Verbatim report of proceedings of 16 February 2017
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202402672EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














18.4.2024







            16 February 2017
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 16 FEBRUARY 2017
            
         
(C/2024/2672)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Aviation Strategy for Europe (debate)
4










3.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
16










3.1.

Situation of human rights and democracy in Nicaragua, the case of Francesca Ramirez
16










3.2.

Executions in Kuwait and Bahrain
20










3.3.

Guatemala, notably the situation of human rights defenders
26










4.

Welcome
31










5.

Address by Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
31










6.

Voting time
35










6.1.

Situation of human rights and democracy in Nicaragua, the case of Francesca Ramirez (RC-B8-0156/2017, B8-0156/2017, B8-0158/2017, B8-0160/2017, B8-0163/2017, B8-0168/2017, B8-0169/2017) (vote)
36










6.2.

Executions in Kuwait and Bahrain (RC-B8-0150/2017, B8-0150/2017, B8-0151/2017, B8-0154/2017, B8-0155/2017, B8-0161/2017, B8-0162/2017, B8-0165/2017) (vote)
36










6.3.

Guatemala, notably the situation of human rights defenders (RC-B8-0152/2017, B8-0152/2017, B8-0153/2017, B8-0157/2017, B8-0159/2017, B8-0164/2017, B8-0166/2017, B8-0167/2017) (vote)
36










6.4.

Combating terrorism (A8-0228/2016 - Monika Hohlmeier) (vote)
36










6.5.

Reinforcement of checks against relevant databases at external borders (A8-0218/2016 - Monica Macovei) (vote)
36










6.6.

Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (A8-0390/2016 - Guy Verhofstadt) (vote)
36










6.7.

Improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (A8-0386/2016 - Mercedes Bresso, Elmar Brok) (vote)
37










6.8.

Budgetary capacity for the Eurozone (A8-0038/2017 - Reimer Böge, Pervenche Berès) (vote)
37










6.9.

Civil Law Rules on Robotics (A8-0005/2017 - Mady Delvaux) (vote)
37










6.10.

European Cloud Initiative (A8-0006/2017 - Jerzy Buzek) (vote)
37










6.11.

Investing in jobs and growth – maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds (A8-0385/2016 - Lambert van Nistelrooij) (vote)
38










6.12.

Aviation Strategy for Europe (A8-0021/2017 - Pavel Telička) (vote)
38










6.13.

Delayed implementation of ESI Funds operational programmes – impact on cohesion policy and the way forward (B8-0149/2017) (vote)
38










7.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
38










8.

Explanations of vote
38










8.1.

Combating terrorism (A8-0228/2016 - Monika Hohlmeier)
38










8.2.

Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (A8-0390/2016 - Guy Verhofstadt)
39










8.3.

Civil Law Rules on Robotics (A8-0005/2017 - Mady Delvaux)
41










8.4.

Investing in jobs and growth – maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds (A8-0385/2016 - Lambert van Nistelrooij)
42










8.5.

Aviation Strategy for Europe (A8-0021/2017 - Pavel Telička)
42










9.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes
43










10.

Petitions: see Minutes
43










11.

Documents received: see Minutes
43










12.

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
43










13.

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes
43










14.

Dates of forthcoming sittings : see Minutes
43










15.

Adjournment of the session
43




Verbatim report of proceedings of 16 February 2017
                  


ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ


Αντιπρόεδρος

1.   Opening of the sitting

                  (Η συνεδρίαση αρχίζει στις 8.30.)
               
2.   Aviation Strategy for Europe (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη αφορά τη συζήτηση επί της έκθεσης του Pavel Telička, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Μεταφορών και Τουρισμού, σχετικά με τη στρατηγική για τις αερομεταφορές στην Ευρώπη (2016/2062(INI) (A8-0021/2017)
               

Pavel Telička,
rapporteur. – Mr President, in the recent past we have not had that many opportunities to praise the European Union for something very concrete and tangible but I must say that the aviation sector has been a success, and it has been a success thanks to the European Union. Imagine air transport twenty years ago, and the possibilities and opportunities for consumers, for us travellers; I think that flying away for a weekend somewhere in Europe at low cost was difficult to imagine. In fact, aviation at that time was for maybe a limited number of people. This is a concrete result of the Single European Sky and the liberalisation that we managed to pursue at European Union level.
Now, increased aviation transport does not mean that we do not face any challenges. In fact, I could name at least some of them: environmental targets, certainly. I do not think anybody would deny today that we need to continue with lowering emissions from air transport. Competition with third countries, digitalisation – it is now more than a year ago that the Commission came with its plan to address these and some other challenges. In fact, it proposed to start negotiations with our main partners, to revise the rules on the European Aviation Safety Agency, and tap EU potential for growth by revising some internal regulations. This is, of course, very welcome and we have already started working on some of it, but, at the same time, we still are still awaiting some of the proposals.
The aviation sector undoubtedly requires heavy investment in a fast-evolving environment. If we want to be efficient, then we need to set a clear vision for this sector, for the investments we make today and in the future. We need to have a vision for the next, even I would say, 50 years. This is, to a certain extent, the purpose of this report, to try to find some practical alternatives for what is not working today and to make some proposals for the future. I am afraid I cannot list all of them today, but at least allow me to make a few points.
First of all, develop a connectivity index based on added value of all modes of transport, in order to rationalise investment and improve the overall resilience of the transport network in Europe, while improving connectivity. This index can help policymakers to take the appropriate decisions without undermining territorial cohesion.
Secondly, a trans-European motorway of the sky, to limit the impact of possible disruptions to where they occur, thereby allowing EU flights to pursue their journey. This was the subject of a bit of a debate in meetings with some of my colleagues. I promised that I would make it clear to the Commission that this completely means that we are putting an EU stamp on a part of the airspace and saying that in this airspace the EU should have priority over national flights. I would like to stress that this is not against national sovereignty and it is not against the right to strike. On the contrary, this is only about recalling some obligations that we should have towards the European Union.
I will be very brief on the European Aviation model. We need to stop thinking that we will solve problems of competition with our partners by putting an end to competition. This is only going to be detrimental to passengers. Competition is an opportunity for our airlines. We need to provide them with the right safeguards, of course, and this is why the European Parliament will be following closely the negotiations on air agreements. I find intermodality a very important element of this report because quite often when we talk specifically about aviation as a transport mode, we tend to take it separately from other modes of transport.
Finally, on security, there is no need to recall why this is a major concern now. Of course, we need better coordination of EU intelligence and we should make sure we make the most up to date technology equipment, but we should also be careful not to overburden passengers. That is why the Commission is invited to consider the creation of an EU pre-check system where passengers could voluntarily register in order to go through smooth security checks once at the airport. There are many more [topics] in the draft aviation strategy and maybe we will have an opportunity to debate them today.

Ole Christensen,
ordfører for udtalelse fra Udvalget om Beskæftigelse og Sociale Anliggender. – Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne takke mine kolleger både i Beskæftigelses- og Transportudvalget for at stå sammen i kampen for bedre forhold i europæisk luftfart. Der er her og nu brug for bedre regler. De regler, vi har i dag, virker simpelthen ikke godt nok. Det er til stor skade for både lønmodtagere og for de virksomheder, der opfører sig ordentligt. I jagten på billige billetter ser vi et ræs mod bunden, mod dårligere vilkår, lønninger, man ikke kan leve af, og en ekstrem kreativ udnyttelse af reglerne. Tiden er kommet til at tage ansvar og sikre ordentlige forhold. Ingen arbejdstager skal være i tvivl om, i hvilket land man skal betale skat, og i hvilket land man har sin sociale sikring. Vi skal af med alle kreative ansættelsesformer, der forsøger at omgå dette. Med vedtagelse af denne betænkning skal vi i Europa-Parlamentet stå sammen og presse Kommissionen til at komme med konkrete forslag, som kan sikre en fair konkurrence og ordentlige arbejdsforhold. Vi skal handle nu, ellers ser det sort ud for den europæiske luftfarts fremtid!
               

Violeta Bulc,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank Honourable Members for the opportunity to address them today and to exchange views on aviation matters. I welcome your own-initiative report, which provides a comprehensive view of the aviation sector. I would like to thank Mr Telička and Mr Christensen for their hard work, as well as the other committees involved. Aviation clearly matters to our economy and citizens. We are talking about more than two million direct jobs and a direct contribution of EUR 110 billion to the EU economy. EU aviation today represents 26% of the world market. It therefore deserves all our attention.
It is clear that we have our work cut out – all actors, both at national and European level – so allow me to turn to the key points raised in your report. First, regarding the internal market, I fully support swift progress on the blocked aviation files. Each year around EUR 5 billion are wasted because we have not been making progress with the Single European Sky. I fully agree with your call for completing the EU single market for aviation. In this regard, the Commission will launch this year a feasibility study for the creation of a single European upper airspace to see how that could contribute concretely to the efficiency of our skies.
On foreign investment, the Commission welcomes your continued support and interest in the EU-level comprehensive aviation agreements. In line with our commitments, we will keep you fully informed at all stages of the negotiations. Related to the competitiveness of the EU aviation sector, I take note of the emphasis you put on attracting foreign investment. This is closely linked to the importance of having fair competition. We are currently working on new measures aimed to promote or safeguard regional and overall connectivity in Europe, as announced in the Aviation Strategy. These measures are expected in the spring and should include the following: first, new guidelines on ownership and control rules to bring clarity and facilitate their application; second, new guidelines on public service obligation; third, a proposal to replace Regulation No 868/2004 on unfair practices with more effective instruments, our objective being to present a credible instrument that will allow us to act effectively when EU air carriers are injured because of the discriminatory practices originating from third countries; and last, but not least, guidelines for ATM service continuity.
On the third topic, standards, let me first say a few words on safety. I am pleased to note your support for our proposal on the revision of the aviation safety basic regulation and in particular that EASA should be equipped with sufficient resources and staff. I look forward to a trialogue on this file, which should have started this Monday, and I sincerely hope that a new date will be agreed without further delay. A lot of progress has been made so far and I am confident that we will conclude this file under the Maltese Presidency.
On the environment issue, following ICAO's landmark agreement, we are now focused on getting the global scheme up and running. We are serious about achieving carbon-neutral growth for aviation and we will provide technical and financial assistance to make it happen globally. Aviation is a global business and no country must be left behind. In its proposal adopted earlier this month, the Commission is proposing to continue with the current geographic scope of the EU emissions trading systems for aviation, covering flights between airports in the European economic area. This will ensure a level playing field and equal treatment for all airlines flying in Europe.
On social issues, let me now touch upon the social policy elements of your report. As noted in our Aviation Strategy, aircrew face legal complex issues due to their high mobility. In May 2016 the Commission published guidelines to help pilots and cabin crews by clarifying the legal regime applicable to mobile workers. Furthermore, the EU Court of Justice is expected this year to provide interpretation of these matters, in particular as regards the home base of aircrews. We are evaluating the concept of whether this notion of principal place of business is still fit for purpose. This is part of our ongoing evaluation of the air service regulation and this work should be completed next year, as foreseen in the Aviation Strategy.
The Commission is committed to strengthening social dialogue in aviation. The Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on Civil Aviation offers opportunities for the aviation social partners and the Commission to better assess and address together the social challenges of aviation. Moving on to safety, let me be clear that the same safety standards apply to everyone, regardless of their employment relationships. Safety is our top priority and EASA is continuously examining the safety aspects of emerging business models. We will continue to closely monitor developments in the market and take action where necessary. Social dialogue is essential. The Commission is active and works closely with social partners, the Member States and all stakeholders when addressing these matters.

Tibor Szanyi,
A Környezetvédelmi, Közegészségügyi és Élelmiszer-biztonsági Bizottság véleményének előadója. – Elnök Úr! Magam részéről is üdvözlöm, hogy a légiközlekedési ágazat előtt álló kihívások kezeléséről szóló bizottsági stratégia a versenyképesség növelése mellett az utasok és a munkavállalók jogainak nagyobb védelmét és magasabb szintű biztonsági, valamint környezetvédelmi standardokat is érvényre kíván juttatni – ahogy épp az imént biztos asszony is szólt erről. Mindez összhangban van az ENVI szakbizottság véleményével is, amely szerint a légiközlekedési ágazatnak fontos szerepe van a környezeti hatások enyhítése terén. Ehhez azonban sok tennivalója van az ágazatnak az új technológiák kifejlesztése, illetve a kutatás-fejlesztés terén.
               

                  Ezúton szeretném megköszönni azoknak, akik az ENVI vélemény kialakításában segítettek engem, mint jelentéstevőt. Végezetül a tagállamok szerepét is meg kell említsem. Szorgalmazom, hogy tegyenek lépéseket az Egységes Európai Égbolt megállapodás végrehajtásával és a légi utasok jogairól szóló rendeletek felülvizsgálatával kapcsolatban.
               

Anneleen Van Bossuyt,
Rapporteur voor advies van de Commissie interne markt en consumentenbescherming. – In de Commissie interne markt en consumentenbescherming zijn we resoluut gegaan voor een betere passagiersbescherming. Vandaag worden de passagiers al te vaak in het ongewisse gelaten als ze problemen ondervinden met hun vliegtuigreis. Waar kunnen ze een klacht indienen? Wie kan hen de meest actuele informatie geven, enzovoort?
               

                  Bovendien vinden wij ook dat wie offline en wie online een vliegtuigreis boekt, dezelfde rechten en plichten moeten hebben. Consumenten misleiden door een eindprijs aan te rekenen die heel erg veel verschilt van de prijs die in het begin getoond wordt, moet uit den boze zijn. Ook het veiligheidsaspect mag niet ontbreken. We moeten inzetten op nieuwe controletechnologieën en ook op proportionele straffen voor wie zich niet aan de standaarden houdt, wat dan weer bijdraagt aan een veiligere reisomgeving en kortere reistijd.
               

                  Ten slotte, als rapporteur voor IMCO, ben ik teleurgesteld dat er niet meer elementen van onze teksten werden opgenomen. Ze zijn immers volgens ons noodzakelijk bij het uitbouwen van een sterke en allesomvattende luchtvaartstrategie.
               

Deirdre Clune,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, at the outset I would like to thank Mr Telička on behalf of the PPE members in the Committee on Transport and Tourism for his good work in facilitating our views and preparing this report.
As we look back over the last 20-30 years and look at the benefits of liberalisation and single skies in our airspace and what that has meant for businesses, for jobs, for tourism, connecting people, regions and cities – that was bold, that was ambitious and that has led to the growth of low-cost airlines connecting people across Europe. Now we need the next tranche, the next wave of ambition. The aviation agreements are urgent and they need to progress, and I think this was outlined clearly in the committee's report.
Europe is important in terms of aviation but that importance is slipping, and we now see growth in the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific area. So we need to facilitate our European airlines and the aviation sector to tap into the growth potential of the fast-growing external markets. We know well the benefits of external aviation agreements. I mean, look at Morocco, at the way activity has doubled, the Balkan states, doubled, similarly with Canada and the US.
So the aviation air agreements, we have seen, are urgent, are important. We also need to look at ourselves and recognise that there are difficulties. Congestion is going to be a difficulty. We know that by 2035 two million flights will be lost due to airport capacity shortage in our airports. That will cost money and that will cost jobs. We also have the challenges of environmental targets and, of course, the files that are still sitting have not been resolved: single European sky, slot regulation, passenger rights.
Commissioner, this is a time when European aviation is a success, it has been a success and it can be a success again if we equip our aviation sector to deal with the challenges that it faces today.

Inés Ayala Sender,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, en primer lugar felicitar al ponente, el señor Telička, por la apertura y la paciencia que ha tenido para negociar en un informe que él preveía como estrategia de futuro, es decir, algo muy concreto y basado esencialmente en el espacio aéreo superior como un elemento de tirar hacia el futuro, aunque, por otro lado, necesitábamos también —como él ha dicho— echar la vista atrás y adoptar un enfoque holístico, precisamente en un momento clave del cambio en el ámbito del sector de la aviación. Y, por lo tanto, volver la vista del cielo a la tierra supone también tener en cuenta que el crecimiento exponencial que ha conllevado la democratización de los viajes con esa apertura del mercado ha acarreado también algunos problemas; por ejemplo, problemas de capacidad aeroportuaria.
               

                  Y, en ese sentido, yo creo que están bien algunas de las propuestas que aparecen y que hemos intentado plantear para facilitar, a través de la mejora de la capacidad aeroportuaria, la cohesión territorial y la puesta en valor de los aeropuertos regionales, tal vez la idea de ir hacia el futuro. Unos clústeres que tuvieran los enlaces ferroviarios que estamos intentando darles a través de las redes transeuropeas podrían ser una fórmula para mejorar nuestra capacidad.
               

                  También es importante —y yo se la agradezco— la sensibilidad en relación con la parte social. Yo creo que ahí también teníamos la necesidad de equilibrar, porque el éxito para los viajeros es necesario equilibrarlo con mejoras y trabajos decentes para los trabajadores; porque si no ganan, no viajan, y necesitamos que tengan mejores salarios y más decentes para que también sean capaces de viajar y, por lo tanto, no sustraer con el espacio aéreo superior a las empresas de sus obligaciones sociales y responsabilidades.
               

                  En cuanto a la técnica y la tecnología, yo creo que ahí tenemos el planteamiento, la necesidad de una mejor financiación. Por lo tanto, en el nuevo MFP tendremos que prestar mucha atención al Mecanismo ‘Conectar Europa’, a mejorar la financiación y también, al FEIE. En cuanto a las normas internacionales, le agradezco su lucha y su energía, señora comisaria, ante la OACI, y también deberíamos hacerlo ante la OIT, para conseguir estándares de calidad social, medioambiental y de calidad técnica a nivel europeo e imponerlos al resto de las regiones a nivel global.
               

                  Y, finalmente, romper una lanza, hacer hincapié en la posibilidad de una idea que yo le dejo aquí encima de la mesa, que es ir hacia un reciclaje reglamentado de los aviones en el marco de la nueva economía circular que la Unión Europea está lanzando como idea clave.
               

Jacqueline Foster,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to pay huge thanks to Pavel Telička. It has been excellent to work so closely with him again on this fantastic new aviation report, 99% of which is excellent in my opinion and has my full support. However, a serious problem arose because the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was granted exclusive competence on the Social Agenda under Rule 54. Unbelievably their text infers that professional pilots on European airlines are employed on illegal, bogus contracts, thereby putting passengers in danger. None of their references are evidence-based and, in addition, comments regarding business models, such as ‘home base’ criteria, also have no place in this report, showing breathtaking ignorance, as 70% of flights across Europe come under general aviation.
Aviation is the most highly regulated form of transport. It is held to the most stringent legal safety standards with contracts of both pilots and crew having to be compliant with EASA EU OPS and flight time limitations. Therefore, these accusations are misleading, provocative and have no foundation. To make matters worse, we have been unable to amend the contribution by the Employment Committee. We have already made numerous references to good working conditions, high-skill jobs and training throughout the report, not least because all of us here support good jobs and good contracts of employment.
To conclude, this sends out the wrong signals for this committee. To suggest it is not safe for European citizens to fly on European carriers is quite disgraceful. Why should they book flights? Therefore, I am not prepared to appease this ill-thought through element of the report which has been included and which we have been unable to change, but I thank [Mr Telička ] again for the hard work, and I know he understands this position. I hope this message has got through, Commissioner, namely that we have to be very careful when we allow other committees to have so much input on certain dossiers. This was incorrect; an opinion would have been quite sufficient. Thank you. This is the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and our focus is on transport.

Gesine Meissner,
im Namen der ALDE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ja, die Kommission hatte schon einen sehr guten Vorschlag für die Luftverkehrsstrategie in Europa gemacht.
               

                  Jetzt gibt es einen sehr guten Bericht von Pavel Telička, dem ich auch ganz herzlich danken möchte. Es ist tatsächlich so: Wir haben immer mehr Menschen auf der Welt und da wird auch die Luft immer voller – nicht nur mit Passagieren, sondern auch mit Fracht, die transportiert werden muss. Ich finde es eine gute Idee, dass Pavel Telička sagte: Wir brauchen so eine Art Motorway in the air. Das haben wir schon: Wir haben Autobahnen, wir haben Meeresautobahnen, nun brauchen wir auch Autobahnen – obwohl es natürlich keine Autos sind – in der Luft. Wir müssen uns also wirklich Gedanken machen, wie man dort allen Platz schaffen kann.
               

                  Dann müssen wir dabei alles erfassen, was fliegt. Es geht ja nicht nur um die großen Passagierflugzeuge, es geht auch um kleine Privatflugzeuge, es geht um Drohnen, es gibt vieles, was reglementiert werden muss, und das ist hier auch alles erfasst und benannt. Wir brauchen einen fairen Wettbewerb, nicht nur zwischen den Flughäfen. International: Frankfurt zum Beispiel – ich bin nun Deutsche – hat seine Bedeutung als Umsteigeflughafen schon verloren und wurde von Istanbul überholt. Es ist auch so, dass gerade bei den Luftverkehrslinien viel Konkurrenz ist, wo man sich fragt: Ist das immer alles noch fair? Brauchen wir neue Spielregeln?
               

                  Natürlich brauchen wir Innovation. Wir müssen im Luftverkehr umweltfreundlicher werden. Ich warte schon auf das erste Flugzeug, das mit Algenkraftstoff betrieben wird – das wäre wirklich genial. Es gibt beim Flugzeugbau auch Kreislaufwirtschaft. Darüber habe ich mich schon vergewissert.
               

                  Als Letztes: Natürlich müssen wir faire Arbeitsbedingungen haben, denn das bedeutet dann auch vernünftige Sicherheit. Wir brauchen mehr Passagierrechte und wir brauchen einen einheitlichen europäischen Luftraum. Ich beschließe das ganz bewusst damit. Diese Gesetzgebung ist seit zwei Jahren blockiert. Es ist eigentlich verrückt, dass bei uns Zickzack geflogen wird statt klare Linien. Das wäre viel effizienter und viel besser für die Umwelt. Darum müssen wir alle dafür streiten, dass das endlich kommt.
               

Kateřina Konečná,
za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, dovolte mi poděkovat panu zpravodaji nejen za jeho zprávu, ale také za to, že ustoupil od svého prvotního záměru a ve významnější míře se ve své zprávě věnuje právě sociálním bodům. Bylo tak sice učiněno na tlak ze strany Výboru pro zaměstnanost a sociální věci, ale i tak jsem ráda, že nyní pak kolega vidí spojitosti mezi dobrými pracovními podmínkami a kvalitou služeb. Já tedy nemůžu souhlasit s tím, co řekla kolegyně Fosterová, a domnívám se, že je dobře, že tuto zprávu připomínkovaly také další výbory.
               

                  S radostí také kvituji to, že zpráva vyzývá agenturu EASA a členské státy, aby v zájmu zajištění bezpečnosti letectví nadále prověřovaly nové obchodní modely a modely zaměstnávání. Jsem přesvědčena, že zvláštní pozornost by měla být věnována např. smlouvám na nulový počet hodin, které považuji za mimořádně nespravedlivé vůči zaměstnancům. Jsem sice pro silné evropské letectví, ale to nesmí být vytvářeno na bedrech zničených pracovníků, na kterých kvalita služeb stojí a padá. Musíme to umět spojit a já si myslím, že se to panu kolegovi povedlo, a za to bych mu chtěla moc poděkovat.
               

Jakop Dalunde,
för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Flygtrafiken ökar idag kraftigt. Det är visserligen positivt med en ökad mobilitet, men samtidigt måste vi inse att utsläppen från flyget eskalerar klimatförändringarna. Vi behöver en politik som ökar mobiliteten men samtidigt minskar utsläppen.
               

                  För oss gröna är det av största betydelse att flyget – precis som alla andra transportslag – betalar sina klimatkostnader och minskar sin miljöpåverkan. Varken nuvarande utsläppshandel, teknikutveckling eller andra satsningar, som gröna inflygningar, räcker för att åstadkomma detta. Vi vill skapa rättvisa spelregler som förbättrar konkurrenskraften för miljövänliga alternativ såsom utbyggnad av höghastighetslinjer, bekväma nattåg eller även stöd till utveckling av mer hållbara drivmedel för flyget.
               

                  Det är orimligt att flyget inte ska stå för sina egna kostnader, att de ska slippa betala skatt och moms och att så många flygplatser subventioneras med skattemedel.
               

                  Till sist: Igår röstade vi om reformen av EU:s utsläppshandel. Den var tänkt att även sätta ett tydligt pris på flygets klimatpåverkan. Tyvärr blev omröstningen igår ännu en tandlös reform som inte kommer ta oss närmare att uppfylla Parisavtalet.
               

                  Därför måste enskilda medlemsländer kunna gå före och visa grönt ledarskap och sätta ett rättmätigt pris på flygets klimatpåverkan. Därför röstar vi gröna nej till denna flygstrategi, som ensidigt prioriterar kortsiktig tillväxt och konkurrenskraft och som vägrar att ta ansvar för klimatet.
               

Rolandas Paksas,
EFDD frakcijos vardu. – Aš manau, kad pranešimas gana pozityvus. Aš suprantu, kad Europos Sąjungos aviacijos strategijos pagrindiniai aspektai yra konkurencija, saugumas, bendro Europos dangaus klausimas. Tai labai svarbu. Aš suprantu, kad pranešėjo Pavelo Teličkos pateikti pasiūlymai, pradedant aviacijos modelio plėtojimu, baigiant saugumo gerinimu, yra būtini. Taip pat manau, kad Europos Sąjungos politika oro transporto srityje turėtų būti pakeista nuo griežto reguliavimo vidinės konkurencijos srityje ir baudėjų pozicijos iki siekio užimti dominuojančią poziciją pasaulinėje oro transporto rinkoje, užimant plėtros ir vystymo koordinatoriaus vaidmenį. Maži oro uostai turėtų tapti Europos Sąjungos prioritetu, todėl raginu Komisiją jiems skirti ypatingą dėmesį ir valstybėms narėms suteikti daugiau veiksmingų finansinių priemonių ir instrumentų, padėsiančių išlaikyti mažus regioninius oro uostus, ypač periferijoje. Bet, kaip žmogus, daugiau kaip 40 metų turintis aviacijos piloto licenciją, p. P. Telička, kai ko nesuprantu. Kaip nesupranta ir mano kolegos aviatoriai, bent jau šito aš neradau pranešime. Aš nesuprantu, kodėl nuolat kalbėdami apie jaunimo užimtumą mes nekalbame apie dėmesį, paramą sportinei aviacijai, sportiniams aerodromams. Aš nesuprantu, kodėl nekontroliuojamai, tiesiog nesulaikomai auga reikalavimai aviacinėms organizacijoms, ypač toms, kurių daugelis yra visuomeninės. Kodėl reikalavimai privatiems naudotojams, keturių, dviejų vietų lėktuvams taip auga, kad greitai jie bus tokie pat kaip Boeingo kompanijos reikalavimai? Aš nesuprantu, kad inžinieriai-konstruktoriai, kurie kuria naujus, greitus, saugius lėktuvus ir kovoja dėl kiekvieno greičio kilometro, o mes, atvažiavę į oro uostą, praleidžiam valandų valandas laukdami patikros praėjimuose. Aš nesuprantu daugelio lėktuvų užlaikymų. Aš manau, kad tai šiuolaikiniame technikos amžiuje nelemia vien tik meteorologinės sąlygos. Aš taip pat nesuprantu, kaip yra ginamos piliečių teisės, kai, atvažiavę į oro uostą, jie randa aviacinę kompaniją streikuojančią. Aš to pasigedau strategijoje, p. P. Telička. Matyt, kad senas lakūnų posakis ‘Kur prasideda aviacija, ten baigiasi tvarka’ dar ilgai bus naudotinas.
               

Marie-Christine Arnautu,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, j'ai travaillé pendant plus de trente ans à Air France et j'ai pu malheureusement constater les méfaits de la concurrence exacerbée dans le domaine de l'aviation. À force de trop vouloir et de trop souvent déréglementer pour des motifs de rentabilité, l'Union européenne a créé un cadre qui, en définitive, bénéficie bien davantage aux compagnies étrangères et aux low-cost qu'à nos compagnies nationales historiques, qui paient aujourd'hui cette chasse excessive aux économies.
               

                  Le constat est sans appel, que ce soit pour les grands opérateurs historiques ou les principaux aéroports, les évolutions à grande échelle se passent hors de l'Union européenne. Seule l'industrie aéronautique semble tirer son épingle du jeu, mais à quel prix? Malgré ses succès commerciaux, par exemple, le groupe Airbus a recours aux délocalisations, baisse ses budgets consacrés à la recherche et développement, et diminue ses effectifs.
               

                  Aussi, je conteste vigoureusement l'expression ‘tendance inadmissible au protectionnisme’, que M. le rapporteur a inséré dans son texte, parce que je crois que c'est la logique inverse qui est inadmissible, celle qui préside pourtant dans les institutions de l'Union européenne depuis quarante ans et qui érige le libre-échange en dogme au nom d'une sacro-sainte concurrence libre et non faussée, dont on voit bien qu'elle est un leurre, y compris dans le secteur aérien confronté, ces dernières années, à la concurrence déloyale des compagnies du Golfe.
               

                  Finalement, je ne m'étonne pas trop, Monsieur le Rapporteur, que vous partagiez la vision mercantiliste de la Commission, puisque vous avez vous-même été membre de cette institution, mais je considère, pour ma part, qu'il est parfaitement approprié que les autorités publiques défendent l'emploi de leurs nationaux et protègent leurs entreprises. Si certains estiment que prôner un cadre protecteur pour notre secteur aérien est populiste, alors je l'accepte volontiers comme un compliment. Je ne me résous pas, en effet, à voir plusieurs compagnies aériennes disparaître ou passer dans l'escarcelle des compagnies étrangères, parce que les États ne sont pas autorisés à les sauver. Je ne me résous pas non plus à l'émergence de ces nouveaux modèles économiques que sont le pay-to-fly, les sociétés boîte aux lettres, les contrats ‘zéro heure’ et le faux travail indépendant.
               

                  Sur ce dernier point, je ne peux, par contre, que me réjouir des recommandations émises par la commission de l'emploi et des affaires sociales, mais je reste circonspecte tout de même sur la volonté de la Commission de les appliquer, parce qu'en général, celle-ci est peu encline à sanctionner ce type de comportement, qui nuit pourtant à la sécurité des personnels navigants et des voyageurs. Preuve en est qu'aucune compagnie low-cost ne figure parmi les dix premières compagnies aériennes du classement Jacdec. C'est pourquoi, sauf réponse convaincante de M. le rapporteur, je m'abstiendrai sur ce rapport.
               

Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, βιώνουμε και στην Ελλάδα τον Ενιαίο Ευρωπαϊκό Ουρανό, τη στρατηγική αερομεταφορών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για ιδιωτικοποίηση υποδομών, υπηρεσιών και του εναέριου χώρου, με την παράδοση – από την κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΑΝΕΛ που ακολουθεί στα χνάρια των προηγούμενων – δεκατεσσάρων αεροδρομίων στην κοινοπραξία Fraport-Κοπελούζου. Οι εργαζόμενοι της πολιτικής αεροπορίας, όλοι οι εργαζόμενοι στα αεροδρόμια, μένουν κυριολεκτικά στον αέρα, μη γνωρίζοντας αν θα έχουν δουλειά και δικαιώματα. Η ασφάλεια των πτήσεων τίθεται σε κίνδυνο με τη λογική κόστους-οφέλους. Ο τουρισμός που εξυπηρετείται από τα αεροδρόμια παραδίδεται σε διασυνδεδεμένους μεταφορικούς και τουριστικούς ομίλους. Κρατικές υπηρεσίες, όπως είναι η Πυροσβεστική, τίθενται στην υπηρεσία του ιδιώτη. Παραδίδεται ο έλεγχος του εθνικού εναέριου χώρου σε ιδιωτικά μονοπώλια και πολλαπλασιάζονται οι κίνδυνοι που απειλούν τα ζωτικά κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα της Ελλάδας σε μια περιοχή όπως το Αιγαίο και σε μια χρονική περίοδο που αυτά αμφισβητούνται ευθέως από την τουρκική ηγεσία, με καθημερινή αμφισβήτηση των συνόρων, εναέριων και θαλάσσιων, αλλά και της Συνθήκης της Λοζάνης που τα καθορίζει. Ο λαός να σταματήσει την παράδοση των αεροδρομίων! Ενιαίος δημόσιος φορέας αερομεταφορών για τις λαϊκές ανάγκες και όχι μονοπωλιακά κέρδη!
               

Wim van de Camp (PPE). – In de eerste plaats ook mijn dank aan de rapporteur voor dit verslag. Ik denk dat het een heel goed beeld geeft van wat wij op dit moment in Europa willen met de luchtvaartsector. De luchtvaartsector is een zeer uitdagende sector, maar het is ook een emancipatiesector. Er zijn veel Europese burgers die nu kunnen vliegen naar vakantieadressen en daar kan je veel over zeggen maar het is wel emancipatie.
               

                  Ik wil vier onderwerpen onder de aandacht brengen vanochtend, in de eerste plaats de innovatieve kracht van de sector. De Commissie vervoer zal volgende week een bezoek brengen aan Toulouse en aan de Airbusfabrieken om te zien hoe het gesteld is met de innovatie in Europa. Het tweede punt is de concurrentie. We hebben inderdaad zware concurrentie in de sector, niet altijd eerlijk en zeker van buiten de EU. Vervolgens het sociale aspect. Ik heb me nogal gestoord aan het gedrag van de Commissie werkgelegenheid. Als je medebeslissingsrecht hebt over een INI-verslag van TRAN dan ga je toch zeker niet een bericht schrijven dat twee keer zo lang is als het hoofdbericht. In deze sector moeten we ook niet alles bevriezen en met name de jonge piloten verdienen meer aandacht.
               

Isabella De Monte (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, l'aviazione rappresenta un elemento chiave del sistema del trasporto aereo, che è indispensabile al fine di garantire la connettività all'interno e all'esterno dell'Unione. Nell'ambito di una pianificazione strategica del sistema aeroportuale europeo, ritengo sia fondamentale valorizzare tanto gli hub internazionali quanto gli aeroporti regionali.
               

                  Questi ultimi contribuiscono alla creazione di occupazione e allo sviluppo del turismo e favoriscono la regolazione del traffico nei principali scali europei, promuovendo l'integrazione e la crescita delle aree remote. Quindi ho accolto con favore la comunicazione della Commissione europea sulla nozione di aiuto, in quanto sottolinea che il sostegno pubblico ai piccoli aeroporti, che servono prevalentemente un'utenza locale, non risulta idoneo a incidere sugli scambi tra gli Stati membri. Per queste ragioni ritengo importante sostenere, anche attraverso gli aiuti di Stato, l'investimento e il funzionamento nei piccoli aeroporti con traffico commerciale esiguo, che quindi non possono entrare in situazioni di concorrenzialità con gli altri hub.
               

Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Aanvankelijk gaf de heer Telička in zijn verslag heel veel aandacht aan innovatie, concurrentievermogen en collectiviteit. Dat zijn op zich heel belangrijke onderwerpen, maar de luchtvaart kampt wel met grotere problemen. In een hard gevecht om de laagste prijs knijpen diverse prijsvechters hun piloten af. Dat gaat zelfs zo ver dat piloten moeten betalen om te mogen blijven vliegen. Dat is een constructie die bekend staat als pay to fly. Dat dit voor én de piloten én de consument een groot probleem is bleek vorig jaar uit de studie van de London School of Economics. Daarin gaven veel piloten aan dat ze te maken hebben met vermoeidheidsklachten en die vermoeidheidsklachten worden door dit soort luchtvaartmaatschappijen eigenlijk helemaal niet serieus genomen.
               

                  Ik maak me grote zorgen om die situatie. Pay to fly is een absurde constructie en staat eigenlijk voor een organisatiecultuur met grote risico's. Ik begrijp daarom heel goed dat diverse pilotenorganisaties beginnen, of al begonnen zijn, om dit juridisch aan te vechten en deze constructies onderuit te halen. Het is ook terecht dat ze dat doen. Gelukkig heeft de rapporteur uiteindelijk ook deze punten in zijn verslag overgenomen en daar ben ik blij mee. Door die verandering, door die aanpassing kan ik nu ook het verslag steunen.
               

Merja Kyllönen (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, rakkaat kanssamatkustajat, käyttäisin hyväkseni tilaisuutta kysyä komissaari Bulcilta biopolttoaineiden käytöstä ja nimenomaan toisen sukupolven ja erityisesti jäte- ja tähdepohjaisten biopolttoaineiden käytöstä.
               

                  Lentoliikenteen päästöjen vähentämiseksi saadaan säännöllisesti palautetta siitä, että biopolttoaineita mielellään käytettäisiin, mutta hinta on usein kolme kertaa kalliimpi kuin perinteinen fossiilinen verrokki. Jos me haluamme, ja toivottavasti edelleen haluamme, päästä Pariisin ilmastosopimuksen mukaisiin tavoitteisiin, kaikki toimenpiteet – niin lentoliikenteessä, merenkulussa kuin muussakin liikenteessä – täytyy tehdä. Toivoisinkin, että komissio ottaisi askeleita eteenpäin, niin että tästä fossiilisesta polttoaineriippuvuudesta päästäisiin vähän muihinkin polttoaineisiin.
               

Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, merci à notre rapporteur, M. Telička.
               

                  Le secteur aérien est un secteur dynamique en pleine croissance: + 5 % par an. En termes d'émissions de CO2, cela se traduira par des niveaux multipliés par sept d'ici 2050, parce que ce secteur représente déjà, à lui seul, 3 % des émissions de CO2 globales. Par conséquent, à lui seul, le secteur aérien met en péril les objectifs de la COP21. Selon moi, nous n'avons pas de place pour un tel développement sans un virage technologique et sans une contrainte forte, notamment sur le carbone émis.
               

                  Outre le climat, l'autre problème, c'est que ce secteur est dérégulé. La compétition est inéquitable avec les hubs aéroportuaires et les compagnies du Golfe; la compétition intermodale est injuste, par exemple avec le ferroviaire, parce que le kérosène n'est pas taxé. Nous avons évoqué les problèmes sociaux, avec un emploi salarié toujours plus précaire – c'est le cas du pay-to-fly, des contrats ‘zéro heure’ des équipages –, alors que le lien est évident entre conditions sociales et sécurité.
               

                  Par conséquent, aujourd'hui, c'est un secteur qui doit prendre en compte, de manière importante, le volet environnemental, le volet social, mais aussi le volet technologique.
               

Franck Proust (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, l'aviation et le secteur aéronautique, qui emploient directement des centaines de milliers d'individus en Europe, dont près de 190 000 en France, sont de véritables piliers de croissance pour l'Europe. La Commission européenne l'a bien compris lorsqu'elle a présenté, en décembre 2015, sa communication sur une stratégie de l'aviation pour l'Europe.
               

                  Nous débattons aujourd'hui d'un rapport complet qui prend en compte des enjeux essentiels pour faire de ce secteur un outil au service du renforcement de l'Europe, tant sur son marché intérieur que sur la scène internationale.
               

                  Sécurité aérienne, avec la réforme de l'AESA, ciel unique européen, droits des passagers aériens, l'accord mondial de plafonnement des émissions et, enfin, la dimension internationale de la stratégie aviation sont des axes prioritaires qui devront guider l'action de la Commission et des États membres au-delà de la stratégie de l'aviation elle-même.
               

                  Je veux insister sur un point: comme en sport, je me bats pour que les règles du jeu soient les mêmes pour tous. Or, il reste encore tant à faire en matière de lutte contre les pratiques commerciales déloyales! Nous devons prendre conscience de la nécessité de défendre nos compagnies aériennes européennes et nos aéroports.
               

                  Aussi, Madame la Commissaire, je vous demande de mener à bien la réforme du règlement sur les pratiques déloyales ainsi que sur les négociations avec les pays tiers. C'est en trouvant de nouveaux relais de croissance et en luttant contre les pratiques commerciales déloyales que le secteur aérien européen retrouvera des perspectives d'avenir solides.
               

Lucy Anderson (S&D). – Mr President, the continuing success of our aviation sector is very important for Europeans, as travellers and also as workers. I very much welcome the excellent work done by many MEP colleagues in producing our views on an overarching aviation strategy. This work has included engaging constructively with the Commission's focus on a forward-looking framework for regulation of the sector on the basis of a common European vision. Making the Single European Sky a reality, regardless of national demarcations, would benefit all of us. I, and many others, will be doing everything we can to ensure that the UK plays a full part in this project in the years to come.
On the details of this report, I believe that we as MEPs have a duty to promote the reduction and minimisation of environmental damage done by aviation and to encourage a shift to other, more sustainable forms of transport where appropriate. It is fair to say the report could possibly have done more in this respect, but I still think we should support it. However, it is extremely welcome that we are voting today in support of calls to protect the rights of workers throughout the sector. In contrast to what some others have said, most reasonable people in this Parliament agree there is ample evidence of the problems of precarious employment in the sector for pilots, cabin crew and ground staff and we must address this together.

Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani komisarz! Branża lotnicza odgrywa bardzo ważną rolę w generowaniu wzrostu gospodarczego, miejsc pracy i w kreowaniu innowacji. Troska o ten sektor jest więc w pełni uzasadniona. Europejskie linie lotnicze, w tym Polskie Linie Lotnicze, generują zyski i radzą sobie bardzo dobrze na rynku światowym. Należy im w każdy możliwy sposób pomagać w rozwoju, także przez negocjowanie korzystnych umów dwustronnych. Cieszę się, że właściwą uwagę pan Telička poświęcił w tym sprawozdaniu kwestii dostępności transportu lotniczego, która wygląda bardzo różnie w poszczególnych regionach i w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich. Przy obecnym poziomie mobilności możliwość skorzystania z przystępnych cenowo połączeń i portów lotniczych stosunkowo blisko miejsca zamieszkania jest niezwykle ważna. Można tę dostępność zapewnić dzięki swobodnej konkurencji na rynku lotniczym, także z udziałem podmiotów spoza Unii i linii niskokosztowych, oraz odpowiedniemu poziomowi inwestycji w infrastrukturę.
               

                  Oczywiście wszystkie inicjatywy na rzecz przyszłości transportu lotniczego muszą traktować bezpieczeństwo pasażerów jako priorytet. Nie można się jednak zgodzić na lekkomyślne wykorzystywanie tego argumentu we wszystkich sporach, także w sporach między pracodawcami i pracownikami.
               

Νικόλαος Χουντής (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, πήρα το λόγο για να σας ζητήσω να υπερψηφίσετε την τροπολογία 2 μετά την παράγραφο 15 που αναφέρεται στην ακύρωση της παραχώρησης 14 κερδοφόρων περιφερειακών αεροδρομίων στην Ελλάδα στη Fraport. Πρόκειται για χαρακτηριστική περίπτωση αποικιακής σύμβασης. Είναι αποτέλεσμα πολιτικού εκβιασμού καθώς ετέθη ως προαπαιτούμενο για την υπογραφή του τρίτου μνημονίου. Παραβιάζει τους κανόνες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης περί κρατικών ενισχύσεων και ανταγωνισμού. Τεχνικός σύμβουλος της διαδικασίας παραχώρησης ήταν η εταιρεία Lufthansa που είναι μέτοχος της Fraport. Η ίδια η Fraport ανήκει κατά μεγάλο ποσοστό στο γερμανικό κρατίδιο της Έσσης, με συνέπεια αυτή η συμφωνία να αποτελεί παραχώρηση δημόσιας περιουσίας ενός κράτους μέλους σ` ένα άλλο κράτος μέλος. Συνολικά οι όροι της σύμβασης εξαιρούν την εταιρεία από μια σειρά δεσμεύσεις και υποχρεώσεις οικονομικού χαρακτήρα προς το ελληνικό δημόσιο, τους εργαζόμενους και τις τοπικές δημοτικές αρχές. Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, αν θέλουμε να σταθεί στα πόδια του ο ελληνικός λαός, δεν θα το κάνουμε αφαιρώντας τη δημόσια περιουσία του. Γι` αυτό σας καλώ και πάλι να υπερψηφίσετε αυτή την τροπολογία που ζητάει την ακύρωση αυτής της αποικιακού τύπου σύμβασης που έχει δρομολογηθεί.
               

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, first of all, I would like to say to the Commission that they always claim to take an integral approach to all kinds of challenge and, indeed, we have had a couple of nice strategic reports from DG MOVE on the future of transport. But when we go into very sectoral approaches suddenly this integral approach is lost. The strategy on aviation is really a very one-sided approach, looking only at the problems of unfair competition internationally and, of course, some issues we have in the European airspace. The rapporteur, unfortunately, did not take the integral approach that is needed for the aviation sector.
I am happy that, in relation to the social pillar, the report has been corrected and improved. However, on the environmental side it hardly does anything: it does not even mention the Paris Agreement. When everyone is shouting about how important that is and yet it is not even mentioned in discussion of this sector it shows that the integral approach is still lacking. When we take sectoral approaches, let us ensure that we know it is about economic, social and environmental policies. This report does not do enough in that regard, so I will vote against it.

Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, la aviación es, como tantos otros, un sector afectado por la liberalización impuesta por la Comisión y las privatizaciones de los Estados miembros. España es un claro ejemplo. La privatización de AENA gestionará las infraestructuras aéreas pensando en la obtención de beneficios a costa de la calidad de los servicios para los pasajeros y trabajadores.
               

                  Con las liberalizaciones y las privatizaciones se ha producido un claro deterioro de las condiciones de trabajo en el sector. Mientras los servicios aéreos han crecido un 47 % en las últimas décadas, el empleo no crece, y los contratos temporales y precarios, incluidos los de cero horas, se han convertido en una norma habitual.
               

                  Hay que reforzar la negociación colectiva y escuchar las demandas de los sindicatos para evitar que cambios en las concesiones de los aeropuertos o las bases de operación de las compañías deriven, como ahora, en un empeoramiento de las condiciones laborales. Evitemos el dumping social y, desde luego, no avancemos en las privatizaciones.
               

Διαδικασία ‘catch-the-eye’
                     


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, (inaudible) with airlines and aeroplanes, and we are very grateful to all the carriers who take us around Europe every week. Especially coming from the island of Ireland, I must pay tribute to both Ryanair and Aer Lingus for their courtesy and efficiency at all times.
Also, coming from the island of Ireland means I am very conscious of the Brexit negotiations coming up and of the effect that a hard Brexit, with Britain outside of the single market and possibly the customs union, is going to have, especially in the haulage sector. I can see, because of the major difficulties in transporting goods across Britain and on to the European Union, a huge demand for both maritime and air transport in relation to cargo, and this is going to increase the pressure.
I agree with my colleague Mr Eickhout, and others, that the Paris Agreement has to be taken into consideration. We have to look at ways of reducing emissions, while maybe meeting increased demand, and that is a big challenge for us.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, vreau să felicit raportorii și pe toți colegii care și-au adus aportul la acest raport.
               

                  Ca membru al Comisiei TRAN, înțeleg importanța sectorului aviației în contextul strategiei de conectivitate, competitivitate, dar și de dezvoltare a turismului. Cred că este nevoie ca și Consiliul să dea dovadă de voință politică în sprijinul dezvoltării potențialului aviatic.
               

                  Doamna comisar, sunt convinsă că știți foarte bine că dezvoltarea aviației influențează competitivitatea, mobilitatea, dar și dezvoltarea economică în piața unică. Chiar Comisia a estimat că se produc pierderi de aproximativ 5 miliarde de euro pe an din cauza că ‘cerul unic european’ înregistrează întârzieri.
               

                  În același timp, există probleme încă legate de calitate și de siguranța pasagerilor și cred că este nevoie să țineți cont de măsuri concrete în sensul protecției pasagerilor, dar și al îmbunătățirii calității serviciilor.
               

                  Salut Comunicarea Comisiei intitulată ‘O strategie în domeniul aviației pentru Europa’ și încercările de eliminare a barierelor, dar o doresc aplicată în practică. Voi vota acest raport și sper ca propunerile pe care le primiți astăzi, doamnă comisar, să le în transformați în măsuri concrete.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η νέα στρατηγική για τις αερομεταφορές πρέπει να στοχεύει στην ενίσχυση της βιομηχανίας και του τουρισμού. Αυτό σημαίνει, κυρίως, μέτρα κατά των μονοπωλιακών καταστάσεων, όπως η περίπτωση της Fraport, στην οποία παραχωρήθηκαν, αντί πινακίου φακής, 14 περιφερειακά αεροδρόμια στην Ελλάδα και μάλιστα παραχωρήθηκαν με ‘προίκα’, αφού στα αεροδρόμια Θεσσαλονίκης, Χανίων και Σκοπέλου εκτελούνται έργα ΕΣΠΑ, ύψους 520 εκατομμυρίων EUR, γεγονός που απαγορεύεται από τους κανονισμούς της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Επισημαίνεται ότι η Fraport εκμεταλλεύεται το αεροδρόμιο της Φρανκφούρτης και αεροδρόμια στα Βαλκάνια. Δεδομένου ότι μέτοχος της Fraport είναι η Lufthansa, καθίσταται σαφές ότι η Fraport έχει πλέον μονοπωλιακή θέση στην ελληνική αγορά, μετατρέποντας την Ελλάδα σε γερμανικό τουριστικό προτεκτοράτο. Πρόκειται για μία αποικιοκρατικού τύπου παραχώρηση ελληνικής δημόσιας περιουσίας σε γερμανική κρατική επιχείρηση, στο πλαίσιο των μνημονιακών επιταγών. Πρόκειται για παραχώρηση που διαλύει τις εργασιακές σχέσεις και θέτει κρατικές υπηρεσίες στην υπηρεσία της Fraport, όπως, δηλαδή, συμβαίνει με την Πυροσβεστική και το ΕΚΑΒ. Υποστηρίζω την τροπολογία για την κατάργηση της παραχώρησης των 14 περιφερειακών αεροδρομίων στη Fraport.
               

João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, esta é uma estratégia em que não nos revemos e que condenamos. Denunciamos os seus verdadeiros objetivos, promover um oligopólio pan-europeu da aviação que resultará numa maior perda de soberania nacional num setor altamente estratégico e importante para o desenvolvimento dos Estados-Membros, mas também a intensificação da exploração dos trabalhadores, com a expetável desregulação laboral, o aumento da precariedade e a redução de salários.
               

                  Esta é uma estratégia nascida no seio das grandes multinacionais do setor, criada por elas e para elas, privilegiar os acordos europeus com mercados emergentes ou as recomendações para a revisão de um conjunto de regulamentos e diretivas ou o aumento do investimento público numa lógica de nacionalizar custos e privatizar lucros servem, exclusivamente, os interesses dessas multinacionais.
               

                  Por fim, o relatório é forçado a reconhecer o brutal impacto que o processo de liberalização teve sobre as relações laborais, mas é incapaz de propor qualquer medida que inverta esse rumo; antes pelo contrário, só tem como resposta o ainda maior aprofundamento da liberalização do setor.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il trasporto aereo è la pietra angolare della mobilità europea ed è la modalità principale per rendere concreta la libertà di movimento garantita dai trattati. La nuova strategia per l'aviazione europea deve innanzitutto mirare a mantenere elevati standard qualitativi e di sicurezza per il trasporto passeggeri, a terra e in volo, anche attraverso incentivi all'innovazione e investimenti mirati nelle tecnologie digitali.
               

                  Lo spazio aereo rientra nel mercato unico dell'Unione europea e un suo utilizzo inefficiente o irrazionale, come quello causato da pratiche nazionali divergenti per procedure operative, tasse e prelievi, causa disagi concreti per i cittadini, un aumento dei costi e dei tempi di volo, oltre che maggiori consumi di carburante e più elevate emissioni di CO2.
               

                  In definitiva, il settore dell'aviazione necessita di un'opera di razionalizzazione e di rinnovamento. Questa deve partire dalle Istituzioni europee, affinché si ottengano risultati armonici e si mantengano come obiettivi prioritari la sicurezza e l'accessibilità del trasporto.
               

(Τέλος παρεμβάσεων με τη διαδικασία ‘catch-the-eye’)


Violeta Bulc,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, there are many issues and many questions but first let me say thank you very much again to both rapporteurs, Mr Telička and Mr Christensen, for a very comprehensive report and a very fruitful discussion. I would like to respond to all of you, but the time is really limited, so I will try to focus only on a couple of issues. I hope we can have a further discussion through the bilateral meetings on all the topics you raised.
First, just very quickly, on biofuels: in our low emission and mobility strategy we were very clear about the importance of alternative energies for transport. I have to say that, for aviation, biofuels are currently the only alternative which we will fully support.
On the topic of multimodality, which rolls with the same topic, and air quality, multimodality is certainly a very positive environmental impact, notably regarding local air quality, so we designed the TEN-T corridors fully multimodal. It has been estimated that many of the indirect CO2 emissions at airports originate from surface access transport. Developing important public transport systems is therefore key, both for environmental reasons and for fairer competition between airport modes, and we are pursuing this goal.
On regional airports: these deliver very positive economic and other benefits for the communities they serve. In recent years, regional airports have begun to pursue commercial objectives and are competing with each other to attract air traffic. In this new competitive environment, public funding of regional airports may distort competition between regional airports, so allow me at this point to also mention state-aid rules, which are necessary to ensure a level playing field between regional airports. Our guidance makes clear under which conditions public funding can be justified.
Regarding the pre-check and pre-clearance programmes, the Commission is aware that at least one important international partner has commenced and implemented an expedited screening programme, so-called PreCheck, for so-called ‘trusted travellers’. As a prerequisite, such travellers need to enrol and a programme determines the level of risk posed by the individual. This issue is therefore worth exploring further.
Pre-clearance: the Commission has noted the US Preclearance programme which aims at facilitating and rendering more expeditious the process of their arrival in the US. A number of major airports in the Union and their respective state's authorities has been approached and consulted, in order to have such an arrangement in place. This needs a series of procedural and infrastructural modifications to the current configuration in place at Union airports. EU funding on preclearance will be considered further.
Regarding pay-to-fly: new employment models have emerged, such as pay-to-fly for flight crew. There is no evidence that safety is negatively impacted but the Commission and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) are continuing to monitor the pay-to-fly scheme.
I have already used up my time, so I am happy to discuss all other questions at the bilateral meetings. Thank you very much for your attention and I am really happy that we are on board together to make sure that aviation remains one of the success stories of the European Union.

Pavel Telička,
rapporteur. – Mr President, let me start by first of all thanking my colleagues Ms Clune, Ms Foster and Ms Ayala Sender. I must say I have truly enjoyed working jointly with you and I appreciate your input. You have contributed immensely.
Secondly, in reaction to some of the comments: Mrs Konečná said that she is happy that I backed off on the social issues. Well, I am afraid that she cannot recall the deliberations because she did not have the time to join us for one single meeting, otherwise she would know that the social aspects were present from the very beginning. The difficulty that I had was when we received an opinion from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs which was as long as the draft report itself. Then it was extremely difficult to accommodate it. I think we need to have a certain sort of discipline. So I am glad that, together with the rapporteur from the Employment Committee, we then managed to shrink it, but as I say, it has always been present.
Secondly, on the COP: you know, it depends how we write reports. We can have a report of 20-30 pages mentioning the COPs, as important as they are – COP21 certainly – all the elements, all the documents, but nobody will read it. I am rather in favour of reports that will outline exactly the tools, the instruments with which we will manage to do it. I invite you to have a look at, for example, the connectivity index. It is there; I mean this is the tool with which we can really arrive at the outcome.
I do have a dream. My dream is that I wake up one day in the morning, I decide with the family or without to fly in the evening; that I will look at the internet, I will buy an integrated ticket which will take me from my village to Prague, then to the airport, then from the airport to another airport, and then by train – integrated ticketing, integrated modes of transport; that I will get to the airport and I will be safe; that there will be pre-screening with no extra hassle, but still security will matter; I will fly on a plane, whether it is European or international, which will have low emissions, which will be quiet, a plane with a rested crew, etc.; I will arrive without any disruption of traffic.
So this says what this report is aiming at, and I believe that if we vote for it this is yet another important step in the right direction. So thank you very much indeed. I am sure that gradually, with an active Commission, with an ambitious Commissioner, we will be able to make the dream come true.

Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.
               

                  Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Πέμπτη 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2017.
               


Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162)



Mireille D'Ornano (ENF),
par écrit. – Avec la politique d'ouverture à la concurrence du secteur européen de l'aviation civile, les compagnies aériennes européennes sont soumises à deux pressions concurrentielles: d'une part, le développement de la filière low cost et, d'autre part, la concurrence exacerbée de compagnies aériennes, notamment de pays du Golfe, qui seraient dopées par des aides publiques de ces États (qu'il s'agisse d'aides directes ou d'une fiscalité particulièrement avantageuse). Cette situation s'est traduite, comme dans tous les secteurs soumis à une forte pression concurrentielle en raison de politiques agressives de libéralisation, par une dégradation des conditions de travail des salariés des compagnies aériennes européennes. Ainsi, certains abus comme les contrats ‘zéro heure’ ou le travail ‘indépendant’ sont désormais avérés dans certaines de ces sociétés. Ce rapport, qui fait suite à la stratégie pour l'aviation publiée par la Commission européenne en décembre 2015, préconise, en particulier, l'instauration rapide du ‘ciel unique européen’, mais fait l'impasse sur les mesures concrètes permettant de redresser la situation des compagnies européennes. L'absurdité du dogme antiprotectionniste apparaît au grand jour à l'heure où nos concurrents font un usage généreux de méthodes soumises, dans les États de l'Union, à des limitations légales strictes.
               
3.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
3.1.   Situation of human rights and democracy in Nicaragua, the case of Francesca Ramirez

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση σχετικά με την κατάσταση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και της δημοκρατίας στη Νικαράγουα και την υπόθεση της Francesca Ramirez (2017/2563(RSP))
                  

Jiří Pospíšil,
Autor. – Pane předsedající, dnes jsme se zde sešli, abychom projednali případ, a řekl bych příběh, aktivistky za lidská práva a ekologické bojovnice Francisky Ramirezové, která se snaží v Nikaragui vést svoji organizaci, která se jmenuje Rada na ochranu země, jezera a suverenity, a se svými kolegy se snaží pokojně protestovat proti megalomanskému plánu nikaragujské vlády prosadit a vytvořit průplav mezi Atlantským a Tichým oceánem.
                  

                     Celý tento projekt je doprovázen mnoha otazníky, je spojen s netransparentností celého projektu, s tím, že čínský investor získal mimořádná oprávnění od nikaragujské vlády. A co je podstatné, je zřejmé, že nikaragujská vláda a státní orgány šikanují tyto aktivisty, kteří na problémy poukazují a protestují proti nim. My dnes přijímáme usnesení, kde žádáme vládu, aby nešikanovala lidskoprávní aktivisty a nechala je pokojně protestovat.
                  

                     A to si myslím, že je klíčové, protože byť zde může být určitý vládní projekt, tak občané mají právo proti němu protestovat a vyjadřovat svoje názory a tím uplatňovat svojí svobodu projevu.
                  

Ryszard Czarnecki,
autor. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani komisarz! Szanowni państwo! Przed chwilą mówiliśmy o lotnictwie w Europie. To ważne dla obywateli naszych krajów. Teraz zaczęliśmy temat, który jest ważny dla wizerunku Unii Europejskiej, bo istotne jest, żebyśmy nawet w czasach dużego kryzysu instytucjonalnego i ekonomicznego w Europie pokazali, że są pewne wartości, które nie są na sprzedaż.
                  

                     Jeśli tymi wartościami, które nie są na sprzedaż w Unii Europejskiej, jest obrona praw człowieka tam, gdzie są one łamane, myślę, że z Nikaraguą mamy problemy od bardzo wielu lat. Dobrze, że nasz Parlament ponad podziałami politycznymi zajmuje się tą skromną kobietą – Franciską Ramirez – która broni praw miejscowej ludności, ponieważ tej miejscowej ludności są zabierane za bezcen działki pod budowę elektrowni. I dobrze, że w tej w sprawie zabieramy głos. Tak naprawdę robimy to w pewnym sensie dla siebie po to, żebyśmy mogli powiedzieć sobie w przyszłości, że staraliśmy się bronić praw człowieka. Być może po latach uznamy, że była to jedna z ważniejszych działalności w tym parlamencie.
                  

Dita Charanzová,
autora. – Señor presidente, ya es hora de que hablemos de Nicaragua en esta Cámara. La situación de los derechos humanos y la democracia se ha ido deteriorando desde hace años y, por lo tanto, acojo positivamente esta primera Resolución de esta legislatura sobre Nicaragua. No se trata solo del canal interoceánico y la represión contra manifestantes que ejercen su derecho a la libertad de asociación y expresión.
                  

                     Francisca Ramírez es solo un ejemplo de centenares de voces opositoras al Gobierno, que sufren una represión cada vez más dura. El Gobierno ha estado sistemáticamente socavando los procesos democráticos y los derechos de sus ciudadanos para consolidar su control del país. El ejemplo más reciente de esto se ha dado en las últimas elecciones de noviembre, que marcaron el final de un proceso electoral amañado e injusto.
                  

                     En respuesta a todo esto, esta Resolución pide que la Unión Europea vigile la situación y, si es necesario, evalúe las posibles medidas a adoptar con Nicaragua, un país cosignatario del Acuerdo de Asociación con América Central. El Gobierno de Ortega nos ha demostrado una y otra vez su verdadera cara e intenciones. No podemos actuar de manera reactiva y esperar hasta que se produzcan más violaciones o acabaremos con otra Venezuela en América Central. Por eso, pido a la alta representante que comience ya a investigar medidas que se puedan aplicar para evitar que esto pase.
                  

Soraya Post,
författare. – Herr talman! Isidro Baldenegro López var bonde, miljöaktivist och ledare för ursprungsbefolkningen i Tarahumara. För en månad sedan mördades han i norra Mexiko. För ett år sedan mördades Berta Cáceres, också hon ledare för ursprungsbefolkningen och miljöaktivist i Honduras.
                  

                     De här fallen läste jag om i tidningen Economist i veckan. Latinamerika, skriver Economist, är världens dödligaste plats för dem som kämpar för att rädda natur och miljö.
                  

                     I Nicaragua har vi just nu att ta ställning till fallet Francisca Ramírez, ännu en modig kvinna från ursprungsbefolkningen som trotsar hot och trakasserier från myndigheterna för att stoppa ett massivt kanalbygge som hotar ursprungsbefolkningens jordbruk.
                  

                     Dessa miljöaktivister sätter sina liv på spel för att rädda planeten. De behöver vårt stöd. Den här resolutionen stöttar också förhandlingsprocessen mellan Nicaragua och Organization of American States samt en viljeförklaring som båda parter ska skriva under före slutet av februari. Det är ett viktigt steg mot större rättssäkerhet. Att försöka rädda planeten ska inte vara förenat med hot, trakasserier och livsfara.
                  

Molly Scott Cato,
author. – Mr President, Francesca Ramirez leads the Council for the Defence of the Land, the Lake and Sovereignty, a peaceful resistance movement against the interoceanic mega-dam project which is going ahead unlawfully and without prior consultation with the local community. This mega-dam project would destroy the homes and livelihoods of thousands of indigenous people and small farmers, devastate fragile ecosystems across approximately 400 000 hectares of Nicaraguan land and further increase the country's debt.
The seizure and damage of Ms Ramirez's vehicles by the state authorities signals the Government's determination to go ahead with this damaging mega-project and its willingness to intimidate those who oppose it.
This resolution condemns such intimidation and underlines the need to abandon the interoceanic dam project in order to prevent the irreversible damage it will cause. We are only sorry that we were not able to support the joint resolution because it was turned into a vehicle for general political criticism of the Nicaraguan Government. While we agree with many of the criticisms, we believe that this is a misuse of the human rights urgencies process of this House.

Seán Kelly,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I support this resolution. I think we must do everything in our power, in the light of the Association Agreement between the EU and the countries of Central America, to hold Nicaragua accountable to the standards and respect due to the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and this is not the case at the moment. The use of State power to intimidate journalists, exclude the opposition from political life and effect full control under the judiciary system has resulted in pervasive public corruption.
The Presidential elections in 2016 have resulted in complaints about a lack of transparency, given the absence of independent observers, as well as the fact that the single party regime makes it undemocratic. And of course, the work and personal safety of human rights defenders in Nicaragua is threatened by State-related retaliation to their activism. Notably, the case of the arbitrary detainment of environmental activist Francesca Ramirez and her family. They deserve our support, and her colleagues also, and we must work as a Union to try and get Nicaragua to be fairer in their dealings with these people.

Javi López,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, en este punto hablamos sobre la situación que padece Nicaragua y, especialmente, hacemos referencia al acoso que ha recibido una activista medioambiental en el país: el caso de Francisca Ramírez, que, protestando frente a una megaobra que se va a producir en el país —que no ha tenido el estudio medioambiental necesario, que no ha tenido la concertación en el país necesaria en una obra de estas características—, se ha visto acosada por el Gobierno. Y nosotros debemos denunciarlo, evidentemente.
                  

                     Y también, de telón de fondo —y esto la Resolución lo recoge—, estamos viendo cómo el sistema institucional del país se ha ido debilitando, tanto por lo que se refiere al Estado de Derecho como al pluralismo político: en las anteriores elecciones la Unión Europea no participó como observador, no pudo hacerlo; hace dos elecciones fue muy, muy crítica; y hemos visto también cómo había graves casos de corrupción.
                  

                     Pero hay que decir que tenemos que ser proporcionales y no podemos utilizar algunos países como arma arrojadiza política o ideológica entre nosotros; y equilibrados, porque también, por ejemplo, hablamos de otra Resolución, en este caso con varios asesinatos en otro país centroamericano —varios asesinatos, repito, varios, no como el caso de acoso de Francisca Ramírez—, como es Guatemala.
                  

                     Poner el foco al final en los acuerdos, las negociaciones que están produciéndose hoy con la Organización de Estados Americanos, con el Gobierno, que esperemos que mejoren la situación del país, y en eso la Unión Europea tiene que ayudar.
                  

Ignazio Corrao,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nonostante condividiamo molti passaggi di questa risoluzione, abbiamo deciso di non firmarla. È vero che molti passaggi sono giusti, ma è anche vero che, secondo noi, doveva concentrarsi maggiormente sul caso di Francesca Ramirez e sulla costruzione del Canale interoceanico da parte dei cinesi. Invece, le questioni principali hanno finito per essere marginalizzate per concentrarsi su una questione politica.
                  

                     Ancora una volta ci troviamo di fronte all'ennesima violenza contro difensori dei diritti umani e comunità indigene in America centrale. La paura che abbiamo è che si possa ripetere un caso come quello di Berta Cáceres in Honduras e dovremmo evitare e scongiurare che si rivelino casi del genere.
                  

                     Ci sono di mezzo il progetto di costruzione di questo Canale interoceanico e gli interessi economici di quei pochi che da questo canale appunto guadagneranno un grosso profitto. Dovremmo imparare da errori che abbiamo commesso nel passato per cercare di essere più fermi, più decisi e più diretti quando facciamo queste risoluzioni e andare al sodo e non utilizzarle per critiche politiche, spesso anche strumentali.
                  

Διαδικασία ‘catch-the-eye’
                        


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la situazione politica del Nicaragua si va deteriorando sempre più. Nel paese dell'eterno Presidente Daniel Ortega permangono evidenti contraddizioni sociali e un sempre maggiore distacco tra la maggioranza della popolazione e il governo.
                  

                     Il Nicaragua torna a fare notizia sui mezzi di informazione internazionale per la mancanza di democrazia, il progressivo deterioramento dello Stato di diritto e la violazione dei diritti umani. Hanno riacceso le proteste internazionali le notizie relative alle minacce nei confronti di Francesca Ramirez, contadina nicaraguense che si batte contro la costruzione di un canale navigabile tra il Mar dei Caraibi e l'oceano Pacifico, un'opera faraonica che prevede anche il trasferimento di ben 10 000 contadini senza rimborsi adeguati.
                  

                     Francesca Ramirez si batte in difesa dei contadini nicaraguensi e per la salvaguardia dell'ambiente. Gli atti di intimidazione e di violenza nei suoi confronti vanno condannati con determinazione. L'Unione europea e la comunità internazionale devono fare pressione sulle autorità del Nicaragua, affinché questa coraggiosa contadina e la sua famiglia siano tutelate.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τάσσομαι υπέρ του ψηφίσματος, το οποίο άλλωστε έχω υπογράψει. Η συμφωνία του Προέδρου της Νικαράγουας Daniel Ortega με την κινεζική εταιρία Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development για τη διάνοιξη μιας διώρυγας που θα συνδέσει τον Ατλαντικό με τον Ειρηνικό Ωκεανό οδήγησε χιλιάδες πολίτες σε διαμαρτυρίες. Η συντονίστρια του Εθνικού Συμβουλίου για την υπεράσπιση της γης, της λίμνης και της εθνικής κυριαρχίας, Francisca Ramírez, πρωτοστατεί στο κίνημα των πολιτών της Νικαράγουας που αντιτίθενται στη δημιουργία της παραπάνω διώρυγας, αφού το κόστος της υπολογίζεται σε 50 δισεκατομμύρια δολάρια και η κατασκευή της αναμένεται να επιφέρει πλήγμα στο περιβάλλον αλλά και να περιορίσει τα κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα της χώρας, εκτοπίζοντας ταυτόχρονα 30.000 πολίτες, κυρίως φτωχούς αγρότες και μέλη αυτόχθονων πληθυσμών, τους οποίους η κυβέρνηση δεν συμβουλεύτηκε καν πριν λάβει την απόφασή της. Η Francisca Ramírez έχει γίνει στόχος εκφοβισμού, έχει υποστεί αυθαίρετη κράτηση, ενώ τόσο αυτή όσο και τα μέλη της οικογένειάς της έχουν δεχθεί επιθέσεις σε αντίποινα για τον ακτιβισμό της, και όλα αυτά από τις κυβερνητικές αρχές της χώρας. Εκτιμώ επομένως ότι η κυβέρνηση της Νικαράγουας πρέπει να σεβαστεί τις αντιδράσεις των πολιτών της χώρας και να σταματήσει να εμποδίζει την άσκηση του δικαιώματος στην ελεύθερη έκφραση γνώμης.
                  

(Τέλος παρεμβάσεων με τη διαδικασία ‘catch the eye’)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for bringing up this case. As you know, the European Union follows very closely the situation on human rights in Nicaragua and we had been monitoring the case of Ms Ramirez. In this instance, the European Union delegation contacted her to find out her situation during the police seizure of her vehicles, which she finally recovered. International media attention probably played a role in the rapid return of her property. This is, of course, a satisfactory outcome for an unfortunate situation that could have been avoided in the first place.
The EU, however, remains vigilant. The authorities of Nicaragua must ensure that all human rights defenders can express their legitimate opinions without fear of retaliation. Through continuing contacts and monitoring, the European Union draws attention, whenever it is necessary, to human rights issues and specific situations. Increased visibility, as has been the case with Ms Ramirez, may help to resolve or minimise human rights organisations' and defenders' difficulties.
EU officials at all levels have regular contact with key local and international civil-society organisations, human rights organisations and activists. When necessary, the EU delegation and Member States have raised – and they will continue to raise – human rights issues with Government officials.
The EU and the Member States have a number of programmes and projects to support Nicaraguan and other Central American civil-society organisations. Like any other civil-society organisation, Francesca Ramirez's organisation can apply to benefit from EU development cooperation funds, and information sessions are regularly held at local level in order to explain the process to all the interested organisations.
Among the human right priorities, the delegation and Member States' embassies present in Nicaragua have decided to focus on improving the rule of law, promoting gender and LGBTI rights, as well as social, education health rights, and encouraging civil society to participate actively in the national development agenda and in the defence of fundamental rights.
I would like to take this opportunity to reassert the European Union's commitment to human rights in Nicaragua and to reiterate the EU's pledge to contribute to human rights defenders' security, well-being and dignity.

Πρόεδρος. – Έχω λάβει έξι προτάσεις ψηφίσματος για την περάτωση αυτής της συζήτησης.
                  

                     Η συζήτηση έληξε.
                  

                     Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Πέμπτη 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2016.
                  
3.2.   Executions in Kuwait and Bahrain

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη αφορά τη συζήτηση σχετικά με τις εκτελέσεις στο Κουβέιτ και στο Μπαχρέιν (2017/2564(RSP))
                  

Cristian Dan Preda,
auteur. – Monsieur le Président, le groupe PPE condamne fermement les récentes exécutions à Bahreïn et au Koweït ainsi que le fait que ces deux pays ont mis fin au moratoire sur la peine de mort mis en place il y a de nombreuses années. Même s'il s'agit de crimes graves, le recours à la peine de mort est inacceptable.
                  

                     En même temps, je regrette le fait que le débat au sein du Parlement sur cette question essentielle ne soit pas basé sur la défense des valeurs de l'Union et des droits de l'homme, mais sur la solidarité envers certains pays ou régimes.
                  

                     La gauche plurielle, y compris les cinque stelle et autres suivistes, imposent à l'ordre du jour uniquement les exécutions dans les régimes dirigés par des sunnites. Leurs amis chiites doivent, en quelque sorte, être protégés. Or, cela est inacceptable! En Iran, il y a plus d'exécutions que dans tous les pays dont la gauche nous oblige à parler.
                  

                     J'appelle donc mes collègues des autres groupes politiques à ne pas négliger ces cas plus alarmants et à discuter ensemble de ces graves violations des principes fondamentaux dans tous les régimes, chiites comme sunnites.
                  

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’ (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))


Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD),
Domanda ‘cartellino blu’
                        . – Caro collega, io ho sentito una cosa che veramente non so se sia un errore di traduzione o quant'altro. Lei ha detto che noi sosteniamo la pena di morte nei regimi sciiti? Il Movimento 5 Stelle? Se lei mi trova un solo atto, in tanti anni di lavoro in Parlamento, in cui noi abbiamo sostenuto la pena di morte nei regimi sciiti, io veramente alzo le mani. Spero che sia stato solamente un errore di traduzione. Lo richiarisco: il Movimento 5 Stelle è contrario alla pena di morte ovunque nel mondo.
                  

Cristian Dan Preda,
auteur, réponse ‘carton bleu’
                        . – Monsieur Castaldo, vous devez être content, vous avez les applaudissements de Mme Vergiat. Le problème, c'est qu'à chaque fois que nous discutons des urgences, seul le groupe PPE propose de discuter des exécutions perpétrées dans cette grande région du monde tant par des régimes chiites que sunnites. Nous sommes les seuls!
                  

                     À chaque fois que les autres groupes politiques proposent des urgences, c'est uniquement à partir de la perspective iranienne. Ils sont un peu orientés en fonction des volontés de Téhéran et non de nos valeurs fondamentales.
                  

Πρόεδρος. – Ως Πρόεδρος, οφείλω να επισημάνω ένα πρόβλημα, το οποίο που έχει τεθεί από συναδέλφους προερχόμενους από ένα ευρύτατο πολιτικό φάσμα και νομίζω ότι πρέπει να επικεντρωθούμε σε αυτό και να μην μετατρέπουμε την εύλογη καταδίκη του Κουβέιτ και του Μπαχρέιν για τις εκτελέσεις σε ζήτημα μικροκομματικής αντιπαράθεσης.
                  

Mark Demesmaeker,
Auteur. – Nog geen acht maanden geleden veroordeelden wij hier de politieke arrestaties in Bahrein. Een jaar geleden stelden wij de folterpraktijken in het land aan de kaak. Tevergeefs, de mensenrechtensituatie gaat er niet op vooruit. Integendeel, het regime draait de duimschroeven aan, maakt het leven van mensenrechtenactivisten en oppositie zo goed als onmogelijk.
                  

                     Vandaag staan we hier opnieuw. Deze keer betreuren we 3 doden. Het zijn de eerste executies in Bahrein sinds 2010 na een omstreden proces en we vrezen dat er nog meer aankomen. Ik wil het volgende duidelijk maken aan de Bahreinse autoriteiten. We veroordelen altijd en overal blind geweld, moord en terrorisme. Maar, ongeacht de zwaarte van de misdrijven, de leeftijd van de daders, het verloop van de rechtsgang, voor dit Parlement is het recht op leven een basismensenrecht waar niet aan te tornen valt. Ik denk aan de woorden van Catherine Ashton: ‘The death penalty can neither reverse the crime it seeks to punish nor mitigate a victim's loss. It should be a relic of the past’. Helaas, de doodstraf is in Bahrein geen reliek, maar opnieuw enge realiteit anno 2017.
                  

                     Tot slot wil ik alle Europese instellingen en lidstaten aansporen om in hun betrekkingen met Bahrein het belang van de fundamentele mensenrechten te benadrukken.
                  

PRZEWODNICTWO: RYSZARD CZARNECKI


Wiceprzewodniczący


Marietje Schaake,
author. – Mr President, we are deeply disturbed by the executions in Bahrain and Kuwait in January. The EU is against the death penalty, no matter in which country it is performed, no matter for what crime; 160 UN member states have abolished the death penalty or do not practise it, and that list should grow. In Kuwait on 25 January, 25 people were executed, 5 of them were actually foreign citizens and there are serious concerns about whether they had a fair trial under the current system in Kuwait. But in Bahrain on 15 January three people were executed by a firing squad, and we are well aware of the lack of fair trial standards as well as allegations of forced confessions under torture, which adds to the concern that we already have about the death penalty, also regarding the circumstances in these cases. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN said it was appalled, and shares our concern about the lack of a fair trial. We ask the Kuwaiti and Bahraini authorities to become the leaders that they can be in the Middle East and adopt a moratorium on the death penalty. We particularly call on His Majesty Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain to halt the executions of two prisoners on death row, Mohammed Ramadan and Hussein Moussa. We call on both the Kuwaiti and Bahraini authorities to invite the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and inhumane treatment, and to grant him full access to detention facilities to investigate the circumstances.
There is an urgent need in both these countries for upholding human rights and respecting them, including fair trial standards, and in Bahrain we see specifically that revoking citizenship puts people in a terrible situation; this is illegal and it must stop. We have also called urgently and repeatedly for the recommendations of the BiCi report to be implemented, and we repeat this call again today.

Soraya Post,
författare. – Herr talman! Naturligtvis så fördömer också den socialdemokratiska gruppen de här dödsstraffen.
                     

                        EU har tydliga riktlinjer. Vi förespråkar ett avskaffande av dödsstraffet i linje med internationell rätt och EU:s stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna. I artikel 2 i stadgan står ‘Var och en har rätt till liv. Ingen får dömas till döden eller avrättas.’.
                     

                        Därför är det högst oroväckande att både Kuwait och Bahrain nu återupptagit avrättning av medborgare efter ett längre uppehåll. Detta är oacceptabelt. Rätten till liv är grundläggande. Inte ens Internationella brottmålsdomstolen, som behandlar brott mot mänskligheten och folkmord, får utdela detta straff för förövare.
                     

                        I det fall vi nu får rapporter om från Kuwait och Bahrain uppfylls inte rättsprocessens minimikrav. Människor döms till döden efter summariska rättegångar och efter erkännanden under tortyr.
                     

                        Rätten till liv är det grundläggande för en stat att beskydda. Här ser vi vikten av att parlamentet tar ännu tydligare ställning och inför ett ännu tydligare proaktivt arbete för att uppfylla målsättningen om ett universellt avskaffande av dödsstraffet.
                     

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
auteure. – Monsieur le Président, les exécutions, le 15 janvier dernier, de Ali Al-Singace, Abbas Al-Samea et Sami Mushaima sont un triste symbole. Ils ont été exécutés une semaine après leur condamnation, prononcée sur la base d'aveux dont il fait peu de doutes qu'ils ont été extorqués sous la torture.
                     

                        Ali, Abbas et Sami sont les premières personnes à être exécutées depuis 2010. Les premières à l'être pour motifs politiques depuis 1996. Cela justifie amplement notre résolution, qui s'appuie sur les déclarations de l'ONU.
                     

                        Il est peut-être encore temps de sauver Mohammed Ramadan et Hussein Moussa, condamnés à mort dans les mêmes conditions.
                     

                        Nous pouvons aussi nous inquiéter de la reprise des exécutions au Koweït, où sept personnes, presque toutes étrangères, dont trois femmes, viennent d'être pendues alors qu'il n'y avait pas eu d'exécution dans ce pays depuis 2013. Dans les deux pays, la torture est malheureusement monnaie courante, tout comme la déchéance de nationalité.
                     

                        Il faudrait aussi dénoncer la situation des Bidounes, littéralement des sans-droits apatrides particulièrement discriminés, ou encore celle des travailleurs migrants.
                     

                        Je regrette le ‘deux poids, deux mesures’ pratiqué par certains groupes politiques, comme nous venons de le voir dans le précédent débat, et M. Preda vient de nous faire une triste caricature.
                     

(L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question ‘carton bleu’ (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))


Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE),
otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Já bych měl, paní Vergiatová, na Vás otázku. Vy jste hovořila o vynucených doznáních a zmanipulovaných procesech. Můžete uvést konkrétní zdroje Vašich tvrzení? Můžete uvést také, kolik vlastně bylo v Bahrajnu vykonaných poprav? Jak třeba bahrajnský režim pokročil v otázce lidských práv? Je tam nějaká pozitivní progrese?
                     

Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL),
réponse ‘carton bleu’
                           . – C'est bien de me poser une question, mais c'est mieux de m'écouter avant de m'en poser une.
                     

                        J'ai effectivement dit que ce qui nous inquiétait dans la situation du Bahreïn et qui justifiait notre résolution, c'est le fait qu'il y avait eu un moratoire et que les exécutions avaient repris. Cela me paraît clair.
                     

                        Par ailleurs, comme le dit notre résolution – si vous l'avez lue –, les soupçons de torture reposent sur les déclarations des ONG, et les plus grandes d'entre elles. Ces soupçons ont été repris par l'ONU, et il me semble que c'est une source fiable.
                     

Alyn Smith,
author. – Mr President, we have had good joint working across this resolution. I do regret that the ECR was not able to be part of the compromise, eventually, but we did work hard to get a decent text before the House. It is right that where Member States have allies and have interests, the European Union is a community based on values and as a collective we can exploit and voice our values and it is right that we remain vocal within that discussion. The EU, acting as a collective, can achieve more than our individual Member States – my own in particular has not entirely clean hands in this discussion – but as a collective we can be true to our values and it is right that we should speak truth to our friends.
In Bahrain and Kuwait there is a sense that they are somehow singled out unfairly for criticism, on a regular basis. It is barely eight months since our last resolution on Bahrain as well, but that is because, actually, it is a compliment. There is scope for a dialogue, there is scope for a discussion with those two countries, and there is scope for progress which we can support within those countries with our expertise.
I would refer particularly to paragraph 9 of the resolution: the resolution calls on the Bahraini Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. Progress and reform is absolutely vital and we will continue to support that progress.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Ali Al-Singace, Abbas al-Samea e Sami Mushaima, domenica 15 gennaio, alle prime luci dell'alba, hanno ricevuto quattro pallottole in petto, poco meno di una settimana dopo che la Corte di Cassazione aveva confermato le loro condanne a morte per l'uccisione di due poliziotti nel 2014.
                     

                        Si tratta delle prime esecuzioni dal 2010 in Bahrein. Sono stati torturati fino a confessare. Non sono stati informati neanche dell'esecuzione, così come i loro familiari che non hanno nemmeno potuto assistere alle cerimonie funebri. Esattamente dieci giorni dopo in Kuwait sono stati impiccati sette prigionieri, anche qui le prime esecuzioni in quattro anni, e un processo equo è una chimera. Crudele, inumana, incapace di deterrenza, crimine irreversibile: questa è la pena di morte ovunque nel mondo!
                     

                        Altri due uomini adesso rischiano in Bahrein di essere trucidati dal sistema, dallo Stato, nei prossimi giorni, se non ci sarà un perdono reale che noi invochiamo per mettere fine a questa pratica atroce e anacronistica. I valori e i principi selettivi e secondo interessi commerciali appartengono ad altri partiti e gruppi politici di quest'Aula. Per il Movimento 5 Stelle non si raggiungerà mai la giustizia uccidendo un essere umano, né in Bahrein, né in Kuwait, né in nessuna parte del mondo, Iran compreso.
                     

Tomáš Zdechovský,
za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, vždycky když se narodí člověk, je to dobrá zpráva od Boha, že jsme ho ještě nepřestali bavit. A proto je mi vždycky líto, když dojde k tomu, že je někomu násilně život odebrán. A ještě více mi je to líto, když je odebrán od někoho, kdo je považován za partnera Evropské unie.
                     

                        V případě Bahrajnu už tady máme třetí rezoluci, která se týká naléhavých případů, a tak, jak zmínil Cristian Preda, je bohužel politováníhodné, že nevěnujeme pozornost také dalším zemím. Nikdy tady na evropské úrovni jsme neprobírali naléhavé rezoluce u případů občanů Íránu. Málo se věnujeme případům poprav třeba v Bělorusku a v dalších zemích. A myslím si, že to je pro nás, pro politiky, velikánská výzva k tomu, abychom tuto situace změnili. Já osobně říkám za PPE: je neakceptovatelné jakékoliv odejmutí života člověku. Život jsme člověku nedali, nemáme právo mu ho vzít.
                     

Ana Gomes,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Nesta resolução, condenamos vigorosamente as recentes execuções no Koweit e no Barém, países onde a justiça não tem credibilidade.
                     

                        Em Manama, a forma como a polícia tem enfrentado os protestos dos últimos dias pelo aniversário da revolta de 2011, mostra que a situação de direitos humanos se tem agravado, com crescentes violações, incluindo execuções sumárias e tortura.
                     

                        É fundamental que as autoridades do Barém parem as execuções de Mohammed Ramadan e Hussain Ali Moosa, a quem foi negado um processo justo, e se comprometam imediatamente com a abolição da pena de morte, que parem a repressão e restaurem a liberdade de ação do partido da oposição al-Wefaq, que libertem os presos políticos e ativistas de direitos humanos como Nabeel Rajab e que restituam a cidadania a Sheikh Issa Ahmad Qassim e outros dissidentes, a quem foi, ilegal e arbitrariamente, revogada.
                     

                        Para a própria segurança e estabilidade do Barém, será vital que as autoridades se empenhem, finalmente, no diálogo para uma reconciliação. Isso, obviamente, implica a participação dos representantes da população maioritária xiita.
                     

Udo Voigt (NI). – Herr Präsident! Ich will mich auf die Vorfälle in Bahrain konzentrieren, wegen der Besonderheit, dass dort ein sunnitisches Herrscherhaus auf die mehrheitlich schiitische Bevölkerung Druck ausüben will.
                     

                        Diese drei Männer aus Bahrain sind zum Tode verurteilt worden für eine Tat, die sie mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht begangen haben. Es liegt nahe, dass diese Maßnahme die mehrheitlich schiitische Bevölkerung einschüchtern sollte. Die Angeklagten wurden im Februar 2015 zum Tode verurteilt, legten dagegen jedoch Berufung ein und begründeten diese damit, dass ihre Geständnisse unter Folter erzwungen worden waren. Die Berufung wurde kurz vor der offiziellen Erschießung der Männer verworfen. Als im Zuge des inszenierten Arabischen Frühlings auch Unruhen in Bahrain ausbrachen, wurde die Gelegenheit vom sunnitischen Herrscherhaus genutzt, um die schiitische Bevölkerung zu dezimieren. Als dann drei Jahre später eine Bombe drei Polizisten tötete, wurden erneut Schiiten dafür verantwortlich gemacht und drei Verdächtige innerhalb kurzer Zeit und trotz ziemlich dünner Beweislage festgesetzt.
                     

                        Es werden seit der gezielten Destabilisierung der Länder in Nordafrika und im Nahen Osten religiöse oder ethnische Konflikte ausgetragen, die hätten verhindert werden können, wenn man nicht auch von EU-Seite die US-Außenpolitik vor Ort unterstützt hätte.
                     

Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, in Europe we are against capital punishment in principle, but let us not forget it is up to every sovereign state to decide about this. Kuwait and Bahrain decided to have a moratorium on executions for the past 6 years, and this is something encouraging. Now they have resumed executions, of ten people, on an exceptional basis. This is very much deplorable, but my problem is that this debate is somewhat out of the context of urgency because at the same time, we know that during this year in Iran ten times more people have been executed. Where are our urgent motions for resolutions [about that]? And so I am afraid that, in neglecting Iran and bashing Kuwait and Bahrain – Bahrain is very good in providing religious freedom and tolerance – we are in a way introducing double standards, so the PPE Group has decided to abstain from this vote.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to express many thanks to all those who work to raise human rights issues in this House. This is not the first time that we have spoken about the situation in Bahrain, sadly, and our message must be clear. The death penalty is always wrong, and even more so when young men are tortured into confession and then executed. All of us here must be clear that Muhammad Ramadan and Hussein Moussa must not be executed, and that the death penalty must be abolished in Bahrain, as elsewhere, including Iran.
Upholding human rights and democracy makes a country stronger, not weaker. If Bahrain wants to present itself as a beacon of progress in the Middle East, then its Government must conduct itself accordingly. Instead of putting Nabeel Rajab through yet another hearing on 21 February, release him and all other political prisoners. All EU Member States, and especially the UK, must put human rights first and insist that these rights are upheld, instead of trading in arms.

Zgłoszenia z sali


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, as execuções de três homens, de confissão xiita, foram as primeiras levados a cabo no Barém, desde julho de 2010. No Koweit, onde, neste preciso momento, 50 pessoas estão no corredor da morte, a execução de sete prisioneiros constituíram as primeiras penas de morte desde 2013 e esta pena continua a ser aplicável mesmo em caso de ofensas não violentas, incluindo o tráfico de droga, em flagrante violação do Direito Internacional.
                     

                        Estas condenações, cruéis e desumanas, representam um grave retrocesso em matéria de direitos humanos e, infelizmente, refletem uma tendência de crescente recurso à pena de morte e de levantamento das moratórias no golfo árabe, colocando em perigo a já frágil estabilidade da região.
                     

                        Caros Colegas, o meu país, Portugal, foi das primeiras nações no mundo inteiro a abolir a prática abjeta da pena de morte, decisão essa que muito me orgulha e, na altura, o próprio Vítor Hugo referiu que Portugal dava um exemplo à Europa. Espero que hoje, a Europa, especialmente este Parlamento em pleno século XXI, seja também um exemplo para o resto do mundo, condenando veementemente estas penas, apelando à comutação das penas dos restantes condenados e reiterando o seu compromisso com a abolição universal da pena de morte em todo o mundo, onde se inclui, também, o Irão.
                     

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Europa deve ribadire il suo ruolo guida nella lotta per l'abolizione della pena di morte e per una moratoria sulle esecuzioni in tutto il mondo. Purtroppo negli ultimi anni abbiamo assistito ad una recrudescenza delle esecuzioni in molti paesi, anche dov'era in vigore una moratoria.
                     

                        In Medio Oriente assistiamo a una vera e propria ondata di esecuzioni capitali. In Kuwait, dopo quattro anni di moratoria, sono stati impiccati 7 dei 57 condannati che si trovano attualmente nel braccio della morte. All'inizio di gennaio, il Bahrein ha interrotto una moratoria che durava da sei anni, eseguendo le condanne di tre persone, tutte legate ad ambienti dell'opposizione politica.
                     

                        Bisogna raccogliere l'appello del Santo Padre e abolire la pena di morte, legale o illegale che sia e in tutte le sue forme. Molto resta da fare. È stata abolita la schiavitù. Bisogna abolire la pena di morte ovunque, bisogna liberare il mondo da questa pena crudele e inumana.
                     

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κατάσταση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και του κράτους δικαίου στο Μπαχρέιν και στο Κουβέιτ είναι ιδιαίτερα ανησυχητική. Και οι δύο χώρες προέβησαν τον Ιανουάριο στην άρση του μορατόριουμ για τις εκτελέσεις θανατικών ποινών. Οι αρχές του Μπαχρέιν, για πρώτη φορά από το 2008, εκτέλεσαν τρεις Σιίτες Μουσουλμάνους. Στις πληροφορίες που έρχονται στο φως, γίνεται λόγος και για βασανιστήρια, για να αποσπάσουν οι αρχές του Μπαχρέιν ομολογίες. Στο Κουβέιτ εκτελέστηκαν 7 άτομα στις 25 Ιανουαρίου. Πρόκειται για τις πρώτες εκτελέσεις που έγιναν στο Εμιράτο από το 2013. Τα γεγονότα αυτά αποδεικνύουν ότι οι εκτελέσεις πολιτών αυξάνονται σε όλη τη Μέση Ανατολή. Οι θανατικές καταδίκες, τα βασανιστήρια και κάθε μορφή σκληρής και απάνθρωπης ταπεινωτικής μεταχείρισης και τιμωρίας απαγορεύονται από τις διεθνείς και ευρωπαϊκές συνθήκες, απαγορεύονται παντού στον κόσμο, είτε σε Σιιτικά, είτε σε Σουνιτικά μουσουλμανικά κράτη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να στείλει ένα μήνυμα: η καταπάτηση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων δεν μπορεί να γίνει ανεκτή.
                     

Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le autorità del Bahrein e del Kuwait hanno riesumato la pena di morte, aprendo il 2017 con rispettivamente 3 e 7 esecuzioni. Peraltro, in questi casi non vi sono solo state le esecuzioni, che già di per sé rappresentano una delle pratiche più barbare esistenti, ma sono state anche constatate diverse altre violazioni. I processi sono risultati sommari, gli imputati hanno accusato le forze di polizia di torture e maltrattamenti. Il ritorno alla pena di morte, inoltre, ha scatenato il malcontento popolare, creando instabilità nei paesi.
                     

                        Ora io voglio dire una cosa. Ascoltando gli interventi dei colleghi Preda, del collega Kram, a me sembra assurdo che, parlando di diritti umani, ancora stiamo a discutere su giustificazioni, ci mettete l'Iran, non ci mettete l'Iran. Ma è logico che lo stesso tipo di pratiche, le stesse violazioni valgono in maniera uguale in qualsiasi parte del mondo. Siete voi che continuate a portare avanti la logica dei due pesi e due misure, che se lo fa uno Stato amico è una carezza, se lo fa uno Stato ostile è una violazione gravissima dei diritti umani. In questa ossessione che avete nel cercare di ricomprendere l'Iran in qualcosa che non c'entra – anche le altre violazioni in Iran è ovvio che sono violazioni che vanno condannate in maniera uguale – vi confermate dai seguaci di Trump, che criticate tanto. Avete la stessa ossessione.
                     

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for raising these cases of recent executions in Bahrain and in Kuwait. As you know, and all of you said, the European Union has a strong principled position on the death penalty and it is always worth reaffirming this, in particular in cases where countries have not implemented the death penalty for some time, thus giving rise to the hope that a de facto moratorium will be applied.
On 15 January 2017, the Bahraini authorities carried out the execution of three people who were convicted of a bomb attack against the police which killed three policemen, including an Emirati officer. As we stressed in the statement made by the spokesman for the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, this case was particularly disappointing as it represented a serious step back, given that Bahrain had suspended executions for seven years.
In addition, civil-society organisations have voiced concerns about possible violation of the right to a fair trial and due process for the three convicted, and an allegation of torture during the investigations. Most of all, we are concerned that this case might result in a resumption of executions in Bahrain. We are following, in particular, the cases of Mohammed Ramadan and Hussein Moussa, which bear strong similarities with the case of those recently executed.
On 25 January 2017 the Kuwaiti authorities executed seven people – four men and three women convicted for different criminal offences. This is the first execution in Kuwait since 2013. The External Action Service also issued a public statement on this case expressing our wish to see Kuwait returning to its previous de facto moratorium.
Although recognising the serious nature of the crimes involved, we thought it was useful, because it always is, to reiterate the EU's opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, without exception. The use of the death penalty represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity and, contrary to what some people argue, experience worldwide has demonstrated that it also fails to act as a deterrent to crime. In addition, it makes any miscarriage of justice – and those can happen in any legal system – irreversible.
We look forward to continuing to engage with you and we will continue to do our utmost to ensure that this issue will be raised with the relevant authorities in Bahrain and Kuwait, as in any other country which applies the death penalty – because, of course, there are still many.
We are aware that the fact of the death penalty is recognised in the legal systems of these countries but we know that authorities in other countries in similar situations have developed a pragmatic approach and have started to apply a moratorium. That is what we constantly encourage countries such as Bahrain and Kuwait to do. We will continue also, through the work with like-minded partners, with civil society and in various multilateral forums, to promote a global moratorium on the death penalty. We will be looking forward to working with you on this.

Przewodniczący. – Otrzymałem siedem projektów rezolucji złożonych zgodnie z art. 135 Regulaminu.
                     

                        Zamykam debatę.
                     

                        Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 16 lutego 2016 r.
                     
3.3.   Guatemala, notably the situation of human rights defenders

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad siedmioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie Gwatemali, w szczególności sytuacji obrońców praw człowieka (2017/2565(RSP)).
                  

Gabriel Mato,
autor. – Señor presidente, querida comisaria: veinte años de los Acuerdos de Paz de Guatemala; largo camino recorrido, pero aún mucho por recorrer.
                  

                     Mientras haya una sola víctima defensora de los derechos humanos, no podremos sentirnos satisfechos —todo lo contrario— ni en Guatemala ni en ningún sitio. Pero con igual vara de medir: no podemos mirar a algunos Gobiernos mientras dejamos de mirar a otros que mantienen presos políticos —y hoy va mi recuerdo para Leopoldo López en su tercer aniversario de prisión—.
                  

                     La Resolución que presentamos es, sobre todo, equilibrada. Valoramos los pasos dados por el Gobierno —que son muchos— y les alentamos a seguir en esta lucha, pero también mostramos nuestra preocupación por una situación de violencia no erradicada.
                  

                     Solicitamos implicación de las instituciones, también de la Unión Europea, en todos los ámbitos, y abogamos por redoblar los esfuerzos contra cualquier tipo de violencia, presión o intimidación: cero impunidad.
                  

                     Es una apuesta clara por la libertad, la democracia y el respeto de los derechos humanos en Guatemala y en cualquier parte del mundo. Los derechos humanos son universales y no tienen nacionalidad.
                  

Ignazio Corrao,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il rispetto dei diritti umani in Guatemala non è mai stato esemplare, ma ultimamente la situazione è peggiorata drammaticamente. In questo contesto preoccupano particolarmente l'alto numero di aggressioni nei confronti dei difensori dei diritti umani e di coloro che si sono impegnati nella lotta contro l'impunità e la corruzione, così come l'attacco a magistrati e operatori del diritto.
                  

                     Non sorprende poi che queste violazioni siano spesso direttamente o indirettamente riconducibili all'attività di multinazionali senza scrupoli che operano in quel territorio. La stessa storia del Guatemala ci insegna, sin dai tempi della ‘United Fruit Company’ e del governo americano, di cosa siano capaci gli investitori senza scrupoli. Ma la cosa più grave è che queste ignobili condotte continuano indisturbate anche nel XXI secolo.
                  

                     Il Parlamento si è già espresso in maniera molto netta in materia di responsabilità delle imprese multinazionali per le violazioni dei diritti umani. Non possiamo permetterci passi indietro. Questo è il momento di mettere da parte l'ipocrisia e il sostegno soprattutto a qualche potente lobby e cercare di fare qualcosa di concreto nei confronti degli autori intellettuali di queste violazioni dei diritti umani. Possiamo farlo e se non lo facciamo la storia ce ne chiederà conto.
                  

Monica Macovei,
autoare. – Domnule președinte, în Guatemala există o stare de nesiguranță, ca și cum viața oamenilor depinde, așa, de cum bate vântul, de fapt de cum vrea guvernul.
                  

                     Sistemul de justiție este corupt, dar nu numai atât, sistemul de justiție este și supus intimidării și hărțuirii din partea guvernului.
                  

                     Acum haideți să ne imaginăm cum arată un sistem de justiție care este și corupt și hărțuit și intimidat. E o combinație letală, practic nu există un sistem de justiție viabil în Guatemala.
                  

                     În ceea ce privește apărătorii drepturilor omului, și aceștia sunt supuși unor hărțuiri și unor acte de violență și unor amenințări, iar în ultimul an 14 au fost omorâți; 14 oameni, 14 apărători ai drepturilor omului au fost omorâți.
                  

                     Lumea se revoltă și ce face guvernul din Guatemala? A decis să militarizate ordinea publică – prin urmare acesta este răspunsul tipic al unui guvern de dictatură: nu ne place justiția, nu ne plac drepturile omului, nu ne plac oamenii care apără drepturile omului și atunci hai să militarizăm. Sigur că asta a stârnit proteste în rândul populației, în special al populației indigene.
                  

                     Foarte pe scurt, cer guvernului din Guatemala să garanteze că toți apărătorii drepturilor omului vor putea să-și facă treaba și anchete eficiente, efective, cu rezultate pentru cei care au fost omorâți.
                  

Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea,
autora. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, hace justo un año viajé a Guatemala como vicepresidenta de la Subcomisión de Derechos Humanos y allí fui testigo de la extrema violencia y de la inseguridad que sufren los defensores de derechos humanos, los periodistas, los jueces, los líderes indígenas —doblemente si son mujeres—, pero fui también testigo del admirable trabajo que la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad está haciendo, y también del profundo sentido de la justicia de los guatemaltecos.
                  

                     Hoy, en febrero de 2017, Guatemala está en plena reforma constitucional y tiene una oportunidad histórica para dar marco legal y garantía a la independencia de la justicia, a la lucha contra la impunidad, al derecho de los pueblos indígenas a la consulta previa, al establecimiento de un mecanismo de protección de defensores de los derechos humanos, y a que los Principios Rectores de las Naciones Unidas sobre las empresas y los derechos humanos se apliquen completamente.
                  

                     Nosotros como Unión Europea vamos a estar apoyando y vigilando este proceso. Bueno, excepto los colegas de Izquierda Unida, que dicen defender al pueblo, pero no sabemos a cuál. Desde luego, no al de Guatemala.
                  

Soraya Post,
författare. – Herr talman! Läget i Guatemala är mycket allvarligt: över trettio mord och mordförsök på människorättsaktivister och journalister under de senaste tolv månaderna. Det talar sitt tydliga språk.
                  

                     Att försvara mänskliga rättigheter i Guatemala är livsfarligt. Att kämpa för att upprätthålla grundläggande demokratiska principer för yttrandefrihet görs med livet som insats. Detta drabbar särskilt de människorättsförsvarare som redan är utsatta: kvinnor och ursprungsbefolkningen.
                  

                     Dessa fall av mord och mordförsök måste få en säker rättsprövning. Parlament och medlemsstater måste och kommer noga att följa utvecklingen i landet. Vi vill stödja de steg som tagits i rätt riktning och fördömer alla former av rättsosäkerhet, straffrihet eller korruption.
                  

                     I november kommer läget att utvärderas i FN:s universella periodiska översyn av Guatemala. Vi kan inte vänta till dess. Säkerhetsläget måste ställas till rätta per omgående. Människor ska inte riskera livet för att upprätthålla grundläggande universella principer om mänskliga rättigheter.
                  

Marina Albiol Guzmán,
autora. – Señor presidente; Sebastián Alonso Juan, defensor de derechos humanos asesinado a tiros mientras participaba en una manifestación en contra de un megaproyecto hidroeléctrico en Huehuetenango; Laura Leonor Vázquez, activista opositora del megaproyecto minero conocido como la Mina de San Rafael, asesinada también a tiros. Así, hasta una macabra cifra de dieciséis defensoras asesinadas y más de doscientos cincuenta ataques el último año en Guatemala. ¿Qué tienen en común todas estas personas que sufren estos ataques?
                  

                     Bueno, pues algo que este Parlamento y que también la señora Becerra se niegan a aceptar: son defensores de derechos humanos, líderes sociales que se oponen y luchan contra megaproyectos de multinacionales que les condenan a elegir entre emigrar o ser explotados. Hablamos de proyectos hidroeléctricos como Pojón II y Renace, proyectos mineros como Fénix o petroleros como el de la empresa francesa Perenco en El Petén, todos ellos megaproyectos de empresas transnacionales europeas.
                  

                     Hay que señalar que hay una responsabilidad de la Unión Europea en estas violaciones de derechos humanos relacionadas con las actividades de esas transnacionales en esos países, gracias a los acuerdos de libre comercio de la Unión Europea.
                  

Ernest Urtasun,
autor. – Señor presidente, celebramos que se redacte esta Resolución. La verdad es que la situación ha ido a peor en materia de violencia y de impunidad.
                  

                     En el último año, hemos tenido muchos muertos y muchos ataques a defensores de derechos humanos, activistas ambientales, incluso a personas como el director de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad, que ha sido víctima también de ataques contra su persona, con lo cual creo que es una Resolución muy pertinente.
                  

                     También creo que es necesario decir que, más allá de lo declarativo, hemos de ser capaces de ver qué puede hacer la Unión Europea para cambiar este clima de impunidad, y hay algunas cosas que creo que son importantes.
                  

                     Primero: apoyo a la Fiscalía General y a todos sus esfuerzos contra la impunidad. Esperamos de la Delegación y de las instituciones de la Unión Europea que lo apoyen.
                  

                     Segundo: está todo el mecanismo puesto en marcha en aplicación de la sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos para proteger a los defensores. Eso hay que apoyarlo hasta el final, es muy importante.
                  

                     Tercero: en la reforma del sistema constitucional judicial, tenemos noticias de que el Parlamento guatemalteco puede llegar a diluir la reforma. Es muy importante que esa reforma se apruebe en su integralidad y, por lo tanto, también queremos pedir a las instituciones europeas y a la Delegación que insistan en esta línea.
                  

Pavel Svoboda,
za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, je prokázáno, že úroveň hospodářského rozvoje je přímo úměrná míře právního státu. Guatemala trpí u politických kauz beztrestností i za nejzávažnější trestné činy – vraždění obránců lidských práv – a brutálním nátlakem na justiční orgány. Násilí ale zasahuje i kmeny původních obyvatel této země. S takovou úrovní právního státu není divu, že ani po hospodářské stránce se zemi nedaří dobře. Možná by Guatemala nemusela být třetím největším příjemcem rozvojové pomoci od Evropské unie ve střední Americe, kdyby náš tlak na změnu poměrů byl o něco silnější. I zde můžeme něco zlepšit.
                  

                     Za prvé více provázat dodržování lidských práv na poskytování rozvojové pomoci. Za druhé vyslyšet tu část dnešní rezoluce, která vyzývá všechny členské státy k ratifikaci dohody o přidružení mezi EU a střední Amerikou. Ta umožní i formálně vést s Guatemalou tak zvaný politický dialog a tak zlepšovat stav lidských práv této překrásné země.
                  

Ramón Jáuregui Atondo,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente. Esta es una Resolución que contiene tres grandes apartados, señorías. De una parte, una llamada a la solidaridad con un pueblo que sufre, un pueblo en su conjunto que está sufriendo una situación horrible. Pero es, sobre todo, un abrazo a los que defienden los derechos humanos y las libertades, a las oenegés, a los defensores de derechos humanos, que son los que están siendo víctimas de esta situación horrible que vive Guatemala.
                  

                     Y es, también, una condena al crimen organizado, al narcocrimen, que es en gran parte el causante de los problemas que sufre el pueblo de Guatemala. Es también una exigencia al Gobierno de Guatemala para que avance en la defensa de los derechos humanos y en la protección de los defensores de los derechos humanos. Es, también, una llamada al Gobierno de Guatemala para que asegure la independencia del poder judicial y la investigación a fondo de los criminales y, sobre todo, es una llamada al Gobierno de Guatemala para que siga luchando contra el crimen y contra la corrupción en ese Estado.
                  

                     Y, por último, es una llamada a la Unión Europea para que ayude a Guatemala. No para que le restrinja las ayudas, para que le ayude a combatir lo que está sufriendo.
                  

Dita Charanzová,
en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor presidente, la base fundamental de una democracia es una sociedad civil fuerte y dinámica. Para tener una sociedad civil activa, otros elementos también tienen que estar presentes. Por ejemplo, un nivel mínimo de protección garantizado por el Estado. Los derechos humanos tienen que estar fundados en un Estado de Derecho y protegidos por un sistema judicial independiente. Tenemos que decirlo claramente. Las condiciones en Guatemala no son solo preocupantes y arriesgadas para los defensores de los derechos humanos sino para el pluralismo y la democracia en todo su conjunto.
                  

                     Guatemala ha dado grandes pasos en la persecución penal de casos de corrupción y violaciones de derechos humanos. Pero, a pesar de esto, sigue habiendo casos trágicos de asesinatos selectivos contra periodistas y defensores de los derechos humanos en el país. Como Unión Europea debemos fortalecer nuestra cooperación con Guatemala para ayudar a este país a promover y consolidar una agenda en materia de derechos humanos.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, impunity, violence and security threats have hindered progress towards more efficient law enforcement in Guatemala, whereas human rights defenders have been subjected to numerous forms of abuse and even murder, as has been outlined by some of my colleagues, one of whom actually visited Guatemala. This is not acceptable, and we have to speak out against it. Also, the participation of Guatemalans in the drug-supply and illegal-migration route between Central America and the United States is a matter of major concern, leading to all kinds of corruption, violence, murders and misery for thousands of people.
Therefore with my parliamentary colleagues, I wish to express my support for law-enforcement efforts and a strengthening of the judiciary in Guatemala. Also, as my colleague Mr Svoboda pointed out, if we are providing development aid we should just insist on certain standards. I think sometimes we are too easy and too slack in this regard and it is something that I think we really have to look at where there are continuous abuses of human rights, and indeed murder, of those who are trying to defend human rights.

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já se chci přihlásit k tomuto usnesení, které bylo připraveno mými kolegy. Považuji za velmi dobré a správné, že hovoříme o ochraně lidských práv v Guatemale. Jak už zde několikrát bylo řečeno, je to země, kde je jedno z největších vnitřních násilí, je to země, kde je na počet obyvatelstva nejvíce vražd na světě, ale současně se pouze čtyři procenta těchto vražd dostanou před soud a pachatelé jsou odsouzeni.
                  

                     Bylo zde již řečeno, že oběťmi vražd jsou často ochránci lidských práv, aktivisté, novináři, a je tedy zřejmé, že my jako orgán, který kritizuje porušování lidských práv kdekoliv na světě, musíme kritizovat situaci v Guatemale.
                  

                     Snad je trošku povzbuzující to, že guatemalská vláda chce provádět změny, které by mohly vést k tomu, že justice v Guatemale bude do budoucna lépe fungovat. Měli bychom tedy s Guatemalou vést aktivní dialog a tlačit guatemalskou vládu k tomu, aby opravdu provedla reformy justice, které povedou k tomu, že vraždy do budoucna budou vyšetřovány a pachatele postaveni před soud a odsouzeni.
                  

Zgłoszenia z sali


Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Europa non può rimanere indifferente rispetto agli episodi di violenza che stanno colpendo esponenti di organizzazioni in difesa dei diritti umani in Guatemala, tra i quali si registrano solo nel 2016 ben 14 omicidi. I più colpiti dagli atti intimidatori sono attivisti che lottano contro l'impunità e la corruzione e per la tutela dell'ambiente, spesso divenuti vittime di vere e proprie campagne di diffamazione da parte di imprese locali.
                  

                     L'Europa deve sostenere le autorità del Guatemala, affinché si attivino per individuare e processare gli autori di tali atti criminali e si adoperino per riconoscere pubblicamente come legittima l'attività degli attivisti per i diritti umani, contrastando i messaggi di odio a loro indirizzati.
                  

                     È necessario che il programma di tutela dei difensori dei diritti umani, sancito da una sentenza del 2014 della Corte interamericana dei diritti umani, venga completamente implementato. In questo senso l'Europa può e deve fare sentire la propria voce, rafforzando la cooperazione con il Guatemala per sostenere il paese nel percorso di affermazione della democrazia e dei diritti umani.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι επιθέσεις εναντίον των υπερασπιστών των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στη Γουατεμάλα αποτελούν καθημερινό φαινόμενο, ενώ ήδη από το 2015 έχουν γίνει καταγγελίες από Μη Κυβερνητικές Οργανώσεις για εννέα δολοφονίες ακτιβιστών, οι οποίοι αντιτάχθηκαν σε σχέδια κατασκευής υποδομών ή έναρξης λειτουργίας μεταλλείων και ορυχείων. Οι επιθέσεις της κυβέρνησης της Γουατεμάλας έχουν ως στόχο, κυρίως, όσους υπερασπίζονται τη γη και ιδίως στις περιοχές όπου οι κοινότητες των ιθαγενών απορρίπτουν τα σχέδια των πολυεθνικών για την εκμετάλλευση του πλούτου της Γουατεμάλας. Επιπλέον, οι αρχές της χώρας στρέφονται εναντίον όχι μόνο των ακτιβιστών αλλά και των δικαστικών αρχών που αναλαμβάνουν να διερευνήσουν τις επιθέσεις κατά των ακτιβιστών. Απέναντι στην καθημερινή παραβίαση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση καλείται να καταδικάσει την ανελευθερία λόγου που υπάρχει στη χώρα, την καταπίεση των τοπικών πληθυσμών και, ταυτόχρονα, να στείλει ένα μήνυμα στις κυβερνητικές αρχές της Γουατεμάλας ότι πρέπει επιτέλους να σταματήσουν να καταδιώκουν τους υπερασπιστές των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων.
                  

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, varie volte Amnesty International ha denunciato la difficile situazione dei difensori dei diritti umani in Guatemala. Tanti sono gli episodi registrati di uccisioni, minacce e torture, finalizzate soprattutto ad impedire agli attivisti lo svolgimento delle proprie attività. Spesso, infatti, sono costretti ad abbandonare le proprie abitazioni e il proprio paese.
                  

                     I principali soggetti a rischio sono gli attivisti che si occupano dei diritti economici, sociali e culturali. Gli episodi di violenza avvengono all'interno di un clima di totale impunità per gli autori. Ho fiducia che, anche per mezzo del Parlamento europeo, si possa fare pressione sul governo del Guatemala perché venga tutelata la sicurezza degli attivisti, adottando concrete misure per proteggere e prevenire, indagare e punire gli abusi e le minacce ai danni dei difensori dei diritti umani. È necessario che nel paese si ponga fine all'impunità degli autori di questi crimini, che è motivo di allarme per la comunità internazionale.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, a execução de três homens, peço desculpa, enganei-me, o legado de 36 anos de conflito interno e violência, os elevados índices de pobreza, o narcotráfico, a proliferação de armas, a fragilidade das instituições e uma cultura de impunidade tornam a Guatemala um dos países mais violentos do mundo.
                  

                     Esta violência atinge de forma dramática os defensores dos direitos humanos, especialmente os ambientalistas e os defensores do direito à terra, como as estatísticas ilustram. Além de outras formas de intimidação, não contabilizáveis, entre janeiro e novembro do ano passado, foram registados mais de 200 casos de agressões e 14 assassinatos e este ano, 2017, conta já com o triste registo do homicídio de mais dois ativistas: Laura Leonor Vásquez Pineda e Sebastián Alonso Ruan.
                  

                     Se, em 2012, as relações da União Europeia com a Guatemala foram reforçadas com a conclusão do acordo de associação com a América Central, a Europa não pode deixar de, agora, a partir desta Casa, encorajar o Governo do Presidente Jimmy Morales e as autoridades guatemaltecas a elaborar e implementar políticas públicas de proteção dos defensores dos direitos humanos contra o crime organizado e enviar um claro e inequívoco sinal de apoio a todos aqueles que, apesar das intimidações, se batem corajosamente por uma justiça independente e pelo fim da impunidade na Guatemala.
                  

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we are indeed very concerned about the number of murders of human rights defenders in Guatemala, especially the case of Sebastian Alonso Juan, and the continuous and increasing number of killings of human rights defenders in Guatemala. The promotion of human rights is a key principle which guides our action globally and therefore we follow closely the situation in the country.
While the overall population in Guatemala is suffering from widespread violation of human rights and violence, human rights defenders continue to be particularly affected, especially indigenous leaders, journalists, trade unionists, LGBTI communities and members of the judiciary. Although in 2015 and 2016, reports of aggression incidents have fallen compared to previous years, assassinations have increased and acts of intimidation and defamation are on the rise. Fourteen activists were killed last year alone, and the year of 2017 has sadly already witnessed the murder of yet another human rights defender.
The EU has strongly condemned these hideous crimes and urged the effective prosecution of material and intellectual authors. Limited capacities and resources have hindered the provision of an adequate response by the State's institutions, and together with a perception of corruption and impunity, provoke mistrust of the institutions. This makes EU cooperation and partnership with Guatemala to consolidate institutions even more important.
The Guatemalan authorities have taken a series of decisions that point in the right direction and therefore deserve praise and support, such as the extension of the mandate of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala up to 2019 and the prosecution of alleged corruption cases, including at high level. Still, more needs to be done to address the situation.
This year will be of significant importance for Guatemala with the preparation of the 28th session of the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review. Numerous legislative initiatives are being discussed in the Congress, inter alia the constitutional reforms, that many of you referred to, in the justice sector, the policy of the protection of human rights defenders, the abolishment of the death penalty, which if properly designed and adopted and effectively implemented may constitute significant progress for human rights.
Other areas for further progress include the establishment of a mechanism for free and informed prior consultations in line with ILO Convention 169, and the implementation of precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to activists. Respect for human rights is a key commitment of the EU agenda in Guatemala. The EU is supporting and encouraging efforts on human rights challenges, including women and children's rights, prison conditions, police behaviour, allegations of torture, corruption, collusion and impunity.
The EU has also renewed its support to the International Commission against Impunity and will further engage to support anti-corruption and prevention of violence against women and children. The EU Special Representative for Human Rights also visited Guatemala last June and had the opportunity to recall the imperious necessity to improve the situation.
And finally, I would like to take this occasion to pay tribute to all the activists that selflessly and at great risk continue to fight for human rights, good governance and the rule of law in Guatemala.

President. – Madam Commissioner, thank you for your important speech.

                     Otrzymałem siedem projektów rezolucji złożonych zgodnie z art. 135 Regulaminu.
                  

                     Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 16 lutego 2016 r.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD),
per iscritto. – Questa risoluzione condanna con la massima fermezza i recenti omicidi commessi in Guatemala nel 2016. Esprimo la mia preoccupazione per le gravi difficoltà affrontate dai difensori dei diritti umani nello svolgimento delle loro attività. E' necessario mettere a punto una strategia pubblica per la protezione dei difensori dei diritti umani, come indicato dalla Corte interamericana dei diritti dell'uomo nel 2014. Invito infine, a livello generale, le istituzioni dell'UE a concludere accordi vincolanti a livello internazionale volti a rafforzare il rispetto dei diritti umani, in particolare per quanto riguarda le imprese aventi sede nell'UE che operano in Paesi terzi
                  
4.   Welcome

President. – We also have the pleasure of having with us today in the visitors' gallery a delegation from the Georgian Parliament, led by our colleague Ms Tamara Khulordava, within the framework of the fourth meeting of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee, which has just taken place. I am very happy to welcome you to our plenary, especially on this occasion, and I am certain that you have had productive discussions with our Members.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI


Presidente

5.   Address by Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada

President. – Dear colleagues, I welcome the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Justin Trudeau.

                  Bienvenue, Monsieur le Premier ministre.
               
You are the the first Canadian Head of Government to address this plenary. We are proud to have you here with us in Strasbourg. Canada and Europe share common languages, history, friendship, and a common vision for the future. Our shared values must inspire our efforts in dealing with global challenges.

                  Notre histoire, nos racines et notre amitié profonde vont bien au-delà de l'aspect purement commercial. Il est important de rappeler que nous avons combattu, à maintes reprises, coude à coude, et que certains sont morts pour défendre la liberté. Monsieur le Premier ministre, nous n'oublierons jamais le sacrifice du Canada pour libérer l'Europe et pour défendre la démocratie chez nous.
               

                  Nous partageons la même vision d'un monde ouvert et de la nécessité de collaborer pour apporter des réponses concrètes aux problèmes de nos citoyens, qu'il s'agisse de la lutte contre le terrorisme, de la sécurité, de la gestion des flux migratoires, de la croissance et de l'emploi ou du changement climatique.
               
As you know, yesterday a large majority of the European Parliament voted in favour of both the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the Strategic Partnership Agreement with Canada. This followed an extensive and thorough debate in which part of this Assembly expressed strong concerns. We respect these differences. However, we now also have a responsibility to continue to provide accurate and complete information to our citizens on the substance of this agreement. Prime Minister, the floor is yours.

(Applause)


Justin Trudeau,
premier ministre du Canada. – Monsieur le Président Tajani, distingués parlementaires, Mesdames et Messieurs, bon avant-midi.
               

                  C'est un privilège pour moi d'être ici aujourd'hui. C'est la première fois qu'un Premier ministre canadien en poste prend la parole devant le Parlement européen. Aussi, je tiens sincèrement à vous remercier de m'accorder cet honneur.
               

                  Comme vous le savez, j'étais à Bruxelles, il y a quelques mois, pour signer officiellement l'accord économique et commercial global et l'accord de partenariat stratégique. Le Président Tusk, le Président Juncker, le Premier ministre Fico et moi-même avons fait un grand pas en vue d'approfondir notre relation et d'accroître les échanges commerciaux libres et progressistes entre le Canada et l'Union européenne. Et hier, nous avons franchi une étape importante.
               

                  This year we celebrate 41 years since the diplomatic mission of the European Commission was established in Ottawa, which noticeably happened under a different Prime Minister Trudeau (‘plus ça change…’), and over the course of our historic partnership Canada and the EU have stood side by side on the things that matter, things like maintaining global security, advancing the values of peace and justice, creating good jobs for our people through trade and investment. We have worked together on climate change and on the rights of women and girls around the world. And, my friends, I am confident that we will achieve tremendous things together in the years to come for the countries we represent and, most importantly, for the people we serve.
               

                  The European Union is a truly remarkable achievement and an unprecedented model for peaceful cooperation. Canada knows that an effective European voice on the global stage isn't just preferable, it's essential. We know that the EU is the world's largest donor of development and humanitarian assistance and that together your Member States constitute one of the world's largest economies. You are a vital player in addressing the challenges that we collectively face as an international community. Indeed, the whole world benefits from a strong EU.
               

(Applause)


                  Au nom des Canadiens, je tiens à vous remercier pour cette relation soutenue et respectueuse ancrée dans notre culture, notre histoire et notre amitié. En fait, les liens qui unissent le Canada et l'Union européenne sont devenus un exemple de collaboration internationale.
               

                  J'aimerais remercier Dan Costello, l'ambassadeur actuel du Canada auprès de l'Union européenne, d'avoir servi notre pays de façon exemplaire.
               

                  Je dois aussi remercier et souligner le travail extraordinaire de notre négociateur en chef pour cet accord historique, Steve Verheul, pour son service exceptionnel, son travail acharné tout au long de chacune des étapes qu'il a été nécessaire de franchir ces dernières années. Merci.
               

                  Je tiens aussi à souligner la nomination de notre nouveau porte-parole senior pour le continent européen, notre nouvel ambassadeur pour l'Union européenne et pour l'Allemagne, l'honorable Stéphane Dion. Stéphane, qui est pour moi un ami proche et un mentor, est un homme qui s'est longtemps battu pour faire de notre pays un endroit meilleur pour tous les Canadiens. Il représentera fièrement le Canada, avec courage et conviction, alors que nous amorçons ensemble ce nouveau chapitre important.
               

                  Maintenant, permettez-moi de souligner encore une fois à quel point je suis honoré de représenter le Canada dans ce lieu historique aujourd'hui. C'était une priorité pour moi de venir à Strasbourg et de m'adresser à vous, parce que j'accorde beaucoup de valeur à notre relation et à ce que nous partageons.
               

                  I believe that the relationship between Canada and the EU is so resilient because it is centred on an important bedrock of common values, values that shape and define us, values that Canadians and Europeans share. You see, collectively, we believe in democracy, transparency and the rule of law. We believe in human rights and we believe in inclusion and in diversity. We know that, in these times, we must choose to lead the international economy, not simply be subject to its whims, and we know that the state has an important role to play, not only in supporting its people, but also in creating the conditions for progress. And to this last point, we have just demonstrated to the world that we collectively value trade and the promise of prosperity for all our citizens that comes with it.
               

                  Hier, en plus d'avoir ratifié l'accord de partenariat stratégique, ce Parlement a voté en faveur de la ratification de l'accord économique et commercial global (AECG). Après des années de négociation, cet important accord commercial s'apprête à franchir la ligne d'arrivée. Je pense que nous pouvons tous nous entendre pour dire que l'AECG était un projet extrêmement ambitieux et, donc, s'avérera aussi être l'une de nos plus grandes réalisations.
               

                  J'aimerais exprimer ma sincère reconnaissance à l'ancienne ministre du Commerce international du Canada, qui est maintenant notre ministre des Affaires étrangères, Chrystia Freeland, encore une fois, à notre négociateur en chef, Steeve Verheul, ainsi qu'à leurs homologues de l'Union européenne pour les efforts inlassables qu'ils ont déployés en vue de conclure cet accord.
               

                  Je suis certain que notre nouveau ministre du Commerce international, François-Philippe Champagne, sera une voix forte pour le Canada sur la scène internationale au cours des prochaines années. Je sais que je peux compter sur les nombreux talents de François-Philippe pour travailler avec la communauté d'affaires et tous les citoyens dans le but de franchir les étapes nécessaires afin que cet accord atteigne son plein potentiel.
               

                  Now let's be clear. A deal as ambitious as CETA takes a lot of hard work. Every one of us in this room knows that it wasn't easy. It took a lot of back and forth. It took extended discussions and negotiations, meetings in Canada, meetings in Europe. We can't overstate how important it was to get this deal right. Trade needs to work for people, for people who are struggling to make ends meet and raise their families, for people who worry that their future or their children's future won't hold the same promise and opportunities that it did for past generations. The people we represent will support trade if it creates better jobs and makes their lives more affordable. That's what they expect of us, and I for one fully intend to make sure that we deliver.
               

(Applause)


                  My friends, we are all seasoned politicians in this room. We know it is always much, much easier to point out problems than it is to solve them. It's harder to work to build than it is to tear things down. Well, with CETA we have built something, something important, especially at this moment, on your continent and mine. Now we need to make it work for your people and mine. If we are successful, CETA will become the blueprint for all ambitious future trade deals. If we are not, this could well be one of the last. So make no mistake about it, this is an important moment. The motto of the European Union, ‘United in Diversity’, is a great reminder of what can be accomplished when we recognise that we are stronger, not in spite of our differences but because of them.
               

(Applause)


                  Now we live in a time when many people are worried that the current system only benefits society's luckiest few, and their concern is valid. The anxiety people have toward the economy and trade, the worry that our kids won't have access to the same jobs and opportunities that we had, can be addressed only if we ensure the trade is inclusive so that everyone benefits. And this agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, delivers just that, because at its heart CETA is a framework for trade that works for everyone.
               

                  Cet accord mènera à la création de bons emplois bien rémunérés pour la classe moyenne. Il permettra d'assurer le bien-être des familles et contribuera à faire croître et à renforcer nos communautés.
               

                  Disons que vous êtes un jeune entrepreneur qui propose un nouveau produit ou une solution novatrice et que vous faites face au grand défi d'atteindre de nouveaux consommateurs: l'AECG vient de vous ouvrir la porte vers de nouveaux marchés.
               

                  Vous êtes un consommateur qui souhaite acheter des biens importés, mais vous les trouvez trop chers? Prenons, par exemple, les magnifiques bottes d'hiver Mukluks fabriquées par Manitobah, une entreprise canadienne fondée par des autochtones, sont actuellement assujetties à une taxe européenne de 17 %. Grâce à la ratification de l'AECG, ces tarifs douaniers sont éliminés et vous, en tant que consommateur, pourrez payer moins cher lorsque vous passerez à la caisse si vous voulez de magnifiques bottes d'hiver!
               

                  Trade that is free and fair means we can make the lives of our citizens more affordable and create more jobs, it means that manufacturers can expand their products' global reach, gaining market share, and successfully compete with the best in the world. And it means that folks working in service sectors like engineering, architecture and information technology will see greater predictability and transparency when dealing with international clients. At the end of the day, both Canada and the EU want to do what is best for our people. We want hard-working people to make a good living and support their families. We want mums and dads to be able to give their kids better opportunities than they ever had. We want each generation of Canadians and Europeans to be better off and to have a higher standard of living than the one that preceded it.
               

                  Deals like CETA, which is centred on the idea of trade that is both free and fair, will get us there at the end of the day by making it easier to buy and sell products. We can expand opportunities for our businesses, both back in Canada and right across the EU, for everyone – for small businesses, for entrepreneurs, for hard-working farmers and fishers. We can create jobs for the middle class and make sure that the benefits of trade reach our citizens.
               

                  Mais, soyons clairs, il ne s'agit pas uniquement de commerce, d'importations, d'exportations ou de profits; il s'agit d'améliorer la vie des gens. L'AECG est un plan d'action complet pour assurer une coopération économique responsable entre les pays. Cet accord moderne, axé sur l'avenir, est le reflet d'un agenda commercial réellement progressiste avec des dispositions qui protègent la capacité qu'ont les sociétés à favoriser l'intérêt public.
               

                  L'AECG assure que les gouvernements peuvent continuer de protéger leurs citoyens: protéger la main-d'œuvre, promouvoir les pratiques responsables en matière d'investissement, assurer la salubrité des aliments et la sécurité des consommateurs, renforcer la gestion des forêts, des pêches et de l'aquaculture, et assurer la bonne gestion de l'environnement.
               

                  Mes amis, il s'agit véritablement de l'un des accords commerciaux les plus durables et progressistes au monde. À tous les députés présents, merci du travail acharné que vous avez accompli au cours des dernières années pour faire de cet objectif ambitieux une réalité. Je sais que tous nos citoyens s'en trouveront mieux servis.
               

                  Canada and the European Union have been friends, partners and allies for a very long time, and our natural, easy relationship is grounded in what we have in common. We share goals and aspirations for a better, safer and fairer world. We want to do what is right by the workers and families we were elected to represent. And we embrace change, seeking the opportunity to lead in a global economy that is constantly evolving. CETA and the SPA, these landmark agreements, are a direct reflection of what we have in common, and they will serve to benefit Canadians and Europeans alike for generations to come. In the things we have agreed upon so far, and in the discussions that lie ahead, the Canada-EU strategic partnership will forever be rooted in respect with an eye to the future. My friends, dear colleagues, it's safe to say that this is just the beginning for Canada and the European Union. The best is very much yet to come.
               

                  Merci à tous.
               

President. – Thank you very much, dear Prime Minister. Your visit to Strasbourg is only the beginning of a new season of better cooperation between the European Union, the European Parliament and your country, Canada.

                  Soyez, encore une fois, le bienvenu à Strasbourg. Soyez, encore une fois, le bienvenu en Europe. On vous y attend pour une deuxième visite!
               

(La séance est suspendue de 11 h 30 à 12 heures)


IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER GRAF LAMBSDORFF


Vice-President

6.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)


— before the beginning of the vote:


Sander Loones (ECR). – Wij stemmen vandaag hier in de plenaire over drie verslagen over de toekomst van de Europese Unie. Ik zal het hebben over het verslag-Berès/Böge. Volgens mij kunnen we vanmiddag niet stemmen over dit verslag hier in de plenaire omdat de tekst die hier voorligt niet dezelfde tekst is als die waarover maandag gestemd is in commissie-ECON/BUDG.
               

                  Maandag is niet gestemd over compromis J van de tekst. Ik heb de stemlijst hier bij mij. Over die tekst is niet gestemd, maar ik zie wel dat compromis J en dus de punten 2, 3 en 4 voorkomen in de tekst waarover wij hier vanmiddag in de plenaire zouden moeten stemmen. Dit kan niet. Dit is een andere tekst dan de tekst in commissie. De tekst is ook niet, via amendementen of zo, vandaag hier ter tafel gebracht. Dus dit is een andere tekst. En het is toch ook een belangrijke tekst, het gaat over inhoud, namelijk over de Parlementsvoorzitter die moet doorverwijzen naar de Raad, enzovoort. Dus ik denk oprecht dat we over deze tekst niet kunnen stemmen en dat het federale Europa eventjes zal moeten wachten.
               

President. – Mr Loones, I take this as a motion to postpone the vote. We will come to that when we come to the report. I will get back to you with the information.

Eugen Freund (S&D). – Mr President, I want to express my dismay at the way the drivers here in Strasbourg were treated. They have been working diligently for us for eight, ten, fifteen years and from one day to the next they were let go, without any letter of appreciation – nothing. I think this is a disgrace for this institution.

(Applause)


Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank Herr Kollege. Die Zustimmung der Kollegen zeigt, dass Sie da einen wunden Punkt angesprochen haben. Wir werden das aufnehmen und uns darum kümmern.
               
6.1.   Situation of human rights and democracy in Nicaragua, the case of Francesca Ramirez (RC-B8-0156/2017, B8-0156/2017, B8-0158/2017, B8-0160/2017, B8-0163/2017, B8-0168/2017, B8-0169/2017) (vote)
6.2.   Executions in Kuwait and Bahrain (RC-B8-0150/2017, B8-0150/2017, B8-0151/2017, B8-0154/2017, B8-0155/2017, B8-0161/2017, B8-0162/2017, B8-0165/2017) (vote)
6.3.   Guatemala, notably the situation of human rights defenders (RC-B8-0152/2017, B8-0152/2017, B8-0153/2017, B8-0157/2017, B8-0159/2017, B8-0164/2017, B8-0166/2017, B8-0167/2017) (vote)
6.4.   Combating terrorism (A8-0228/2016 - Monika Hohlmeier) (vote)

—
Vor der Abstimmung:


Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich beantrage im Namen meiner Fraktion nach Artikel 59 Absatz der 3 Geschäftsordnung, dass über die Änderungsanträge zuerst abgestimmt wird und erst danach die Schlussabstimmung erfolgt.
                  

                     Dafür gibt es auch zwei hinreichende Gründe. Der erste Grund ist: Die Änderungsanträge beziehen sich auf ganz wesentliche Grundrechte und auf die Wahrung rechtsstaatlicher Prinzipien, die wir tatsächlich auch realisiert wissen wollen. Es geht auch um die Wahrung des Verhältnisses zwischen Freiheit und Sicherheit in der Terrorismusbekämpfung.
                  

                     Der zweite Grund ist, dass Triloge natürlich intransparent sind und wenigstens mit den Änderungsanträgen deutlich gemacht werden sollte, in welchen Grundfragen der Dissens innerhalb des Europäischen Parlamentes besteht. Deshalb bitten wir um Zustimmung.
                  

Der Präsident. – Also: Der Antrag lautet: Nicht jetzt über die Einigung des Kompromissänderungsantrags 101 abzustimmen, sondern erst alle Änderungsanträge je einzeln, bevor zu einer Abstimmung kommen.
                  

                     Ich lasse darüber abstimmen.
                  

(Der Antrag wird abgelehnt.)

6.5.   Reinforcement of checks against relevant databases at external borders (A8-0218/2016 - Monica Macovei) (vote)
6.6.   Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (A8-0390/2016 - Guy Verhofstadt) (vote)
6.7.   Improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (A8-0386/2016 - Mercedes Bresso, Elmar Brok) (vote)
6.8.   Budgetary capacity for the Eurozone (A8-0038/2017 - Reimer Böge, Pervenche Berès) (vote)

Der Präsident. – Herr Loones, beantragen Sie die Verabschiebung der Abstimmung über diesen Bericht?
                  

Sander Loones (ECR). – Voor de duidelijkheid, dit is geen uitstel van stemming. Dit kán gewoon niet. De tekst die nu voorligt is een andere tekst dan de tekst die gestemd is in commissie. En er is ook geen amendement ingediend om de fout recht te zetten. Dus wij kunnen vandaag daarover niet stemmen. Dit is geen politieke keuze. Dit is een technisch- juridisch feit, dat moet worden rechtgezet. Het is niet iets dat we kunnen oplossen door hier daarover te stemmen.
                  

Der Präsident. – Herr Loones! Die Dienste versichern mir, es handele sich um ein formal korrektes Vorgehen, das Plenum ist souverän. Sie können das Plenum bitten, die Abstimmung zu verschieben. Wenn Sie das nicht tun, werden wir jetzt darüber abstimmen.
                  

                     Also bitten Sie das Plenum, die Abstimmung über den Bericht zu verschieben, oder stimmen wir jetzt ab?
                  

Sander Loones (ECR). – Dan vraag ik de stemming over het uitstel.
                  

Der Präsident. – Gibt es jemanden, der für diesen Antrag reden möchte?
                  

Fabio De Masi (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I would like to speak in favour of the motion from Mr Loones because his argument seems only rational. We are a European Parliament so there should be proper translation in any language.

Der Präsident. – Gibt es jemanden, der gegen diesen Antrag reden möchte?
                  

Pervenche Berès (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, je crois que vous avez parfaitement résumé la situation. Chacun connaît le texte tel qu'il a été déposé. Nous venons de voter les rapports Verhofstadt et Brok-Bresso. Il est temps maintenant de voter le rapport Böge-Berès. Nous nous prononçons donc contre ce report.
                  

(Die Verschiebung der Abstimmung wird abgelehnt.)


Gianni Pittella (S&D). – Signor Presidente, mi consenta di fare una cosa inusuale, mi affido alla sua comprensione. La collega Mercedes Bresso non è qui, ma ha collaborato in maniera assolutamente intelligente e attiva, insieme ai colleghi Berès, Brok, Böge e Verhofstadt, alla costruzione di un'intesa su queste relazioni. L'Europa e il Parlamento europeo danno una risposta importante: più crescita, la capacità di ripensare e rivedere il Fiscal Compact, l'assicurazione sulla disoccupazione per i giovani, un'Europa che sa rispondere alle sfide dei cittadini. Per questo ringrazio Mercedes Bresso e ringrazio tutti i relatori e la maggioranza che ha votato queste relazioni.
                  

Der Präsident. – Der Dank an Frau Bresso ist angekommen.
                  
6.9.   Civil Law Rules on Robotics (A8-0005/2017 - Mady Delvaux) (vote)
6.10.   European Cloud Initiative (A8-0006/2017 - Jerzy Buzek) (vote)
6.11.   Investing in jobs and growth – maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds (A8-0385/2016 - Lambert van Nistelrooij) (vote)
6.12.   Aviation Strategy for Europe (A8-0021/2017 - Pavel Telička) (vote)
6.13.   Delayed implementation of ESI Funds operational programmes – impact on cohesion policy and the way forward (B8-0149/2017) (vote)

Der Präsident. – Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.
                  
7.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
8.   Explanations of vote
8.1.   Combating terrorism (A8-0228/2016 - Monika Hohlmeier)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěla říct, že jsem podpořila návrh směrnice o boji proti terorismu. Považuji to za jasnou odpověď občanům, kteří se obávají o svou bezpečnost, a myslím, že je to právě to, co očekávají od Evropského parlamentu i od Evropské unie. Vítám sjednocení skutkových podstat napříč členskými státy. Směrnice zavádí trestné činy vycestování do zahraničí za účelem terorismu, trestní postih školitelů teroristů, účast na činnostech teroristických skupin atd.
                  

                     Návrh směrnice také odpovídajícím způsobem reaguje na fenomén rostoucího počtu jedinců, kteří cestují do zahraničí za účelem terorismu, tak zvaných zahraničních bojovníků. Směrnice tedy zavádí povinnou výměnu informací o pohybu potenciálních pachatelů teroristických činů a dává více práv obětem teroristických činů a posiluje jejich ochranu v oblasti zdravotní péče, právní pomoci.
                  

                     Myslím, že návrh směrnice je tedy opravdu zdařilou aktualizací trestněprávní legislativy, která povede k větší soudržnosti vnitrostátních ustanovení trestního práva, a reaguje tak na bezpečnostní výzvy, kterým Evropská unie čelí.
                  

Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, while I agree with the general objective of harmonising the definition of terrorist offences at European Union level, I believe the directive contains also many flaws and challenges.
Firstly, I am concerned about the definition of terrorist offences in Article 3 since they include the destruction of infrastructure likely to cause major economic loss. I am also alarmed by Article 5 on public provocation to terrorism, which criminalises the indirect provocation to commit terrorist offences. Finally, I am also critical of Article 9 on the criminalisation of travelling. I still do not see the point of criminalisation of travelling in itself, since other offences are enough to prosecute suspected foreign fighters. I think, in that case, we are going too far and we need to have more clear definitions.

Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, the first rule of government is to protect the people of your country, but in Brussels and Paris and in Germany, the governments of Europe and the European Union failed, as innocent people were murdered by terrorists – both home-grown and those that used Schengen and the open border system to infiltrate Europe and kill those people. You have criticised Hungary for taking its own measures. You have criticised people like myself on this side of the House, who suggested before Merkel made her monumental failure of opening the doors to Germany, that you should have checked the people coming in. You should have ensured that security was there, but no, you would rather call us xenophobes and racists, instead of listening to the sensible truth.
But this report still does not go far enough. It is simply a sticking plaster, and until you put in proper border controls there will be more terrorism on this continent.
8.2.   Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (A8-0390/2016 - Guy Verhofstadt)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, cum arată viitorul Uniunii Europene ? Dacă proiectăm o Uniune cu două viteze, nu va arata bine, iar acest proiect asta propune: o Uniune cu două viteze.
                  

                     De aceea am votat împotriva acestui raport.
                  

                     Da, Uniunea a fost lovită de crize la care a răspuns greoi și ineficient, de multe ori prea târziu, dar soluția nu este o uniune a statelor din zona euro și răspunsul este numai o uniune a statelor membre unită.
                  

                     Unde a dispărut principiul ‘unită în diversitate’? A rămas doar așa un slogan, nu mai este o realitate pentru noi?
                  

                     Da, trebuie să ne reformăm, trebuie să reformăm instituțiile europene, trebuie să fie mai puține instituții, trebuie să avem grijă cum cheltuim banii, trebuie să fim mai transparenți, trebuie să fim mai cumpătați în cheltuieli.
                  

                     Da, toate acestea sunt adevărate. Trebuie să avem un singur sediu, de asemenea, al Parlamentului European, dar, repet, nu o uniune cu două viteze.
                  

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, nämä kolme EU:n toimintaa koskevaa mietintöä lähtevät siitä, että toimiva unioni tarkoittaa yhteistä valtiovarainministeriä, yhteistä ulkoministeriä, kärkiehdokkaita, pienempää komissiota, yhteisvastuuta veloista ja yhteistä budjettia euroalueelle.
                  

                     Kannatan eurooppalaista yhteistyötä, ja siinä tulee tapahtua muutoksia, mutta eivät rakenteet ratkaise nykyisiä ongelmia, ellei ole yhteistä tahtoa, ellei ole visiota, ellei ole suuntaa, ellei ole selkeitä suunnitelmia.
                  

                     Kaikista näistä mietinnöistä puuttuvat esitykset. Ne eivät ratkaise niitä ongelmia, joita meillä on. Meiltä puuttuu työpaikkoja, meiltä puuttuu talouskasvua, eriarvoisuus sen sijaan kasvaa, on veropakoilua. Näissä ei ole mitään vastauksia näihin.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, this week we had a serious debate in the European Parliament about the future of Europe. We discussed not only how to develop the European Union but also this issue: is there a future for the European Union? It is rather symbolic that this question has become topical after 60 years of existence of the common European project.
The European Union now is a big building under construction. The construction work is going very slowly. The inhabitants are not satisfied because the living conditions in an uncompleted building are not good. Some of them are trying to find a simple solution to stop the construction of the common building: they invite us to return to having separate national states. In my point of view, we cannot return to the past and national states only. We have to complete our building, and only then will we receive the full positive effect of it.
One of the main elements of this European building is common social policy. We need not only a common market, the free movement of capital and the workforce, but also the robust basis of common social standards in the EU.

Jens Rohde (ALDE). – Hr. formand! Jeg stemte for Guy Verhofstadts betænkning. Det var ikke noget svært valg, for jeg er erklæret føderalist, men det var faktisk ikke derfor, jeg stemte for den. Det er i erkendelse af, at vi står med et Europa, som i forhold til at løse de store udfordringer, vi har i denne tid, i forhold til at løse den tryghedskrise, der er hos borgerne i Europa, er nødt til at erkende, at vores samarbejde på mange måder hviler på et dysfunktionelt grundlag, som skyldes en systemfejl. Derfor er der behov for, at nogle tør tænke nye tanker, og der er behov for, at regeringscheferne også erkender, at der er behov for ændringer i strukturen af vores samarbejde.
                  

                     Men jeg vil dog anholde en enkelt ting, når jeg nu har sagt, at jeg har stemt for, og det er de elementer, som har med den politiske fordelingspolitik at gøre, de hører nemlig ikke hjemme sådan en betænkning. For eksempel har ‘Financial Transaction Tax’ jo intet med føderalisme at gøre. Det er et spørgsmål om socialisme eller liberalisme, og alle disse politiske ting skal der være plads til inden for en føderal union, og derfor burde det have været taget ud af betænkningen. Men ikke desto mindre en udmærket betænkning.
                  

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem zprávu pana Verhofstadta nepodpořil, osobně se domnívám, že je nutné bavit se o tom, jak řešit problémy Evropy, ale podle mého názoru odpovědí na současné problémy není další zrychlená integrace.
                  

                     Domnívám se, že pokud bychom šli cestou, kterou navrhuje zpráva pana Verhofstadta, tak naopak kroky, které jsou zde obsaženy, povedou k tomu, že v některých členských státech budou narůstat nálady proti evropské integraci, a může se stát, že příklad brexitu mohou následovat i jiné země.
                  

                     Já jsem proto proti zprávě hlasoval, právě proto, že bych se nerad dočkal dalšího rozpadu Evropské unie. Jsem příznivcem evropské integrace, ale návrh, který dneska byl schválen, je podle mě zcela utopistický, je slepou cestou a je velmi vzdálen reálným náladám občanů Evropské unie v jednotlivých členských státech. Takže já doufám, že nakonec skončí jen u této teoretické zprávy.
                  

Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Sprawozdanie Guya Verhofstadta to negacja Europy takiej, jaka ona jest. W tym sensie jest on zaprzeczeniem tej jedności europejskiej, na jaką się powołuje. Jeżeli chcemy naprawdę Europy solidarnej, powinniśmy się kierować krótką, prostą zasadą: tyle wspólnych kompetencji, instytucji, ile wspólnych wartości i interesów. Dzisiaj niestety Europa przeżywa głęboki kryzys moralny i nie jest wspólnotą wartości, natomiast na szczęście Europa pozostaje wspólnotą losu. Mamy wspólną historię, mamy wspólne instytucje i mamy poczucie potrzeby wspólnoty interesów. Jednak jeżeli na tej bazie mamy budować rzeczywistą solidarność europejską, to przede wszystkim ci, którzy o niej mówią, jeżeli naprawdę jej chcą, powinni zdobyć się na wzajemny szacunek i porzucić arogancję i federalistyczny fanatyzm.
                  

Michał Marusik (ENF). – Panie Przewodniczący! Głosowałem przeciwko z powodów zasadniczych. Realizujemy projekt, który jest sprzeczny z założeniami, a założenia były słuszne. Unia Europejska miała być jakimś forum porozumienia niepodległych i suwerennych państw dla zapewnienia pokojowego rozwoju Europy. Tymczasem realizujemy projekt zupełnie odmienny. Realizujemy projekt, który pozbawia państwa niepodległości i suwerenności, który gwałci tę suwerenność i niepodległość, narzucając jakieś uniwersalne dla wszystkich prawa i zasady. Gdyby takie prawa i zasady odpowiadały każdemu państwu, to już w każdym państwie od dawna by funkcjonowały. Jeżeli są różne rozwiązania prawne, bo różne są problemy poszczególnych państw, to należy to uszanować, więc należy uszanować intencje tej Unii i doprowadzić do pokojowego rozwoju niepodległych i suwerennych państw w Europie. Za takim projektem się opowiadam, dlatego głosowałem przeciwko.
                  

Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Mislim, da, čeprav je ta resolucija s tesno večino vseeno danes bila potrjena, je prav, da se začnemo pogovarjati tudi o prihodnosti Evropske unije v smislu redefiniranja institucij, ker to, kar imamo dandanes, se je pokazalo v času kriz, tako ekonomskih kot seveda migrantskih in kriz vrednot, kot organizacija, ki potrebuje prevetritev, potrebuje novo svežino in zato mislim, da je na mestu, da odpremo tudi teme, kakšna bo prihodnja vloga Evropskega parlamenta, posebej še v odnosu do Komisije na eni strani in pa v odnosu do Sveta.
                  

                     Včasih se zdi od zunaj relativno nenavadno, da, seveda, lahko Svet pomembno vpliva na odločitve Parlamenta in tudi, ko Parlament izglasuje določene zakone, vedno, seveda, potrebuje še soglasje in privolitev Evropskega sveta.
                  

                     In tu se postavlja še posebno vprašanje o vlogi nacionalnih parlamentov in o tem je treba spregovoriti.
                  

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, ce rapport, comme les deux autres, souffre du même mal: il prétend reconnaître la liberté des peuples, à condition que celle de l'argent soit protégée. C'est la doctrine de l'ordolibéralisme.
                  

                     Je préfère vous dire que, même si vous mettez sans cesse en avant la nécessité d'une Europe de la guerre, rebaptisée ‘Europe de la défense’, pour réunir les peuples européens, vous n'arriverez à rien aussi longtemps que vous ne voudrez pas de l'harmonisation sociale, aussi longtemps que vous ne voudrez pas de l'harmonisation fiscale, aussi longtemps que vous ne voudrez pas de l'indépendance à l'égard de l'OTAN.
                  

                     Vous ne laissez qu'une seule perspective aux peuples qui, eux, veulent la paix, le progrès social et l'indépendance: qu'ils viennent à se dire ‘cette Europe-là, ou bien on la change, ou bien on la quitte’. Ce qui est commencé, ce n'est pas le changement positif attendu, c'est que les gens commencent à quitter l'Europe.
                  

                     Il est pitoyable que votre réponse au Brexit soit seulement l'Europe de la défense et la constitutionnalisation des droits de la finance.
                  

Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Pane předsedající, člověk už by opravdu skoro podlehl zoufalství, když vidí stále stejné lidi, jak poskytují stále stejně špatné odpovědi na klíčové otázky evropské integrace. Pan Verhofstadt, autor této zprávy, je jedním z nich. On stále sní o centralizovaném ‘eurostátu’, sní o tom, že se veškerá moc přesune do Bruselu, do institucí, jako je Evropský parlament, Evropská komise.
                  

                     Bohužel, většina Evropského parlamentu, byť tedy naštěstí už je to slabá většina, na to pořád slyší. A to je přesně cesta opačným směrem, než bychom se měli vydat. My nepotřebujeme centralizovaný superstát, my potřebujeme pružnou, decentralizovanou, vícerychlostní Evropu a já bych se té Evropy více rychlostí opravdu nebál, protože to je jediné, co může vyvést architekturu Evropské unie ze slepé uličky.
                  

                     Pro české voliče bych doporučil, aby si tu zprávu přečetli a aby si především přečetli, kdo z českých poslanců EP pro ni hlasoval. Já jsem to tedy rozhodně nebyl.
                  
8.3.   Civil Law Rules on Robotics (A8-0005/2017 - Mady Delvaux)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, ahead of this vote I thought I should do some research. So a couple of weeks ago I met a robot. As science fiction hasn't yet become science fact, I also met experts from the world-class Cranfield University in my constituency. They told me how robotic technology is developing and highlighted the challenges that lie ahead. We discussed rapid changes in the workplace with more automation, safety issues as people work more closely with robots, and the ethics of self-learning robots. I have seen at first hand the speed this sector is moving, and as technology moves quickly it is important that legislation keeps up, which is why I voted in favour of today's report.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank rapporteur Mady Delvaux for her excellent report. We in the European Parliament have started a very important discussion, a discussion of the future of mankind. Robots will play a significant role in our future life, and we have to start to think about the important elements of this new reality.
A central part of this report is the issue of liability. The civil liability for damage caused by robots is a crucial issue which needs to be analysed and addressed at Union level as soon as it possible. The Commission has to carry out an impact assessment for a compulsory insurance scheme which includes the possibility of giving the legal status of an electronic personality to robots, in order to facilitate compensation for victims when human responsibility cannot be fully attributed. It is vitally important for the legislature to consider the legal and ethical implications and effects without stifling innovation, and of course I voted in favour.

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, iste nikto nepochybuje, že sme svedkami novej priemyselnej revolúcie. Každý deň čítame o veľkých pokrokoch v súvislosti s robotizáciou, čo môže vyvolávať, pocit ako by sme už začali žiť v dobe sci-fi filmov. Takýto pokrok prináša ľudstvu neuveriteľné možnosti na zlepšenie života. Možno ale niekedy iba také zdanlivé. Na druhej strane táto oblasť vyvoláva, otvára veľké množstvo otáznikov a rizík. Stroje už dnes v mnohých prípadoch nahrádzajú ľudí v pracovnom procese. Ako bude v praxi vyzerať plne robotizovaný pracovný trh, v skutočnosti nikto nevie. Podľa OECD je Slovenská republika v tomto ohľade druhou najohrozenejšou ekonomikou z pohľadu zvyšovania nezamestnanosti. Rovnako je nebezpečné, aby sa transhumanizmus stával zákonom. Ľudské práva prináležia výsostne človeku. Prisudzovať ich umelej inteligencii je úplne proti prirodzenému stvoriteľskému poriadku. Obávam sa následkov takéhoto konania. Uznesenie neprináša odpovede, ale vnáša do tejto témy iba väčší zmätok. Je potrebné, aby všetky nadnárodné spoločnosti a vedci, ktorí stoja v pozadí robotizácie, prebrali zodpovednosť za tento vývoj, a je nevyhnutné garantovať, že za tým musí stáť rozhodnutie človeka.
                  
8.4.   Investing in jobs and growth – maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds (A8-0385/2016 - Lambert van Nistelrooij)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, pentru perioada 2014-2020 au fost alocate peste 450 miliarde de euro în fonduri structurale și de investiții.
                  

                     Politica de coeziune este încă percepută ca o politică de cheltuieli, deși ea este, de fapt, o politică de dezvoltare și de investiții.
                  

                     De exemplu, în România, cu acești bani trebuie să încurajăm IMM-urile, să susținem cercetarea, inovația, să creăm și să diversificăm locurile de muncă, să dezvoltăm infrastructura, de asemenea, trebuie investiți acești bani în zonele defavorizate geografic sau aflate la limita sărăciei.
                  

                     Mă bucur că un obiectiv important al Comisiei pentru 2014-2020 este continuarea simplificărilor pentru beneficiarii fondurilor structurale și de investiții. E foarte importantă simplificarea pentru că accesul la aceste fonduri este mai ușor, ca și controlarea modului în care se folosesc banii.
                  

                     Alți factori esențiali sunt interesul, transparența și competența autorităților centrale și locale care gestionează acești bani.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, having been on the Regional Development Committee in the last legislature, I saw how difficult this topic was, and how hard people like Mr Van Nistelrooij and Mr Albrecht worked and became experts in the field. When they say something one should listen, as they know what they are talking about.
One of the points I want to highlight here is their comment on visibility. Given that 30% or more of our budget goes in cohesion funding and that in many Member States 60% to 80% of public investment comes from the European Union, I wonder whether the people who are benefiting from it know of it? Indeed, I heard in relation to Brexit that some people who voted against were actually being employed and being paid by European funds but did not even know it. So from here on, with money that is spent in cohesion funding there must also be absolute certainty that this is communicated to those who benefit and to the public.
8.5.   Aviation Strategy for Europe (A8-0021/2017 - Pavel Telička)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Diane James (NI). – Mr President, I chose not to support the vote on Aviation Strategy for Europe today, 16 February 2017. As part of its Brexit strategy for the United Kingdom, the country is pushing ahead with its own agenda for aviation with the ‘Sky's the Limit’ Coalition, representing airlines and airports. UK Air Traffic Control has welcomed the publication of the UK Government's airspace and noise policy as a first step towards modernising United Kingdom airspace – including, I might add, that for drones. In contrast, the European Union strategy is beset with problems associated with fulfilling aspects relating to other European Union policies, not least emission limitations. I could not support a strategy which would prove a drag anchor on the United Kingdom's lead in this critical area of expertise.

Der Präsident. – Damit sind die Erklärungen zur Abstimmung geschlossen.
                  
9.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes
10.   Petitions: see Minutes
11.   Documents received: see Minutes
12.   Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
13.   Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes
14.   Dates of forthcoming sittings : see Minutes
15.   Adjournment of the session

Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.
               

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.15 Uhr geschlossen.)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)