European Parliament resolution on the progress made in the EU towards the Area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) (Articles2 and 39 of the EU Treaty)
Date: 2006-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU migration policy, European judicial area, Schengen Information System, data protection, deepening of the European Union, fundamental rights, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, public safety

22.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316 E/361

TEXT PROPOSED
BY THE COMMISSION

Thursday 30 November 2006

AMENDMENTS
BY PARLIAMENT

Amendment 20
Annex, Part 2, Section 2.2, point (v), subtitle ‘Activities’, indent 1

— Training: Coordination of national programmes and provi-
sion for general training needs in nuclear science and tech-
nology through a range of instruments, including competi-
tive ones, as part of general support to human resources in
all thematic domains. Includes support for training courses
and training networks.

— Training: Coordination of national programmes and provi-
sion for general training needs in nuclear science and tech-
nology through a range of instruments, including competi-
tive ones, as part of general support to human resources in
all thematic domains. Includes support for training courses
and training networks.
In addition, and taking into
account the objectives of the specific programme ‘People’
and other activities connected with the training of profes-
sionals, encouragement will be given to ensure that out-
standing young people consider the nuclear energy indus-
try to be an attractive field in which to pursue their
future careers.

Amendment 21
Annex, Part 3a (new)

3a.

DISSEMINATION

Information on nuclear energy needs to be disseminated in
representatives by
exchanges between citizens and their
means of
the setting up of multi-annual campaigns to
increase understanding of nuclear energy, with the aim of
encouraging debate and facilitating decision-making. To
make them as effective as possible, the campaigns will be
devised using social science methodologies.

P6_TA(2006)0525

Area of freedom, security and justice

European Parliament resolution on the progress made in the EU towards the Area of freedom,
security and justice (AFSJ) (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to Article 2 of the EU Treaty which sets the Union the objective of maintaining and

developing itself as an area of freedom, security and justice,

— having regard to Article 39 of the EU Treaty which instructs Parliament to hold a debate on the pro-

gress made in this area,

— having regard to the answers given by the Council at the debate of 27 September 2006 to Oral Ques-
tion B6-0428/2006, and to the Commission's presentation of its communications reporting on the
implementation of the Hague programme and future prospects,

— having regard to the debates held at the parliamentary meeting of 2-3 October 2006, organised in

conjunction with the Finnish Parliament,

— having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

C 316 E/362

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

22.12.2006

Thursday 30 November 2006

A. whereas in a world which is more and more globalised and subject to crises and persistent tensions,
economic inequalities and ever-increasing migratory flows,
ideological and cultural confrontations
which affect a growing number of individuals, and terrorist threats of an unquantifiable scale, the
demand of European citizens for the right to enjoy greater freedom, security and justice within the
Union is constantly increasing,

B. whereas seven years after Tampere European Council conclusions of 15-16 October 1999, the Euro-
pean Union does not have a coherent immigration policy, and in particular lacks a legal immigration
policy,

C. noting that those external pressure factors

— could not have been taken into account in 1999 by the European Council when it adopted the first
Tampere Programme, and that they have not been adequately taken into account since the estab-
lishment of the Hague Programme in November 2004,

— are already factors that Member States cannot control, and which will become very difficult for the
Union itself to control, unless it rapidly equips itself with the means to realise its ambitions and
becomes a credible spokesman for the policies linked to the area of freedom, security and justice
(AFSJ) vis-à-vis international organisations such as the United Nations (1) or, at regional level, the
African Union with regard to migration and development policies or, on the European continent
itself, without more structured cooperation with the Council of Europe and its bodies responsible
for promoting the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights (2),

D. whereas, given the absence of a consistent acquis and shared positions amongst its Member States, the
EU is not in a position to exercise any serious influence, in the in relation to AFSJ, on the position of
third countries, including its allies such as the USA, and that this could affect its credibility, in addition
to forcing it to yield political and strategic initiative to those countries,

E. whereas the EU's weakness at a strategic level is not only due to the fact that these policies were only
recently moved to EU level (even if the first attempts to create a European judicial area go back as far as
1975, when the continent first suffered a wave of terrorist attacks), but, above all, to the fact that this
move was made in the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, with many reservations on the part of the
Member States, and whereas the move to the ordinary legislative regime provided for as early as 1993,
has taken place only by limited progress in 1999, 2001, 2004 and finally 2005 with the (partial)
activation, thanks to the Hague Programme, of the ‘passerelle’ provided for by Article 67 of the EC
Treaty,

F.

recalling that even today the proliferation of legal bases for a single political objective, the proliferation
of jurisdictional conflicts and appeals to define the scope of the institutions' powers, the unanimity rule
and, above all, the absence of genuine democratic and jurisdictional control all make the current situa-
tion of the third pillar policies extremely fragile from the point of view of respect by the EU for the
principles on which it claims to be founded (Article 6 EU Treaty),

G. warning against the risks of pursuing outside the European Treaties the development of topics which
are already the subject of proposals put forward by the EU institutions; wishing to launch an open
debate based on fair cooperation amongst the EU institutions and with the Member States' parliaments
concerning the incorporation of the Prüm Treaty, signed on 27 May 2005, into the EC Treaty, in order
to enable Parliament to exercise democratic control,

H. noting that the Member States are more aware than anyone of the deficiencies of this situation from a
democratic, jurisdictional and indeed operational point of view and that, by signing the Constitutional
Treaty, they have committed themselves to making obligatory from November 2006 what was under
the Maastricht Treaty merely an option open to the Council,

(1) Particularly the Security Council and its Counter-Terrorism Committee, the Human Rights Council and the specialised

agencies which, in different ways, may influence EU measures on AFSJ.

(2) European Court of Human Rights, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and Commissioner for Human Rights.

22.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316 E/363

Thursday 30 November 2006

I.

J.

K.

convinced that activating the ‘passerelles’ provided for by Articles 67 the EC Treaty and 42 of the EU
Treaty is not only appropriate to the current constitutional situation but also compatible with the
constitutional situation of the future, and that consequently, the Council should also be activating it
under the aegis of Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which commits its
signatories to cooperating loyally to create the most favourable conditions with a view to its future
ratification,

endorsing the proposal by the Commission to activate, during 2007, the ‘passerelles’ provided for in
Article 67 of the EC Treaty (by abolishing the restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities with regard to matters falling under Title IV of the EC Treaty) and Article 42
of the EU Treaty, as already proposed to the European Council in its recommendation of 14 October
2004 (1),

recalling that the activation of the ‘passerelle’ leaves open the possibility for the Council to decide on its
voting conditions and that in this context various solutions could be found to preserve unanimity in
certain cases and/or for specific periods, provided that there is, in any event, codecision with Parliament
in all matters affecting European citizens' rights, since Parliament could not be viewed as having less
decisive weight than the smallest Member State,

L. whereas the ‘passerelles’ activated on the basis of the existing Treaties are already consistent with the
framework imposed by the Constitutional Treaty and do not go beyond what the latter provides for (e.
g. with regard to quotas in migration policy),

M. whereas it is also essential that it be defined what the ‘passerelles’ should be leading to, and that if fresh
objectives cannot be added to the existing Treaties, it would be more than timely to provide, within two
years, for a consolidation/simplification of the Union acquis in the field of AFSJ, as it has gradually been
shaped hitherto by cooperation between Member States, particularly since the Maastricht Treaty. Such
consolidation and simplification should aim to eliminate the numerous inconsistencies and, as far as
possible, make the acquis of enhanced cooperation (as is the case for the Schengen acquis) as widespread
as possible,

N. having regard to the strong demand from citizens and practitioners for an improvement in practical
cooperation under the Treaties as they stand at present, as well as from the Council, within which, to
date, there has been no agreement enabling genuine progress to be made with this cooperation,

O. whereas the new Member States which meet the Schengen criteria and are in a position to join the
system must not be unfairly penalised on account of significant delays in the implementation of Sec-
ond-Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II),

P. whereas Parliament has demonstrated remarkable speed and a noteworthy spirit of compromise in
having secured an agreement at first reading on the three legislative texts which constitute the package
relating to the legal basis for SIS II,

1.
Calls on the Commission to submit to the Council in 2007 the draft decision activating Article 42 of
the EU Treaty and bringing the provisions concerning police, including Europol, and judicial cooperation on
criminal matters, including Eurojust, under Community competence (Title IV of the EC Treaty);

2.

Calls on the Council:

— to adopt as a matter of urgency, in keeping with Parliament's opinion, the draft decision based on
Article 67(2) EC Treaty with regard to removing the restrictions on the powers of the Court of Justice
in the context of Title IV of the EC Treaty and to do all it can to speed up the handling of preliminary
rulings in AFSJ matters;

— to provide for extending codecision with Parliament and qualified majority voting in Council to all
areas, such as legal immigration or the integration of third-country nations, where this is in keeping
with the Treaties currently in force, as planned in 2004 by the Dutch Council Presidency;

(1) OJ C 166 E, 7.7.2005, p. 58.

C 316 E/364

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

22.12.2006

Thursday 30 November 2006

3.

Calls on the European Council to issue guidelines to the Council and Commission to:

(a)

(b)

refocus European legislation around the fundamental requirement of ensuring a high level of protection
of fundamental rights within the Union and, where individual rights are involved, not to limit them-
selves to issues of a cross-border nature only; in this context, Parliament should be able to benefit from
the expertise and support of the future Fundamental Rights Agency;

take steps to strengthen the protection of the founding principles of the EU (Article 6 of the EU Treaty)
and of the early warning and penalty mechanisms provided for in Article 7 of the EU Treaty, the case-
law of the European Courts, the Constitutional Courts, and the inquiries launched by both the Council
of Europe and Parliament are enough to show that observance of those principles must be a constant
concern for Member States and for EU institutions and that the former must set themselves public
reference criteria for improving the quality of justice and police cooperation; in this context, activating
the early warning procedure provided for by Article 7(1) of the EU Treaty should be one of the normal
mutual assistance measures necessary for ensuring a high level of protection for the principles laid
down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

(c) meet the call for genuine improvement to practical cooperation through the strengthening and harmo-
nisation of the present powers of Eurojust and its national members, in particular by conferring on it a
genuine power to coordinate investigations and prosecutions, and to help settle disputes over compe-
tence, and by conferring on Europol the power to organise and coordinate investigations and opera-
tional actions jointly with Member States' competent authorities in joint investigation teams; each year,
national parliaments and Parliament should discuss progress made and problems encountered with this
type of activity and check whether adjustments are needed to national and European legislation;

(d) make sure that a surveillance state is not created via European legislation and that public authorities'
interference in the exercise of individual liberties is strictly limited and subject to periodic review invol-
ving Parliament and national parliaments;

(e) make good the current deficit in European legislation with regard to the handling of confidential data
when they are held by the EU institutions; provide, accordingly, for the revision of Article 9 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and for the setting-up within Parliament of a committee to monitor con-
fidential activities;

(f) promote, through the adoption of Council recommendations, the implementation in the Member States
of the principles/recommendations of the Council of Europe's Secretary-General in applying Article 52
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as regards
parliamentary oversight over intelligence services (see, in particular, the future recommendations of the
temporary committee on the on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transporta-
tion and illegal detention of prisoners);

4.
Calls upon the Council to submit to Parliament as soon as possible the guidelines which it is currently
devising on the subject of the draft framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in
connection with police and legal cooperation in criminal matters; warns against the risk of draining that
proposal of its substance and recalls the undertakings given by the Council concerning Parliament's political
involvement in the adoption of the framework decision;

5.
Invites the national parliaments to ascertain as soon as possible the impact at national level of the new
provisions contemplated by the Council as regards data protection and application of the principle that
databases containing data processed for security purposes must be accessible and interlinked; states that it
is interested in taking account of the results of that verification in the opinions it will deliver to the Council
on these issues;

Urges the Commission to publish every year a report on the activities of the group of Commissioners
6.
in charge of fundamental rights, anti-discrimination and equal opportunities; also urges the Commission to
provide as soon as possible an overview of the activities and decisions taken by that group during the last
two-and-a-half years;

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

22.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316 E/365

Thursday 30 November 2006

7.
Believes that it is essential that when it comes to policies as sensitive as those relating to fundamental
rights, immigration and increased security, the EU institutions should not seek to replace the Member States
but to play a complementary role; believes further that it is necessary to ensure that the communitarisation
of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters go hand in hand with a certain right of scrutiny:

(a) both as regards the Member States' current right of legislative initiative (the Council could commit itself
to asking the Commission, under Article 208 EC Treaty, to submit legislative proposals in areas indi-
cated by a quarter of the Member States);

(b) and in order to allow the national parliaments to adopt positions on the proposals in question in the
field of AFSJ; they currently have a six-week deadline before the Council decides on a given proposal;
Parliament could commit itself not to reach an agreement at first reading with the Council before the
six-week deadline had elapsed;

8.
Recalls the need to maintain a certain consistency as regards legislative powers at EU level by provid-
ing, for example, for immigration legislation not to be limited to illegal immigration, but to cover legal
immigration too;

9.
As far as the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the
processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department
of Homeland Security (1) is concerned, expresses its deep concern at the US letter of interpretation of the
agreement, which shows that the US authorities have an interpretation going beyond the content of the
agreement, in particular as regards the purpose of the agreement, access by US agencies and bodies to the
PNR data and the number of data fields that can be consulted;

Urges the Council to adopt without delay the draft framework decision on procedural rights in
10.
criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (COM(2004)0328), taking due consideration of the
position adopted by Parliament on 12 April 2005 (2);

11.

Reiterates the need, as foreseen at Tampere in 1999:

— to apply the principle of mutual recognition across the board, so as to make it the keystone of EU

legislation;

— subsequently to strengthen access to justice, as provided for by the proposals concerning civil media-

tion, small claims and payment orders;

— provide for legislative harmonisation measures only after an impact assessment concerning fundamental

rights, involving national parliaments in the process;

12.
Affirms the need to preserve, even when communitarising the third pillar and without prejudice to
the Commission's prerogatives, the right of the Member States to help one another and to carry out reci-
procal monitoring, as is already the case for Schengen cooperation and for the fight against terrorism;

Supports the recent Commission communication seeking to establish an AFSJ policy evaluation sys-

13.
tem, and recalls that the evaluation should:

(a) be the subject of an annual communication to Parliament, so that it can debate it, in accordance with

the Treaties, and involving the national parliaments in that debate;

(b)

further involve the representatives of civil society and the academic world in evaluating the impact of
AFSJ-linked policies and measures;

Believes, finally, that the noblest of objectives would remain mere good intentions if they were not

14.
backed up by adequate human and financial resources:

(a)

implementing at EU level the principle of solidarity and sincere cooperation, including financial coop-
eration between Member States;

(1) OJ L 298, 27.10.2006, p. 29.
(2) OJ C 33 E, 9.2.2006, p. 159.

C 316 E/366

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

22.12.2006

Thursday 30 November 2006

(b) adapting the powers of the European agencies (Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, OLAF, CEPOL, etc.) so as to

enable them to implement the strategic priorities established by the Member States at EU level;

(c) making it possible to prevent and tackle civil crisis situations with international repercussions; here,
there already exists a certain amount of expertise at the level of the Commission and Council Secretar-
iat-General for pooling human, technical and financial resources at very short notice;

15.
Calls upon the Commission to endeavour to speed up the process of implementing the SIS II, to
keep Parliament informed regarding the advances made in the process and to submit reasons for the delays
which have already occurred and for any further delays which may occur in the future;

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commis-

16.
sion and the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States.

P6_TA(2006)0526

AIDS

The European Parliament,

European Parliament resolution on AIDS

— having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2006 entitled ‘HIV/AIDS: Time to Deliver’ (1) and its resolution

of 2 December 2004 on World Aids Day (2),

— having regard to World AIDS Day on 1 December 2006 and its theme:

Keep the Promise’,

‘Accountability: Stop AIDS,

— having regard to the UNAIDS (3) 2006 AIDS Epidemic Update, published on 21 November 2006,

— having regard to the UN High Level Meeting to review progress on the Declaration of Commitment on

HIV/AIDS, held from 31 May to 2 June 2006,

— having regard to the XVI International AIDS Conference, held in Toronto in August 2006,

— having regard to the Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council of
27 April 2005 entitled European Programme for Action to Confront HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tubercu-
losis through External Action (2007-2011) (COM(2005)0179) which covers all developing countries,

— having regard to the Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on
combating HIV/AIDS within the European Union and in the neighbouring countries, 2006-2009
(COM(2005)0654), of 15 December 2005,

— having regard to the G8 Summit held at Gleneagles in July 2005 and the commitment which the UN

undertook in 2005 to achieving universal access to prevention treatment and care by 2010,

— having regard to Rule 103(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas more than 25 million people have died from AIDS since the first identified case of the disease

25 years ago,

B. whereas there were 4,3 million new cases of infection in 2006, 2,8 million (65 %) of which were in
Sub-Saharan Africa alone, according to the UNAIDS' update report published on 21 November 2006,

(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0321.
(2) OJ C 208 E, 25.8.2005, p. 58.
(3)

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.