Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 February 2019
Date: 2019-02-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202403689EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














14.6.2024







            14 February 2019
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 14 FEBRUARY 2019
            
         
(C/2024/3689)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 69c) (follow-up): see Minutes
4










3.

The right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4










4.

Documents received: see Minutes
4










5.

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
4










6.

Protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU (debate)
4










7.

Strengthening the competitiveness of the Internal Market by developing the EU customs union and its governance (debate)
17










8.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
24










8.1.

The situation in Chechnya, and the case of Oyub Titiev
24










8.2.

Zimbabwe
27










8.3.

Women's rights defenders in Saudi Arabia
32










9.

Resumption of the sitting
37










10.

Voting time
38










10.1.

The situation in Chechnya, and the case of Oyub Titiev (RC-B8-0107/2019, B8-0107/2019, B8-0108/2019, B8-0109/2019, B8-0112/2019, B8-0114/2019, B8-0117/2019) (vote)
38










10.2.

Zimbabwe (RC-B8-0110/2019, B8-0110/2019, B8-0118/2019, B8-0119/2019, B8-0120/2019, B8-0122/2019, B8-0124/2019, B8-0125/2019) (vote)
38










10.3.

Women's rights defenders in Saudi Arabia (RC-B8-0111/2019, B8-0111/2019, B8-0113/2019, B8-0115/2019, B8-0116/2019, B8-0121/2019, B8-0123/2019, B8-0126/2019) (vote)
38










10.4.

Mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (A8-0414/2018 - Matthijs van Miltenburg) (vote)
38










10.5.

Draft Agreement on Cooperation between Eurojust and Georgia (A8-0065/2019 - Sylvia-Yvone Kaufmann) (vote)
38










10.6.

Health technology assessment (A8-0289/2018 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz) (vote)
38










10.7.

Framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (A8-0198/2018 - Franck Proust) (vote)
38










10.8.

Interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (A8-0199/2018 - Massimiliano Salini) (vote)
38










10.9.

Mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State (A8-0274/2018 - Ivan Štefanec) (vote)
39










10.10.

Charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charges (A8-0360/2018 - Eva Maydell) (vote)
39










10.11.

Common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (A8-0032/2019 - Roberts Zīle) (vote)
39










10.12.

Amending Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, by reason of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (A8-0014/2019 - Miroslav Poche) (vote)
39










10.13.

The right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (B8-0103/2019, RC-B8-0104/2019, B8-0104/2019, B8-0105/2019, B8-0106/2019) (vote)
39










10.14.

The rights of intersex people (B8-0101/2019) (vote)
39










10.15.

The future of the LGBTI List of Actions (2019-2024) (B8-0127/2019) (vote)
39










10.16.

The future of the INF Treaty and the impact on the EU (RC-B8-0128/2019, B8-0128/2019, B8-0129/2019, B8-0130/2019, B8-0131/2019, B8-0132/2019, B8-0133/2019) (vote)
40










10.17.

NAIADES II – An action programme to support inland waterway transport (B8-0079/2019) (vote)
40










10.18.

Protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU (A8-0057/2019 - Jørn Dohrmann) (vote)
40










10.19.

Strengthening the competitiveness of the Internal Market by developing the EU customs union and its governance (A8-0059/2019 - Virginie Rozière) (vote)
40










10.20.

Implementation of the legal provisions and the Joint Statement ensuring parliamentary scrutiny over decentralised agencies (A8-0055/2019 - György Schöpflin) (vote)
40










11.

Explanations of vote
40










11.1.

Experiencing backlash in women's rights and gender equality in the EU (B8-0096/2019, B8-0099/2019)
40










11.2.

Policy challenges and strategies against women's cancers and related comorbidities (B8-0097/2019)
42










11.3.

Use of cannabis for medicinal purposes (B8-0071/2019)
42










11.4.

Common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (A8-0032/2019 - Roberts Zīle)
43










11.5.

The right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (B8-0103/2019, RC-B8-0104/2019, B8-0104/2019, B8-0105/2019, B8-0106/2019)
44










11.6.

The rights of intersex people (B8-0101/2019)
44










11.7.

The future of the LGBTI List of Actions (2019-2024) (B8-0127/2019)
45










11.8.

NAIADES II – An action programme to support inland waterway transport (B8-0079/2019)
45










11.9.

Protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU (A8-0057/2019 - Jørn Dohrmann)
46










12.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes
47










13.

Resumption of the sitting
47










14.

Petitions: see Minutes
47










15.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
47










16.

Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes
47










17.

Major interpellations (debate)
47










18.

A Europe that protects: Clean air for all (debate)
51










19.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted: see Minutes
57










20.

Dates of forthcoming sittings : see Minutes
58










21.

Closure of the sitting
58










22.

Adjournment of the session
58




Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 February 2019
                  


PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI


Wiceprzewodniczący

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Posiedzenie zostało otwarte o godz. 9.00)

2.   Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 69c) (follow-up): see Minutes
3.   The right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
4.   Documents received: see Minutes
5.   Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
6.   Protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU (debate)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Jørna Dohrmanna w imieniu Komisji Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi w sprawie wykonania rozporządzenia 1/2005 w sprawie ochrony zwierząt podczas transportu w UE i poza nią (2018/2110(INI)) (A8-0057/2019).
               

Jørn Dohrmann,
Ordfører. – Hr. formand! Kære kollegaer! Dagen er kommet, hvor Parlamentet endelig skal tage stilling til en sag, jeg har brugt ganske lang tid på at arbejde med for at fremme. Parlamentet har nu chancen for at afkræve Kommissionen og medlemslandene, at de må gøre mere for at sikre dyrevelfærden under transport. Først og fremmest vil jeg gerne have lov til at rette en tak til mine kollegaer fra de andre grupper, som jeg har forhandlet med. Da arbejdet med betænkningen skulle til at starte, sagde jeg, at jeg ønskede alle partier involveret, og at de også skulle høres, så vi kunne sikre en så stærk tilslutning til betænkningen som muligt, ikke kun for vores skyld, men for dyrenes skyld. Nu er der ikke mere arbejde at gøre i denne omgang, og jeg håber derfor også, at mine kollegaer har følt sig involveret i betænkningens tilblivelse. Jeg vil i hvert fald gerne have lov til at udtrykke min taknemmelighed over for de mange konstruktive forslag og deres store samarbejdsvillighed. Det har gjort, at vi i dag står her og kan sige, at vi har gjort en indsats for de mange millioner af dyr, der transporteres i og ud af EU.
               

                  I dag er en god dag for dyrene, og det er fordi, vi opfordrer til, at transporttiderne for levende dyr må og skal reduceres. Vi vil have strengere og mere systematisk kontrol af transporterne og hårdere straffe til dem, der bryder reglerne og svækker dyrevelfærden. Vi ønsker i det hele taget at transportere færre levende dyr. I stedet for vil vi hellere transportere nedfrossen kød. Og nu hvor vi allerede taler om dyr, så jeg vil gerne have love til at adressere elefanten i rummet. I betænkningen stilles der krav til, at vi indstiller eksporten af levende dyr til slagtning til tredjelande, hvis disse lande ikke stiller de samme krav til deres dyrevelfærd, som vi har i EU. Og det er for nogen et kontroversielt krav. I en dansk avis kunne jeg læse en udtalelse fra et EPP-medlem, som kalder kravet for ekstremistisk! Hvis det er ekstremistisk at gå væk fra en praksis, hvor dyr strander ved EU-grænseovergange og står tæt stuvet sammen, tørster og overophedet gennem flere dage i træk vel at mærke, ja så må man gerne kalde mig for ekstremistisk. Jeg vil endda gerne tage det som en hædersbetegnelse. Jeg har selv været mellem Bulgarien og Tyrkiet ved grænsen og lavet et tilfældigt tjek af lastbiler, og der konstaterede vi, at man stod seks timer bare for at få papirarbejdet gjort. Og man kan også sige, at de stod i sol uden skygge, det var varmt, der var 30-35 grader. Man kunne konstatere, at der var født kalve undervejs, og derfor kunne man også konstatere, at det var dyr uden øremærker, dyrene var altså havnet i ingenmandsland. Reelt sender vi dyr ud på en rejse, hvor de bliver lovløse. I dette hus, hvor man ynder at lave regler om nærmest alt, er det mig lidt ubegribeligt, at eksempelvis et medlem fra EPP-Gruppen går så langt som til at kalde dette for en overdrivelse. For der er slet ingen gældende regler for disse dyr, der ender i eksempelvis Tyrkiet og Mellemøsten. Det må have en ende, så derfor vil jeg gerne på det kraftigste opfordre alle medlemmer til at stemme for punkt 88. At stille et sådant krav vil være en markering af, at vi vil have strammet op på reglerne, og at det er på høje tid, at vi løfter ambitionerne for velfærden for vores dyr. Det er det signal, vi sender med denne betænkning. Nu vil det så være op til Kommissionen og medlemslandene at følge trop. Vi har allerede nogle på papiret gode regler. Det står dog galt til med, at de overholder dem i de enkelte lande. Vi kan se, hvordan nogle medlemslande slet ikke fører tjek med lastbiler og forsendelser af dyr. Det betyder, at der er lande, hvor lovgivningen reelt set slet ikke har eksisteret. Det forringer dyrevelfærden, men fordrejer også konkurrencen på det indre marked. Vi har også lande, der indrapporter fuldstændig urealistisk høje kontroltal til Kommissionen. De dækker også over en ikke-gældende lovgivning. Her skal i den grad rettes op! Jeg er derfor glad for, at Kommissionen selv har indrømmet, at der skal gøres mere i forhold til indrapportering og kontrol. Det har Kommissionens egen repræsentant selv indrømmet under den høring, jeg arrangerede i december. Det er en gruppe af betænkningens anbefalinger, som der allerede nu handles på, på baggrund af den. Det er en god start! Nu må Kommissionen bare sørge for at reagere på de resterende anbefalinger, som dette parlament forhåbentlig har fremsat. Så det er nu på tide, at vi står bag dyrene.
               

Karin Kadenbach,
Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir sprechen im Europäischen Parlament, wenn wir von Tieren sprechen, von fühlenden Wesen. Und wenn wir uns die Tiertransporte innerhalb der Europäischen Union und vor allem auch solche ansehen, die Ziele außerhalb der Europäischen Union haben, dann muss sich der Verdacht erhärten, dass Tiere nicht als fühlende Wesen betrachtet werden. Wenn wir sie bei 30, 40, 50 Grad an den Verladehäfen zusammengepfercht sehen, wenn wir sie ohne Futter sehen, wenn wir noch nicht abgestillte Kälber erleben, wie sie wirklich schreien und jammern, dann ist das einfach ein Wegschauen, das wir in Zukunft nicht gestatten dürfen.
               

                  Wir haben Rahmenbedingungen, die aber – wie Herr Dohrmann schon ausgeführt hat – in vielen Mitgliedstaaten nicht eingehalten werden, die nicht kontrolliert werden und wenn sie kontrolliert werden, mit Sanktionen versehen werden, die die Frächter in der Regel mehr oder weniger aus der Portokasse bestücken können.
               

                  Das heißt: Wir brauchen hier wirklich ein ganz großes Augenmerk, denn unter dem one health approach – diese eine Gesundheit – geht es nämlich nicht nur um die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden der Tiere, sondern es geht auch um die menschliche Gesundheit. Denn wir wissen nachweislich, dass, wenn Tiere vor der Schlachtung zum Beispiel unter großem Stress stehen, sich das auch negativ auf die Qualität des Fleisches und damit aber auch negativ auf den Konsum durch den Menschen auswirkt. Ich ersuche hier wirklich darum, schnellstens eine Besserung herbeizuführen.
               

Keith Taylor,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. – Mr President, it's no secret that animal welfare protection is practically non-existent in transport. Animals are crammed into old and broken trailers, squashed against the ceilings and piled on top of each other with no access to water. It's a distressing sight but one that is all too commonplace. We find ourselves, a decade on from the regulation's introduction, with the same breaches being reported time and time again. Nothing has changed.
Additionally, prolonged delays at third-country border controls can last for hours, or sometimes even days and in stifling heat, resulting in horrific suffering and fatalities among the animals – and this despite the judgment by the Court of Justice that transporters must observe the regulations even if their destination is beyond the EU borders.
I look forward to supporting Mr Dohrmann's report and I would urge my colleagues to do so. The Member States have the authority to carry out the regulations and they must enforce them more strictly.

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, it's a pleasure to be here today. I believe today's report is another step towards improving implementation of the regulation on animal welfare during transport. Let me begin by saying that animal welfare in general, and the protection of animals during transport more specifically, has been a priority under this Commission, and you know very well that we have addressed a lot of the issues in this area.
That said, when the Court of Auditors presented its report at last December's meeting of Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals (Animal Welfare Intergroup), it was clear that, despite progress achieved, there are issues that need to be addressed: in particular, proper implementation of legislation and enforcement of rules. There is no doubt. At the Intergroup meeting I summarised some of the actions we have taken in this important and sensitive area. In addition, I outlined our efforts to address three areas where we still see a need for improvement: first, exporting animals by road in extreme temperatures; second, exporting animals by sea; and third, the transport of un-weened calves.
The Commission is addressing these issues from several angles. Its work covers a number of the issues raised in today's report, and it involves subgroups of the EU Platform on Animal Welfare set up to work specifically on these issues and find common solutions. This work is being done by the Member States, animal welfare NGOs and industry representatives – and I see NGO representatives here – as well as independent scientific experts.
The Commission regularly organises meetings with the Member States' national contact points for animal welfare during transport. These face-to-face meetings facilitate discussions on better implementation and enforcement on the ground. The national contact points also contributed to the European Federation of Veterinarians' guidelines on evaluating whether cattle, pigs and horses are fit for transport. The Commission has conducted audits in Member States that export animals by road and sea, and this process has covered incidents reported by NGOs and visits to some of the most relevant ports. It is following up on these audits so that Member States address the problems identified. The Commission is now producing an overview report on the situation. The conclusions and recommendations will concern all Member States.
Last summer, Commission staff also visited the border between Bulgaria and Turkey in order to monitor the situation there, and I am committed to maintaining pressure in that respect, including in the season ahead. I am pleased there have been some improvements in the implementation of official controls. In 2018, summer exports of live cattle by road decreased and the compliance rate of trucks at the border increased, as the audit showed, and of course the Court of Auditor's report mentions this too.
However, I acknowledge that weaknesses remain. The Commission will work with the relevant bodies to resolve them. The Commission, and I personally, have written several times to all the Member States governments informing them about, and asking them to monitor, the situation if temperatures are very high. We have requested that they respect temperature requirements and properly implement the rules to protect animals during road and sea transport.
Last month I met the Turkish Minister for Agriculture to discuss the export of cattle. At this meeting I raised a number of welfare issues, including long waiting times at the border and the need for structural improvement at the border. We need to address this issue of structural development from both sides, and especially to ask Turkey to act as swiftly as possible, and to highlight the need for control points in Turkey so that European transporters comply with EU animal welfare rules.
Our interventions have had some effect but it is clear we are not yet there. We need to continue our work, and we will. The Commission has already started to address the recommendations in the Court of Auditors' report. We have begun a review of the various Member States' reports and the results of their official controls. This will generate more consistent data, which, when analysed, will paint a more reliable picture of animal welfare during transport. Today's resolution also highlights the need for more reliable data.
I must remind you, however, that Member States have the primary responsibility for implementing the regulation. Just to mention the situation with third countries: the Commission is active in raising animal welfare issues at International Animal Health Organisation level and in relation to the Better Training for Safer Food initiative; and, in our trade agreements, we also push strongly on issues affecting annual welfare.
The Commission's actions are intended to help achieve better implementation and enforcement. At December's meeting of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, I assured those present that the EU will continue to monitor the situation closely. We will consider further options to enforce the rules if need be. I would like to repeat those assurances now, and, above all, I want to stress that the Commission and the Member States must continue working together in order to improve the welfare of animals during transport.

Ángela Vallina,
ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Peticiones. – Señor presidente, durante los últimos meses hemos estado trabajando en la Comisión de Peticiones en un texto que reflejara las denuncias de la ciudadanía sobre las condiciones del transporte de animales vivos en la Unión, y en el que se reflejan las graves carencias en la aplicación del Reglamento sobre el transporte animal.
               

                  En él hay tres cuestiones principales entre nuestras preocupaciones: la violación sistemática de las normas que obligan a unas condiciones de transporte adecuadas para animales vivos, sobre todo de media y larga distancia, lo cual vulnera la igualdad jurídica entre los Estados miembros; la ausencia de datos fiables sobre las condiciones de transporte y de control de los vehículos que llevan las reses; y, por último, la impunidad constante y falta de sanciones en muchos Estados.
               

                  Al final, las consecuencias de esta falta de control de la aplicación del Derecho se traducen no solo en casos flagrantes de maltrato animal, sino también en una competencia desleal entre las empresas de transporte de animales, permitida a todas luces por ciertos países de esta Unión, y en una falta de control de las condiciones que acaba repercutiendo en la salud de las y los consumidores europeos.
               

Sofia Ribeiro,
em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, há uma diretiva em que todas as avaliações são extremamente positivas, tendo permitido uma melhoria enorme na redução do sofrimento dos animais durante a sua deslocação, bem como na dotação de melhores condições físicas dos meios de transporte. Como aspetos menos positivos temos alguma falta de empenho por parte de alguns Estados-Membros, a falta de harmonização dos sistemas de coimas dentro da União Europeia, que devem ser mais severas e mais punitivas para quem prevarica, e equivalentes em todo o espaço europeu.
               

                  Temos também, em alguns países terceiros, problemas de falta de respeito pelas exigências europeias, é um facto. No entanto, não podemos transportar este debate para o campo ideológico, nem aproveitar a proximidade das eleições europeias para que se consiga fazer passar uma agenda radical, que mais não faz do que trazer descrédito a esta meritória diretiva, sem consequências positivas para os animais transportados.
               

                  Aspetos como o reforço das fiscalizações, a impossibilidade de transporte de animais que não estejam em condições ótimas de saúde, que estes devam ser abatidos, sempre que possível, o mais próximo das explorações onde se encontram, a possível criação de uma rede móvel de matadores para evitar transportes longos, bem como o incentivo para o transporte de carne e carcaças, em vez de animais vivos, merecem o nosso apoio e propositura.
               

                  Apesar disso, não podemos aceitar que, pura e simplesmente, se queira eliminar do espaço europeu e das exportações europeias o transporte de animais vivos. Não vivemos todos no centro da Europa e há que ter o maior respeito pelos países periféricos e a descontinuidade geográfica e não podemos pôr em causa o amor que os agricultores nutrem pelos seus animais, nem achar que estes são responsáveis pelos maus tratos.
               

Nicola Caputo,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, gli animali sono esseri senzienti. Ogni anno milioni di animali vengono trasportati negli Stati membri e verso paesi terzi su lunghe distanze per essere allevati o macellati, esposti a sofferenze per ore in spazi disponibili ridotti, a temperature insostenibili, senza cibo e acqua e sopportando le forti sollecitazioni del movimento dei veicoli, spesso obsoleti.
               

                  I tempi di viaggio degli animali vanno ridotti, questo è certo, e dobbiamo dotarci di una strategia al riguardo. Una soluzione potrebbe essere, per esempio, il ripristino dei macelli di prossimità, strutture locali di macellazione. Considerando lo spaventoso numero di segnalazioni di veicoli inadatti, utilizzati per trasportare animali vivi, sia via terra che via mare, è necessario che gli Stati membri applichino procedure rigorose di certificazione e di omologazione, e migliorino anche i controlli di idoneità degli animali prima del carico. È essenziale che la futura PAC mantenga il vincolo tra i pagamenti e le migliori condizioni di benessere degli animali, nel rispetto degli standard stabiliti nel regolamento (CE) n. 1/2005.
               

Zbigniew Kuźmiuk,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Na początku chciałbym podziękować autorowi raportu, panu Dohrmannowi, i jego współpracownikom za wykonanie doskonałej pracy. Jednocześnie chciałbym przypomnieć, że w grudniu 2012 r. Parlament przyjął rezolucję europosła Janusza Wojciechowskiego, obecnie członka ETO, wzywającą Komisję do egzekwowania jednakowych warunków transportu zwierząt w całej Unii. Co więcej wezwał on wtedy Komisję do skrócenia czasu przewozu zwierząt przeznaczonych na ubój do ośmiu godzin.
               

                  Niestety do tej pory postępy we wdrażaniu wspomnianego rozporządzenia Rady z 2005 r. mającego zapobiegać niepotrzebnemu cierpieniu zwierząt podczas transportu są niewystarczające we wszystkich państwach członkowskich. Popieram apel autora raportu do Komisji o dokonanie przeglądu wspomnianego rozporządzenia i uszczegółowienie wymogów dotyczących transportu zwierząt. Co więcej, Komisja powinna zapewnić egzekwowanie i wdrażanie przepisów rozporządzenia w sposób zharmonizowany i jednolity na terenie całej Unii, w szczególności jeśli chodzi o zdolność zwierząt co do podróży. Delegacja polska w EKR będzie popierała ten raport.
               

Fredrick Federley,
för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Tack till kollegerna och föredraganden Jørn Dohrmann för ett väldigt bra arbete. När vi har jobbat med de här texterna har det varit en stor enighet mellan de politiska grupperna. Det är sällan som vi lyckas komma så långt som just i frågorna där det gäller djurskyddet och hur vi hanterar de djur som finns inom Europeiska unionen.
               

                  Vi vet också från den Eurobarometer som presenterades förra året i februari att en av de frågor som de europeiska medborgarna vill att vi jobbar mer med är att säkerställa skyddet för de djur som finns inom Europeiska unionen. Det är också därför som det är möjligt för till exempel GUE och EPP, till och med, att skriva under samma typ av kompromiss här, vilket är ett stort steg framåt och visar på en politisk handlingsvilja å medborgarnas vägnar.
               

                  Varje år är det 1,37 miljarder djur som transporteras inom EU eller utanför EU:s gränser. Samtidigt ser vi att det finns en total undfallenhet från medlemsstaterna i att utföra kontroller och se till så att gällande lagstiftning gäller. Vi vet också att om man bryter mot detta så blir det i princip inga konsekvenser överhuvudtaget. Vi skulle behöva en kommission som på allvar tar det här uppdraget, som också finns i våra grundläggande fördrag för Europeiska unionen. Jag är därför glad att vi kommer med en hårdare kritik i dag från Europaparlamentets sida, det vill säga att det är dags att Europeiska ombudsmannen tittar på om kommissionen verkligen uppfyller det uppdrag som den har i enlighet med fördragen.
               

                  Vi vet att när kommissionen verkligen vill någonting så kan man göra någonting. Här är det inte ansvarig kommissionär som är det stora problemet, utan det är kollegerna i kommissionen som har hållit tillbaka. När det kommit till tidsförändring och sommar- och vintertid så kan vi på några få månader ha konkreta lagförslag som påverkar hela unionen. Men här – när det gäller djurskyddet – har vi på fem år inte kommit ett enda steg framåt. Vi har inte sett någon ny strategi för djurvälfärd. Vi har inte fått någon gemensam grundläggande lag för djurskyddet, och de här skandalerna fortgår. Detta måste det bli ett stopp på under nästa mandatperiod, allra senast.
               

Anja Hazekamp,
namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Voorzitter, miljoenen dieren worden dagelijks in vrachtwagens, vliegtuigen en schepen door heel Europa gesleept, en ver daarbuiten. En de eurocommissaris zegt daarover: ‘In Europa voldoet bijna 100 % van alle diertransporten aan de Europese regels.’
               

                  Hij zei het vanmorgen nog een keer. En dat is absoluut niet waar. Het is een grote leugen. Organisaties als Eyes on Animals, Animals International, Animal Welfare Foundation, Animals' Angels, hebben in tien jaar tijd honderden verslagen geschreven vol met bewijs van transporten van zieke en gewonde dieren, regelrechte dierenmishandeling, overvolle trucks, gebrek aan water, transport bij extreme temperaturen. Voorzitter, dit zijn geen incidenten. Dit is de dagelijkse praktijk in Europa.
               

                  Afgelopen zomer ben ik zelf gaan kijken in Slovenië en Kroatië. Vrachtwagens reden af en aan om krakkemikkige schepen te bevoorraden. De dieren waren vies, gewond en bezweken door de hitte. En als absoluut dieptepunt zagen we in de haven van Rasa een jonge stier die tussen wal en schip raakte, en aan een been door een kraan aan boord van een schip werd geladen. Het dier werd vervolgens met elektroshocks aan boord gedwongen. Dit beeld zal ik nooit vergeten.
               

                  Commissaris, we hebben u deze beelden ook laten zien. Ligt u daar, net als ik, wakker van 's nachts? En wat heeft u daarna gedaan? Bent u al een inbreukprocedure gestart tegen Kroatië? Waarom niet? Wat heeft u nog meer nodig om in actie te komen? U weet toch ook dat pasgeboren dieren dagenlang worden vervoerd, terwijl ze niet weten hoe ze de installaties moeten gebruiken en ze dus niet kunnen drinken? U weet toch ook dat de miljoenen dieren die worden verscheept naar het Midden-Oosten en naar Noord-Afrika na een lange, lange reis terechtkomen in een regelrechte hel?
               

                  Wanneer neemt u de zorgen van miljoenen burgers en het Parlement serieus en komt u in actie? We moeten samen deze verschrikkelijke diertransporten stoppen en we kunnen daar vandaag een begin mee maken. Stem voor het verslag en maak een einde aan die lange, ellendige diertransporten.
               

Thomas Waitz,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Anders als Kommissar Andriukaitis in einer erschreckenden Regelmäßigkeit behauptet, ist nicht alles in Ordnung bei den Tiertransporten auf Europas Straßen. Und ich würde mal sagen, dieser Bericht beweist endgültig, dass bei dem Transport von Tieren europäische Gesetze nicht eingehalten werden, insbesondere wenn es darum geht, Tiere in Drittstaaten zu exportieren – nach Russland, in die Türkei oder in den Libanon. Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat klar geurteilt, dass hier die europäischen Gesetze bis zum Bestimmungsort gelten, und Transporte, die diese Bestimmungen nicht einhalten, sind zu untersagen.
               

                  Wenn hier von Frau Ribeiro von den Konservativen unterstellt würde, dass es eine radikale Politik ist, wenn man einfordert, dass europäische Gesetze eingehalten werden, dann mache ich gerne radikale Politik. Ich denke auch nicht, dass es radikal ist, für eine Verringerung der Tiertransportzeiten einzutreten, um Tierleid möglichst zu verhindern, wo es möglich ist. Ich ersuche auch Mitglieder der Europäischen Volkspartei, zumindest jene, die auch noch ein Herz für Tiere haben, unserem Bericht heute zuzustimmen.
               

Marco Zullo,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ce lo siamo detti e ridetti: milioni di animali ogni anno sono sottoposti allo stress di lunghi viaggi in condizioni precarie, per mancanza di cibo e acqua, per temperature troppo elevate o troppo basse, per sovraffollamento. E tutto questo causa angoscia e sofferenza, e addirittura la morte prematura di alcuni di questi animali.
               

                  La protezione degli animali durante il trasporto oggi è ancora inefficiente. Questo è un dato di fatto. Non esiste uno standard comune di trattamento, non esiste neppure uno standard comune di controlli, che sono diversi per quantità e qualità. È incredibile pensare che oggi in Unione europea ci sono Stati dove il numero di controlli è pari a zero.
               

                  Per fare luce su tutto ciò avevamo chiesto la costituzione di una commissione d'inchiesta, ma questa richiesta è stata rifiutata dai gruppi politici di questo Parlamento. Fortunatamente, però, siamo riusciti a discuterne in diverse commissioni e abbiamo sancito con chiarezza e determinazione che vanno fatte verifiche e ispezioni regolari e approfondite, prevedendo sanzioni severe in caso di violazione, perché ci sono regole che oggi esistono e non sono rispettate. Va garantita la presenza di personale specializzato e tecnologie di ultima generazione per il benessere degli animali. Queste misure di civiltà vanno fatte rispettare attraverso accordi bilaterali, anche nei confronti dei paesi terzi, arrivando a vietare gli scambi commerciali se necessario.
               

                  Però vogliamo essere ancora più ambiziosi, e per questo, cari colleghi, vi chiedo di sostenere l'emendamento che limita a otto ore la durata massima di trasporto per gli animali vivi. Dobbiamo fare il possibile per evitare ogni sofferenza.
               

Harald Vilimsky,
im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Es gibt den Satz, wonach sich der Grad der Zivilisation einer Kultur dadurch bestimmt, wie sie mit Tieren umgeht. Wenn man den Blick durch Europa richtet, wie hier insbesondere mit Nutztieren umgegangen wird, dann kann ich nur sagen: Hier liegt vieles im Argen. Wie Tiere von einem Land durch viele andere Länder transportiert werden, oft viele Stunden, Tage lang, oft auch durch extreme Hitze, da kann ich nur sagen: Das wäre eines der Beispiele, wo die europäische Staatengemeinschaft aufgerufen ist, hier ein Regelwerk zu implementieren, um genau das zu verhindern.
               

                  Denken Sie nur etwa daran, wie in Südeuropa halb tote Tierkörper lebend noch übers Mittelmeer Richtung Naher Osten, Richtung Nordafrika verschifft werden. Hier wird derartiges Leid produziert, dass ich sage, dass es hier dringend notwendig ist, ein Stoppsignal zu setzen.
               

                  Wir hatten vor vielen Jahren die Diskussion, dass acht Stunden genug sind, was die Transportlänge betrifft. Ich werde das auch beantragen, weil ich hoffe, dass zumindest bei dieser generösen Frist auch die Europäische Volkspartei zustimmen kann. Ginge es nach mir, wären vier Stunden an Transport Maximum bereits ausreichend.
               

                  Wonach ich auch trachte, was mir besonders wichtig ist, ist, dass wir endlich ein Exportverbot in Drittstaaten umsetzen, damit genau diese Bilder, wonach Tiere unter unsäglichem Leid in Richtung Türkei, Russland, Naher Osten, Nordafrika transportiert werden, endlich der Vergangenheit angehören. Ich kann nur hoffen, dass Sie auch ausreichend Herz haben, hier Ihre Zustimmung zu geben.
               

Sophie Montel (NI). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, chaque année, un milliard de volailles et 37 millions de bovins, cochons, ovins et équidés sont transportés vivants dans l'Union européenne et vers des pays tiers.
               

                  Ce qui est inquiétant, c'est que seulement 1 % de ces animaux transportés sont contrôlés.
               

                  De nombreuses enquêtes, notamment de CIWF, montrent d'ailleurs que les abus sont légion. La législation n'est absolument pas respectée: temps de transport abusif, matériel inadéquat, animaux entassés les uns sur les autres. Le résultat, c'est que ces pauvres bêtes sont, au mieux, déshydratées, affamées, stressées, affaiblies, quand elles ne finissent pas battues, piétinées, asphyxiées, mutilées, ou, par mourir.
               

                  Cette situation ne peut perdurer, il faut faire en sorte que les contrôles soient plus nombreux et que des sanctions beaucoup plus sévères soient appliquées afin de contraindre au respect des règlements.
               

                  Cela dit, chers collègues, la meilleure solution reste encore d'éviter le transport des animaux sur de longues distances. L'Union européenne, qui multiplie les traités de libre-échange, porte bien sûr une lourde responsabilité dans cette situation désastreuse, qui conduit à toujours plus de maltraitance animale.
               

                  L'élevage intensif et la surproduction sont aussi sources de maltraitance animale, de souffrance et, là encore, l'Union européenne encourage ce système. Il est temps, Mesdames et Messieurs, de recouvrer la raison.
               

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Unia Europejska ma najwyższe na świecie standardy w zakresie dobrostanu zwierząt, w tym także ich transportu. Są od wielu lat zakorzenione we wspólnej polityce rolnej, która uzależnia wypłacanie subsydiów rolnikom od ich wypełniania. Oczywiście nie oznacza to, że sytuacja jest idealna, a nadużycia nie zdarzają się. Niemniej jednak należy tutaj wprowadzić jasne rozróżnienie odpowiedzialności hodowców oraz firm transportujących zwierzęta. Należy przestrzegać przepisów dotyczących dobrostanu zwierząt tak w hodowli, jak i transporcie. W transporcie powinniśmy zwiększyć wymogi co do warunków, w jakich są przewożone zwierzęta, co wpływa na czas transportu lub go warunkuje. Musimy zatem wzmocnić system kontroli i karać tych, którzy nie przestrzegają standardów w transporcie zwierząt.
               

Maria Noichl (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Eine Gesellschaft wird immer daran gemessen, wie sie mit den Schwächsten umgeht, mit den Allerschwächsten. Das können Menschen sein, es sind aber auch oft Tiere, und die Allerschwächsten sind Tiere auf den Transportwegen. Denn dort sind sie nicht im heimischen Stall, dort sind sie nicht beim Landwirt, der normalerweise für sie Sorge trägt, dort sind sie oftmals rechtlos und oftmals eigentümerlos.
               

                  Wir müssen deutlich machen, dass diese Schwäche der Tiere von der EU nicht ausgenutzt wird. Die EU hat Verantwortung, und die EU muss sich darum kümmern. Wir brauchen ganz klar Transportzeiten, die auf acht Stunden begrenzt sind. Wir müssen endlich kapieren, dass wir Fleisch transportieren sollen und nicht lebende Tiere. Wir brauchen wieder regionale Schlachthöfe, unbedingt regionale Kreisläufe, wir brauchen Einschränkungen bei hohen Temperaturen, wir brauchen unbedingt die Transporteinschränkung für nicht abgesetzte Kälber und unbedingte Verbote für Schiffe, die nicht für den Transport von Tieren ausgelegt sind. Nahe am Landkreis Rosenheim liegt Mühldorf, und Mühldorf hat sich dadurch ausgezeichnet, dass vor kurzem so ein Transport gestoppt wurde. Eine Kuh sollte auf 5 000 km Fahrt gehen – eine trächtige Kuh! Das wurde vom Veterinäramt gestoppt. Und ich sage dazu: Das war Verantwortung!
               

Beata Gosiewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Za każdym razem gdy poruszany jest temat transportu zwierząt, podnoszone są argumenty mówiące o braku postępów we wdrażaniu rozporządzenia przez niektóre państwa członkowskie. Nie należy zatem skupiać się na tworzeniu zasad ideologicznych, często niewykonalnych, ale tworzyć i egzekwować zasady praktyczne, które będą odpowiedzią na potrzeby dzisiejszego rynku transportu zwierząt i ich ogólnie pojętego dobra. Ja za takie niewykonalne zapisy uważam pkt 59, 63, 77 , 83 i 88 naszego sprawozdania.
               

                  Szanowni Państwo! Nie można czynić rolników odpowiedzialnymi za transport zwierząt. Rolnicy hodują zwierzęta i dbają o nie. To jest źródło ich dochodu. Zazwyczaj zwierzęta transportowane są przez rolników tylko w ramach ich własnych gospodarstw. Pan poseł sprawozdawca powiedział: czas, abyśmy poparli zwierzęta. Oczywiście popierajmy zwierzęta, ale przede wszystkim popierajmy rolników, którzy hodują te zwierzęta, i też popierajmy i twórzmy realne przepisy, aby umożliwiać normalny transport zwierząt na terenie Europy.
               

Stefan Eck (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident! Mit der EU-Verordnung 1/2005 sollen Tiere auf dem Transport geschützt werden. Aber diese Regelung wird in vielen Mitgliedstaaten nicht konsequent eingehalten – das wissen wir alle.
               

                  Seit Jahren liegen dafür die Beweise auf dem Tisch, aber bisher hat die Kommission nicht mit Vertragsverletzungsverfahren reagiert. Im Gegenteil, die Gesetzesbrüche werden sogar von der Kommission heruntergespielt. Herr Kommissar, warum stellen Sie sich blind und taub, wenn es um Tiere geht, wenn bestehende Vorschriften zum Schutz von Tieren gebrochen werden? Warum missachten Sie damit eindeutig Artikel 13 des Vertrags von Lissabon? Ich sage es Ihnen: Weil Sie und die Kommission am Gängelband der Agrarverbände gehen, weil die Interessen und der Schutz der Tiere immer von hinten bewertet werden. Immer werden die Interessen der Landwirtschaft höher bewertet als konsequenter Tierschutz.
               

                  Und sagen wir die Wahrheit: Die Kommission richtet sich auch nach den Wünschen des Europäischen Rates. Dort hat Tierschutz überhaupt keinen Stellenwert. Somit trägt die europäische Politik insgesamt die größte Mitschuld an der miserablen Behandlung der Tiere.
               

                  Verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, machen Sie aus diesem Bericht keinen zahnlosen Tiger! Stimmen Sie für die tierfreundlichen Anträge!
               

Pascal Durand (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, il y a à peu près un an jour pour jour, 223 parlementaires réclamaient ici une commission d'enquête sur les conditions de transport des animaux au sein de l'Union européenne.
               

                  Les présidents des groupes, notamment de la droite et des socialistes, se sont opposés à cette commission d'enquête et ont bloqué la possibilité que nous avions de vérifier les conditions réelles dans lesquelles les animaux sont transportés. Alors en réalité, quand j'entends ici un certain nombre de députés, de gauche ou de droite, venir nous expliquer que nous devons améliorer, etc., je dis que l'on se moque du monde! On se moque du monde, Monsieur le Commissaire! Tout simplement parce que la souffrance des animaux n'importe pas, parce que la souffrance des animaux ne pèse rien à côté des profits de l'agroalimentaire dans notre société. Et c'est ça le scandale! Alors attention, attention parce que si ça n'intéresse pas ce Parlement ni les dirigeants, ça intéresse les citoyens, les ONG et les journalistes. Et nous creusons un peu plus, par cette inaction, le fossé qui existe entre les institutions et les citoyens européens. Alors attention à ne pas continuer dans ce monde déshumanisé, qui fait que nous perdons toutes nos valeurs de solidarité envers la souffrance des animaux.
               

Philippe Loiseau (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, je soutiens cette initiative qui a donné lieu à un rapport équilibré et à des propositions de bon sens. Nous devons clarifier l'application des règles de transport d'animaux vivants, car c'est un sujet qui a des répercussions négatives sur toute la filière viande européenne et, comme toujours, ce sont les agriculteurs qui en payent les conséquences. Nous nous inquiétons des distorsions de concurrence qui peuvent exister entre nos pays, mais sachons les reconnaître là où elles sont vraiment.
               

                  Tout d'abord, les distorsions dans les coûts de production, qui obligent à segmenter la naissance, l'élevage et l'abattage entre différents lieux et donc à multiplier les trajets.
               

                  Distorsions également dans les coûts de transport, entre les pays qui respectent les règles depuis des années et ceux qui ne le respectent pas.
               

                  Distorsions dans les coûts d'abattage, qui conduisent à acheminer les animaux toujours plus loin des lieux d'élevage et de consommation.
               

                  Enfin, distorsions induites par une politique commerciale extérieure libéralisée avec des pays tiers qui ne respectent pas nos normes sanitaires et rendent inutiles nos efforts en faveur du bien-être animal.
               

                  Cessons donc d'importer des animaux que nous ne voulons pas. Soutenons les alternatives au niveau local qui redynamiseront les territoires oubliés et affirmons à nos citoyens que non, les agriculteurs ne sont pas les responsables de la souffrance animale.
               

Udo Voigt (NI). – Herr Präsident! Zehn Jahre nach dieser EU-Tiertransportverordnung unterhalten wir uns heute darüber, dass diese nicht eingehalten wird. Was ist das eigentlich für ein Witz, wenn wir jetzt selbst die Vorschriften verändern und keine Kontrollen und keine Sanktionen stattfinden? Wird alles weitergehen wie bisher?
               

                  Es ist doch klar: Wer ein Haustier hat oder wer Landwirt ist, der weiß, dass ein Tier Gefühle hat, dass ein Tier Schmerz hat, dass ein Tier Leid empfinden kann, dass ein Tier Freude empfinden kann. Warum gehen wir nicht soweit und verlangen von diesen Transportunternehmen, die Tiertransporte durchführen, eine Lizenz? Diese Lizenz für den Transport muss entzogen werden, wenn die Bedingungen nicht eingehalten werden. Das wäre konsequentes Vorgehen der EU.
               

                  Es ist schön, dass die Vorschriften verbessert werden. Es nützt aber nichts, wenn man die Vorschriften verbessert und nicht einhält. Daher müssen drastische Sanktionen für diejenigen her, die für den Mord von Millionen Tieren jedes Jahr verantwortlich sind.
               

Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Wenn ich mir die Debatte hier anhöre, habe ich so ein bisschen den Eindruck, als gäbe es keinen einzigen ordnungsgemäßen Tiertransport in Europa, und das stimmt ja überhaupt nicht. Wir haben in Europa eine vorbildhafte Gesetzgebung, und der Großteil der Transporte läuft ordnungsgemäß ab. Mein Vorredner müsste übrigens auch wissen, dass es für den Transport von Tieren bereits heute eine Zulassung gibt.
               

                  Aber selbstverständlich gibt es auch Probleme, und die Probleme müssen wir halt angehen. Es gibt im Übrigen auch eine Europäische Bürgerinitiative – über eine Million Menschen haben unterschrieben, weil sie mit manchem, was da heute passiert, nicht einverstanden sind. Grundsätzlich müssen wir uns in diesem Haus auch mal fragen, wie wir mit diesen Bürgerinitiativen insgesamt umgehen. Deswegen denke ich schon, wir haben uns das Thema anzuschauen, wir haben zu schauen, wo es nicht gut läuft.
               

                  Wir haben vor allem zu schauen, wie man lokale Kreisläufe schaffen kann, weil es wirklich keinen Sinn hat, Schlachttiere durch halb Europa zu karren, nur um die Suche nach dem noch billigeren Schlachthof irgendwo in Europa weiterzuführen. Da hat es selbstverständlich Sinn, die Tiere ortsnah zu schlachten und dann das Fleisch zu transportieren. Also versuchen wir, die heutige Gesetzgebung vernünftig umzusetzen und dafür zu sorgen, dass Europa in diesem Bereich vorbildhaft ist.
               

Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Tausende Kilometer, stundenlange Fahrten ohne genügend Platz, oft ohne angepassten Zugang zu Wasser – wenn überhaupt –. Warten in der Hitze, in der Kälte, Angst, Stress: Das ist das Schicksal von Tausenden Tieren jeden Tag – Millionen jährlich.
               

                  Aber kommt, wir schauen nicht länger weg und lassen diese Grausamkeiten nicht mehr zu. Es geht auch anders. Ich möchte euch jetzt nicht alle überzeugen, auch Vegetarier zu werden. Aber unterstützen Sie, dass wir bessere, strengere Regelungen haben und mehr Kontrollen beim Transport von lebenden Tieren!
               

                  Wir sind verantwortlich für das, was wir tun. Wir sind auch verantwortlich für das, was wir nicht tun. Tiertransporte kann man natürlich nicht von der EU-Agrarpolitik getrennt sehen, wo noch immer – oder müsste ich sagen – immer mehr der Profit im Mittelpunkt steht.
               

                  Wir brauchen nicht nur eine Energiewende, wir brauchen auch eine Agrarwende. Weg von der Massentierhaltung, weg von der Massenproduktion, hin zu einer nachhaltigen Agrikultur, wo das Wohlergehen der Tiere nicht nur nice to have ist, sondern eine Verpflichtung.
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! 26 stron poświęciliście Państwo na to, żeby zapewnić świniom sympatyczny dojazd na rzeź. I co? – oczywiście mamy tu licencje dla kierowców, postulowane kolejne kontrole, skrócenie transportu do ośmiu godzin. To już ludzie dłużej jeżdżą. Nie potraficie egzekwować dotychczasowych przepisów, a chcecie wprowadzać kolejne. To jest typowe tutaj dla Państwa, dla Unii Europejskiej. Stwarzacie sami problem, najpierw zakazując uboju na miejscu, reglamentując ubojnie, wydając takie przepisy, że te ubojnie się centralizacją i wskutek tego trzeba zwierzęta transportować daleko, a następnie walczycie z efektami własnych regulacji w postaci długich transportów zwierząt i wydajecie kolejne przepisy, których też nie będzie potrafili egzekwować. W dodatku, kto to mówi? To mówią ludzie, którzy u siebie mają barbarzyńskie przepisy pozwalające na mordowanie nienarodzonych dzieci i tacy barbarzyńcy będą nas pouczać na temat transportowania zwierząt? Nie, tak nie będzie. Nazywacie dziecko zlepkiem komórek, a świnia nie dla Was materiałem na kiełbasę, tylko jakąś czującą istotą?! Zastanówcie się ludzie, gdzie są Wasze priorytety. Ktoś mówi, że będziecie popierać zwierzęta. Mam więc nadzieję, że to zwierzęta będą głosować na tych, którzy tak robią w następnych wyborach.
               

Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). –
(début de l'intervention hors micro)… Monsieur le Président, je suis réellement en colère. Plusieurs millions d'animaux subissent chaque année, en Europe, d'effroyables conditions de transport: enfermés, exploités, violentés. Nous ne pouvons plus fermer les yeux sur cette maltraitance animale. Les animaux ont le droit au respect et à la bienveillance, comme les êtres humains.
               

                  L'an dernier, par exemple, plusieurs ONG ont démontré que 70 % des camions inspectés à la frontière bulgare ne respectent pas la législation européenne. Nous devons faire toute la lumière sur ces pratiques honteuses au moyen d'une commission d'enquête, même si les socialistes et les conservateurs n'en veulent pas. Il est temps pour nous de remettre au cœur de notre action le bien- être des animaux, de réduire la durée maximum de voyage et d'interdire les exportations animales de l'Union vers les pays tiers.
               

                  Chers collègues, le mot d'ordre est très simple: si vous n'avez pas compris qu'il est grand temps de défendre la vie des animaux plutôt que les intérêts de l'industrie agroalimentaire, alors vous n'avez rien compris. Maintenant, il va falloir prendre votre courage à deux mains et faire en sorte de soutenir cette commission d'enquête, parce qu'elle est proposée pour de bonnes raisons, mais surtout parce qu'elle est nécessaire et utile.
               

Zgłoszenia z sali


Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem připraven tuto zprávu podpořit a děkuji za ni autorům. Více než rok se věnuji problému transportu zvířat po Evropě z hlediska České republiky. Jsem v kontaktu s nevládním sektorem a z faktů, které mám, pane komisaři, musím říct, že můj pohled je úplně opačný od Vašeho. Váš optimismus absolutně nesdílím. A jenom informace pro Vás – z České republiky v roce 2013 bylo do Turecka vyvezeno 3 000 krav. V roce 2015 a 2016 už to bylo 78 000 krav. Zmnohonásobil se vývoz skotu z tohoto členského státu do Turecka, máme jasná fakta a informace, jak nejsou dodržovány legislativní předpisy EU, jak neprobíhá kontrola na bulharsko-turecké hranici. To jsou fakta, která Vy zde neumíte zpochybnit. Vaše Komise pro práva zvířat neudělala nic. Já jsem mnohokrát jako český poslanec EP psal Komisi informace o pašování psů a koček z České republiky do západní Evropy, nedostal jsem žádné odpovědi. Takže, prosím, věnujme právu zvířat v budoucnosti větší pozornost.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η προστασία των ζώων κατά τη μεταφορά εντός και εκτός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης έχει αποτελέσει αντικείμενο πολλών αναφορών στην Επιτροπή Αναφορών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και είναι ένα θέμα το οποίο εγείρει ανησυχίες. Και εγείρει ανησυχίες, βεβαίως, διότι υπάρχει ζήτημα με την υγεία των ζώων και, κατ' επέκταση, με την υγεία των ανθρώπων. Ως εκ τούτου, θεωρώ ότι πρέπει να είμαστε αποφασιστικοί και οι έλεγχοι να γίνονται και στα σύνορα. Θα ήθελα, κύριε Επίτροπε, να δείτε και το θέμα που υπάρχει σε σχέση με τη μεταφορά ζώων από τα Σκόπια στην Ελλάδα. Καταρχάς, έχουμε παράνομες ελληνοποιήσεις. Εμφανίζονται τα ζώα αυτά ως δήθεν ελληνικά και από εκεί και πέρα στοιβάζονται σε φορτηγά για να μεταφερθούν από τα Σκόπια στη Θεσσαλονίκη ή στην Αθήνα. Είναι ένα σοβαρό θέμα και πρέπει επ' αυτού να παρέμβετε και εσείς. Πρέπει να υπάρξει έλεγχος στο ζήτημα αυτό.
               

Florent Marcellesi (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, cada año más de cuatrocientos mil animales son transportados vivos. Y muchos de ellos, demasiados, en largas distancias sin alimentos ni agua y a temperaturas extremas. Un sufrimiento innecesario que populares y socialistas se han negado a investigar en esta Cámara, como les pedimos los verdes europeos.
               

                  Señor comisario, la regulación europea actual sobre transporte animal es absolutamente ineficiente y ni siquiera garantiza el cumplimiento de sus propios estándares. Como muestra, un dato: en 2007 los controles se han reducido a la mitad y, así, los incumplimientos se han duplicado.
               

                  Señor comisario, es el momento de obligar a los Estados miembros a cumplir con sus obligaciones y a no permitir más maltrato. Es el momento de limitar el transporte de animales y de prohibirlo cuando no garantice su bienestar.
               

                  Desde Equo, los verdes europeos seguiremos trabajando para acabar con el maltrato animal, ya sea en el transporte, en la ganadería industrial o en las macrogranjas. No más maltrato animal.
               

John Stuart Agnew (ENF). – Mr President, there is quite adequate legislation on animal transport: the problem is that it isn't being enforced, and here we find a cultural difference. In the north-west of Europe, there are a lot of people who are very concerned about animal welfare. In the UK we have a charity called the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals that brings private prosecutions against people who don't treat animals properly. But the further south-east you go in Europe, the more the culture changes, and they are less interested. These are the people who are expected to enforce the legislation, and they simply can't be bothered.
On another subject, in the course of my life I have offloaded thousands of sheep from lorries, and I can tell you that the ones that travel best are the ones that travel empty. They do not need to be packed full of food. If they are, then what happens on the lorry is that they go into the rumination process, with urination and defecation, and make a mess of the lorry and particularly the sheep on the lower decks. You do not need to fill a sheep full of food for it to travel comfortably.

Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κάθε χρόνο μεταφέρονται εκατομμύρια ζώντα ζώα, τόσο μεταξύ των χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης όσο και προς τρίτες χώρες. Γνωρίζουμε όλοι ότι κατά τη διάρκεια των μεταφορών τα ζώα αυτά υποφέρουν, ταλαιπωρούνται, υφίστανται κινδύνους για τη ζωή τους και, πάνω απ' όλα, ταξιδεύουν για μακρό χρονικό διάστημα κάτω από άσχημες καιρικές συνθήκες, στοιβαγμένα σε μέσα τα οποία πολλές φορές δεν πληρούν τις προδιαγραφές. Θα μου πείτε ότι ο τρόπος με τον οποίον συμπεριφέρεται ο άνθρωπος στα ζώα είναι αποτέλεσμα του χαρακτήρα, της προσωπικότητας και του πολιτιστικού του επιπέδου. Όμως τα κράτη πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσουν το πρόβλημα αυτό. Πρέπει να θεσπίσουν προδιαγραφές, να εφαρμόσουν τις προδιαγραφές αυτές και να τιμωρούν τους παραβάτες. Επίσης, πρέπει να αποφεύγουμε τις μετακινήσεις ζώων προς τρίτες χώρες που δεν πληρούν τις προδιαγραφές. Τέλος, πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί και το λαθρεμπόριο ζώων. Στην Ελλάδα έρχονται παράνομα ζώα από την Τουρκία, την Αλβανία και τα Σκόπια, τα οποία δεν πληρούν τις προδιαγραφές ασφάλειας και υγιεινής και θέτουν σε κίνδυνο τη ζωή των καταναλωτών.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, ochrana zvířat během přepravy je samozřejmě citlivou záležitostí. Já souhlasím s tím, že přepravovat by se mělo maso a ne živá zvířata. Ale pokud je to nutné, pak zde musí platit přísné předpisy, přísné standardy, které EU má, a ty musí být především vyžadovány, vymáhány, musí být prováděna kontrola. Já jsem odpůrcem nových předpisů, pokud nestačíme naplňovat a prosazovat stávající předpisy, které jsou dostatečně přísné. Samozřejmě zvýšit kontrolu, kontrolovat na hranicích, to je řešením a sankcionovat ty, kteří nedodržují vhodné podmínky pro přepravu zvířat. Zvířata by neměla trpět. Obávám se ale, že nemůžeme zakázat dopravu zvířat do třetích zemí, spíše opravdu kontrolovat a vyžadovat plnění významně ochranných standardů.
               

Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, transportul animalelor vii este o problemă reală, care nu trebuie să fie ignorată. Un transport cu încălcarea standardelor de bunăstare al animalelor va influența negativ calitatea cărnii și va afecta sănătatea consumatorilor. Statele membre trebuie să depună eforturi pentru dezvoltarea capacităților de abatorizare la nivel microregional. Scurtarea distanței și a timpului de transport dintre ferme și abatoare, dar, mai ales, dintre abatoare, centrele de procesare și desfacere este esențială pentru asigurarea de produse de calitate pentru consumatori.
               

                  Îmi exprim însă, în același timp, rezerve serioase cu privire la interzicerea exporturilor în anumite state, deoarece implică consecințe economice dezastruoase pentru fermieri. În schimb, trebuie identificate soluții viabile pentru rezolvarea deficiențelor existente și, mai ales, trebuie să ne asigurăm că regulamentele actuale sunt respectate.
               

                  În același timp, țările din Orientul Mijlociu sunt principalele partenere comerciale pentru importul de animale vii din Uniunea Europeană. Facilitarea sacrificărilor cu respectarea standardelor religioase în abatoarele din Uniunea Europeană ar evita costuri suplimentare de transport, ceea ce ar fi profitabil atât pentru fermieri, cât și pentru consumatori.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I have listened carefully to the honourable Members' contributions and I am grateful for the various insights – and the sometimes very emotional speeches.
Let me repeat part of my own speech because, in my introduction, I talked about various ‘issues’ but Ms Hazekamp quoted me in a different way. I repeat: when the Court of Auditors presented its report at last December's Animal Welfare Intergroup meeting, it was clear that, despite progress achieved, there are issues that need to be addressed.
I did not say it was 100% or that we are OK. Why quote what I said in a different way? You know, I like the very simple rule ‘Don't lie’!
And it is clear. We have had meetings and we have discussed the issues that were raised here, about Croatian ports and so on, and we are following the situation and having dialogues with operators. Why are you exaggerating the situation, Ms Hazekamp?
Of course I know that now is the time of the European elections and, yes, from an election point of view, your speech was quite good.
In recent meetings we have had ongoing exchanges on the current animal welfare situation and, whilst I am proud of the progress we are all making, I am aware that we need to do more. We have no chance to say ‘job done’. No. The job has not been done.
I am now very worried about criminal activity – about crime and fraud – and you can see new examples of this. We need to discuss penalties and other issues, of course. But don't ignore the situation at the Commission, where we are doing a lot in the area of animal welfare. The Commission's number one priority in this area is, and will remain, better enforcement. I repeat, better enforcement. And we will continue: it is not sufficient to have a good legal framework to protect our animals if we do not ensure it is correctly applied.
However, the Commission cannot achieve better implementation and enforcement by working alone. It is up to Member States and operators: and, of course, I invite Members of the European Parliament to discuss these issues with your respective countries' governments. You have a good opportunity to organise debates at different levels. We are also debating these issues at the EU Animal Welfare Platform, and we have achieved many steps forward.
Please read once again Mr Wojciechowski's report on animal welfare from the Court of Auditors. It takes an objective view both of certain improvements and also with regard to where we can do more. That is clear. But all of us – the Commission, Member States and representatives of civil society – must work together. It is a pity that, after the emotional speeches, no one from the Green Group is in the Chamber. It would be good to continue our conversation, and not just to deliver emotional speeches.

(Applause)

I am pleased that this report makes recommendations to both the Commission and Member States. I strongly believe we share the same goal: to ensure that animals, as sentient beings, do not suffer unnecessarily. Of course it's true that we need to do more. But let us continue to work to achieve this – not blaming and shaming all the time. That is not the constructive way.

(Applause)


Jørn Dohrmann,
Ordfører. – Hr. formand! Tak for kommentarerne. Tak til kommissæren også med hans ord, der siger, at der stadigvæk er ting at arbejde med. Der er tre prioriteter, som de har sat højt på dagsordenen. Vi samarbejder gerne med kommissæren. Jeg bare nødt til at sige: Vi ønsker ikke kun, at det bliver ved snakken! Det er jo derfor, vi gerne ser denne betænkning. Vi er bagud i forhold til andre lande som New Zealand og Australien. De har længe taget aktien på det her, og jeg savner lidt i den kommentar, som kommissæren kom med: Hvor blev den nye teknologi af? Hvorfor bruger man ikke ny teknologi, når man skal holde øje med dette område? Det synes jeg er vigtigt! Vi taler også om de otte timers transport. Så siger jeg jo, at det skal være så kort som muligt, og det gør jeg ud fra, at jeg ikke ønsker, at det lige pludselig skal planlægges, at alle dyr skal ud på en otte timers transport. Så derfor så kort som overhovedet muligt! Jeg har tillid til, at flertallet her i Parlamentet i dag vil sende dette stærke signal til Kommissionen, og derfor tror jeg også det er på tide, at vi står bag dyrene. Derfor vil jeg gerne sige mange tak for denne debat og tak for opbakningen indtil nu.
               

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
               

                  Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 14 lutego 2019 r.
               


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Janusz Zemke (S&D),
na piśmie. – Zgłaszam krytyczne uwagi ws. ochrony zwierząt podczas transportu w UE i poza nią. W mojej ocenie, jest niedopuszczalne, że po upływie 13 lat od wejścia w życie rozporządzenia na ten temat wciąż zdarzają się bardzo liczne przypadki złego traktowania zwierząt podczas transportu, co powoduje cierpienia zwierząt, stanowi zagrożenie dla ich zdrowia, ale także dla ludzi. Najczęstsze naruszenia obowiązujących przecież przepisów dotyczą przepełnienia i niedostatecznej przestrzeni przeznaczonej dla zwierząt podczas transportu, nieprzestrzegania okresów pojenia i karmienia zwierząt oraz czasu podróży. Zjawiska te są wysoce niepokojące. Wzywam Komisję Europejską i podległe jej służby do twardego egzekwowania obowiązujących przepisów.
               

Dominique Bilde (ENF),
par écrit. – Mon intervention sur ce thème qui m'est cher est le résultat d'un engagement de longue date, puisque je fais partie de la poignée de députés à l'origine de la demande de création d'une commission d'enquêtes sur le transport d'animaux vivants. Bien que je regrette le refus qui nous a été opposé, je n'en salue pas moins le travail de mes collègues sur ce rapport de la plus haute importance.
               

                  Car de quoi s'agit-il ? De quelque 37 millions de veaux, vaches et moutons qui transitent chaque année sur les routes européennes au prix de souffrances effroyables. Ces trajets, allant parfois jusqu'à soixante-dix heures, sont souvent marqués par le manque cruel d'hydratation, d'espace et d'oxygène. En 2016, une vidéo d'Eurogroup for animals avait déchiré le voile de ces abus atroces.
               

                  Las, je crains que ce énième rapport parlementaire ne demeure lettre morte, faute de volonté politique réelle, non seulement de faire appliquer sur le territoire de l'Union la législation existante, mais également d'imposer à nos partenaires commerciaux des standards similaires. A l'heure où Bruxelles s'apprête à inonder le marché européen de viande étrangère, notamment brésilienne, cette dernière exigence semble destinée à rester un vœu pieux.
               
7.   Strengthening the competitiveness of the Internal Market by developing the EU customs union and its governance (debate)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Virginie Rozière w imieniu Komisji Rynku Wewnętrznego i Ochrony Konsumentów w sprawie zwiększenia konkurencyjności rynku wewnętrznego dzięki pogłębieniu unii celnej UE i zarządzaniu nią (2018/2109(INI)) (A8-0059/2019).
               

Virginie Rozière,
rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, je vous présente aujourd'hui un rapport d'initiative sur une politique qui est certes technique, mais qui n'en reste pas moins essentielle à notre Union: la politique douanière.
               

                  Cette politique est un des fondements du marché intérieur et elle est tellement intégrée à l'Union européenne qu'on oublie parfois son importance. Or – le Brexit en est d'ailleurs un cruel rappel – l'union douanière et son bon fonctionnement sont absolument vitaux pour l'Union européenne. Et ce rapport d'initiative s'inscrit dans une série d'initiatives législatives et non législatives relatives au code des douanes de l'Union, notamment les rapports de mes collègues Selimovic, Grapini et Pospíšil.
               

                  Le code des douanes tel que nous l'avons voté en 2013 prévoyait à l'époque la mise en place d'une architecture informatique pour mettre en œuvre, à compter de 2020, l'année prochaine, des procédures douanières dématérialisées au niveau européen. De manière tout à fait regrettable, nous avons été contraints de proroger ce délai à 2025, dans le cadre du rapport Selimovic, en raison des retards pris par la Commission et par les États membres, pour développer et mettre en place les applications informatiques nécessaires à ces procédures douanières 100 % en ligne. C'est dans ce contexte que s'inscrit le rapport dont nous discutons aujourd'hui.
               

                  Ce rapport insiste d'abord sur le caractère prioritaire de la mise en œuvre du code communautaire des douanes. Voici plus de dix ans que la réforme a été lancée par la Commission en 2008 et cette réforme n'est aujourd'hui toujours pas pleinement opérationnelle. Et il doit être bien clair que les nouveaux délais octroyés aux États membres et à la Commission, respectivement 2023 et 2025, pour achever l'architecture informatique ne sont pas indicatifs et que tout nouveau décalage est absolument proscrit. Alors pour respecter ces délais, le rapport dont nous discutons en ce moment demande à la Commission d'intégrer les contraintes et les méthodes de planification et de conduite de projets classiques – je dirais – mais qui gagneraient à être effectivement mises en œuvre: une définition définitive des spécifications, l'établissement de jalons pour faciliter la prise de décision et des rapports établis de manière claire et permanente. À ce propos, le rapport spécifique de la Cour des comptes européenne a bien montré que ces éléments, pourtant essentiels à la conduite de projets, ont jusqu'à présent fait défaut et à mon sens, leur absence explique pour une large part le fait que les objectifs ne soient aujourd'hui toujours pas atteints.
               

                  Plus largement, le rapport dont nous discutons appelle à une gouvernance renforcée du programme ‘Douane 2020’ et des futurs programmes ‘Douanes’, notamment pour les projets d'ampleur. Pour cela, il invite la Commission à revoir, à l'issue – mais seulement à l'issue – de la mise en œuvre des 17 outils informatiques, l'ensemble de la gouvernance des douanes, justement en prenant appui sur le rapport de la Cour des comptes européenne que je viens de mentionner. Donc, à ces fins, le rapport que je vous présente encourage également la Commission à continuer ses réflexions et ses travaux sur l'outil relatif aux performances de l'union douanière, comme nous invitons la Commission à œuvrer pour une application uniforme de la législation douanière sur l'ensemble du territoire douanier européen.
               

                  On a également eu le retour d'un certain nombre d'opérateurs économiques et d'administrations douanières, qui nous indiquent que la mise en œuvre du code des douanes n'est pas suffisamment uniforme aujourd'hui au niveau de l'Union, ce qui entraîne bien entendu, d'abord, une incertitude potentiellement coûteuse pour les opérateurs économiques, mais aussi et surtout des risques pour l'intégrité et le bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur. Et je souhaite que, par ce rapport, la Commission et les États membres s'attachent à assurer une mise en œuvre uniforme, comme je le disais, de ces procédures douanières en recourant à l'échange de bonnes pratiques, aux actions conjointes entre administrations douanières et par l'établissement de guides pratiques pour renforcer les capacités des États membres les moins performants sur ces questions.
               

                  Enfin, et c'est un point qui doit être important pour nous tous, le Parlement doit être pleinement informé de l'état d'avancement et de mise en œuvre du programme ‘Douane 2020’ et du code des douanes. Nous demandons donc que la Commission et les États membres, pour ce qui relève de leur responsabilité, améliorent encore davantage l'information dont nous disposons pour assurer pleinement le contrôle parlementaire sur ce programme de plus de 850 milliards d'euros, sur une politique essentielle – encore une fois – de l'Union européenne, qui a de si nombreuses implications: le Parlement doit être pleinement associé, y compris en cas de difficulté.
               

                  Je remercie les rapporteurs fictifs et les collègues qui ont largement soutenu ce rapport et j'espère qu'il sera tout autant soutenu en plénière et qu'il sera entendu par la Commission et les États membres.
               

Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable ladies and gentlemen, dear Members, on behalf of Commissioner Moscovici, who cannot be here today, I am happy to present and to be here to discuss with you ways to improve the competitiveness of the internal market by developing the Customs Union. Of course, we would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Rozière, for her report and for the work on this subject.
The importance of the Customs Union for the internal market and for the competitiveness of EU companies is, of course, clear. Goods can flow freely, quickly and safely within the European Union thanks to common customs rules at EU external borders. And, at the same time, the EU, the Member States, acting as one single trading bloc in trade negotiations with third countries, have a far stronger position than any Member State alone – as we've seen this week, for instance.
I would also like to thank you for acknowledging the Customs Union's vital role and the work carried out by customs administrations in your report. As the report notes, it is vital that the Customs Union ensures the competitiveness of European business, especially the SMEs, while at the same time protecting the EU's revenue sources and allowing the flow of goods at our external borders.
Balancing these objectives is the main goal of the Union Customs Code (UCC). The UCC has been the main legal framework for customs rules since 2016 and it aims to eliminate paperwork and fully automate all customs processes. It also provides for a greater electronic integration between the Member States and it facilitates trade by speeding up customs control.
I welcome the reference made in the report to the major progress already achieved over the last 20 years in the digitalisation of our customs processes. The current work is about building and expanding on the existing well-functioning electronic systems. For that reason, the UCC electronic work must proceed carefully, step by step. The new systems will only replace the old ones when they have been fully tested and when they can be launched easily with no disruption to trade.
Thanks to the provisional agreement reached in trilogue on the proposal to amend Article 278 of the UCC, the Commission and Member States will have the time necessary to complete their work on the 17 UCC electronic systems. Most systems will in fact be completed by the previously established deadline of 2020. However, for some of them it is necessary to allow extensions up to 2022 for the three national systems and up to 2025 for six trans-European systems. We have proposed these extensions to the Commission to allow traders and Member States to prepare in an efficient way. We believe that the work can now proceed in a smoother way in line with a carefully calibrated and agreed timeline. And, as you request in your report, I can assure you that the Commission's work programme for the customs IT projects will be regularly updated to take account of the new deadlines. And, besides, we will of course regularly inform Parliament of the progress of the customs electronic projects through regular reports. Greater transparency here is, of course, in everybody's interest: for you, for the economic operators and for the general public.
The Commission already produces annual reports in a technical format on the multiannual strategic plans for customs electronic systems and this form of reporting will continue. And, in addition, under the provisional agreement reached in the trilogue, the Commission will provide a second more strategic annual progress report with the remainder of the work related to the development of the 17 UCC electronic systems.
So let me conclude by saying that we will give careful consideration to all the suggestions you made in your report and we intend to address all the customs issues highlighted by this House.

Nicola Danti,
relatore per parere della commissione per il commercio internazionale. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario Malmström, fatemi ringraziare in apertura la collega Virginie Rozière per l'ottimo lavoro svolto su questa relazione.
               

                  In qualità di relatore della commissione per il commercio internazionale, vorrei mettere in evidenza alcune considerazioni nel merito del testo. In primo luogo, per presentarsi come partner credibile quando si negoziano accordi commerciali con paesi terzi, l'Unione europea deve disporre di un'Unione doganale pienamente operativa che agevoli gli scambi e che riduca gli oneri amministrativi, in particolare per operatori piccoli e per le PMI.
               

                  In secondo luogo, credo che la tutela dei cittadini e dei consumatori passi innanzitutto dalla capacità che abbiamo di controllare i prodotti che entrano e circolano nel mercato unico, in modo da assicurare il rispetto delle norme e degli standard, sia da parte delle imprese europee che da parte delle imprese extraeuropee. Questo deve avvenire indipendentemente da quale sia il paese o il porto d'accesso, e per fare ciò abbiamo bisogno di armonizzare quanto più possibile le procedure doganali, il livello e la qualità dei controlli, nonché le politiche sanzionatorie, ostacolando con forza il fenomeno del ‘port-shopping’. In tale contesto la prospettiva deve essere quella di sempre maggior trasferimento di responsabilità dalle autorità doganali nazionali alle autorità doganali europee.
               

                  In terzo luogo, la digitalizzazione rappresenta una grande opportunità, perché ha il potenziale di rendere più trasparenti e accessibili lo scambio di informazioni e il pagamento dei dazi, oltre ad essere un potente strumento per combattere la corruzione alle frontiere.
               

                  Infine, colleghi, tengo a ribadire che il processo della Brexit non dovrà comportare effetti negativi sullo sviluppo o sulla governance delle dogane dell'Unione europea, nonché sull'integrità del mercato unico.
               

Adam Szejnfeld,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Unia celna jest jednym z fundamentów funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej jako takiej. Jej sprawne działanie ma zasadniczy wpływ między innymi na finanse Unii Europejskiej, na działalność przedsiębiorców, na bezpieczeństwo konsumentów, co jest bardzo ważne, ale także na handel zagraniczny Unii Europejskiej z państwami trzecimi, no i – to, co jest przedmiotem naszego sprawozdania – także na konkurencję, tą, która występuje wewnątrz. Dlatego w sposób oczywisty – my jako Parlament Europejski – musimy zajmować się nie tylko postrzeganiem sprawności funkcjonowania Unii celnej, ale także zachęcać Komisję do modernizowania tejże. W tym zakresie na pewno występuje kilka ważnych wyzwań. Pierwszym, o którym tu było dużo mowy, są nowoczesne technologie teleinformatyczne. Mamy tutaj opóźnienia. Trzeba je wyeliminować, ale zgadzam się z p. komisarz, warunkiem bezwzględnym jest bezpieczeństwo nowych systemów, a nie czas ich wprowadzenia. Inną kwestią jest unifikacja interpretacji w państwach członkowskich. Musimy mieć wszędzie, w całej Unii, te same podejście do unii celnej. I ostatnia kwestia, Panie Przewodniczący, co jest chyba oczywiste, ale warto o tym wspomnieć, największym wyzwaniem dzisiaj jest brexit. To będzie egzamin dla Unii Europejskiej, jeżeli chodzi o unię celną.
               

Daniel Dalton,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I very much welcome this report. We've been working for a long time in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) to try and improve customs procedures and the efficiency of trade in Europe. So I strongly support the emphasis on the need for better IT systems to smooth the work of customs authorities and also its call for better managed roll-out of new IT projects by the Commission, working closely with national bodies.
Technology, when properly utilised, has the ability to massively reduce the costs and administrative burden of customs procedures in future. Parliament has recognised this for some time, but the Commission has taken eight years to roll this out and also appears reluctant to look at technological solutions in some of the new customs borders that may emerge in the next few weeks, even though there is a clear case for it.
In concrete terms, using technology means cheaper goods for consumers and lower costs of business for traders. The rest of the world is pushing on with tech solutions to customs issues. As trials have already demonstrated, technologies like blockchain have huge potential for even simpler and more secure customs procedures, but we can also help customs authorities by raising the de minimis threshold for e-commerce to the physical limit, not reducing it to zero.
Overall, creating a single secure digital place for all parts of the process is the long-term goal, but we're not quite there yet. As the repeated delays to the implementation of new IT systems in the EU have already shown, getting the Union Customs Code (UCC) going has been a torturous process. But I support the message of this report, which is too important to give up on. The importance of smooth trade flows is too valuable to let technical snags hold up the process for too long.

Jasenko Selimovic,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would just like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Ms Rozière, the shadow rapporteurs and the Commission for the good cooperation on this on this report. In order to ensure that we as consumers and citizens of the EU have access to the best, most priceworthy products at all times, it is necessary to ensure that the internal market functions as efficiently as it can, in order to allow trade with the rest of the world and in order to allow distribution across the Union.
As has been mentioned, we have already achieved the agreement on when to digitalise the Union code as fully as was planned from the beginning. But by implementing this opinion, we make sure that the whole custom procedures regulating the market are made as efficient as possible. A functional Customs Union is one of the cores of the Union. By easing bureaucratic burdens and investing in better digital infrastructure, we will improve competitiveness on the market, trading conditions for companies and products for consumers. However, as in most European projects, everything is about the implementation. Therefore, I think this initiative is a necessary step for the creation of a truly seamless Custom Union and single market. This will allow our companies in the Union to take part in a healthy competition, allow us better trade with the rest of the world, be also open to the very investors abroad coming to the Union and increasing competition allows for the best merchandise and products of the season on the internal market, thus ensuring improved quality of the goods that we are buying on an everyday basis. That's why I welcome the report and congratulate my colleagues on doing it.

Tim Aker,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, it was interesting to read this report as you seem to have more confidence in Britain leaving the European Union than both the UK Government and Mr Robbins, Theresa May's negotiator. Whereas Recital I identifies that the UK will leave the European Union, Ms May and her negotiator are giving out completely different messages. The latest on the table is the complete fudge of membership of the Customs Union. With it comes permanent loss of sovereignty; we will be leaving in name only.
It is now the overwhelmingly popular view of the British people that we must leave the EU without a deal. You could have had a sensible deal based solely on trade but you cling on to hopeless faith that Britain will change its mind, that we will vote again and again and again. That may have worked with Ireland but it won't work with the United Kingdom.
The clock is ticking down to 29 March. You have time to change your minds and create a deal based solely on a free trade agreement. The eurozone is heading into recession and it will be by your actions that you push it over the edge.

(The speaker declined to take a blue-card question from Charles Tannock)


Andreas Schwab (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen und Kolleginnen, Frau Kommissarin! Eins ist klar, auch wenn der britische Kollege, der hier gerade viel Unsinn erzählt hat, jetzt rausgeht: Es geht bei diesem Bericht nicht um den Brexit. Und es ist leider auch nicht so, dass Großbritannien wegen der Europäischen Union ausgetreten ist, sondern weil Leute wie er, Herr Aker, Dinge erzählt haben, die sie heute nicht einhalten können. Wer heute die Zeitungen in Großbritannien liest, sieht, dass Ford das Vereinigte Königreich verlassen will, gerade weil es eben diesen ungeregelt Brexit zum 29. März nicht haben möchte. Und Ford ist nur eins von vielen Unternehmen, die in Großbritannien nicht Ferien machen wollen, sondern arbeiten wollen. Deswegen sollte sich der Kollege von da drüben mit der Sache besser beschäftigen, wenn er sich hier zur Sache äußert.
               

                  Aber richtig ist natürlich, Herr Präsident – und damit bin ich jetzt schon ein bisschen weit in der Zeit fortgeschritten –, die Europäische Union hat über die Zölle mit anderen Ländern der Welt insgesamt 3 700 Milliarden Euro im Jahr 2017 eingenommen und damit 15 % ihres Haushalts decken können. Das ist ein beträchtlicher Wert. Da kann man der Kommissarin nur gratulieren, dass das immer wieder gelingt, auch mit interessanten Deals nicht nur die Einnahmen über die Zölle zu steigern, sondern eben auch dazu beizutragen, dass europäische Unternehmen auf dem Weltmarkt eine Chance haben.
               

                  Unser Schattenberichterstatter Adam Szejnfeld hat darauf hingewiesen, dass das für die Zukunft nur dann einfach gelingen wird, wenn die Unternehmen in die Lage kommen, endlich auch digital die Dinge abzuwickeln. Da gibt es einiges zu verbessern. Das haben wir in anderen Berichten schon gemacht – das wird hier zu Recht angesprochen. Da müssen die Mitgliedstaaten liefern.
               

Anneleen Van Bossuyt (ECR). – Voorzitter, een goedwerkende douane-unie is natuurlijk cruciaal voor een goedwerkende Europese Unie. Doeltreffende controles en zeker ook eenvoudige, toegankelijke en transparante procedures zijn hierbij belangrijk, en zeker voor onze kmo's.
               

                  Ze worden echter op de lange baan geschoven door vertraagde ingebruikname van essentiële elektronische systemen. En dat is teleurstellend.
               

                  Als je weet dat momenteel één op de veertig banen in Vlaanderen afhangt van de export naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk, dan is het, in het bijzonder voor de Vlaamse havens, belangrijk dat er vanuit Europa een goede samenwerking wordt opgezet met de Britse douanediensten, en zeker ook na de brexit. In 2017 was de import in en de export uit de Europese Unie goed voor 3 700 miljard euro. En bovendien is er ook een toenemende online-consumptie.
               

                  Bijkomende inspanningen zijn dus broodnodig om alle uitdagingen aan te gaan. Verschillen in het niveau en de kwaliteit van de controles, procedures en sancties zijn niet aanvaardbaar. En als een van de grootste handelsblokken ter wereld – ik sluit af, voorzitter – moeten we uitblinken in geloofwaardigheid, efficiëntie en ook een hoog niveau van consumentenvertrouwen.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, firstly I listened very carefully to what the Commissioner and also the rapporteur, Ms Rozière, said, and I must say that I agree 100%.
Obviously, we need to have uniform application, because without it it's going to be costly for businesses – it can lead to greater fraud, etc. And of course the electronic system needs to be developed to ensure that happens. Indeed, in the broader front, I think in the next mandate in particular, we should put huge emphasis on combating fraud in so many different ways. It should be a priority for the next Commission.
I agree also with what has been said about Brexit, but at the same time, one hopes that we will get a deal on Brexit and that it will be an orderly withdrawal, because anything else would be absolutely ridiculous. Finally, I just want to say that we are now talking constantly about completing the customs union, completing the single market and completing the banking union – I look forward to the day when a Commissioner can stand up here and see ‘Hallelujah, we have them completed!’.

Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η τελωνειακή ένωση αποτελεί, όπως πολλοί τόνισαν σήμερα, θεμελιακή βάση για την ολοκλήρωση της ευρωπαϊκής κοινής αγοράς με κοινούς —τονίζω— κανόνες. Η έκθεση αυτή, λοιπόν, αναδεικνύει τις προκλήσεις για καλύτερη λειτουργία της τελωνειακής ένωσης, ιδιαίτερα στο ψηφιακό επίπεδο.
               

                  Τούτων λεχθέντων όμως, θα περάσω στο θέμα των τρίτων χωρών και θα επιμείνω στο θέμα της Τουρκίας, απευθυνόμενος σε εσάς, κύριε Επίτροπε. Υπάρχουν νομικές υποχρεώσεις της Τουρκίας στο πλαίσιο της Τελωνειακής Ένωσης. Οι υποχρεώσεις είναι προς την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και αφορούν ιδιαίτερα την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία: ομαλοποίηση των σχέσεων με αποχώρηση του κατοχικού στρατού, αναγνώριση της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και πολλά άλλα. Σας ερωτώ, λοιπόν, ευθέως ενόψει και των εκλογών: πώς θέλετε να σας εμπιστευτούμε ότι προβάλλετε τους κοινούς κανόνες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης που όλοι συμμεριζόμαστε, εάν προωθείτε αναβάθμιση των εμπορικών σχέσεων με την Τουρκία χωρίς να εκπληρωθούν πρώτα οι υποχρεώσεις της προς την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση;
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ανάπτυξη της Τελωνειακής Ένωσης είναι κάτι σημαντικό για την ίδια την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Θέλω, όμως, να θέσω εδώ το θέμα της τελωνειακής απάτης. Αυτήν τη στιγμή, έχουμε καταγγελίες για παράνομες εισαγωγές αλκοόλης από τη Βουλγαρία στην Ελλάδα, με αποτέλεσμα να μην μπορεί πλέον να λειτουργήσει η τοπική βιομηχανία ούζου και τσίπουρου. Έχουμε μαζικές παράνομες εισαγωγές, με αποτέλεσμα να διαμαρτύρονται οι ποτοποιοί. Ήμουν σε περιοχές της Λάρισας και έχω δεχθεί αυτές τις καταγγελίες.
               

                  Το δεύτερο θέμα είναι ότι πρέπει να υπάρξει σαφέστατος έλεγχος τόσο στα σύνορα Ελλάδας-Αλβανίας όσο και στα σύνορα Ελλάδας-Σκοπίων, διότι και από εκεί γίνεται παράνομη εισαγωγή τσίπουρου και, βέβαια, γίνονται ελληνοποιήσεις προϊόντων: γάλα εισαγόμενο από την Αλβανία εμφανίζεται ως ελληνικό. Γίνονται ελληνοποιήσεις κρεάτων: κρέατα που εισάγονται από τα Σκόπια εμφανίζονται ως ελληνικά. Αυτές οι τελωνειακές απάτες πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστούν.
               

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, je vais être à contre-courant. Je vais faire un plaidoyer pour les droits de douane pour un marché coopératif car, effectivement, d'un point de vue technique, si vous avez un marché unique avec une monnaie unique, vous avez l'avantage comparatif, et l'avantage comparatif fait que le fort devient de plus en plus fort, et le faible de plus en plus faible.
               

                  Alors vous avez deux solutions techniques pour régler le problème. Vous avez la solution de la zone de transfert, le budget fédéral pour la zone euro, par exemple, c'est une solution. Vous avez une deuxième solution pour équilibrer le marché intérieur et faire un marché coopératif, ce sont les droits de douane. Et vous avez la solution, d'ailleurs mixée, de faire à la fois un budget de type fédéral de transfert et d'appliquer les droits de douane.
               

                  Vous devez penser à l'harmonie du marché intérieur, et pas simplement à la compétition et à la concurrence.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, stimați colegi, aici s-a spus despre faptul că uniunea vamală are un caracter prioritar. Da, doamna comisar a început pledoaria spunând că, sigur, competitivitatea pieței interne depinde de modul în care funcționează uniunea vamală, codul vamal.
               

                  Eu sunt raportor pentru programul ‘Vamă’ și vom avea trialog în 7 martie și nu mai vreau să se amâne; dar, dacă nu vom avea și informatizare, și norme comune de verificare a mărfurilor, nu putem să vorbim de competitivitate, dar nu putem să vorbim de siguranța produselor, nu putem să vorbim de protecția consumatorilor, nu putem să vorbim de o competiție corectă în piață și nici de o diminuare a corupției, pentru că trebuie să știm că, în vămi, există această corupție pentru a se trece produse care sunt neconforme.
               

                  De aceea, doamnă comisar, vă rog foarte mult: insistați! Avem de negociat cu Comisia un punct în raportul meu și nu voi ceda la acest lucru. Vreți să ni se taie din buget, dacă Brexitul se va concretiza? Dacă tăiem din buget, nu va funcționa niciodată uniunea vamală.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this important debate. As Trade Commissioner, I am more than aware of the importance of a functioning, transparent, smooth and fully trustworthy customs system. It has to be safe. It has to be predictable. It has to be state of the art and very modern. And we are working towards this. This is, of course, very important for the internal market as well.
I know that there is frustration about the extension of the transitional period for the full completion of the IT system. We have been fully transparent in this regard by regularly updating and publishing information on the planning schedule for the electronic systems, after consultation with Member States and economic operators. Also, following your request, last year the Commission published a comprehensive report on the state of play of the implementation of the Union Customs Code (UCC). In this report we announced and explained why additional time was needed for the completion of some of the electronic systems. But I do acknowledge that a more strategic report on the progress of the electronic systems and on ways to address any possible delays will further increase transparency. That is why the Commission has undertaken to report to Parliament on the progress regarding the completion of the work on the electronic systems on an annual basis.
Concerning Brexit – I think those concerned have left – but as of the withdrawal date the UK will become a third country, as you know, and that implies that the Union Customs Code will apply to trade goods coming from the UK. There are no derogations foreseen and it is the case today. The implementation of the Code falls under Member States' competence. We understand that they have taken measures with a view to staffing, infrastructure and IT systems necessary after the UK withdrawal.
However, of course, withdrawal of the UK without an agreement clearly carries risks and the Commission is in active discussion with Member States on these issues.
I would like to thank the rapporteur again and also the other members of the Committee who have helped to highlight the very important issues related to the Customs Union and its functioning. You can be assured that I will convey your comments and suggestions and questions to Commissioner Moscovici.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident


Virginie Rozière,
rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, je voulais à nouveau remercier l'ensemble des collègues pour leur participation au débat, leurs apports, leurs contributions, avec un mot en particulier, bien sûr, pour mes collègues rapporteurs fictifs avec lesquels le travail est extrêmement fructueux sur ce rapport. Je vous remercie également, Madame la Commissaire, pour les réponses que vous avez apportées.
                  

                     Nous dressons un constat en grande partie partagé, je pense, et nous partageons également les voies d'amélioration pour faire en sorte que l'union douanière, le code des douanes et l'ensemble des systèmes qui doivent concourir à sa mise en œuvre totalement dématérialisée à l'avenir soient développés et qu'on arrive à tenir les nouveaux délais que nous nous sommes collectivement fixés.
                  

                     En tout cas, merci pour vos réponses encourageantes, j'espère et je pense que le rapport dont nous avons discuté recueillera une large majorité et qu'il pourra constituer une base de réflexion commune pour construire ensemble une union douanière performante. Nous en avons besoin. Rappelons-nous que c'est un socle peut-être trop souvent méconnu et pourtant fondamental de notre Union européenne.
                  

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet heute, 14. Februar 2019, statt.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162)



Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D),
na piśmie. – Unia celna jest jednym z najwcześniejszych osiągnięć UE i ma podstawowe znaczenie dla zagwarantowania wiarygodności i pozycji negocjacyjnej UE w zakresie zawierania umów handlowych. W praktyce unia celna oznacza, że organy celne wszystkich 28 państw członkowskich UE współpracują ze sobą tak, jakby były jednym organem. Stosują one te same taryfy celne w odniesieniu do towarów przywożonych na ich terytorium z zagranicy i nie stosują taryf na rynku wewnętrznym. Jednolity rynek UE byłby niemożliwy do osiągniecia bez zniesienia ceł oraz roli, jaką odgrywa unia celna w nadzorowaniu importu i eksportu. Standaryzacja informacji i procesów celnych odgrywa kluczową rolę w ujednolicaniu kontroli, zwłaszcza w odniesieniu do zjawisk, takich jak niewłaściwa klasyfikacja i zaniżanie wartości towarów importowanych oraz błędne zgłaszanie ich pochodzenia. Takie błędy są szkodliwe dla wszystkich podmiotów gospodarczych, a w szczególności dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw. Organy celne muszą osiągnąć wymaganą równowagę pomiędzy ułatwieniem legalnego handlu, kontrolami celnymi chroniącymi obywateli, zwierzęta i środowisko naturalne w Europie, budowaniem zaufania konsumenta do towarów wprowadzanych na rynek wewnętrzny a unijnymi interesami handlowymi. Import i eksport UE wyniósł w 2017 r. 3 700 mld EUR, a pobrane cła stanowiły 15% budżetu UE.
                  
8.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
8.1.   The situation in Chechnya, and the case of Oyub Titiev

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sechs Entschließungsanträge zur Lage in Tschetschenien und zum Fall Ojub Titijew (2019/2562(RSP)).
                  

Rebecca Harms,
Verfasserin. – Herr Präsident, sehr verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wegen einer konstruierten Anklage sitzt der Direktor von Memorial in Tschetschenien seit einem Jahr im Gefängnis. In dem Schauprozess gegen Ojub Titijew drohen ihm bis zu zehn Jahre Gefängnis. Unsere Sorge gilt ihm ganz besonders, weil seine Vorgängerin von Memorial in Grosny 2009 ermordet wurde. Diese Entschließung ist auch eine Erinnerung an Natalja Estemirowa. Ojubs Familie wird permanent bedroht, seine Kolleginnen bei Memorial sehen sich auch von einer immer stärkeren Verfolgung, direkter Gewalt und Kriminalisierung bedroht.
                  

                     Memorial ist Träger des Sacharow-Preises des Europäischen Parlaments, und wir sind in einer großen Mehrheit in diesem Haus der Überzeugung, dass wir mehr Verantwortung für unsere Preisträger übernehmen müssen. Wir fordern deshalb ganz zentral, den Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst – unsere Botschaft – auf: Kümmern Sie sich um diesen Fall! Und wir fordern die russischen Behörden auf: Lassen Sie die Anklagen fallen und lassen Sie Ojub Titijew frei!
                  

Jaromír Štětina,
Autor. – Pane předsedající, být ředitelem pobočky Memoriálu v Grozném je nebezpečné povolání. Vzpomeňme na Natalji Estěmirovovou, předchůdkyni Titjeva, která byla v roce 2009 zavražděna. Titjev čeká na rozsudek, který jej může poslat na deset i více let za mříže. Dnešní čečenský prezident Kadyrov, dosazený po druhé čečenské válce Putinem, zavedl v Čečně režim bezpráví. V tomto režimu se Titjev a jeho organizace, které jsme před deseti lety udělili Sacharovovu cenu, snaží chránit ty, jejichž životy jsou ničeny.
                  

                     Pracoval jsem několik let jako novinář v první i druhé čečenské válce. Viděl jsem, jakých zločinů se dopouštěla 58. ruská armáda. Ve válce zabila 80 tisíc civilních obyvatel, zničila kolem 200 vesnic, tři města, zničila infrastrukturu země, vyhnala do diaspory polovinu čečenského národa. Mnoho mých přátel padlo nebo bylo zabito včetně Anny Politkovské, mé kamarádky, s níž jsem pracoval ve druhé válce. Režim Kadyrova dodnes tyto válečné zločiny adoruje. Titjevovo hnutí Memoriál považuje za nepřítele.
                  

                     Jsem rád, že pan Titjev získal v loňském roce cenu českého prezidenta Václava Havla, kterou uděluje Rada Evropy. Titjev musí být bezpodmínečně propuštěn.
                  

Helmut Scholz,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident! Zweifellos stehen Russland und insbesondere die Führung der Teilrepublik Tschetschenien in der Pflicht, die Grund- und Menschenrechte einzuhalten. Dazu haben sie sich nicht zuletzt durch internationale Abkommen und UN-Vereinbarungen verpflichtet, gerade auch als Mitglied des Europarates und Unterzeichnerstaat der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention.
                  

                     Leider zeigt das Schicksal von Ojub Titijew, Chef des Büros der russischen Nichtregierungsorganisation Memorial in Tschetschenien, hier eine gravierende Verletzung und ist leider offensichtlich nur die Spitze eines Eisbergs besorgniserregender Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch die tschetschenischen Machthaber.
                  

                     Unsere Fraktion und ich teilen den Ansatz der gemeinsamen Entschließung, endlich die koordinierten Angriffe auf Menschenrechtsorganisationen und Aktivisten zu beenden, Nichtregierungsorganisationen entsprechende Möglichkeiten der Untersuchung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen einzuräumen und zugleich alle rechtlich verbrieften demokratischen Rechte – einschließlich der sich aus den internationalen Abkommen ergebenden Pflichten für die staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Organe – ungehindert auf der Grundlage geltenden Rechts der Russischen Föderation zu garantieren und umzusetzen. Dazu gehört die unverzügliche Freilassung von Ojub Titijew.
                  

Daniele Viotti,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, della Cecenia ci siamo già occupati troppe volte in quest'Aula, in questo Parlamento, non ultimo l'ottobre scorso, per cui io mi unisco alle parole di tutti i colleghi che hanno scritto questa risoluzione.
                  

                     Vorrei però usare questo minuto per ricordare la memoria di Assil Belalta. Assil Belalta era un ragazzo di ventun anni che è stato ucciso, sgozzato, in Algeria qualche giorno fa. Col suo sangue, nella sua stanza del collegio, è stato scritto 
                           ‘He is gay’, come se questa fosse una colpa. È stato ucciso in Algeria un ragazzo ventun anni, che studiava medicina, che era al terzo anno di medicina, perché è gay. Noi dobbiamo opporci a questo, ed è stato ucciso dopo due settimane che il presidente dei magistrati algerini aveva detto: ‘noi ci opporremo a qualunque legge contro l'omofobia’.
                  

                     Allora, l'Europa deve opporsi a tutto questo, noi non possiamo sopportare quello che succede in Cecenia, non possiamo sopportare quello che succede in Algeria, non possiamo vedere ancora delle vittime omosessuali da parte di regimi che sono dittatoriali. Non possiamo più permetterlo. Le mani dei politici e dei mass media algerini sono sporche del sangue di Assil.
                  

Marietje Schaake,
author. – Mr President, the Chechen director of Sakharov prize-winning Memorial, Oyub Titiev, has been in prison for over a year now on trumped-up charges, and we expect a verdict any day now. The risk that human rights defenders in Chechnya are taking is illustrated by the fact that Titiev's predecessor, Natalya Estemirova, was brutally murdered, and others face constant threats and intimidation.
So today we call for the release of Oyub Titiev and the dropping of charges, and we urge the Chechen authorities to respect their own laws and constitution and at least every citizen's human and legal rights. The harassment of NGOs and journalists really has to stop, but we also need to hold to account the perpetrators of the worst human rights violations through a European ‘Magnitsky Act’. It is urgent. I call on celebrities who think it is fancy to take money from a dictator to perform or to be present to stop doing that and to consider the money they make that way dirty money.

Charles Tannock,
author. – Mr President, it is now over a year since Oyub Titiev was arrested on trumped-up drug charges, clearly targeted in response to his continued actions in documenting and exposing human rights abuses in Chechnya. The Russian federal authorities have so far failed to investigate the extrajudicial killing of 27 men two years ago, and Titiev, Head of the Chechen Memorial Office remains in pre-trial detention a year after his arrest.
Russia has international commitments to protect human rights defenders, and they should take heed of the OSCE report that calls for Mr Titiev's trial to be moved out of Chechnya and for him to be released immediately. It's also time for the ICC to carry out meaningful investigations into the alleged crimes against humanity during the second Chechen war. These persistent human rights abuses under the watch of President Kadyrov cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. It is a disgrace.

Cristian Dan Preda,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, mon groupe politique s'est beaucoup battu pour avoir une résolution sur le cas d'Oyoub Titiev, puisque cela fait déjà plus de treize mois que ce défenseur éminent des droits de l'homme est derrière les barreaux, sur la base d'accusations clairement fabriquées. Son procès, qu'on ne peut pas qualifier autrement que de ridicule, touche à sa fin. Alors, c'est plus que jamais le moment de faire entendre notre voix.
                  

                     Si Oyoub Titiev est en prison aujourd'hui, ce n'est que parce qu'il a refusé de se prosterner devant M. Kadyrov et a continué à signaler les violations des droits de l'homme dans la région. Avec ce cas, inventé de toutes pièces, le but de M. Kadyrov est de réduire au silence cette dernière voix critique envers son régime.
                  

                     Je vous rappelle que Memorial est la dernière organisation non gouvernementale opérant en Tchétchénie, le leader tchétchène s'est en effet assuré de les expulser une par une.
                  

                     De plus, nous avons tous entendu dire, à la fin de l'année dernière, que la région sera bientôt un territoire interdit aux défenseurs des droits de l'homme, qu'il place dans la même catégorie que les terroristes et les extrémistes.
                  

                     Je crois donc que le moment est venu pour M. Poutine de sauver son honneur et d'utiliser le peu d'influence qu'il a encore en Tchétchénie pour libérer M. Titiev.
                  

Pavel Svoboda (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, dnes požadujeme okamžité propuštění ředitele čečenské kanceláře lidskoprávní organizace Memoriál Ojuba Titjeva, který je mimo jiné nositelem ceny Václava Havla a je zadržován na základě vykonstruovaných důkazů. Ale u jeho propuštění to nesmí skončit. Evropská unie musí přijmout evropskou obdobu Magnitského zákona. Nikdo z těch, kdo jsou odpovědni za porušování lidských práv v Rusku a Čečensku, nesmí mít nárok na udělení vstupního víza nebo možnost získat majetek na území EU. Je totiž zřejmé, že ruské ani čečenské orgány nejsou ochotny na svém území dodržovat lidská práva ani ta, ke kterým se samy zavázaly. Členství Ruska v Radě Evropy v tomto smyslu je poněkud směšné.
                  

Spontane Wortmeldungen


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Mr President, after years of harassment and intimidation, Oyub Titiev, the director of the Memorial Human Rights Centre and the 2018 Vaclav Havel Human Rights Prize winner, was illegally arrested on 9 January 2018 on fabricated drug charges. A week later, Memorial's office in Ingushetia was set on fire. Two months ago, Shali City Court prolonged – without any justification – his pre-trial detention until 22 March 2019. He may face up to 10 years in prison.
Memorial – 2009 Sakharov Prize winner – is the last independent non-governmental organisation operating in Chechnya and Titiev's arbitrary detention is clearly politically motivated and a retaliation for his courage to document the kidnappings, torture, illegal arrests and killings in one of the most repressive regions in Europe. Like we did one year ago, we must call on the authorities of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation to immediately and unconditionally release Oyub Titiev, and also address the situation of human rights defenders, including the massive persecution and extrajudicial killing of LGBTI people.

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, ten years ago Natalya Estemirova was brutally murdered in Chechnya for her work on human rights. Since then, sadly, the atmosphere for activists and journalists in Chechnya has not improved. Oyub Titiev, her successor as director of the Human Rights NGO Memorial, not only faces ten years in prison on charges that that are widely recognised as fabricated, but has in recent months seen his colleagues, lawyer, personal life and even family threatened. The arrest of Mr Titiev falls in a clear pattern in which the authorities of the Chechen Republic tried to crush all criticism of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya.
Therefore, I urge the Council to continue its work on a Magnitsky Act, the High Representative as well as the European External Action Service (EEAS) to give this and all other cases of political persecution a priority in EU-Russia discussions, and my colleagues to put this incredible injustice on their countries' agendas.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, i já bych chtěl zdůraznit, že v Čečensku byl vytvořen režim pana Kadyrova, který je režimem bezpráví, kde neplatí vůbec žádné právo, kde naopak stát chrání ty, kdo právo porušují, a ty, které by měl chránit, různé menšiny, ty aktivně pronásleduje. Tento režim, nad ním drží ochrannou ruku Rusko. Myslím si, že to by zde také mělo zaznít a já se připojuji k volání všech z vás, kteří volají po propuštění pana Titjeva, který je držen naprosto nezákonně a je držitelem ocenění jak Václava Havla, tak Sacharovovy ceny.
                  

                     Chtěl bych zdůraznit, že v poslední době – a není to jenom otázka jednoho roku –, Evropský soud pro lidská práva začal důrazně odsuzovat Rusko za porušování práv právě Čečenců a porušování práv na čečenském území. Myslím si, že bychom se měli zamyslet nad tím, jak učinit tyto rozsudky vymahatelnější v evropském prostoru, protože to nemůže být pouze otázka peněz, které získají ti, jejichž práva byla tímto způsobem porušena.
                  

Carlos Iturgaiz (PPE). – Señor presidente, en Chechenia, es decir, en aquella parte de la Federación de Rusia, se está haciendo una persecución contra los activistas de los derechos humanos y contra los medios de comunicación —que intentan informar libremente y, en muchas ocasiones, sin éxito, por las actitudes intolerables de los Gobiernos regional checheno y nacional ruso—.
                  

                     El caso de Oyub Titiev es sangrante: se le fabricó por las autoridades chechenas un proceso ilegal que le ha metido en la cárcel, como todos sabemos, con acusaciones falsas. La Unión Europea, y también el Parlamento Europeo, no podemos mirar hacia otro lado y debemos pedir la liberación inmediata de Oyub Titiev. Y las instituciones europeas se deben también dirigir a las autoridades rusas para protestar por estas detenciones ilegales y por la falta de juicios justos, así como por la violación de los derechos humanos que se está produciendo en aquel territorio.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, again we stand here discussing the situation in Chechnya, the situation for LGBTI persons and, of course, especially today, the situation of human rights defender Mr Oyub Titiev. Human rights organisations and media reported in December and January on a new wave of detention and torture by Chechen law enforcement officials affecting at least 40 LGBTI people. At least two detained people are reported to have died. These are very grave violations of human rights, adding to a long list of abuses in Chechnya and we reacted again strongly to the situation of LGBTI people there, as we did earlier.
A report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe sets out clear evidence of successive purges against LGBTI people in Chechnya, as well as many other human rights violations. It is essential that Russian authorities address the recommendations of the report and take steps to implement them, including investigations of the role of the Chechen authorities.
As part of an alarming trend of attacks on human rights defenders and journalists in Chechnya, a court in Chechnya confirmed, as you have said, last June the detention of Oyub Titiev, head of the regional office of the very respected NGO Memorial human rights centre. He has now been detained for over a year on questionable drug possession charges. The arrest appears to be directly connected to his human rights work. Memorial has been the subject of ongoing intimidation and harassment in the North Caucasus. Mr Titiev should be immediately released.
We recall the duty of the Russian Federation to protect all its citizens, ensure the safety of all persons at risk owing to sexual orientation and order the Chechen leadership accordingly. We expect full and transparent investigation into the report and persecution, torture and killings of LGBTI people in Chechnya. Anyone found responsible or complicit in such hate crimes should be brought to justice. It is also the duty of the Russian Federation to respect and protect the legal rights of human rights defenders, including Oyub Titiev, in line with Russia's international human rights commitments.
We remain committed to combating all forms of discrimination and hate crime, strongly supporting the rights of all LGBTI persons as well as human rights defenders in general, and of course Mr Oyub Titiev in particular. The EU has consistently called upon Russia, and will continue to do so, to ensure that human rights violations in Chechnya are investigated and justice for victims ensured. Thank you very much for putting this important issue on the agenda.

(Applause)


Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet im Anschluss an die Aussprache statt.
                  
8.2.   Zimbabwe

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sieben Entschließungsanträge zu Simbabwe (2019/2563(RSP)).
                  

Geoffrey Van Orden,
author. – Mr President, today, as Chairman of the Friends of Zimbabwe, I want to appeal directly to President Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe.
President, six months ago, when you took office, you promised change and a bright, shared future for all Zimbabweans, with a government unwavering in its commitment to the rule of law, with policies that would project harmony and stability and attract foreign investment. I urge you to get back on that right road, to break clean from the evil forces lurking in your shadow, to dismiss those responsible for the recent brutalities, to release all the political prisoners and work with the opposition forces, the churches and civil society in a great national dialogue that will lead to the genuine and sustainable democratic change that your people so desperately want. Do this and I feel sure the international community stands ready to give you every assistance. Do the right thing and history will judge you well.

Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Van Orden. Zur Erläuterung: Üblicherweise wird in diesem Format der Aussprache nicht nach der Stärke der Fraktion das Wort erteilt, sondern nach der Einreichung des Entschließungsantrags. Deshalb folgt jetzt Frau Sargentini.
                  

Judith Sargentini,
Auteur. – Voorzitter, in november 2017 kwam president Mnangagwa aan de macht met een coup. In de zomer van 2018 waren er verkiezingen in Zimbabwe. In dat half jaar dat hij nog niet officieel verkozen was, hadden wij een kans om concessies af te dwingen van het land en dat hebben wij nagelaten. En wat hebben we nu gezien, januari 2019. De regering Mnangagwa heeft de oppositie keihard neergeslagen en het lijkt wel of de tijden van Mugabe terug zijn gekomen. Ngo's, oppositieleden worden bedreigd, worden uit hun huizen gehaald. Mensen worden opgesloten, zonder dat duidelijk is waarom. De bevolking wordt met zwaar geweld neergeslagen. En wat is onze respons? De vraag aan de eurocommissaris is wat wij kunnen doen om hier de situatie te verbeteren.
                  

Aleksander Gabelic,
författare. – Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att tacka alla inblandade i framtagandet av denna resolution. Situationen i Zimbabwe är akut och det är mycket viktigt att den uppmärksammas och att vi här i Europaparlamentet tydligt markerar mot den utveckling som har varit i landet sedan den 14 januari. Vi måste markera tydligt mot användandet av våld och trakasserier mot medborgare och fackföreningsanslutna som väljer att fredligt protestera mot de kraftiga prishöjningar som har drabbat landet. Alla politiska fångar måste släppas omedelbart och vi måste tydligt markera mot det utbredda sexuella våldet. Personer som har drabbats måste omedelbart få tillgång till medicinsk hjälp.
                  

                     Jag hade hoppats att resolutionen tydligare hade tagit ställning för de drabbade fackföreningsledarna Peter Mutasa och Japhet Moyo och Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions i stort, men jag är glad för att denna resolution har ett brett stöd i parlamentet och att det är ett tydligt stöd till människorna i Zimbabwe, som har lidit länge, för mänskliga rättigheter och för en fredlig och demokratisk utveckling.
                  

Catherine Bearder,
author. – Mr President, after years of authoritarian rule, hopes rose with the election of a new president. But that has quickly evaporated, plunging the country into crisis. With runaway inflation, the final insult of high fuel prices was the final straw. Anger and anxiety has pushed protesters onto the streets and their government's response – a legal crackdown on dissenting voices; arrests, use of force, live ammunition, door-to-door searches, intimidation and harassment, Internet scrambling, you name it!
Zimbabweans and their human rights defenders have the courage to stand up to their government and we need to stand with them. Fleeing Zimbabweans must get the assistance they need in neighbouring countries to comply with international law and to the UK I say, stop returning Zimbabweans until it's proved to be safe.
We must encourage a peaceful, democratic, national dialogue on an equal footing with civil society, religious leaders, opposition and government, to find a better solution for Zimbabwe – a sustainable solution that ends this violence once and for all.

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
auteure. – Monsieur le Président, le départ de Robert Mugabe en novembre 2017, après 37 ans de dictature, avait soulevé un immense espoir. Malheureusement, l'élection d'Emmerson Mnangagwa a été immédiatement contestée et a donné lieu à des violences, faisant plusieurs morts.
                  

                     Malgré la commission d'enquête électorale et les promesses du nouveau président, les tensions alimentées par l'effondrement économique n'ont cessé de croître. L'augmentation de 150 % du prix du carburant, alors qu'il est déjà l'un des plus chers du monde, a eu l'effet d'une étincelle. Les manifestations après la grève du 14 janvier ont été sauvagement réprimées. La police anti-émeute a tiré à balles réelles. Morts, tortures, passages à tabac, au moins un millier d'arrestations selon la police elle-même et une machine judiciaire tournant à plein régime: tous les moyens sont utilisés pour faire taire la contestation.
                  

                     Il y a urgence à agir, il est urgent d'aider au dialogue politique, l'Union européenne et l'Union africaine doivent apporter leur concours, plutôt que de fermer les yeux comme au temps de Mugabe.
                  

Ignazio Corrao,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, cambiare tutto per non cambiare niente. È questa la sintesi del delicato scenario che si è aperto in Zimbabwe dopo 37 anni di dittatura di Robert Mugabe. Sembrerebbe impossibile immaginarsi un peggioramento della situazione dopo quarant'anni di tirannia, fame e sangue, ma il presidente Mnangagwa sta gettando le basi per riuscire nella difficilissima impresa.
                  

                     Ex vicepresidente di Mugabe, Mnangagwa, detto ‘il coccodrillo’, è stato associato ad alcune delle peggiori atrocità commesse sin dai tempi dell'indipendenza, e oggi le sue forze di sicurezza sono tornate a sporcarsi le mani con 17 morti, 343 feriti gravi e svariati casi di tortura e stupri. Nel frattempo l'opposizione viene decimata: migliaia di manifestanti sono stati incarcerati, compresi bambini di nove anni, e processati anche sommariamente, peraltro. Molti altri restano detenuti in assenza di processo.
                  

                     Io mi chiedo cosa sia realmente cambiato in Zimbabwe. Quello che sicuramente è rimasto uguale è il disprezzo dei diritti umani e l'annientamento delle opposizioni. Per questo dobbiamo invitare l'Unione africana a includere la crisi dello Zimbabwe come punto prioritario nella prossima sessione ordinaria del suo Consiglio esecutivo.
                  

Elmar Brok,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Der gegenwärtige Präsident war der Stellvertreter Mugabes und ist mitverantwortlich für all die Taten in Zeiten Mugabes. Nach dem Sturz von Mugabe glaubten wir aber, eine Chance zu haben, dass hier eine Veränderung erfolgt. Hier ist der Regierung mitgeteilt worden – und, Frau Sargentini, deutlich – : Wenn ihr euch jetzt an vernünftige Verfahren haltet und freie Wahlen durchführt, können wir die Öffnung durchführen, die Sie ökonomisch brauchen.
                  

                     Als er merkte, dass er die Wahlen verlieren konnte, ist er wieder in die alten Methoden vor den Wahlen zurückgefallen und hat die Opposition in Schwierigkeiten gebracht, die keine freien Wahlen wirklich möglich gemacht hat, wie die Wahlbeobachter der Europäischen Union festgestellt haben. Am Tag danach – ich bin selbst in den Demonstrationen gewesen – ist er dann mit der Armee gegen friedliche Demonstranten vorgegangen und hat ein paar Leute erschießen lassen. Und das hat sich fortgesetzt. Man hat die Computer der Opposition übernommen, damit sie nicht nachweisen konnten, dass es zu Wahlfälschungen gekommen ist. Und dies setzt sich jetzt fort in der alten Art und Weise.
                  

                     Wir sollten erstens klarmachen – das hat die Europäische Union mitgeteilt –, dass die Dinge in Ordnung zu bringen sind und dass wir als Europäische Union nur Unterstützung leisten können, wenn er Demokratie …
                  

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Eduard Kukan,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Zimbabwe is facing a deepening crisis in every aspect. In these trying times, the Government must show leadership and willingness to tackle the difficult economic situation without excessive use of force and within a framework of rule of law. The new leadership in Zimbabwe has a duty to uphold the fundamental rights of its citizens, which includes freedom of assembly, association and expression, and to protect citizens from arbitrary detention. Disproportionate and excessive use of force against civilians is unacceptable. Abuses by security forces must end. President Mnangagwa's Government should pay attention to the Human Rights Commission in its report. That is why the EU also needs to stand ready to assist the country effectively in the reform process, which is a matter of urgency.

Neena Gill,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, a year ago, there was real optimism that the repression of previous decades was over. Unfortunately, as an observer during Zimbabwe's last presidential election, I witnessed post-election violence which put an end to those hopes with recent government crackdowns – we've already heard – on anti-government protesters, including trade union leaders and opposition. The promises of a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Zimbabwe made during those elections – it really has to be understood – are a prerequisite for international support, for debt relief, for economic recovery. They really do need to be delivered on.
Our condemnation so far has fallen on deaf ears and, unfortunately, facing internal power struggle, key actors find it easier to blame outsiders for the political and economic crisis they're in, as opposed to taking responsibility. But for the European Union, given Russia and China's growing influence, I think it's important we have a clear strategy. How are we going to support dialogue between different stakeholders in the country?

Mario Borghezio,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come dichiara Nelson Chamisa, leader dell'opposizione, dopo un anno e mezzo da quando Mugabe ha lasciato il potere, l'escalation della repressione contro gli oppositori fa assumere alla figura di Mugabe quasi quella di una libellula in termini di terrorismo, terrorismo interno contro gli oppositori.
                  

                     Dal vicino Sudafrica, dove da metà gennaio solo in un giorno sono fuggite 130 000 persone, qualcuno denuncia una grave crisi umanitaria, chiedendo addirittura l'intervento della Corte penale internazionale. Ci si domanda perché una richiesta di questo genere non venga fatta anche dal territorio dell'Unione europea. Sarebbe ora, basti pensare alla lunga tradizione di efferati omicidi che sono stati perpetrati contro dei nostri connazionali, i farmers di origine europea. E forse anche la gravissima crisi economica e umanitaria ha le sue lontane origini in quel periodo non propriamente di grande onore per la civiltà europea e per il ruolo di difesa dei cittadini europei. Noi chiediamo che il finanziamento di 234 milioni per il periodo…
                  

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


Spontane Wortmeldungen


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Mr President, as demonstrators filled the streets of Harare last January to protest against the dramatic increase of fuel prices and runaway inflation, President Mnangagwa reacted with the same authority, reflecting thus his autocratic predecessor Robert Mugabe, deploying soldiers and security forces to crack down on demonstrators, resulting in numerous arrests, the deaths of at least a dozen unarmed civilians and the shutting down of the internet. President Mnangagwa, who was elected on a promise to stabilise the economy and allow greater democratic freedom, is betraying his promises to create a new Zimbabwe and address the political and economic challenges in the country.
The EU, besides condemning the excessive violence and intimidation by the Zimbabwean authorities and calling for the immediate release of all detainees, must extend the individual financial and travel restrictions to those associated with these human rights infringements, and support an inclusive national dialogue that can produce a roadmap to genuine economic, political and electoral reforms.

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κατάσταση στη Ζιμπάμπουε είναι εκρηκτική: διαδηλώσεις, δολοφονίες, συλλήψεις, δεν τηρείται το κράτος δικαίου, έχουν κλείσει το Διαδίκτυο και ο νέος πρόεδρος συνεχίζει την πολιτική Mugabe, δηλαδή μια αυταρχική πολιτική, μια ξεκάθαρα αντιδημοκρατική πολιτική με φυλακίσεις και με περιορισμό των δημοκρατικών δικαιωμάτων. Ταυτόχρονα, έχει αυξηθεί η τιμή των καυσίμων κατά 130%, ο κόσμος διαμαρτύρεται και υπάρχουν και χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες που εγκαταλείπουν τη χώρα. Νομίζω, λοιπόν, ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να στείλει ένα αποφασιστικό μήνυμα στον πρόεδρο της Ζιμπάμπουε. Πρώτα απ' όλα, να δώσει τέλος στη χρηματοδότηση: η βοήθεια της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης προς τη Ζιμπάμπουε ανέρχεται σε 234 εκατομμύρια ευρώ. Επίσης, πρέπει να ζητήσει και την παρέμβαση της Ένωσης Αφρικανικών Κρατών.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, aontaím leis an údar, an Feisire Van Orden, i ngach rud a dúirt sé faoin ábhar seo. Gan dabht ar bith, táimid ag féachaint ar fhear a chuaigh ar aghaidh don toghchán agus a gheall go ndéanfadh sé gach rud a chabhródh leis na daoine dá dtoghfaí é. Ach ansin, nuair a toghadh é, chuaigh sé siar ar a ghealltanais. Dar ndóigh, chuaigh daoine i mbun agóide, agus cad a rinne sé? Chuir sé na fórsaí amach ag lámhach agus ag marú daoine agus ag caitheamh daoine óga, daoine idir 9 mbliana agus sé bliana déag, i bpríosún agus dhún sé síos an t-idirlíon.
                  

                     Dá bhrí sin, tá sé ceart go mbeadh díospóireacht againn ar maidin faoi seo agus go gcuirfeadh an tAontas, tríd an gCoimisinéir, gach brú is féidir ar údaráis na Siombáibe chun é seo a chur ina cheart.
                  

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem velmi pozorně poslouchal tuto debatu a připojuji se k argumentům svých kolegů. Současná situace v Zimbabwe je velké zklamání, je zklamáním nadějí, které jsme vkládali v prezidentské volby. Situace se nemění, je stejná jako za Mugabeho, ba naopak ještě horší. Pokud někdo proti občanům, demonstrantům, kteří protestují proti neutěšené ekonomické situaci, používá mocenské nástroje státu – armádu, policii –, lidi zavírá, týrá, trýzní za to, že vyjadřují své názory na situaci v zemi, tak my to musíme odsoudit.
                  

                     Bohužel se obávám, že u toho odsudku asi zůstane. Je otázka na Komisi, paní komisařko, jestli můžeme udělat více, jestli můžeme ekonomickými nástroji více tlačit na režim v Zimbabwe, aby se choval ke svým občanům trošku důstojně a trošku vhodněji. Já osobně bych to doporučoval, jinak můžeme za půl roku až rok zde hovořit o Zimbabwe ve stejném módu, ve stejné situaci jako nyní. Takže doporučuji tvrdší postup Komise.
                  

Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, Zimbabwe a trăit timp de patruzeci de ani, aproape patruzeci de ani, sub dictatura lui Mugabe, iar populația a trebuit să sufere de sărăcie, de inflație, de violență, de reprimare. Peste trei milioane de cetățeni au plecat – cei mai mulți în Africa de Sud -, aproape un sfert din populație.
                  

                     Din păcate, și în timpul președintelui Mnangagwa, lucrurile nu sunt mai bune: lovește în opoziție cu brutalitate, în protestatarii care au ieșit din cauza creșterii prețului combustibilului și a sărăciei. Avem aproape 37 de morți, avem peste 600 de victime ale violenței, ale torturii, peste o mie de arestări.
                  

                     Uniunea Europeană trebuie să ceară în mod ferm ca actualul președinte și actualul guvern să retragă de urgență armata, să nu folosească violența. Trebuie să existe un dialog real între putere și opoziție, care, eventual, să fie mediat de o parte neutră și, evident, trebuie să cerem cu toată fermitatea ca drepturile fundamentale ale omului să fie respectate.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, zdá se, že Mugabeho režim skončil skutečně jen zdánlivě. Ty naděje, které byly vyvolány loňskými událostmi, tak přišla studená sprcha. Vidíme stejné praktiky, vidíme potlačování legitimních protestů, vidíme při nich mrtvé, zatýkání, dokonce zatýkání dětí. Ta naděje, která byla vyvolána v loňském roce, skutečně pohasíná, a my bychom se měli ptát a já souhlasím i s mými předřečníky: Co můžeme udělat pro lidi v tomto státě? My můžeme žádat samozřejmě propuštění, ale musíme kombinovat nástroje, které máme k dispozici. Za prvé ekonomické, to už zde zmiňoval i kolega Pospíšil, a za druhé ty diplomatické. Musíme žádat o podporu Africkou unii. Kombinací těchto nástrojů, myslím, že můžeme dosáhnout těch efektů, které chceme, a to je tedy svobodný lid v demokratické zemi Zimbabwe.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for focusing attention again on Zimbabwe and the very difficult situation there at this critical moment. Unfortunately our assessment is, as you all say, that the recent development in Zimbabwe is a serious setback. Following the increase in fuel prices by over 150%, a decision which of course triggered violent protests in an already tense political environment, the repression by security forces against demonstrators, trade unions, NGOs, opposition supporters, has been unacceptable.
On 17 January the EU strongly condemned this crackdown, which has resulted in many casualties, widespread human rights violations – including reports of sexual violence – and hundreds of arbitrary arrests. We have a responsibility to Zimbabweans to express ourselves in these circumstances.
Our Head of Delegation in Harare met high-level representatives of the Government, including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and Justice to express our deep concerns and to urge the authorities to behave in full compliance with its constitutional obligations. In Brussels, the EEAS convened a meeting with the Ambassador of Zimbabwe in the same context.
In times of economic hardship, demonstrations are to be expected. Human rights and the rule of law, as enshrined in the constitution of Zimbabwe, should be upheld. Vandalism and lootings by rioters is of course to be condemned but security forces must respond in a proportionate and professional manner and they have to be accountable to citizens for their actions. These tragic developments underline the urgent need to address the findings and recommendations of the commission of inquiry that was set up by the President himself in response to last August's post-election violence.
Security sector reform is also a priority and the government should ensure that security-related laws are aligned swiftly with the Constitution. The Government will not be able to implement reforms that stand the test of time without an environment that ensures an inclusive national dialogue through which citizens can exercise their freedoms of assembly, association and expression. The events that led to the resignation of President Mugabe and to the entry into office of a new leadership, raised, as you have said, high expectations. We decided to engage with the new Zimbabwe knowing that change would not and cannot come overnight after decades of the Mugabe regime. But this being said, the recent crackdown sadly cast serious doubt over the declared determination of the Government to engage in political and economic reforms.
We cannot, and should not, ignore the dire economic and social situation of the people of Zimbabwe and I pay tribute to the attention given by the different political groups in this House in this regard. I would like to underline that the EUR 234 million that has been given to Zimbabwe under the last long-term budget has achieved positive results. It does not go to the Government but is invested in the health system, in agricultural production and in food security. But any strengthening of our relations with Zimbabwe can only occur on the basis of clear and concrete evidence that the Government is truly committed to reforms that lead the country towards a democratic and prosperous future, and this message was also conveyed by Commissioner Mimica in his last meeting with President Mnangagwa last week in Addis.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet im Anschluss an die Aussprache statt.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162)



Rolandas Paksas (EFDD),
raštu. – Palaikiau Parlamento rezoliuciją dėl žmogaus teisių padėties Zimbabvėje. Visuomet stengiuosi pabrėžti esminę valstybės funkciją – užtikrinti sveiką aplinką savo tautos vystymuisi ir klestėjimui. Todėl man labai svarbu, kad tiek Zimbabvėje, tiek visose kitose Afrikos ir pasaulio valstybėse būtų užtikrinamos, gerbiamos ir ginamos žmogaus teisės. Kiekvienam garantuojama teisė į švietimą, mokslą, užimtumą, tinkamą atlyginimą ir visavertį pragyvenimą senatvėje. Viešoji valdžia privalo rūpintis gyventojo, visuomenės gerove. Egzistuojantis nusikalstamumo lygis, policijos institucijų neveiksnumas prisideda prie chaoso ir neteisėtų veikų kurstymo. Valstybėje neturi likti smurto, represijų ar nuolatinės agresijos. Šiuo tikslu reikalingos ne tik vidinės reformos. Būtinas dialogas su kitomis pasaulio valstybėmis, dalijimasis patirtimi nusikalstamumo prevencijos klausimais. Atskirai pabrėžiu moterų ir vaikų teisių apsaugą ir užtikrinimą. Šalyje turėtų būti kuriama šeimų klestėjimui palanki terpė.
                  
8.3.   Women's rights defenders in Saudi Arabia

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sieben Entschließungsanträge zu Frauenrechtsaktivisten in Saudi-Arabien (2019/2564(RSP)).
                  

Charles Tannock,
author. – Mr President, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has been keen to market himself as a progressive visionary since coming to power: ushering in headline-grabbing reforms, such as removing the ban on women driving, and allowing cinemas to operate freely in the country.
On other fundamental issues, however, we see little changing, particularly for women as they continue to be subject to the harsh guardianship laws imposed by the Saudi authorities. These laws and the repressive culture surrounding them are making the everyday lives of Saudi women unbearable. These measures are often defended by the authorities as being rooted in Wahhabi religious norms, yet when we look at neighbouring countries in the Gulf, such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, it's plain for all to see that the laws in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are significantly more restrictive.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to raise again the case of Jamal Khashoggi. The investigation into the torture and murder of Mr Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul remains inconclusive, and I continue to be deeply concerned about the many reports which allege links at the highest levels of the Saudi state.

Ernest Urtasun,
autor. – Señor presidente, tengo que decir que se vuelve insoportable algunas veces la doble vara de medir que tenemos en relación con nuestra acción exterior. En estos momentos tenemos relaciones, y muchos Estados miembros tienen relaciones con lo que es una auténtica teocracia, que tiene un sistema institucionalizado de discriminación hacia las mujeres y que, encima, detiene a sus activistas y mantiene un sistema de tutela masculina hacia ellas que es absolutamente incompatible con cualquier valor democrático.
                  

                     Y por ello, creo que este Parlamento y el Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior tienen que ser mucho más contundentes en la denuncia de las violaciones de derechos humanos que se producen en Arabia Saudí.
                  

                     Queremos un pronunciamiento claro en defensa de las activistas. Que se pida su liberación, que cesen las torturas, que cesen los abusos sexuales cuando son detenidas y también, más globalmente, en relación con las relaciones que tenemos con Arabia Saudí, debemos exigir que los países cumplan a rajatabla el código de conducta de exportación de armamento y que cesen de una vez nuestras relaciones comerciales en materia armamentística con este país.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, es urgente replantear nuestras relaciones exteriores con lo que es una auténtica teocracia.
                  

Pier Antonio Panzeri,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, al di là dei tentativi di bin Salman di presentare nel mondo il volto di una Arabia Saudita sulla strada delle riforme, la realtà va da tutt'altra parte, e ancora una volta dobbiamo denunciare la grave situazione dei diritti umani.
                  

                     Due casi destano preoccupazione. Il primo sono le notizie sulle torture subite in prigione da attiviste per i diritti delle donne, che sono detenute dal maggio 2018. La seconda riguarda l'andamento del processo di Israa Al-Ghomgham, suo marito, e altri quattro attivisti arrestati nel 2015 per aver partecipato ad una protesta pacifica a sostegno della minoranza sciita. Questi ultimi sono processati davanti alla Corte penale specializzata, concepita per i reati di terrorismo, come probabilmente avverrà anche per alcune attiviste arrestate nel maggio 2018.
                  

                     Chiediamo la liberazione, chiediamo che sostanzialmente tutte queste persone siano rilasciate. Abbiamo richiesto anche, nello stesso tempo, nella risoluzione, che una delegazione del Parlamento europeo, formata dalla sottocommissione per i diritti dell'uomo e dalla commissione per i diritti della donna, possa recarsi in Arabia Saudita.
                  

                     Infine, sollecitiamo la Commissione ad uscire da una sorta di letargo, nella quale sembra piombata nel rapporto con Riyadh, e agisca con più forza e con più determinazione, perché i diritti umani comincino ad affermarsi in quel paese.
                  

Ignazio Corrao,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il paese più misogino e oscurantista del mondo continua a far parlare di sé. Un paese dove odio, intolleranza e discriminazione continuano a guidare la mano e offuscare le menti di quelli al potere.
                  

                     Per rifare il trucco a una società medievale il generoso e avanguardistico principe bin Salman ha concesso alle donne di guidare e di partecipare ad eventi sportivi, come se i problemi di questo paese fossero la guida e il calcio. La fine del divieto di guida è stata purtroppo una vittoria di Pirro per le donne attiviste, a fronte delle decine di casi di presunte torture in detenzione, abusi sessuali, aggressioni, privazione del sonno e di assistenza legale. Il coraggioso attivismo di queste donne contro un establishment che le considera alla stregua di animali viene barbaramente punito e represso, perché se non conti nulla non puoi chiedere nulla.
                  

                     È per questo motivo che continuo a chiedervi come possa un paese campione di violazioni dei diritti umani come l'Arabia Saudita occupare un posto nello Human Rights Council. La sua permanenza nel Consiglio, infatti, è totalmente incompatibile e intrinsecamente contraddittoria con i valori e la missione di questo organo e va immediatamente sospesa.
                  

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
auteure. – Monsieur le Président, en juin 2018, les femmes ont enfin obtenu le droit de conduire en Arabie Saoudite. Immense victoire? Non, ‘mesurette’.
                  

                     L'Arabie Saoudite a régressé de la 138e à la 141e place, sur 144, au classement mondial sur l'écart entre les sexes. Les femmes sont sous la tutelle des hommes; pour le moindre acte de leur vie quotidienne, elles sont considérées comme inférieures, victimes d'innombrables violences.
                  

                     Pire, une application mise en ligne par le gouvernement saoudien, Absher (le prédicateur), accessible via Google et Apple, permet au mari de contrôler son épouse, notamment s'il lui vient à l'idée de tenter l'exil seule, ce qui est le cas de mille Saoudiennes, chaque année.
                  

                     D'ailleurs, les hommes et les femmes dont nous parlons aujourd'hui, toutes et tous des militants des droits des femmes, sont des symboles. Arrêtés au moment même de l'instauration du permis de conduire, torturés, fouettés, électrocutés, et risquant de très longues peines de prison.
                  

                     Alors, ne soyons pas dupes de l'agenda dit progressiste de MbS (Mohammad bin Salman Al Saoud), pas plus chez lui qu'au Yémen, agissez enfin.
                  

Marietje Schaake,
author. – Mr President, all the promises of reform that came with the appointment of Mohammed bin Salman and his lofty vision 2030, and that were met with much wishful thinking all around the world, have been definitively crushed by actions such as the systematic violations of women's rights and human rights and by the lack of basic freedoms that people face. Women are effectively second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia, and that is unacceptable. More specifically, now, the arrests and torture of the brave women's rights activists – and we name all of them in this resolution – are absolutely appalling. Their families are being intimidated and are facing travel restrictions because their passports have been revoked. This is absolutely appalling.
We need to condemn, at the highest European level, these actions by Mohammed bin Salman and all the Saudi authorities involved. More importantly, however, these actions and the violations of human rights in Saudi Arabia have to have consequences. We need a European Magnitsky Act to hold perpetrators of human-rights violations to account individually, and we need to stop the export of the very surveillance technologies, built in Europe, which are used for repression in countries like Saudi Arabia.
It is high time that we responded, in our treatment of Saudi Arabia, not to the beautiful words that they say, but to the ugly deeds that must have consequences.

Michaela Šojdrová,
Autorka. – Pane předsedající, mnoho žen a mužů se momentálně v Saudské Arábii nachází ve vězení jenom proto, že hájí rovné postavení žen a mužů. Například ženy v Saudské Arábii dodnes musí mít mužské opatrovníky, bez jejichž souhlasu se nemohou ucházet o zaměstnání anebo o vyšší vzdělání. Je pro nás nepřijatelné, aby ženy měly stále v této době podřadné postavení. Do jisté míry to můžeme vnímat jako kulturně podmíněnou záležitost, ale při veškerém respektu ke kultuře a k náboženství nemůžeme zavírat oči před příklady jasného porušování lidských práv a pošlapávání lidské důstojnosti.
                  

                     Jako křesťanku mě velmi trápí to, že v Saudské Arábii jsou také křesťané občany druhého řádu a nemohou praktikovat svou víru, jinak jsou zastrašováni. Naše zpráva uvádí jisté příklady pozitivního vývoje, např. právě v možnosti pro ženy řídit, získat řidičský průkaz. Ale je to všechno za cenu velkého utrpení a věznění.
                  

Seán Kelly,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, equality between men and women is one of the basic pillars of the European Union. But even in the European Union we haven't full equality as we often have debates here, for instance, last month in relation to getting more women on boards. Also in relation to pay, there isn't full equality, but at least we are working towards it: far different to what happens in many third countries, where, as Marietje Schaake said, women are treated as second-class citizens, and this is obviously not good enough, and Saudi Arabia is one example.
While they have made some progress in relation to allowing women to drive cars – big deal – they are far from being prepared to give equality. Especially, putting women's rights defenders into jail and torturing them is just not good enough, and we have to raise our voices until we actually see equality between men and women all around the globe.

Soraya Post,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, to the Saudi authorities: shame on you. You arrest and torture women just because they defend their human rights. How come you don't look at women as human beings? We women across the world request that you release these women immediately. The male guardianship system has to be abolished and all forms of gender-based violence, including genital mutilation, marital rape, sexual assault and harassment, has to be criminalised. Stop this cruelty to human beings. We look forward to positive changes and actions. We know that you can do better.

Ángela Vallina,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, Arabia Saudí, que es socio preferencial para muchos Estados miembros, es tristemente conocido por ser uno de los países donde la represión contra los defensores y las defensoras de derechos humanos es feroz, llegando a encarcelar y a ejecutar a sus activistas.
                  

                     Tratan de ofrecernos una imagen moderna y continúan anclados en una estructura feudal, machista y misógina, marcada por la tutela legal de los hombres sobre las mujeres en todos los ámbitos. Por ello exigimos a las autoridades saudíes que terminen su campaña de terror y liberen a todos los defensores y defensoras de los derechos humanos encarcelados y que ratifiquen todos los instrumentos internacionales sobre derechos humanos.
                  

                     A ustedes que tanto les exigen a algunos países, nunca se les oye exigir eso mismo para Arabia Saudí. Por último, pedir al Consejo que respete la Posición Común y que todos los Estados miembros efectúen un embargo de armas a Arabia Saudí de manera inmediata. Le recuerdo, señora comisaria, que la propia Comisión ha metido a Arabia Saudí en la lista de países con riesgo de financiación de terrorismo y blanqueo de financiación.
                  

Jill Seymour,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, we are all too aware of the atrocious treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I will say that there have been some token relaxations of their situation, such as the right to drive, but women are still second-class citizens, deprived of even the most basic control of their lives. This is completely and utterly unacceptable. There have even been reports of right-to-drive activists being tortured.
It is an absolute travesty that we have to stand here, in the 21st century, discussing such medieval treatment of women and the denial of their basic rights. If the Saudi Government wishes to have a good working relationship with the Western countries, including the UK, then they need to treat women by the internationally recognised standards.

Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Die Situation der Menschenrechte in Saudi-Arabien beschäftigt uns nicht zum ersten Mal. Wir sollten uns öfter damit auseinandersetzen, und es braucht deutliche Signale in Richtung Riad.
                  

                     Die stetigen Beteuerungen der Saudis, sie wären bereit, sich modernen Standards zu unterwerfen, sind nichts wert, wenn sie einem Realitätscheck nicht standhalten. Vieles entspricht so gar nicht der offiziellen Schönfärberei, nicht nur die allen zivilisatorischen Normen Hohn sprechende Ermordung von Jamal Khashoggi oder die regelmäßig stattfindenden öffentlich zelebrierten Hinrichtungen oder die Anwendung körperlicher Gewalt als Strafmittel oder die immer noch nicht beendete Inhaftierung unseres Sacharow-Preisträgers Raif Badawi.
                  

                     Die systematische Verachtung der Menschenrechte für Frauen ist der Nährboden, auf dem sich derartiges Denken überhaupt entwickeln kann. Wollen wir langfristig etwas ändern, dann müssen wir hier ansetzen. Solange Frauen als Menschen zweiter Kategorie betrachtet werden, unter männliche Vormundschaft gestellt und körperlicher Gewalt ausgesetzt sind, solange wird auch kein Bewusstsein für Menschenrechte entstehen. Die vielen Frauen, die sich in Saudi-Arabien gegen diesen Zustand auflehnen, verdienen unsere ganze Unterstützung.
                  

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, o mundo não pode continuar a ignorar o que se passa na Arábia Saudita. O regime de Mohammad Bin Salman prende Raif Badawi, laureado Sakharov, ativistas como Loujain al-Hathloul raptada nos Emirados. É o regime dos guardiões opressores das mulheres, que esquarteja críticos como Jamal Khashoggi, oprime o povo no país e países vizinhos como o Bahrein, provoca na Síria, Iraque e Irão, conduz uma guerra de extermínio no Iémen e promove o proselitismo extremista no mundo.
                  

                     É inaceitável que os Estados-Membros da União Europeia não apliquem ainda um embargo de armas em conformidade com a posição comum. É criminoso que políticos e organizações europeias se deixem comprar pelo regime saudita, incluindo neste Parlamento e até no Colégio da Europa.
                  

                     Sanções direcionadas, incluindo o congelamento de ativos, são indispensáveis contra cabecilhas deste regime.
                  

                     Governos, bancos e entidades obrigadas estão agora sob um intenso escrutínio para aplicar a decisão da Comissão Europeia de incluir a Arábia Saudita na lista de países terceiros de alto risco no branqueamento de capitais e no financiamento de terrorismo.
                  

                     As corajosas mulheres, que se batem pelos direitos humanos na Arábia Saudita, os delas e de toda a gente, e para tirar o país desta ditadura …
                  

(O Presidente retira a palavra à oradora)


Spontane Wortmeldungen


Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem strašně rád za tu debatu, která zde probíhá, protože opravdu je absurdní, co se děje v Saudské Arábii ve vztahu k aktivistům, kteří bojují za ženská práva. Je třeba ještě k té debatě říci, že je zde závažné podezření, že ti aktivisté jsou zavřeni nezákonně proto, protože bojovali za práva žen řídit motorové vozidlo. Určitě posluchači, kteří dnes sledují toto naše vystoupení, budou považovat za zcela absurdní to, že zkrátka ženy donedávna nemohly v Saudské Arábii řídit motorová vozidla, a ti, co bojovali za toto zcela banální právo žen, byli takto vězněni, týráni a nezákonně trestáni.
                  

                     Takže já vyzývám paní komisařku, opravdu je to tak hanebné, že zde musíme udělat maximum pro to, abychom vůči Saudské Arábii radikálně vystoupili přes všechny ekonomické a jiné zájmy, zkrátka opravdu není možné považovat za partnera EU zemi, která popírá banální, základní lidská práva žen.
                  

Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è ormai emerso con assoluta chiarezza come le donne siano oggetto, in Arabia Saudita, di violenze terribili. L'ultimo caso, quello che ha destato l'interesse del mondo, è stato appunto il trattamento terribile che è stato riservato alle attiviste che manifestavano per diritti di base fondamentali, come per esempio il diritto alla guida. Queste donne sono state torturate, colleghi, con l'elettroshock, sono state molestate sessualmente, sono state oggetto di torture terribili.
                  

                     Allora, tutto questo è assolutamente inaccettabile. E non basta, lo voglio dire alla Commissaria, una proposta di risoluzione comune, che pure è necessaria. Noi abbiamo bisogno di passi ben più forti e ben più decisi, come per esempio praticare immediatamente l'embargo delle armi verso questo paese che non rispetta minimamente i diritti degli esseri umani.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η καταπίεση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στη Σαουδική Αραβία είναι, δυστυχώς, μια θλιβερή πραγματικότητα, και οι γυναίκες είναι αυτές που υφίστανται τη μεγαλύτερη καταπίεση. Μέχρι πριν λίγο καιρό δεν μπορούσαν καν να οδηγήσουν αυτοκίνητο. Και φυσικά, όσοι —και κυρίως όσες γυναίκες— αντιστέκονται και παλεύουν για τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών αντιμετωπίζονται σκληρά από το καθεστώς της Σαουδικής Αραβίας, εκεί όπου ισχύει ακόμη και εκτελείται η θανατική ποινή. Ένα καθεστώς που σφάζει αμάχους στην Υεμένη, ένα καθεστώς που χρηματοδοτεί τρομοκρατία. Νομίζω ότι ήρθε η ώρα να ληφθούν μέτρα συγκεκριμένα κατά της Σαουδικής Αραβίας και να επιβληθεί εμπάργκο πώλησης όπλων, διότι μόνον έτσι μπορεί να καταλάβουν ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει μια ισχυρή φωνή στο θέμα αυτό και θα αναγκαστούν και θα υποχρεωθούν να σεβαστούν και να τηρήσουν τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών και γενικώς τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα στη Σαουδική Αραβία.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Mr President, this Parliament cannot keep on ignoring the harsh reality that women in Saudi Arabia face in their daily life to promote equal rights. Since May 2018, the authorities in Saudi Arabia have arrested more than a dozen women activists without charge and kept most of them in prison without any hope of release.
Just last week, at the EU-League of Arab States Summit in Brussels, Saudi Arabia committed itself to a more progressive agenda on gender equality, but its actions show quite the opposite. Israa al-Ghomgham is the first woman to be sentenced to death simply for participating in protests. Exposed to gender-based violence and for challenging traditional notions of family and gender roles in society, women like Israa, are being, as we speak, treated by the Saudi authorities as agents of embassies and therefore dealt with as a real threat to religion, honour and culture, which implies undeserved punishment.
Madam Commissioner, we cannot turn a blind eye to the reality in Saudi Arabia. We must condemn these arbitrary trials and urge the Saudi authorities to immediately release these activists. Europe must take a clear stand against this repression and act accordingly.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, jedno přísloví říká a myslím, že je velmi pravdivé: ‘Strom poznáte po ovoci’. Korunní princ bin Salmán se snažil vyvolat určité naděje, zdání, že strom je zelený a bude plodit dobré ovoce. A co namísto toho vidíme? Jaké je skutečné ovoce reforem v Saudské Arábii? Vidíme vraždění, zatýkání, netoleranci, diskriminaci, zatýkání aktivistů dokonce za to, že prosazují to, aby mohly ženy řídit. A svoboda projevu je v zásadě nula.
                  

                     Já si myslím, že takovýto stát nemůže být respektovaným, důvěryhodným partnerem EU. My máme určité hodnoty, které musíme chránit, a nemůžeme se tvářit, že stát, který není schopen respektovat základní demokratická práva, se tváří jako náš důvěryhodný partner. Toto není strom, který nese dobré ovoce.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, human rights represent an important aspect of the EU's engagement with Saudi Arabia and we regularly address this as part of our comprehensive dialogue with the Saudi Government. The situation of human right defenders, a longstanding priority, including the situation of women rights activists, is central in this endeavour.
Since last May, the EU has been engaging with the Saudi authorities raising our concerns and seeking clarification on the circumstances surrounding the arrests of human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia. We have also inquired about torture allegations of activists.
In a constructive approach, we have encouraged Saudi Arabia to extend an invitation to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders to visit that country. Unfortunately, apart from the notice of the opening of an investigation by the Bureau of the Saudi Public Prosecutor and by the Saudi Human Rights Commission on the allegation of mistreatment of the detained women, reported by international press, there has not been any enlightenment as to the specific criminal charges they are facing. This is a source of increasing disquiet at EU level.
I would like to recall that in all our efforts to reach out towards the Saudi authorities we have always reiterated the relevance of the work of human rights defenders and civil society groups in relation to the process of reform which Saudi Arabia is pursuing. We've also repeatedly stressed the importance of respecting due process for the individuals arrested.
A successful implementation of Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, the cornerstone of Saudi reforms, holds an important role for women. Their greater empowerment would bring enormous benefits socially and economically. We will continue in the European Union to follow with grave concern several other cases of activists allegedly facing the risk of imminent execution on charges related to the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of association, of speech and of religion. Also, as some of you said, the European Union has in the Khashoggi case still a lot of questions, of course, and we have called for a full, credible and transparent investigation on that case.
Let me conclude that it is in the interests of all to foster a more transparent dialogue. There has been an intensification of this dialogue in the past weeks, and we trust that this will continue and allow for substantive progress on these very important files.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet im Anschluss an die Aussprache statt.
                  

(Die Sitzung wird um 11.48 Uhr bis zum Beginn der Abstimmung unterbrochen.)


IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS


Vice-President

9.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.00)


Nuno Melo (PPE). – Madam President, I will speak in English because I want you all to understand me on this. How can we talk about companies like Cambridge Analytica, which we accuse of having developed processes to influence elections in countries, but then we say nothing about the entities that produce rankings about the work of MEPs which are absolutely false, using shameful and subjective criteria, and can also influence the European Parliament election results in four months' time? Who owns those entities? Who controls them? Who supervises them? Who develops the algorithms, and with what kind of motivations? I want to be clear. Entities like MEP Ranking are a shame for democracy, and Parliament should do something about it.

(The President cut off the speaker)


President. – Mr Melo, you are being clear but this is not a point of order. Can I just say, even though you have a great deal of support for that point, that it was not a point of order.
10.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

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

10.1.   The situation in Chechnya, and the case of Oyub Titiev (RC-B8-0107/2019, B8-0107/2019, B8-0108/2019, B8-0109/2019, B8-0112/2019, B8-0114/2019, B8-0117/2019) (vote)
10.2.   Zimbabwe (RC-B8-0110/2019, B8-0110/2019, B8-0118/2019, B8-0119/2019, B8-0120/2019, B8-0122/2019, B8-0124/2019, B8-0125/2019) (vote)
10.3.   Women's rights defenders in Saudi Arabia (RC-B8-0111/2019, B8-0111/2019, B8-0113/2019, B8-0115/2019, B8-0116/2019, B8-0121/2019, B8-0123/2019, B8-0126/2019) (vote)
10.4.   Mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (A8-0414/2018 - Matthijs van Miltenburg) (vote)
10.5.   Draft Agreement on Cooperation between Eurojust and Georgia (A8-0065/2019 - Sylvia-Yvone Kaufmann) (vote)
10.6.   Health technology assessment (A8-0289/2018 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz) (vote)
10.7.   Framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (A8-0198/2018 - Franck Proust) (vote)
10.8.   Interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (A8-0199/2018 - Massimiliano Salini) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Madam President, I rise under Chapter 5, Rule 82. I suggest, and I would like to request through the offices of the President, that the technology which we are about to vote on be put forward to Mr Barnier and the Brexit discussions and negotiators, because surely if this technology works, it could be a very important step forward in solving the problem of a hard border in Ireland, which is something that all of us in these negotiations wish to avoid.

(The President cut off the speaker)


(Reactions from the floor)


President. – Really, colleagues, we can't indulge in this. Can I just call the House to order. We're in the middle of voting. Thank you.
Madam, I can hear you but I'd rather not listen at the moment because I'm trying to chair votes.

(Applause)


Georg Mayer,
im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Gemäß Artikel 59 Absatz 3 der hier geltenden Geschäftsordnung darf ich Sie bitten, über die von uns eingereichten und Ihnen zugestellten Änderungsanträge und den roll-call-vote vorliegend separat abstimmen zu lassen.
                  

(Parliament rejected a request under Rule 59(3) to vote on the amendments as a priority)

10.9.   Mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State (A8-0274/2018 - Ivan Štefanec) (vote)
10.10.   Charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charges (A8-0360/2018 - Eva Maydell) (vote)

— Before the vote:


Eva Maydell,
Rapporteur. – Madam President, briefly, I just want to draw your attention to the fact that today, with this report, we abolish the so-called ‘roaming fees’ for cross-border payments. In this way, we (a) show to the European citizens that we can deliver fast and tangible results and (b) save them billions of euros annually. And not least, we also put the single market for payments at an equal footing, irrespective of whether you come from a eurozone country or non-eurozone country.

(Applause)

10.11.   Common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (A8-0032/2019 - Roberts Zīle) (vote)
10.12.   Amending Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, by reason of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (A8-0014/2019 - Miroslav Poche) (vote)
10.13.   The right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (B8-0103/2019, RC-B8-0104/2019, B8-0104/2019, B8-0105/2019, B8-0106/2019) (vote)
10.14.   The rights of intersex people (B8-0101/2019) (vote)
10.15.   The future of the LGBTI List of Actions (2019-2024) (B8-0127/2019) (vote)
10.16.   The future of the INF Treaty and the impact on the EU (RC-B8-0128/2019, B8-0128/2019, B8-0129/2019, B8-0130/2019, B8-0131/2019, B8-0132/2019, B8-0133/2019) (vote)
10.17.   NAIADES II – An action programme to support inland waterway transport (B8-0079/2019) (vote)
10.18.   Protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU (A8-0057/2019 - Jørn Dohrmann) (vote)
10.19.   Strengthening the competitiveness of the Internal Market by developing the EU customs union and its governance (A8-0059/2019 - Virginie Rozière) (vote)
10.20.   Implementation of the legal provisions and the Joint Statement ensuring parliamentary scrutiny over decentralised agencies (A8-0055/2019 - György Schöpflin) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.

PRZEWODNICTWO: ZDZISŁAW KRASNODĘBSKI


Wiceprzewodniczący

11.   Explanations of vote
11.1.   Experiencing backlash in women's rights and gender equality in the EU (B8-0096/2019, B8-0099/2019)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, he votado a favor de este informe porque, más allá de establecer un diagnóstico preciso de los efectos que las políticas patriarcales tienen sobre las mujeres, pone el foco en la necesidad de revertir las políticas de austeridad y recortes que tanto dolor han causado a la ciudadanía en general y a las mujeres en particular. También propone medidas financieras y mecanismos de implementación de las mismas.
                  

                     Pero intervengo aquí, además, para recordar que los avances se consiguen a través de la construcción y la organización colectiva. Juntas somos más y más fuertes, especialmente frente a los mensajes de odio que la extrema derecha vierte sobre nosotras. Sobre los discursos de quienes nos quieren como máquinas reproductivas al servicio del sistema.
                  

                     Por eso, el 8 de marzo iremos a la huelga feminista, como ya hicimos el año pasado. Juntas, diversas, organizadas y cada vez más y en más partes del planeta.
                  

                     Porque tenemos motivos. Por eso, iremos a la huelga.
                  

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, ja sa chcem opýtať ohľadne tohto dokumentu: skutočne chceme povýšiť zabíjanie nenarodených detí na ľudské právo a na právo žien? Ja tu často počúvam o Európskej únii ako o úspešnom projekte, ktorý zabezpečuje mier a prosperitu v našom regióne. Áno, je to tak, rozhodne. Len potom nechápem prečo – keď žijeme dobre v bohatej časti sveta – tu vládne strach z nenarodených a nevinných detí a chceme ich pozabíjať, moja otázka. Naozaj stoja nenarodené deti v ceste pokroku v oblasti rovnosti medzi mužom a ženou? Je toto pravda? Toto nazýva Európsky parlament progresívnou sociálnou zmenou? Toto? Ja si potom takýto pokrok na úkor bezbranných a nevinných detí rozhodne neželám. Rovnako nechápem ten obrovský strach z iného názoru. Ak niekto v tejto sále nesúhlasí napríklad s Istanbulským dohovorom, ktorý je dohovorom o bojovaní proti násiliu na ženách – ale pozor, ak s ním nesúhlasí nie preto, že by schvaľoval násilie na ženách, ale len nesúhlasí s dohovorom pre genderovú ideológiu, ktorú obsahuje –, tak je onálepkovaný ako extrémista a ide sa proti nemu bojovať. Ja sa teda pýtam, kde sme získali právo odcudzovať členské štáty pre rodinnú politiku, ktorá podporuje materstvo a rodičovstvo.
                  

Anna Záborská (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, každá poslankyňa a poslanec tohto Parlamentu má právo klásť otázky Komisii. A komunistickí poslanci počtom položených otázok dokazujú, že ide o dôležitú súčasť parlamentnej kontroly. V reakcii na otázku kolegu Pimenta Lópeza vznikli dva diametrálne odlišné návrhy uznesenia, ktoré ilustrujú hlavnú výhradu ľavicových poslancov voči parlamentnej demokracii. Parlament je miestom, kde sa hľadá dohoda, a oni nemajú záujem takúto dohodu nájsť. Pritom dohoda by pomohla predovšetkým ženám, ktorých právami sa pán poslanec zakrýva ako figovým listom, keď žiada Komisiu, aby potláčala iné vnímanie sveta a človeka, než je jeho vlastné. Veľmi ľutujem, že sme nehlasovali o alternatívnom uznesení, ktoré by som bola určite podporila, pretože rešpektuje – alebo rešpektovalo – platné európske zmluvy a princíp subsidiarity.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, votei a favor desta pergunta à Comissão porque constato que, à medida que a luta pela igualdade de género e de direitos das mulheres se intensifica, mais obstáculos vamos encontrando pelo caminho, que urge contornar e eliminar definitivamente.
                  

                     O surgimento de regimes nacionalistas, a criação de barreiras administrativas nas próprias empresas e a limitação do acesso das mulheres ao ensino são apenas alguns exemplos sintomáticos de uma Europa pouco justa e nada inclusiva e que temos vindo a assistir e que não queremos.
                  

                     Para reverter esta situação entendo que os Estados-Membros devem ser os primeiros a dar o exemplo, e esse exemplo passa por garantir o combate de todas as formas de violência contra as mulheres, incluindo as práticas tradicionais perniciosas e a violência com base no género, bem como condenar o discurso de ódio sexista, o discurso de ódio fóbico contra as pessoas LGBTI, a misoginia e o discurso de ódio online, incluindo o assédio e a perseguição.
                  

                     Termino recordando que, tanto a transposição da Convenção de Istambul entre os Estados-Membros, como o documento final da diretiva para o equilíbrio entre a vida profissional e a vida privada, são fundamentais para o estabelecimento de uma sociedade justa, inclusiva e moderna.
                  

                     A União Europeia tem a obrigação de estar na vanguarda deste processo.
                  

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Господин председател, убедено гласувах против този документ, защото за пореден път, под маската на легитимната цел за борба с насилието над жени, се прави нова пропаганда. Отново се пропагандират скандални, спорни теми, свързани с Истанбулската конвенция, отново се използва тази зала и тази трибуна за пропаганда на различни, така да го кажем, отклонения.
                  

                     Ето и днес гласувахме правата на ЛГБТИ, интерсексуални и т.н. и т.н. Всъщност всички тези документи се превръщат в място за пропаганда. Гласуваме за риболова в Северно море – правата на ЛГБТИ, гласуваме за дюнерите – правата на ЛГБТИ. Това е нередно, недопустимо и необяснимо, уважаеми г-н Председател. Тук се превръща в място за пропаганда срещу традиционните ценности и традиционното семейство. Няма никаква логика и няма никакъв смисъл във всеки един от в тези документи да бъдат вкарвани тези противоречиви спорни текстове. Сред гражданите, по-специално на нашите държави, няма разбиране, че тази пропаганда трябва да бъде правена.
                  

Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, once again I find myself having to rail against the almost mandatory pessimism of this Chamber. Everyone is always so gloomy about international trends, but the reality is my daughters are going to experience a life incomparably better than my mother did, just as hers was better than her grandmother's. Globally, as in Europe, there has never been a time when women have been better fed, longer lived, better paid, more equally paid, less likely to die in childbirth and better educated than today. The driving force for that improvement has been the free market. A real backlash, if we have to talk in terms of backlash – as this report suggests – is not to equality, it is to the fact that every single proposal in this report is one that involves greater state intervention – either higher taxes or more power to Brussels, or in most cases both. Surely the best way to enlarge the freedom of women, as of men, is to recognise is that individualism and freedom are the basis of modern civilization.
11.2.   Policy challenges and strategies against women's cancers and related comorbidities (B8-0097/2019)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Głosowałam za rezolucją Parlamentu w sprawie wyzwań politycznych i strategii wobec nowotworów u kobiet i związanych z nimi chorób współistniejących. Ten ważny dokument wzywa do priorytetowego traktowania walki z rakiem w polityce zdrowotnej oraz stworzenia kompleksowej strategii Unii wobec chorób nowotworowych, a także pokazuje, że mimo dotychczasowych starań potrzeba dalszych, w tym także odpowiedniej diagnostyki, leczenia, ale przede wszystkim profilaktyki, jaka odnosi się także do masowo i długotrwale stosowanej antykoncepcji hormonalnej czy stymulacji hormonalnej związanej z procedurami in vitro w ramach tzw. zdrowia seksualnego i reprodukcyjnego. Dowiedziono niedawno, że długotrwałe stosowanie antykoncepcji hormonalnej może zwiększyć ryzyko zachorowania na glejaka, a także inne typy nowotworów poza oczywistymi wpływami innych szkodliwych czynników środowiskowych, które należy eliminować.
                  
11.3.   Use of cannabis for medicinal purposes (B8-0071/2019)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Jako współsprawozdawczyni głosowałam za rezolucją w sprawie stosowania marihuany, gdzie celem z lekarskiego punktu widzenia było przeprowadzenie badań klinicznych z użyciem leków na bazie marihuany wraz z przeznaczeniem na ten cel odpowiednich środków. W rezolucji udało się wyraźnie rozróżnić produkty lecznicze na bazie marihuany zatwierdzone przez organy regulacyjne, marihuanę medyczną niesprawdzoną w badaniach klinicznych i inne zastosowania marihuany. Ponadto wezwano do zniesienia barier regulacyjnych, które utrudniają badania naukowe, wraz z pozostawieniem państwom członkowskim wolności w przyjmowaniu potrzebnych rozwiązań, chociaż wezwano do prowadzenia większej liczby badań i zapewnienia przepływu informacji na ten temat. Dobrze, że posłowie odrzucili zgłoszone w ostatniej chwili poprawki, gdyż marihuana to nie sałata rukola, ale spreparowane przez różnych wynalazców odmiany o wielkiej sile uzależniającej, zawierające duże stężenia THC ze śladowymi ilościami ochronnego CBD, których doliczono się 700, a nawet według niektórych źródeł 2300.
                  

John Howarth (S&D). – Mr President, medical use of cannabis is legal to some degree in 23 Member States of this Union, 47 states of the USA plus Washington DC, and a further 25 countries around the world. The list is growing. I am happy to support this resolution because regulation is the way, just as for any other product. However, I detect in this resolution, and in the words of some of the PPE Group speakers, a backdoor desire to strengthen prohibition – and that has utterly and completely failed: failed to protect young people, failed to address the real issues of addiction, and played into the hands of organised crime.
This is the view of drug experts, addiction experts, and senior police officers. It is wrong to criminalise people with horrible illnesses, just as it's wrong to criminalise addiction. Throughout the Union, we tolerate a much more dangerously addictive drug that wrecks lives. We call it beer, we call it whisky or we call it champagne, but we regulate alcohol because prohibition doesn't work. It only makes things worse.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, esta pregunta parlamentaria, esta cuestión debatida en el Pleno sobre el uso del cannabis para fines terapéuticos desató cierta polémica en las redes. Las personas que defendemos la legalización del cannabis, tanto para uso terapéutico como para el uso propio que cada persona le quiera dar —para los usos lúdicos— a veces no somos entendidas.
                  

                     Y, por eso, quiero dar una explicación de voto en el sentido de que la Comisión Europea tiene una oportunidad para apoyar la investigación de calidad en lo relativo a los medicamentos a base de cannabis, pero, además, tiene una oportunidad en estos momentos para examinar el financiamiento previsto para la investigación en este ámbito en el Noveno Programa Marco.
                  

                     En este sentido, como vemos que los Estados miembros diferimos en la percepción, pero también en la legislación, es una gran oportunidad que hay que aprovechar, como ha hecho Uruguay o como ha hecho Canadá.
                  

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution mainly because the benefits to human health of the active principles found in the cannabis plant are today undeniable.
Historically in Europe, this plant was banned due to the social consequences of its recreational abuse, but recently we realised that we were missing out on many treatment opportunities. As patients crave access to these treatments, pharmaceutical companies and cannabis producers are now racing to claim a share of a market that is deemed to be worth EUR 55 billion by 2028. Everyone's concern is that legislators and competent authorities in Member States cannot keep pace in terms of regulation, leaving medical cannabis to slow-crawl its way into the market. We need to let research and development take its course, and pharmaceutical regulation do its part.
I see no reason for these products not to be treated like any other medicine. The active principles from cannabis should be dealt with like all other active principles – and we can treat cannabis as we do other regulated plant-based medicines. The system for medicines already works well, and we have fought hard to make it fair across Europe. To conclude, we should leave aside our prejudices about the plant and believe that this is a new situation. There is no reason for these medicines not to follow the same evolution in science that is reflected in the fact that we now take aspirin whereas we used to chew on willow bark.

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałem poprzeć to sprawozdanie, ale nie mogłem. Nie ma powodu, żeby jedni ludzie zabraniali drugim spożywania czegoś, wkładania czegoś do swojego organizmu. I z tego powodu nie wypadało mi głosować przeciwko temu, żeby marihuanę dopuścić, ale z drugiej strony zezwolenie nie wymaga niczego więcej niż tylko skasowania zakazu. A co my tu mamy? Znowu to parlamentarne nasze gadulstwo, typowe dla tej instytucji: mając na uwadze to, mając na uwadze tamto, pouczając, ażeby to badać, ażeby tego nie badać, ażeby taką marihuanę dopuszczać. Ale po co? Kogo to obchodzi, co wy macie na uwadze? Po prostu skreślcie zakaz i tyle. Poza tym dlaczego dopuszczamy tylko jeden rodzaj marihuany, a nie inny rodzaj marihuany? Przecież słyszymy tutaj takie hasła jak: ‘mój brzuch, moja sprawa’. To dlaczego ‘mój brzuch, moja sprawa’ tylko wtedy, kiedy trzeba zabić nienarodzone dziecko, ale jak chcę sobie coś spożyć, czego ktoś inny chce mi zabronić, to już nie jest ‘mój brzuch, moja sprawa’. I nagle muszę iść do lekarza po receptę, żeby on mi zezwolił na to, bym coś przyjął do swojego organizmu. Dlatego nie mogłem poprzeć tego przegadanego i przeregulowanego sprawozdania.
                  

Anna Záborská (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, ako lekárka viem, že súčasťou mnohých liekov sú prírodné aj syntetické látky, ktoré vo väčších množstvách alebo pri nesprávnom použití človeku škodia a môžu ho aj zabiť. Pri správnom využití však pomáhajú prekonať chorobu alebo bolesť. Ku konope však na Slovensku pristupujeme s opatrnosťou. Je to mäkká droga, ktorá ovplyvňuje činnosť mozgu, a nechceme, aby bola verejne dostupná. Je správne, pokiaľ sa umožní jej výskum s cieľom pomôcť pacientom trpiacim najmä chronickou bolesťou. Pestovanie a manipulácia s konope však musí podliehať prísnym predpisom a obsahovať poistky pri jeho šírení mimo prostredia certifikovaného laboratória. Zároveň sa musí zabezpečiť, aby takýto výskum nebol zneužívaný na nekritickú popularizáciu konope a ľahkých drog.
                  
11.4.   Common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (A8-0032/2019 - Roberts Zīle)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Господин председател, подкрепих доклада на колегата Зиле, защото неговите смислени предложения защитават интересите, правата и законните интереси на превозвачите и на собствениците от държавите – членки на Европейския съюз от Източна Европа.
                  

                     За разлика от първия доклад, от първия пакет документи – пакетът ‘Мобилност’, където под натиска на Германия, Франция и Белгия, се прави опит да бъде откраднат, буквално ‘откраднат’, превзет бизнеса на източноевропейските държави. Предприемачите от Полша, България, Румъния, Унгария, Литва, Латвия, Естония, дори от Испания и от Португалия са застрашени. Техният бизнес модел е застрашен, защото хората, които взимат решенията в Германия, Франция, Белгия, се опитват да откраднат този бизнес. Това е ярък признак и пример за ‘двоен стандарт’ и за нарушение на правилата на единния пазар, срещу което ние всички трябва да се борим, защото когато влизахме в този Съюз ни казваха, че единният общ свободен пазар ще бъде решаващият. Така че този пакет ‘Мобилност’ трябва да бъде спрян, оттеглен и върнат за ново разглеждане.
                  
11.5.   The right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (B8-0103/2019, RC-B8-0104/2019, B8-0104/2019, B8-0105/2019, B8-0106/2019)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, rezoluția pe care am votat-o astăzi condamnă intervențiile violente și disproporționate ale forțelor de ordine împotriva protestatarilor pașnici. În special, condamnă folosirea armelor neletale, cum sunt proiectilele cu impact cinetic, grenadele cu gaze lacrimogene și folosirea tunurilor de apă sau a tunurilor cu gaze lacrimogene. Aceste tipuri de armament au fost folosite și pe 10 august 2018 de Jandarmeria Română împotriva a sute de mii de demonstranți care demonstrau împotriva corupției Guvernului PSD-ALDE. Acești demonstranți protestatari erau pașnici. De asemenea, aceasta a fost o acțiune premeditată și atent orchestrată de Ministerul de Interne și de liderii coaliției de guvernare. Sute de persoane au fost grav rănite.
                  

                     Până acum, cei care au dat ordine pentru a declanșa violențele împotriva protestatarilor pașnici și au produs și răniri nu au fost trimiși în judecată. Trebuie să răspundă în fața justiției.
                  

Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this report on peaceful protest – a cherished right that we in the trade union movement hold dear. It is currently HeartUnions week when we show the love for trade unions because being a member of a union makes sense. Workers in unionised workplaces earn up to 10% more, enjoy greater job security and better terms and conditions. Getting successes nationwide, like the GMB deal for Hermes self-employed couriers to get holiday pay and Unison's landmark case to scrap employment tribunal fees and — in the east of England, my region — UNITE helping scrap the plans to make Suffolk poultry catchers work on Christmas Day; and the successful FBU campaign to stop the PCC taking over Hertfordshire fire service; and fighting against injustices; Usdaw helping ‘Keep Sunday Special’ and the CWU fighting against crown post office closures. So, let's get more bosses' pulses racing by pumping up membership to help break heartbreak for workers.
11.6.   The rights of intersex people (B8-0101/2019)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Podczas gdy Unia Europejska zmaga się z brexitem, napływem nielegalnych imigrantów, kryzysem bankowym w wielu krajach członkowskich, komisja LIBE pod przewodnictwem p. Moraesa z uporem godnym lepszej sprawy zajmuje Parlament Europejski prawami osób interseksualnych. W punkcie piątym rezolucji wzywa Komisję i państwa członkowskie do zwiększenia funduszy na działalność organizacji społeczeństwa obywatelskiego zajmujących się osobami interseksualnymi. W punkcie jedenastym chce zmusić państwa członkowskie do promowania praw osób interseksualnych, w tym dzieci. Praktyki takie uważam za niedopuszczalne, dlatego głosowałem przeciwko tej rezolucji.
                  

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Mr President, I have to express my opinion on this and I cannot understand why the regressive Left of this Parliament wants us all to waste our time on resolutions that bring confusion, loss of dignity for individuals and fake rights.
This is a medical issue, it's not a political question.
Babies born with deformed genitalia must be given the best healthcare and the problem must be resolved. There is no politics in this. A world-renowned geneticist has informed me that only one in 200 000 babies is born with this condition, and there is almost never any uncertainty about the true sex. If there were any, a simple chromosome test makes it crystal clear if it's a boy or girl. So this is unscientific and manipulative on the part of some politicians and gender ideologists here. They want to confuse European citizens, brainwashing them into believing another human right is being denied. It's not true.
There is No Treaty competence for this, there is no political need for this and I am saddened that more people didn't do their own research and vote against this terrible resolution.
11.7.   The future of the LGBTI List of Actions (2019-2024) (B8-0127/2019)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, a humanidade avança quando protege todos os seres humanos por igual. Votei a favor deste relatório para que os direitos das pessoas LGBTI sejam protegidos de forma igual em toda a Europa. E para que se aprove a Diretiva contra a discriminação, bloqueada, até ao momento, no Conselho.
                  

                     As pessoas LGBTI sofrem muito porque são atacadas, estigmatizadas, invisibilizadas, não reconhecidas. É necessário protegê-las porque são atacadas pela sua identidade, diversidade, orientação ou características sexuais. Por isso participo no Intergrupo LGBTI do Parlamento Europeu, para lutar pela sua igualdade.
                  

                     Aumentaram os ataques de ódio por parte de grupos fascistas, embora estes sejam depreciados pela igreja católica e por grupos mais conservadores, que pintam o desenho do arco-íris, do arco da velha.
                  

                     Membros da organização juvenil do meu partido vão ter de pagar três mil euros, porque visibilizar também é atacar. Para a Galiza Nova o meu apoio dentro Parlamento Europeu.
                  

Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W rezolucji dotyczącej wykazu działań na rzecz osób LGBTI w punkcie 3 Parlament wzywa Komisję, by priorytetowo potraktowała w swoim programie na lata 2019-2024 działania na rzecz osób LGBTI. Moim zdaniem wyodrębnienie tego jako priorytetu świadczy o dyskryminacji, a z drugiej strony można by zapytać, dlaczego by nie traktować priorytetowo osób heteroseksualnych. Równie dziwacznie brzmi punkt ósmy. To już kolejna, nie wiem która rezolucja w sprawie LGBTI. Pytanie: czy naprawdę Parlament Europejski nie ma ważniejszych spraw niż zajmowanie się bez przerwy skłonnościami seksualnymi niektórych osób?
                  
11.8.   NAIADES II – An action programme to support inland waterway transport (B8-0079/2019)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Celem programu NAIADES wspomnianego przez Pana Przewodniczącego jest zwiększenie transportu na śródlądowych drogach wodnych, a tym samym osiągnięcie zrównoważonego systemu transportowego dla Unii Europejskiej. W grudniu ubiegłego roku Rada podkreśliła potrzebę pełniejszego wykorzystania potencjału śródlądowego transportu wodnego. Ma to umożliwić wspomniany program NAIADES III, który ma być uruchomiony do końca 2020 roku. W przegłosowanej rezolucji Parlament wzywa do zapewnienia odpowiedniego finansowania programu. W swoich wystąpieniach wielokrotnie podkreślałem wagę śródlądowych dróg wodnych, w tym planowanej drogi wodnej E40 przebiegającej przez mój region, Lubelszczyznę. Dlatego głosowałem za przyjęciem przedłożonej rezolucji.
                  
11.9.   Protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU (A8-0057/2019 - Jørn Dohrmann)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania


Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, hoy hemos votado un informe muy curioso. Un informe de iniciativa propia de este Parlamento en el que se pide algo tan lógico como que se cumpla la ley.
                  

                     Y es que hace ya catorce años que se aprobó una legislación para regular el transporte de animales vivos, tanto dentro como fuera de la Unión. Catorce años después, el propio Parlamento es quien levanta la voz para exigir que se implementen estas medidas, que deberían aliviar el indecible sufrimiento que padecen nada más y nada menos que mil millones de animales al año. Mil millones de seres que sienten, que sufren, que padecen. ¿Se pueden hacer ustedes una idea?
                  

                     ¿Es demasiado pedir que se implemente la ley, se vigile y se sancione a quien no la cumpla? ¿Para qué legislamos, entonces? La legislación sobre protección animal ¿es un simple lavado de cara?
                  

                     Entiendo que esta Europa neoliberal, que hoy está dejando morir en el mar a quienes huyen de la guerra, no es la Europa que nos sacará del infierno animal en que hemos convertido este mundo.
                  

                     Bajo ningún concepto es aceptable que exportemos animales vivos a países como Turquía o Uzbekistán, no solo por las enormes distancias y las terribles condiciones del viaje, sino porque fuera de aquí no existen medidas que aminoren el sufrimiento a la hora del sacrificio. ¿Por qué establecemos reglas en Europa pero permitimos que fuera se sacrifique a nuestros animales de cualquier manera? Yo solo encuentro una respuesta: ‘Es el mercado, amigos’.
                  

                     No cabe más hipocresía. Si las normas no se aplican es simplemente porque no se quiere. Porque la industria no quiere.
                  

                     Y aunque hemos votado a favor de este informe, no, no nos gusta esta regulación, porque es muy poco ambiciosa. Somos millones de personas ya las que pedimos más, porque un mundo ecologista, feminista y animalista se está abriendo paso frente a esta era de la desolación que nos ha traído el capitalismo, que lo convierte todo, incluso la vida, en mercancía.
                  

Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, well I do not think the regulation goes far enough and I think it is time for a ban on live exports for slaughter or fattening. I do welcome this report's aim of stamping out weak enforcement. Many people in my country find the transport of life calves and sheep abhorrent. Of course, within the single market we cannot just ban it and some have therefore welcomed Brexit as a boon for animal welfare. They will, I believe, be heartily disappointed. Not only do we risk importing lower welfare agricultural products from places like the United States, who are decades behind European welfare standards, but we will also lose our influence within the EU. For 40 years we have used our votes, our economic strength and our political clout to help change policies, not just in Britain but across Europe, banning veal crates, battery cages and animal testing for cosmetics. Brexit will, I fear, be a step backwards for animal welfare, both in Britain and across all of Europe.

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu, která řeší podmínky zvířat při transportu. Ta situace je opravdu katastrofická. Měření v nevládních organizacích ukazují, že zvířata trpí obrovským způsobem a dosavadní legislativa není využívána. Podle mého názoru ta zpráva však není příliš ambiciózní a do budoucna bude nutné vést seriózní debatu o tom, jestli nemáme zakázat transport živých zvířat do třetích zemí, které nerespektují základní standardy života zvířat. Já jsem pro takovýto zákaz.
                  

                     A stejně tak si myslím, že do budoucna bude nutné přijmout jasnou úpravu, která časově limituje dobu, po kterou může být živé zvíře transportováno na jatka. Hovoří se zde o 8 hodinách, to si myslím, že je tak dlouhá doba, za kterou je možné zvíře odvézt na jatka. Já osobně si myslím, že do budoucna je třeba podporovat řešení, aby zvíře bylo usmrcováno co nejblíže místu, kde vyrůstá, a transporty maximálně omezit, stanovit tvrdší pravidla, ale hlavně to kontrolovat.
                  
12.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions : see Minutes

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 13.12)


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

13.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

14.   Petitions: see Minutes
15.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes
16.   Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes
17.   Major interpellations (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die große Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung mit Aussprache von Anders Primdahl Vistisen, Pavel Telička, Péter Niedermüller, Heinz K. Becker, Frédérique Ries, Jozo Radoš, Nadja Hirsch, Wolf Klinz, Gérard Deprez, Robert Rochefort, Renate Weber, Marietje Schaake, Igor Gräzin, Norica Nicolai, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Dominique Riquet, Jean Arthuis, Bernd Kölmel, Joachim Starbatty, Kristina Winberg, Peter Lundgren, Jan Zahradil, Ruža Tomašić, Bas Belder, Richard Sulík, Raffaele Fitto, Kosma Złotowski, Laurențiu Rebega, Karol Karski, Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, Hans-Olaf Henkel, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Lorenzo Cesa, Anders Sellström, Željana Zovko, Patricija Šulin, Tomáš Zdechovský, Marijana Petir, José Inácio Faria, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Fulvio Martusciello, Esteban González Pons, Milan Zver, Monika Hohlmeier, Cristian Dan Preda, Stefan Gehrold, Traian Ungureanu, Tunne Kelam, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Anna Záborská, Elisabetta Gardini, Lukas Mandl, James Carver, Monika Beňová, Andi Cristea, Theresa Griffin, Pina Picierno, Boris Zala, Doru-Claudian Frunzulică, Dan Nica an die Kommission: Jüngste staatsterroristische Aktivitäten des Iran in der EU (G-000008/2018 – B8-0013/2019).
               

Bernd Kölmel,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident! Ich darf meinen Kollegen Anders Vistisen vertreten, der leider verhindert ist. Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Heute sprechen wir über die aktuelle Bedrohung der Sicherheit durch den Iran. Anlass dazu sind aktuelle Vorgänge. So erklärte im Oktober 2018 der dänische Premierminister Rasmussen, dass der iranische Geheimdienst einen Mordanschlag gegen drei in Dänemark lebende iranische Oppositionelle geplant habe. Ähnliche Vorwürfe erhob zur gleichen Zeit die französische Regierung. Im Januar 2019 verhafteten deutsche Sicherheitskräfte einen deutsch-afghanischen Bundeswehrangehörigen unter dem Verdacht, vertrauliche militärische Informationen an den iranischen Geheimdienst weitergegeben zu haben.
               

                  Aufgrund dieser und anderer Vorfälle hat der EU-Ministerrat reagiert. Ich begrüße entsprechend die Entschließung des Ministerrats vom 8. Januar 2019 voll und ganz. Dieser hatte beschlossen, dass zwei iranische Staatsangehörige und die Direktion für innere Sicherheit des iranischen Geheimdienstministeriums in die Terrorliste der EU aufgenommen werden. Dies ist ein klares Signal, dass Terror auf deutschem und auf europäischem Boden nichts zu suchen hat.
               

                  In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich auch einen Appell an die Regierung des Iran richten: Die iranische Regierung muss sich darauf besinnen, ihren Teil zur friedlichen Lösung der zahlreichen Konflikte im Nahen Osten zu leisten. Mit Gewalt und Terror wird man auf Dauer seine Ziele nicht erreichen. Dies gilt für den Iran genauso wie für alle anderen Akteure, die im Nahen Osten ihre eigenen Interessen verfolgen.
               

                  Der Iran ist eine starke Militärmacht; er sollte nicht auf- sondern abrüsten. Dies betrifft insbesondere seine ballistischen Aktivitäten, die nicht mit der UN-Sicherheitsresolution übereinstimmen. Entsprechend muss die EU, müssen die EU-Mitgliedstaaten ihre Verantwortung übernehmen, müssen ihren Teil leisten, um den Frieden im Nahen Osten sicherzustellen.
               

Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to join you today and to discuss this very important topic: the recent hostile activities that Iran has reportedly conducted on the territory of several Member States. Let me start with the basic yet fundamental premise.
The European Union has consistently voiced, and will continue to voice, our strong unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations committed by whomsoever, wherever and for whatever purposes. It is then clear that in order to preserve our own European security, we cannot accept Iranian or any other country's hostile activities on European soil, no matter the justification. There is complete solidarity between the European Union and all EU Member States on this issue, and this solidarity will continue.
Whenever there have been reports of such activities, we have been in prompt contact with the authorities of the Member State concerned to offer our full support and solidarity. For example, in the case of Denmark at the end of last October, HR / VP Mogherini discussed the situation with the Danish Foreign Minister on the very same day that the case was made public.
You will also be aware that the Foreign Affairs Council had two significant discussions on Iran in the final months of 2018. At the Foreign Affairs Council in November, the Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen provided an update and Member States underlined their solidarity and willingness to agree on measures to address this and other recent incidents on European territory.
One month later in December, the Foreign Affairs Council again discussed Iran. Ministers agreed on the principle of adoption conclusions, which would reaffirm the commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), while making clear that it would not prevent the EU from raising concerns about Iranian activities.
This solidarity at the Council led to the addition of two Iranian individuals and the Directorate for Internal Security of the Iranian Ministry for Intelligence and Security to the EU counter-terrorism list. The Council adopted the list on 9 January this year. Persons, groups and entities on this list are subject to the freezing of their funds and other financial assets, and European Union operators are prohibited from making funds and economic resources available to them. Our discussions on how we should collectively respond to threats to our security, whatever their provenance, did not end on that day, as the conclusions adopted on 4 February repeated that the European Union will continue to demonstrate unity and solidarity in this area.
I would like to close these introductory remarks with three points. First, far from responding to policies of Iran with which we disagree, we have a number of restrictive measures in place against Iranian individuals and entities for reasons including their violation of human rights, support for terrorism and support for the Assad regime. Secondly, we should resist the temptation of viewing any country as solely a perpetrator of terrorism. Iran too has been a victim of terror attacks and consistency demands that we have also condemned, as in the case of the attacks in Ahvaz in September last year, which claimed the lives of at least 25 individuals.
Finally, our vigorous response to these actions, while necessary, should not affect the EU's continuing commitment to the full and effective implementation of the JCPOA whose preservation is in the security interests of the EU and the international community. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to our discussion.

Jiří Pospíšil,
za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, já jsem si pozorně vyslechl Vaše vystoupení. Musím říci, že jsem více skeptický k íránskému režimu než Vy. Pro mne je to totalitní režim, který svými kroky, které páchá na občanech EU na území EU, potvrzuje, že nemůže být důvěryhodným partnerem EU. Vraždy občanů EU, které zde proběhly a za které je s velkou mírou pravděpodobnosti odpovědný íránský režim, jsou něco naprosto nepřijatelného a nemůžeme nad tím zavírat oči jenom proto, že jsou zde určité závazky, dohody, včetně dohody o jaderných zbraních. Já jsem v tomto směru mnohem více skeptický na rozdíl od paní Mogheriniové a některých členů Evropské komise.
               

                  Co je alespoň důležité a to vítám, že jste přijali určité sankce vůči určitým příslušníkům tajných služeb íránského režimu. Je nutné, aby v boji proti vraždám občanů EU nestály vůči Íránu samy jednotlivé členské státy, ale aby na takovéto akty nepřátelství na území EU reagovala EU jako celek. To je podle mne strašně důležité, toto není problém jednotlivých členských států, kde buď došlo k těmto násilným trestným činům, nebo bylo podezření, že ty trestné činy jsou tam příslušníky íránských tajných služeb připravovány. A do budoucna prosím postupujme takto razantně vůči pachatelům, ale i celému režimu.
               

Andrejs Mamikins,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, we condemned any unlawful activities of foreign intelligence services on European soil, including from Iran.
However, the purpose of this interpellation is not to resolve our disagreements with Iran, which are many, but to sabotage the EU efforts to keep engagement with Iran alive. This is happening at a time when the EU is doing its utmost to save the nuclear agreement with Iran. This agreement serves its purpose of ensuring that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Iran delivered on its commitments, as confirmed by 14 reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The EU has to deliver its side of the deal by offering Iran economic dividends to which it is entitled as part of the agreement. This is why the EU created a special mechanism to facilitate legitimate trade with Iran. I fully support that mechanism and hope that it will deliver real results.
The purpose of this debate, to the contrary, is to create a negative environment in EU-Iran relations and to undermine the efforts at engagement, led by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini.
The initiators of this debate attempt to depict Iran as the only source of all trouble in the Middle East. Although we have disagreements with Iran on a number of issues, it is unacceptable and unrealistic to blame only Iran for all the instability and violence in the region. This debate is about State support of terrorism. No country fits the bill more than Saudi Arabia. This Parliament recognised the Saudi-originated Wahhabism as a key security threat for Europe as far back as in 2013.
Today we voted on a resolution condemning Saudi Arabia for human rights violations and also for the troubling role it plays in the region.
The Commission has just come out with a proposal to include Saudi Arabia in its blacklist of countries that do not do enough to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. The Commission says that Saudi Arabia represents a high risk for the integrity of Europe's financial system. It is absurd to discuss terror threats and not to discuss Saudi Arabia. We need serious debate on this issue and not propaganda events at the service of ideological obsessions.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Mr President, this week Iran noisily celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. During these last 40 years, international terrorism has become a prominent feature of Iran's foreign policy and has produced a bloody history of terror attacks. Iran's theocrats not only use Shia jihadists in Iraq and Syria, and support terrorist organisations like Hezbollah or rebel movements in Yemen, but also spread their radical ideology via their support for religious studies centres and NGOs in the Balkans and, violently, via terrorist plots on European soil to assassinate regime opponents.
Regardless of my support for the negotiations around the Iran nuclear deal and the establishment of mechanisms like the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) special-purpose vehicle, unfortunately I believe that those negotiations and mechanisms do not alter in any way Iran's unacceptable behaviour: its support for terrorism, its willingness to expand its ballistic missile programme and its horrific record of violating human rights. The recent Iranian-backed campaign of assassinations and terror plots on European soil poses a serious threat to our security and must incur targeted consequences diplomatically and economically.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Поздравявам колегата Кьолмел за този въпрос. Няма никакво съмнение, тероризмът трябва да бъде преследван навсякъде. Никой в тази зала няма да подкрепи нито една организация или държава, която поддържа, подкрепя и развива тероризъм. От друга страна съм убеден, че трябва да уважаваме правото на всеки един народ, на всяка една нация да подрежда своя вътрешен ред. Не можем да обвиним една държава, една нация, един народ, едно правителство, да наричаме всички тях терористи. Аз вярвам, че никой не го прави, убеден съм, че не е така.
               

                  Европейският съюз, европейските държави имат огромен търговски и икономически интерес да поддържат добри отношения с Република Иран. Не случайно Германия, Франция и други европейски държави поддържат такива отношения. Аз съм убеден, че трябва да го правим. Заклеймявайки тероризма навсякъде, ние трябва да уважаваме правото на всяка една държава на свой вътрешен ред.
               

Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, gospodine povjereniče, nakon prošlogodišnjeg napada na mirno okupljanje iranske opozicije u Parizu, tragovi terorističkih djela vodili su prema Belgiji, zatim prema Francuskoj, zatim prema Danskoj. Naravno, radi se o prikrivenim diplomatima koji su zapravo pripadnici obavještajnih službi Irana, a nedavno se taj intenzitet njihove aktivnosti osobito mogao primijetiti u Albaniji zbog toga što tamo postoji dio iranske opozicije.
               

                  Mi govorimo o terorizmu, ali možemo govoriti i o ponašanju, nedemokratskom ponašanju iranskih vlasti prema prosvjednicima, napadima na prosvjednike, smanjivanju slobode medija, interneta, zatvaranju. I na kraju, Iran je svjetski prvak po egzekucijama. Stoga bi odnos Europske unije prema onima koji su potencijalni počinitelji terorističkih djela, ali i prema Iranu, općenito trebao biti oštriji.
               

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this has been a useful exchange and I thank the honourable Members for their interventions. From this debate, I conclude that we must continue to use a balanced and comprehensive approach with Iran. We have to address all issues of concern and take measures when required. We can be critical when there are divergences and cooperative when there is mutual interest.
In this regard, we need to use the diplomatic power and instruments of the European Union and its Member States to their full potential in support of preserving and implementing the JCPOA, which is vital for the EU and international security.
I would like to close by signalling once again my appreciation of Parliament's role in facilitating an exchange of views on this issue.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               
18.   A Europe that protects: Clean air for all (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission: ‘Ein Europa, das schützt: Saubere Luft für alle’ von Julie Girling, Seb Dance, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Catherine Bearder, Keith Taylor, Anja Hazekamp, Eleonora Evi im Namen des Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit (O-000138/2018 – B8-0009/2019).
               

Eleonora Evi,
autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario Vella, sono davvero molto onorata oggi di presentare l'interrogazione orale intitolata ‘Un'Europa che protegge: aria pulita per tutti’, a nome della commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare del Parlamento europeo. Ritengo che il dibattito che ci apprestiamo a svolgere oggi, grazie a questa interrogazione, potrà stimolare ulteriormente le iniziative che sono intraprese soprattutto al di fuori di quest'Aula per migliorare la qualità dell'aria a beneficio di tutti. Allo stesso modo io credo che sia molto importante anche la risoluzione, che è legata a questa interrogazione orale, e quindi il messaggio che il Parlamento europeo potrà lanciare a marzo grazie alla sua approvazione durante la prossima plenaria.
               

                  La qualità dell'aria è un tema che suscita sempre maggiore interesse nell'opinione pubblica europea. Stiamo parlando infatti di un problema generalizzato che tocca in maniera tangibile i 500 milioni di cittadini che qui rappresentiamo e che vorrebbero vederlo risolto il prima possibile. Certamente nella società in cui viviamo l'inquinamento atmosferico è motivo di una preoccupazione forte e diffusa, insieme agli eventi meteorologici avversi che si abbattono sul continente con una forza sempre più intensa a causa dei cambiamenti climatici.
               

                  Attualmente, il prezzo pagato per la scarsa qualità dell'aria nelle nostre città in termini di vite umane è più elevato di quello determinato dagli incidenti stradali. Con oltre 400 000 morti premature all'anno, l'inquinamento atmosferico è purtroppo la prima causa ambientale di morti premature in Europa. La situazione particolarmente critica nei contesti urbani, dove vive il maggior numero di cittadini europei. Secondo i dati disponibili, il 19 % della popolazione urbana è continuamente esposto a livelli di polveri sottili al di sopra dei valori limite giornalieri stabiliti dalla normativa dell'Unione. Circa la metà della popolazione europea, inoltre, è esposta a concentrazioni di queste sostanze in maniera superiore rispetto alle raccomandazioni più stringenti stilate fino ad ora dall'Organizzazione mondiale per la sanità. Respirare aria pulita è quindi fondamentale, non solo per tutelare la salute dei nostri concittadini, ma anche per assicurare il mantenimento di un ambiente salubre a beneficio delle generazioni presenti e future.
               

                  La scarsa qualità dell'aria incide in maniera nociva sul mantenimento dei servizi ecosistemici. L'eccesso di azoto atmosferico, in particolare, danneggia l'ecosistema, favorendo l'eutrofizzazione dell'atmosfera e la comparsa delle piogge acide. È proprio per questa ragione che già dall'inizio degli anni Settanta del secolo scorso l'Unione europea ha intrapreso un percorso volto a stabilire delle regole comuni per controllare i rilasci delle sostanze nocive nell'atmosfera e per migliorare quindi la qualità dei combustibili e integrare i requisiti di protezione ambientale nel settore dei trasporti ed in quello della produzione energetica.
               

                  L'inquinamento atmosferico però travalica i confini nazionali ed è per questa ragione che il coordinamento a livello dell'Unione delle azioni che mirano a migliorare la qualità dell'aria assume una rilevanza davvero notevole. Tuttavia, nonostante l'Europa disponga di un quadro legislativo solido e uniforme per combattere l'inquinamento atmosferico, le misure e gli strumenti di politica ambientale adottati negli Stati membri e a livello locale, regionale e nazionale variano enormemente da un contesto all'altro, da uno Stato membro all'altro.
               

                  Il fatto che vi siano problematiche serie relativa all'attuazione della normativa sulla qualità dell'aria è dimostrato dal numero molto elevato di procedure precontenziose avviate negli anni dalla Commissione europea. Oggi sono ben 30 le infrazioni in corso che riguardano la cattiva applicazione delle norme che dovrebbero mettere la salute dei cittadini europei al riparo dall'inquinamento atmosferico. È quindi più che mai necessario agire con urgenza per migliorare l'aria che respiriamo in Europa, assicurando il rispetto degli standard di qualità dell'aria ambiente che il Parlamento europeo e i governi degli Stati membri hanno adottato ormai più di dieci anni fa.
               

                  Il messaggio che rivolgiamo oggi alla Commissione attraverso la nostra interrogazione è proprio questo: le chiediamo di intensificare l'impegno a vigilare attentamente in particolare sull'attuazione della direttiva 2008/50/CE, delle norme che disciplinano le emissioni industriali, di quelle afferenti al settore dei trasporti e all'omologazione dei veicoli. Le chiediamo di considerare seriamente la necessità di fornire risposte alle esigenze concrete delle autorità regionali e locali, che dobbiamo sostenere con forza affinché possano adottare misure efficaci e sistematiche per ridurre le emissioni dei trasporti, anche grazie ad accresciute opportunità di cofinanziamento nell'ambito in particolare dei programmi legati al prossimo Quadro finanziario pluriennale. Infine, le chiediamo di agire nell'ambito della riforma della politica agricola comune, al fine di dare agli agricoltori gli strumenti che possano aiutarli a ridurre le emissioni del loro settore, in particolare quelle dell'ammoniaca, e di affrontare le crescenti preoccupazioni per la salute umana legate all'esposizione al particolato ultrafine.
               

Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, in May of last year the Commission adopted a communication on a Europe that protects clean air for all. In this communication, we outlined the EU clean air policy approach, provided examples of measures to reduce air pollution in the transport, power and heat energy industry, and also in the agricultural sectors.
We also point to initiatives taken to step-up cooperation with Member States, with regions, and also with cities. Against this background let me reply to your five questions.
First on the first question, the Commission has been taking decisive action where it sees persistent exceedances above air quality limit values. It is currently pursuing 30 infringement procedures against 20 Member States for exceedances of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide or sulphur dioxide limit values.
In two cases, the Court of Justice has already ruled against the Member States. The Commission will continue to actively manage the infringement process as fast as possible, including referrals to the court where and when warranted.
With regards to your second question, as you know, the Commission is carrying out a fitness check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives. We initiated this in 2017 and will complete it in the second half of this year. Its findings will be used to inform further reflections on whether these directives continue to provide the appropriate legislative framework to ensure protection from adverse impacts on, and risks to, human health and the environment.
However, as the analysis is not yet over, it would be premature to anticipate now the conclusions the Commission might draw.
Referring to question three, European Union funding under various financial streams has been made available and successfully used by Member States to address the air quality challenge. In the current programing period – that is 2014 to 2020 — EUR 1.8 billion have been directly allocated to support air quality measures under the European Structural and Investment Fund.
In addition, further indirect contributions beneficial to clean air come from investments in the low-carbon economy and environmental protection and resource efficiency, or in the transport network infrastructure.
More specifically, to support regions and cities, in the urban agenda for the EU there have been innovative actions to further facilitate addressing air pollution in urban areas where transport is one of the main sources of air pollution.
Looking ahead for the period post-2020, the Commission has proposed under the Cohesion Policy a particular emphasis on a green low carbon Europe including a specific result indicator on population benefiting from measures for air quality.
On question number four, the agricultural sector is an important source of ammonia emissions, which in turn are a key precursor to particulate matter. Measures to mitigate these emissions include agronomic measures, livestock measures, or energy production measures. They are already available, technically and economical viable, and should be applied more widely.
According to the Commission's proposal for a new Common Agricultural Policy after 2020, one of the impact indicators to assess the performance of this policy explicitly refers to the ammonia emissions from agriculture. To be more specific, a result indicator will measure the share of agricultural land under commitments to reduce ammonia emissions.
On the fifth question, EU legislation sets objectives for ambient air quality, taking into account the relevant scientific information provided via the World Health Organisation, which is the World's leading authority on health matters. Their air quality guidelines establish the most authoritative, scientific basis to date. The World Health Organisation keeps the scientific basis under regular review, including ultra-fine particles and black carbon.
In addition, it is currently working towards an update of these air quality guidelines. The Commission is following this work very closely.

José Inácio Faria,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his excellent replies. According to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, more than 100 million Europeans suffer from allergic rhinitis and 70 million from asthma. Also, the European Respiratory Society has warned that even short-term increases in air pollution have been associated with respiratory symptoms and temporary decreases in lung function. In projections by the OECD, air pollution will be the biggest environmental cause of premature deaths by 2050. Millions of Europeans live in areas where simply breathing the air around them is damaging to their health, and these effects should not be underestimated.
Air pollution can reduced lifespans and cause serious heart and lung disease. The pollutants of most concern for human health across Europe are airborne particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone. These pollutants increase the death rate, especially in sensitive population groups such as the elderly and those suffering from respiratory diseases. Despite these health impacts, current EU legislation permits levels of damaging pollutants higher than those recommended by the World Health Organisation. What still needs to be done?
Member States should reinforce their efforts to tackle sources of pollution from all sectors. States also need to improve cooperation on cross-border pollution, make air quality an integral part of their policies, and ensure that the correct level of governance – national, regional or municipal – is equipped to tackle sources of pollution.
I recently hosted an exhibition in Parliament celebrating Lisbon as 2020 European Green Capital, a designation for which one of the 12 criteria evaluated was air quality. In the past 10 years, Lisbon has shown a significant decrease in emissions from most pollutants, resulting in a significant improvement in air quality. By limiting polluting vehicles in the city, without reducing mobility, and by planning green corridors that act as a ventilation system, Lisbon was able to achieve its aim on air quality.
Commissioner, we need more examples like Lisbon and we need national strategies for air quality.

Der Präsident. – Ich weiß, dass für alle die Redezeit sehr kurz ist. Es wäre sehr gut, wenn man Reden vorbereitet, dass man sie nicht zu schnell liest, sonst kommen die Dolmetscher in Schwierigkeiten.
               

Christel Schaldemose,
for S&D-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Tak, hr. formand, og også tak, hr. kommissær, for svarene på vores spørgsmål. Jeg vil gerne indrømme, at jeg måske er en lille bitte smule skuffet. Jeg er ikke i tvivl om, at den nuværende Kommission er optaget af luftkvaliteten og gør noget, men jeg synes også, vi har brug for at få markeret endnu tydeligere, hvad det er, der er brug for skal ske. Luftforurening dræber – jeg gentager: luftforurening dræber! Vurderingen er, at der hver evig eneste år her i EU er 4 000 000 af vores borgere, der dør før tid som følge af luftforurening. Det er dybt alvorligt, det her! Derfor er der også brug for, at vi gør noget. Jeg anerkender fuldt ud det, Kommissionen har gjort, men vi har også brug for at gøre rigtig meget mere. Vi skal turde tale om de svære ting ved dette her. Hvad er det, der er svært? Jo, vi har brug for at gøre opmærksom på, at landbruget for eksempel også skal bidrage. Landbruget skal reducere deres luftforurening, både i forhold til CO2, ammoniak og metangasser. Landbruget er desværre en væsentlig del af vores problem. Vi skal turde tale om dette her, vi skal turde tale om at bruge vores landbrugspolitik og vores landbrugsstøtte til at presse landbruget til at bidrage til løsningen. Så er der også transportsektoren. Den er stadigvæk også en del af dette. Og ja, vi har heldigvis meget lovgivning undervejs. Vi har gjort noget, men vi kan gøre endnu mere. Der er stadig masser at følge op på oven på Dieselgate, der er stadigvæk – er det 11 medlemslande, der bedt om at få lov at forurene noget mere, at få sat deres grænseværdier op. Det er altså ikke i orden! Vi har brug for at stramme op, også i forhold til transportsektoren. Vi bliver nødt til også at give vores byer i Europa mulighed for at gøre mere. Heldigvis ved jeg godt, at Kommissionen også bakker op om det, men vi har brug for at sikre, at byerne har ret til også at lave miljøzoner og gøre alle mulig tiltag for at beskytte deres borgere i byerne mod denne meget skadelige forurening. Jeg håber, at den nuværende Kommission vil være med til at lægge et rigtig godt grundlag, så vi også i de kommende fem år virkelig for alvor kan få taget fat på dette luftforureningsproblem. Vi skal sørge for, at luftforureningen bliver så reduceret, at folk ikke dør af det.
               

Bernd Kölmel,
im Namen der ECR-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die Debatte steht unter der Überschrift ‘Saubere Luft für alle’ – wer würde da nicht zustimmen! Aber wir müssen doch genau bei solchen Themen aufpassen, dass wir nicht das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten.
               

                  Im Jahr 2008 hat dieses Parlament für Grenzwerte gestimmt, zum Beispiel für den Bereich Stickstoffdioxyd. Da wurde für den öffentlichen Verkehrsbereich 40 Mikrogramm je Kubikmeter Luft festgelegt. Das war letztlich ein gegriffener Wert. Das muss man mal ganz deutlich so sagen. Und dieser Wert ist deshalb gegriffen und damit im Prinzip nichtssagend, weil wir für viele Bereiche andere Grenzwerte haben. Wie kann man sich erklären, dass man für den öffentlichen Verkehrsbereich 40 Mikrogramm festlegt, aber am Arbeitsplatz sind 950 Mikrogramm zulässig? Da stimmt doch was nicht! Und wenn ich heutzutage jetzt Berichte lese, dass ich in meinem Haus an Weihnachten weit über 100 Mikrogramm dieses Stoffes in meiner Atemluft hatte, weil ich vier Weihnachtskerzen brennen hatte, dann muss das zu denken geben.
               

                  Ich behaupte, wir sind hier auf einer Ebene unterwegs, die sich mit Fakten nicht belegen lässt. Und ich muss gestehen, ich kann auch überhaupt nicht nachvollziehen, dass die Vorredner gesagt haben ‘Es sterben so und so viele Menschen vorzeitig, weil wir verschiedene Giftstoffe in der Luft haben’. Fakt ist doch Gott sei Dank: Die Menschen werden immer älter. Das ist ja schön so! Aber wie kann man denn dann ableiten, dass wir ganz viele vorzeitige Todesfälle haben, die wissenschaftlich überhaupt nicht belegbar sind?
               

                  Normalerweise berufen wir uns gerne auf Kalifornien, das sehr hohe Umweltstandards hat. Aber selbst Kalifornien hat einen Grenzwert für Stickstoffdioxid, der um 40 % höher ist als der in der EU. Wir sollten uns stattdessen mal tatsächlich wieder das Pareto-Prinzip vor Augen führen. Der gleichnamige italienische Wissenschaftler hatte schon im Mittelalter festgestellt, dass man für die Erreichung der ersten 80 % einer Problemlösung genauso viel Aufwand braucht wie für die letzten 20 %.
               

Ivan Jakovčić,
u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospodine predsjedavajući, gospodine povjereniče, htio bih Vas pitati, znate li da su Bruxelles i Strasbourg, dva grada u kojima živimo i radimo, među najzagađenijim gradovima? Hajmo za početak na zgradu Parlamenta u Bruxellesu i ovdje staviti mjerne jedinice i displeje za te mjerne jedinice. Da mi krenemo od sebe samih jer ja kad gledam ove džogere i bicikliste po Bruxellesu kako trče i kako udišu taj zrak, žao mi ih je. Zato mislim da bi bilo dobro da baš u Bruxellesu i Strasbourgu, gdje mi radimo i živimo, imamo prve prave, jasne mjerne stanice. Ja sam se nekada bavio time i Labin u Istri ima mjernu stanicu, i to na zgradi općine, upravo zato da bi građani znali kakav zrak imaju oko sebe. Krenimo od Europskog parlamenta, od zgrade Europskog parlamenta u Bruxellesu i Strasbourgu.
               

                  Dodat ću još dva problema.
               

                  Prekogranično zagađenje. U Hrvatskoj imamo konkretno prekogranično zagađenje iz Bosne i Hercegovine. Slavonski je Brod često toliko zagađen da ljudi naprosto ne izlaze na ulicu. Učinimo nešto.
               

                  Poljoprivreda, slažem se, je dodatni problem. Motivirajmo biodinamičku poljoprivredu, motivirajmo bio-poljoprivredu i bit će manje problema.
               

Paloma López Bermejo,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, decía George Orwell que hemos caído tan bajo que reformular lo obvio es la primera obligación de una persona inteligente. Debatir sobre el aire limpio y la necesidad de vivir en entornos no contaminados corresponde a este estado de obviedad incuestionable para todos.
               

                  Según la Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente, la contaminación atmosférica es responsable de 422 000 muertes prematuras cada año. El impacto económico es considerable: 4 000 millones en gastos de salud y más de 3 000 millones en pérdidas de rendimiento de cultivos agrícolas. Probablemente el impacto en términos medioambientales sea aún mayor si tenemos en consideración hechos de difícil cuantificación: el impacto de la lluvia ácida sobre los suelos, la pérdida de la biodiversidad producida por la contaminación, la contaminación de los recursos hídricos, y así un largo etcétera.
               

                  Los causantes de estos procesos son suficientemente conocidos. Entre ellos, un primero y principal es el tráfico por carretera y en las ciudades. De hecho, resulta preocupante saber que más del 76 % de la población europea vive en ciudades expuestas a índices de contaminación superiores a los baremos máximos permitidos.
               

                  Nosotros compartimos y apoyamos los esfuerzos de la Comisión en esta materia, a través del programa ‘Aire limpio para Europa’, pero la realidad de los datos muestra tozudamente el alejamiento de las perspectivas iniciales en una dirección claramente negativa. Compete a los Estados, a las entidades regionales, y especialmente a las entidades locales, incrementar los esfuerzos en esta materia.
               

                  Pero cuando llegamos al momento en que las autoridades se comprometen con este tema y se disponen a luchar contra la contaminación atmosférica surgen los intereses de siempre y los representantes políticos de esos intereses. Por ejemplo, Madrid. La oposición y la hostilidad que se está demostrando frente al proyecto Plan A, de lucha contra la contaminación, es verdaderamente lamentable. El Partido Popular, que gobierna en la Comunidad de Madrid, se está oponiendo a que se reduzca precisamente la contaminación en un 20,4 %, que es lo que ya se ha hecho en el primer mes de vigencia del Plan.
               

                  Desde luego, estamos en una situación en la que hay que pasar de los enunciados amables a los hechos, de las declaraciones huecas a las políticas públicas comprometidas, y señalar a aquellos que sirven a los intereses de las industrias y son responsables también de forma indirecta de la muerte de casi medio millón de europeos cada año.
               

Eleonora Evi,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io riprendo la parola in questo dibattito, adesso a nome del mio gruppo politico e del Movimento 5 Stelle, perché ritengo che questo sia un tema fondamentale e il diritto a respirare aria pulita è purtroppo negato a molti, moltissimi cittadini in Europa e nel mondo.
               

                  Quello di respirare aria pulita oggi non è soltanto una realtà, ma dovrebbe essere un obiettivo a cui aspirare e per il quale la politica deve fare di più. Deve fare di più perché appunto nel mondo muoiono oltre 4,2 milioni di persone all'anno a causa dell'inquinamento atmosferico e, secondo i dati dell'OMS, il 91 % della popolazione globale vive in luoghi dove la qualità dell'aria è appunto inferiore agli standard.
               

                  Per quanto riguarda i dati dell'Europa ne abbiamo parlato prima. La situazione è sicuramente grave e quindi bisogna fare di più. Io personalmente vengo da una regione, dalla Lombardia e in particolare dal Nord Milano, che ha la maglia nera a causa dell'inquinamento atmosferico per i superamenti e le concentrazioni altissime di polveri sottili e di ossidi di azoto, e questo perché i cittadini subiscono delle scelte scellerate di un governo regionale che guarda purtroppo ad interessi particolari e privati rispetto al bene collettivo e alla tutela dell'interesse collettivo. Abbiamo visto per troppe volte sacrificare il diritto di respirare aria pulita sull'altare di progetti infrastrutturali enormi, inutili, che guardano appunto a interessi privati, facendo scempio dell'ambiente. Abbiamo mutilato il nostro territorio e distrutto delle aree bellissime che sono anche presenti in Lombardia. Abbiamo un'agricoltura industriale e un allevamento intensivo e vi sono alcune città dove ci sono molti più animali che uomini.
               

                  Io, come cittadina e portavoce del Movimento 5 Stelle, però penso che non tutto sia perduto, che un'Europa che protegge può essere possibile e deve essere ricercata e deve essere costruita insieme. Noi lo dimostriamo attraverso l'azione legislativa che portiamo avanti sia a Bruxelles che a Roma, sostenendo una trasformazione equa ma ambiziosa di molti settori, penso a quello automobilistico e a quello dei trasporti, cercando di incardinarli il più possibile su un modello di diffusione di veicoli a zero e basse emissioni e il trasporto pubblico locale.
               

                  Io la ringrazio, signor Commissario, anche per i dialoghi sull'aria pulita che lei ha introdotto e la ringrazio anche per aver preso posizione contro i difensori del diesel che ultimamente hanno fatto veramente…
               

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já si myslím, že zde bylo už jasně řečeno, jakým velkým problémem je nekvalita ovzduší. Jestli ročně umírá 400 000 lidí nebo méně, to je v zásadě jedno, je to obrovský problém, obrovský problém Evropy a musíme ho tedy řešit.
               

                  Co je důležité a co je třeba říci a řekl to už pan komisař, že se v tuto chvíli dělá revize směrnice, která řeší otázky kvality vnějšího ovzduší. Já se velmi těším na tu zprávu, která má být, pane komisaři, v tomto roce, abychom viděli, jak tato směrnice funguje a kde tedy Komise předpokládá její vylepšení. Pravděpodobně to bude práce pro novou Komisi, která vzejde na základě evropských voleb. Měl by to být klíčový úkol, určitě ekologická témata budou předmětem i volební kampaně na jaře tohoto roku a příští Komise by tedy měla vyhodnocení současné právní úpravy vzít v potaz a navrhnout konkrétní řešení.
               

                  Je ale třeba také říci, že ta současná úprava, která – jak řekla většina kolegů –, není dostatečná, tak ji ne všechny země naplňují. Podle poslední zprávy 18 členských států v tuto chvíli neplní emisní limity, které jsou již stanovené. A to je velký problém. Máme nějakou právní úpravu, kterou chceme vylepšit, ale musíme si přiznat, že ta současná právní úprava není naplňovaná. A tady já si myslím, že buď můžeme jít cestou, že se budeme obracet na Evropský soudní dvůr a budeme žalovat jednotlivé státy, ale to bude trvat roky a nic to nevyřeší, nebo je třeba asi silnější politický dialog mezi členskými státy a mezi Evropskou komisí a větší nabádání k tomu, aby členské státy více plnily limity, které v tuto chvíli již platí. Pokud vymyslíme novou lepší legislativu, ale nebudou ji členské státy naplňovat, tak budeme pořád v problému, který tady je. Téměř půl milionu úmrtí ročně díky špinavému ovzduší. Takže, prosím, Komise nechť navrhne nové změny, ale ať také tlačí na členské státy, ať plní to, co dnes už je závazné.
               

Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wśród wielu problemów, jakie wymagają rozwiązania, jest zanieczyszczenie powietrza wraz z wpływem na zmiany klimatu, pogorszenie zdrowia, zwłaszcza mieszkańców obszarów sąsiadujących z portami lotniczymi. Wykazano, że z powodu wysokich stężeń PM2,5 oraz ozonu troposferycznego emitowanych przez lotniska na obszarach zabudowanych każdego roku umiera 5 tyś. osób mieszkających w promieniu 20 kilometrów. Zwłaszcza w ostatnich latach szybki rozwój transportu lotniczego oddziaływa negatywnie zarówno w skali lokalnej, jak i globalnej. Poza hałasem, wytwarzaniem szkodliwych pyłów, tlenków azotu, tlenku siarki, generuje 2% światowej emisji gazów cieplarnianych, co znajduje potwierdzenie na mapie światowych połączeń lotniczych, gdzie przodują przede wszystkim USA, Europa Zachodnia i Azja z Japonią. Jako środki zaradcze podawane są wprowadzenie nowych paliw, optymalizacja przelotów, instalowanie bardziej sprawnych silników ze zmianami konstrukcyjnymi w budowie kadłubów samolotów, ale także oczywiście zasady sytuowania lotnisk.
               

Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, gospodine povjereniče, zahvaljujem kolegama koji su postavili ovo pitanje o čistome zraku i jednako tako pozdravljam komunikaciju Komisije ‘Čisti zrak za sve’.
               

                  U prijedlogu pitanja govori se o lakšem pristupu regionalnih i lokalnih jedinica financijskim fondovima radi borbe protiv emisija iz prometa, ali mislim da nema potrebe da se ograničavamo samo na emisije iz prometa. Emisije iz zgrada za grijanje i hlađenje, emisije iz energetskih postrojenja, emisije iz industrije također su vrlo visoke. Mislim da njih također treba staviti u ovo pitanje, odnosno zahtijevati odgovor. Mislim da će trebati mijenjati direktivu u najmanju ruku da se uskladi s novim energetskim zakonima koje smo usvojili ove godine i u najmanju ruku u pogledu mjerenja izvješćivanja u pogledu zagađenja zraka.
               

                  Htio bih skrenuti pozornost na poseban problem s kojim se susreće zapadni Balkan. Gradovi Sarajevo i Skopje u pojedinim dijelovima godine su najzagađeniji gradovi, ne Europe, nego svijeta. Tamo postoji 16 termoelektrana koje rade na ugljen sa zastarjelim tehnologijama, a planiraju se i nove, također sa zastarjelim tehnologijama. To naravno utječe na zdravlje ljudi koji tamo žive, ali i na zdravlje građana u susjednim zemljama članicama Europske unije. Stoga bi dakle trebalo poštivati visoke standarde, ali i pomoći tim zemljama da i same poštuju visoke standarde čistoće zraka.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Поздравявам първо колегата Еви за този въпрос, той е важен, защото засяга здравето на страшно много хора. От мръсен въздух се разболяват, боледуват, губят живота си страшно много хора. Но бих искал да ви обърна внимание на една от причините за замърсяване на въздуха, а това именно е горенето на гуми, гащи, парцали и всякакви други боклуци в редица цигански махали в много държави от Източна и Централна Европа. Това е огромен проблем, който никъде не се признава, за него не се говори. Замита се под килима.
               

                  Тук вие гласувате разни резолюции, които засягат говора на омраза, не знам какво си, но никой не споменава важните проблеми, а те са че в тези махали, в тези катуни се горят различни материали, които замърсяват въздуха и тровят хората. На това трябва да бъде обърнато сериозно внимание. Ако искаме да говорим за чистотата на въздуха, трябва да започнем и от циганските махали. Това е важен въпрос.
               

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you, colleagues, for putting the issue of clean air for all on the agenda. It is one of the most important environmental and health challenges of our time. Our citizens expect us to solve this issue and ensure that the air we breathe every day is of good quality and does not leave us at risk of harm. And they expect us to solve this together.
With regard to the implementation, this Commission has been very active in promoting air quality and supporting a shift to cleaner air, as recently recalled in the ‘Clean air for all’ communication of last May. As in every piece of legislation, implementation is more than important – it is key.
The Commission expects all Member States to take all necessary measures to achieve compliance with EU air quality limits as soon as possible. The limit of 40 milligrams per cubic metre of NO2 as an annual average is an EU-wide obligation and has been agreed by all Member States.
This obligation must be complied with by all Member States for the benefit of all our citizens. And here I would like to refer to our current air quality standards. Some say they are too strict and others say they are not strict enough. Ultimately there can only be one test. Do they meet the goal of protecting human health and the environment as a whole from the risk of adverse impacts? And to assess this, there can only be one yardstick. The best available and thoroughly peer-reviewed scientific advice.
Regarding agriculture, the contribution of agriculture to the issue of ammonia emissions has, I agree, to be addressed as well. Through the NEC (National Emissions Ceiling) Directive we have started to do just that.
On monitoring stations across the European Union, around 4 000 monitoring stations provide us with reliable, credible and comparable information on air quality, often in almost real time. We see no systematic shortcomings in the way the criteria to establish monitoring that works as set out in the directives have been applied. But when we see that monitoring is not done in line with the requirements of the directives, the Commission has to act and will continue to act.
Allow me to conclude with a final reference to our ongoing fitness check, which we will conclude this year. This will provide us with a basis to reflect on whether we have the appropriate legislative framework in place, including sufficiently stringent limit values and suitably clear criteria to guide our monitoring networks, to ensure protection from adverse impacts on, and the risks to, human health and the environment. And, finally, to really deliver a Europe that protects.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet während der nächsten Tagung statt.
               
19.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted: see Minutes
20.   Dates of forthcoming sittings : see Minutes
21.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.55 Uhr geschlossen.)

22.   Adjournment of the session

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


ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)