Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 December 2017
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202403190EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














16.5.2024







            14 December 2017
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 14 DECEMBER 2017
            
         
(C/2024/3190)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Situation in Afghanistan (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4










3.

Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2016 (debate)
4










4.

A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (debate)
12










5.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
25










5.1.

Freedom of expression in Vietnam, notably the case of Nguyen Van Hoa
26










5.2.

Cambodia: the banning of the opposition
31










5.3.

El Salvador: the cases of women prosecuted for miscarriage
36










6.

Resumption of the sitting
42










7.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
42










8.

Voting time
42










8.1.

Freedom of expression in Vietnam, notably the case of Nguyen Van Hoa (RC-B8-0685/2017, B8-0685/2017, B8-0687/2017, B8-0688/2017, B8-0690/2017, B8-0693/2017) (vote)
42










8.2.

Cambodia: the banning of the opposition (RC-B8-0686/2017, B8-0686/2017, B8-0689/2017, B8-0692/2017, B8-0694/2017, B8-0696/2017, B8-0697/2017) (vote)
42










8.3.

El Salvador: the cases of women prosecuted for miscarriage (RC-B8-0691/2017, B8-0691/2017, RC-B8-0695/2017, B8-0695/2017, B8-0698/2017, B8-0699/2017, B8-0701/2017, B8-0702/2017) (vote)
42










8.4.

Enforcement of the Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, laying down a notification procedure for authorisation schemes and requirements related to services, and amending Directive 2006/123/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (A8-0396/2017 - Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto) (vote)
43










8.5.

Situation in Afghanistan (RC-B8-0678/2017, B8-0678/2017, B8-0679/2017, B8-0680/2017, B8-0681/2017, B8-0682/2017, B8-0683/2017, B8-0684/2017) (vote)
43










8.6.

Situation of the Rohingya people (RC-B8-0668/2017, B8-0668/2017, B8-0669/2017, B8-0670/2017, B8-0671/2017, B8-0672/2017, B8-0673/2017, B8-0674/2017) (vote)
43










8.7.

Implementation of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (A8-0368/2017 - Anna Maria Corazza Bildt) (vote)
43










8.8.

Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2016 (A8-0387/2017 - Notis Marias) (vote)
43










8.9.

A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (A8-0356/2017 - Bas Eickhout) (vote)
44










9.

Explanations of vote
44










9.1.

Objection to an implementing act: Use of phosphoric acid – phosphates – di – tri – and polyphosphates (E 338-452) in frozen vertical meat spits (B8-0666/2017)
44










9.2.

Recommendation following the inquiry on money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (B8-0660/2017)
45










9.3.

Annual report on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (A8-0351/2017 - Michael Gahler)
46










9.4.

Annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 2016 and the EU policy on the matter (A8-0365/2017 - Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl)
47










9.5.

Hong Kong, 20 years after handover (A8-0382/2017 - Alyn Smith)
47










9.6.

Situation in Afghanistan (RC-B8-0678/2017, B8-0678/2017, B8-0679/2017, B8-0680/2017, B8-0681/2017, B8-0682/2017, B8-0683/2017, B8-0684/2017)
48










9.7.

Situation of the Rohingya people (RC-B8-0668/2017, B8-0668/2017, B8-0669/2017, B8-0670/2017, B8-0671/2017, B8-0672/2017, B8-0673/2017, B8-0674/2017)
48










9.8.

Implementation of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (A8-0368/2017 - Anna Maria Corazza Bildt)
49










9.9.

Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2016 (A8-0387/2017 - Notis Marias)
49










9.10.

A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (A8-0356/2017 - Bas Eickhout)
50










10.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes
51










11.

Documents received: see Minutes
51










12.

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
51










13.

Petitions: see Minutes
52










14.

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes
52










15.

Dates of forthcoming sittings : see Minutes
52










16.

Closure of the sitting
52










17.

Adjournment of the session
52




Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 December 2017
                  


ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ


Αντιπρόεδρος

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Η συνεδρίαση αρχίζει στις 08.30)

2.   Situation in Afghanistan (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
3.   Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2016 (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το πρώτο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η έκθεση του Νότη Μαριά, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Αναφορών, σχετικά με τις εργασίες της Επιτροπής Αναφορών κατά το έτος 2016, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 216 παράγραφος 7 του Κανονισμού του (2017/2222(INI)) (Α8-0387/2017)
               

Νότης Μαριάς,
Εισηγητής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κατ' αρχάς θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τους σκιώδεις για τη συνεργασία που είχαμε για τη σύνταξη της έκθεσης, η οποία θα τεθεί σε ψηφοφορία σήμερα, μια έκθεση που αφορά τις εργασίες της Επιτροπής Αναφορών για το έτος 2016. Να ευχαριστήσω επίσης τη γραμματεία της Επιτροπής Αναφορών, όπως και τους συνεργάτες μου στη γραμματεία του ECR.
               

                  Όπως γνωρίζετε, το δικαίωμα αναφοράς προς το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο κατοχυρώνεται στις ευρωπαϊκές Συνθήκες. Πρόκειται για ένα σημαντικό δικαίωμα το οποίο πηγάζει από την ίδια την ευρωπαϊκή ιθαγένεια. Βεβαίως, κάθε πολίτης, σύμφωνα με τη Συνθήκη, αλλά και κάθε μόνιμος κάτοικος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης έχει δικαίωμα να υποβάλει αναφορά για ένα ζήτημα το οποίο εμπίπτει στους τομείς δράσης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Σε πολιτικό επίπεδο το δικαίωμα αυτό είναι ιδιαίτερα σημαντικό, καθώς δίνει τη δυνατότητα στους πολίτες να εκφραστούν, τους συνδέει με το ίδιο το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Άλλωστε η Επιτροπή Αναφορών αποτελεί και τη μοναδική επιτροπή στην οποία συμμετέχουν οι ίδιοι οι πολίτες, καθώς παρεμβαίνουν ως αναφέροντες. Κατά την έννοια αυτή αποτελεί και ένα έμμεσο μηχανισμό ελέγχου της εφαρμογής του δικαίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, κι έτσι υπάρχει διασύνδεση και με την ίδια την Επιτροπή και φυσικά με ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον θα ακούσουμε τις απόψεις της Επιτροπής, τις απόψεις του κυρίου Vella εν προκειμένω, για το πώς βλέπει η Επιτροπή τη λειτουργία της Επιτροπής Αναφορών. Αλλά θα έλεγα ότι και η συχνή συμμετοχή του κ. Timmermans στις εργασίες μας δίνει ένα στίγμα για το πώς και σε ποιο επίπεδο πρέπει να υπάρχει αυτή η συνεργασία, μια συνεργασία που οπωσδήποτε είναι σημαντική, διότι οι πολίτες με τις αναφορές θέτουν σημαντικά ζητήματα, όπως είναι το δικαίωμα της ελεύθερης κυκλοφορίας, θέματα που έχουν σχέση με την εφαρμογή των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων, ζητήματα που αφορούν τα δικαιώματα του παιδιού και τα άτομα με αναπηρία, αλλά βεβαίως και οι ανησυχίες των πολιτών για την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος εκφράζονται μέσα απ' την Επιτροπή Αναφορών, η οποία έχει και άμεση σχέση και στενή συνεργασία με την Ευρωπαία Διαμεσολαβήτρια.
               

                  Θα έλεγα λοιπόν ότι τα θέματα που απασχόλησαν το 2016 αλλά και απασχολούν και φέτος την Επιτροπή Αναφορών είναι σημαντικά. Ειδικότερα μας απασχόλησε η συμφωνία του Μαρακές για τα δικαιώματα που έχουν οι τυφλοί, τα δικαιώματα επίσης που προκύπτουν απ' τη συμφωνία της Κωνσταντινούπολης, τα δικαιώματα του παιδιού και είχαμε λάβει και πολλές αναφορές για το Brexit, διότι οι πολίτες ανησυχούν, κυρίως οι πολίτες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, για το τι θα γίνει με τα δικαιώματά τους μετά την έξοδο του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου απ' την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
               

                  Ένα σημαντικό θέμα που μας απασχόλησε το 2016 ήταν οι γερμανικές αποζημιώσεις, ένα ζήτημα το οποίο, όπως γνωρίζετε, έχω θέσει απ' την πρώτη στιγμή της εκλογής μου εδώ στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, μια και υπάρχει απαίτηση της Ελλάδας, η οποία προσδιορίζεται από τις αποφάσεις της συμφωνίας ειρήνης του 1946 που προσδιορίζουν την υποχρέωση της Γερμανίας να καταβάλει πολεμικές επανορθώσεις προς την Ελλάδα, να επιστρέψει βεβαίως το αναγκαστικό κατοχικό δάνειο και να αποζημιωθούν και οι συγγενείς των θυμάτων που εκτελέστηκαν από τα ναζιστικά στρατεύματα κατοχής. Τέθηκε λοιπόν το θέμα αυτό με την αναφορά των αγωνιστών της Εθνικής Αντίστασης και του Δημοκρατικού Στρατού Ελλάδας, την 2214/2014.
               

                  Με παρέμβασή μου αυτή η αναφορά τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2015 κρίθηκε παραδεκτή και εν συνεχεία άνοιξε η διαδικασία για συζήτηση. Είχαμε πάρα πολλές προσπάθειες προκειμένου να μπει στο ράφι αυτή η συγκεκριμένη αναφορά, να μη συζητηθεί, και δυστυχώς η πλειοψηφία των συντονιστών της Επιτροπής Αναφορών στις 8.9.2016 θεώρησε ότι το ζήτημα αυτό δεν εμπίπτει, δήθεν, στις αρμοδιότητες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και έκλεισε τον φάκελο. Αυτό λοιπόν αναφερόταν στην παράγραφο 16 της έκθεσής μου. Δυστυχώς το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα, η Σοσιαλιστική Ομάδα και οι Φιλελεύθεροι δεν δέχθηκαν αυτή τη θέση, υπέβαλαν τροπολογία και έχει διαγραφεί αυτή η άποψη μέσα από την έκθεση. Αυτό όμως το οποίο ήταν πρωτόγνωρο, κύριε Πρόεδρε, ήταν ότι ζητήθηκε να αλλάξει και η εισηγητική έκθεση. Αυτό δεν συμβαίνει ποτέ και έτσι αφαιρέθηκε κάθε αναφορά στο θέμα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων και από την εισηγητική έκθεση. Από εκεί και πέρα αυτό είναι ένα θέμα το οποίο μας απασχόλησε, διότι κατά τα λοιπά δεν υπάρχουν ιδιαίτερα προβλήματα στην έκθεση την οποία θα συζητήσουμε. Οφείλουμε να το αναφέρουμε αυτό, διότι είναι σημαντικό. Αναμένω τις απόψεις των συναδέλφων και επιφυλάσσομαι, στα 2 λεπτά που έχω μετά την ολοκλήρωση της συζήτησης, να απαντήσω.
               

Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur Mr Marias for his accurate and comprehensive report on the activities of the Committee on Petitions in 2016. I also take the opportunity to thank Ms Wikström and the whole Committee on Petitions for its important work.
Like its predecessors in previous years, the report gives evidence of the broad spectrum of issues that petitioners bring to the Committee on Petitions' attention each year, and of the committee's efforts to ensure that the voices of those petitioners are heard. The Commission shares Parliament's view that the right to petition is both a fundamental right of all EU citizens and a key element of participatory democracy, allowing for citizens' active engagement in the fields of EU action.
Petitions are an effective channel for direct contact and an open dialogue on problems affecting citizens in their daily life, especially in this day and age where democracy requires new ways and means to connect the EU's institutions to the citizens they serve. This is also another very important tool to understand the pulse of Europe. Citizens often turn to the committee as a last resort because they feel that they have exhausted all other avenues and we – I mean both the Commission and Parliament – can demonstrate that we listen to their concerns and take them seriously, by offering proper responses and showing existing solutions at European or national level. This is a concrete example of how we can collaborate to restore citizens' confidence and trust in the European project.
As the report points out, our institutions have built good working relationships in recent years when it comes to handling petitions. Of the petitions declared admissible by Parliament in 2016, more than two-thirds were referred to the Commission for an opinion. In return, the 900 replies that the Commission sent back to Parliament in 2016 testify to our engagement to support the critical work of the Committee, which the Commission takes very seriously. All Commission replies are widely consulted among services, and suitably ranked officials with expert knowledge of the issues discussed are there to assist in the Committee's meetings with the aim of providing the most meaningful and up to date information in a timely manner, as your report also recognises.
I note the report's insistence on providing ever better answers, and to be sure there is always room for improvement and the Commission will recommit itself to improving wherever we can in our effort to provide meaningful answers in a timely manner. I am therefore pleased to reaffirm the commitment of the Commission to keep up our good collaboration and to bring forward the EU added value in the resolution of petitioners' concerns.
Let me turn specifically to one of the issues raised prominently in the report by Mr Marias, namely the implementation of EU legislation. The Commission attaches particular importance to acting firmly and quickly when infringement proceedings are launched, especially when they obstruct key EU policy objectives. To this goal, the Commission adopted, in its communication ‘EU law: Better Results through Better Application’ of December 2016, a new approach to infringement policy that is more strategic, effective and proportionate. Moreover, it will also not automatically rely on the EU Pilot mechanism unless we see it as particularly useful on a case-by-case basis. Another concrete step to enhance transparency of decisions on infringement procedures is the centralised platform on our Europa website where the Commission proactively disseminates information on infringements.
The Commission will continue to provide Parliament and the public with comprehensive information on monitoring the implementation of EU legislation and its follow-up. However, this needs to be done while respecting confidentiality obligations towards Member States in infringement procedures, as recognised by the European Court of Justice. The report also touches upon a number of other important issues, for which the views of Parliament and the Commission largely converge.
Let me only mention the high priority in preserving citizens' rights after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, or the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. I will however, Mr President, end my remarks by once again thanking Mr Marias for his is very helpful report. I look forward to hearing the views of the honourable Members in the debate.

Cristian Dan Preda,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais d'abord féliciter le rapporteur pour son travail. À l'exception, bien sûr, de cette obsession avec les dettes allemandes, il a très bien fait son travail, je crois.
               

                  Il s'agit d'un rapport important, qui met l'accent sur les moments forts de nos activités au cours de cette dernière année. Le travail de la commission des pétitions s'est beaucoup amélioré et a gagné en efficacité depuis l'introduction de la nouvelle procédure administrative en 2014. En effet, il est primordial que le Parlement traite les pétitions et apporte une réponse aux citoyens dans un laps de temps raisonnable. Pour cela, il faut qu'on se concentre sur les pétitions qui sont admissibles.
               

                  Autre point sur le fonctionnement de notre commission: les groupes de travail. Ceux-ci devraient avoir un mandat bien déterminé ayant comme objectif la facilitation du traitement des pétitions. Le réseau de la commission PETI est un outil essentiel qui gagnerait à être plus connu car il permet de faire le lien entre les pétitions et le travail législatif au sein du Parlement.
               

                  Nous avons traité des sujets essentiels pour des pétitionnaires, cette année, l'un de ces sujets étant le Brexit. Notre commission est un fervent défenseur des droits des citoyens. Qu'il s'agisse de Britanniques ou d'autres Européens, leurs inquiétudes sont légitimes et nous devons tout faire pour qu'ils obtiennent gain de cause.
               

                  Il y a également l'initiative citoyenne européenne, qui doit désormais être utilisée de manière optimale pour accroître la confiance des citoyens dans les institutions européennes. La coopération avec la Commission européenne et les États membres est indispensable pour le traitement des pétitions, et c'est pour cela que nous demandons à être informés davantage et de manière régulière sur les procédures d'infraction.
               

Jude Kirton-Darling,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. 2016 was an important and varied year in the Committee on Petitions (PETI). This report highlights the important work that the PETI Committee has done in being a voice for citizens' concerns. Thanks to the secretariat and to all of the Petitions team in the European Parliament for their hard work in ensuring that that voice can be heard.
MEPs across the European Parliament should take our work more seriously. This is the place where personal stories of EU action, inaction and legislation are heard, as people talk about the EU needing to re-engage with the public; why not better use the tools we already have to do that? The number of petitions received shows that citizens care about their right to petition. We have to do better in outreach, and we need the resources to be able to meet their expectations. This report highlights ways to make the Petitions Committee more accessible in the future, to allow more people to directly present their cases through the use of technology, such as videoconferencing.
Of the petitions we received, many were related to Brexit, both UK citizens living in the rest of the EU and citizens from the rest of the EU living in the UK, as well as raising concerns about the future of their rights, as well as UK citizens angry about losing their EU citizenship. Citizens are already feeling the cold effect of Brexit and this Parliament must listen attentively to their concerns and defend them actively.
2016 was also the year when the new committee guidelines came into play. We in the S&D Group welcome the new method of working as it is based on full consensus across the political groups and a common understanding which adds to the democratic way we work inside our committee. I would remind the EPP that previous administrative rules were never endorsed by the committee, despite their attempts to include reference to them in amendments today. This report is a fair reflection of our work, and therefore I call on MEPs to support it.

Yana Toom,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, I do not want to repeat all the good things which have already been said by Mr Marias, who very thoroughly described the topics we had to deal with, and also Mr Vella from the Commission side, and other colleagues who rightly said this a good channel, maybe the best channel here in this House, of how democracy is working.
I was supposed to speak on behalf of the ALDE Group, but I believe that true democrats will forgive me: I am going to speak on behalf of aliens, and these aliens have nothing in common with Mr George Lucas, the famous director. Aliens are people who have got, in Estonia and Latvia, a passport which is called an Alien's Passport. They submitted a petition 18 months ago. In this report, one big political group made this petition a red line for them. We have 7% of non-citizens in Estonia and 12% of them in Latvia, and in order not to discuss the topic there were circulating huge amounts of letters containing huge amounts of lies.
The problem for us, for liberals and for me, as a representative of those people, is that we never reached the substance in this discussion. So I will use the opportunity and just say it is not true that these people vote for Putin. They do not vote in any country. They have no voting rights. It is not true that they serve in the Russian Army. They do not serve in any army. It is not true that to get Estonian citizenship they have to speak Estonian at elementary level. They have to speak Estonian B1, which is enough to study at university in any foreign country. So the problem is that we avoided this discussion. In the very beginning, when I came to the European Parliament, I was very happy that we have a really high political culture here but this petition is the thing which I really cannot accept.

Ángela Vallina,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente. El año pasado yo fui ponente de este informe que hoy presenta el señor Marias y, después de un año, la verdad es que las críticas que tenemos siguen siendo fundamentalmente a la Comisión.
               

                  Les reiteramos, una vez más, que den más claridad a sus respuestas tanto escritas como orales. Debe darnos también más información sobre los procedimientos abiertos contra los Estados, dentro de esa confidencialidad de la que usted habla.
               

                  Nos tienen también que tener en cuenta para la reforma de la iniciativa ciudadana europea y, además, exigimos que, de una vez por todas, la Comisión haga prevalecer el principio de precaución, sobre todo en temas de medio ambiente y también en salud. ¿Para qué si no se ha establecido este principio? Porque seguimos viendo continuamente en la comisión cómo en muchos países, también en el mío, en España, se trocean los proyectos y se trocean los estudios de impacto ambiental igual que se violenta también el acceso a la información o la participación de la ciudadanía —como el famoso Convenio de Aarhus—.
               

                  Les recuerdo también que, sin ese principio de precaución, no se pueden garantizar otros principios esenciales como la seguridad jurídica o la subsidiaridad, sin hablar por supuesto de los daños ambientales irreparables. ¿Tenemos que esperar, como siempre, a que los desastres ocurran y a los hechos consumados y que no haya solución después? Por favor apliquen el principio.
               

Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, χθες στις 13 Δεκέμβρη, συμπληρώθηκαν 74 χρόνια από το ολοκαύτωμα, δηλαδή την εκτέλεση όλων των ανδρών και αγοριών των μαρτυρικών Καλαβρύτων στην Ελλάδα από τα ναζιστικά στρατεύματα κατοχής. Ένα απ' τα δεκάδες ολοκαυτώματα, τα χιλιάδες εγκλήματα του ναζισμού στην Ελλάδα, για τα οποία, παρά τις αποφάσεις διεθνών οργάνων, η Γερμανία ουδέποτε πλήρωσε αποζημιώσεις. Κι όμως, η πλειοψηφία της Επιτροπής Αναφορών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, αξιοποιώντας και την άρνηση της κυβέρνησης ΣΥΡΙΖΑ να τοποθετηθεί, δεν διερεύνησε την αναφορά που κατέθεσε η Ένωση Αγωνιστών Εθνικής Αντίστασης Δημοκρατικού Στρατού Ελλάδας σε συνεργασία με το Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας για τις αποζημιώσεις αυτές, αλλά διέγραψε από τα πρακτικά της Επιτροπής ακόμα και το ότι υπήρξε ποτέ μια τέτοια αναφορά.
               

                  Αυτό εσείς το ονομάζετε δημοκρατικό έλεγχο. Δεν είναι απλό λάθος, είναι ιστορικό θράσος! Έτσι ξαναγράφει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση την Ιστορία: με διαστρεβλώσεις, εφευρέσεις φανταστικών γεγονότων, αποσιωπήσεις των πραγματικών. Έτσι παίρνουν θάρρος ακροδεξιοί, ναζιστές, χρυσαυγίτες, νοσταλγοί του Χίτλερ, το οπλισμένο χέρι αυτού του συστήματος κατά του λαού. Όσο κι αν διάφοροι εδώ μέσα το θέλουν και επιμένουν, η μνήμη είναι όπλο στα χέρια των λαών και δεν θα το παραδώσουμε.
               

Peter Jahr (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe fünf Anmerkungen zu machen.
               

                  Erstens: Auch in diesem Jahr kann der Petitionsausschuss auf ein erfolgreiches Jahr zurückblicken. Dafür möchte ich mich auch bei dem Sekretariat und der PETI-Vorsitzenden, Frau Wikström, bedanken.
               

                  Zweitens, zum Berichterstatter: Kollege Marias hat zu 99 % eine sehr gute Arbeit geleistet, zu einem Prozent nicht. Er hat es selber gesagt, seine Problematik sind deutsche Reparationskosten. Also, Kollege Marias, ich mag konsequente Kollegen, aber manchmal tendiert Ihre Konsequenz auch zur Sturheit. Ich denke mir, das Plenum wird heute über den Bericht so abstimmen, dass der Bericht wieder ordentlich wird, auch in Ihrem Interesse, sodass Ihre 99 %, wo Sie gute Arbeit geleistet haben, dann auch im Protokoll stehen.
               

                  Punkt drei, Zuständigkeiten: Wir sollten den Mut haben, im Petitionsausschuss schneller über Zuständigkeiten zu entscheiden. Das ist doch gut für die Petenten. Mein Motto ist: lieber eine schnelle schlechte Nachricht als ein mehrjähriges Petitionsverfahren mit der gleichen Antwort.
               

                  Viertens Missbrauch: Meine Kollegen werden es noch ergänzen. Wir haben leider auch in diesem Jahr die Tendenz zu verzeichnen, dass manche Fraktionen bei einigen Themen den Petitionsausschuss eigentlich missbrauchen. Das hängt auch mit Zuständigkeiten zusammen. Für Reparationskosten, für Staatsbürgerschaften sind wir im Petitionsausschuss schlicht und ergreifend nicht zuständig. Das wäre die erste eindeutige Antwort.
               

                  Und fünftens Network: Das ist die neue Erfindung. Wir hoffen, dass wir das weiter ausbauen können. Die Erfahrung mit den anderen Fachausschüssen könnte das Premiumsegment Petitionsausschuss sein. Oftmals haben wir Petitionen, wo wir den Petenten verstehen, gesetzliche Regelungen sprechen aber dagegen. Hier könnte man mit den Fachausschüssen die gesetzlichen Regelungen verbessern.
               

Virginie Rozière (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais d'abord remercier le rapporteur, Notis Marias, et Jude Kirton-Darling, notre rapporteure fictive, qui a porté l'ensemble de nos contributions sur ce rapport d'activité de la commission des pétitions.
               

                  Cette commission, sur laquelle je voudrais m'attarder un petit peu, bien qu'elle soit non législative, est essentielle pour notre institution parce qu'elle permet d'assurer un droit fondamental, garanti par notre pacte fondateur – les traités –, qui est celui d'adresser des pétitions lorsque le droit que nous, législateurs, votons ici n'est pas respecté ou qu'il appelle des adaptations. Ce droit est un lien essentiel avec nos concitoyens et la société civile et il exige une mobilisation de tous les acteurs pour que les pétitions soient traitées correctement et avec diligence.
               

                  Nous avons revu, à cette fin, les méthodes de travail de la commission des pétitions en 2015 et elles fonctionnent bien. Je pense donc qu'il nous faut rejeter les amendements qui voudraient fixer un carcan à notre activité et limiter ce droit démocratique de pétition.
               

                  Si toutes les institutions doivent être mobilisées – ce Parlement, le premier –, il y en a une qui doit s'astreindre à une exigence particulière, c'est la Commission européenne, parce qu'en tant que gardienne des traités, elle a le pouvoir d'ouvrir des procédures d'infraction et de poursuivre en manquement, le cas échéant, les États membres devant la Cour de justice. Ce pouvoir est aussi une responsabilité vis-à-vis de nos concitoyens qui n'ont pas tous forcément les moyens d'aller devant la Cour. C'est donc aussi une responsabilité vis-à—vis de ce Parlement, en tant que colégislateur, pour assurer que le droit européen est correctement appliqué et assurer le bon fonctionnement de la démocratie européenne.
               

                  C'est pour ces raisons que nous demandons à la Commission européenne d'assurer, elle aussi, un traitement diligent des pétitions que nous lui adressons ainsi que la plus grande fermeté dans le déclenchement éventuel de procédures d'infraction. Il y va du bon fonctionnement de la démocratie européenne et du respect des textes que nous votons ici en tant que législateurs.
               

Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, petitions are one of the few instruments where the institutions come into direct contact with citizens. The Committee on Petitions, in this context, acts as a check on EU policies as they are implemented in each Member State. Moreover, I think that, by analysing the petitions received, Parliament can use this information effectively to better understand the legislative process of the European Union and to prepare better legislation, but also how this legislation reflects on the lives of European citizens.
The right to petition is a fundamental right. It is a basic element of a functioning participatory democracy which, when acted upon with fairness and transparency, can contribute not only to a consolidation of representative democracy, but also to enhancing the stature of Parliament as an institution in the public eye. I think the involvement of citizens in this action, where we directly connect them to Parliament, has a positive impact on the citizens. I think they perceive their Parliament as a meaningful place of interaction. In the end, I think we can do better. I think that with the Petitions Committee we can act together to strive to improve our support to citizens in the future.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


Paul Rübig (PPE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Herr Präsident! Meine Frage bezieht sich eher darauf, dass wir in Straßburg ab 1. Jänner einen neuen Science Media Hub haben werden. Der Science Media Hub hat die Aufgabe, besser zu kommunizieren was auf europäischer Ebene geschieht.
               

                  Gibt es hier die Möglichkeit, dass auch vom Petitionsausschuss dieses Instrument besser genutzt wird, um die Ergebnisse, die wir über den Research Service des Europäischen Parlaments haben, besser an die Bürgerinnen und Bürger herantragen zu können?
               

Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE),
blue-card answer. – This is an excellent point. I think visibility and proper transparency – the proper transfer of information – is crucial. So in our work it is essential to make sure that our citizens know as much as possible. If we do that, then we make everything much easier.

Marlene Mizzi (S&D). – Mr President, the Committee on Petitions empowers EU citizens with the right to bring to the Parliament issues which are important to them in their everyday lives and to have their concerns specifically addressed by the committee members. The right to submit a petition to the European Parliament builds an important bridge that needs to be suitably protected and promoted. The Petitions Committee plays a vital role in reconnecting the EU with European citizens and in reinforcing the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the EU decision-making process.
However, it should be noted that the number of petitions received is still not satisfactory when compared to the EU's population. Greater efforts are needed to increase awareness of, and to promote, the right to petition and the work of the Petitions Committee. I agree that there should be more communication through the press and social media in order to enhance awareness of the services offered by this committee. Furthermore, an efficient response time to citizens' petitions is paramount and assists in enhancing the importance of citizens to the European Union.

Pál Csáky (PPE). – Elnök Úr! A Petíciós Bizottság alelnökeként szeretném elmondani, hogy fontosnak tartom azt, hogy a Petíciós Bizottság minden évben beszámoljon tevékenységéről az Európai Parlamentnek, hiszen ez az egyedüli bizottság, amely napi kapcsolatot tart az Európai Unió polgáraival. Marias kollégának gratulálni szeretnék, valóban jó az a dokumentum, amelyet elkészített. Én három dolgot szeretnék megemlíteni ezzel kapcsolatban.
               

                  A legfontosabbnak azt tartom, hogy érzésünk szerint nőtt a PETI munkájának hatékonysága. Ez egy jó csapatmunka eredménye, amelynek következtében nőtt a megtárgyalt petíciók száma, annak ellenére, hogy a statisztikák szerint csaknem tíz százalékkal nőtt a benyújtott petíciók száma a tavalyi évben. A második fontos dolog, hogy nőtt érzésünk szerint a PETI presztízse is a polgárok előtt. Ezt a tárgyalások során tapasztaljuk, a tényfeltáró látogatások során, és a gyakori meghallgatások során. Ez egy nagyon fontos munka az Európai Unió polgáraival.
               

                  Érdekességként megjegyzem, hogy a Brexit-tárgyalások még el sem kezdődtek, és már többszáz petíciót kaptunk az európai uniós polgárok jogait illetően. Harmadrészt pedig szeretném megkérni az Európai Bizottságot nagyobb odafigyelésre. Néha úgy érezzük, hogy lassú az együttműködés. Nagyobb empátiára szeretném kérni a Bizottságot, mert ne feledjük el, az Európai Unió polgárainak bizalma a tét. Köszönöm tehát a kollégák és a titkárság tevékenységét, és további támogatást kérek az Európai Parlamenttől.
               

Διαδικασία Catch-the-Eye


Artis Pabriks (PPE). – Mr President, I highly value the work of the Committee on Petitions in order to promote the legitimacy and credibility of this House and the European Union. However, I have to draw attention to Paragraph 29 for today's vote, where we have a red line from the PPE Group in this case, because it is exactly about credibility and about the rightness of this issue. The issue is one which does not fall under any kind of responsibility of the European Union institutions, and in these times of fake news we are including the issue of faked facts about the privileges of the former Soviet immigrants in formerly occupied Baltic countries.
By doing this, we are very much undermining the credibility of European citizens in this institution because, willingly or unwillingly, we are falling here into the trap of the Kremlin propaganda here which is promoted by some of our parliamentarians. Please bear this in mind.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, în primul rând vreau să felicit Comisia pentru petiții pentru că, din raport, cu toții putem observa un progres legat mai ales de calitatea muncii, pentru că nu e vorba aici numai de cantitate. Cred foarte tare că petiția este forma prin care cetățenii pot să dezvăluie o problemă, de regulă o problemă pe care nu au reușit să o rezolve la nivel național. Cred, de asemenea, că această comisie a noastră, a Parlamentului European, este foarte importantă și sunt importante modul în care se soluționează petițiile și, mai ales, timpul care se comunică rezultatul petiției.
               

                  Cetățenii trebuie să aibă încredere în Comisia pentru petiții și eu cred că munca făcută de colegi a fost bună și complexă. Se poate observa din raport că numărul petițiilor a crescut din 2000 până în 2016. De asemenea, cred că trebuie să analizăm și tematicile și se poate constata că, față de 2015, când pe primul loc existau petiții pentru mediu și justiție, iată, în 2016, majoritatea petițiilor sunt pentru piața internă. De aceea recomand Comisiei și statelor membre să supravegheze modul de aplicare a directivelor care reglementează piața internă, pentru că știm cu toții că asta afectează mediul economic, dar și viața cetățenilor.
               

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Aitäh, härra eesistuja. Minu kohuseks on toetada Artis Pabriksi probleemipüstitust. Nimelt on Euroopa Liidus väga palju inimesi, kellel ühel või teisel põhjusel ei ole ühegi Euroopa Liidu riigi kodakondsust ning nende soov petitsioonide komitee kaudu osaleda Euroopa Parlamendi valimistel on kahtlemata huvitav, kuid väga vähetähtis ning väga väikest inimrühma puudutav küsimus, nii et ma kutsuksin üles toetama kolleeg Pabriksi ettepanekut ja võtma selle lause resolutsioonist välja.
               

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας Catch-the-Eye)


Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this very relevant debate. I hope you will agree with me that the range of issues addressed during this morning's debate provides proof not only of the importance of the right to petition in our Union but also of the importance of our collective efforts to respond to the concerns that citizens bring to our attention. My choice of the word ‘collective’ in this context is a delicate one, as both Parliament and the Commission have key roles to play in these areas.
I would like to comment on one area, that of environment and health, where it was said that this is one area which directly affects our citizens, and I totally agree. In fact, according to Europol and Eurobarometer, environmental standards and legislation are among the main areas of legislation most appreciated and acknowledged by EU citizens. There was also a mention of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and I would like to comment that, every year, 16 000 EIAs and 34 000 screenings are carried out in the EU 28. In addition, whenever there is a risk of serious irreversible environmental harm and health risks, then the Commission always intervenes proactively.
Finally, let me reiterate that the Commission continues to attach great importance to the good working relationship built during these years with the Committee on Petitions and would like to reassure Parliament of its continued and strong commitment to cooperate closely together in the handling of petitions.

Νότης Μαριάς,
Εισηγητής. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, νομίζω ότι από τη συζήτηση αναδείχτηκαν τα βασικά ζητήματα τα οποία εμπεριέχονται στην έκθεση ή και αυτά τα οποία διαγράφτηκαν με τροπολογίες οι οποίες δυστυχώς έγιναν δεκτές. Πράγματι, κύριε Jahr, είμαι άκαμπτος στο θέμα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων και θα παραμείνω, διότι το θέμα αυτό είναι πάρα πολύ σοβαρό και πρέπει να αντιληφθείτε ότι η βάση λειτουργίας της μεταπολεμικής Ευρώπης βρίσκεται στη Συνθήκη Ειρήνης του 1946, των Παρισίων. Εκεί προσδιορίστηκε και το θέμα των γερμανικών πολεμικών επανορθώσεων. Και 74 χρόνια μετά το ολοκαύτωμα, τη σφαγή των Καλαβρύτων, που έγινε στις 13 Δεκεμβρίου του 1943, πρέπει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να δώσει μια σοβαρή απάντηση και η σοβαρή απάντηση είναι πρώτον ότι δεν ξεχνούμε, δεύτερον ότι υπάρχει ένα σοβαρό ζήτημα που λέγεται ‘γερμανικές πολεμικές επανορθώσεις’ και αφορούν την Ελλάδα, αφορούν την Πολωνία, ενδεχόμενα και άλλες χώρες, και το ζήτημα αυτό δεν πρόκειται να κλείσει. Δεν πρόκειται να κλείσει ούτε με τρικ, ούτε με τροπολογίες, ούτε με τίποτε.
               

                  Το έχω θέσει αυτό επανειλημμένα και θα συνεχίσω να το θέτω και σας το λέω εδώ: Τις επόμενες ημέρες θα κατατεθεί από τη δική μου πλευρά πλέον αναφορά για το θέμα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων, για να δω τότε πώς θα το χειριστείτε το θέμα. Αλλά αποδεικνύεται ότι στο θέμα αυτό δεν θέλετε καν ούτε δημόσια συζήτηση, διότι επί τέσσερα χρόνια απορρίπτετε συνεχώς τις προσωπικές μου προτάσεις να γίνει δημόσια ακρόαση, δημόσια συζήτηση απ' την Επιτροπή Αναφορών για το ζήτημα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων και το απορρίπτετε συνεχώς, το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα, η Σοσιαλιστική Ομάδα και οι Φιλελεύθεροι. Για ποιον λόγο; Τι φοβόσαστε από τη δημόσια συζήτηση και από τη δημόσια ακρόαση;
               

                  Θεωρώ λοιπόν ότι το ζήτημα αυτό θα είναι πάντοτε επίκαιρο, διότι με τρικ, με τροπολογίες δεν διαγράφεται η ιστορική μνήμη. Επομένως είναι απαίτηση του ελληνικού λαού, απαίτηση των χιλιάδων, των εκατομμυρίων θυμάτων του ναζισμού, να αποδοθεί δικαιοσύνη, και αυτό θα έπρεπε και εσείς οι ίδιοι, που κατάγεστε από τη Γερμανία, να το έχετε αντιληφθεί. Επομένως θα παραμείνει αυτό το ζήτημα ανοιχτό και στα επόμενα χρονικά διαστήματα.
               

Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.
               

                  Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί σήμερα στις 12 το μεσημέρι.
               


Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162)



Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD),
per iscritto. – La relazione annuale sulle attività della Commissione per le Petizioni è complessivamente soddisfacente. Condivisibile è l'evidenziazione da un lato dei miglioramenti da apportare nella risposta istituzionale alle denunce pervenute e, dall'altra, alla valorizzazione ulteriore del diritto di petizione. La finalità è infatti quella di un accrescimento generale dell'influenza dei cittadini nei processi decisionali UE. Viene sottolineato in maniera esaustiva come le petizioni siano uno strumento utile per individuare non solo violazioni del diritto UE ma anche lacune e contraddizioni del diritto UE rispetto all'obiettivo di assicurare la tutela dei diritti fondamentali dei cittadini. La partecipazione e il coinvolgimento degli stessi sono la principale risorsa per la costruzione di un'UE più legittima e più rispondente ai loro bisogni e aspettative.
               
4.   A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο είναι η έκθεση του Bas Eickhout, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Μεταφορών και Τουρισμού, σχετικά με μια ευρωπαϊκή στρατηγική για την κινητικότητα χαμηλών εκπομπών (2016/2327(INI)) (Α8-0356/2017)
               

Bas Eickhout,
rapporteur. – Mr President, on this Thursday morning we are going to talk about the European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility, which means of course talking about the transport sector – that is one of the more challenging sectors – in order to comply with the Paris Agreement. When we were getting to a deal in Paris, we knew that all the different sectors have to deliver their contribution,l and that is not so easy. It is nice to say yes to Paris, it is more difficult to implement it in specific sectors. For example, last night there were trilogues until about 5.30 on the effort sharing – where the transport sector belongs – but no deal was reached. This is just to show that words are nice, but deeds are more complicated.
What we are doing in this report is to give, as a Parliament, our reaction to the White Paper that the Commission has published on the future of low-emission mobility, which is a good start by the Commission, but in the end was very general on many issues, whereas in this report we are trying to become more concrete.
Looking at all the different sectors, what does it mean if you implement Paris? The first important message is that the transport sector should be close to zero emissions by mid-century, which means that the Commission White Paper, looking at the future of transport, needs to be updated, and Parliament is also clearly asking for that. But of course it also means sectoral activity.
I think that there will be a lot about cars in the debate. As always, in the Parliament we love to debate about cars. I just want to warn my colleagues that there is much more in the report than just that. What the car and the future of cars mean for CO2 emissions and for a mandate on zero-emission vehicles will of course be discussed. The report makes some statements on this, but the legislative proposal that the Commission put forward at the beginning of this month on CO2 limits in cars is going to be the legislative work on that.
What we further do in this report is to shine some light on all the different sectors and come up with different proposals, but one more overarching and important message that this report gives is that we have to get the pricing right. If we just look at the different modes of transport, we see that the different ways of pricing are unevenly distributed. One that springs to mind is the aviation sector. There too we know that, preferably, we will need global action, but it is also very important to realise that, in the end, European action also stimulates action at global level, as was happening at ICAO. That is also very clear. If Europe had not taken its step on ETS a couple of years ago, there would not have been a global deal in ICAO two years ago. I think that is also an important message.
The report does, of course, go further into infrastructural challenges and issues around logistics and digitalisation, looking at how these future technologies will provide options and opportunities. I think it is very important that the report also goes into the economic opportunities. If you go to a low-emission mobility transport, there are also opportunities for new sectors to thrive and to have future jobs. I think that is a very important message in this report as well. There will be some tight votes, I know that.
I want thank my shadow rapporteurs for their great work on it – I can see them all in this room – and I would also would like to thank Mr Zoffoli from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), who also actively contributed to the report with contributions from the ENVI Committee, bringing together a strong report. I hope this Parliament will send a strong message to the Commission to come forward with more legislative action to make sure that we will have near zero-emission transport by mid-century.

(Applause)


Damiano Zoffoli,
relatore per parere della commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la mobilità sostenibile a basse emissioni è uno degli elementi fondamentali della più ampia transizione verso un nuovo modello di sviluppo, di cui l'Europa ha bisogno per rimanere competitiva e creare nuova e buona occupazione.
               

                  Le emissioni di gas a effetto serra dei trasporti rappresentano un quarto del totale delle emissioni, sono in costante aumento e sono la causa principale dell'inquinamento atmosferico. Il parere della commissione ENVI, di cui sono stato relatore, che è stato recepito integralmente nella relazione in oggetto, prende in esame le emissioni di tutti i principali mezzi di trasporto: auto e furgoni, veicoli pesanti, aerei, navi, oltre al tema del superamento dei biocarburanti di prima generazione entro il 2030, tenendo in considerazione il cambiamento indiretto di destinazione d'uso dei terreni e incoraggiando un'ampia penetrazione nel mercato di quei carburanti avanzati che rispettino il principio della gerarchia dei rifiuti e forti criteri di sostenibilità.
               

                  Nel caso delle auto e dei furgoni, si chiedono target ambiziosi di CO2 per il 2025 e di sviluppare un test su strada per calcolare le emissioni reali. Per i veicoli pesanti, un'importante novità: dopo anni di discussioni inutili, finalmente entro il 2018 avremo un regolamento per il monitoraggio, la certificazione e la pubblicizzazione dei dati sulle emissioni e i consumi dei mezzi pesanti, e a seguire una proposta di limiti delle emissioni stesse.
               

                  Si invita inoltre la Commissione ad adottare un piano di azione ambizioso per l'immissione sul mercato dei veicoli elettrici. Infine, chiediamo un sistema di omologazione e vigilanza del mercato coordinato a livello di Unione europea per superare le carenze evidenziate dal ‘dieselgate’, riducendo a 1, entro il 2021, il fattore di conformità per le emissioni di ossido di azoto.
               

Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for the invitation to discuss our European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility. The Commission warmly welcomes Parliament's report and I would personally like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Bas Eickhout, and the shadow rapporteurs for their work on this report.
As highlighted in President Juncker's State of the Union address in September, we should strive to become the world leader in the fight against climate change. The transition to a modern and low-carbon economy is a key political priority for the Commission. We need to address this challenge of climate change and at the same time, we must strive to extend the competitive edge of our industries, generate sustainable economic growth and jobs, and drive innovation in clean technologies.
Transport is responsible for almost a quarter of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions and contributes significantly to air pollution. If we were to do nothing, the sector would become the largest emitter of CO2 emissions after 2030. Low-emission mobility is therefore absolutely essential to meet our commitments under the COP 21 Paris Agreement and also to meet the 2030 energy and climate goals we agreed on. A well-defined EU strategy for the transport sector is essential, and it must cover all three core areas: first, higher efficiency of the transport system; second, low-emission alternative energy for transport; and third, low and zero-emission vehicles.
By making our transport network more efficient, we can reduce the energy consumed, cut journey times and better serve the end user. There is a massive potential to make this happen by encouraging multimodal transport solutions and digitalisation.
We have already adopted in the past months a series of measures to foster the attractiveness of the most environmentally friendly modes of transport, specifically railways and inland navigation. The Commission also proposed recently additional measures to avoid empty runs in road freight operations, as well as in favour of combined transport and public transport by buses and coaches. We count on Parliament to support those initiatives.
On alternative energy however, it is not just about transport efficiency. The second area we are tackling is that of energy. Promoting alternative energy sources for transport is essential. At present, 94% of transport energy is still derived from oil. This means high emissions and dependency on imports. To speed up the transition to alternative energy, the Commission has proposed recasting the Renewable Energy Directive. We have a clear expectation that the proposed gradual reduction of conventional crop-based biofuels and increase of advanced biofuels will promote the development and deployment of innovative advanced renewable fuels.
We are also actively supporting the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructures, such as recharging stations for electric cars, with financial support, consumer information and standardisation activities. To stimulate electro mobility, it is crucial to ensure the interoperability of electric vehicle charging. Recharging an electric vehicle should be as easy as refuelling a conventional car.
With regards to zero and low-emission vehicles, which brings me to the third area, EU fuel efficiency standards for cars and vans have proven to be a strong driver for innovation and efficiency in vehicles. But emissions need to be reduced even further. This is why the Commission proposed, as part of its second mobility package, ambitious and realistic CO2 emission targets for cars and vans, while incentivising the further deployment of zero and low-emission vehicles. We also proposed additional measures to speed up market uptake and to accompany public authorities' efforts in this respect.
Action is also needed to reduce emissions from heavy duty vehicles and this will be proposed next year by the Commission in its third mobility package.
Let me conclude: only together can we make the implementation of this strategy a success. With the Clean Energy for all Europeans package, the Europe on the Move package and the Clean Mobility package, the Commission has already put forward proposals covering a large part of the action agenda of this strategy. We now very much count on your continued constructive support to the low-emissions strategy and the various initiatives that flow from it. I am looking forward to our discussion.

Massimiliano Salini,
a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, voglio ringraziare il relatore per il lavoro svolto.
               

                  È stato un lavoro che ha permesso a tutti noi di approfondire uno dei temi più cruciali, più decisivi per l'attuazione effettiva dell'accordo di Parigi, di COP21, ma è stato anche un lavoro molto franco, nel quale si sono evidenziate alcune differenze. Su queste abbiamo individuato un metodo per arrivare all'obiettivo che interessa a tutti, cioè far sì che, pur partendo da posizioni culturali differenti, COP21 non rimanga un obiettivo teorico, sulla carta. E purtroppo l'analisi fatta anche nel suo intervento iniziale dal relatore è corretta quando dice che la Commissione a COP21 ha aggiunto messaggi a volte troppo teorici.
               

                  Ecco, per dare concretezza a tutto questo, però, non possiamo pensare che questa concretezza dipenda da target altrettanto teorici, non possiamo pensare di inserire target a destra e a manca, illudendoci che questo sia il modo di attribuire concretezza a COP21. Noi dobbiamo rispondere a una domanda fondamentale: il trasporto è un punto centrale perché questa domanda abbia una risposta.
               

                  Noi abbiamo paesi emergenti nei quali c'è una domanda crescente di energia: l'India, in questo momento, ha attuato una politica che al 2040 porterà investimenti enormi sul nucleare e sulle rinnovabili. Ma nonostante questo, al 2040 l'India avrà ancora il 60 per cento di energia prodotta attraverso il carbone. E ad oggi in India ci sono 400 milioni di persone che non hanno energia.
               

                  Allora, non si fanno i target in Europa sulle macchine elettriche per risolvere il problema che non è stato risolto da COP21. È una politica globale attuata all'interno del WTO, in cui ci si dia la possibilità di consentire alle economie emergenti di attuare una politica di sviluppo che risponda alla loro domanda di energia attraverso fonti rinnovabili, fonti sostenibili.
               

                  Non è l'Europa il protagonista di questa risposta. L'Europa è un collaboratore di una risposta che va data a livello globale.
               

Karoline Graswander-Hainz,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Make our planet great again! So die Aufforderung vom französischen Präsidenten Macron, in Anspielung auf den Rückzug der USA aus der internationalen Klimadiplomatie unter US-Präsident Trump.
               

                  Die Aufgabe der Politik ist in diesem Zusammenhang meiner Meinung nach ganz klar: Wir müssen ambitionierte und klare Rahmenbedingungen für Bürgerinnen und Bürger und für die Wirtschaft schaffen. Unser Handeln und unser Umdenken werden schneller und radikaler erfolgen müssen, um die weltweite Erwärmung unter 2o Celsius zu halten.
               

                  Der vorliegende Bericht zur emissionsarmen Mobilität definiert dringend notwendige Ziele, um auch endlich im Verkehrssektor voranzukommen. Aus Sicht der sozialdemokratischen Fraktion möchte ich besonders hervorheben, dass es gelungen ist, den öffentlichen Verkehr als zentralen Referenzpunkt einer nachhaltigen Mobilität zu verankern, ambitionierte Verlagerungsziele zu definieren und mit Blick auf den internationalen Flug-, und Seeverkehr die Notwendigkeit klarer und fairer Preissignale in allen Verkehrsmodi herauszustreichen.
               

                  Ich bitte alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen – diesen Appell richte ich vor allem an die Volkspartei und an die Konservative –, um die Zustimmung zu diesem Bericht. Es liegt ein ambitionierter Text vor, auf den wir im Zuge der Arbeit an legislativen Dossiers verweisen können.
               

Kosma Złotowski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Ograniczenie emisji w sektorze transportu wymaga ogromnego wysiłku, który powinien być jednak rozłożony na lata. Wszelkie działania powinny uwzględniać złożoną naturę tego sektora i możliwości finansowe państw członkowskich. Rozwiązania, które proponuje nam pan poseł Eickhout, to w dużej mierze ‘papierowy tygrys’ – na pierwszy rzut oka imponujące swoim rozmachem i z pewnością pełne dobrych intencji, ale niezwykle trudne do szybkiego i skutecznego wdrożenia w całej Unii Europejskiej, nie tylko w kilku najbogatszych krajach.
               

                  W wielu przypadkach cenę za zbyt ambitną i wdrażaną pospiesznie politykę niskoemisyjnego transportu zapłacą konsumenci w kosztach biletów na pociąg czy samolot, w wydatkach na eksploatację prywatnych samochodów czy w cenie każdego produktu, który codziennie jest przywożony do naszych osiedlowych sklepów. Dla wielu przedsiębiorstw, które będą musiały wymienić całe floty wykorzystywanych pojazdów, aby sprostać restrykcyjnym normom klimatycznym, może to oznaczać trudne do poniesienia koszty. Może to oznaczać wręcz kres ich działalności.
               

                  Grupa ECR nie może poprzeć sprawozdania, które w tak małym zakresie uwzględnia skutki finansowe proponowanych rozwiązań. Opowiadamy się za ewolucyjnymi rozwiązaniami w zakresie ochrony klimatu, dostosowanymi do możliwości europejskiej gospodarki, i rozsądnym kalendarzem. Niestety to sprawozdanie tych kryteriów nie spełnia.
               

Matthijs van Miltenburg,
namens de ALDE-Fractie. – De commissaris heeft het zojuist gezegd. Als we niets doen, dan wordt onze mobiliteit de grootste bron van broeikasgas na 2030. Het is dus tijd voor actie, want we moeten naar minder uitstoot in Europa.
               

                  Het voorliggende verslag van Bas Eickhout is evenwichtig en ambitieus, en het roept op tot actie. Actie om te voorkomen dat na 2035 nog nieuwe auto's op de Europese markt kunnen komen die CO2 uitstoten. Actie om infrastructuur voor alternatieve brandstoffen uit te rollen door heel Europa. Maar ook actie om heel consequent het principe dat de gebruiker, de vervuiler betaalt, in het transport in te voeren, voor het wegvervoer, maar zeker ook voor andere modaliteiten zoals bijvoorbeeld de luchtvaart.
               

                  Laten we vooral met zijn allen ervoor zorgen dat er eerlijk geconcurreerd wordt tussen de verschillende vervoersmodaliteiten. Dat betekent dan ook dat de Europese Commissie internationaal de boer op moet gaan om te kijken wat we kunnen gaan doen aan de vrijstelling van btw op vliegtickets. Of wat we kunnen gaan doen om uiteindelijk eerst gewoon accijnzen in te voeren op kerosine. Want waarom, Voorzitter, zou ik vandaag de dag op een ticket voor de trein tussen Amsterdam en Parijs btw moeten betalen, terwijl ik voor hetzelfde vliegticket tussen die twee plaatsen absoluut geen btw hoeft te betalen? Dat valt gewoon niet langer uit te leggen aan onze burgers, simpelweg omdat het niet eerlijk is.
               

                  De consument moet een goede afweging kunnen maken op basis van een eerlijke prijs. Dus ik ben het, als liberaal, geheel ermee eens dat we prijsstimulansen gaan gebruiken om tot verduurzaming te komen. En, Voorzitter, die btw-vrijstelling, maar ook het feit dat er geen accijnzen zitten op kerosine, dat is eigenlijk slechts een voorbeeld van iets dat we moeten gaan aanpakken, juist om een omslag te bewerkstelligen. Want, afrondend, als we klimaatverandering willen tegengaan, als we willen zorgen voor een gezonder leefmilieu, dan moeten we niet alleen anders gaan denken over mobiliteit, maar vooral anders gaan handelen.
               

Kateřina Konečná,
za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Pane předsedající, děkuji především panu zpravodaji za velmi důležitou zprávu. Doprava je totiž zdrojem více než 25 % emisí skleníkových plynů v Evropské unii. Silniční doprava přitom produkuje více než 70 % emisí skleníkových plynů v dopravě. Je proto třeba přijmout opatření především v této oblasti, avšak zároveň by mělo být zvýšeno úsilí o snižování emisí ve všech odvětvích dopravy.
               

                  V této souvislosti velmi vítám debaty o možnostech elektrifikace dopravy, a to zejména té silniční. Ráda bych pouze podotkla, že by nebylo zcela rozumné vsadit vše na jednu kartu. Debata by se měla vést i o prospěšnosti zemních plynů a biometanu, syntetického metanu a zkapalněného ropného plynu. Možností je více a musíme brát v úvahu, že jich v budoucnu může nadále přibývat. Debata na toto téma musí být věcná, a zejména realistická. Musíme žádat pouze to, co je skutečně splnitelné, a nikoliv vysněné a musíme si také uvědomit, že s rozvojem alternativních technologií je nezbytně nutné postavit nutnou a potřebnou infrastrukturu. Bez té si o tom můžeme opravdu jen snít.
               

                  Dámy a pánové, srdečně doufám, že nebudeme toto téma opomíjet. Znečištění ovzduší má totiž v Evropské unii každoročně na svědomí více než čtyři sta tisíc předčasných úmrtí, což považuji za trestuhodné a neakceptovatelné. Zde musíme sjednat nápravu.
               

Karima Delli,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, souvenez-vous, il n'y a pas longtemps, 2009-2010, l'Europe était le leader de la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique; nous votions un paquet ‘climat-énergie’ pour fixer un cap à notre industrie en termes d'efficacité énergétique. Mais qu'avons-nous fait depuis?
               

                  Les chiffres ne mentent pas, hélas! De 1990 à 2015, les émissions des transports ont augmenté de 16 %. Depuis 2015, c'est le seul secteur qui augmente encore. Les transports représentent 25 % des gaz à effet de serre en Europe, dont 70 % pour le transport routier. La pollution de l'air provoque chaque année 400 000 morts prématurées en Europe. Elle entraîne des dépenses de santé allant de 330 à 940 milliards d'euros par an. Mais nous devons faire quelque chose pour changer cela. C'est maintenant!
               

                  Je vous rappelle que votre Commission s'était engagée en 2011 à ce que, d'ici à 2050, l'Europe réduise de 60 % les émissions de CO2 des transports par rapport à 1990. Mais comment? C'est là qu'il faut être ferme et on a une belle feuille de route avec le rapport de M. Eickhout. Ne finançons plus la recherche sur le diesel, même le patron de Volkswagen le dit désormais. Idem pour l'aviation: taxons enfin le kérosène, cessons cette TVA au rabais pour les billets. Au contraire, mettons en place le principe du ‘pollueur-payeur’, notamment dans le transport routier, en basant les redevances sur la distance et non plus sur le temps. Fixons des quotas obligatoires de production de véhicules propres pour les constructeurs automobiles plutôt que de les inciter à le faire.
               

                  Hélas, à la lecture des propositions de votre Commission sur les émissions de CO2 des véhicules, on dirait que l'Europe attend que le marché fasse des merveilles, alors que la Chine a décidé de produire un minimum de 10 % de véhicules électriques dès 2019. C'est beau de critiquer M. Donald Trump sur ses engagements climatiques, mais c'est mieux que l'Europe reprenne le leadership en matière de changement climatique et devienne exemplaire.
               

                  C'est pourquoi, mes chers collègues, je vous demande de suivre notre rapporteur, M. Eickhout, afin de réaffirmer une ambition ferme. Notre objectif doit être clair: réduire réellement les émissions de CO2 des transports en Europe. Monsieur le Commissaire, je le dis avec une grande fermeté: nous ne pouvons plus danser sur un volcan, c'est maintenant ou jamais.
               

Daniela Aiuto,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa relazione contiene senza dubbio diversi elementi positivi, quali l'attenzione alla promozione e allo sviluppo delle tecnologie alternative per la mobilità, in primis l'elettrico, gli incentivi fiscali dedicati ai veicoli a zero emissioni e, parallelamente, finalmente, l'eliminazione graduale degli incentivi economici alle fonti fossili.
               

                  Facciamo attenzione, tuttavia, affinché le tempistiche ambiziose entro cui raggiungere tutto ciò possano concretizzarsi realmente. Occorre fissare anche degli step intermedi nel breve e medio periodo per riuscire ad arrivare agli obiettivi del 2020 e del 2035. Bene anche l'indicazione per promuovere gli appalti pubblici verdi. Non dimentichiamoci, però, che la vera transizione alle fonti sostenibili deve considerare sia gli aspetti diretti sia indiretti dell'utilizzo di una fonte energetica. Per questo, molto meglio sarebbe diversificare le soluzioni di mobilità sostenibile, anziché concentrarsi solo sull'elettrico.
               

                  E teniamo anche presente quanto importanti siano gli investimenti pubblici in aziende che devono approcciarsi a un mercato, come quello dei trasporti in Europa, che oggi dipende dai prodotti petroliferi ancora per oltre il 90 per cento.
               

Wim van de Camp (PPE). – Ik heb van zeer nabij mogen zien hoe rapporteur Bas Eickhout en de schaduwrapporteurs geknokt hebben om dit verslag met een goede inhoud af te leveren. Er zijn natuurlijk veel warme woorden over vergroening, maar als het op daden aankomt dan is de realiteit toch wel iets complexer dan gedacht. Wij willen allemaal COP 21 morgen gerealiseerd hebben. Maar ik zei het al, het leven is sterker dan de leer en we moeten een beetje oppassen met de ondertoon van dit verslag, dat het een te eenzijdige inhoud gaat krijgen.
               

                  Elektrische auto's in zo'n moeilijke stad als Brussel, alle verbrandingsauto's vervangen door elektrische auto's, dat levert het voor verkeersprobleem geen oplossing op. Het mag hier nauwelijks gezegd worden, maar de industrie moet omschakelen. Daar hebben ze tijd voor nodig en innovatie. Burgers hikken nog steeds aan tegen een te hoge prijs voor die elektrische auto. Ik vraag opnieuw aandacht voor de klassieke modal shift van weg en vliegtuig naar rail en binnenvaart.
               

Ismail Ertug (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es handelt sich hier um einen sehr ausführlichen Bericht, der alle Facetten des Transports und der Potentiale zur Dekarbonisierung aufzeigt. In diesem Sinne: Herzlichen Dank an den Berichterstatter Bas Eickhout und an unsere Schattenberichterstatterin, Frau Kollegin Graswander-Hainz.
               

                  Es ist wohl unbestritten, dass der Verkehr und der Transport im Allgemeinen sauberer werden muss, und es ist auch kein Widerspruch, dass wir einerseits die ökologischen Ziele erreichen können, andererseits aber auch die industrielle Basis mit ihren vielen Hunderttausenden von Arbeitsplätzen nicht nur erhalten, sondern auch ausbauen können. Nötig ist dazu allerdings eine kohärente mittel- bis langfristige Strategie.
               

                  Mobilität ist eben ein komplexes System, in dem jedes Teilsystem eine eigene Funktionslogik hat. Urbaner Verkehr zum Beispiel funktioniert anders als Langstreckenverkehr, und Pkw-Verkehr funktioniert anders als Lkw-Verkehr, Luftverkehr oder auch Schiffsverkehr. Um vor allem die Emissionen zu senken, müssen wir in den Städten, also im urbanen Verkehr, ansetzen. Öffentliche Verkehrsmittel und auch das Fahrrad müssen dadurch attraktiver werden, und wir müssen auch die Carsharing-Angebote fördern. Die Digitalisierung bringt natürlich auch große Chancen mit sich. Die Digitalisierung, die digitalen Anwendungen und die digitale Vernetzung bieten nach meinem Dafürhalten auch eine große Chance zur Dekarbonisierung.
               

                  Was machen wir auf der Langstrecke? Auf der Langstrecke müssen die Verkehre – so haben wir das im Europäischen Parlament ja auch wiederholt vereinbart und mit der Kommission und dem Rat zu Papier gebracht – auf die Schiene verlagert werden. Ich erinnere hier noch mal an die verschiedenen Weißbücher, die das aufgegriffen haben. Wenn uns das gelingen soll, muss eben auch die Schiene, sprich die Bahn, attraktiver werden, und sie muss entlastet werden, was ihre Abgabenbelastung anbelangt. Es muss europaweit auch in die Infrastruktur investiert werden.
               

                  Und wenn wir über die Infrastruktur sprechen – sehr geehrter Kommissar, Sie haben es angesprochen –: Natürlich, alternative Antriebe und alternative Kraftstoffe müssen ausgebaut werden. Da wundert es mich aber schon – lassen Sie mich das noch sagen –, dass die Kommission im Mobilitätspaket lediglich mit einer Mitteilung gekommen ist und nicht mit Gesetzgebung.
               

                  Egal wie, der Bericht ist gut, ihm sollte zugestimmt werden.
               

                  Having said this, colleagues, dear President: I wish all of you Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
               

Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Een rentmeester krijgt het beheer over iets en moet die taak waardevol en toekomstbestendig uitoefenen. Voor mij is de mens de rentmeester over deze schepping en die verantwoordelijkheid vraagt van ons de uitstoot van vieze stoffen, ook in de transportsector, tegen te gaan. In het verslag van collega Eickhout staat dat goed beschreven en ik focus even op twee goede punten en een wat minder sterk punt.
               

                  Eén, het luchtverkeer is een zeer vervuilende modaliteit en terecht vraagt de collega aandacht voor de beprijzing van kerosine en vliegtickets. Dat is echt nodig om de schonere wereld, ook in de luchtvaart, door te zetten.
               

                  Twee, het vrachtverkeer moet zeker ook de omslag gaan maken naar schoner en beter, minder vervuilend en duurzaam, en dat betekent ruim baan voor innovatie. Ik ben dus erg blij dat in paragraaf 93 van het verslag een duidelijk pleidooi wordt gehouden voor de Ecocombi. Gelukkig, want de Ecocombi neemt heel veel kilometers weg die gemaakt worden door kleinere trucks. Daarom is het prima dat de Ecocombi zo prominent aan bod komt.
               

                  Drie, wat de spoorparagraaf betreft, die vind ik wel erg ideologisch. De vele miljoenen die voor de modal shift naar het spoor zijn gegaan hebben gewoon niet gewerkt. Je ziet dat de modal shift van het spoor uiteindelijk niet tot stand is gekomen.
               

                  We moeten kijken naar meer creatieve ideeën, bijvoorbeeld meer verbinding tussen binnenvaart en wegvervoer. Maar over het algemeen, dank aan de rapporteur. Goed verslag dat het rentmeesterschap in de transportsector goed neerzet!
               

Ulrike Müller (ALDE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Verkehrssektor ist heute immer noch zu 95 % von fossilen Kraftstoffen abhängig und ist der einzige Sektor, in dem die Treibhausgasemissionen innerhalb der letzten 25 Jahre sogar gestiegen sind.
               

                  Ich begrüße unseren Bericht zur emissionsarmen Mobilität sehr. Wir setzen wichtige Impulse für eine saubere und effizientere Mobilität. Zwei Punkte möchte ich aber noch einmal besonders hervorheben.
               

                  Erstens: Wenn wir ökologisch und ökonomisch sinnvolle Lösungen finden wollen, muss Technologieoffenheit das leitende Prinzip sein. Es wird nicht eine einzige Lösung für alle Formen von Mobilität geben. Bei allen Stärken des batterie-elektrischen Antriebs sollten wir alle anderen Innovationen nicht voreilig abwürgen.
               

                  Zweitens: Diese Strategie darf nicht nur für die Stadtbewohner sein. Wir dürfen auch die Mobilitätsbedürfnisse der Menschen in den ländlichen Regionen Europas nicht vergessen. Gerade dort, wo die Bereitstellung öffentlichen Verkehrs zunehmend schwieriger wird, müssen wir auch in Zukunft bezahlbare Mobilität sicherstellen.
               

Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, no dudo de que la intención de reducir las emisiones en el transporte es sincera y compartida por la mayoría de esta Cámara, pero se trata de una hoja de ruta insostenible si supeditamos la transición verde al objetivo de reducir costes y aumentar los beneficios de las compañías privadas.
               

                  Es insostenible ambientalmente, según la lógica del mercado, muy alejado de la sostenibilidad ecológica, como estamos viendo con la devastadora expansión de los biocombustibles o con el crecimiento desproporcionado de actividades como la aviación.
               

                  Pero también es insostenible socialmente, porque no pueden generarse consensos hacia otro modelo productivo a través de privatizaciones o de la precarización de las condiciones de trabajo. Debemos romper la estrategia trazada en el Libro Blanco y reconciliar transición social y transición ecológica en las políticas de transporte de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Este y no otro es el camino para seguir en Europa.
               

Jakop Dalunde (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Vi diskuterar nu hur vi ska ställa om Europas transportsystem för att nå ett utsläppssnålt transportsystem, vilket är avgörande om vi ska kunna hålla våra löften från Paris.
               

                  Och då vill jag lyfta fram tre stycken förslag. Det första förslaget: avståndsbaserade avgifter för godstrafik på väg. Vi måste tillämpa den marknadsekonomiska idén polluter pays. Det är den som orsakar problemet som ska betala för lösningen av problemet.
               

                  Och då måste det bli mer lönsamt att flytta över godstrafik från vägar till tåget, och då ska lastbilarna betala för sina klimatkostnader. Det måste också vara så att medelst avgifter så bidrar det till innovation och effektivitet på vägarna, för i dagsläget är det så att våra vägar är fyllda med halvtomma lastbilar. Om vi flyttar över mer trafik från vägar till tåg så kommer det att skapa utrymme för dem som faktiskt måste använda vägarna i framtiden.
               

                  Två: flyget måste betala för sin klimatpåverkan. Det är orimligt att flyget ska kunna smita från klimatnotan. Det är visserligen bra att EU nu tar steg framåt för att börja inkludera flyget i EU:s utsläppshandel, men vi är fortfarande långt ifrån att flyget ska betala hela sin klimatnota.
               

                  Vi måste inkludera flygresor till och från flygplatser utanför Europa. Vi måste också inkludera de s.k. höghöjdseffekterna. Det påverkar nämligen klimatet mer när flygplan släpper ut klimatstörande gaser uppe i luften än nere på marken men trots det så räknas inte det med i systemet i dagsläget. Det är orimligt.
               

                  Tre: stora investeringar i hållbar infrastruktur. För mina två tidigare förslag innebär det ökade skatteintäkter som vi då kan använda till massiva investeringar i infrastruktur.
               

                  Men om vi ska klara våra klimatmål så måste, från och med nu, alla investeringar gå i hållbar riktning. Det innebär mer kollektivtrafik, mer järnväg, mer höghastighetståg och nattåg. Om vi gör detta kommer vi att göra det lättare för människor att i framtiden göra det som är enkelt, billigt och smart för klimatet.
               

                  Det kommer vi gröna att kämpa för.
               

Jill Seymour (EFDD). – Mr President, this report is all well and good if it continues to allow citizens the freedom to choose how they travel. It was after the 1997 Kyoto Agreement that our Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced in 1998 that diesel cars should attract less vehicle tax than their petrol equivalent because of their better CO2 performance. Then in 2001 Mr Brown reduced vehicle tax on cars with low CO2. This was a major change to encourage the public to buy diesel cars. Yet now we are increasingly seeing dramatic change to what forms of transport we are to use.
The report also seeks to comprehensively reduce the attractiveness of private forms of transport. In other words, the EU is driving us out of our cars. In a nutshell: user pays, polluter pays. As regards ‘polluter pays’, what I do find positive is a move towards zero emissions based on consumer choice, and I stress consumer choice. What I do not find helpful is knee-jerk solutions that punish the driver before any proper infrastructure is in place.
Certainly, after watching the grand tour this weekend, it is clear that EVs are becoming more efficient and user-friendly, but many citizens do not have the financial capabilities to change their cars, and this needs to be addressed.
Just as citizens need time to prepare, so does the manufacturing industry. They still have forecourts full of petrol and diesel cars. Encouraging the development of hybrids will help aid the transition. UK-based Jaguar Landrover is one company, like others, who recognised the need to change and should be commended on their projects. They are reducing NOX and particles which are harmful. It is also wrong for the EU to force a change through financial penalties, dividing those who can afford and those who cannot.
While some parts of this report are moving in the right direction, it will be up to the UK Government – and it alone – to set the standards once we gain our independence in 2019. I finally leave my Christmas message to you all. The UK referendum ballot paper asked: Should the United Kingdom remain a Member of the European Union or leave the European Union? I hope the House of Commons respects their decision. They voted to leave. Merry Christmas, everyone.

Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Gegen eine europäische Strategie für emissionsarme Mobilität kann man nun wirklich nichts haben.
               

                  Doch lasst uns bei all den guten Ansätzen die Verhältnismäßigkeit nicht aus den Augen verlieren. Mit der Festsetzung von klaren Zielen sind wir auf einem richtigen Weg. Was wir nicht brauchen, sind europäische Vorgaben, wie diese Ziele zu erreichen sind.
               

                  Vielmehr brauchen wir einen technologieneutralen Ansatz, der den gesamten Fußabdruck berücksichtigt. Wer glaubt, dass nur Elektrofahrzeuge Nullemissionsfahrzeuge sind, der sollte sich fragen, wo die Energie für diese denn herkommt und wie sie und ihre Batterien hergestellt beziehungsweise entsorgt werden. Die Festlegung einer Mindestzahl für den Anteil an Elektrofahrzeugen ist für mich unverhältnismäßig. Wir sollten es vor allem unterlassen, bestimmte Verkehrsträger zu bestrafen, denn jeder Verkehrsträger hat seinen Platz, vor allem im intermodalen Verkehr.
               

                  Grundsätzlich halte ich nichts von Bestrafung, denn ist es zielführender, Anreize zu schaffen für energie- und umweltschonende Maßnahmen. Deshalb brauchen wir keine Kerosinbesteuerung und auch das generelle Verteufeln des Dieselmotors beziehungsweise von Verbrennungsmotorenganz allgemein kann ich nicht akzeptieren. Vor allem sollten wir uns mehr auf die bestehenden Energieeinsparungsmöglichkeiten konzentrieren, als da sind: die Vollendung des einheitlichen europäischen Himmels, der Einsatz von bestimmten Fahrerassistenzsystemen oder auch die Weiterentwicklung der öffentlichen Verkehrssysteme.
               

Isabella De Monte (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per realizzare l'economia circolare, la transizione verso una mobilità a basse emissioni è fondamentale. I sistemi di trasporto europei sopperiscono alle esigenze di mobilità, ma sono anche fonte di innumerevoli problematiche, quali le emissioni di gas a effetto serra e l'inquinamento atmosferico dei centri abitati. Dal 2030, inoltre, il settore dei trasporti diventerà la principale fonte di emissioni di gas a effetto serra in Europa.
               

                  Occorre un'economia a basse emissioni e seguire una strategia per una mobilità più rispettosa dell'ambiente e della salute dei cittadini. Per raggiungere questi obiettivi, il settore dei trasporti deve migliorare la sua efficienza attraverso tecnologie digitali, tariffazione stradale intelligente e multimodalità. Dobbiamo inoltre incoraggiare lo sviluppo e l'utilizzo di energie alternative e veicoli a emissioni zero.
               

                  Infine, questa transizione avrà un grande impatto sul mercato del lavoro e richiederà una manodopera con nuove competenze, aprendo quindi nuove possibilità di lavoro per giovani altamente formati.
               

João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, acompanhamos muitas das considerações e recomendações que o relatório deixa, mas é evidente que o relatório que hoje se discute poderia, deveria, ter sido mais ambicioso, nomeadamente na necessidade da defesa e investimento em setores que já se enquadram na mobilidade hipocarbónica, como o transporte ferroviário.
               

                  Se entendermos a necessidade de medidas concretas para a redução de emissões do setor do transporte, entendemos igualmente que são necessárias profundas alterações ao nível do ordenamento do território, das políticas de desenvolvimento regional e local, dos modelos de distribuição, da construção, gestão e manutenção das redes, infraestruturas e serviços de transportes públicos coletivos, das políticas públicas de transporte, do planeamento e manutenção das redes viárias e rodoviárias.
               

                  Tal só será possível no quadro de uma rutura com os condicionamentos e as políticas da União Europeia que possibilitem, no quadro da soberania dos Estados, a definição de pujantes políticas de investimento público associadas ao controlo público de setores estratégicos como sejam os transportes ou a energia.
               

Mireille D'Ornano (EFDD). – Monsieur le Président, je remercie le rapporteur pour son travail. J'approuve un certain nombre de ses propositions, comme l'exigence de signaux de prix de transport clairs, en application des principes du ‘pollueur-payeur’ et de l'‘utilisateur-payeur’. Pour autant, cela me semble difficilement conciliable avec la libéralisation progressive des différents secteurs de transport au sein de l'Union européenne.
               

                  Il est en outre paradoxal de vouloir réduire les taux d'émission alors que l'Union européenne promeut, à travers le programme ‘Réseau transeuropéen de transport’, l'accélération de l'intégration des nouveaux États membres, ainsi que la réalisation d'un marché intérieur, idéalement sans obstacle.
               

                  Je regrette enfin qu'aucune mention ne soit faite de la question de la mobilité des travailleurs, encouragée déraisonnablement par l'Union européenne. En effet, de ce phénomène inquiétant découle une exigence croissante de mobilité et donc d'émissions de CO2 supplémentaires, alors qu'il faudrait, au contraire, protéger l'emploi dans chaque pays, mais pour cela faudrait-il encore en avoir la volonté.
               

Markus Pieper (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Zunächst zur Geschäftsordnung. Ich dachte, die Gesetzgebungsvorschläge der Kommission für weniger Emissionen bei Pkws und Lkws sind seit Wochen auf dem Tisch.
               

                  Warum beschäftigen wir uns heute nicht konkret und sehr schnell und mit dieser Gesetzgebung, auch im Sinne eines schnellen Umweltschutzes? Warum verschwenden wir unsere Zeit und das Geld der Steuerzahler heute mit Wunschdenken und eher unrealistischen Zielen? Danke aber an die Schattenberichterstatter, insbesondere an Massimiliano Salini, der aus grünen Utopien doch etwas mehr Realität gemacht hat.
               

                  Wir alle wollen schnell ins emissionsfreie Zeitalter. Das geht aber nur, wenn wir Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft Freiräume für Innovationen lassen. Das ist auch der politische Unterschied. Wir sprechen über einen Gestaltungsrahmen, in den wir gesetzliche Rahmenbedingungen für technische Neuentwicklungen geben, technologieoffen, mit den Unternehmen, mit den Bürgern.
               

                  Die Grünen und die Linken wollen nicht gestalten. Sie wollen verbieten und erziehen. Sie sprechen von einem Verbotsrahmen, von Quoten, von Einsparzwängen, von Scheuklappen bei der Technologieauswahl. Ob Elektromobilität oder energieeffiziente Gebäude – geben wir doch Sonne, Wind und Wasser eine Chance, so schnell und kostengünstig wie möglich in die Häuser und in die Autos zu kommen.
               

                  Das können nicht wenige Politiker vordenken. Dazu brauchen wir die Innovationskraft von Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft. Dazu brauchen wir einen fairen Gestaltungsrahmen.
               

Christine Revault d'Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, l'Union européenne est la région du monde la plus avancée en matière de normes environnementales et de lutte contre le changement climatique. Cela ne veut pas dire qu'elle doit se reposer sur ses lauriers. Au contraire, cela l'oblige à aller toujours plus loin pour ouvrir la voie et, surtout, faire en sorte que tous ses États membres respectent et appliquent la législation.
               

                  À cet égard, la stratégie européenne pour une mobilité à faibles émissions se doit d'être ambitieuse et globale. Le rapport sur lequel nous voterons dans quelques heures est exigeant et réaliste. Il propose des pistes d'actions concrètes. C'est un document sur lequel les législateurs pourront s'appuyer au moment de décliner nos intentions en textes à force obligatoire.
               

                  Son champ est trop large pour entrer dans les détails en une minute trente. C'est pourquoi je me concentrerai sur une dimension qui me paraît essentielle: l'application des principes du ‘pollueur-payeur’ et de l'‘utilisateur-payeur’. Les transports génèrent de la pollution, c'est un fait, et même si l'on peut essayer de la diminuer, elle ne sera jamais nulle. Les transports nécessiteront toujours des infrastructures ad hoc, d'autant plus que les véhicules sont de plus en plus sophistiqués.
               

                  Cependant, on peut essayer de diminuer la pollution à la source, mais pour que cela soit fait efficacement, il faut un objectif minimum contraignant pour les constructeurs, sinon cela restera un vœu pieux. Ce sera également bénéfique pour la compétitivité de l'industrie automobile européenne, car elle restera à la pointe de l'innovation technologique.
               

                  En complément, il apparaît indispensable de faire financer les infrastructures et les effets négatifs, dits ‘coûts externes’, par ceux qui les utilisent. Sinon, ce sont les contribuables qui payent, et c'est profondément injuste. Ces principes sont d'ailleurs inscrits dans le traité. Je soutiens donc leur mise en œuvre pour tous les véhicules en Europe.
               

Διαδικασία Catch-the-Eye


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, tutti i firmatari dell'accordo di Parigi si sono impegnati a limitare le emissioni di CO2. I sistemi di trasporto elettrico, privati o pubblici, possono contribuire a risolvere i principali problemi legati alla mobilità urbana attraverso una riduzione delle emissioni e la completa eliminazione degli inquinanti e del rumore dalle nostre città.
               

                  Ma il grado di sostenibilità dei veicoli elettrici dipende anche dal ricorso all'energia elettrica prodotta da fonti rinnovabili, inserendosi quindi in un sistema più complesso. La transizione verso una mobilità a basse emissioni, quindi, costituisce non solo un'opportunità per i costruttori e i fornitori del settore automobilistico, ferroviario, marittimo e aeronautico, ma anche e soprattutto una sfida a ripensare il nostro sistema di approvvigionamento energetico nel suo complesso.
               

                  La transizione verso una mobilità a basse emissioni ha bisogno di nuovi modelli commerciali, industriali ed occupazionali, che favoriscano partenariati innovativi tra grandi imprese, PMI e startup, dando vita a quella nuova rivoluzione industriale in cui l'Europa ha investito e in cui si trova in prima linea, grazie ai suoi talenti e alle sue professionalità.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση που συζητούμε πραγματικά είναι ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρουσα, διότι θίγει το σοβαρό ζήτημα των εκπομπών αερίων ρύπων. Αυτό είναι ένα θέμα το οποίο πρέπει να μας απασχολήσει, να μας απασχολήσει ιδίως στον τομέα των μεταφορών. Όμως, για να γίνουν οι αλλαγές, χρειάζονται επενδύσεις, διότι οι αλλαγές αυτές προϋποθέτουν σημαντικές τεχνολογικές εξελίξεις. Χρειάζονται νέες υποδομές. Για να έχουμε αυτές τις αλλαγές στο κομμάτι των σιδηροδρόμων, αντιλαμβάνεστε ότι απαιτούνται τεράστιες δαπάνες. Το ίδιο αν θα έχουμε αλλαγές και στη ναυτιλία και στην αεροπορική βιομηχανία και κυρίως στην αυτοκινητοβιομηχανία. Νομίζω ότι είναι ευκαιρία να ανοίξει ο δρόμος για νέες επενδύσεις, να ανοίξει ο δρόμος για τεχνολογικές εξελίξεις, και αυτή η έκθεση διαμορφώνει ένα πλαίσιο το οποίο στην πορεία θα μπορούσαμε να ακολουθήσουμε.
               

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA


varapuhemies


Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamna președintă, domnule comisar, sunt membră a Comisiei TRAN și cred că este nevoie de îmbunătățirea mobilității transportului, evident, ținând cont de reducerea emisiilor, pentru că statistica arată că 25 % din emisiile din Uniunea Europeană sunt din partea transportului și 70 % din transportul rutier.
                  

                     Mă bucur că în raport s-a pus accentul pe transportul urban, unde putem să avem o contribuție majoră în reducerea emisiilor și cred că este important să se treacă la combustibili alternativi mai întâi la acest nivel.
                  

                     Știm că, potrivit Organizației Mondiale a Sănătății, zgomotul produs de traficul rutier reprezintă cel de al doilea factor de stres din mediul înconjurător. Este nevoie, așadar, de o tranziție spre un transport ecologic; de aceea, este nevoie de investiții în cercetare, în industria auto, pentru a putea avea mijloace de transport eficiente și nepoluante.
                  

                     În Cartea albă privind transportul din 2011 se arată foarte clar că avem nevoie de o politică de mobilitate durabilă și că trebuie să ne bazăm pe o gamă largă de instrumente politice, care să asigure o tranziție eficientă. Apreciez, domnule comisar, că ați menționat că trebuie să ne stabilim ținte realiste.
                  

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank Members for their comments, and I would like to underline that the low-emission strategy will bring significant benefits in addressing the environmental footprint of transport in a comprehensive and graduated manner. The transport sector has to contribute its share of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There is no doubt about that. The process to the low-emission strategy will also contribute to making our industry stronger and more competitive, and it will help clean up the environment for citizens and improve their quality of life through better air quality in cities and reducing congestion.
I agree with the point raised about urgency. Yes, we need to act, and we need to act now. We have already initiated a series of initiatives to support the move to lower emissions. Member States and local authorities, educational and research institutes, as well as producers and investors can all provide much-needed incentives.
One of the comments referred to the Commission's approach to alternative fuels as only a communication and not as a legislative proposal. As specified in Directive 2014/94 on the deployment of alternative fuels, by the end of 2018 the Commission will present an action plan on alternative fuels infrastructures. We presented this action plan in November of this year. Regarding a legislative proposal amending the directive, this is foreseen for before the end of 2020 if the Commission considers the need for it.
A number of speakers also mentioned the importance of addressing aviation and the maritime transport sector. In order to effectively address emissions from international sectors, such as aviation and maritime, global solutions are needed. The EU is fully committed and strongly contributing to the ongoing processes for reaching effective and ambitious measures within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). For the Commission, this is a priority.
There was also a mention ofthe need for horizontal initiatives or horizontal enablers, and I can refer to a number of initiatives that are in place which should strengthen the impact of the steps outlined above. For instance, advancing the electromobility update by encouraging consumers to charge batteries at off-peak times through new rules for electricity market design. In addition, there are preparations for an EU strategy on research, innovation and competitiveness that should bring together energy technologies, transport and industry and facilitate the development of energy storage solutions, such as the next generation batteries, and focus more on research into advanced bio and synthetic fuels.
Rules for a Digital Single Market should set standards for using digital technologies in transport and ensure free flow of data. The shift, as already mentioned by Mr Eickhout, to low-emission mobility will also have an impact on jobs in the transport sector, which currently account for 15 million or 7% of EU jobs, by requiring new skills. This challenge has been taken up in the New Skills Agenda for Europe. This strategy therefore aims to develop a horizontal enablers' programme as well, in order to create the right framework conditions for innovation and investment in the low-emissions sector.
I would like once again to thank the European Parliament for this constructive cooperation on this file. I would also once again like to thank Mr Eickhout and the shadow rapporteurs. We all look forward to a positive vote.

Bas Eickhout,
rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to say thank you to the Commissioner, and also to colleagues, for the very interesting debate we have had this morning. One thing that is striking is that some of my colleagues read ‘prohibition’ in this report and they read that we are favouring one certain technology specifically. I would like to ask them where they read that. When we are putting a mandate on zero-emission vehicles it is probably you who then reads ‘electric cars’. Maybe that says something about your obsession rather than what is in the report, because it is just a mandate on zero-emission vehicles. Anything that can comply with that will deliver. It does not say ‘electric cars’. Point out to me where ‘electric cars’ is explicitly mentioned. I think it is a bit of a preoccupation with some of my colleagues that they read ‘electric cars’ everywhere, as if that is the biggest enemy.
I think, in the end, we have to clean up our air, we have to lower emissions and it is possible. I really want to stress that it is possible and, if we do it in time, it will make sure that the jobs we have will remain in Europe. If we do not do it, the rest of the world will move ahead and we will start importing their techniques instead of producing them ourselves. I think that what the Brits would say is ‘penny wise, pound foolish’. I would like to stress that we really have to be careful not to make that mistake.
For the rest, I really would like to thank everyone for the cooperation. I am looking forward to the vote. I would like to say thank you very much to the Commission, but you say we have all the proposals on the table, though you also know very well that some of these proposals are not so ambitious at all. In the end, Paris implementation also requires the Commission to come forward with proposals that really deliver on that, and I therefore plead to my colleagues not only to accept this report, setting nice targets, but when we are talking about legislative proposals that we also really will make sure that they will deliver on what is needed to implement Paris. Thank you once more. I am looking forward to the vote and future debates.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
                  

                     Äänestys toimitetaan torstaina 14.12.2017.
                  


Kirjalliset lausumat (työjärjestyksen 162 artikla)



Ivo Belet (PPE),
schriftelijk. – Alle economische sectoren moeten hun inspanningen opvoeren zodat we de klimaatafspraken van Parijs kunnen halen. De industrie, energie, gebouwen, landbouw, ze moeten allemaal fors minder broeikasgassen gaan uitstoten. De transportsector moet a fortiori maatregelen nemen, want transport is één van de weinige sectoren die de afgelopen jaren meer CO2 is gaan uitstoten. Zeven EU landen, waaronder België en Nederland, hebben alvast een schot voor de boeg gegeven. Ze willen dat de CO2-uitstoot van auto's het komende decennium wordt teruggedrongen met minstens 40%. Dat kan alleen als we versneld inzetten op de overschakeling op elektrische auto's.
                  

                     Ook de scheepvaart en de luchtvaart moeten veel grotere inspanningen doen, want de uitstoot van CO2 neemt exponentieel toe. Het is goed dat we als EU internationaal druk blijven uitoefenen om de uitstoot van broeikasgassen door schepen en vliegtuigen verder aan te pakken.
                  

Miriam Dalli (S&D),
in writing. – This is the time for innovation. The time for further investments, that can support a proper transition to a low-carbon economy and to low-emission alternatives in transport for the years to come. Citizens are getting increasingly aware of the health impacts of air pollution and our countries have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is the time to act. In this sense it is positive that an increasing number of countries are considering ending sales of new diesel and petrol cars: France and the UK by 2040, India by 2030, Austria by 2030, Malta probably by 2030, the Netherlands and Norway already by 2025. An irreversible shift to low-emission mobility is the way forward. For citizens it will mean cleaner air in our cities and eventually cheaper electric vehicles that can be affordable to all. For our economy it means more investment in innovation, research and development. Let's be the game changers. Let's push for improved consumer information. Let's empower citizens and decision makers to help push forward a much needed behavioural change. Only through proactive action can we help increase a market for zero emission vehicles across the EU. Proactive action is what we need at this point in time.

András Gyürk (PPE),
írásban. – Támogatandó célnak tartom a minél alacsonyabb kibocsátású mobilitás stratégiájának megvalósítását. A parlamenti jelentés számos javaslatával egyet tudok érteni, ilyen például a földgáz, köztük az LNG, CNG fokozottabb használata a közlekedés bizonyos szegmenseiben. Azonban a parlamenti jelentésbe bekerült néhány olyan javaslat, amivel messzemenően nem értek egyet. Ilyen például az a cikk, amely a gyártók számára minimális célkitűzést kíván bevezetni a kibocsátásmentes gépkocsik részarányára vonatkozóan. Úgy vélem, hogy a kötelező előírás túlzó beavatkozás a gazdaságba, a gazdasági szereplők üzleti döntéseibe. Sőt, bizonyos szereplők számára az előírás jelentős hátrányt okozhat a nemzetközi versenyben. Várhatóan az ilyen intézkedések nélkül is kialakul ösztönző verseny a gyártók között, mint ahogy erre most is vannak példák. Egy másik pont a megtett úttal arányos díjszabás bevezetése a személygépkocsikra vonatkozóan. A Bizottsági anyag is tesz erre utalásokat. Míg a tehergépkocsik tekintetében maximálisan támogatom ezt az elvet – ami a szennyező fizet elv praktikus megjelenítése –, a személygépkocsik tekintetében azt gondolom, hogy vannak egyéb megfontolások, amelyek felülírhatják az említett megközelítést. Kérem a Bizottságot is, hogy változtasson álláspontján.
                  

Vladimír Maňka (S&D),
písomne. – Cieľom nízkoemisnej mobility musí byť podpora a zavádzanie takých foriem bezpečnej, cenovo dostupnej a efektívnej dopravy, ktorá povedie k nulovým emisiám a teda vyššej ochrane životného prostredia a verejného zdravia. Únia musí najmä cestou podpory inovácií hľadať spôsoby a vytvárať podmienky, aby boli výrobcovia motivovaní k vývoju a výrobe nízkoemisných vozidiel a aby mali spotrebitelia záujem a dôveru v takéto vozidlá. Boj proti zmene klímy si vyžaduje, aby Únia pri plnení tohto cieľa spolupracovala aj s ostatnými krajinami sveta, najmä s aktérmi Parížskej dohody, ktorí si uvedomujú vážnosť vplyvov emisií na kvalitu a existenciu života na Zemi.
                  

Carolina Punset (ALDE),
por escrito. – La reducción de emisiones justificada por el uso de biocarburantes es un engaño. La actual política de biocombustibles, aunque se limite su uso al 7 %, incrementará las emisiones de GEI en el sector del transporte. Si tenemos en cuenta las emisiones de efecto invernadero derivadas del cambio indirecto del uso de la tierra, las emisiones de biodiesel son de media un 80 % superiores a las del diésel fósil. Aunque el bioetanol tiene algunas reducciones, no alcanza los requerimientos mínimos exigidos por la Directiva de renovables. Usar la tierra para cultivar materia prima para combustibles es energéticamente muy ineficiente. Mientras un campo de fútbol plantado de maíz puede abastecer de combustible a 2,4 coches durante un año, la misma extensión de paneles fotovoltaicos podría generar energía anual para 260 coches. Cabe añadir que, ante la falta de criterios de sostenibilidad, el uso de aceite de palma para biodiesel en Europa ha aumentado un 600 %. Mientras que en 2010, el 8 % de las importaciones totales de aceite de palma se usaba en el transporte, en 2016, la cifra alcanzó el 46 %. La conclusión lamentable es que, sin saberlo, los conductores europeos son los mayores consumidores de aceite de palma.
                  

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE),
písemně. – Silniční doprava představuje 70 % celkových emisí v dopravě. Pokud se tedy máme v boji s klimatickými změnami zaměřit na určitou oblast, vydáváme se správným směrem. Cíle zprávy v zásadě odpovídají našim dlouhodobým zájmům, ale v některých ohledech předchází dobu. Souhlasím s podporou výroby nízkoemisních automobilů, ale nejsem zastáncem povinných kvót. Měli bychom přijímat opatření, která by motivovala výrobce k výrobě nízkoemisních vozidel a spotřebitele k jejich pořizování. Případným vynucováním bychom totiž mohli ohrozit technologický pokrok a přirozenou konkurenci. Nepodporuji ani myšlenku povinného zavedení mýtných systémů i pro osobní vozidla. Poplatky za užívání dálnic by sice měly odrážet míru emisí, ale toto lze zajistit i jinak. Chtěla bych naopak zdůraznit potřebu zvýšení motivace spotřebitelů k využívání takových způsobů dopravy, které jsou šetrnější k životnímu prostředí, jako je hromadná doprava, cyklistika, car-sharing apod. Proto je mimo jiné potřeba zajistit dostupnou veřejnou dopravu a informace, které umožní snadné a efektivní plánování cesty. Dokážu si v této oblasti představit i lepší spolupráci členských států. Dobrým návrhem je vznik dobrovolné informační platformy, která by spojovala národní databáze pro vyhledávání spojů.
                  
5.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
5.1.   Freedom of expression in Vietnam, notably the case of Nguyen Van Hoa

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana keskustelu viidestä sananvapautta Vietnamissa ja etenkin Nguyen Van Hoan tapausta koskevasta päätöslauselmaesityksestä (2017/3001(RSP)).
                  

Charles Tannock,
author. – Madam President, in recent years Vietnam has made great economic strides, but human rights organisations continue to report that the democratic freedoms of speech, religion and press are still sadly lacking. Last month, 22-year-old Nguyen Van Hoa was sentenced to seven years in prison for blogging about an intentional toxic spill along 120 miles of coastline, which destroyed marine wildlife and damaged the health of its inhabitants. He joins Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, who was also jailed in June for highlighting the same toxic spill.
This crackdown on environmental activism using national security provisions in the Penal Code of Vietnam is deeply alarming. Sadly, although it is commendable that Vietnam has one of the highest levels of internet usage in East Asia, all media is now owned by the state, and civil and political rights are still deteriorating. In order for Vietnam to remain an important PSA and FDA partner of the European Union, I urge its government today to work to uphold the basic freedoms of its people and to release those imprisoned only for expressing their opinion.

Barbara Lochbihler,
Verfasserin. – Frau Präsidentin! Fast genau vor zwei Jahren, am 16. Dezember, wurde der Menschenrechtsanwalt Nguyen Van Dai auf dem Weg zu einem Treffen mit Vertreterinnen der EU, die am jährlichen Menschenrechtsdialog mit Vietnam teilnahmen, festgenommen. Und wie viele andere Inhaftierte wartet er noch immer auf ein Gerichtsverfahren. In der heutigen Entschließung fordern wir die Freilassung des Bloggers und Umweltaktivisten Nguyen Van Hoa. Er wurde wegen antistaatlicher Propaganda zu sieben Jahren Haft verurteilt. Sein einziges Verschulden: Er hat zum Protest gegen eine der größten Umweltkatastrophen in Vietnam aufgerufen. Im April 2016 hatte ein taiwanesisches Stahlwerk giftige Dioxine ins Meer geleitet. Entlang der Küste wurden daraufhin Millionen toter Fische an Land gespült. Damit zerstörte die Katastrophe eben die Einkommensgrundlage der lokalen Fischer und ihrer Familien.
                  

                     Vietnam muss die anhaltende Repression gegen Journalisten und politische Aktivisten sofort beenden und alle politischen Gefangenen bedingungslos freilassen. Hierzu gehört auch die Bloggerin Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh. Sie wurde wegen Propaganda gegen den Staat zu zehn Jahren Haft verurteilt, und erst letzte Woche, am 30. November, wurde dieses Urteil bestätigt.
                  

Soraya Post,
author. – Madam President, in Vietnam, like all over the world, human rights defenders are facing increasing pressure for their brave stand. In fact, our human rights are globally facing increasing pressure from nationalists, fascists and political actors not interested in democracy and freedom.
We can act as politicians and we shall. But the ones making human rights come alive are civil society: the human rights defenders on the ground; the ones facing reality. By simply doing their work human rights defenders, journalists, bloggers, writers and activists are being imprisoned and attacked. More than one hundred Vietnamese people are currently behind bars for their political or religious beliefs. We call on the Vietnamese authorities to release them. The human rights defenders of the world need the EU to take a clear stand for them, for their work, and demand that regimes, like the one in Vietnam, stop harassing those who fight for justice.

Pavel Telička,
author. – Madam President, I will not repeat what the other co-authors have already said. I think the description was precise and I completely share it.
I would rather say what we now expect: Vietnam is an important partner of the European Union. We want Vietnam to maintain that position and we want to develop this relationship, but this is subject to Vietnam's compliance with its international obligations, to reforming its legal order in a way that is compatible with its obligations ,and also to its release of the political prisoners that are detained.
I must say that I was quite shocked by what we have all received from the Vietnamese permanent mission. There is clearly a lack of understanding, which is what the European Parliament is going to say today and vote on.
I am sure that it will send a strong, clear political message. The only possible response, while still aiming to develop our relations, is that there will be a release and that there will be changes in the political attitudes and the legal order of Vietnam. That is the only possible reply that we will accept.

Tomáš Zdechovský,
Autor. – Paní předsedající, já si myslím, že musíme opakovat právě to, co se dělo ve Vietnamu, protože to je bezprecedentní. Na konci listopadu byl známý vietnamský bloger a influencer odsouzen k sedmiletému trestu odnětí svobody za šíření informace o ekologické katastrofě z roku 2016.
                  

                     Dámy a pánové, tento člověk byl odsouzen za zneužívání demokratických svobod k narušení zájmů státu a následovně byl odsouzen za údajnou tvorbu a šíření propagandy proti státu. Jak typické pro komunistické režimy! Celý proces byl provázen řadou okolností, které nekorespondují se zásadami právního státu a základních lidských práv. Bloger byl zadržen bez oficiálního příkazu. Proces byl neveřejný, neměl možnost obhájce a následně byl i neprávem odsouzen.
                  

                     Dámy a pánové, jsem velmi rád, že celou kauzu doprovázela mobilizace obyvatel na sociálních sítích a dokonce i demonstrace v ulicích. Nicméně i my jako Evropský parlament a evropští politici musíme ze své pozice zasáhnout. V současné době je ve Vietnamu silně omezena svoboda sdělovacích prostředků, svoboda tisku, projevu a místy se dá dokonce mluvit i o cenzuře. Odsouzení Nguyena Van Hoa ukazuje, že vláda uplatňuje svou politickou kontrolu, která zcela odporuje spravedlnosti a popírání lidských práv. Proto si myslím, že je potřeba tuto výzvu adresovat vietnamské vládě.
                  

Pavel Svoboda,
za skupinu PPE. – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, prožil jsem první část života v totalitním režimu, který říká lidem, co si mají myslet, který dává politiku režimu nad právo, nad panství práva a který omezuje svobodu svědomí, svobodu vyjadřování.
                  

                     Proto velmi cítím s občany Vietnamu, kteří nemohou využívat tuto svobodu, demokracii a panství práva. Jsem rád, že Evropský parlament se dnes u případu Nguyena Van Hoy zasadí o to, aby tento novinář, bloger a aktivista byl pokud možno osvobozen a spolu s ním všichni další političtí vězni, vězni svědomí, které Vietnam, ačkoliv je významným partnerem Evropské unie, utlačuje.
                  

Neena Gill,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, in this House I have always underscored the importance of strong relations with Vietnam, a developing country that is slowly but steadily making progress in a number of areas and has shown itself a partner for the EU in the region.
Yet, while being a supporter of strengthened relations, I am seriously concerned over the deterioration of civil and political rights that we are currently witnessing. The case of Nguyen Van Hoa, who was sentenced to seven years in prison simply for informing his fellow citizens about the impact of an environmental disaster afflicting thousands of people, is deeply worrying. As is the case of many others who are detained under Article 88 of the Penal Code, which seems to be increasingly used as an instrument to silence those who stand up for human rights.
I urge the Vietnamese authorities to take seriously the pressing calls made by this House today and to review the use of security provisions to crackdown on dissidents, to release those who have been detained on that basis and to give unfettered access to the UN special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and human rights.
Whilst we should continue to support Vietnam, I really want to underline it is important that they recognise real steps have to be made in protecting human rights if we are to continue. This will go much further to ensuring security and stability in that country than oppression ever will.

Marek Jurek,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Wietnam jest państwem komunistycznym, a to niesie swoje konsekwencje. Komunizm to jest polityczna tyrania, ale to jest również rewolucyjna mobilizacja mas, co w swojej karykaturalnej formie w okresach już ustalonego despotyzmu oznacza zmuszanie ludzi do nieustannego manifestowania poparcia, i to jest wreszcie utopia, która znowu w swojej karykaturalnej realizacji zakazuje mówienia najbardziej elementarnych prawd.
                  

                     Nguyen Van Hoa padł ofiarą tego, co przeszło trzydzieści lat temu widzieliśmy na Białorusi: nie wolno ostrzegać ludzi nawet przed katastrofami naturalnymi albo przed zagrażającymi ludziom awariami ekologicznymi. My nie możemy zgadzać się na tę władzę kłamstwa. Jeżeli Wietnam chce być traktowany jako państwo współpracujące z Europą, musi krok po kroku odchodzić od tych praktyk i dlatego zdecydowanie musimy żądać uwolnienia Nguyena Van Hoa.
                  

Lola Sánchez Caldentey,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta. La Unión Europea ha concluido hace poco las negociaciones de un tratado de libre comercio e inversión con Vietnam. Un acuerdo que obvia las necesidades de la gente sin ni siquiera haber estudiado el impacto que tendrá en los derechos humanos, ya muy deteriorados en ese país.
                  

                     Un acuerdo que, como el CETA, favorece aún más a las privilegiadas transnacionales creando tribunales de arbitraje; un acuerdo que no cuenta con cláusulas efectivas en materia derechos humanos; un acuerdo que solo favorece los intereses de siempre, fomentando especialmente la minería y el expolio de recursos naturales. Con este acuerdo tendremos muchos más casos como el del señor Van Hoa que hoy nos ocupa y que, recordemos, ha sido represaliado por su resistencia pacífica ante las violaciones sistemáticas de una empresa que operaba en el marco del acuerdo de la ASEAN. Estamos hartos de que la Unión Europea se llene la boca hablando de derechos humanos y luego cierre los ojos, dando la espalda a sus propios principios, ante violaciones de derechos humanos, priorizando siempre el interés comercial. No nos cansaremos nunca exigir coherencia política.
                  

Marie-Christine Arnautu,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, le gouvernement vietnamien muselle et emprisonne les opposants politiques, quoi d'étonnant.
                  

                     La justice vietnamienne use d'une rhétorique qui rappelle furieusement les grands procès de Moscou. Ce régime ne fait qu'appliquer les méthodes brutales et liberticides d'un pays où le Parti communiste est le seul autorisé: méthode d'un État qui a gravé dans le marbre de sa Constitution son attachement indéfectible à Hô Chi Minh et au marxisme-léninisme, idéologie responsable de plusieurs dizaines de millions de morts; méthode d'un État qui n'hésite pas à endoctriner et à embrigader sa jeunesse pour prévenir toute dissidence.
                  

                     Lundi dernier s'est ouvert à Hanoï le onzième Congrès national de la jeunesse communiste, au cours duquel le secrétaire général du parti n'a pas manqué de rappeler qu'il fallait éduquer les jeunes et susciter chez eux – je cite – l'idéologie révolutionnaire et la confiance ferme vis-à-vis du socialisme, et qu'il fallait accélérer la sensibilisation, l'étude et l'application du marxisme-léninisme. On se croirait au temps des grandes heures du bolchévisme soviétique.
                  

                     Chers collègues, vous déplorez le sort de ce jeune vietnamien condamné à sept ans de prison pour avoir ‘diffusé une propagande réactionnaire contre le parti et la politique’, pour reprendre les termes de la Pravda vietnamienne. Mais comme d'habitude, vous vous bornez à protester. Comment peut-on sérieusement vous entendre? Personne ici, ou presque, ne s'est opposé à la Commission lorsqu'elle a annoncé la conclusion d'un accord de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne et le Viêt Nam. Dans ce cas-là, cela ne vous gêne pas que l'Union traite avec le gouvernement vietnamien au détriment de nos travailleurs, de l'environnement et de la santé publique. Pour satisfaire votre libre-échangisme effréné, vous êtes subitement moins regardants sur les droits de l'homme, que vous invoquez pourtant à tout bout de champ. Dans cet hémicycle, j'ai l'impression qu'on cultive l'indignation à géométrie variable.
                  

                     Pour conclure, chers collègues, si l'Union européenne et certains États membres veulent paraître crédibles, qu'ils appliquent d'abord à eux-mêmes les leçons qu'ils donnent si volontiers aux autres, car, sous nos latitudes aussi, le système politico-médiatique tente de bâillonner l'opposition au prétexte très fallacieux de lutter contre le racisme, l'homophobie et des discours dits ‘de haine’. Il s'agit d'une forme de dictature molle, dictature de la pensée, dont vous ne devriez pas vous glorifier et à laquelle vous devriez enfin renoncer au nom de la liberté qui, pour nous, est si essentielle.
                  

Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Madam President, the human rights situation in Vietnam has not improved but worsened, as the case of Nguyen Van Hoa shows repeatedly. A 22-year-old blogger and videographer, who wanted to unravel the environmental disaster in Ha Tinh Province to the public, he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for having disseminated online information. Also recently a Vietnamese court upheld the 10-year sentence on another blogger, Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, after she issued critical posts on environmental degradation and deaths in police custody.
As the number of detentions, arrests and convictions of Vietnamese citizens relating to expression of their opinions is rising, this situation and the restrictive approach of the authorities cannot be tolerated any more. I urge the Vietnamese Government to release all political prisoners and detainees immediately. I call on Vietnam to end the repression of freedom. There can be no closer ties between the European Union and Vietnam without respect for all these fundamental rights.

David Martin (S&D). – Madam President, as Ms Sánchez Caldentey reminded us, Vietnam and the EU have signed a free trade agreement. Unlike Ms Sánchez, I actually think the substance of this agreement is a good agreement – a good agreement for both the European Union and for Vietnam. But I would remind the Vietnamese that this Parliament will not judge the free trade agreement on the substance of the free trade agreement alone, but also on the political situation in the country. We will take into account the human rights situation in the country, and we will take into account the labour and environmental standards in the country when we vote on this in this Parliament.
Vietnam's current approach to freedom of expression is unacceptable; it is intolerable. They rank 175th of 180 countries in the Freedom of Expression Index. As we have heard from many speakers, they persecute bloggers who are sometimes only exposing environmental damage and environmental issues. Vietnam has to understand that if it wants to open up to the West – and we welcome it opening up to the West – it also has to open up to internal criticism. Criticism is not always opposition, it is constructive if handled properly.

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Door de jaren heen heeft Vietnam zich ontpopt als een volwaardige partner van de Europese Unie en dat wordt ook bevestigd in een vrijhandelsakkoord.
                  

                     Nu ja, het begrip ‘vrij’ is een woord dat Vietnam vreemd is. De communistische machthebbers tolereren geen vrijheid van media, van vergadering, van mening. Mensenrechtenactivisten, journalisten en bloggers riskeren dagelijks intimidatie, geweld en opsluiting. Daarom drukken we vandaag onze steun uit voor het groeiend aantal moedige burgers die het toch hebben aangedurfd om zich uit te spreken tegen het politbureau. Onder hen blogger Nguyen Van Hoa en mensenrechtenactiviste Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, beiden veroordeeld tot lange gevangenisstraffen voor het verspreiden van hun boodschap.
                  

                     Beste commissaris, het opsluiten van bloggers en activisten mogen we als Europese Unie echt niet tolereren. Ik roep u daarom op om de Vietnamese overheid te wijzen op haar tekortkomingen en onder druk te zetten om al haar mensenrechtenverplichtingen na te komen. Vrijhandel en een vrije samenleving gaan hand in hand.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο μπλόγκερ Nguyen Van Hoa καταδικάστηκε επειδή αντιτάχθηκε στην περιβαλλοντική καταστροφή που συμβαίνει στην πατρίδα του, κι αυτό έγινε επειδή μια συγκεκριμένη ταϊβανέζικη εταιρεία έριξε τοξικά βιομηχανικά απόβλητα στον ωκεανό. Είναι μια κατάσταση δηλαδή που έχει σχέση με τη δραστηριότητα των πολιτών οι οποίοι παλεύουν αυτή τη στιγμή ενάντια σε μια απαράδεκτη κατάσταση που ισχύει στο Βιετνάμ. Η απαράδεκτη αυτή κατάσταση που ισχύει στο Βιετνάμ έχει σχέση και με τις ευρωπαϊκές πολυεθνικές και τις υπόλοιπες πολυεθνικές οι οποίες επενδύουν στο Βιετνάμ, διότι εκεί οι εργαζόμενοι δουλεύουν για ένα κομμάτι ψωμί, διότι εκεί δεν τηρούνται τα κοινωνικά δικαιώματα, διότι εκεί δεν τηρούνται τα περιβαλλοντικά δικαιώματα.
                  

                     Αυτό το είχαμε εξηγήσει, όταν έγινε εδώ συζήτηση, και πάρα πολλοί υποστήριξαν αυτή τη συνεργασία ελευθέρων συναλλαγών Βιετνάμ-Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, μια διαδικασία η οποία καταστρέφει και τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αλλά και τον λαό του Βιετνάμ. Καλό θα ήταν λοιπόν να τα έχετε σκεφθεί αυτά συνάδελφοι, όταν υποστηρίζατε να γίνει και να υπογραφεί η συνεργασία Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Βιετνάμ. Αυτά είναι τα αποτελέσματα της πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο Βιετνάμ. Σκεφτείτε τα λοιπόν αυτά.
                  

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Carlos Iturgaiz (PPE). – Señora presidenta, es preocupante lo que está ocurriendo en Vietnam, donde hay ciudadanos que han sido encarcelados simplemente por querer expresarse y defender libre y democráticamente los derechos humanos de sus compatriotas. Muchas de esas personas encarceladas, además, no es que no hayan tenido un juicio justo, sino que no han sido juzgadas ni hay previsión alguna de juicio para ellas.
                  

                     Están produciéndose, lamentablemente, abusos políticos y democráticos por parte de las autoridades de ese régimen comunista y totalitario que se vive en Vietnam. Por eso, las instituciones europeas deben apoyar y deben también solidarizarse con Nguyen Van Hoa, quien ha sido condenado —como se ha dicho aquí— a siete años por informar a los ciudadanos de los abusos del régimen comunista vietnamita.
                  

                     Y también las instituciones europeas, señora presidenta, deben recriminar a ese país asiático, a Vietnam, su política represiva y su política tiránica contra sus ciudadanos.
                  

Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, effectivement, le peuple vietnamien a déjà beaucoup souffert de la guerre. Il y a encore de nombreuses traces autour du 37e parallèle. Aujourd'hui, ce peuple a le droit d'aspirer à vivre en paix dans un régime démocratique, où la justice conserve son indépendance. Il n'est pas admissible qu'un régime politique – au Viêt Nam comme ailleurs, d'ailleurs – emprisonne ses opposants, ses blogueurs et tous ceux qui aspirent à la liberté d'expression.
                  

                     Si le Viêt Nam veut continuer à s'ouvrir au tourisme, qui, sans doute, est une vraie richesse pour ce pays si attachant, si le Viêt Nam veut continuer à coopérer avec l'Union européenne, son gouvernement a l'obligation de respecter les fondamentaux de l'état de droit. Le cas Nguyen Van Hoa est aujourd'hui un symbole que l'Union européenne doit intégrer dans ses futures relations avec le Viêt Nam. L'Union européenne doit rester vigilante sur ces questions des droits de l'homme, au Viêt Nam comme au Cambodge, que nous allons voir tout à l'heure, mais aussi comme chez le grand voisin chinois.
                  

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the European Union has repeatedly expressed to the Vietnamese authorities, including at the highest levels, its concerns over limitations to freedom of expression, both online and offline, as reflected in frequent cases of intimidation and violence against journalists and civil society activists.
The EU has been constructively engaged with the Vietnamese authorities on a revision of the penal code and its related laws, in order to ensure alignment with international standards by providing input to the National Assembly, by offering exchange of best practices, and by promoting joint actions with like-minded countries. Political and civil rights, as well as legal and judicial reform, are regularly raised at the Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam.
During the last session, which took place on 1 December 2017 in Hanoi, the EU reiterated its request for all Vietnamese citizens detained for peacefully exercising their freedom of expression to be released. In this context, the EU also referred to a number of individual cases.
Furthermore, the EU stressed that the negative trend in freedom of expression needs to be reversed, especially at a time when Vietnam and the EU are committed to working towards a closer relationship. The case of Mr Nguyen Van Hoa is a clear example of the deterioration in civil and political rights in Vietnam in recent months. The extensive application of national security provisions in Vietnam's penal code has resulted in a steep rise in the arrest, detention and sentencing of Vietnamese citizens who peacefully express their opinions. Compared to 20 years ago, reform and modernisation have allowed Vietnam to make continuous progress in economic and social rights, steadily reaching out to international processes.
The EU and Vietnam are partners in moving from limited regional integration to meeting wider international standards. Against this background, the EU is striving to reiterate, on every occasion, the concept that citizens' opinions, expressed peacefully, enrich countries and are a pillar of sustainability and prosperity. The EU stands ready to work together with Vietnam to achieve a more inclusive society.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
                  

                     Äänestys toimitetaan torstaina 14.12.2017.
                  
5.2.   Cambodia: the banning of the opposition

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana keskustelu kuudesta Kambodžaa (opposition kieltäminen) koskevasta päätöslauselmaesityksestä (2017/3002(RSP)).
                  

Charles Tannock,
author. – Madam President, last month, democracy and the rule of law in Cambodia received a damaging blow. Basing its decision on vague accusations and legal provisions, Cambodia's highest court dissolved the Cambodia National Rescue Party – the main opposition party to Prime Minister Hun Sen. 118 CNRP politicians were banned from political activity for five years. Kem Sokha, President of the CNRP, is currently being held in prison on trumped-up charges, and an arrest warrant is out for the leader of the opposition, Sam Rainsy. If this situation is not reversed, then Prime Minister Hun Sen will be effectively uncontested at next year's general elections, giving him unfettered power.
Removing opponents is the text book move of a typical tyrant. The people of Cambodia, after the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime last century deserve democracy; they deserve better. They deserve an independent and impartial judiciary. Credible and transparent elections are vital to the health of the nation and the legitimacy of its government. This is one of the basic tenets that the EU member states hold dear and yet, Cambodia is a country that continues to enjoy tariff preferences to the EU market as part of the preferential ‘everything but arms’ scheme.
EU member states now have a key role to play to urge the Cambodian government to protect democracy and pluralism, as enshrined in their constitution. Cambodia's obligations under the Convention should be immediately reviewed and all possible pressure should be put on the government to drop charges against the leaders of the opposition and to re-establish the CNRP party.

Barbara Lochbihler,
Verfasserin. – Frau Präsidentin! Am 16. November hat das oberste Gericht in Kambodscha auf Antrag der Regierung die einzige parlamentarische Oppositionspartei aufgelöst.
                  

                     Den gewählten 118 Abgeordneten ist für fünf Jahre politische Aktivität verboten. Die Mandate der CNRP werden auf nationaler und lokaler Ebene auf die Regierungspartei und auf ungewählte Mitglieder anderer kleiner Parteien aufgeteilt. Dies ist wirklich ein fataler Schlag für die Demokratie in Kambodscha.
                  

                     Ministerpräsident Hun Sen tut alles, um seine Wiederwahl zu garantieren. Frei und fair kann die nationale Wahl 2018 ohne legitime Opposition und ohne unabhängige Wahlkommission nicht sein. Aber unfreien und unfairen Wahlen darf die EU nicht durchch Unterstützung Legitimität verleihen. Kritische NGO und Medien werden bedroht oder gleich ganz verboten. Menschenrechtsaktivistinnen und Menschenrechtsaktivisten müssen um ihre Freiheit oder gar ihr Leben fürchten.
                  

                     Erst vor wenigen Tagen wurde die politisch motivierte Haftstrafe für Tep Vanny bestätigt. Meinungsfreiheit sieht wahrlich anders aus. Die Aussetzung der Unterstützung für die nationale Wahlkommission durch die EU ist eine erste folgerichtige Konsequenz. Ministerpräsident Hun Sen und seine Regierung müssen mittels gezielter Sanktionen ein klares Signal bekommen, dass ihr Vorgehen für die EU nicht akzeptabel ist.
                  

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
auteure. – Madame la Présidente, c'est la cinquième résolution d'urgence sur le Cambodge que nous examinons depuis 2014.
                  

                     Le pays s'éloigne sans cesse plus de l'état de droit. Médias indépendants, ONG et membres de l'opposition sont confrontés à une escalade de répression. Tout cela augure mal les prochaines échéances électorales. À quoi riment ces élections, alors que le principal parti d'opposition vient d'être dissous et que ses principaux responsables sont soit en prison soit en exil. Du côté social, ce n'est guère mieux puisque l'accaparement des terres reste un phénomène majeur sur fond de corruption au bénéfice d'un certain nombre de multinationales européennes et provoque des centaines de milliers de réfugiés.
                  

                     Alors, que faire? L'assistance électorale a été suspendue, l'accord ‘Tout sauf les armes’ peut être utilisé, mais est-ce possible sans pénaliser les ouvriers et ouvrières du textile? Nous pouvons aussi soutenir la proposition des ONG en faveur d'une nouvelle conférence des parties prenantes de l'accord de Paris. Une chose est sûre: tout doit être fait pour aider le Cambodge et les Cambodgiens à reprendre le chemin de la démocratie, si c'est possible.
                  

Marc Tarabella,
auteur. – Madame la Présidente, effectivement, c'est la cinquième résolution sur le Cambodge, la deuxième en deux mois, mais elle était nécessaire. Pourquoi? Car depuis la dernière résolution du mois d'octobre, nous sommes rendus au Cambodge, plusieurs collègues de la délégation ANASE, dont le président Werner Langen et moi-même, et nous avons sensibilisé les autorités cambodgiennes à l'importance de ne pas dissoudre le principal parti d'opposition – car c'est un geste qui tue évidemment la démocratisation de ce pays –, et ils ne nous ont pas entendus.
                  

                     Depuis lors, la dissolution du principal parti d'opposition, le CNPR, a été prononcée. Sept députés sur les 55 élus à l'Assemblée nationale vivent dans le pays. La majorité d'entre eux, les 48 autres, ont dû quitter le pays, parce qu'ils sont menacés. Ce n'est évidemment pas tolérable et cette résolution doit aller plus loin. Compte tenu de l'impact limité des nombreuses résolutions antérieures, je me réjouis notamment du paragraphe 12, qui me semble important, car il recommande le gel des avoirs des dignitaires du régime –coupables de cette dissolution de parti – à l'étranger et en Europe, et impose des restrictions en matière de visas.
                  

                     Je salue aussi la décision de la Commission et de la haute représentante de couper les subsides relatifs à la démocratisation, car il n'y a pas de démocratisation et donc ces subsides européens s'apparentent aujourd'hui à un gaspillage d'argent.
                  

Petras Auštrevičius,
author. – Madam President, after numerous European Union statements and five urgency resolutions on this legislation alone, I believe we should have learned the lesson. Words alone with Cambodia's Government do not, and will not, work. We must resort to action. I certainly welcome the European Union's decision to suspend all electoral assistance, but that is not sufficient. I therefore join others, my colleagues, in calling on the Commission to withdraw Cambodia's participation in the ‘everything but arms’ scheme.
Lastly, the European External Action Service should, with no delay, draw up a list of those accountable for repression and impose travel bans and asset freezes on them. Without all this, the democratic opposition and civil society in Cambodia are doomed and we take responsibility for that situation.

Laima Liucija Andrikienė,
author. – Madam President, the European Parliament adopted an urgency resolution on Cambodia in September this year. However, the human rights situation is further deteriorating. There is an increasing number of political opposition members and human rights activists being arrested. Therefore, the European Parliament is again discussing the situation in Cambodia, notably the banning of the opposition.
The dissolution of the Cambodia National Rescue Party and the worsening climate for opposition politicians raises serious concerns, as well as the strong influence of China in the political life of Cambodia, which is playing an important role in political decisions in that country.
We welcome the EU decision to withdraw all electoral assistance until Cambodia engages in reforms, in line with international electoral standards, in order to advance democracy and protect civil society space. It is important to underline that respect for fundamental human rights is a prerequisite for Cambodia to continue to benefit from the EU's preferential Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme. If Cambodia is acting in violation of its obligations under the EBA regulation, the tariff preferences it currently enjoys must be temporarily withdrawn.
We urge the Cambodian Government to reverse the decision to dissolve the opposition party, restore the elected members of the parliament and commune council to their position, and to allow the full participation of opposition parties in public life. In the event of a failure to guarantee political and social rights in the country, further steps in the form of sanctions might be taken by the European Union, such as an introduction of a list of individuals responsible for the dissolution of the opposition and other serious human rights violations in Cambodia, with a view to imposing possible visa restrictions and asset freezes on them.
Finally, I call on High Representative Ms Mogherini and the EU Special Representative for Human Rights to use all means available to protect the fundamental rights of the Cambodian people to elect and be elected, and to guarantee pluralism and democratic principles strictly in line with Cambodia's Constitution.

Cristian Dan Preda,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, la Cour suprême du Cambodge vient de faire de ce pays un État à parti unique.
                  

                     Cette décision, sans surprise, confirme que la justice est aux mains du premier ministre Hun Sen. C'est la dernière étape dans le démantèlement de toute opposition politique au régime. La répression n'est pas nouvelle, elle s'est soldée par l'arrestation de Kem Sokha, accusé de comploter avec les États-Unis. Depuis son arrestation en toute violation de son immunité parlementaire, le gouvernement a lancé une campagne de propagande en accusant le Parti du sauvetage national du Cambodge (CNRP) d'être au centre d'une conspiration antigouvernementale. L'opposition n'est pas la seule victime: les médias et les militants des droits de l'homme le sont également.
                  

                     Comment dans un tel climat de violation des droits de l'homme et de l'état de droit pouvons-nous espérer l'organisation d'un processus électoral libre en juillet 2018? Il faut, je crois, que l'Union européenne apporte une réponse ferme à cette dérive autoritaire en exerçant la pression non seulement sur le gouvernement cambodgien, mais également sur son voisin chinois, qui n'hésite pas à encourager cette attitude.
                  

Josef Weidenholzer,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir haben uns schon oft in diesem Rahmen mit der Entwicklung in Kambodscha beschäftigt, und es gab schon Momente, die besser waren.
                  

                     Man konnte eitweise hoffen, dass das Hun-Sen-Regime bereit wäre, sich demokratischen Regeln zu unterwerfen. Die Menschen in Kambodscha wollen Veränderung. Sie verdienen ein besseres Lebe, weil sie Großartiges geleistet haben nach der zivilisatorischen Katastrophe der Jahre unter den Roten Khmer. Hun Sen macht gegenwärtig alles zunichte. Mit unglaublicher Brutalität werden alle bekämpft, die für ein freies, soziales und gerechtes Kambodscha kämpfen.
                  

                     Es ist der Zeitpunkt gekommen, dass Europa dem korrupten Diktator die rote Karte zeigt und das Regime sanktioniert mit dem Entzug von Hilfe – technisch und finanziell – und mit Reisebeschränkungen für jene, die die Demokratie in diesem viel geplagten Land mutwillig zerstören.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας ECR. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Καμπότζη είναι μια πλούσια χώρα με ορυχεία, ξυλεία, πετρέλαιο. Δυστυχώς όμως ο λαός της Καμπότζης δεν καρπώνεται τα έσοδα από την εκμετάλλευση των φυσικών πόρων της χώρας του. Είχαμε καταγγείλει τα γεγονότα αυτά και την παραβίαση ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στην Καμπότζη από τις 26 Νοεμβρίου 2015. Είναι γνωστό το τι συμβαίνει στην Καμπότζη. Είναι γνωστό ότι εκεί το καθεστώς προχωρεί σε παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, υπάρχει έλλειψη πολυφωνίας, υπάρχει δίωξη της αντιπολίτευσης, η οποία κορυφώνεται το τελευταίο διάστημα, και υπάρχει δράση των ενόπλων δυνάμεων και των δυνάμεων ασφαλείας που ενεργούν ανεξέλεγκτα και καταστέλλουν διαδηλώσεις και απεργίες. Όλα αυτά τα είχαμε καταγγείλει και ήταν γνωστά, παρά ταύτα υπήρχε και συνεχίζει να υπάρχει αναπτυξιακή βοήθεια της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην Καμπότζη και συνεχίζει να λειτουργεί και η προτιμησιακή συμφωνία. Πρέπει λοιπόν να ληφθούν μέτρα οικονομικά απέναντι στο αυταρχικό καθεστώς της Καμπότζης, για να μπορέσει έτσι να αντιληφθεί ότι πρέπει να σταματήσει να παραβιάζει τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα.
                  

Marietje Schaake,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we have addressed human rights violations in Cambodia repeatedly and the dissolving of the National Rescue Party, as well as the barring of 118 of its politicians from political activity for five years, is another reason for deep concern. There is now effectively no alternative to the government, and when politicians are silenced, despite their immunity, the situation of civil society and human rights defenders is even worse.
The EU should attach consequences to these serious developments. Respect for fundamental human rights is a prerequisite to continuing to grant the benefits from the EU's preferential ‘Everything But Arms’ trade scheme, and EUR 410 million is foreseen to go to Cambodia over the next couple of years. We call for an immediate review of Cambodia's obligations and for the withdrawal of trade preferences and financial support in response to the recent events, as well as the structural human rights violations. Individual sanctions, including asset freezing and visa bans, should also be part of the consideration of which consequences are needed and appropriate.

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, en un an, cinq votes à peine sur le Cambodge! Nous n'avons pas autant voté pour les chrétiens d'Orient, nous n'avons pas autant voté pour les Africains suppliciés des Grands Lacs. Que le premier ministre Hun Sen ne soit pas un démocrate, c'est entendu. Cela, j'en suis sûr. Encore faudrait-il s'entendre sur ce qu'il reste de démocratie chez nous. Pour nous, il y a, en effet, de bons dictateurs et de mauvais dictateurs et, chez nous, une dictature un peu molle.
                  

                     Prenons l'exemple d'un homme contre lequel nous n'avons pas voté depuis 2014: Paul Kagamé, l'auteur des troubles et meurtres de masse qui ensanglantent la région des Grands Lacs, labellisé bon dictateur. Par comparaison, Hun Sen et le petit État du Cambodge méritent-ils un tel acharnement?
                  

                     Les droits de l'homme ne sont pas à usage politique, pour nous enfermer dans des logiques de puissance et d'influence, au service, en outre, d'autres intérêts que ceux de l'Europe. Aidons le Cambodge en partant des réalités pour les améliorer, sans deux poids deux mesures.
                  

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Madam President, as the banning of the opposition clearly shows, the Prime Minister and his ruling party are only willing to hold free elections if they are sure that they will win and they do not shy away from deploying anti-democratic practices to secure their rule. Sadly, ordering the closure of the main opposition party follows a wider pattern in this regard. Independent media outlets have already been reduced to silence and critical NGOs have been under attack. The government also expressed its intention to prosecute people who criticise it on social media.
Unfortunately, these incidents are taking place in the context of a shift away from the West, and the US Administration's diminished interest in human rights. Even so, the EU is still the biggest grant donor in Cambodia. China has recently increased its aid and investment in the country without human rights strings attached. To reverse this trend, the EU should use all its means to put pressure on the Cambodian Government to restore the democratic principles from its Constitution.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já bych se chtěl připojit ke svým předřečníkům stran kritiky kambodžského režimu. Není možné, aby na základě takto vágních usnesení mohl Nejvyšší soud rozpustit hlavní opoziční stranu a zakázat několika desítkám kambodžských politiků jejich činnost.
                  

                     Myslím si, že je důležité, abychom již také řekli dost kambodžskému státu, pokud neuznává a nereaguje na naše usnesení, na usnesení jedné z institucí Evropské unie, která významně doposud podporuje Kambodžu. Vítám rozhodnutí Evropské komise, že dojde k zastavení plateb, ale otázka rozpuštění hlavní opoziční strany má vliv i na posouzení platnosti voleb, které budou příští rok. Já myslím, že bychom měli dát jasný signál, že platnost těchto voleb neuznáme. Pokud jde o další sankce, myslím si, že bychom měli přistoupit rovněž k restrikci víz, která by měla být udělována pouze ve výjimečných případech.
                  

Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, effectivement, comme l'indique clairement la résolution sur laquelle nous débattons, il faut aujourd'hui s'inquiéter de l'absence de pluralité politique au Cambodge. Le parti au pouvoir règne en maître et se permet même de dissoudre le principal parti de l'opposition, qui pourtant a obtenu des résultats significatifs aux élections locales.
                  

                     La résolution met à nouveau l'accent sur les arrestations arbitraires et les emprisonnements sur des bases fallacieuses. Dans ces conditions, l'Union européenne se doit de poursuivre son action pour tenter de se faire entendre et de prendre des dispositions visant à frapper le gouvernement au portefeuille, comme vient de l'expliquer fort bien notre collègue Marc Tarabella. Par ailleurs, le secteur de l'habillement, qui est l'un des principaux secteurs économiques avec des débouchés sur l'Union européenne, doit également faire l'objet d'une attention particulière pour que nous ne vivions pas un nouveau Rana Plaza qui a endeuillé le Bangladesh.
                  

                     Les prochaines élections de juin 2018 devront se faire dans la transparence et dans le respect des critères internationaux, faute de quoi l'Union européenne devra durcir ses relations avec ce régime, mais garder en tête qu'elle doit soutenir le peuple cambodgien.
                  

Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Madam President, the information that comes from Cambodia is more than alarming. The parliament has recently approved repressive amendments and the Minister of the Interior has got such strong power to suspend the main opposition political party, and its president has been arrested. The current conditions totally alter competition amongst parties and if the situation stays the same the future election will be just a comedy.
I have had the privilege to be a short-term electoral observer more than once and in several countries. I can largely say that respecting the voting procedure is not enough to guarantee a fair election. The integrity of the voting system needs to be complemented by a democratic long-term environment. Suppressing political parties, conferring powers on a government and drawing up tailored electoral laws, changing the rules of the game in the run-up to the elections, are all ways to corrupt the system and prevent a democratic election.
We should condemn the improper actions of the Cambodian Government and the serious violation of human rights, and call on the European Union to suspend commercial benefits until democracy is restored.

Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich hatte vor sechs Wochen die Möglichkeit, im Rahmen einer Reise der ASEAN-Delegation das Land Kambodscha zu besuchen. Es ist wirklich bedrückend. Kambodscha ist ein wunderschönes Land, das leider in seiner Geschichte von einer Ideologie überfallen wurde, wo in der Vergangenheit ein Viertel der Bevölkerung von der eigenen Regierung ermordet wurde. Dieses Land hat sich jetzt Demokratie verdient. Es hat sich nicht die Frechheit verdient, der derzeit dort stattfindet.
                  

                     Im übrigen auch die Frechheit unserer Delegation gegenüber. Ich habe so etwas selbst in totalitären Staaten bisher auf meinen Delegationsreisen nicht erlebt. Ich denke, was dort passiert ist, ist auch absolut gegen den gen den Willen der Menschen und vor allem auch absolut gegen den Willen der jungen Menschen, die nach drei Jahrzehnten Hun-Sen-Regierung endlich etwas anderes wollen.
                  

                     Etwas sollten wir auch noch bedenken: Wir haben in diesem Land ein neues System für Wahlen bezahlt, welches Wahlfälschung de facto unmöglich macht. Die Antwort auf unsere Investition ist jetzt, dass das Land zur Diktatur wird und Wahlen nur mehr als Farce stattfinden. Auch das, glaube ich, sollte uns eine Lehre sein: In diesem Fall haben wir unser Geld vollkommen unvernünftig ausgegeben.
                  

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the European Union remains deeply concerned about the continuing deterioration of the political situation in Cambodia and the escalating repression of the opposition and civil society. Cambodia is heading towards increasing authoritarianism. In recent months, the Cambodian Government has taken action to stifle political opposition, to suffocate democracy. We have underlined that the decision of the Cambodian Government on 16 November to dissolve the main opposition party, the Cambodian National Rescue Party (CNRP), is a significant step away from the path of pluralism and democracy enshrined in Cambodia's Constitution and supported for more than two decades by Cambodia's international partners, including the European Union. We reiterate that an electoral process from which the main opposition party has been arbitrarily excluded is not legitimate. The CNRP won one over 43% of the vote at the 2016 commune elections and 44.5% in the 2013 legislative elections. Its dissolution disenfranchises is those voters.
The 1991 Paris Accords created binding legal obligations upon the parties, including the duty of the Cambodian Government to maintain liberal multi-party democracy, as well as to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. These commitments are enshrined in the Cambodian Constitution. The European Union and its Member States have put, and continue to put, huge efforts and very significant resources into supporting the development of Cambodia. It is therefore very worrying to see over the last months a significant narrowing of the democratic space in the country.
On 20 November, High Representative Mogherini met with the Cambodian Foreign Minister, Prak Sokhonn, on the margins of the ASEM Ministerial Meeting in Myanmar. She insisted on the expectation that the continued detention of the opposition leader, Kem Sokha, and the dissolution of the CNRP would be swiftly reversed. The High Representative also recalled that the EU's development cooperation and trade preferences were reliant on Cambodia's respect for fundamental human rights. We are currently assessing the situation in terms of development cooperation assistance. In this regard, the EU has decided to suspend its support to the national election committee. The EU will continue to reaffirm its commitment to protect and to promote the universality of human rights whenever they are violated or questioned, whether inside or outside its borders.
The principle of democratic inclusion and dialogue is key to lasting peace and stability. We encourage the Cambodian Government to find a way out of this impasse, through a structured dialogue with the opposition. We will also continue to raise with the government the need to apply the law evenly and fairly to all, and the need to ensure that freedom of association, expression and due process are fully respected.
Respect for fundamental human and labour rights is also part of our trade policy and underpins the legal basis of our trade preferences. Our development cooperation with Cambodia is long term and any consideration regarding a suspension of cooperation would have to be carefully evaluated in terms of its impact. Suspension of aid could be detrimental to the population.
On the temporary withdrawal of Cambodia from the Everything But Arms (EBA) arrangement, the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, is monitoring the situation in Cambodia to check whether the conditions for taking measures, under Article 19 of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) regulations, are fulfilled.
The European Union remains ready to support the government of Cambodia in strengthening Cambodia's developing democratic system.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
                  

                     Äänestys toimitetaan torstaina 14.12.2017.
                  
5.3.   El Salvador: the cases of women prosecuted for miscarriage

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana keskustelu kuudesta El Salvadoria ( naisten asettaminen syytteeseen keskenmenon vuoksi) koskevasta päätöslauselmaesityksestä (2017/3003(RSP)).
                  

Marek Jurek,
autor. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Salwador jest wolnym, demokratycznym państwem, które chce bronić życia. Zresztą ten status Salwadoru jako wolnego, demokratycznego państwa potwierdzają rankingi The Economist czy Freedom House. To państwo chce bronić życia i dlatego jest atakowane. Czas, żeby wreszcie w tym Parlamencie to podżeganie przeciwko prawu do życia się skończyło. A kiedy się pewnego dnia w Europie i w tym Parlamencie skończy, wtedy naprawdę powstaną warunki do tego, żeby rozmawiać o praktycznych, technicznych sposobach ochrony życia, bo jeżeli potwierdza się prawo do życia, to oczywiście można dyskutować nad tym, jak to robić.
                  

                     Na różny sposób robi to Irlandia, Polska, Malta, Salwador. I właśnie dlatego, że to prawo wymaga umocnienia, my w Polsce chcemy je zmienić i poprawić, uczynić Polskę jeszcze bezpieczniejszym krajem dla tych, którzy chronią życia. A jeżeli chodzi o Salwador, to czas, żebyśmy przestali atakować państwa, których jedyną winą jest to, że bronią praw człowieka.
                  

Molly Scott Cato,
author. – Madam President, in September I visited Ilopango prison in El Salvador during a Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (EuroLat) visit to that country. I was shocked by what I found. Women had been imprisoned, their lives stolen, simply because of unwanted pregnancies, in some cases because they had suffered miscarriage or been raped.
Gender-based violence is a major problem in El Salvador, where a woman is sexually assaulted every three hours and rape and incest often result in unwanted pregnancies. Since 1998, abortion has been criminalised in all circumstances, even when continuing the pregnancy is life-threatening or when the foetus is non-viable. Between 2011 and 2015, 14 women died of complications related to abortion.
We know that the Government in El Salvador is working to improve this situation and we acknowledge the work of European diplomats supporting women who have been unjustly jailed. We hope that this resolution will draw attention to the plight of women like Teodora del Carmen Vásquez and Evelyn Beatriz Hernández Cruz, who should be granted a pardon while we wait for changes to the law.

(Applause)


Miguel Urbán Crespo,
autor. – Señora presidenta. Estamos aquí para reclamar la libertad de Teodora del Carmen Vásquez, Evelyn Beatriz Hernández y todas las mujeres encarceladas en El Salvador por abortar o por sufrir abortos involuntarios. También para exigir la despenalización total del aborto en este país, pero también en otras partes del mundo donde el aborto está prohibido o solo permitido en algunas circunstancias.
                  

                     La denegación de la salud sexual y reproductiva así como la interrupción segura y legal del embarazo constituyen una forma de violencia contra las mujeres, así como una grave violación de sus derechos y de su dignidad. La tan mentada igualdad de género no se puede lograr sin garantizar la libre decisión de las mujeres sobre sus cuerpos.
                  

                     Exigimos a la Unión Europea y a sus Estados miembros que sean y que velen por el reconocimiento del derecho al acceso a la planificación familiar voluntaria y al aborto seguro y legal para todas las mujeres, ya sea en El Salvador, en Europa, o en cualquier otro país del mundo.
                  

Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea,
Autora. – Señora presidenta, en El Salvador el aborto está prohibido en todos los casos. En todos. Incluida la violación, por supuesto. Pero es que además estaba castigado como en Europa castigamos los asesinatos, con penas de hasta treinta años de cárcel. Porque se considera homicidio agravado, incluso el aborto espontáneo.
                  

                     Evelyn Hernández es una joven salvadoreña que fue violada. Afirma que su hijo nació muerto. Y, no obstante, está condenada a treinta años de cárcel. Y así están otras diecisiete mujeres en las cárceles salvadoreñas, incluida Teodora del Carmen Vásquez, cuya sentencia acaba de ser confirmada por el juez.
                  

                     Estamos ante una injusticia descomunal y es un castigo contra las mujeres de uno de los países con más violencia en toda la región. Es un castigo contra las más vulnerables. Es un castigo repetido, insistente, contra las propias víctimas. Y es un castigo para el conjunto del país, porque lo que hace es bloquear su progreso, su desarrollo y su evolución. Y no hablamos solo de una cuestión de libertad. El precio de la prohibición y la penalización extrema del aborto es ni más ni menos que la vida y la salud de las mujeres.
                  

                     Yo lamento profundamente que en esta Cámara no haya una voluntad y un consenso sobre lo que el alto comisionado de las Naciones Unidas ha pedido: despenalización del aborto en toda circunstancia y la posibilidad de abortar en algunos casos, al menos, como en El Salvador.
                  

Soraya Post,
author. – Madam President, I would like to say to the Salvadorian authorities: who are you to decide on women's lives or women's bodies? How can a miscarriage be criminalised? We, as parliamentarians, with our democratic values and respect for human rights, take a stand against your violations.
States and churches do not have the right to violate our human dignity. My body is my body and it is my decision whether to have an abortion or not. Every woman across the world is entitled to make her choice for herself. We stand up for women who have been targeted under these laws. I call on the Salvadorian authorities: release the women from prison, abolish the laws that require hospitals to report women seeking health care to the police.
Our resolution shows that we are taking action against all forms of violations of women's human rights. As a strong feministic politician, I stand in international solidarity with all women and the right to decide over our bodies and lives. Today we got the news about Teodora Vásquez. She has had her appeal rejected so her sentence to 30 years in prison stands. This is disgusting in El Salvador. And I want to say to Mr Jurek: do you find this is justice, 30 years of prison because of this? How can you look on this as a criminal action? Shame on you!

(Applause)


(The speaker declined to take a blue-card question from Bernd Lucke)


Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz,
autorka. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mówimy dziś o Salwadorze, niewielkim państwie Ameryki Środkowej, w którym stosunkowo niedawno, bo w 1998 roku wprowadzono do prawa całkowity zakaz aborcji. Oznacza on, że nawet kobieta zgwałcona lub której ciąża zagraża życiu, nie może tej ciąży przerwać. To bardzo okrutne prawo traktujące kobiety przedmiotowo i pogardliwie, a które w Salwadorze jest dodatkowo interpretowane w sposób ignorujący zasady sprawiedliwości, domniemania niewinności i wiedzy naukowej. Otóż kobiety, które doświadczają poronienia lub martwicy ciąży, bywają oskarżane o aborcję lub zabójstwo dziecka i skazywane są na długie lata więzienia. Dlatego ciąża dla kobiety w Salwadorze to dramat, szczególnie gdy jest niezamężna i sama jest jeszcze dzieckiem. W strachu przed konsekwencjami ciężarne dziewczęta popełniają samobójstwa. W Salwadorze samobójstwo jest przyczyną ponad połowy zgonów ciężarnych w wieku od 10 do 19 lat. Wiele kobiet ginie w wyniku komplikacji ciąży. Jakiekolwiek zaburzenia ciąży natychmiast budzą podejrzenia i oskarżenia o próbę aborcji lub uśmiercenia płodu, więc kobiety z trudnymi ciążami po prostu unikają lekarzy.
                  

                     Apeluję do władz Salwadoru o zastopowanie nieludzkiego traktowania kobiet, o wprowadzenie ustawy przewidującej wyjątki od zakazu aborcji i o zwolnienie z więzień kobiet osadzonych tam za czyny, które w świetle międzynarodowych standardów prawa i wiedzy medycznej nie mogą być traktowane jako przestępstwa.
                  

                     Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałabym dodać jeszcze tylko jedno zdanie w odpowiedzi na to, co powiedział pan Marek Jurek. Chciałabym powiedzieć, że mam nadzieję, że polskie prawo nigdy nie zbliży się do tego prawa, które obowiązuje w tej chwili w Salwadorze. I chciałabym zauważyć, że próby wprowadzenia takiego prawa wyprowadziły na ulice sto tysięcy kobiet w ramach ‘czarnego marszu’ i tysiące kobiet na całym świecie, które okazały solidarność Polkom.
                  

(Mówczyni zgodziła się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))


Marek Jurek (ECR),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani poseł, słyszała pani przed chwilą, że dziecko jest częścią ciała kobiety. Przecież w programie państwa partii piszecie, że prawo do życia powinno być chronione tak jak w Polsce. To są orzeczenia polskiego Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Czy naprawdę to wszystko ma pozostać tylko na papierze dla wyborców? Dlaczego pani nie reaguje, gdy słyszy pani podżeganie przeciwko prawu do życia?
                  

Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz (PPE),
odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Panie Pośle! Chciałabym zauważyć, że polskie prawo zawiera trzy wyjątki od zakazu aborcji. To są te wyjątki, o które w tej chwili walczymy, żeby były w Salwadorze, a które powodują, że można skonstruować prawo, które jest konserwatywne i które chroni życie, ale także które zauważa, że kobieta jest żywą istotą i obywatelem.
                  

Francisco Assis,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Teodora del Carmen Vásquez está presa há dez anos e vai cumprir uma pena de trinta anos de cadeia. Qual o crime que cometeu? Ter dado à luz um bebé morto. Teodora partilha uma cela com outras 70 mulheres na prisão de Ilopango. A presente resolução toma, felizmente, uma forte posição política sobre o caso de Teodora e outras mulheres sujeitas à mesma desumanidade, à mesma crueldade, caso do grupo conhecido como ‘as dezassete’ também elas detidas na mesma prisão e a cumprirem igualmente longas penas de várias décadas de cadeia.
                  

                     Creio que a indignação e a pressão da União Europeia junto das autoridades de El Salvador podem ser importantes para tentar reverter a situação destas mulheres. Quero deixar uma saudação ao povo salvadorenho e enaltecer a vitalidade da sociedade civil deste país que conseguiu, ao fim de muitos anos, agitar as consciências e colocar na ordem do dia uma discussão em torno da descriminalização do aborto. Deve-se, em boa parte, ao corajoso trabalho dessas organizações da sociedade civil o facto de estar hoje em apreciação na Assembleia Nacional uma proposta legislativa com vista a tornar a lei do aborto mais decente e mais humana.
                  

                     Daqui lanço a ideia e a esperança de que seja possível aos legisladores salvadorenhos avançarem resolutamente neste caminho para porem fim a este espetáculo tão cruel e tão profundamente desumano.
                  

Angelika Mlinar,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, conservative forces in El Salvador consider women and girls as incubators in fact, to the extent that female human beings end up in jail for two to eight years for miscarriages and for up to 50 years for abortions. To a healthy mind this sounds like a bizarre nightmare but in fact this is the everyday reality for women and girls in El Salvador in the year 2017.
For those in this House who think this should not be our business as it is in fact saving lives, I would like to ask you: how many more women and girls should suffer and die before you will understand that this is cynical, killing human beings, and in fact defending murder. I don't know about you but I will certainly not leave those women and girls alone.

Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Teodora and Evelyn are two women who have faced unbearable hardships in their lives. Not only have they suffered miscarriages, now they are being charged for murder and have been sentenced to prison for years and years.
To the Salvadorian authorities: release Teodora, Evelyn and all the other women who are in prison for a miscarriage. The current law in El Salvador is misogyny poured into law. It is an outcome of an ideology and a quest for absolute patriarchal power over female bodies.
No matter where a woman is born, her body belongs to her and not to the state or to men who believe they know what to do with it. Women have a right to life too. My body, my rights.

Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – Señora presidenta. Teodora del Carmen tiene treinta y cuatro años y lleva más de diez años en prisión. Diez años en prisión por haber perdido a su hija en un parto prematuro, y las autoridades salvadoreñas confirmaron ayer la pena de treinta años.
                  

                     A las mujeres en El Salvador se las criminaliza. No es solo Teodora. Hay más de treinta casos de mujeres que han sufrido abortos espontáneos y que están en las cárceles privadas de su libertad.
                  

                     No podemos permitir desde Europa que en ningún rincón del mundo se esté privando de la libertad a las mujeres por decidir sobre sus vidas. Tenemos que ser conscientes de que hablamos de derechos humanos, y la política exterior y la política de cooperación de la Unión Europea tienen que garantizar los derechos de salud sexual y reproductiva de todas las mujeres del mundo.
                  

                     Porque su lucha es nuestra lucha. Nuestro cuerpo es la libertad. Seguiremos trabajando desde Europa para todas las mujeres del resto del mundo.
                  

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, když dokončil svou řeč pan kolega Jurek, tak jsem měl pocit, že hovořil úplně k jinému bodu. Ani slova o solidaritě se ženami, o pochopení, že samovolný potrat nebo narození mrtvého dítěte je přece jenom jiná skutečnost než libovolný potrat. Ani já nejsem příznivcem, řekněme, přehnané potratové možnosti pro ženy, ale na druhou stranu musím vnímat okolnosti, které jsou snad pochopitelné a o kterých je zde řeč.
                  

                     Proto bych chtěl vyjádřit solidaritu těm ženám ze Salvadoru, které jsou postiženy touto legislativou, a myslím si, že odsudek vůči této legislativě by měli provést všichni rozumní kolegové na tomto plénu, a řekl bych, i dogmatici z Polska
                  

(Řečník odmítl odpovědět na otázku, kterou zvednutím modré karty položil Marek Jurek.)


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il dibattito sull'aborto pone da sempre interrogativi che investono le nostre coscienze, intersecandosi con questioni culturali e religiose, e diversificando di conseguenza i percorsi legislativi nel mondo.
                  

                     Ma c'è una linea rossa che non andrebbe mai valicata, quella dei diritti e della dignità delle donne. El Salvador è tra i paesi con le leggi più restrittive sui diritti delle donne. Ha scosso l'opinione pubblica internazionale il caso della ragazza diciannovenne Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz, condannata a trent'anni di carcere per aver subito un aborto spontaneo, peraltro a seguito di uno stupro.
                  

                     Nella risoluzione del marzo 2017 sulla parità tra uomo e donna, il Parlamento europeo ha dichiarato che le donne devono avere il controllo della loro salute sessuale e riproduttiva e dei relativi diritti, e che la negazione dei servizi salvavita in materia di salute sessuale e riproduttiva, tra cui l'aborto sicuro, equivale ad una grave violazione dei diritti umani.
                  

                     Oltre a condannare con fermezza ogni atto contro il diritto delle donne, l'Unione europea è tenuta a fare tutto quanto è nelle sue possibilità affinché siano rilasciate tutte le donne imprigionate solo per aver subito un aborto spontaneo o involontario.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, στο Σαλβαδόρ συμβαίνει κάτι το απίθανο: Η νομοθεσία επιβάλλει ποινή φυλάκισης σε περίπτωση που γεννηθεί νεκρό ένα έμβρυο ή συμβεί αποβολή. Αυτό είναι το κεντρικό θέμα το οποίο συζητούμε σήμερα και αυτό είναι κάτι το οποίο νομίζω ότι όλες οι πλευρές αυτής της αίθουσας το καταγγέλλουν, διότι δεν είναι δυνατόν να μην υπάρχει το τεκμήριο αθωότητας και δεν είναι δυνατόν να θεωρείται ότι, για κάθε έμβρυο το οποίο γεννιέται νεκρό ή σε περίπτωση πρόωρης αποβολής, υπάρχει ευθύνη της μητέρας και αυτή να οδηγείται στις φυλακές.
                  

                     Κραυγαλέα περίπτωση είναι αυτή της Evelin, η οποία έχει καταδικαστεί σε τριάντα χρόνια φυλάκιση και της αποδίδεται ανθρωποκτονία. Νομίζω λοιπόν ότι σε αυτά τα κεντρικά ζητήματα πρέπει να επικεντρωθούμε, διότι αυτό είναι μια πρακτική στο Σαλβαδόρ, καθώς έχουν καταδικαστεί πάνω από 147 τουλάχιστον γυναίκες. Αντιλαμβάνεστε λοιπόν ότι σε αυτό το κεντρικό σημείο υπάρχει ενότητα, νομίζω, όλων των πλευρών εδώ και είναι κάτι το οποίο πρέπει να καταδικάσουμε.
                  

Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, desde 1998 el aborto está perseguido. Desde el año 2000 casi más de ciento veinte mujeres han sido procesadas por esta cuestión. Condenadas a entre treinta y cincuenta años. No importa si fueron violadas, no importa si su vida corría peligro. Hoy mis pensamientos van para Teodora, diez años ya cumplidos en la cárcel; para Evelyn, de dieciocho años, a la que le esperan más de treinta años de cárcel por delante.
                  

                     Y creo que es muy importante que este Parlamento vaya a pedir hoy su libertad y que se operen los cambios legislativos necesarios para acabar con esta situación. Y quiero decir que no estamos lejos de ello, porque en estos momentos hay en el Congreso salvadoreño iniciativas para cambiar la ley. Y por eso creo que es imprescindible que la Unión Europea le dé un empujón a estos cambios legislativos para que podamos llegar a cambiar esta situación.
                  

                     La delegación de la Unión Europea en El Salvador está haciendo un buen trabajo en este sentido y es muy importante que, a la vista de lo que pasará el año que viene con las elecciones en el país, este pueda ser un cambio de verdad que se opere y que estas mujeres puedan salir de la cárcel y que, de una vez por todas, no se procese nunca más a una mujer por haber tenido un aborto.
                  

Wajid Khan (S&D). – Madam President, since 1998, abortion in El Salvador is criminalised under any circumstances. Any woman suspected of having had an abortion, including those who went through miscarriage, risk up to 50 years of imprisonment. Consequently, many women have been prosecuted and many others have died due to pregnancy complications. El Salvador's anti-abortion law is causing nothing but pain and suffering to countless women and their families.
Sadly, we heard yesterday that the court decided to uphold the 30-year jail sentence for Carmen Vásquez. This is undoubtedly a step back for justice and women's rights. Denying women and girls access to sexual and reproductive rights, including safe and legal abortion, is a violation of their rights to life and health. We urge the Parliament of El Salvador to support the bill introducing the reform of the Criminal Code in order to decriminalise abortion under certain circumstances. We also urge the government to introduce a moratorium on the enforcement of the current law.
Today's resolution is a message to these women. You are not alone. We stand by your side in this battle.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Marek Jurek (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałbym skorzystać z prawa odpowiedzi wymienionemu posłowi przysługującego na mocy art. 164 Regulaminu. Chcę zwrócić uwagę zarówno Sorayi Post, jak i posłowi Polčákowi, że cały czas opierają się państwo na danych dostarczonych przez Amnesty International. Mówimy o organizacji, która również w tym Parlamencie, np. w komisji LIBE, wielokrotnie deklarowała się jako organizacja proaborcyjna, organizacja, która traktuje dziecko nawet nie jako organ ciała kobiety, ale jako wyrostek, który można wedle własnej woli kosmetycznie usunąć albo nie. Naprawdę wysłuchajcie państwo wyjaśnień władz salwadorskich, a nie opierajcie się na tej jednostronnej propagandzie.
                  

Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the EU is very much aware of the situation of women prosecuted for miscarriage in El Salvador. The EU does not comment on judicial decisions but observes with significant concern that on many occasions maximum criminal penalties were applied to women who had a miscarriage in El Salvador. Respect for the rule of law is one of the fundamental values upon which the EU is based. Therefore the EU is very much attached to the presumption of innocence, as well as to upholding the principles of proportionality, due process and the provision of legal aid in all judicial processes.
To follow up the situation closely, the EU is in regular contact with local associations, such as citizens' groups, which provide support to women and girls during their trials. Under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the EU has also supported the provision of legal assistance to human rights organisations. The relative scarcity of sexual and reproductive health services in El Salvador is another important obstacle to address the issue of miscarriage. It is also a key area of progress to improve women's lives in the country.
Respect for, and the promotion of, women's rights is at the core of the EU agenda in El Salvador and beyond. From a human rights angle, the total ban on abortion foreseen in the constitution and criminal code of El Salvador is worrying, especially when the lives of pregnant women or young girls are at risk or in cases of rape. Total bans on abortion are also a problem in several other countries in Latin America.
The EU raises this issue at the highest level in El Salvador and welcomes the efforts deployed by the Government to improve in a comprehensive manner the alarming situation of women. Among other initiatives, the EU has provided support to the flagship and successful programme ‘Ciudad Mujer’ (Women's City), created by the Government and which has meaningfully contributed to enhancing women's and girls' access to sexual and reproductive health services, but also to address gender-based violence, as well as to promote women's economic empowerment.
The EU encourages El Salvador and all other countries concerned by this important challenge to continue pursuing efforts in this direction and stands ready to help on this issue.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
                  

                     Äänestys toimitetaan torstaina 14.12.2017.
                  


Kirjalliset lausumat (työjärjestyksen 162 artikla)



Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D),
raštu. – Situacija Salvadore dėl moterų persekiojimo už persileidimus yra labai neraminanti. Nuo 2000 m. Salvadore mažiausiai 120 moterų buvo patrauktos baudžiamojon atsakomybėn dėl aborto ar žmogžudystės tais atvejais, kai vaisius mirdavo paskutiniaisiais nėštumo mėnesiais ir visoms nuteistosioms skirtos itin ilgo laikotarpio įkalinimo bausmės, nors jos pagal tarptautinius standartus nėra nusikaltėlės. Maža to, smurtas dėl lyties yra viena didžiausių Salvadoro problemų. Duomenys rodo, kad kas tris valandas seksualinę prievartą patiria viena moteris, o išžaginimo atvejai dažnai baigiasi nepageidaujamu nėštumu. Svarbu pažymėti, kad pagal Tarptautinio baudžiamojo teismo Romos statutą, kurį Salvadoras yra ratifikavęs, priverstinis nėštumas yra apibrėžiamas kaip nusikaltimas žmoniškumui ir prieš moterį nukreipto smurto dėl lyties forma, o tai sunkus žmogaus teisių bei moterų ir mergaičių orumo pažeidimas. Taigi, mergaičių ir moterų žmogaus teisių, įskaitant lytinės ir reprodukcinės sveikatos priežiūrą ir teises, padėtis Salvadore kelia didelį susirūpinimą ir todėl griežtai nepritariu tam, kad nuteisiamos ir kalinamos negyvą kūdikį pagimdžiusios ar persileidimą patyrusios moterys ir mergaitės bei prisijungiu prie raginimų nedelsiant ir besąlygiškai jas išlaisvinti.
                  

Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz (PPE),
na piśmie. – Głosowałam za rezolucją dotyczącą dramatycznych skutków wprowadzenia w Salwadorze całkowitego zakazu aborcji w 1998 r. Takie prawo, traktujące kobiety przedmiotowo, już samo w sobie jest niehumanitarne i sprzeczne z prawami człowieka. Dodatkowo w Salwadorze kobiety, które poroniły, urodziły martwe dziecko lub doświadczają komplikacji w ciąży, są podejrzewane i nierzadko oskarżane o próby dokonania aborcji lub nawet zabójstwo dziecka i są skazywane na dziesiątki lat ciężkiego więzienia. Wezwania międzynarodowej opinii do zaprzestania tych nieludzkich praktyk i zmiany prawa mogą pomóc kobietom z Salwadoru wydostać się z ich tragicznej sytuacji. W tym miejscu warto zauważyć, że pomysły całkowitego zakazu aborcji pojawiają się w przestrzeni publicznej także w Europie. W Polsce jesienią 2016 r. zostały nawet przekute w projekt ustawy, którą złożono w Sejmie i rozpoczęto jej procedowanie, a wiele osób z partii rządzącej publicznie poparło ten projekt. Poparcie rządzącej partii dla barbarzyńskiego prawa wyprowadziło na ulice ponad 100 tys. Polek, a ich protest spotkał się z solidarnością dziesiątek tysięcy kobiet na całym świecie, które manifestowały swoje poparcie przez publiczne deklaracje publikowane w mediach społecznościowych. Wyrażam nadzieję, że wbrew intencjom niektórych dyskutantów dzisiejszej debaty nad rezolucją polskie prawo nigdy nie zbliży się do tego, które obecnie obowiązuje w Salwadorze.
                  

(Istunto keskeytettiin klo 11.36.)


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

6.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

7.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
8.   Voting time

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt folgt die Abstimmungsstunde.
               

(Abstimmungsergebnisse und sonstige Einzelheiten der Abstimmung: siehe Protokoll.)

8.1.   Freedom of expression in Vietnam, notably the case of Nguyen Van Hoa (RC-B8-0685/2017, B8-0685/2017, B8-0687/2017, B8-0688/2017, B8-0690/2017, B8-0693/2017) (vote)
8.2.   Cambodia: the banning of the opposition (RC-B8-0686/2017, B8-0686/2017, B8-0689/2017, B8-0692/2017, B8-0694/2017, B8-0696/2017, B8-0697/2017) (vote)
8.3.   El Salvador: the cases of women prosecuted for miscarriage (RC-B8-0691/2017, B8-0691/2017, RC-B8-0695/2017, B8-0695/2017, B8-0698/2017, B8-0699/2017, B8-0701/2017, B8-0702/2017) (vote)

— Vor der Abstimmung über RC B8-0695/2017:


Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I have an oral amendment in connection with some legal action that took place last night. We need to change recital C so that at the end, it reads: ‘whereas after spending the last 10 years in prison, Teodora del Carmen Vásquez's case was reviewed by the Second Sentencing Tribunal on 13 December 2017 and her appeal was rejected.’.

— Der mündliche Änderungsantrag wird übernommen.

8.4.   Enforcement of the Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, laying down a notification procedure for authorisation schemes and requirements related to services, and amending Directive 2006/123/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (A8-0396/2017 - Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto) (vote)

— Vor der Abstimmung:


Nicola Danti,
in sostituzione del relatore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, a nome del relatore Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto chiedo a quest'Aula di sostenere il mandato negoziale conferito la settimana scorsa dalla commissione per il mercato interno al fine di iniziare i triloghi con il Consiglio su questa relazione.
                  

                     Il testo adottato dalla commissione IMCO sulla base di un ampio sostegno ha migliorato notevolmente la proposta originaria della Commissione europea, in particolar modo con riferimento al rispetto della legittimità democratica delle assemblee locali e dei parlamenti nazionali.
                  

                     Siamo convinti che l'ampia maggioranza ottenuta in occasione del voto in commissione consentirà al relatore di iniziare un trilogo con un mandato forte e definito. Per questo chiedo a nome del relatore di sostenere il mandato negoziale.
                  

Dennis de Jong (GUE/NGL). – Ik geef zeker toe dat het Parlement geprobeerd heeft het slechte voorstel van de Commissie enigszins te verbeteren, maar het gaat nog steeds om uitstel van de nationale democratische besluitvorming met drie tot zes maanden. Als we dit zo door laten gaan, dan gaat het zeker terugslaan op hoe de Europese Unie gezien wordt. Dan moet u zich voorstellen dat dus in gemeenteraden, in lokale democratische vertegenwoordigingen, de Commissie eerst moet gaan spreken voordat zij door kunnen gaan met hun besluitvorming. Daarom denk ik dat dit een plenair debat waard is en dat we hier de volgende keer op moeten terugkomen.
                  
8.5.   Situation in Afghanistan (RC-B8-0678/2017, B8-0678/2017, B8-0679/2017, B8-0680/2017, B8-0681/2017, B8-0682/2017, B8-0683/2017, B8-0684/2017) (vote)
8.6.   Situation of the Rohingya people (RC-B8-0668/2017, B8-0668/2017, B8-0669/2017, B8-0670/2017, B8-0671/2017, B8-0672/2017, B8-0673/2017, B8-0674/2017) (vote)
8.7.   Implementation of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (A8-0368/2017 - Anna Maria Corazza Bildt) (vote)

— Vor der Abstimmung:


Anna Maria Corazza Bildt,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank all my colleagues for the great support. Let us join forces today to send a clear and strong message to all Member States that they have to do more – better and faster – to protect children. Let us, together with the law enforcement authorities, civil society and the IT industry, stand up for zero tolerance against child sexual abuse and exploitation, online and offline. It is really time to go from words to action and ensure that Europe truly means safety for all kids.

(Applause)

8.8.   Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2016 (A8-0387/2017 - Notis Marias) (vote)
8.9.   A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (A8-0356/2017 - Bas Eickhout) (vote)

Der Präsident. – Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.
                  

                     Ich darf noch einmal daran erinnern, dass Ihre Stimme nur dann ankommt, wenn Sie Ihre Karte erst nach Schluss der Abstimmung abziehen.
                  

                     Ich wünsche Ihnen allen eine sichere Heimfahrt. Wer nächste Woche nicht mehr in Brüssel ist, dem sei auch eine restliche besinnliche Adventszeit gewünscht und ein frohes Weihnachtsfest.
                  

                     Das Gleiche gilt natürlich auch für die Dienste.
                  
9.   Explanations of vote

(Abstimmungsstunde vom Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2017)

9.1.   Objection to an implementing act: Use of phosphoric acid – phosphates – di – tri – and polyphosphates (E 338-452) in frozen vertical meat spits (B8-0666/2017)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, chtěla bych vysvětlit, že jsem hlasovala proti námitce, kterou vznesla skupina poslanců, a sice k nařízení Komise, které povoluje fosfáty ve zmrazeném mase. Já jsem také vystoupila v diskusi, kde jsem vysvětlila své zdůvodnění. Nakonec tato námitka při včerejším hlasování skutečně neprošla velmi těsně, třemi hlasy. Já jsem také přesvědčena o tom, že to bylo díky vysvětlení, které poskytla Komise zde na plénu, které jsme jako Evropská lidová strana prosadili, aby se o tomto tématu diskutovalo na plenárním zasedání, abychom mohli vysvětlit naše důvody.
                  

                     Občané v Evropské unii se nemusí obávat, protože denní spotřeba fosfátu rozhodně nestoupne, a to minimální množství, které je povoleno ve zmrazeném mase používaném například pro přípravu kebabu, nebude zvyšovat nebezpečí a závadnost. Samozřejmě budeme i nadále velmi bedlivě kontrolovat a postupovat při dalším povolování.
                  

Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Pane předsedající, já jsem také nepodpořil v tomto hlasování navrhované usnesení, a to nikoliv z toho důvodu, že by mi snad chyběl cit pro ochranu spotřebitele, ale myslím, že bychom nic neměli přehánět. Jestliže jsme tady měli vědecky podložená vyjádření našich vlastních agentur, agentur zřizovaných Evropskou unií, která nám dokázala kvalifikovaně vysvětlit, že tady opravdu žádné ohrožení nehrozí, že jak koncentrace zmíněných látek, tak konzumované množství je hluboko pod úrovněmi, které by vůbec mohly způsobit nějaké poškození zdraví. Pak mám pocit, že jsme hlasovali trochu zbytečně a přimlouval bych se za to, aby – byť možná v dobrém úmyslu a vedeni dobrou vůlí –, kolegové nezneužívali plenárního zasedání k hlasování o věcech, u kterých to není bezpodmínečně nutné.
                  

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Ja, er zijn aanwijzingen dat fosfaten in voeding de gezondheid kunnen schaden. De gezondheidseffecten van fosfaten worden momenteel door het Europees agentschap voor voedselveiligheid geëvalueerd en de resultaten worden eind 2018 verwacht. Het is dan ook logisch dit EFSA-rapport af te wachten alvorens te beslissen over bijkomende uitzonderingen voor het gebruik van fosfaten in voeding. Bovendien dreigt de consument in de kou te blijven staan. Fosfaten kunnen dankzij hun waterbindend vermogen immers het gewicht van vlees verhogen en er wordt daarover geen informatie gegeven via een productetiket. Dit gaat helemaal niet over het verbieden van kebab. Innovatie maakt alternatieven voor fosfaten mogelijk. In Vlaanderen speelt Flanders' FOOD hierin een sterke rol. Dit is niet alleen belangrijk uit gezondheidsoverwegingen, maar ook voor een efficiënt gebruik van de schaarse grondstof die fosfaat is. Om al die redenen heeft de N-VA-delegatie het bezwaar gesteund.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, ani já jsem nepodpořil tuto námitku, protože je důležité říci, že fosfáty se používají v řadě jiných potravinových výrobků, ať jsou to kolové nápoje nebo v cukrářském průmyslu. Je celá řada druhů fosfátů a zde Komise, myslím si, že poměrně správně zaplnila určitou mezeru v právu, kdy povolila využívání fosfátu právě u těchto zmražených polotovarů. Pokud má příští rok být udělána právě studie Evropského úřadu pro bezpečnost potravin o bezpečnosti těchto látek, myslím si, že v tuto chvíli šlo, v případě právě kolegů podávajících tuto námitku, spíše o vyvolávání určitého strachu. Ty limity, které jsou nařízením povoleny, jsou mnohonásobně menší než denní přípustné limity. Tudíž já jsem i z těchto důvodů námitku nepodpořil, ale zároveň chci uvést, že budu bedlivě sledovat právě vyhodnocení celé skupiny fosfátů, jak je bude provádět Evropský úřad pro bezpečnost potravin.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ψήφισα υπέρ της αντίρρησης, γιατί η χρήση φωσφορικών αλάτων σε παρασκευάσματα κρέατος δημιουργεί διάφορους κινδύνους για την υγεία των καταναλωτών, μάλιστα η επέκταση της χρήσης φωσφορικών αλάτων σε κατεψυγμένα παρασκευάσματα κρέατος που ψήνονται σε κάθετες σούβλες, όπως είναι το γνωστό τουρκικό κεμπάπ και ο τουρκικός γύρος, που πωλείται στη Γερμανία και σε άλλες χώρες της Δυτικής Ευρώπης, είναι εστία κινδύνων για την υγεία των καταναλωτών.
                  

                     Στην Ελλάδα ο ελληνικός γύρος και το κεμπάπ δεν έχουν φωσφορικά άλατα, καθώς η τρυφεροποίησή τους, η σταθεροποίηση και η παραγωγή του τελικού προϊόντος επιτυγχάνεται με άλλους τρόπους καθαρά υγιεινούς. Στην ουσία ο ελληνικός γύρος συνιστά ένα εγγυημένο παραδοσιακό ιδιότυπο προϊόν που χρήζει αναγνώρισης και νομοθετικής προστασίας. Επομένως η απαγόρευση χρήσης φωσφορικών αλάτων στον γύρο θα οδηγούσε, στην ουσία, σε απαγόρευση εισαγωγής του τουρκικού γύρου στη Γερμανία.
                  

                     Η λύση είναι απλή: Αξιοποιήστε τον ελληνικό γύρο που είναι υγιεινός. Απαγορεύστε την εισαγωγή κατεψυγμένου γύρου από την Τουρκία.
                  
9.2.   Recommendation following the inquiry on money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (B8-0660/2017)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this report. Trillions of pounds, euros and dollars are being siphoned off through loopholes to avoid tax, while our public services are starved of money and the world's poorest are hit hardest. This is a global problem but the Panama Papers revealed Britain to be top of the leader board, with the greatest number of offshore companies and trusts amongst EU nations.
Sadly, though, our government has not shown leadership in Westminster to tackle tax dodging, and here in Europe, and again and again, the Conservatives have sought to water down and block action to combat tax avoidance, including failing to vote for the conclusions of Parliament's Committee of inquiry into Money Laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Panama Committee).
I welcome the blacklist of tax havens and sanctions against them, more transparency, more cooperation, as well as a globally recognised definition of a tax haven. It is high time we end having one set of rules for the super-rich, and another for the rest of us.

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! A Bizottság ajánlásaival maximálisan egyetértek, annál is inkább, mert az Európai Unió területén számtalan olyan tagország van, amelyek sajnos együttműködnek a káros gyakorlatokkal. Erős feltételezésem, hogy nem elég pusztán az adók környékén való vizsgálódás, hanem fontosnak tartom azt is, hogy a tagországok tiltsák meg a közbeszerzések területén az offshore cégeknek a közbejövetelét.
                  

Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, 1 000 milliards d'euros par an, voilà ce que représentent la fraude et l'évasion fiscales. L'inaction coûte chaque année 2 000 euros à chaque citoyen européen, et l'on vient nous parler d'Europe solidaire, d'Europe qui protège.
                  

                     En fait, derrière les discours grandiloquents, on organise en coulisses la possibilité pour les multinationales et les multimillionnaires de passer à travers les mailles du filet. Cette hypocrisie ne trompe plus personne, tellement hypocrite qu'il a été oublié d'inscrire le Luxembourg sur la fameuse liste noire, ainsi que ces beaux et propres pays que sont le Liechtenstein, la Suisse, Monaco et Andorre.
                  

                     Il est plus que temps de combattre vraiment le terrorisme financier, toujours impuni, au service d'une ultraminorité toujours plus riche, au détriment des plus pauvres, malheureusement toujours plus pauvres.
                  

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Pán predsedajúci, ja oceňujem každú aktivitu Európskej únie v boji proti daňovým únikom a schránkovým firmám, ktoré sa vyhýbajú plateniu daní, a legalizovaniu príjmov v daňových rajoch. Takéto konanie nielenže poškodzuje existujúci systém, ale je aj nemorálne a hrubo okráda spoločnosť o prostriedky, ktoré by mali byť venované na jej rozvoj, na rozvoj jednotlivcov v každej krajine. Štáty EÚ, a teda aj Slovensko, ročne prichádzajú takto o približne 60 miliárd EUR. Čierna listina nespolupracujúcich daňových rajov však nepomôže pri riešení obrovských daňových únikov, za ktoré sú zodpovedné aj niektoré európske krajiny. Kolega ich tu teraz menoval. Ak chceme byť v boji proti daňovým únikom ako EÚ dôslední, musíme nájsť odvahu pozrieť sa do vlastných radov. Absencia takéhoto rozhodnutia ma prinútila pri hlasovaní zdržať sa. Tiež som presvedčený, že vysoké daňové zaťaženie a harmonizácia daní zmenšujú konkurencieschopnosť malých a stredných podnikateľov v členských krajinách Únie.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem u této zprávy velmi zvažoval, jak hlasovat. Nakonec jsem podpořil tuto zprávu, protože výsledná podoba, podle mého názoru, odpovídá snaze zamezit daňovým únikům. Ty já skutečně shledávám za nemorální, není možné dále nahrávat těm, kteří zneužívají právo anebo dokonce právo výslovně porušují. To se týká i členských států Evropské unie.
                  

                     Nekalá daňová soutěž mezi členskými státy si myslím, že porušuje principy, na kterých stojí Evropská unie, a je stejně špatná jako přímé stanovování daně z úrovně Evropské unie. Já jsem se nakonec přiklonil k tomu, že bychom měli hledat rovnováhu mezi těmito dvěma extrémy. A myslím si, že určitá opatření a mechanismy, které navrhuje Evropská komise, mohou přispět právě k potírání těchto úniků a postihování černých pasažérů, kteří se skutečně vezou ve vlaku, který táhnou ovšem jiní.
                  
9.3.   Annual report on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (A8-0351/2017 - Michael Gahler)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dovolte mi vysvětlit, proč jsem hlasovala pro zprávu o výroční zprávě o provádění společné zahraniční a bezpečnostní politiky. V dnešním světě, v situaci, kdy stále častěji musíme čelit nebezpečí, je potřebná velmi úzká spolupráce, a to také v oblasti bezpečnostní i zahraniční. Je tedy velmi správné, že v naší zprávě byl schválen odstavec, o kterém jsme hlasovali, který vyzývá také k prodloužení sankcí vůči jednotlivcům i vůči subjektům v Rusku, protože je to potřebné vzhledem k neúspěchu provádění Minských dohod. Nás samozřejmě musí především zajímat situace, která není stabilní a týká se našeho bezprostředního sousedství. Zpráva správně reaguje na nepřehlednost současného mezinárodního prostředí a Evropská unie musí být v této oblasti aktivnější. Je to požadavek občanů Evropské unie a Evropský parlament v tomto vychází vstříc.
                  

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Szavazatommal támogattam az Európai Unió közös kül- és biztonságpolitikájának tavalyi évét és jövő évi feladatait bemutató jelentés elfogadását, méltányolva annak igen alapos és több ponton újító, kezdeményező jellegét. A jelentés jól tükrözi, hogy a következő időszakban a közös kül- és biztonságpolitika területén az Európai Unió konkrét, újszerű kezdeményezésekkel reagál a környezetében jelentkező új biztonsági kihívásokra, a transzatlanti viszony megváltozott tartalmára, mediterrán szomszédságunk destabilizálódására, és a nemzetközi terrorizmusra, illetve a brexit lehetséges következményeire.
                  

                     A beszámolóban ismertetett körülmények és érvek alapján elfogadom, indokoltnak tartom, hogy az EU és tagállamai védelmében az európai stratégiai autonómia megteremtése, az átfedések kiküszöbölése, a haderő-mobilitás javítása, a PESCO megvalósítása, a közös kül- és biztonságpolitikai missziók révén fokozott globális felelősségvállalás a jövőben plusz finanszírozást igényel.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, clearly the EU needs to become a stronger and more coherent foreign policy actor, and I agree with the fact that we need more coordination between Member States in order to guarantee major security for our citizens.
However, I voted against the report for the following reason. The call to raise national defence budgets to 2% of GDP in the coming decade is going to bring unbalanced results in a number of EU countries. This will jeopardise the efforts of some Member States to improve their social policies. Just to give you an example: in Latvia the budget for 2018 foresees EUR 208 million for military expenses, yet only EUR 28 million for family allowances and children's needs. This means that children in Latvia could get around EUR 45 more per day if the military expenses went to households. In this regard, I would suggest that the EU makes more of an effort in raising the efficiency of military spending, including optimisation of industrial sectors, and so on.
9.4.   Annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 2016 and the EU policy on the matter (A8-0365/2017 - Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dovolte, abych vysvětlila, proč jsem nakonec nemohla hlasovat pro zprávu, která se týká lidských práv ve světe, přestože jsem k tomuto tématu vždy velmi citlivá. Totiž ve zprávě byly schváleny pasáže, které vyzývají k rozšiřování sexuálních a reprodukčních práv, tedy jinými slovy k podpoře potratů ve světě. Také nemohu souhlasit s opětovným apelem na to, aby byly dodržovány povinné uprchlické kvóty, které již i předseda Evropské rady Tusk označil za nefunkční. Přesto si myslím, že je důležité, aby se Evropský parlament systematicky věnoval situaci lidských práv, protože kolem nás, i v blízkém Turecku, máme velké problémy, když se díváme na to, jak Turecko porušuje lidská práva a vězní své akademiky i novináře.
                  

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr! A demokratikus rendszerekkel rendelkező államokban is állandó gondot jelent a kisebbségek politikai érdekérvényesítő képességének hiánya, és az ebből fakadó konfliktusok. Ha egy nyelvi vagy etnikai alapú közösség azzal szembesül, hogy a többség állandóan rákényszeríti az akaratát, nem vonja be az adott ország életét befolyásoló döntésekbe, vagy egyenesen diszkriminálja a kisebbségi közösség tagjait, akkor a konfliktus bele van kódolva a helyzetbe.
                  

                     Az Európai Unió nem változtathatja meg az összes ország politikai és társadalmi rendszerét, ám példát mutathatna a világnak, hogyan biztosítja az emberi jogokat és a kisebbségek védelmét. Ez a példamutatás ma sajnos nem egyértelmű, az uniós intézmények ugyanis nem helyeznek nyomást a tagállamokra a sokszor hiányos kisebbségvédelmi politikák és gyakorlatok miatt. A jelentés hangsúlyozza, hogy a kisebbségi közösségeknek sajátos szükségleteik vannak, és elő kell mozdítani e közösségek jogait és teljes mértékű egyenlőségét a gazdasági, társadalmi, politikai és kulturális élet minden területén. Ennek a megállapításnak érvényt kell szerezni az Unióban is.
                  
9.5.   Hong Kong, 20 years after handover (A8-0382/2017 - Alyn Smith)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, Hong Kong's Special Administrative Region is one of the few places in Asia where democracy is efficient and visible. It is an example of a vibrant society that is looking for ways to consolidate its democratic values. Therefore, the European Union should intensify its contacts with Hong Kong in the framework of the Structured Dialogue. We should make sure that, during the next decade, Hong Kong's pro-democracy group enjoys full dialogue with the European Union and we must particularly appreciate and encourage Hong Kong's efforts in combating climate change.
I voted in favour of this report and I particularly support the principle of non-interference into the internal affairs of Hong Kong, as well as the necessity to maintain the Basic Law as a guarantee of human rights, standards and fundamental political freedoms. We need to develop deeper and more active relations with Hong Kong as it has the potential to become an example of democratisation and liberalisation for other states in the east and south-east Asia region. In this way the EU can contribute to security in the region.

(Abstimmungsstunde vom Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017)

9.6.   Situation in Afghanistan (RC-B8-0678/2017, B8-0678/2017, B8-0679/2017, B8-0680/2017, B8-0681/2017, B8-0682/2017, B8-0683/2017, B8-0684/2017)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, it is an extraordinary thing when we think of the blood and treasure that was poured into Afghanistan in an attempt to keep out other countries one way or another, the huge damage done to that state because of rival powers attempting to gain influence there. The one thing that was never really properly tried, and which still has not been tried, is properly integrating Afghanistan into the world economy, allowing the institutions of private property and free contract to flourish there. We are still, I am afraid, playing these Great Game power politics which end up treating the ethnic groups and the tribes of Afghanistan as pawns rather than as constructs made up of individuals, each with their own interests in markets and success.
I hope that the time for Afghanistan will come. May I, while I am on my feet, take this opportunity to thank you, Mr President, for all the work you have done in the chair over the year, and wish you a very merry Christmas and extend the same to your officials and to the interpreters.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, we Europeans have been engaged in the state-building and development of Afghanistan for many years already. However, we have still failed to address the root causes of insecurity in the country. One month ago the Latvian Government decided to increase its military contingency in Afghanistan, which currently counts 24 military experts. But a further increase of military presence in Afghanistan will not get us anywhere if we do not address the issues of drug and mineral extraction that serves to finance the Taliban and other extremist organisations.
If you want our development efforts in Afghanistan to be successful we firstly need to contribute to security building and we need to take steps in preventing radicalisation, fighting corruption and establishing a strong and independent civil society. We should not forget that it is Afghanistan that should have the ownership of its economic and political processes. Therefore we should particularly support local initiatives and support the infrastructures to improve its citizens' participation in political life.
9.7.   Situation of the Rohingya people (RC-B8-0668/2017, B8-0668/2017, B8-0669/2017, B8-0670/2017, B8-0671/2017, B8-0672/2017, B8-0673/2017, B8-0674/2017)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, we were, I think, slow to grasp the enormity of what has been happening in Burma. It was a while before the stories of the atrocities suffered by the Rohingya people began to spread beyond newspapers that were either in Muslim-majority countries or Muslim-oriented in their readerships. But I think we have now got a sense of the magnitude of what is taking place.
I wonder whether we were slow because it challenged our western perceptions. We think of Buddhism as a kind of Californian, hippy, peaceful phenomenon and we tend in our recent coverage to think of Islam as militant rather than being on the receiving end of violence. It is what behavioural psychologists call the problem of agents and patients. We simultaneously struggle to see people as victims and as doers of violence. There is, at the moment, no worse human rights crisis on the planet and we cannot leave overwhelmed Bangladesh to try and deal with this issue bilaterally. If ever there was a case where we needed to step in, this is it.
9.8.   Implementation of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (A8-0368/2017 - Anna Maria Corazza Bildt)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this report, which includes numerous references to the work of the UK's Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), based in my constituency. However, as an IWF champion, I am deeply worried. They tell me an end to EU grants to the IWF and the UK Safer Internet Centre puts at risk the amount of child sexual abuse material they will be able to remove from the Internet. It risks the hotline that enables the public to report this material anonymously and unless alternative funds are urgently found, UK Safer Internet Day will end in 2019. We cannot allow this to happen.
No one who voted for Brexit voted to make the internet more dangerous for children. The next tech-savvy generation face new dangerous challenges – cyber-bullying, online stranger danger and revenge porn. UK Safer Internet Day is the biggest Safer Internet Day in Europe, reaching nearly three million children and their parents each year. We must save it.

Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Oczywiście głosowałam za sprawozdaniem mającym na celu intensyfikację działań w celu ochrony dzieci przed wykorzystywaniem seksualnym za pośrednictwem także internetu i jego penalizację. Tym bardziej że sfera seksualna jest szczególnie wrażliwa na urazy skutkujące poważnymi zaburzeniami rzutującymi na całe życie człowieka.
                  

                     Jednak chciałabym zwrócić uwagę, że niewiele pomoże mnożenie regulacji prawnych i dyrektyw bez wdrożenia wychowania do życia w rodzinie opartego na zasadach etyki chrześcijańskiej, gdzie dzieci powinny doświadczać prawdziwej miłości, która nie może być utożsamiana z aktem seksualnym. Niestety, niejednokrotnie współcześnie propagowana lewicowo-liberalna edukacja seksualna posiada cechy pornograficzne i demoralizujące, prowadzące do zafałszowania wizji seksualności oddzielonej od prokreacji i miłości, co skutkuje zboczeniami psychoseksualnymi.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, am votat acest raport și trebuie să spun că nu i-am înțeles pe colegii care nu au votat – și au fost mulți care nu au votat. Dacă vorbim de abuzuri sexuale, dacă vorbim de această violență asupra copiilor, nu cred că trebuie să avem vreo reținere în a aduce îmbunătățiri la ceea ce există.
                  

                     Acum, sigur că avem directive, avem reglementări naționale, europene, însă vedem că cifrele sunt înfricoșătoare. Sunt în creștere abuzurile sexuale asupra copiilor și trebuie să găsim mecanisme noi, europene și naționale, prin care să asigurăm, pe de o parte, prevenția, educația copiilor, să blocăm aceste site-uri – și mă bucur că în raport este cuprins acest lucru – care promovează imagini cu copii abuzați sexual. Și mai trebuie să facem și adăposturi și să avem infrastructura necesară pentru a scoate copiii care suportă acest abuz sexual și această violență în familie sau la școală.
                  

                     Deci am votat acest raport și sper să existe și o aplicare corectă.
                  
9.9.   Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2016 (A8-0387/2017 - Notis Marias)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr! Nem tölt el örömmel, hogy az elmúlt két évben kiemelkedően sok petíció érkezett a bizottsághoz Romániából. Lakosságarányosan csak Görögország közelíti meg. A közel száz petíció egy év alatt azt jelenti, hogy a román állampolgárok tudatában vannak az uniós állampolgársághoz kapcsolódó jogaiknak és az ezek érvényesítéséhez szükséges eszközöknek, és ez üdvözlendő. Ugyanakkor a rendkívül sok petíció arra is rámutat, hogy rendszerszintű problémák vannak Romániában, ezért bizonyos területeken kiemelt figyelmet kell fordítania rá a Bizottságnak.
                  

                     Nem hiszem, hogy csak Magyarországon és Lengyelországon kell számon kérni a jogállamiságot és az alapvető jogok biztosítását, hanem az összes tagállamra vonatkozó mechanizmusra van szükség. A petíciók számán látszik, hogy mindegyik tagállamban vannak olyan esetek, amelyek vitákra adhatnak okot, és amelyek kezelését a tagállami hatóságok nem tudják megoldani. Az bizonyos, hogy amennyiben mégis egyes országok kiválasztását részesítik előnyben, akkor ezek sorában Romániának szerepelnie kell.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, și eu am votat acest raport. Consider că avem nevoie să cunoaștem problemele cetățenilor. Comisia pentru petiții poate să preia petițiile cetățenilor europeni.
                  

                     Eu aș vrea să aduc aici niște cifre. Țara mea nu se află pe primul loc. România e pe locul patru, nu este pe primul loc la petiții, dar – un lucru iarăși relevant – a scăzut. Și poate și cel mai relevant este să ne uităm din ce sector vin petițiile. Pe primul loc ca domeniu de activitate, în 2016 petițiile au fost legate de cum funcționează piața internă și nu pe mediu și nu pe justiție și nu pe drepturile omului. Așadar, cred că noi, Parlamentul European, Comisia, autoritățile naționale trebuie să vedem ce reclamă cetățenii legat de funcționarea pieței interne și să cerem implementarea funcționării unei piețe echitabile.
                  

                     Până la urmă, drepturile cetățenilor țin și de funcționarea pieței interne și cred că prin acest raport se aduc îmbunătățiri și noi, eurodeputații, trebuie să spunem în țările noastre că există această pârghie prin care cetățeanul poate să reclame o problemă care nu s-a rezolvat în țara sa.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα συνηθισμένο εισηγητής να καταψηφίζει την έκθεσή του. Την καταψήφισα όμως για καθαρά πολιτικούς λόγους, για να διαμαρτυρηθώ, καθώς, όπως ανέφερα και στις ομιλίες μου το πρωί, στην αρχική έκθεσή μου υπήρχε στην παράγραφο 16 ρητή αναφορά μου στο ζήτημα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων που οφείλει η Γερμανία να καταβάλει στην Ελλάδα. Μετά από τροπολογία όμως του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος, της Σοσιαλιστικής Ομάδας και των Φιλελευθέρων διαγράφτηκε η αρχική παράγραφος 16 για τις γερμανικές αποζημιώσεις όπως και η αντίστοιχη αναφορά στην αιτιολογική έκθεση.
                  

                     Τελικά όμως, παρά τις προσπάθειες αυτών των πολιτικών ομάδων, παρέμεινε σε άλλο σημείο της αιτιολογικής έκθεσης άλλη δική μου ρητή αναφορά στις γερμανικές πολεμικές επανορθώσεις που οφείλει η Γερμανία να καταβάλει στην Ελλάδα. Έτσι για πρώτη φορά σε έγγραφο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που φέρει μάλιστα το όνομά μου, γίνεται αναφορά στις γερμανικές αποζημιώσεις. Είναι μια πρώτη αρχή και θα συνεχίσουμε ακόμη πιο δυνατά το 2018. Καλά Χριστούγεννα!
                  
9.10.   A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (A8-0356/2017 - Bas Eickhout)

Mundliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung


Lucy Anderson (S&D). – Mr President, transport represents almost a quarter of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions and is the main cause of air pollution in cities. This excellent report calls strongly for a change towards more sustainable modes of transport, a deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure and an ambitious action plan for the increasing use of electric vehicles. I agree entirely with these priorities so I was proud to vote for the report.
In addition, it was good that the amendment to the report, seeking to promote incentives to use mega trucks, was defeated as these are dangerous and unnecessary. However, it was disappointing that the point in the report on phasing out new emitting cars by 2035 was not approved. The European automotive industry must adapt much faster to mobility transition.

Xabier Benito Ziluaga (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, en la Unión Europea el sector del transporte representa un tercio del consumo de energía y un cuarto de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Además, es uno de los sectores que más ha visto aumentar sus emisiones desde 1990. Por tanto, transitar hacia un modelo de movilidad sostenible es una tarea fundamental.
                  

                     Pero, nuevamente, tenemos que tener cuidado con el greenwashing. Con aquellos que usan la lucha contra el cambio climático para lavar su imagen. El uso del mal llamado gas natural y de algunos biocombustibles no representa para nada una solución adecuada. Estos combustibles no hacen más que perpetuar el modelo extractivista y nos anclan a un modelo global con excesiva necesidad o dependencia del transporte.
                  

                     Por ello, debemos desarrollar masivamente los transportes colectivos y mejorar el transporte ferroviario, mejorar también la intermodalidad y la digitalización del sector e incluir las externalidades con el principio de ‘Quien contamina, paga’.
                  

                     Estas herramientas son algunas de las medidas necesarias para que podamos respirar un aire menos contaminado.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, în calitatea mea de membră a Comisiei TRAN, dar și a Comisiei pentru piața internă și protecția consumatorilor, am votat acest raport. Sunt foarte multe lucruri care aduc îmbunătățiri. Știm cu toții că transportul aduce efecte asupra competitivității economiei în țările noastre și pe piața internă. În același timp, m-am bucurat că în raport s-a pus accent pe transportul urban și eu cred – și am spus și în plenară – că este nevoie să se înceapă de acolo, cu transportul urban, pentru a trece de la un combustibil pe benzină la autoturisme și autovehicule electrice.
                  

                     De asemenea, mă bucură poziția comisarului și, și în raport, este prevăzut ce s-a cuprins în Cartea albă în 2011 legat de tranziția care trebuie să se facă către un transport ecologic: să se țină cont de impactul care are loc asupra întreprinderilor mici și mijlocii, să investim în tehnologie și cercetare, pentru a avea parcuri de mașini, precum și infrastructura necesară pentru alimentarea electrică și, în acest fel, să ajungem la o economie competitivă și curată.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, vótáil mé le mo ghrúpa sa tuarascáil seo. Ach bíodh sin ráite, is dóigh liom go bhfuil freagracht mhór ar an Aontas ó thaobh troid i gcoinne athrú aeráide agus ár n-astaíochtaí a íoslaghdú agus dár ndóigh, tá mórán déanta againn cheana féin. Bhíos i bPáras dhá bhliain ó shin, i gcomhair shíniú Chomhaontú Pháras, mar ar thug gach tír beagnach ar domhan gealltanas an t-ardú teochta a choimeád faoi dhá chéim, i gcoinne leibhéal aimsir na Réabhlóide Tionsclaíche agus síos go dtí 1.5 céim, más féidir.
                  

                     Tá ról lárnach ag an iompar sa cheist seo agus is dóigh liom gur féidir, ar a laghad, astaíochtaí gáis ceaptha teasa a laghdú seasca faoin gcéad idir seo agus 2050. Beidh nuálaíocht an-tábhachtach dó sin agus fáiltím roimh mhodhanna iompair éifeachtúla nua chun dícharbónú iompair a bhaint amach.
                  

                     Agus mar fhocal scoir, níl mé chun amhrán Gaelach a chasadh, ach Nollaig Shona do gach uile dhuine, agus míle buíochas as ucht an chomhoibrithe uaitse agus na hoifigigh timpeall ort i rith na bliana.
                  

                     I might be the last speaker this year, but hopefully I am not the least.
                  

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

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.02 Uhr geschlossen.)

17.   Adjournment of the session

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

                  Ich wünsche Herrn Kollegen Kelly, Frau Kollegin Anderson und Herr Kollegen Sógor noch einmal ganz besonders eine gute Heimreise, ein frohes Weihnachtsfest und einen guten Beginn in einem hoffentlich gesunden Jahr 2018.
               

                  Das Gleiche gilt natürlich für alle hilfreichen Geister, die Dienste und die paar wenigen Zuschauer, die wir noch haben.
               


ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)