges posed by the current economic crisis; |
| --- | --- |

48.

Agrees with the Commission’s view on the need to rationalise administrative expenditure; stresses, however, that it is vital to strike a balance between making further savings and ensuring that the institutions can perform their tasks and duties in accordance with their obligations and powers under the Treaties, taking account of the difficult challenges posed by the current economic crisis;

| 49. | Profoundly disagrees with the application of a linear staff reduction to all institutions, bodies and agencies, as their roles and responsibilities under the Treaties differ widely; stresses that, in order to treat the institutions individually, it should be left to each of them to decide where cuts can be introduced, and which cuts, so as to not hamper their proper functioning; |
| --- | --- |

49.

Profoundly disagrees with the application of a linear staff reduction to all institutions, bodies and agencies, as their roles and responsibilities under the Treaties differ widely; stresses that, in order to treat the institutions individually, it should be left to each of them to decide where cuts can be introduced, and which cuts, so as to not hamper their proper functioning;

| 50. | Points to the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat; urges the budgetary authority to raise this issue in the negotiations on the next MFF 2014-2020; |
| --- | --- |

50.

Points to the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat; urges the budgetary authority to raise this issue in the negotiations on the next MFF 2014-2020;

Duration

| 51. | Takes the view that for the next MFF, a 7-year period set until 2020 should be considered as a transitional solution, given that it makes a clear link with the Europe 2020 strategy; believes, however, that a 5- or a 5+5-year period would better align the MFF’s duration with that of the institutions’ terms of office, thereby enhancing democratic accountability and responsibility; recalls that, in order to have a viable and effective MFF, a 7-year period requires a maximum level of flexibility; |
| --- | --- |

51.

Takes the view that for the next MFF, a 7-year period set until 2020 should be considered as a transitional solution, given that it makes a clear link with the Europe 2020 strategy; believes, however, that a 5- or a 5+5-year period would better align the MFF’s duration with that of the institutions’ terms of office, thereby enhancing democratic accountability and responsibility; recalls that, in order to have a viable and effective MFF, a 7-year period requires a maximum level of flexibility;

Mid-term revision

| 52. | Stresses the need for a mid-term revision to be enshrined in the MFF regulation, with a specific procedure including a binding calendar ensuring the full involvement of the next Parliament; considers that the Commission should table a legislative proposal enabling the revised MFF to be adopted in time for the 2018 budgetary procedure; stresses that the mid-term revision should not hamper the stability of investment prospects and should protect the beneficiaries and the stability of long-term programming and investments; |
| --- | --- |

52.

Stresses the need for a mid-term revision to be enshrined in the MFF regulation, with a specific procedure including a binding calendar ensuring the full involvement of the next Parliament; considers that the Commission should table a legislative proposal enabling the revised MFF to be adopted in time for the 2018 budgetary procedure; stresses that the mid-term revision should not hamper the stability of investment prospects and should protect the beneficiaries and the stability of long-term programming and investments;

The need for a more flexible MFF

| 53. | Is convinced as a matter of principle that changing political and economic circumstances, as well as unforeseen events, will require adjustments of the MFF over the 7-year period; insists that the next MFF must provide enhanced budgetary flexibility both within and across headings, as well as between financial years within the MFF, in order to ensure that the available budgetary resources can be used to the full; |
| --- | --- |

53.

Is convinced as a matter of principle that changing political and economic circumstances, as well as unforeseen events, will require adjustments of the MFF over the 7-year period; insists that the next MFF must provide enhanced budgetary flexibility both within and across headings, as well as between financial years within the MFF, in order to ensure that the available budgetary resources can be used to the full;

| 54. | Believes that 5 % flexibility is indispensable as regards the ceilings for the (sub)headings, to make it possible to adapt to new circumstances without increasing the overall amount and without requiring revision of the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

54.

Believes that 5 % flexibility is indispensable as regards the ceilings for the (sub)headings, to make it possible to adapt to new circumstances without increasing the overall amount and without requiring revision of the MFF;

| 55. | Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to increase the level of legislative flexibility (possibility of departing from a given amount for the entire duration of the programme concerned) from 5 % to 10 %; |
| --- | --- |

55.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to increase the level of legislative flexibility (possibility of departing from a given amount for the entire duration of the programme concerned) from 5 % to 10 %;

| 56. | Emphasises the need to make the best use of the ceilings set by the MFF; proposes to this end that the margins left under the commitment appropriations ceilings in one year’s budget should be carried over to the next year and seen as constituting a global MFF margin, to be attributed in future years to the different headings in line with their estimated needs and mobilised in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure; |
| --- | --- |

56.

Emphasises the need to make the best use of the ceilings set by the MFF; proposes to this end that the margins left under the commitment appropriations ceilings in one year’s budget should be carried over to the next year and seen as constituting a global MFF margin, to be attributed in future years to the different headings in line with their estimated needs and mobilised in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure;

| 57. | Stresses, equally, the need to introduce a global MFF margin for payment appropriations, enabling the carry-over of margins left under the payment appropriations ceiling to following years and mobilised in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure; |
| --- | --- |

57.

Stresses, equally, the need to introduce a global MFF margin for payment appropriations, enabling the carry-over of margins left under the payment appropriations ceiling to following years and mobilised in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure;

| 58. | Is particularly concerned about the current ever-growing level of outstanding commitments (RALs); calls for a joint interinstitutional strategy for keeping the level of RALs under control in the MFF 2014-2020 and for appropriate measures to be taken to that effect; encourages in this regard a discussion on how to make the level of payment appropriations more equally distributed over the MFF period to avoid, to the extent possible, the risk of hampering the implementation of EU programmes because of a lack of payment appropriations at the end of the financial framework; |
| --- | --- |

58.

Is particularly concerned about the current ever-growing level of outstanding commitments (RALs); calls for a joint interinstitutional strategy for keeping the level of RALs under control in the MFF 2014-2020 and for appropriate measures to be taken to that effect; encourages in this regard a discussion on how to make the level of payment appropriations more equally distributed over the MFF period to avoid, to the extent possible, the risk of hampering the implementation of EU programmes because of a lack of payment appropriations at the end of the financial framework;

| 59. | Notes that each year the EU budget shows a surplus and that the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget are lowered by this amount; at the same time deplores the Council’s regular linear cuts to the Commission’s estimations for payment appropriations, as entered in the draft budget, as well as the Council’s repeated objection, over the last years, to providing the EU budget with the level of additional payments needed by the Commission, at the end of the budgetary year, to enable the EU to meet its financial commitments; is of the opinion that such an approach is not good budgeting, and that, while the returned surplus has no impact on the overall deficit level of Member States, this amount could make a clear difference to the EU’s annual budget; recalls the commitment made by the institutions to revise the Financial Regulation in order to allow the carry-over of unused appropriations and of the budgetary balance; |
| --- | --- |

59.

Notes that each year the EU budget shows a surplus and that the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget are lowered by this amount; at the same time deplores the Council’s regular linear cuts to the Commission’s estimations for payment appropriations, as entered in the draft budget, as well as the Council’s repeated objection, over the last years, to providing the EU budget with the level of additional payments needed by the Commission, at the end of the budgetary year, to enable the EU to meet its financial commitments; is of the opinion that such an approach is not good budgeting, and that, while the returned surplus has no impact on the overall deficit level of Member States, this amount could make a clear difference to the EU’s annual budget; recalls the commitment made by the institutions to revise the Financial Regulation in order to allow the carry-over of unused appropriations and of the budgetary balance;

| 60. | Supports firmly the contingency margin, but emphasises that in order to be effective its mobilisation should not entail compulsory offsetting of ceilings, and should be adopted by qualified majority voting in Council; |
| --- | --- |

60.

Supports firmly the contingency margin, but emphasises that in order to be effective its mobilisation should not entail compulsory offsetting of ceilings, and should be adopted by qualified majority voting in Council;

| 61. | Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to increase the envelope of the Flexibility instrument and the utilisation of the annual amounts up to year n+3; |
| --- | --- |

61.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to increase the envelope of the Flexibility instrument and the utilisation of the annual amounts up to year n+3;

| 62. | Underlines its strong support for the Commission proposal that the Emergency Aid Reserve, the European Union Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the reserve for crises in the agriculture sector, given their non-programmable nature, should be entered in the budget over and above the ceilings for the relevant headings; |
| --- | --- |

62.

Underlines its strong support for the Commission proposal that the Emergency Aid Reserve, the European Union Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the reserve for crises in the agriculture sector, given their non-programmable nature, should be entered in the budget over and above the ceilings for the relevant headings;

| 63. | Points to the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) as a crisis intervention instrument to help workers who have lost their jobs to re-enter the labour market; stresses that the EGF must be continued and upgraded after 2013 as an instrument available, on equal terms, to all categories of workers; stresses as well the need for a simplified and accelerated procedure for the payment of grants in order to improve its efficiency; |
| --- | --- |

63.

Points to the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) as a crisis intervention instrument to help workers who have lost their jobs to re-enter the labour market; stresses that the EGF must be continued and upgraded after 2013 as an instrument available, on equal terms, to all categories of workers; stresses as well the need for a simplified and accelerated procedure for the payment of grants in order to improve its efficiency;

Unity of the budget

| 64. | Recalls that the EU budget covers all revenue and expenditure resulting from decisions taken by the EU institutions within the framework of their competences, and that it takes into account separately the Union’s financial operations in the form of lending, borrowing and guarantees; |
| --- | --- |

64.

Recalls that the EU budget covers all revenue and expenditure resulting from decisions taken by the EU institutions within the framework of their competences, and that it takes into account separately the Union’s financial operations in the form of lending, borrowing and guarantees;

| 65. | Urges the Commission and Council to list in a separate annex the budgetary or financial commitments and guarantees undertaken by the Union or by some of Member States in the framework of the European stabilisation mechanisms (EFSM, EFSF, ESM) in accordance with the provisions of Articles 122(2), 136(3) and 143 TFEU, as well as direct bilateral financial aid to other Member States or other projects related to the 'banking union'; |
| --- | --- |

65.

Urges the Commission and Council to list in a separate annex the budgetary or financial commitments and guarantees undertaken by the Union or by some of Member States in the framework of the European stabilisation mechanisms (EFSM, EFSF, ESM) in accordance with the provisions of Articles 122(2), 136(3) and 143 TFEU, as well as direct bilateral financial aid to other Member States or other projects related to the 'banking union';

| 66. | Stresses that all decisions related to the strengthening of the economic and monetary union should be taken on the basis of the Treaties and involve the relevant institutions; emphasises that any departure from the community method and increased use of intergovernmental agreements will only divide and weaken the European Union, including the euro area; |
| --- | --- |

66.

Stresses that all decisions related to the strengthening of the economic and monetary union should be taken on the basis of the Treaties and involve the relevant institutions; emphasises that any departure from the community method and increased use of intergovernmental agreements will only divide and weaken the European Union, including the euro area;

| 67. | Expresses its firm conviction that any new fiscal capacity for eurozone Member States aiming at adjustments to country- specific asymmetric shocks and structural reforms and whose fiscal functions are not covered by the MFF must be developed within the Union framework and must be subject to proper democratic accountability through the existing institutions; recalls that, as laid down in the Treaties, any new budgetary capacity must be part of the EU budget, thereby respecting its unity; believes, moreover, that in order to improve visibility and ensure the additionality of such a new budgetary capacity, a special new heading of the MFF should be created; strongly rejects any attempt to reduce the ceilings of the Commission’s proposal on the MFF in order to secure resources for this new capacity; |
| --- | --- |

67.

Expresses its firm conviction that any new fiscal capacity for eurozone Member States aiming at adjustments to country- specific asymmetric shocks and structural reforms and whose fiscal functions are not covered by the MFF must be developed within the Union framework and must be subject to proper democratic accountability through the existing institutions; recalls that, as laid down in the Treaties, any new budgetary capacity must be part of the EU budget, thereby respecting its unity; believes, moreover, that in order to improve visibility and ensure the additionality of such a new budgetary capacity, a special new heading of the MFF should be created; strongly rejects any attempt to reduce the ceilings of the Commission’s proposal on the MFF in order to secure resources for this new capacity;

| 68. | Strongly requests the Member States to make a firm commitment to the incorporation of the European Development Fund into the EU budget as of 2021; notes that such a reform should require the MFF ceilings to be increased accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

68.

Strongly requests the Member States to make a firm commitment to the incorporation of the European Development Fund into the EU budget as of 2021; notes that such a reform should require the MFF ceilings to be increased accordingly;

| 69. | Confirms its intention in the future to organise a specific public debate and hold a vote on the revenue side of the budget, as part of its examination of the annual draft budget; strongly believes that in this way a permanent debate on the financing system of the Union will be maintained, while fully acknowledging that the budgetary authority does not at present have any competence to propose changes to this part of the budget; |
| --- | --- |

69.

Confirms its intention in the future to organise a specific public debate and hold a vote on the revenue side of the budget, as part of its examination of the annual draft budget; strongly believes that in this way a permanent debate on the financing system of the Union will be maintained, while fully acknowledging that the budgetary authority does not at present have any competence to propose changes to this part of the budget;

Own resources

| 70. | Believes that the negotiations on the next MFF, which started more than a year ago, clearly demonstrate the stalemate created by the lack of a genuine own resources system: these negotiations are organised in Council around two opposing camps, led by the net contributor countries to the EU budget, on the one hand, and by the net beneficiary countries of the EU budget, on the other, in a system which creates a purely accounting-based vision of "fair return' which, in the end, makes any agreement on the MFF conditional on an agreement on a long list of exceptions and compensations, negotiated behind closed doors and incomprehensible to the European citizen; |
| --- | --- |

70.

Believes that the negotiations on the next MFF, which started more than a year ago, clearly demonstrate the stalemate created by the lack of a genuine own resources system: these negotiations are organised in Council around two opposing camps, led by the net contributor countries to the EU budget, on the one hand, and by the net beneficiary countries of the EU budget, on the other, in a system which creates a purely accounting-based vision of "fair return' which, in the end, makes any agreement on the MFF conditional on an agreement on a long list of exceptions and compensations, negotiated behind closed doors and incomprehensible to the European citizen;

| 71. | Firmly believes that the financing of the Union budget should return to a genuine system of own resources, as provided for in the Treaty of Rome and all successive EU treaties; deeply regrets the fact that the current system, whereby the vast majority of the financing comes from national contributions, is non-transparent and unfair and is not subject to parliamentary control at either European or national level; stresses that such a system violates, in essence, the letter and spirit of the Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

71.

Firmly believes that the financing of the Union budget should return to a genuine system of own resources, as provided for in the Treaty of Rome and all successive EU treaties; deeply regrets the fact that the current system, whereby the vast majority of the financing comes from national contributions, is non-transparent and unfair and is not subject to parliamentary control at either European or national level; stresses that such a system violates, in essence, the letter and spirit of the Treaty;

| 72. | Points out that the restructuring of the system of own resources as such does not concern the size of the EU budget, but is aimed at finding a more effective mix of resources to fund agreed EU policies and objectives; stresses that the introduction of a new system would not increase the overall tax burden for citizens, but would, instead, reduce the burden on national treasuries; |
| --- | --- |

72.

Points out that the restructuring of the system of own resources as such does not concern the size of the EU budget, but is aimed at finding a more effective mix of resources to fund agreed EU policies and objectives; stresses that the introduction of a new system would not increase the overall tax burden for citizens, but would, instead, reduce the burden on national treasuries;

| 73. | Reaffirms its basic position, as stated in its resolution of 13 June 2012, that it is not prepared to give its consent to the next MFF regulation without political agreement on reform of the own resources system, in line with the Commission’s proposals of 29 June 2011, including its legislative proposals for genuine new own resources; believes that such a reform should aim at reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget to a maximum of 40 % by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States; |
| --- | --- |

73.

Reaffirms its basic position, as stated in its resolution of 13 June 2012, that it is not prepared to give its consent to the next MFF regulation without political agreement on reform of the own resources system, in line with the Commission’s proposals of 29 June 2011, including its legislative proposals for genuine new own resources; believes that such a reform should aim at reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget to a maximum of 40 % by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States;

| 74. | Strongly believes that the necessary political agreement should comprise the following elements:






  1) | there must be an in-depth reform of the financing of the EU budget, to return to a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources, offering the guarantees over decision making and democratic control inherent in all public budgets; |
| --- | --- | --- |

74.

Strongly believes that the necessary political agreement should comprise the following elements:

1)

there must be an in-depth reform of the financing of the EU budget, to return to a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources, offering the guarantees over decision making and democratic control inherent in all public budgets;

| 2) | this reform must enter into effect during the 2014-2020 MFF, as proposed by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2)

this reform must enter into effect during the 2014-2020 MFF, as proposed by the Commission;

| 3) | the Commission should react immediately to the formal request of several Member States, reaching the necessary threshold, to introduce a Financial Transaction Tax under enhanced cooperation; insists that any such legislative proposal by the Commission must be published together with a set of revised proposals on the own resources package, in order to ensure that revenues from this tax are wholly or partly allocated to the EU budget as a genuine own resource, thus reducing the national contributions of those Member States introducing this tax; |
| --- | --- |

3)

the Commission should react immediately to the formal request of several Member States, reaching the necessary threshold, to introduce a Financial Transaction Tax under enhanced cooperation; insists that any such legislative proposal by the Commission must be published together with a set of revised proposals on the own resources package, in order to ensure that revenues from this tax are wholly or partly allocated to the EU budget as a genuine own resource, thus reducing the national contributions of those Member States introducing this tax;

| 4) | an agreement on the reform of VAT as own resource, as well as its implementing modalities, must be concluded together with the agreement on the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

4)

an agreement on the reform of VAT as own resource, as well as its implementing modalities, must be concluded together with the agreement on the MFF;

| 5) | the new system must put an end to the existing rebates and other correction mechanisms; any eventual compensation can only be accepted on the basis of the Commission proposal, as temporary by nature and justified by indisputable and objective economic criteria; |
| --- | --- |

5)

the new system must put an end to the existing rebates and other correction mechanisms; any eventual compensation can only be accepted on the basis of the Commission proposal, as temporary by nature and justified by indisputable and objective economic criteria;

| 6) | in the event that implementation of the new own resources does not result in a significant decrease in Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget, the Commission will come forward with additional proposals on the introduction of new genuine own resources. |
| --- | --- |

6)

in the event that implementation of the new own resources does not result in a significant decrease in Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget, the Commission will come forward with additional proposals on the introduction of new genuine own resources.

Interinstitutional negotiations

| 75. | Stresses that a stringent majority is required in both Parliament and Council to adopt the MFF, and points to the importance of exploiting to the full the provisions of Article 312(5), which imposes on the institutions the duty to carry out negotiations in order to reach agreement on a text to which Parliament can give its consent; |
| --- | --- |

75.

Stresses that a stringent majority is required in both Parliament and Council to adopt the MFF, and points to the importance of exploiting to the full the provisions of Article 312(5), which imposes on the institutions the duty to carry out negotiations in order to reach agreement on a text to which Parliament can give its consent;

| 76. | Emphasises that this will be the first time an MFF regulation is adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which entail new cooperation arrangements among the institutions combining efficient decision-making and respect for the respective prerogatives; welcomes, in this respect, the steps taken by the Hungarian, Polish, Danish and Cypriot Council Presidencies-in-office to establish a structured dialogue and regular information exchange with Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

76.

Emphasises that this will be the first time an MFF regulation is adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which entail new cooperation arrangements among the institutions combining efficient decision-making and respect for the respective prerogatives; welcomes, in this respect, the steps taken by the Hungarian, Polish, Danish and Cypriot Council Presidencies-in-office to establish a structured dialogue and regular information exchange with Parliament;

| 77. | Expresses its readiness to enter into substantial discussions with the Council on both the MFF regulation and the IIA, and asks the Council to intensify contacts at all levels with a view to the 22 and 23 November 2012 European Council; stresses the need to reach the final agreement on the MFF as soon as possible; |
| --- | --- |

77.

Expresses its readiness to enter into substantial discussions with the Council on both the MFF regulation and the IIA, and asks the Council to intensify contacts at all levels with a view to the 22 and 23 November 2012 European Council; stresses the need to reach the final agreement on the MFF as soon as possible;

| 78. | Notes that any political agreement reached at European Council level constitutes no more than a negotiating mandate for the Council; insists that after the European Council has reached a political agreement, fully-fledged negotiations between Parliament and the Council need to take place before the Council formally submits for Parliament’s consent its proposals on the MFF regulation; |
| --- | --- |

78.

Notes that any political agreement reached at European Council level constitutes no more than a negotiating mandate for the Council; insists that after the European Council has reached a political agreement, fully-fledged negotiations between Parliament and the Council need to take place before the Council formally submits for Parliament’s consent its proposals on the MFF regulation;

| 79. | Reiterates that, according to the TFEU, Parliament and the Council are the legislative bodies and the European Council does not have the role of legislator; stresses that the negotiations on the legislative proposals relating to the multiannual programmes will be pursued under the ordinary legislative procedure; |
| --- | --- |

79.

Reiterates that, according to the TFEU, Parliament and the Council are the legislative bodies and the European Council does not have the role of legislator; stresses that the negotiations on the legislative proposals relating to the multiannual programmes will be pursued under the ordinary legislative procedure;

| 80. | Insists on a qualitative approach to the MFF Regulation and related multiannual programmes negotiations; stresses that they are to be considered as a package, and reaffirms the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'; |
| --- | --- |

80.

Insists on a qualitative approach to the MFF Regulation and related multiannual programmes negotiations; stresses that they are to be considered as a package, and reaffirms the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed';

| 81. | Highlights the importance of the opinions of the EP committees annexed to the interim report, as they complement, and provide valuable guidance and further details on, the MFF/IIA negotiation guidelines laid down in this resolution; insists that the policy-specific recommendations contained in these opinions should feed the negotiations of the relevant multiannual programmes; reiterates, in this regard, its firm position that the MFF special legislative procedure should not address issues that are subject to ordinary legislative procedures; |
| --- | --- |

81.

Highlights the importance of the opinions of the EP committees annexed to the interim report, as they complement, and provide valuable guidance and further details on, the MFF/IIA negotiation guidelines laid down in this resolution; insists that the policy-specific recommendations contained in these opinions should feed the negotiations of the relevant multiannual programmes; reiterates, in this regard, its firm position that the MFF special legislative procedure should not address issues that are subject to ordinary legislative procedures;

| 82. | Draws Council’s attention to the annexed Working Document highlighting modifications to the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the MFF for the years 2014-2020 and to the proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on cooperation in budgetary matters and sound financial management; advises that further modifications may become necessary depending on how negotiations on the MFF progress; points out that the Interinstitutional Agreement can be finalised only after the MFF procedure has been completed; |
| --- | --- |

82.

Draws Council’s attention to the annexed Working Document highlighting modifications to the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the MFF for the years 2014-2020 and to the proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on cooperation in budgetary matters and sound financial management; advises that further modifications may become necessary depending on how negotiations on the MFF progress; points out that the Interinstitutional Agreement can be finalised only after the MFF procedure has been completed;

| 83. | Points out, finally, that if no MFF has been adopted by the end of 2013, the ceilings and other provisions corresponding to 2013 will be extended until such time as a new MFF is adopted; signals that, in this eventuality, Parliament would be ready to reach a swift agreement with the Council and Commission to adapt the internal structure of the MFF to reflect the new political priorities; |
| --- | --- |

83.

Points out, finally, that if no MFF has been adopted by the end of 2013, the ceilings and other provisions corresponding to 2013 will be extended until such time as a new MFF is adopted; signals that, in this eventuality, Parliament would be ready to reach a swift agreement with the Council and Commission to adapt the internal structure of the MFF to reflect the new political priorities;

*

* *

| 84. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States, and the other institutions and bodies concerned. |
| --- | --- |

84.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States, and the other institutions and bodies concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 27 E, 31.1.2008, p. 214.

(2)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

(3)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0245.

(4)  (COM(2010)0700).

(5)  Text adopted, P7_TA(2012)0404.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/13

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case

P7_TA(2012)0369

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))

2014/C 68 E/02

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to Article 215 of the TFEU, |
| --- | --- |

—

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 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 Russia (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on the rule of law in Russia (1),

| — | 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 matter (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 matter (2),

| — | 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 2011 (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 2011 (3),

| — | having regard to its recommendation of 2 February 2012 to the Council on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its recommendation of 2 February 2012 to the Council on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures (4),

| — | 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 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 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 Rule 121(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

(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; |
| --- | --- |

(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;

| (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; |
| --- | --- |

(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; |
| --- | --- |

(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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---

(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.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/15

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Implementation of the Single European Sky legislation

P7_TA(2012)0370

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

2014/C 68 E/03

The European Parliament,

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

| — | having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

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

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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’; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 airspace (1) 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 airspace (1) 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

*

* *

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

52.

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

---

(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).

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/21

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Passenger rights in all transport modes

P7_TA(2012)0371

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

2014/C 68 E/04

The European Parliament,

| — | 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 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 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 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 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 bankruptcy (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy (2),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and to the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and to the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (3),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2012 on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2012 on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air (4),

| — | having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | 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), |
| --- | --- |

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

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

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 (5), 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 (5), 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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 80/2009, 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; |
| --- | --- |

31.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that, notably in computerised reservation systems governed by Regulation (EC) No 80/2009, 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

48.

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

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 proposal (6); |
| --- | --- |

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 proposal (6);

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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 (7); |
| --- | --- |

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 (7);

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 Waterborne (8) and Bus (9) 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; |
| --- | --- |

77.

Recognises that, with the entry into force of the Waterborne (8) and Bus (9) 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

*

* *

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

84.

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

---

(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.

(5)  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).

(6)  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.

(7)  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.

(8)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 1.

(9)  OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 1.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/30

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Future of EU development policy

P7_TA(2012)0386

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy (2012/2002(INI))

2014/C 68 E/05

The European Parliament,

| — | 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 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 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 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 ‘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 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 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 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 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 2008 (6), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Accra Agenda for Action of 4 September 2008 (6),

| — | having regard to the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation agreed on 1 December 2011 (7), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation agreed on 1 December 2011 (7),

| — | 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 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 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 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’ (8), |
| --- | --- |

—

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’ (8),

| — | 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’ (9), |
| --- | --- |

—

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’ (9),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on increasing the impact of EU development policy (10), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on increasing the impact of EU development policy (10),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges (11), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges (11),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (12), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (12),

| — | 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 OECD (13), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 OECD (13),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the future of EU budget support to developing countries (14), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the future of EU budget support to developing countries (14),

| — | having regard to the opinion delivered by the Committee of the Regions on 16 February 2012 (15), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion delivered by the Committee of the Regions on 16 February 2012 (15),

| — | having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A7-0234/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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 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, |
| --- | --- |

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 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, |
| --- | --- |

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), |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 2012, of both basic principles underlying EU development cooperation and some of the positions expressed by Parliament in its recent resolutions on development cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Congratulates the Council on having taken account, in its conclusions of 14 May 2012, 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’; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 aim of improving the living and working conditions of the whole population, in both urban and in rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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’; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 the Council within the framework of instruments for the financing of development cooperation which fall within the ordinary legislative procedure; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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’; |
| --- | --- |

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’;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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’; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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);

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

66.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EEAS and the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States.

---

(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.pdf

(6)  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.

(8)  OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 48.

(9)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0261.

(10)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0320.

(11)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0410.

(12)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0460.

(13)  http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/46/50155818.pdf

(14)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0317.

(15)  OJ C 113, 18.4.2012, p. 52.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/40

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012SMEs: competitiveness and business opportunities

P7_TA(2012)0387

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities (2012/2042(INI))

2014/C 68 E/06

The European Parliament,

| — | 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 period (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 period (2),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era (3),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on the Small Business Act Review (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on the Small Business Act Review (4),

| — | having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | 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), |
| --- | --- |

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 efficiently (5); |
| --- | --- |

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 efficiently (5);

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; (6) |
| --- | --- |

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; (6)

| 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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 cooperation; notes that there is not sufficient emphasis on this second dimension in the Communication; |
| --- | --- |

29.

Recommends that the Commission consider all dimensions related to internationalisation, namely exporting and importing, including various forms of economic partnerships and 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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.; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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. |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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” (7) can be introduced as a requirement for the Member States, to the benefit of the single market; |
| --- | --- |

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” (7) 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

55.

Calls for a “fitness check” of existing EU legislation in order to eliminate inconsistencies and outdated or ineffective rules;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 forecasts supplied by the micro-enterprises, and, secondly, the banks place standardised funding applications online and provide reasons for refusals of funding applications; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

*

* *

| 116. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

116.

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

---

(1)  OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36.

(2)  OJ C 188 E, 28.6.2012, p. 7.

(3)  OJ C 199 E, 7.7.2012, p. 131.

(4)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0235.

(5)  "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.

(6)  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).

(7)  As suggested by the High Level Group on Administrative Burden.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/53

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Trade and economic relations with the United States

P7_TA(2012)0388

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on trade and economic relations with the United States (2012/2149(INI))

2014/C 68 E/07

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Joint Statement of the EU-US Summit issued on 28 November 2011 (1) and the Joint Statement of the EU-US Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) issued on 29 November 2011 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Joint Statement of the EU-US Summit issued on 28 November 2011 (1) and the Joint Statement of the EU-US Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) issued on 29 November 2011 (2),

| — | 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 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 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 2012 (3), and to the Joint Declaration of the G20 Summit held in Los Cabos, Mexico, on 18-19 June 2012 (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Joint Declaration of the G8 Summit held in Camp David, United States, on 18-19 May 2012 (3), and to the Joint Declaration of the G20 Summit held in Los Cabos, Mexico, on 18-19 June 2012 (4),

| — | having regard to the ‘Interim Report to Leaders’ of 19 June 2012 from the HLWG (5), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the ‘Interim Report to Leaders’ of 19 June 2012 from the HLWG (5),

| — | 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 Rompuy (6), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Rompuy (6),

| — | having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 28-29 June 2012, as well as the ‘Compact for Growth and Jobs’ annexed thereto (7), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 28-29 June 2012, as well as the ‘Compact for Growth and Jobs’ annexed thereto (7),

| — | having regard to its earlier resolutions, in particular the resolution of 1 June 2006 on EU-US transatlantic economic relations (8), of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness (9), of 19 February 2008 on the EU’s strategy to deliver market access for European companies (10), of 5 June 2008 on implementing trade policy through efficient import and export rules and procedures (11), of 9 July 2008 on the World Trade Organisation disputes between the European Union and the United States on alleged subsidies to Airbus and Boeing (12), of 5 February 2009 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade (13), of 11 November 2010 on the forthcoming EU-US Summit and the Transatlantic Economic Council (14), of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (15), of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy (16), of 17 November 2011 on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 2011 (17), and of 13 December 2011 on trade and investment barriers (18), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its earlier resolutions, in particular the resolution of 1 June 2006 on EU-US transatlantic economic relations (8), of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness (9), of 19 February 2008 on the EU’s strategy to deliver market access for European companies (10), of 5 June 2008 on implementing trade policy through efficient import and export rules and procedures (11), of 9 July 2008 on the World Trade Organisation disputes between the European Union and the United States on alleged subsidies to Airbus and Boeing (12), of 5 February 2009 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade (13), of 11 November 2010 on the forthcoming EU-US Summit and the Transatlantic Economic Council (14), of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (15), of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy (16), of 17 November 2011 on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 2011 (17), and of 13 December 2011 on trade and investment barriers (18),

| — | 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 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’ (19), |
| --- | --- |

—

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’ (19),

| — | having regard to Articles 207(3) and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Articles 207(3) and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0321/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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);

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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, 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; |
| --- | --- |

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, 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---

(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-declaration

(4)  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.pdf

(6)  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.

(11)  OJ C 285 E, 26.11.2009, p. 1.

(12)  OJ C 294 E, 3.12.2009, p. 33.

(13)  OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 101.

(14)  OJ C 74 E, 13.3.2012, p. 1.

(15)  OJ C 296 E, 2.10.2012, p. 34.

(16)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0412.

(17)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0510.

(18)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0565.

(19)  http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/december/tradoc_145613.pdf

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

Tuesday 23 October 2012

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/61

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Request for waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser

P7_TA(2012)0358

European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser (2012/2152(IMM))

2014/C 68 E/08

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office, forwarded on 21 March 2012 and announced in plenary sitting on 2 July 2012, in connection with an investigation procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office, forwarded on 21 March 2012 and announced in plenary sitting on 2 July 2012, in connection with an investigation procedure,

| — | having heard Martin Ehrenhauser in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having heard Martin Ehrenhauser in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

| — | having regard to Article 57 of the Austrian Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 57 of the Austrian Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law),

| — | having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010 and 6 September 2011 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010 and 6 September 2011 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (1),

| — | having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0332/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0332/2012),

| A. | whereas the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested the waiver of immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser, Member of the European Parliament, in order to enable the Austrian authorities to conduct the necessary investigations and to take legal action against Martin Ehrenhauser; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested the waiver of immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser, Member of the European Parliament, in order to enable the Austrian authorities to conduct the necessary investigations and to take legal action against Martin Ehrenhauser;

| B. | whereas the waiver of immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser concerns alleged offences related to illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code (StGB), a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 StGB, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a StGB, unauthorised use of a recording or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) StGB and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas the waiver of immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser concerns alleged offences related to illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code (StGB), a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 StGB, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a StGB, unauthorised use of a recording or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) StGB and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act;

| C. | whereas under Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to members of their parliament; |
| --- | --- |

C.

whereas under Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

| D. | whereas, under Article 57(2) of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law, Members of the National Council (Nationalrat) may only be arrested on the grounds of a criminal offence with the consent of the National Council – except where they are caught in the act of committing a crime – and searches of the houses of members of the National Council likewise requires the consent of the National Council; whereas further to Article 57(3) of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law, no official action on account of a punishable offence may be taken against members of the National Council without the National Council’s consent unless that offence is manifestly not connected with the political activity of the member in question and, under this provision, the authority concerned must seek a decision from the National Council as to whether such a connection exists, where this is so requested by the member in question or one third of the members of the appropriate standing committee; |
| --- | --- |

D.

whereas, under Article 57(2) of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law, Members of the National Council (Nationalrat) may only be arrested on the grounds of a criminal offence with the consent of the National Council – except where they are caught in the act of committing a crime – and searches of the houses of members of the National Council likewise requires the consent of the National Council; whereas further to Article 57(3) of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law, no official action on account of a punishable offence may be taken against members of the National Council without the National Council’s consent unless that offence is manifestly not connected with the political activity of the member in question and, under this provision, the authority concerned must seek a decision from the National Council as to whether such a connection exists, where this is so requested by the member in question or one third of the members of the appropriate standing committee;

| E. | whereas the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser must be waived if the investigations against him are to proceed; |
| --- | --- |

E.

whereas the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser must be waived if the investigations against him are to proceed;

| F. | whereas when Martin Ehrenhauser was heard by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs he stated that he believed his immunity should be waived; |
| --- | --- |

F.

whereas when Martin Ehrenhauser was heard by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs he stated that he believed his immunity should be waived;

| G. | whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union has determined that ‘although the privileges and immunities have been granted solely in the interests of the Community, the fact remains that they have been expressly accorded to the officials and other staff of institutions of the Community and to the Members’ and ‘therefore the Protocol confers an individual right on the persons concerned’ (2); |
| --- | --- |

G.

whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union has determined that ‘although the privileges and immunities have been granted solely in the interests of the Community, the fact remains that they have been expressly accorded to the officials and other staff of institutions of the Community and to the Members’ and ‘therefore the Protocol confers an individual right on the persons concerned’ (2);

| H. | whereas Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and Article 57 of the Austrian Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law) do not preclude the waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser; |
| --- | --- |

H.

whereas Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and Article 57 of the Austrian Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law) do not preclude the waiver of the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser;

| 1. | Decides to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Decides to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its competent committee immediately to the appropriate authorities of the Austrian Republic and to Martin Ehrenhauser. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its competent committee immediately to the appropriate authorities of the Austrian Republic and to Martin Ehrenhauser.

---

(1)  Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195, Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391, Case T-345/05 Mote v Parliament [2008] ECR II-2849, Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07 Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente [2008] ECR I-7929, Case T-42/06 Gollnisch v Parliament [2010] ECR II-01135 and Case C-163/10 Patriciello (not yet published in the ECR).

(2)  Case T-345/05, Mote/Parlament, [2008] ECR II-2849, para. 28.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/63

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections

P7_TA(2012)0359

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections (12749/2012 – C7-0233/2012 – 2012/2092(BUD))

2014/C 68 E/09

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (1),

| — | having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2),

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

—

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

| — | having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2012 on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2013 budget – Section III – Commission (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2012 on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2013 budget – Section III – Commission (4),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2012 on Parliament’s estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2013 (5), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2012 on Parliament’s estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2013 (5),

| — | having regard to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, which the Commission adopted on 25 April 2012 (COM(2012)0300), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, which the Commission adopted on 25 April 2012 (COM(2012)0300),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 draft budget (6), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 draft budget (6),

| — | having regard the European Council's decision of 28 June 2012 to create a "Compact for growth and jobs", |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard the European Council's decision of 28 June 2012 to create a "Compact for growth and jobs",

| — | having regard to the position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, which the Council adopted on 24 July 2012 and forwarded to Parliament on 14 September 2012 (12749/2012 – C7-0233/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, which the Council adopted on 24 July 2012 and forwarded to Parliament on 14 September 2012 (12749/2012 – C7-0233/2012),

| — | having regard to Letter of amendment No 1/2013 to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, presented by the Commission on 19 October 2012, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Letter of amendment No 1/2013 to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, presented by the Commission on 19 October 2012,

| — | having regard to Rule 75b of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the other committees concerned (A7-0311/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the other committees concerned (A7-0311/2012),

| A. | whereas the priorities expressed in the opinions given by its specialised committees, as well as those which emerged on the occasion of the meetings with the Rapporteurs specialising in budgetary matters, have as far as possible been taken into account in the present resolution and in Parliament's vote on the amendments to the budget, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas the priorities expressed in the opinions given by its specialised committees, as well as those which emerged on the occasion of the meetings with the Rapporteurs specialising in budgetary matters, have as far as possible been taken into account in the present resolution and in Parliament's vote on the amendments to the budget,

Section III

| 1. | Recalls that its priorities for the 2013 budget, as detailed in its above-mentioned resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue, consist in support for sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, particularly for SMEs and youth; points out once again that the Commission's draft budget (DB) reflects Parliament's priorities as regards the programmes and initiatives to be reinforced towards these objectives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Recalls that its priorities for the 2013 budget, as detailed in its above-mentioned resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue, consist in support for sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, particularly for SMEs and youth; points out once again that the Commission's draft budget (DB) reflects Parliament's priorities as regards the programmes and initiatives to be reinforced towards these objectives;

| 2. | Is fully aware of the severe difficulties arising from the state of the national economies and of the need for a responsible and realistic reading; cannot accept, however, the approach according to which the EU budget is made the source for possible savings with the same proportion and logic applied to the national budgets, given their substantial difference in nature, objectives and structure; highlights that decreasing EU resources will surely result in a lack of investment and liquidity in the Member States, thus aggravating the problems they are facing; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is fully aware of the severe difficulties arising from the state of the national economies and of the need for a responsible and realistic reading; cannot accept, however, the approach according to which the EU budget is made the source for possible savings with the same proportion and logic applied to the national budgets, given their substantial difference in nature, objectives and structure; highlights that decreasing EU resources will surely result in a lack of investment and liquidity in the Member States, thus aggravating the problems they are facing;

| 3. | Underlines that the EU budget is to be seen as a complementary instrument of support for the Member States’ economies, capable of concentrating initiatives and investment in areas strategic for growth and the creation of jobs as well as and of bringing about a leverage effect in sectors overcoming national boundaries; highlights that such a role is legitimised by the same Member States, who, together with Parliament, are responsible for the decisions from which most of the EU law stems; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Underlines that the EU budget is to be seen as a complementary instrument of support for the Member States’ economies, capable of concentrating initiatives and investment in areas strategic for growth and the creation of jobs as well as and of bringing about a leverage effect in sectors overcoming national boundaries; highlights that such a role is legitimised by the same Member States, who, together with Parliament, are responsible for the decisions from which most of the EU law stems;

| 4. | Underlines the strong synergetic effects of the EU budget and thus its ongoing contribution to cost savings; believes that, with sufficient political will from Member States, even more savings could be achieved; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Underlines the strong synergetic effects of the EU budget and thus its ongoing contribution to cost savings; believes that, with sufficient political will from Member States, even more savings could be achieved;

| 5. | Recalls that 2013 is the last year of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF), which makes it of the utmost importance to reach a balance between commitments undertaken so far and payments deriving from them that need to be honoured, the institutional credibility of the EU being at stake as well as possible legal consequences for the Commission in case of missing reimbursement of legitimate payment claims; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Recalls that 2013 is the last year of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF), which makes it of the utmost importance to reach a balance between commitments undertaken so far and payments deriving from them that need to be honoured, the institutional credibility of the EU being at stake as well as possible legal consequences for the Commission in case of missing reimbursement of legitimate payment claims;

| 6. | Deplores, therefore, the decision of the Council to proceed again this year with the usual approach of horizontal cuts to the DB, aimed at artificially reducing the level of the EU's resources for 2013 by an overall total of EUR 1 155 million (- 0,8 %) in commitment appropriations (CA) and EUR 5 228 million (- 3,8 %) in payment appropriations (PA) as compared to the DB, thereby leading to a very modest increase compared to the 2012 budget both in commitments (+ 1,27 % compared to 2 % of the DB) and in payments (+ 2,79 % compared to 6,8 % of the DB); |
| --- | --- |

6.

Deplores, therefore, the decision of the Council to proceed again this year with the usual approach of horizontal cuts to the DB, aimed at artificially reducing the level of the EU's resources for 2013 by an overall total of EUR 1 155 million (- 0,8 %) in commitment appropriations (CA) and EUR 5 228 million (- 3,8 %) in payment appropriations (PA) as compared to the DB, thereby leading to a very modest increase compared to the 2012 budget both in commitments (+ 1,27 % compared to 2 % of the DB) and in payments (+ 2,79 % compared to 6,8 % of the DB);

| 7. | Is surprised that, in this exercise, the Council has not taken into account latest Commission's forecasts for programmes’ implementation, based on estimates of the same Member States, which on the one hand clearly highlight areas of over-performances where reinforcements are needed already in 2012 and on the other hand warn about the severe risk of shortages of payments, in particular under Headings 1a, 1b and 2; recalls in this context the letter that President Barroso addressed to the 27 Member States in July 2012 expressing his concern about the cuts made to the DB by the Council's reading, as a result of which there is a risk that sufficient funds are not made available to enable the EU to honour its debts; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is surprised that, in this exercise, the Council has not taken into account latest Commission's forecasts for programmes’ implementation, based on estimates of the same Member States, which on the one hand clearly highlight areas of over-performances where reinforcements are needed already in 2012 and on the other hand warn about the severe risk of shortages of payments, in particular under Headings 1a, 1b and 2; recalls in this context the letter that President Barroso addressed to the 27 Member States in July 2012 expressing his concern about the cuts made to the DB by the Council's reading, as a result of which there is a risk that sufficient funds are not made available to enable the EU to honour its debts;

| 8. | Underlines that the current procedures for assessing the real needs for payment appropriations between the relevant administrations in the Member States and the competent services in the Commission take place in total obscurity; strongly believes that such procedures adversely impact on the quality of the final result, on the level of information that reaches not only the governments themselves but also the national parliaments and the European Parliament, and on the negotiations between the two branches of the budgetary authority; |
| --- | --- |

8.

Underlines that the current procedures for assessing the real needs for payment appropriations between the relevant administrations in the Member States and the competent services in the Commission take place in total obscurity; strongly believes that such procedures adversely impact on the quality of the final result, on the level of information that reaches not only the governments themselves but also the national parliaments and the European Parliament, and on the negotiations between the two branches of the budgetary authority;

| 9. | Notes that Council's cuts are spread over all the headings, but that Headings 1a and 1b are particularly affected as regards payments (-EUR 1,9 billion and -EUR 1,6 billion respectively as compared to the DB), i.e. the headings under which most of the programmes and initiatives responsible for delivery of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are concentrated; warns that such an approach puts at risk the fulfilment of commitments previously undertaken and consequently the delivery of jointly decided EU priorities; |
| --- | --- |

9.

Notes that Council's cuts are spread over all the headings, but that Headings 1a and 1b are particularly affected as regards payments (-EUR 1,9 billion and -EUR 1,6 billion respectively as compared to the DB), i.e. the headings under which most of the programmes and initiatives responsible for delivery of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are concentrated; warns that such an approach puts at risk the fulfilment of commitments previously undertaken and consequently the delivery of jointly decided EU priorities;

| 10. | Underlines that these cuts are fully at odds with the conclusions of the June 2012 European Council, which identified the EU budget as "a catalyst for growth and jobs across Europe" and decided to concentrate resources, including EUR 55 billion coming from the Structural Funds, on growth-enhancing measures; considers that that decision, taken at the highest political level of the EU, needs to be translated into a sufficient level of payments for 2013 in favour of programmes and actions underpinning this priority; |
| --- | --- |

10.

Underlines that these cuts are fully at odds with the conclusions of the June 2012 European Council, which identified the EU budget as "a catalyst for growth and jobs across Europe" and decided to concentrate resources, including EUR 55 billion coming from the Structural Funds, on growth-enhancing measures; considers that that decision, taken at the highest political level of the EU, needs to be translated into a sufficient level of payments for 2013 in favour of programmes and actions underpinning this priority;

| 11. | Rejects the Council's argument that these cuts correspond to under-implemented or low-performing programmes, since they also affect programmes showing excellent implementation rates (e.g. the Lifelong Learning Programme and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) under Heading 1a and the Competitiveness and Employment objective under Heading 1b), whilst they do not touch areas experiencing under-implementation; points out that such criteria completely disregard the multiannual character of the EU's policies, and of cohesion policy in particular, characterised by a rising profile of payments towards the end of the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

11.

Rejects the Council's argument that these cuts correspond to under-implemented or low-performing programmes, since they also affect programmes showing excellent implementation rates (e.g. the Lifelong Learning Programme and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) under Heading 1a and the Competitiveness and Employment objective under Heading 1b), whilst they do not touch areas experiencing under-implementation; points out that such criteria completely disregard the multiannual character of the EU's policies, and of cohesion policy in particular, characterised by a rising profile of payments towards the end of the MFF;

| 12. | Points out that the substantial reduction in the level of payments as compared to commitments set by the Council would logically result in a further increase of the RAL at the end of the year, by increasing the gap between CA and PA by EUR 4,1 billion, especially considering that the largest shares of the RAL relate to cohesion policy (65,6 %) and to R&D sector (10,5 %), which are the two main areas suffering from the cuts; |
| --- | --- |

12.

Points out that the substantial reduction in the level of payments as compared to commitments set by the Council would logically result in a further increase of the RAL at the end of the year, by increasing the gap between CA and PA by EUR 4,1 billion, especially considering that the largest shares of the RAL relate to cohesion policy (65,6 %) and to R&D sector (10,5 %), which are the two main areas suffering from the cuts;

| 13. | On the basis of the data presented by the Commission in the inter-institutional meeting on payments of 26 September 2012, doubts that the increase in payments by 6,8 % proposed in the DB will be sufficient to cover reimbursements of payment claims awaited by Member States under the various headings – and in particular for Headings 1a and 1b – in the absence of an amending budget covering payment needs for 2012; will therefore reject any attempt to reduce the level of payment appropriations as compared to the DB proposal; |
| --- | --- |

13.

On the basis of the data presented by the Commission in the inter-institutional meeting on payments of 26 September 2012, doubts that the increase in payments by 6,8 % proposed in the DB will be sufficient to cover reimbursements of payment claims awaited by Member States under the various headings – and in particular for Headings 1a and 1b – in the absence of an amending budget covering payment needs for 2012; will therefore reject any attempt to reduce the level of payment appropriations as compared to the DB proposal;

| 14. | Due to the recent years’ experience, does not deem the declaration of payments proposed by the Council in its reading as a sufficient guarantee that an adequate level of payments will eventually be made available for all headings; takes the general approach, therefore, of restoring, at the level of DB payments cut by Council in all headings and to increase payment appropriations over DB on a selected number of lines characterised by high levels of implementation within each heading, in particular Headings 1a and 4, to cover the real needs of the corresponding programmes, as identified by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

14.

Due to the recent years’ experience, does not deem the declaration of payments proposed by the Council in its reading as a sufficient guarantee that an adequate level of payments will eventually be made available for all headings; takes the general approach, therefore, of restoring, at the level of DB payments cut by Council in all headings and to increase payment appropriations over DB on a selected number of lines characterised by high levels of implementation within each heading, in particular Headings 1a and 4, to cover the real needs of the corresponding programmes, as identified by the Commission;

| 15. | Gives mandate to its delegation for the Budget 2013 conciliation not to accept any level of payments both for the Amending budget No 6/2012 and the Budget 2013 that does not fully cover the payment needs for 2012 and 2013, as those are estimated by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

15.

Gives mandate to its delegation for the Budget 2013 conciliation not to accept any level of payments both for the Amending budget No 6/2012 and the Budget 2013 that does not fully cover the payment needs for 2012 and 2013, as those are estimated by the Commission;

| 16. | Asks Member States to ensure that the estimates they are sending to the Commission - and on which the Commission is establishing its proposal on payments - are verified and certified at the appropriate political level in each Member State; |
| --- | --- |

16.

Asks Member States to ensure that the estimates they are sending to the Commission - and on which the Commission is establishing its proposal on payments - are verified and certified at the appropriate political level in each Member State;

| 17. | Regrets that the Council departed substantially (all in all by EUR 2,15 billion), as regards commitments, from the financial programming figures, which result from a joint decision with Parliament at the beginning of the programming period, as well as that Council completely disregarded Parliament's priorities, as expressed in Parliament's mandate for the trilogue; recalls that Parliament's reading is based instead upon, and coherent with, benchmarks arising from that mandate; |
| --- | --- |

17.

Regrets that the Council departed substantially (all in all by EUR 2,15 billion), as regards commitments, from the financial programming figures, which result from a joint decision with Parliament at the beginning of the programming period, as well as that Council completely disregarded Parliament's priorities, as expressed in Parliament's mandate for the trilogue; recalls that Parliament's reading is based instead upon, and coherent with, benchmarks arising from that mandate;

| 18. | Underlines that the answer to the crisis must be more Europe and not less Europe, in order to restart investment, boost the creation of jobs and help rebuild confidence in the economy; has already been critical of the freeze in commitment appropriations in the DB adopted by the Commission as underlined in Parliament's above-mentioned resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue, cannot therefore accept Council's decision to reduce them further down to 1,27 % compared to budget 2012; recalls that commitments reflect EU political priorities and should be set having in mind a long term perspective where the economic downturn might be over; intends to increase commitment appropriations above the DB on a few selected budget lines directly related to the delivery of the Europe 2020 priorities and in line with traditional Parliament's priorities; |
| --- | --- |

18.

Underlines that the answer to the crisis must be more Europe and not less Europe, in order to restart investment, boost the creation of jobs and help rebuild confidence in the economy; has already been critical of the freeze in commitment appropriations in the DB adopted by the Commission as underlined in Parliament's above-mentioned resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue, cannot therefore accept Council's decision to reduce them further down to 1,27 % compared to budget 2012; recalls that commitments reflect EU political priorities and should be set having in mind a long term perspective where the economic downturn might be over; intends to increase commitment appropriations above the DB on a few selected budget lines directly related to the delivery of the Europe 2020 priorities and in line with traditional Parliament's priorities;

| 19. | Sets therefore the overall level of appropriations for 2013 to EUR 151 151,84 million and EUR 137 898,15 million in respectively commitment and payment appropriations; |
| --- | --- |

19.

Sets therefore the overall level of appropriations for 2013 to EUR 151 151,84 million and EUR 137 898,15 million in respectively commitment and payment appropriations;

Heading 1a

| 20. | Deplores that, although this is the key heading for the delivery of the Europe 2020 objectives, Heading 1a bears practically the totality of the Council's cuts in commitments (-2,9 % compared to DB) in Heading 1 and is the most affected as regards decreases in payments (-EUR 1,9 billion or -14 % compared to DB); decides to undo almost all cuts by Council and to reinforce above DB in commitment and payment appropriations only a selected number of lines directly linked to the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and characterised by high levels of implementation and strong absorption capacity; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Deplores that, although this is the key heading for the delivery of the Europe 2020 objectives, Heading 1a bears practically the totality of the Council's cuts in commitments (-2,9 % compared to DB) in Heading 1 and is the most affected as regards decreases in payments (-EUR 1,9 billion or -14 % compared to DB); decides to undo almost all cuts by Council and to reinforce above DB in commitment and payment appropriations only a selected number of lines directly linked to the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and characterised by high levels of implementation and strong absorption capacity;

| 21. | Strongly regrets that, instead of increasing appropriations for the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) programmes, the Council decided to cut the Commission's proposal on corresponding budget lines, which is in clear contradiction with the recent European Council's decision to create a "Compact for growth and jobs" supporting, among others, research and development, innovation and employment; underlines the very good performances of these programmes, for which Commission reports accelerated implementation in 2012 compared to last year; |
| --- | --- |

21.

Strongly regrets that, instead of increasing appropriations for the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) programmes, the Council decided to cut the Commission's proposal on corresponding budget lines, which is in clear contradiction with the recent European Council's decision to create a "Compact for growth and jobs" supporting, among others, research and development, innovation and employment; underlines the very good performances of these programmes, for which Commission reports accelerated implementation in 2012 compared to last year;

| 22. | Considers the CIP programme as one of the main deliverers of Europe 2020 and an essential tool to facilitate access to finance, in particular for innovative SMEs; decides, therefore, to increase commitment and payment appropriations in favour of the CIP Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme and CIP Intelligent Energy Europe as well as, in line with the increasing demands by SMEs, to increase both CA and PA for the financial instruments under this programme; |
| --- | --- |

22.

Considers the CIP programme as one of the main deliverers of Europe 2020 and an essential tool to facilitate access to finance, in particular for innovative SMEs; decides, therefore, to increase commitment and payment appropriations in favour of the CIP Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme and CIP Intelligent Energy Europe as well as, in line with the increasing demands by SMEs, to increase both CA and PA for the financial instruments under this programme;

| 23. | Takes note of the Commission's proposal to cover the additional costs for ITER through performance savings deriving mainly from Joint Undertakings and administrative expenditure of FP7; recalls the added value of EU-financed research and its crucial role in reaching the goals of growth, competitiveness and employment enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy; in line with the Interinstitutional Declaration of December 2011, decides, therefore, to partly compensate these decreases by setting commitments above DB on a selected number of operational FP7 lines directly underpinning the Europe 2020 strategy and characterised by excellent levels of implementation and strong absorption capacity; proposes to finance this partial offset above the available margin through the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for an amount of EUR 50 million; |
| --- | --- |

23.

Takes note of the Commission's proposal to cover the additional costs for ITER through performance savings deriving mainly from Joint Undertakings and administrative expenditure of FP7; recalls the added value of EU-financed research and its crucial role in reaching the goals of growth, competitiveness and employment enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy; in line with the Interinstitutional Declaration of December 2011, decides, therefore, to partly compensate these decreases by setting commitments above DB on a selected number of operational FP7 lines directly underpinning the Europe 2020 strategy and characterised by excellent levels of implementation and strong absorption capacity; proposes to finance this partial offset above the available margin through the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for an amount of EUR 50 million;

| 24. | Stresses the substantial added value of the Lifelong Learning and Erasmus Mundus programmes, which, against modest financial envelopes, provide great returns in terms of effective implementation and positive image of the Union vis-à-vis its citizens; in line with its established position in the last budgetary procedures, decides to increase appropriations both in CA and in PA for these programme above DB, considering their high absorption capacity; |
| --- | --- |

24.

Stresses the substantial added value of the Lifelong Learning and Erasmus Mundus programmes, which, against modest financial envelopes, provide great returns in terms of effective implementation and positive image of the Union vis-à-vis its citizens; in line with its established position in the last budgetary procedures, decides to increase appropriations both in CA and in PA for these programme above DB, considering their high absorption capacity;

| 25. | Deplores the cut in payments (-EUR 23 million as compared to DB) by the Council affecting the financial support for projects of common interest in the Trans-European transport network; highlights that this programme, through investment in high European added-value infrastructures, is essential in order to increase the competitiveness of the EU as a whole and directly contributes to growth and employment; underlines that the programme performs well in terms of implementation and that the year 2013 will be crucial as it is meant to prepare for the entry into force of the Connecting Europe Facility; therefore decides to maintain the level of commitments and payments proposed in the DB; |
| --- | --- |

25.

Deplores the cut in payments (-EUR 23 million as compared to DB) by the Council affecting the financial support for projects of common interest in the Trans-European transport network; highlights that this programme, through investment in high European added-value infrastructures, is essential in order to increase the competitiveness of the EU as a whole and directly contributes to growth and employment; underlines that the programme performs well in terms of implementation and that the year 2013 will be crucial as it is meant to prepare for the entry into force of the Connecting Europe Facility; therefore decides to maintain the level of commitments and payments proposed in the DB;

| 26. | Chooses to restore DB payments for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF); highlights the fact that restoring payment appropriations will avoid transfers from other budget lines and that the amount appropriated represents the minimum amount consumed by the EGF in the first few months of the year; |
| --- | --- |

26.

Chooses to restore DB payments for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF); highlights the fact that restoring payment appropriations will avoid transfers from other budget lines and that the amount appropriated represents the minimum amount consumed by the EGF in the first few months of the year;

Heading 1b

| 27. | Strongly deplores the substantial cuts in payments (- EUR 1,6 billion or - 3,3 % as compared to DB) by the Council affecting the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective (- 12,9 %), the European Territorial Cooperation objective (- 18,7 %) and the Cohesion Fund (- 4,7 %) which, if adopted, would definitely hamper the correct execution of projects during the last year of the programming period, with dramatic consequences, especially for the Member States which are already under social, economical and financial constraints, thereby substantially increasing the RAL; notes instead that the convergence objective is left practically untouched; |
| --- | --- |

27.

Strongly deplores the substantial cuts in payments (- EUR 1,6 billion or - 3,3 % as compared to DB) by the Council affecting the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective (- 12,9 %), the European Territorial Cooperation objective (- 18,7 %) and the Cohesion Fund (- 4,7 %) which, if adopted, would definitely hamper the correct execution of projects during the last year of the programming period, with dramatic consequences, especially for the Member States which are already under social, economical and financial constraints, thereby substantially increasing the RAL; notes instead that the convergence objective is left practically untouched;

| 28. | Recalls that the high level of payments in the DB for this heading (+ 8,1 %) results from commitments undertaken in the past, which need to be honoured at the end of the programming period in line with the natural life cycle of the Structural Funds; stresses that a more realistic approach from the Council as to the actual payment needs under this heading in the recent EU budgetary procedures would have allowed a much lower percentage of increase in payments; |
| --- | --- |

28.

Recalls that the high level of payments in the DB for this heading (+ 8,1 %) results from commitments undertaken in the past, which need to be honoured at the end of the programming period in line with the natural life cycle of the Structural Funds; stresses that a more realistic approach from the Council as to the actual payment needs under this heading in the recent EU budgetary procedures would have allowed a much lower percentage of increase in payments;

| 29. | Recalls the doubts expressed in its mandate for the trilogue as to whether the level of payments proposed in the DB will be sufficient to reimburse the totality of the expected payment claims in the absence of an amending budget this year; underlines that the same Commission's proposal is based on the assumption that all payment needs from previous years up to 2012 are covered; |
| --- | --- |

29.

Recalls the doubts expressed in its mandate for the trilogue as to whether the level of payments proposed in the DB will be sufficient to reimburse the totality of the expected payment claims in the absence of an amending budget this year; underlines that the same Commission's proposal is based on the assumption that all payment needs from previous years up to 2012 are covered;

| 30. | Rejects the cuts introduced by the Council on Heading 1b, which would lead to a much more serious shortage in payments than already expected and would impede the reimbursement for already spent resources to the beneficiary Member States and regions, with serious consequences especially for those Member States which are already under social, economical and financial constraints; points out again that this heading is responsible for two thirds of the current outstanding commitments and that cutting the level of payments for 2013 would also lead to a strong increase in the level of RAL by the end of next year; asks therefore the Commission to present an analysis on the situation of RAL and a sound strategy as to how the level of RAL should be reduced; calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with information on a monthly basis on the breakdown per Member State and per Fund of the claims submitted for reimbursement; |
| --- | --- |

30.

Rejects the cuts introduced by the Council on Heading 1b, which would lead to a much more serious shortage in payments than already expected and would impede the reimbursement for already spent resources to the beneficiary Member States and regions, with serious consequences especially for those Member States which are already under social, economical and financial constraints; points out again that this heading is responsible for two thirds of the current outstanding commitments and that cutting the level of payments for 2013 would also lead to a strong increase in the level of RAL by the end of next year; asks therefore the Commission to present an analysis on the situation of RAL and a sound strategy as to how the level of RAL should be reduced; calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with information on a monthly basis on the breakdown per Member State and per Fund of the claims submitted for reimbursement;

| 31. | Does not consider the Council's declaration asking the Commission to submit a draft amending budget in case of insufficient payments under Heading 1b as a sufficient guarantee that an adequate level of payments will be made available in 2013, given that similar commitments have been already undertaken and disregarded by the Council in the past two years; asks the Council Presidency to make a public statement and explain the discrepancy between the Council's reading on payments and the actual needs of Member States, as expressed in their estimates; |
| --- | --- |

31.

Does not consider the Council's declaration asking the Commission to submit a draft amending budget in case of insufficient payments under Heading 1b as a sufficient guarantee that an adequate level of payments will be made available in 2013, given that similar commitments have been already undertaken and disregarded by the Council in the past two years; asks the Council Presidency to make a public statement and explain the discrepancy between the Council's reading on payments and the actual needs of Member States, as expressed in their estimates;

| 32. | Decides, therefore, to restore the DB in commitments and in payments for all budget lines cut by Council under this heading and to increase commitment and payment appropriations above DB for the technical assistance to the Baltic Sea Strategy; |
| --- | --- |

32.

Decides, therefore, to restore the DB in commitments and in payments for all budget lines cut by Council under this heading and to increase commitment and payment appropriations above DB for the technical assistance to the Baltic Sea Strategy;

| 33. | Urges the Council to agree on Draft amending budget No 6/2012 presented by the Commission with the aim to compensate the shortage of payment appropriations this year and to avoid blocking the execution of running projects at the end of the programming period; gives mandate to its delegation in the framework of the negotiations with the Council, should the Council not be ready to approve in full the DAB, to possibly increase payment appropriations by the amount rejected by Council, distributing it pro rata between all the operational lines of Heading 1b; |
| --- | --- |

33.

Urges the Council to agree on Draft amending budget No 6/2012 presented by the Commission with the aim to compensate the shortage of payment appropriations this year and to avoid blocking the execution of running projects at the end of the programming period; gives mandate to its delegation in the framework of the negotiations with the Council, should the Council not be ready to approve in full the DAB, to possibly increase payment appropriations by the amount rejected by Council, distributing it pro rata between all the operational lines of Heading 1b;

Heading 2

| 34. | Considers that the Commission’s estimates of budgetary needs are more realistic than the Council’s forecast figures, in particular in the light of forthcoming payments; restores therefore Council's cuts under this Heading to a level of EUR 60 307,51 million, which is 0,6 % above the 2012 budget; |
| --- | --- |

34.

Considers that the Commission’s estimates of budgetary needs are more realistic than the Council’s forecast figures, in particular in the light of forthcoming payments; restores therefore Council's cuts under this Heading to a level of EUR 60 307,51 million, which is 0,6 % above the 2012 budget;

| 35. | Points out that the traditional agricultural amending letter to be forthcoming in October 2012 will adjust the current estimates to a more precise assessment of the real needs; draws attention to the final level of assigned revenue to be available in 2013 (conformity clearance correction, irregularities and milk super levy), which will ultimately set the level of fresh appropriations to be adopted in the Budget 2013; estimates that the current margin of EUR 981,5 million should be sufficient to cover the needs under this heading in the absence of unforeseen circumstances; |
| --- | --- |

35.

Points out that the traditional agricultural amending letter to be forthcoming in October 2012 will adjust the current estimates to a more precise assessment of the real needs; draws attention to the final level of assigned revenue to be available in 2013 (conformity clearance correction, irregularities and milk super levy), which will ultimately set the level of fresh appropriations to be adopted in the Budget 2013; estimates that the current margin of EUR 981,5 million should be sufficient to cover the needs under this heading in the absence of unforeseen circumstances;

| 36. | Calls on the Commission to increase its efforts to define clear priorities under this Heading that favour sustainable farming systems which preserve biodiversity, protect water resources and soil fertility, respect animal welfare and support employment; |
| --- | --- |

36.

Calls on the Commission to increase its efforts to define clear priorities under this Heading that favour sustainable farming systems which preserve biodiversity, protect water resources and soil fertility, respect animal welfare and support employment;

| 37. | Rejects the increase of the so-called negative expenditure line (clearance of accounts) as this appears to be set artificially high compared to Heading 2 appropriations and partly restores the Commission's proposal, allowing a more realistic approach; |
| --- | --- |

37.

Rejects the increase of the so-called negative expenditure line (clearance of accounts) as this appears to be set artificially high compared to Heading 2 appropriations and partly restores the Commission's proposal, allowing a more realistic approach;

| 38. | Confirms its commitment to act in preventing and responding to crises in the fruit and vegetable sector, and therefore supports an adequate level for producer groups for preliminary recognition; advocates a sufficient increase of the Union's contribution to the crisis fund within operational funds for producer organisations; |
| --- | --- |

38.

Confirms its commitment to act in preventing and responding to crises in the fruit and vegetable sector, and therefore supports an adequate level for producer groups for preliminary recognition; advocates a sufficient increase of the Union's contribution to the crisis fund within operational funds for producer organisations;

| 39. | Provides for an increased support for the school milk programme and the continued support for programme concerning school fruit; |
| --- | --- |

39.

Provides for an increased support for the school milk programme and the continued support for programme concerning school fruit;

| 40. | Maintains the budget allocation dedicated to the Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons in the EU that supports 18 million people with problems of malnutrition within the Union; welcomes the effort made by the Commission in finding a political and legal solution to continue with the programme in 2013; hopes that a solution enabling for the continuation of the programme during the next MFF period will be found; |
| --- | --- |

40.

Maintains the budget allocation dedicated to the Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons in the EU that supports 18 million people with problems of malnutrition within the Union; welcomes the effort made by the Commission in finding a political and legal solution to continue with the programme in 2013; hopes that a solution enabling for the continuation of the programme during the next MFF period will be found;

| 41. | Supports the reduction of some budget lines on refunds drastically, in some cases even to zero, as this instrument is politically controversial and has not been taken up for some products at the same level as in the budget year 2012; notes that some refund lines have been earmarked as negative priorities; weighs up carefully to what extent these lines should be reduced, in order to be able to use this instrument if needed under the current regulation on refunds; |
| --- | --- |

41.

Supports the reduction of some budget lines on refunds drastically, in some cases even to zero, as this instrument is politically controversial and has not been taken up for some products at the same level as in the budget year 2012; notes that some refund lines have been earmarked as negative priorities; weighs up carefully to what extent these lines should be reduced, in order to be able to use this instrument if needed under the current regulation on refunds;

| 42. | Provides for a continued support on a commensurate level for the LIFE+ programme, which gives priority solely to environment and climate action projects, supporting the development of a sustainable and a more resource-efficient economy and the protection, conservation and restoration of eco-systems; recalls again that environmental problems and their solutions do not recognise national borders, thus dealing with it at EU level is self-evident; in this respect, calls on the Member States to significantly improve their implementation of EU environmental legislation; |
| --- | --- |

42.

Provides for a continued support on a commensurate level for the LIFE+ programme, which gives priority solely to environment and climate action projects, supporting the development of a sustainable and a more resource-efficient economy and the protection, conservation and restoration of eco-systems; recalls again that environmental problems and their solutions do not recognise national borders, thus dealing with it at EU level is self-evident; in this respect, calls on the Member States to significantly improve their implementation of EU environmental legislation;

| 43. | Stresses that the common fisheries policy remains a crucial political priority for the EU and maintains its financing at the proposed DB levels, in view of its upcoming reform; believes that the funding of the integrated maritime policy should not come at the expense of other fisheries actions or programmes under Heading 2; considers effective fisheries’ management of crucial importance in order to preserve fish stocks and prevent overfishing; |
| --- | --- |

43.

Stresses that the common fisheries policy remains a crucial political priority for the EU and maintains its financing at the proposed DB levels, in view of its upcoming reform; believes that the funding of the integrated maritime policy should not come at the expense of other fisheries actions or programmes under Heading 2; considers effective fisheries’ management of crucial importance in order to preserve fish stocks and prevent overfishing;

Heading 3a

| 44. | Notes that the overall cuts in funding proposed by the Council compared to DB 2013 is -EUR 15 million in commitment appropriations and -EUR 51 million in payment appropriations; notes that these cuts correspond to -1,07 % compared to the DB and to -15,5 % compared to the initial financial programming of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

44.

Notes that the overall cuts in funding proposed by the Council compared to DB 2013 is -EUR 15 million in commitment appropriations and -EUR 51 million in payment appropriations; notes that these cuts correspond to -1,07 % compared to the DB and to -15,5 % compared to the initial financial programming of the Commission;

| 45. | Rejects the cuts performed by the Council in payment appropriations in the following areas: European Return Fund (-EUR 18 million), European Refugee Fund (-EUR 1,8 million), European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (-EUR 3,2 million) and Fundamental Rights and Citizenship (-EUR 1 million); decides, therefore, to restore the level of the DB on the corresponding lines; |
| --- | --- |

45.

Rejects the cuts performed by the Council in payment appropriations in the following areas: European Return Fund (-EUR 18 million), European Refugee Fund (-EUR 1,8 million), European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (-EUR 3,2 million) and Fundamental Rights and Citizenship (-EUR 1 million); decides, therefore, to restore the level of the DB on the corresponding lines;

| 46. | Rejects the Council's unilateral decision to change the legal basis of the proposal on the "Schengen evaluation mechanism" from ordinary legislative procedure to Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; supports the Conference of Presidents’ decision to block cooperation with the Council on the 2013 budget as regards internal security aspects; endorses, therefore, the position taken by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to put into the reserve some budgetary lines in Title 18 which relate to internal security (in commitment and payment appropriations) until a satisfactory outcome is achieved on the Schengen governance package; is of the opinion that this reserve should not be applied to the agencies working under Heading 3a in order not to jeopardise their work; |
| --- | --- |

46.

Rejects the Council's unilateral decision to change the legal basis of the proposal on the "Schengen evaluation mechanism" from ordinary legislative procedure to Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; supports the Conference of Presidents’ decision to block cooperation with the Council on the 2013 budget as regards internal security aspects; endorses, therefore, the position taken by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to put into the reserve some budgetary lines in Title 18 which relate to internal security (in commitment and payment appropriations) until a satisfactory outcome is achieved on the Schengen governance package; is of the opinion that this reserve should not be applied to the agencies working under Heading 3a in order not to jeopardise their work;

| 47. | Emphasises the important role that the programme for preventing and combating all forms of violence (DAPHNE) plays in eliminating violence against women, young people and children in the EU, especially in the current context of crisis; notes the measurable results of the DAPHNE programme as well as its impact on policy change within Member States; therefore increases its payment appropriations above the level of the DB; |
| --- | --- |

47.

Emphasises the important role that the programme for preventing and combating all forms of violence (DAPHNE) plays in eliminating violence against women, young people and children in the EU, especially in the current context of crisis; notes the measurable results of the DAPHNE programme as well as its impact on policy change within Member States; therefore increases its payment appropriations above the level of the DB;

Heading 3b

| 48. | Regrets that, despite the cuts already proposed in the DB, Council makes further cuts in appropriations for Heading 3b, both in commitments and in payments, by approximately EUR 9,5 million; takes the general approach of undoing all Council's cuts so as to ensure a proper implementation of the running programmes and actions under this heading; |
| --- | --- |

48.

Regrets that, despite the cuts already proposed in the DB, Council makes further cuts in appropriations for Heading 3b, both in commitments and in payments, by approximately EUR 9,5 million; takes the general approach of undoing all Council's cuts so as to ensure a proper implementation of the running programmes and actions under this heading;

| 49. | Reiterates that fostering a sense of active citizenship, solidarity and tolerance among young Europeans is essential for Europe to be able to exploit the talents of the best-educated generation in history; emphasises the need to encourage cross-cultural communication and EU citizenship within the next generation; has therefore decided to increase funding for the Youth in Action programme compared to DB, especially considering the sound implementation of the programme for many years running; |
| --- | --- |

49.

Reiterates that fostering a sense of active citizenship, solidarity and tolerance among young Europeans is essential for Europe to be able to exploit the talents of the best-educated generation in history; emphasises the need to encourage cross-cultural communication and EU citizenship within the next generation; has therefore decided to increase funding for the Youth in Action programme compared to DB, especially considering the sound implementation of the programme for many years running;

| 50. | Considers that the information campaign on the European Year of Citizens 2013 together with communication activities require adequate appropriations to properly involve citizens in the European project and promote dialogue on the EU issues; deplores that the budget proposed by the Commission is the smallest ever allocated to a European Year and decides to reinforce appropriations for the corresponding budget line; |
| --- | --- |

50.

Considers that the information campaign on the European Year of Citizens 2013 together with communication activities require adequate appropriations to properly involve citizens in the European project and promote dialogue on the EU issues; deplores that the budget proposed by the Commission is the smallest ever allocated to a European Year and decides to reinforce appropriations for the corresponding budget line;

| 51. | Supports the continuation of the successful preparatory action “European partnerships on sport”, considering the novel competences bestowed upon the Union by the Lisbon Treaty in the field of sports, with a particular focus on grassroots and mass sport, promoting fairness in sporting competitions by fighting against match-fixing and protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen; |
| --- | --- |

51.

Supports the continuation of the successful preparatory action “European partnerships on sport”, considering the novel competences bestowed upon the Union by the Lisbon Treaty in the field of sports, with a particular focus on grassroots and mass sport, promoting fairness in sporting competitions by fighting against match-fixing and protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen;

Heading 4

| 52. | Highlights that cuts in payments brought by the Council to Heading 4 (-EUR 1 billion or -14,1 % as compared to DB) represent approximately 20 % of the overall cuts across all headings; considers that such a massive reduction would impede the Union to respect the commitments to which it has committed itself on the world scene; notes that the Commission's proposal was only slightly above the level of the 2012 budget and already substantially reduced compared to the financial programming; decides to restore the level of both commitment and payment appropriations in most budget lines to the levels proposed in the DB; |
| --- | --- |

52.

Highlights that cuts in payments brought by the Council to Heading 4 (-EUR 1 billion or -14,1 % as compared to DB) represent approximately 20 % of the overall cuts across all headings; considers that such a massive reduction would impede the Union to respect the commitments to which it has committed itself on the world scene; notes that the Commission's proposal was only slightly above the level of the 2012 budget and already substantially reduced compared to the financial programming; decides to restore the level of both commitment and payment appropriations in most budget lines to the levels proposed in the DB;

| 53. | Considers, however, that some decreases compared to the DB can be accepted in some budget lines, such as Macro-Financial Assistance, membership of international organisations in the field of customs and tax and cooperation with Greenland; |
| --- | --- |

53.

Considers, however, that some decreases compared to the DB can be accepted in some budget lines, such as Macro-Financial Assistance, membership of international organisations in the field of customs and tax and cooperation with Greenland;

| 54. | Proposes a small increase in the level of commitment and payment appropriations above the DB for budget lines in the areas of geographical development cooperation, as well as for the Electoral Observation Mission and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria; highlights that this should prevent the EU from being further off track as regards its strong commitments on development cooperation financing; |
| --- | --- |

54.

Proposes a small increase in the level of commitment and payment appropriations above the DB for budget lines in the areas of geographical development cooperation, as well as for the Electoral Observation Mission and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria; highlights that this should prevent the EU from being further off track as regards its strong commitments on development cooperation financing;

| 55. | Points out that, in accordance with the declaration signed by the Commission and UNRWA on EU support for UNRWA (2011-2013), the EU’s annual contribution is based on the 2011 Palestinian allocation (EUR 300 million), and a reduction in that reference amount would have a knock-on effect on the allocation for UNRWA; believes that increased funding for Palestine and UNRWA is crucial for ensuring that UNRWA is given the necessary resources it needs to provide the essential services for which it has been mandated by the UN General Assembly and to safeguard the safety and livelihood of refugees in the light of the instability in the region; |
| --- | --- |

55.

Points out that, in accordance with the declaration signed by the Commission and UNRWA on EU support for UNRWA (2011-2013), the EU’s annual contribution is based on the 2011 Palestinian allocation (EUR 300 million), and a reduction in that reference amount would have a knock-on effect on the allocation for UNRWA; believes that increased funding for Palestine and UNRWA is crucial for ensuring that UNRWA is given the necessary resources it needs to provide the essential services for which it has been mandated by the UN General Assembly and to safeguard the safety and livelihood of refugees in the light of the instability in the region;

| 56. | Also deems it necessary to increase appropriations for the support to the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot Community in order to ensure the continuation of the EU financial support to the work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus and of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage; |
| --- | --- |

56.

Also deems it necessary to increase appropriations for the support to the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot Community in order to ensure the continuation of the EU financial support to the work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus and of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage;

| 57. | Introduces separate budget lines for all CFSP missions and EU Special Representatives in the different geographical areas, as proposed in the reform of the Financial Regulation, which will provide a more transparent and complete overview of missions conducted under this policy; |
| --- | --- |

57.

Introduces separate budget lines for all CFSP missions and EU Special Representatives in the different geographical areas, as proposed in the reform of the Financial Regulation, which will provide a more transparent and complete overview of missions conducted under this policy;

Heading 5

| 58. | Takes note of the Council's position decreasing the Commission's proposal on Heading 5 – All sections by EUR 146 million overall, despite the institutions’ efforts, as reflected in their estimates and the DB, towards budget consolidation of administrative expenditure, at a time of economic and budgetary constraints; |
| --- | --- |

58.

Takes note of the Council's position decreasing the Commission's proposal on Heading 5 – All sections by EUR 146 million overall, despite the institutions’ efforts, as reflected in their estimates and the DB, towards budget consolidation of administrative expenditure, at a time of economic and budgetary constraints;

| 59. | Stresses in particular that most institutions, including Parliament and the Commission, complied with and even overstepped their commitment to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate; welcomes these efforts and sets Heading 5 appropriations at an overall level of EUR 8 506,87 million, of which EUR 4 967,37 million for the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

59.

Stresses in particular that most institutions, including Parliament and the Commission, complied with and even overstepped their commitment to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate; welcomes these efforts and sets Heading 5 appropriations at an overall level of EUR 8 506,87 million, of which EUR 4 967,37 million for the Commission;

| 60. | Well notes that the cuts brought by the Council stem from the non-budgeting of the 1,7 % 2011 salary adjustment, the increase of the standard abatement rate for various institutions and services and other specific cuts to some items of administrative expenditure, but considers such cuts to be ill-founded and simply aimed at artificially freezing administrative expenditure in nominal terms, despite statutory and contractual obligations and the EU’s new competences and tasks; |
| --- | --- |

60.

Well notes that the cuts brought by the Council stem from the non-budgeting of the 1,7 % 2011 salary adjustment, the increase of the standard abatement rate for various institutions and services and other specific cuts to some items of administrative expenditure, but considers such cuts to be ill-founded and simply aimed at artificially freezing administrative expenditure in nominal terms, despite statutory and contractual obligations and the EU’s new competences and tasks;

| 61. | Considers, in particular, that the increases in the standard abatement rates, meant to increase the number of unpaid posts within the institutions, reflect a conservative approach which will directly affect the possibility to improve occupancy rates of the establishment plans that are at the same time being approved by the budget authority; emphasises that such an approach is all the more detrimental in a context of reduction of establishment plans, which mechanically improves occupancy rates, and that the financing of these posts should not be considered as an adjustment variable for achieving a nominal freeze of administrative budget or any other predefined target amount; |
| --- | --- |

61.

Considers, in particular, that the increases in the standard abatement rates, meant to increase the number of unpaid posts within the institutions, reflect a conservative approach which will directly affect the possibility to improve occupancy rates of the establishment plans that are at the same time being approved by the budget authority; emphasises that such an approach is all the more detrimental in a context of reduction of establishment plans, which mechanically improves occupancy rates, and that the financing of these posts should not be considered as an adjustment variable for achieving a nominal freeze of administrative budget or any other predefined target amount;

| 62. | Decides, for all the institutions apart from the Council, as well as for the European Schools, to restore (or in the case of the Court of Justice, add) in reserve the amounts corresponding to the 1,7 % 2011 salary adjustment for budget year 2013, pending the Court's ruling; underlines that this is sound budgeting, given the likelihood of a ruling in favour of the Commission, and warns the Council that, in such event, the budgetary authority will need to accommodate the retroactive effect of such ruling also for years 2011 and 2012, including late interest; |
| --- | --- |

62.

Decides, for all the institutions apart from the Council, as well as for the European Schools, to restore (or in the case of the Court of Justice, add) in reserve the amounts corresponding to the 1,7 % 2011 salary adjustment for budget year 2013, pending the Court's ruling; underlines that this is sound budgeting, given the likelihood of a ruling in favour of the Commission, and warns the Council that, in such event, the budgetary authority will need to accommodate the retroactive effect of such ruling also for years 2011 and 2012, including late interest;

| 63. | Also undoes other cuts brought by the Council on specific items of administrative expenditure, notably, within the Commission, on ICT equipment and services and some offices; |
| --- | --- |

63.

Also undoes other cuts brought by the Council on specific items of administrative expenditure, notably, within the Commission, on ICT equipment and services and some offices;

| 64. | Takes note that the Council accepted the proposed 1 % staff reduction in the Commission’s establishment plan, notably in the areas of administrative support, budgetary management and anti-fraud; |
| --- | --- |

64.

Takes note that the Council accepted the proposed 1 % staff reduction in the Commission’s establishment plan, notably in the areas of administrative support, budgetary management and anti-fraud;

| 65. | While restoring or maintaining the Commission's and, partly, other institutions’ requests for posts on the basis of a case-by-case approach, calls for an in-depth impact assessment to be carried out on the planned staff reductions by 2018, taking full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations and the institutions’ new competences and increased tasks arising from the Treaties; |
| --- | --- |

65.

While restoring or maintaining the Commission's and, partly, other institutions’ requests for posts on the basis of a case-by-case approach, calls for an in-depth impact assessment to be carried out on the planned staff reductions by 2018, taking full account of, inter alia, the Union's legal obligations and the institutions’ new competences and increased tasks arising from the Treaties;

| 66. | Although welcoming the information given in the DB on those areas which were reinforced in staff, such as European economic governance, the single market and security and justice, notes with concern that staff cuts were made within the Commission to some other Directorates-General such as Enterprise and Industry, Competition, Mobility and Transport, Research and Innovation Eurostat which however make a substantial contribution to the achievement of the EU's priorities; is also concerned by the adverse impact fewer posts in the areas of administrative support, budgetary management and anti-fraud may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes, especially at a time when the EU’s competences continue to increase and a new Member State joins the Union; |
| --- | --- |

66.

Although welcoming the information given in the DB on those areas which were reinforced in staff, such as European economic governance, the single market and security and justice, notes with concern that staff cuts were made within the Commission to some other Directorates-General such as Enterprise and Industry, Competition, Mobility and Transport, Research and Innovation Eurostat which however make a substantial contribution to the achievement of the EU's priorities; is also concerned by the adverse impact fewer posts in the areas of administrative support, budgetary management and anti-fraud may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes, especially at a time when the EU’s competences continue to increase and a new Member State joins the Union;

| 67. | Therefore asks the Commission to include in its annual staff screening report a combined assessment by Directorates-General and services, taking into account their size and workload notably, and by the types of posts, as presented in this screening report (policymaking, programme management, administrative support, budgetary management and anti-fraud activities, language services, etc.); |
| --- | --- |

67.

Therefore asks the Commission to include in its annual staff screening report a combined assessment by Directorates-General and services, taking into account their size and workload notably, and by the types of posts, as presented in this screening report (policymaking, programme management, administrative support, budgetary management and anti-fraud activities, language services, etc.);

| 68. | Deplores the cuts made by the Council on the administrative and research support lines, including executive agencies, by overall 6,6 % in CA and PA (-EUR 71,8 million) compared to DB, with the highest cuts affecting Heading 1b (-23,7 %) and Heading 4 (-13,2 %); underlines that this would result in a 5,5 % decrease as compared to similar 2012 appropriations, despite the savings already proposed in the DB, and would therefore be likely to affect the swiftness and quality of budgetary implementation of the multi-annual programmes to which they are related; stresses, moreover, that decreasing the administrative lines of a given programme without increasing its operational expenditure would result in a modification of the whole co-decided envelope for that programme; therefore decides to restore the DB for those lines; |
| --- | --- |

68.

Deplores the cuts made by the Council on the administrative and research support lines, including executive agencies, by overall 6,6 % in CA and PA (-EUR 71,8 million) compared to DB, with the highest cuts affecting Heading 1b (-23,7 %) and Heading 4 (-13,2 %); underlines that this would result in a 5,5 % decrease as compared to similar 2012 appropriations, despite the savings already proposed in the DB, and would therefore be likely to affect the swiftness and quality of budgetary implementation of the multi-annual programmes to which they are related; stresses, moreover, that decreasing the administrative lines of a given programme without increasing its operational expenditure would result in a modification of the whole co-decided envelope for that programme; therefore decides to restore the DB for those lines;

| 69. | Also sets a number of reserves on some budget lines with a view to obtaining specific information; |
| --- | --- |

69.

Also sets a number of reserves on some budget lines with a view to obtaining specific information;

Agencies

| 70. | Endorses, as a general rule, the Commission's estimates of agencies’ budgetary and staff needs and notes that the Commission had already considerably reduced the agencies’ initial requests and applied also to them the 1 % staff reduction in the DB; |
| --- | --- |

70.

Endorses, as a general rule, the Commission's estimates of agencies’ budgetary and staff needs and notes that the Commission had already considerably reduced the agencies’ initial requests and applied also to them the 1 % staff reduction in the DB;

| 71. | Considers, therefore, that any further cuts as proposed by the Council would endanger the proper functioning of the agencies and would not allow them to fulfil the tasks they have been assigned by the legislative authority; rejects the Council's horizontal approach in cutting appropriations for agencies, whose needs have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis; also calls on the Commission to identify, for the next MFF period, possible areas of duplication of work or reduced added value in relation to the agencies, with a view to streamlining their functioning; |
| --- | --- |

71.

Considers, therefore, that any further cuts as proposed by the Council would endanger the proper functioning of the agencies and would not allow them to fulfil the tasks they have been assigned by the legislative authority; rejects the Council's horizontal approach in cutting appropriations for agencies, whose needs have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis; also calls on the Commission to identify, for the next MFF period, possible areas of duplication of work or reduced added value in relation to the agencies, with a view to streamlining their functioning;

| 72. | Decides to increase the 2013 budget appropriations for the three financial supervision agencies; believes that those appropriations should reflect the need to fulfil the required tasks as more regulations, decisions and directives are being adopted to overcome the current financial and economic crisis which is strongly linked to the stability of the financial sector; |
| --- | --- |

72.

Decides to increase the 2013 budget appropriations for the three financial supervision agencies; believes that those appropriations should reflect the need to fulfil the required tasks as more regulations, decisions and directives are being adopted to overcome the current financial and economic crisis which is strongly linked to the stability of the financial sector;

| 73. | Cannot accept the Council cuts on agencies under Heading 3a, which represent a decrease by EUR 2,8 million in both CA and PA, as agencies represent 18 % of the overall appropriations under Heading 3a and the Council cuts would have a disproportionate impact on this heading; intends, therefore, to restore the proposed DB, which seems to establish a balanced equilibrium level; |
| --- | --- |

73.

Cannot accept the Council cuts on agencies under Heading 3a, which represent a decrease by EUR 2,8 million in both CA and PA, as agencies represent 18 % of the overall appropriations under Heading 3a and the Council cuts would have a disproportionate impact on this heading; intends, therefore, to restore the proposed DB, which seems to establish a balanced equilibrium level;

| 74. | Is aware that certain agencies (such as Europol, EASA, ACER) have to implement additional tasks in 2013 which might not be reflected in the allocated budget or establishment plan for 2013; requests from the Commission, in case of necessity, to propose timely an Amending Budget for the respective agency; expects from the Commission further to present a new financial statement when a legislative procedure has been finalised by Parliament and the Council extending the mandate of an agency; is alert that such an extension might require additional resources which would need to be agreed upon by the budgetary authority; |
| --- | --- |

74.

Is aware that certain agencies (such as Europol, EASA, ACER) have to implement additional tasks in 2013 which might not be reflected in the allocated budget or establishment plan for 2013; requests from the Commission, in case of necessity, to propose timely an Amending Budget for the respective agency; expects from the Commission further to present a new financial statement when a legislative procedure has been finalised by Parliament and the Council extending the mandate of an agency; is alert that such an extension might require additional resources which would need to be agreed upon by the budgetary authority;

Pilot projects and preparatory actions (PP-PAs)

| 75. | Having carried out a careful analysis of the pilot projects and preparatory actions submitted – as regards the rate of success of the ongoing ones and excluding initiatives already covered by existing legal bases, and taking fully into account the Commission's assessment of the projects’ implementability, decides to adopt a compromise package made up of a limited number of PP-PAs, also in view of the limited margins available, in particular under Headings 1a and 3b; |
| --- | --- |

75.

Having carried out a careful analysis of the pilot projects and preparatory actions submitted – as regards the rate of success of the ongoing ones and excluding initiatives already covered by existing legal bases, and taking fully into account the Commission's assessment of the projects’ implementability, decides to adopt a compromise package made up of a limited number of PP-PAs, also in view of the limited margins available, in particular under Headings 1a and 3b;

Other sections

| 76. | Is concerned by the Council's position of a nominal freeze across all EU institutions; believes that each institution should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the needs and specific situation of each institution; |
| --- | --- |

76.

Is concerned by the Council's position of a nominal freeze across all EU institutions; believes that each institution should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the needs and specific situation of each institution;

| 77. | Welcomes efforts made by the institutions to find additional savings and restrict their budgets; highlights the fact that the level of their budgets for 2013 will include the costs of the enlargement to Croatia and the 1,7 % salary adjustment for 2013; stresses, however, that the costs of enlargement to Croatia should not be seen as increase in their budgets but as justified financing of accession to the EU of a new Member State; |
| --- | --- |

77.

Welcomes efforts made by the institutions to find additional savings and restrict their budgets; highlights the fact that the level of their budgets for 2013 will include the costs of the enlargement to Croatia and the 1,7 % salary adjustment for 2013; stresses, however, that the costs of enlargement to Croatia should not be seen as increase in their budgets but as justified financing of accession to the EU of a new Member State;

| 78. | Emphasises that, as a consequence of additional savings made by the institutions between spring and autumn 2012, appropriations are currently at a very low level; is concerned that there is almost no margin for new unavoidable expenses that may arise with regard to legal obligations; |
| --- | --- |

78.

Emphasises that, as a consequence of additional savings made by the institutions between spring and autumn 2012, appropriations are currently at a very low level; is concerned that there is almost no margin for new unavoidable expenses that may arise with regard to legal obligations;

| 79. | Believes that the budgetary authority should ensure a level of appropriations which will guarantee the smooth functioning of the institutions and respect for legal obligations and provide a high-level administration to serve EU citizens; |
| --- | --- |

79.

Believes that the budgetary authority should ensure a level of appropriations which will guarantee the smooth functioning of the institutions and respect for legal obligations and provide a high-level administration to serve EU citizens;

Section I – European Parliament

General framework

| 80. | Recalls that it insisted, when adopting its estimates for 2013 (7), on the need for strict budgetary control and identifying further savings during this budgetary procedure; |
| --- | --- |

80.

Recalls that it insisted, when adopting its estimates for 2013 (7), on the need for strict budgetary control and identifying further savings during this budgetary procedure;

| 81. | Welcomes the agreement reached during the conciliation of 26 September 2012 between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets; points out that the overall level of its 2013 budget is EUR 1 750 463 939, and represents therefore a net reduction of EUR 18,3 million compared to the preliminary draft estimates of February 2012; |
| --- | --- |

81.

Welcomes the agreement reached during the conciliation of 26 September 2012 between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets; points out that the overall level of its 2013 budget is EUR 1 750 463 939, and represents therefore a net reduction of EUR 18,3 million compared to the preliminary draft estimates of February 2012;

| 82. | Points out that the level of its 2013 budget is 1,9 % above the 2012 budget including the costs for Croatian accession; highlights that, due to the current inflation rate of 1,9 %, there is thus a real decrease of the operating budget, despite recently added competences, new posts and actions, the financing of Croatia's accession and the costs for preparing the 2014 elections; |
| --- | --- |

82.

Points out that the level of its 2013 budget is 1,9 % above the 2012 budget including the costs for Croatian accession; highlights that, due to the current inflation rate of 1,9 %, there is thus a real decrease of the operating budget, despite recently added competences, new posts and actions, the financing of Croatia's accession and the costs for preparing the 2014 elections;

| 83. | Approves the following adjustments to the estimates:






  — | reduce the appropriations in the contingency reserve, |
| --- | --- | --- |

83.

Approves the following adjustments to the estimates:

—

reduce the appropriations in the contingency reserve,

| — | internalise the security service in a budget-neutral manner, |
| --- | --- |

—

internalise the security service in a budget-neutral manner,

| — | pursue the internalisation of ICT activities and, as consequence, create 30 new posts in the establishment plan in a budget-neutral manner (offset by savings), |
| --- | --- |

—

pursue the internalisation of ICT activities and, as consequence, create 30 new posts in the establishment plan in a budget-neutral manner (offset by savings),

| — | adjust the appropriations for the European Parliamentary Association; |
| --- | --- |

—

adjust the appropriations for the European Parliamentary Association;

| 84. | Also reduces appropriations for the House of European History by EUR 5,3 million; |
| --- | --- |

84.

Also reduces appropriations for the House of European History by EUR 5,3 million;

| 85. | Furthermore, recognising the challenging economic situation across the EU, recalls the decision taken not to index Members’ individual allowances until the end of the mandate, highlights that staff mission allowances have not been indexed since 2007, and reconfirms the decision in the 2012 budget resolution (8) to reduce all budget lines related to travel; |
| --- | --- |

85.

Furthermore, recognising the challenging economic situation across the EU, recalls the decision taken not to index Members’ individual allowances until the end of the mandate, highlights that staff mission allowances have not been indexed since 2007, and reconfirms the decision in the 2012 budget resolution (8) to reduce all budget lines related to travel;

| 86. | Welcomes the information and analyses contained in the 2011 Parliament's budgetary and financial management report and in the DGs annual activity reports, regarding budget lines that were under-implemented in 2011, and calls for further objective analysis of this type concerning the 2012 budget in order to more readily identify potential future savings to be offset by investment where needed and useful for the proper and smooth functioning of Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

86.

Welcomes the information and analyses contained in the 2011 Parliament's budgetary and financial management report and in the DGs annual activity reports, regarding budget lines that were under-implemented in 2011, and calls for further objective analysis of this type concerning the 2012 budget in order to more readily identify potential future savings to be offset by investment where needed and useful for the proper and smooth functioning of Parliament;

Working arrangements of Parliament

| 87. | Believes that, like every directly elected parliament, the European Parliament should have the right to decide on its own seat and working place arrangements; |
| --- | --- |

87.

Believes that, like every directly elected parliament, the European Parliament should have the right to decide on its own seat and working place arrangements;

| 88. | Declares, therefore, that Parliament's seat and places of work for Members and officials should be decided upon by Parliament itself; |
| --- | --- |

88.

Declares, therefore, that Parliament's seat and places of work for Members and officials should be decided upon by Parliament itself;

| 89. | Urges the two arms of the budgetary authority (the Council and Parliament), in order to make financial savings and to promote a more sustainable climate- and environmentally friendly solution, to raise the issue of a single seat and Parliament's working places for Members and officials in the upcoming negotiations on the next MFF for 2014-2020; |
| --- | --- |

89.

Urges the two arms of the budgetary authority (the Council and Parliament), in order to make financial savings and to promote a more sustainable climate- and environmentally friendly solution, to raise the issue of a single seat and Parliament's working places for Members and officials in the upcoming negotiations on the next MFF for 2014-2020;

| 90. | Urges the Member States to revise the issue of Parliament's seat and working places in the next revision of the Treaty by amending Protocol 6; |
| --- | --- |

90.

Urges the Member States to revise the issue of Parliament's seat and working places in the next revision of the Treaty by amending Protocol 6;

| 91. | In the meantime, calls on the Council to start elaborating a road-map with the Parliament towards a single seat and a more efficient use of Parliament's working places, taking into account specific up-to-date figures detailing the cost of each place of work and working conditions for staff, as well as economic, societal and environmental factors – to be presented in a report by 30 June 2013; |
| --- | --- |

91.

In the meantime, calls on the Council to start elaborating a road-map with the Parliament towards a single seat and a more efficient use of Parliament's working places, taking into account specific up-to-date figures detailing the cost of each place of work and working conditions for staff, as well as economic, societal and environmental factors – to be presented in a report by 30 June 2013;

| 92. | Suggests that the agreement between the Luxembourg authorities and Parliament on the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg should be revised, taking into account a revision of Parliament's needs; |
| --- | --- |

92.

Suggests that the agreement between the Luxembourg authorities and Parliament on the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg should be revised, taking into account a revision of Parliament's needs;

Joint working group

| 93. | Welcomes the establishment of a joint Working group on Parliament's budget between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau; in particular, strongly supports its work on the launch of a comparative study Parliament's budget with the budgets of the US Congress and a sample of Member States’ parliaments; recalls that this study is scheduled for completion by the end of 2012; expects this study to create long-term savings in the Parliament's budget and present ideas for improving its efficiency in 2013 and the following years; |
| --- | --- |

93.

Welcomes the establishment of a joint Working group on Parliament's budget between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau; in particular, strongly supports its work on the launch of a comparative study Parliament's budget with the budgets of the US Congress and a sample of Member States’ parliaments; recalls that this study is scheduled for completion by the end of 2012; expects this study to create long-term savings in the Parliament's budget and present ideas for improving its efficiency in 2013 and the following years;

| 94. | Considers that the Joint Working Group should reflect the democratic balance within Parliament; believes that the working group should consider, inter alia, further alternatives relating to the opening hours of the Members’ Register and measures to encourage the use of cheaper and greener modes of transport; furthermore, calls on the working group to report back to the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau in order to achieve medium and long-term structural and organisational savings in Parliament's budget; |
| --- | --- |

94.

Considers that the Joint Working Group should reflect the democratic balance within Parliament; believes that the working group should consider, inter alia, further alternatives relating to the opening hours of the Members’ Register and measures to encourage the use of cheaper and greener modes of transport; furthermore, calls on the working group to report back to the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau in order to achieve medium and long-term structural and organisational savings in Parliament's budget;

| 95. | Welcomes the joint working group's proposal to close the Members’ Register on Fridays in constituency (turquoise) weeks; |
| --- | --- |

95.

Welcomes the joint working group's proposal to close the Members’ Register on Fridays in constituency (turquoise) weeks;

| 96. | Calls on the Bureau to implement the proposals for savings agreed by the joint working group without delay; |
| --- | --- |

96.

Calls on the Bureau to implement the proposals for savings agreed by the joint working group without delay;

Travel

| 97. | Welcomes the efforts made to seek further savings in Members’ and staff travel; notes the savings made on mission expenses incurred by staff; notes that the related budgetary line decreased in 2012 and that these savings have been made possible by better management, use of video-conferencing and a reduction in the number of missions; |
| --- | --- |

97.

Welcomes the efforts made to seek further savings in Members’ and staff travel; notes the savings made on mission expenses incurred by staff; notes that the related budgetary line decreased in 2012 and that these savings have been made possible by better management, use of video-conferencing and a reduction in the number of missions;

| 98. | Calls on the administration to evaluate developments in the low-cost travel market, to keep up to date with new developments in the market and to exploit any possibilities for savings; furthermore, calls on the administration to allow and encourage the use of low-cost air tickets and the purchase of flexible economy tickets; believes that further measures should be examined in order to reduce the number of business class flights purchased by Members; |
| --- | --- |

98.

Calls on the administration to evaluate developments in the low-cost travel market, to keep up to date with new developments in the market and to exploit any possibilities for savings; furthermore, calls on the administration to allow and encourage the use of low-cost air tickets and the purchase of flexible economy tickets; believes that further measures should be examined in order to reduce the number of business class flights purchased by Members;

IT/travel

| 99. | Notes that the savings made on travel in 2011 thanks to the increased use (+ 56,6 %) of video-conferencing are estimated at EUR 1,4 million; believes that further savings in mission costs can be achieved by progressively replacing missions with video-conferencing, which will also limit the Parliament's carbon footprint; requests, therefore, the results of an analysis carried out by the Parliament's administration on the need for further video-conferencing equipment by no later than February 2013; |
| --- | --- |

99.

Notes that the savings made on travel in 2011 thanks to the increased use (+ 56,6 %) of video-conferencing are estimated at EUR 1,4 million; believes that further savings in mission costs can be achieved by progressively replacing missions with video-conferencing, which will also limit the Parliament's carbon footprint; requests, therefore, the results of an analysis carried out by the Parliament's administration on the need for further video-conferencing equipment by no later than February 2013;

Buildings

| 100. | Believes in, and calls for, a transparent decision-making process in the field of buildings policy through close and open cooperation with the Committee on Budgets; |
| --- | --- |

100.

Believes in, and calls for, a transparent decision-making process in the field of buildings policy through close and open cooperation with the Committee on Budgets;

| 101. | Requests timely information about the Secretary General's findings on, and schedule of, the renovation works and office relocation in the coming years; underlines the importance of proper planning and entering appropriations into the budget at the appropriate stage; |
| --- | --- |

101.

Requests timely information about the Secretary General's findings on, and schedule of, the renovation works and office relocation in the coming years; underlines the importance of proper planning and entering appropriations into the budget at the appropriate stage;

Translation

| 102. | Reiterates that savings on translation should not jeopardise multilingualism; draws attention to the fact that the quality of translations and of the working conditions of the services concerned need to be safeguarded; |
| --- | --- |

102.

Reiterates that savings on translation should not jeopardise multilingualism; draws attention to the fact that the quality of translations and of the working conditions of the services concerned need to be safeguarded;

Section IV – Court of Justice

| 103. | Notes that, despite major structural changes and a continually growing caseload, the Court has limited the increase of its operating budget to 1,56 % (in addition to 1,49 % due to Croatian enlargement); |
| --- | --- |

103.

Notes that, despite major structural changes and a continually growing caseload, the Court has limited the increase of its operating budget to 1,56 % (in addition to 1,49 % due to Croatian enlargement);

| 104. | Therefore restores appropriations for translation in order to avoid delays in proceedings and for IT resources as recommended by auditors; |
| --- | --- |

104.

Therefore restores appropriations for translation in order to avoid delays in proceedings and for IT resources as recommended by auditors;

| 105. | Partially restores remunerations and fixes the standard abatement rate at 4,5 % in order to allow the Court to correctly carry out its functions; furthermore, partially restores appropriations for maintenance and energy; |
| --- | --- |

105.

Partially restores remunerations and fixes the standard abatement rate at 4,5 % in order to allow the Court to correctly carry out its functions; furthermore, partially restores appropriations for maintenance and energy;

| 106. | Supports the ongoing revision of the Statute of the Court and commits to processing any amending budget linked to this issue without delay; |
| --- | --- |

106.

Supports the ongoing revision of the Statute of the Court and commits to processing any amending budget linked to this issue without delay;

Section V – Court of Auditors

| 107. | Notes that the Court reduces its establishment plan by 9 posts in 2013; therefore restores the initial standard abatement of 1,8 % to limit the risk on the implementation of the Court’s strategy and the delivery of the planned Audit Reports; also restores appropriations for recruitment relating to Croatian accession to the level of the DB; |
| --- | --- |

107.

Notes that the Court reduces its establishment plan by 9 posts in 2013; therefore restores the initial standard abatement of 1,8 % to limit the risk on the implementation of the Court’s strategy and the delivery of the planned Audit Reports; also restores appropriations for recruitment relating to Croatian accession to the level of the DB;

Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee

| 108. | Partially restores remunerations and allowances, to apply a 5,5 % standard abatement rate, which will still mean a reduction of the current occupancy rate; partly undoes other arbitrary cuts made by Council, such as expenditure linked to the Official Journal and operating expenditure such as interpretation, already reduced in 2012 to its 2009 outturn level; |
| --- | --- |

108.

Partially restores remunerations and allowances, to apply a 5,5 % standard abatement rate, which will still mean a reduction of the current occupancy rate; partly undoes other arbitrary cuts made by Council, such as expenditure linked to the Official Journal and operating expenditure such as interpretation, already reduced in 2012 to its 2009 outturn level;

| 109. | Fully restores appropriations for annual lease payments which are linked to legal obligations under existing contracts and subject to annual indexation depending on Belgian inflation; |
| --- | --- |

109.

Fully restores appropriations for annual lease payments which are linked to legal obligations under existing contracts and subject to annual indexation depending on Belgian inflation;

Section VII – Committee of the Regions

| 110. | Partially restores appropriations for the Committee of Regions to meet its existing statutory and legal obligations in the field of annual lease payments and staff salaries; notes that Council's drastic cut on remunerations and allowances would amount to applying twice the 1 % staff cut (already included in the DB) to this institution; |
| --- | --- |

110.

Partially restores appropriations for the Committee of Regions to meet its existing statutory and legal obligations in the field of annual lease payments and staff salaries; notes that Council's drastic cut on remunerations and allowances would amount to applying twice the 1 % staff cut (already included in the DB) to this institution;

Section VIII – European Ombudsman

| 111. | Notes the 3,49 % increase of the European Ombudsman's budget; notes that part of this increase is linked to unavoidable rental costs; reinstates appropriations for remuneration and allowances which are required due to previously vacant posts being filled; |
| --- | --- |

111.

Notes the 3,49 % increase of the European Ombudsman's budget; notes that part of this increase is linked to unavoidable rental costs; reinstates appropriations for remuneration and allowances which are required due to previously vacant posts being filled;

Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor

| 112. | Fully restores the EDPS budget; notes that its increase is in line with the forecasted inflation rate; in particular, reinstates two new posts and corresponding appropriations which are foreseen to help carry out core activities of the institution; |
| --- | --- |

112.

Fully restores the EDPS budget; notes that its increase is in line with the forecasted inflation rate; in particular, reinstates two new posts and corresponding appropriations which are foreseen to help carry out core activities of the institution;

Section X – European External Action Service

| 113. | Notes that the EEAS is a relatively new institution in a growing phase and that its network still needs to be enhanced in order to meet the EU’s political priorities and that, with 141 delegations, the EEAS is uniquely - among the EU institutions - exposed to inflation in third countries and to exchange-rate fluctuations; |
| --- | --- |

113.

Notes that the EEAS is a relatively new institution in a growing phase and that its network still needs to be enhanced in order to meet the EU’s political priorities and that, with 141 delegations, the EEAS is uniquely - among the EU institutions - exposed to inflation in third countries and to exchange-rate fluctuations;

| 114. | Welcomes the fact that, for 2013, the EEAS has frozen appropriations in nominal terms on a number of budget lines and made targeted reductions on other lines, savings which could reach 1,3 % of its 2012 budget; |
| --- | --- |

114.

Welcomes the fact that, for 2013, the EEAS has frozen appropriations in nominal terms on a number of budget lines and made targeted reductions on other lines, savings which could reach 1,3 % of its 2012 budget;

| 115. | Notes that the EEAS is showing self-restraint as no new posts are created in its establishment plan for 2013; |
| --- | --- |

115.

Notes that the EEAS is showing self-restraint as no new posts are created in its establishment plan for 2013;

| 116. | Highlights that the proposed increases in the EEAS budget are required to meet statutory staff costs and other legal obligations, as well as to respond to the political expectations for the EEAS to be present in priority countries; |
| --- | --- |

116.

Highlights that the proposed increases in the EEAS budget are required to meet statutory staff costs and other legal obligations, as well as to respond to the political expectations for the EEAS to be present in priority countries;

| 117. | Rejects, therefore, the Council's decision to freeze the EEAS budget in nominal terms at the 2012 level, and proposes an adequate increase in view of its overall financial context; |
| --- | --- |

117.

Rejects, therefore, the Council's decision to freeze the EEAS budget in nominal terms at the 2012 level, and proposes an adequate increase in view of its overall financial context;

| 118. | Undoes the cuts made by Council that would entail a reduction in the number of officials and would contradict the efforts made since the creation of the EEAS to recruit and to redeploy staff to meet increased operational requirements; |
| --- | --- |

118.

Undoes the cuts made by Council that would entail a reduction in the number of officials and would contradict the efforts made since the creation of the EEAS to recruit and to redeploy staff to meet increased operational requirements;

| 119. | Reinstates appropriations needed to comply with rental contracts in force and service-level arrangements with the Commission and the Council, and to gradually replace and streamline inherited outdated and overlapping IT systems; |
| --- | --- |

119.

Reinstates appropriations needed to comply with rental contracts in force and service-level arrangements with the Commission and the Council, and to gradually replace and streamline inherited outdated and overlapping IT systems;

*

* *

| 120. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the other institutions and bodies concerned and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

120.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the other institutions and bodies concerned and the national parliaments.

---

(1)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.

(2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(3)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(4)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0077.

(5)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0109.

(6)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0289.

(7)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0109.

(8)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0461.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/77

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Eligibility for membership of the bureau of a committee (interpretation of Rule 191(1))

P7_TA(2012)0363

European Parliament decision of 23 October 2012 concerning eligibility for membership of the bureau of a committee (interpretation of Rule 191(1) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure)

2014/C 68 E/10

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the letter of 18 September 2012 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of 18 September 2012 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

| — | having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure,

| 1. | Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 191(1) of its Rules of Procedure:
  "Only full members of a committee who have been elected in accordance with Rule 186 may be elected to the bureau of that committee."; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 191(1) of its Rules of Procedure:

"Only full members of a committee who have been elected in accordance with Rule 186 may be elected to the bureau of that committee.";

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.

---

III Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Tuesday 23 October 2012

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/78

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Own resource based on the value added tax *

P7_TA(2012)0361

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax (COM(2011)0737 – C7-0504/2011 – 2011/0333(CNS))

2014/C 68 E/11

(Special legislative procedure – consultation)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2011)0737), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2011)0737),

| — | having regard to Article 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0504/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0504/2011),

| — | having regard to Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors (Opinion No 2/2012) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors (Opinion No 2/2012) (1),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of the European Union’s own resources (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of the European Union’s own resources (2),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 entitled ‘Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 entitled ‘Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ (3),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2012 on the Multiannual Financial Framework and own resources (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2012 on the Multiannual Financial Framework and own resources (4),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2012 in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure (5), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2012 in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure (5),

| — | having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0316/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0316/2012),

| A. | whereas the Treaty clearly stipulates that the Union budget is to be financed wholly from own resources; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas the Treaty clearly stipulates that the Union budget is to be financed wholly from own resources;

| B. | whereas the Parliament, in its abovementioned resolution of 13 June 2012, adopted by an overwhelming majority, welcomed the legislative proposals made by the Commission on 29 June 2011 on the reform of the own-resources system, including the proposals on a financial transaction tax (FTT) and a new EU VAT as own resources, which are aimed at reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the Union budget to 40 % by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas the Parliament, in its abovementioned resolution of 13 June 2012, adopted by an overwhelming majority, welcomed the legislative proposals made by the Commission on 29 June 2011 on the reform of the own-resources system, including the proposals on a financial transaction tax (FTT) and a new EU VAT as own resources, which are aimed at reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the Union budget to 40 % by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States;

| C. | whereas the Parliament, in its abovementioned resolution of 23 October 2012, expressed a strong belief that the VAT is one of the conditions for the necessary political agreement on Own resources and that an agreement on the reform of VAT as own resource, as well as its implementing modalities, must be concluded together with the agreement on the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

C.

whereas the Parliament, in its abovementioned resolution of 23 October 2012, expressed a strong belief that the VAT is one of the conditions for the necessary political agreement on Own resources and that an agreement on the reform of VAT as own resource, as well as its implementing modalities, must be concluded together with the agreement on the MFF;

| D. | whereas, for the first time, the Treaty requires Parliament's consent to implementing measures for the system of the Union's own resources, and whereas Parliament has clearly expressed its will to exercise its prerogative in that regard in the negotiations on the reform of the own-resources system; |
| --- | --- |

D.

whereas, for the first time, the Treaty requires Parliament's consent to implementing measures for the system of the Union's own resources, and whereas Parliament has clearly expressed its will to exercise its prerogative in that regard in the negotiations on the reform of the own-resources system;

| E. | whereas the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, in their opinions on the Commission proposals for an own-resources reform, welcome the proposal for a new VAT own resource (6); |
| --- | --- |

E.

whereas the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, in their opinions on the Commission proposals for an own-resources reform, welcome the proposal for a new VAT own resource (6);

| F. | whereas Parliament has several times reiterated its position that a reform of the own-resources system of the Union is needed, in particular in relation to the existing VAT resource, with the aim of reverting to its initial idea of that resource being a genuine own resource and not a pure statistical device (7); |
| --- | --- |

F.

whereas Parliament has several times reiterated its position that a reform of the own-resources system of the Union is needed, in particular in relation to the existing VAT resource, with the aim of reverting to its initial idea of that resource being a genuine own resource and not a pure statistical device (7);

| G. | whereas Parliament welcomes the attempted simplification of the VAT calculation method and the fact that the Commission's proposal improves the transparency of the VAT own resource; |
| --- | --- |

G.

whereas Parliament welcomes the attempted simplification of the VAT calculation method and the fact that the Commission's proposal improves the transparency of the VAT own resource;

| H. | whereas, the Parliament considers among the strongest advantages of the new VAT proposal its transparency, fairness to taxpayers in all Member States, improved simplicity and potential to turn into a genuine own resource directly accruing to the Union budget in the future; |
| --- | --- |

H.

whereas, the Parliament considers among the strongest advantages of the new VAT proposal its transparency, fairness to taxpayers in all Member States, improved simplicity and potential to turn into a genuine own resource directly accruing to the Union budget in the future;

| I. | whereas Parliament considers that any genuine own resource should accrue directly to the Union budget; |
| --- | --- |

I.

whereas Parliament considers that any genuine own resource should accrue directly to the Union budget;

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

| 4. | Calls on the Commission to come up with concrete proposal how to further reform the VAT own resource so that it accrues directly to the Union budget already in the 2014 - 2020 period or in a further revision of the own resources system; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Calls on the Commission to come up with concrete proposal how to further reform the VAT own resource so that it accrues directly to the Union budget already in the 2014 - 2020 period or in a further revision of the own resources system;

| 5. | Calls for a practical follow-up to the Commission's Green Paper on the future of VAT and concrete measures that will ensure a higher degree of harmonisation of the VAT systems in the Member States, since it is only such harmonisation that can provide the basis for making the VAT a genuine own resource, accruing directly to the Union budget in the future; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Calls for a practical follow-up to the Commission's Green Paper on the future of VAT and concrete measures that will ensure a higher degree of harmonisation of the VAT systems in the Member States, since it is only such harmonisation that can provide the basis for making the VAT a genuine own resource, accruing directly to the Union budget in the future;

| 6. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

6.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 18.4.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 27 E, 31.1.2008, p. 214.

(3)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

(4)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0245.

(5)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0360.

(6)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the new Multiannual financial framework 2014 - 2020, adopted at the 93d Plenary Session of 14-15 December 2011.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the system of own resources, adopted at the Plenary session of 29 March 2012.

(7)  See Parliament's resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of the European Union's own resources.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/80

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Financial rules applicable to the annual budget ***I

P7_TA(2012)0362

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union (COM (2010)0815 – C7-0016/2011 – 2010/0395 (COD))

2014/C 68 E/12

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0815), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0815),

| — | having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as well as Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0016/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as well as Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0016/2011),

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

—

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

| — | having regard to the opinions 3/2010 (1) and 6/2010 (2) of the European Court of Auditors, as revised and updated on 25 January 2011, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinions 3/2010 (1) and 6/2010 (2) of the European Court of Auditors, as revised and updated on 25 January 2011,

| — | having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 11 July 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 undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 11 July 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 Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control under Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control under Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0325/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0325/2011),

| 1. | Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out (3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out (3);

| 2. | Approves the joint statements on MFF-related issues and on Article 195 of the Financial Regulation, and Parliament's statement on Article 18 of that Regulation, annexed to this resolution; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Approves the joint statements on MFF-related issues and on Article 195 of the Financial Regulation, and Parliament's statement on Article 18 of that Regulation, annexed to this resolution;

| 3. | 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.

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;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 3.6.2010, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 334, 10.12.2010, p. 1.

(3)  This position replaces the amendments adopted on 26 October 2011 (Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0465).

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012P7_TC1-COD(2010)0395

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.)

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Annex to the legislative resolution

A)   Joint Statement on MFF-related issues

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agree that the Financial Regulation would be revised in order to include amendments made necessary by the outcome of the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020, including on the following issues:

| — | the carry-over rules for the Emergency Aid Reserve and for projects financed under the Connecting Europe Facility; |
| --- | --- |

—

the carry-over rules for the Emergency Aid Reserve and for projects financed under the Connecting Europe Facility;

| — | the carry-over of unused appropriations and of the budgetary balance, as well as the related proposal to enter these in a reserve for payments and commitments; |
| --- | --- |

—

the carry-over of unused appropriations and of the budgetary balance, as well as the related proposal to enter these in a reserve for payments and commitments;

| — | the possible inclusion of the European Development Fund in the Union budget; |
| --- | --- |

—

the possible inclusion of the European Development Fund in the Union budget;

| — | the treatment of funds resulting from the agreements on the fight against the illegal traffic in tobacco products. |
| --- | --- |

—

the treatment of funds resulting from the agreements on the fight against the illegal traffic in tobacco products.

B)   Joint Statement on expenditure related to buildings with reference to Article 195

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agree that:

| 1. | the early warning procedure foreseen in Article 195(4) and the prior approval procedure foreseen in Article 195(5) do not apply to the acquisition of land free of charge or for a symbolic amount; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the early warning procedure foreseen in Article 195(4) and the prior approval procedure foreseen in Article 195(5) do not apply to the acquisition of land free of charge or for a symbolic amount;

| 2. | any reference to "buildings" in Article 195 shall only apply to non residential buildings. The European Parliament and the Council may request any information related to residential buildings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

any reference to "buildings" in Article 195 shall only apply to non residential buildings. The European Parliament and the Council may request any information related to residential buildings;

| 3. | in exceptional or urgent political circumstances the information concerning building projects relating to EU delegations or offices in third countries foreseen in Article 195(4) may be submitted jointly with the building project under Article 195(5); In such cases the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission commit themselves to deal with the building project at the earliest possible opportunity; |
| --- | --- |

3.

in exceptional or urgent political circumstances the information concerning building projects relating to EU delegations or offices in third countries foreseen in Article 195(4) may be submitted jointly with the building project under Article 195(5); In such cases the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission commit themselves to deal with the building project at the earliest possible opportunity;

| 4. | the prior approval procedure foreseen in Article 195(5) and (6) does not apply to preparatory contracts or studies necessary to evaluate the detailed cost and financing of the building project; |
| --- | --- |

4.

the prior approval procedure foreseen in Article 195(5) and (6) does not apply to preparatory contracts or studies necessary to evaluate the detailed cost and financing of the building project;

| 5. | the thresholds of EUR 750 000 or EUR 3 000 000 referred to in points (ii) to (iv) of Article 195(7) include the fitting out of the building; for rent contracts, these thresholds apply to the rent without charges but include costs related to the fitting out of the building; |
| --- | --- |

5.

the thresholds of EUR 750 000 or EUR 3 000 000 referred to in points (ii) to (iv) of Article 195(7) include the fitting out of the building; for rent contracts, these thresholds apply to the rent without charges but include costs related to the fitting out of the building;

| 6. | the expenditure mentioned under Article 195(3)(a) does not include charges; |
| --- | --- |

6.

the expenditure mentioned under Article 195(3)(a) does not include charges;

| 7. | one year after the date of entry into application of the Financial Regulation, the Commission shall report on the application of the procedures foreseen in Article 195. |
| --- | --- |

7.

one year after the date of entry into application of the Financial Regulation, the Commission shall report on the application of the procedures foreseen in Article 195.

C)   Joint Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on Article 195(3)

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agree that equivalent provisions will be included in the Framework Financial Regulation for bodies set up under the TFEU and the Euratom Treaty.

D)   Statement by the European Parliament

The amount of EUR 85,9 million repaid by Belgium to the European Parliament at the beginning of 2010 and earmarked for building projects is to be considered as external assigned revenue under Article 18 of the Financial Regulation

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/82

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Draft amending budget 4/2012

P7_TA(2012)0364

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))

2014/C 68 E/13

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 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 Communities (1) ('the Financial Regulation'), and in particular Articles 37 and 38 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1) ('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 2011 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, as definitively adopted on 1 December 2011 (2),

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

—

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

| — | having regard to Draft amending budget No 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 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 (14059/2012 – C7-0305/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the position adopted by the Council on 24 September 2012 on Draft amending budget No 4/2012 (14059/2012 – 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 stability (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 stability (4),

| — | having regard to Rules 75b and 75e of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

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), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 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 16030501 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible; |
| --- | --- |

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 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 16030501 – 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

7.

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

---

(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.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/84

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Forest reproductive material ***I

P7_TA(2012)0367

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))

2014/C 68 E/14

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0355), |
| --- | --- |

—

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(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 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 2012 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 September 2012 (1),

| — | 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 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 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), |
| --- | --- |

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012P7_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

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1104/2012/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/85

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Year of Citizens (2013) ***I

P7_TA(2012)0368

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))

2014/C 68 E/15

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0489), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0489),

| — | having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 21(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0217/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 21(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0217/2011),

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

—

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 2012 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 28 March 2012 (1),

| — | having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

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), |
| --- | --- |

—

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. | Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 137.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012P7_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)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1093/2012/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/86

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors (Leonard Orban)

P7_TA(2012)0374

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))

2014/C 68 E/16

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

| — | 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 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 Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0296/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/87

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk

P7_TA(2012)0375

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))

2014/C 68 E/17

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0423 – C7-0204/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0322/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0322/2012),

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 %; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

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)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/685/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/90

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/015/SE/AstraZeneca

P7_TA(2012)0376

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))

2014/C 68 E/18

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0396 – C7-0191/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0396 – C7-0191/2012),

| — | 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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0325/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0325/2012),

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| D. | whereas Sweden has requested assistance for 987 redundancies, 700 of which are targeted for assistance, in AstraZeneca pharmaceutical company in Sweden, |
| --- | --- |

D.

whereas Sweden has requested assistance for 987 redundancies, 700 of which are targeted for assistance, in AstraZeneca pharmaceutical company in Sweden,

| E. | whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation, |
| --- | --- |

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, Sweden is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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. |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 20. | Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

| 21. | 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 sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

| 22. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/682/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/93

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/019 ES/Galicia Metal

P7_TA(2012)0377

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))

2014/C 68 E/19

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0451 – C7-0214/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0451 – C7-0214/2012),

| — | 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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0323/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0323/2012),

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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') (3) in the NUTS II region of Galicia (ES11) in Spain, |
| --- | --- |

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') (3) in the NUTS II region of Galicia (ES11) in Spain,

| E. | whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation, |
| --- | --- |

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(b) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Spain is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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 %; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(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).

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

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)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/683/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/96

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2011/009 NL/Gelderland

P7_TA(2012)0378

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))

2014/C 68 E/20

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0395 – C7-0190/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0395 – C7-0190/2012),

| — | 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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Employments and Social Affairs, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employments and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0334/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0334/2012),

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

| E. | whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation, |
| --- | --- |

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(b) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, the Netherlands is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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 the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

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 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 flexible and short-term one; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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 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.

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 20. | Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

| 21. | 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 sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

| 22. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(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).

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

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 41 from the Netherlands)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/681/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/100

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2011/021 NL/Zalco

P7_TA(2012)0379

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))

2014/C 68 E/21

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0450 – C7-0220/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0450 – C7-0220/2012),

| — | 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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0324/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0324/2012),

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| E. | whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation, |
| --- | --- |

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, the Netherlands is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 labour market; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 12. | Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals; |
| --- | --- |

12.

Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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 the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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 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.

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 20. | Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

| 21. | 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 sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

| 22. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

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)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/684/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/103 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/103

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2010/015 FR/Peugeot

P7_TA(2012)0380

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))

2014/C 68 E/22

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0461 – C7-0222/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0461 – C7-0222/2012),

| — | 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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0333/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0333/2012),

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| E. | whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation, |
| --- | --- |

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, France is entitled to a financial contribution under that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 %); |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 16. | 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; |
| --- | --- |

16.

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;

| 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 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.

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. | 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; |
| --- | --- |

18.

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 20. | 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; |
| --- | --- |

20.

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;

| 21. | Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; |
| --- | --- |

21.

Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

| 22. | 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; |
| --- | --- |

22.

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;

| 23. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

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)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/680/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/106

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/003 DK/VESTAS

P7_TA(2012)0381

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))

2014/C 68 E/23

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0502 – C7-0292/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0502 – C7-0292/2012),

| — | 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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0345/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0345/2012),

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| D. | whereas Denmark has requested assistance for 720 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group in Denmark; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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); |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 10. | Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals; |
| --- | --- |

10.

Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 15. | 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; |
| --- | --- |

15.

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;

| 16. | 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; |
| --- | --- |

16.

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 18. | 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; |
| --- | --- |

18.

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 20. | Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

| 21. | 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 sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

| 22. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

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/2012/003 DK/Vestas from Denmark)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/731/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/109

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2012/002 DE/manroland

P7_TA(2012)0382

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))

2014/C 68 E/24

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0493 – C7-0294/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0493 – C7-0294/2012),

| — | 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 management (1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1) (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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 Fund (2) (EGF Regulation),

| — | having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 28 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

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, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0346/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0346/2012),

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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 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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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,

| 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, |
| --- | --- |

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, |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

11.

Welcomes the fact that the coordinated package of personalised measures seeks to enhance transborder mobility by supporting international job-search;

| 12. | Highlights the fact that lessons should be learned from the preparation and implementation of this and other applications addressing mass dismissals; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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 the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

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 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 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.

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 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; |
| --- | --- |

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;

| 20. | Approves the Decision annexed to this resolution; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Approves the Decision annexed to this resolution;

| 21. | 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 sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

| 22. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012ANNEX

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/2012/002 DE/manroland from Germany).

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision 2012/732/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/112

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items ***I

P7_TA(2012)0383

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))

2014/C 68 E/25

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0704), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0704),

| — | having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0395/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0395/2011),

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

—

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

| — | having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0231/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0231/2012),

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

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012P7_TC1-COD(2011)0310

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 23 October 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 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

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 207 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

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

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (2) requires such items to be subject to effective control when they are exported from or transit through the Union, or are delivered to a third country as a result of brokering services provided by a broker resident or established in the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (2) requires such items to be subject to effective control when they are exported from or transit through the Union, or are delivered to a third country as a result of brokering services provided by a broker resident or established in the Union.

| (2) | In order to enable Member States and the Union to comply with their international commitments, Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 establishes a common list of dual-use items that are subject to controls in the Union (Union list). Decisions on the items subject to controls are taken within the framework of the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Chemical Weapons Convention. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In order to enable Member States and the Union to comply with their international commitments, Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 establishes a common list of dual-use items that are subject to controls in the Union (Union list). Decisions on the items subject to controls are taken within the framework of the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

| (3) | Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 provides for Annex I to 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. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 provides for Annex I to 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.

| (4) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 should be updated regularly so as to ensure full compliance with international security obligations, to guarantee transparency, and to maintain the competitiveness of exporters. Delays with regard to the updating of the Union list may have negative effects on security and international non-proliferation efforts, as well as on the performance of economic activities by exporters in the Union. At the same time, the technical nature of the amendments and the fact that those changes are to comply with decisions taken in the international export control regimes, means that an accelerated procedure should be used to put the necessary updates into force in the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 should be updated regularly so as to ensure full compliance with international security obligations, to guarantee transparency, and to maintain the competitiveness of exporters. Delays with regard to the updating of the Union list may have negative effects on security and international non-proliferation efforts, as well as on the performance of economic activities by exporters in the Union. At the same time, the technical nature of the amendments and the fact that those changes are to comply with decisions taken in the international export control regimes, means that an accelerated procedure should be used to put the necessary updates into force in the Union.

| (5) | Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 establishes Union General Export Authorisations as one of the four types of export authorisations available under the Regulation. Such Authorisations allow exporters established in the Union to export specified items to specified destinations subject to conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 establishes Union General Export Authorisations as one of the four types of export authorisations available under the Regulation. Such Authorisations allow exporters established in the Union to export specified items to specified destinations subject to conditions.

| (6) | Annexes IIa to IIf to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 set out the Union General Export Authorisations currently in force in the Union. Given the nature of those Union General Export Authorisations, there may be a need to remove certain destinations or items from them, in particular if changing circumstances show that facilitated export transactions should no longer be authorised for a particular destination or item. Such a removal of a destination or item should not preclude an exporter from applying for another type of export authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 428/2009. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Annexes IIa to IIf to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 set out the Union General Export Authorisations currently in force in the Union. Given the nature of those Union General Export Authorisations, there may be a need to remove certain destinations or items from them, in particular if changing circumstances show that facilitated export transactions should no longer be authorised for a particular destination or item. Such a removal of a destination or item should not preclude an exporter from applying for another type of export authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 428/2009.

| (7) | In order to ensure regular and timely updates of the Union list in conformity with the obligations and commitments of Member States within the international export control regimes, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 within the scope of Article 15 of the Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In order to ensure regular and timely updates of the Union list in conformity with the obligations and commitments of Member States within the international export control regimes, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 within the scope of Article 15 of the Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

| (8) | In order to allow for a swift Union response to changing circumstances as regards the assessment of the sensitivity of exports under Union General Export Authorisations, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending Annexes IIa to IIf to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 as regards the removal of destinations or items from the scope of the Union General Export Authorisations. Given that such amendments should be made only in response to an increase in the assessment of the risk of the relevant exports and that the continued use of Union General Export Authorisations for those exports could have an adverse effect on the security of the Union and its Member States, an urgency procedure may be used by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In order to allow for a swift Union response to changing circumstances as regards the assessment of the sensitivity of exports under Union General Export Authorisations, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending Annexes IIa to IIf to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 as regards the removal of destinations or items from the scope of the Union General Export Authorisations. Given that such amendments should be made only in response to an increase in the assessment of the risk of the relevant exports and that the continued use of Union General Export Authorisations for those exports could have an adverse effect on the security of the Union and its Member States, an urgency procedure may be used by the Commission.

| (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. [Am. 1] |
| --- | --- |

(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. [Am. 1]

| (10) | Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 is amended as follows:

| (-1) | Article 4 is amended as follows:










  (a) | 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 paragraphs 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 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by using interception technologies and digital data transfer devices for monitoring mobile phones and text messages and targeted surveillance of internet use, such as via monitoring centres or lawful interception gateways.";


  [Am. 11] |
| --- | --- | --- |

(-1)

Article 4 is amended as follows:

(a)

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 paragraphs 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 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by using interception technologies and digital data transfer devices for monitoring mobile phones and text messages and targeted surveillance of internet use, such as via monitoring centres or lawful interception gateways.";

| (b) | 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 shall impose the same authorisation requirement.".


  [Am. 12] |
| --- | --- |

(b)

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 shall impose the same authorisation requirement.".

| (-1a) | Article 5 is amended as follows:










  (a) | 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) or (3a).";


  [Am. 13] |
| --- | --- | --- |

(-1a)

Article 5 is amended as follows:

(a)

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) or (3a).";

| (b) | 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) or (3a).".


  [Am. 14] |
| --- | --- |

(b)

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) or (3a).".

| (-1b) | 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) or (3a).".


  [Am. 15] |
| --- | --- |

(-1b)

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) or (3a).".

| (-1c) | In Article 8, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:




  "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.".


  [Am. 16] |
| --- | --- |

(-1c)

In Article 8, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

"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.".

| (1) | In Article 9, the following paragraphs are added:
  "
  In order to ensure that only low-risk transactions are covered by the Union General Export Authorisations described in Annexes IIa to IIf, the
  Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 23a concerning the removal of

  to remove
  destinations and items from the scope of Union General Export Authorisations included in Annex II

  if such destinations become subject to an arms embargo as referred to in Article 4(2)
  . [Am. 4/rev]

  Where, in the case of a significant change of circumstances as regards the assessment of the sensitivity of exports under a Union General Export Authorisation included in Annexes IIa to IIf, imperative grounds of urgency require a removal of particular destinations or items from the scope of a Union General Export Authorisation, the procedure provided for in Article 23b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article."; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In Article 9, the following paragraphs are added:

"
  In order to ensure that only low-risk transactions are covered by the Union General Export Authorisations described in Annexes IIa to IIf, the
  Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 23a concerning the removal of

  to remove
  destinations and items from the scope of Union General Export Authorisations included in Annex II

  if such destinations become subject to an arms embargo as referred to in Article 4(2)
  . [Am. 4/rev]

Where, in the case of a significant change of circumstances as regards the assessment of the sensitivity of exports under a Union General Export Authorisation included in Annexes IIa to IIf, imperative grounds of urgency require a removal of particular destinations or items from the scope of a Union General Export Authorisation, the procedure provided for in Article 23b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article.";

| (2) | Article 15 is amended as follows:








  (a) | 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, and in conformity with any restrictive measure based on Article 215 TFEU.";


  [Am. 18] |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

Article 15 is amended as follows:

(a)

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, and in conformity with any restrictive measure based on Article 215 TFEU.";

| (b) | the following paragraph is added:
  "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 that list shall be performed within the scope set out in paragraph 1.
  Where the updating of the list concerns dual-use items which are also listed in Annexes IIa to IIg or IV, those Annexes shall be amended accordingly.
  ".
  [Am. 2] |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the following paragraph is added:

"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 that list shall be performed within the scope set out in paragraph 1.
  Where the updating of the list concerns dual-use items which are also listed in Annexes IIa to IIg or IV, those Annexes shall be amended accordingly.
  ".

| (3) | The following articles are inserted:
  "Article 23a

  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
  to adopt delegated acts
  referred to in Article 9(1) and Article 15(3) shall be conferred
  on the Commission
  for an indeterminate

  a
  period of time

  five years
  from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No .../... [this Regulation].
  ...

   (3).
  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. [Am. 3]

  3.   The delegation of powers referred to in Articles 9(1) or Article 15(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation 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.
  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 Articles 9(1) or Article 15(3) 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 23b

  1.   Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.
  2.   Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23a(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The following articles are inserted:

"Article 23a

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
  to adopt delegated acts
  referred to in Article 9(1) and Article 15(3) shall be conferred
  on the Commission
  for an indeterminate

  a
  period of time

  five years
  from the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) No .../... [this Regulation].
  ...

   (3).
  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. [Am. 3]

3.   The delegation of powers referred to in Articles 9(1) or Article 15(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation 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.

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 Articles 9(1) or Article 15(3) 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 23b

1.   Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.   Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23a(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.

Article 2

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

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

Done

For the European Parliament

The President

For the Council

The President

---

(1)  Position of the European Parliament of 23 October 2012.

1

(2)  OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  Date of entry into force of the amending Regulation
  .".

3

Date of entry into force of the amending Regulation

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/118 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/118

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Minimum level of training of seafarers ***I

P7_TA(2012)0384

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))

2014/C 68 E/26

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0555), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0555),

| — | having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0246/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0246/2011),

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

—

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 7 December 2011 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 7 December 2011 (1),

| — | having consulted the Committee of the Regions, |
| --- | --- |

—

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 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 Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | 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), |
| --- | --- |

—

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. | Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; |
| --- | --- |

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 43, 15.2.2012, p. 69.

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012P7_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

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2012/35/EU.)

---

| 7.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/119 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/119

---

Tuesday 23 October 2012Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the EC and Israel on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) ***

P7_TA(2012)0385

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))

2014/C 68 E/27

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12428/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

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 part (1), which entered into force on 20 November 1995, |
| --- | --- |

—

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 part (1), 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 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 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 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 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 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), |
| --- | --- |

—

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.

Consents to conclusion of the Protocol;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to regularly report to the Parliament on any progress in the implementation of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 21.6.2000, p. 3.

---