Verbatim report of proceedings of 25 March 2019
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202403828EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














20.6.2024







            25 March 2019
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 25 MARCH 2019
            
         
(C/2024/3828)

Contents







1.

Resumption of the session
3










2.

Opening of the sitting
3










3.

Statements by the President
3










4.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
4










5.

Request for the defence of immunity: see Minutes
4










6.

Announcement by the President : see Minutes
4










7.

Corrigenda (Rule 231): see Minutes
4










8.

Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 78): see Minutes
4










9.

Documents received: see Minutes
4










10.

Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
4










11.

Major interpellations (Rule 130b) (submission): see Minutes
4










12.

Order of business
4










13.

Report on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (debate)
8










14.

Situation of rule of law and the fight against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and Slovakia (debate)
25










15.

Discontinuing seasonal changes of time (debate)
34










16.

Common rules for the internal market for electricity – Internal market for electricity – European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators – Risk-preparedness in the electricity sector (debate)
47










17.

Representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (debate)
57










18.

Recent developments on the Dieselgate scandal (debate)
62










19.

Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters (debate)
68










20.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
71










21.

Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
75










22.

Closure of the sitting
75




Verbatim report of proceedings of 25 March 2019
                  


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI


Presidente

1.   Resumption of the session

Presidente. – Dichiaro ripresa la sessione del Parlamento europeo interrotta giovedì 14 marzo 2019.
               
2.   Opening of the sitting

(La seduta è aperta alle 17.06)

3.   Statements by the President

Presidente. – Onorevoli colleghi, prima di riprendere i lavori vorrei ricordare le vittime del vile attentato di lunedì scorso ad Utrecht, nei Paesi Bassi, un attentato che ha provocato tre morti e cinque feriti. Ho già espresso il nostro cordoglio al Primo ministro olandese, Mark Rutte, durante la riunione del Consiglio europeo della scorsa settimana. Oggi colgo l'occasione per esprimere le condoglianze dell'intera Aula al popolo olandese e alle famiglie delle vittime di questo terribile attentato che ci rattrista profondamente.
               

                  Non possiamo non ricordare, inoltre, le vittime della strage di Christchurch, in Nuova Zelanda, un attentato in cui hanno perso la vita cinquanta persone, assassinate ferocemente mentre erano raccolte in preghiera in due moschee.
               

                  Questi episodi ci ricordano una volta di più che non dobbiamo abbassare la guardia davanti all'odio razziale e religioso: se vogliamo difendere i nostri valori e la nostra libertà da queste barbarie, dobbiamo raddoppiare gli sforzi contro ogni forma di violenza e di discriminazione razziale.
               

                  Esprimiamo anche la nostra solidarietà e vicinanza alle vittime del tifone Idai, che ha colpito lo Zimbabwe, il Malawi e soprattutto il Mozambico, dove ha causato molte vittime e devastazioni tremende.
               

                  Infine, oggi ricorre il settantesimo anniversario della deportazione di massa dai paesi baltici, che ebbero inizio proprio il 25 marzo del 1949: in pochi giorni vennero deportati nei campi di prigionia siberiani 32 000 cittadini lituani, 42 000 lettoni e 21 000 estoni, per la maggior parte donne e bambini. L'operazione Priboi fu un terribile crimine contro l'umanità, come stabilito dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo.
               

                  E visto che siamo costretti, ancora una volta, a ricordare tante vittime innocenti, vi invito, come richiesto da alcuni parlamentari, richiesta che io condivido, a osservare un minuto di silenzio per le vittime di questi tragici eventi.
               

(Il Parlamento, in piedi, osserva un minuto di silenzio)

4.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

Presidente. – Il processo verbale della seduta del 14 marzo e i testi approvati sono stati distribuiti.
               

                  Vi sono osservazioni?
               

Antanas Guoga (PPE). – Mr President, [inaudible] to speak on CNN to ask Jeff Bezos of Amazon to delete Soviet memorabilia on Amazon. The European Parliament should make a statement for Soviet memorabilia to disappear from Amazon; for Soviet repression to be respected, as Nazi repression. It's time to wake up. Please, Mr President, the European people want to know the truth – the truth of the Soviet repression.

Presidente. – Avevo chiesto se vi fossero osservazioni sul processo verbale.
               

                  Dichiaro approvato il processo verbale della seduta del 14 marzo 2019.
               
5.   Request for the defence of immunity: see Minutes
6.   Announcement by the President : see Minutes
7.   Corrigenda (Rule 231): see Minutes
8.   Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 78): see Minutes
9.   Documents received: see Minutes
10.   Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
11.   Major interpellations (Rule 130b) (submission): see Minutes
12.   Order of business

Presidente. – Il progetto definitivo di ordine del giorno, fissato dalla Conferenza dei presidenti, ai sensi dell'articolo 149 del regolamento, nella riunione del 21 marzo 2019, è stato distribuito. Sono state presentate le seguenti proposte di modifica:
               






 



Lunedì











 



                        Il gruppo ALDE ha chiesto che la discussione sull'interrogazione orale relativa alla situazione dello Stato di diritto e la lotta alla corruzione nell'Unione, in particolare a Malta e in Slovacchia, si concluda con una risoluzione della commissione LIBE che sarà votata giovedì.
                     





Sophia in 't Veld,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, indeed we are going to have a debate later today on the oral question that you just mentioned. A vote on this was originally foreseen on Thursday, but that has been taken off the agenda, and we feel that the two should be together. We have a debate and then it should be concluded with a vote.

Monika Smolková (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. Ja chcem poprosiť ctené kolegyne, ctených kolegov, keby sme mohli toto hlasovanie posunúť na budúci týždeň, z jediného dôvodu. U nás na Slovensku sa v sobotu koná druhé kolo prezidentských volieb a obávame sa, aby ani náhodou nemohol byť návrh uznesenia zneužitý buď pre jednu alebo pre druhú stranu. Chcem vás veľmi pekne poprosiť. V kampani máme dvoch proeurópskych kandidátov a bolo by veľmi nešťastné, keby sa čo len náznak z uznesenia prejavil v kampani. Myslím si, že sa nič nestane, keď o tom budeme hlasovať na budúci týždeň.
               

Sophia in 't Veld,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I know there are elections coming up, but I don't think that we should be quiet whenever there are elections. As you rightly said, there will also be European elections shortly, which would mean that we cannot say anything about any country anymore.
The resolution is extremely balanced and factual and I fail to see how that would be unduly influencing the elections. I really do not think there is any risk. The resolution is partly critical, but it also establishes that progress is being made, in particular in the two countries that you mentioned, so I really don't think that there is a risk. This is a non-political issue. The resolution has already been voted on in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and that was before the first round of elections in Slovakia. So I really don't think that there is a risk, and we should not politicise these matters by taking it off the agenda. By leaving it on the agenda and voting on Thursday as foreseen, we show that the rule of law is not partisan, it doesn't belong to any particular Member State, and it is universal. I think that's what we should express.

(Applause)


Monika Smolková (S&D). – Ja nehovorím, že nemáme diskutovať. Diskutujme. Ja nechcem stiahnuť bod z programu. Ja chcem len posunúť hlasovanie na budúci týždeň. Pani kolegyňa, vy nežijete na Slovensku. Neviete, aké všetky témy sa dostávajú pri prezidentskej kampani. V dobrej vôli a v dobrej viere vás chcem požiadať. Ako sa rozhodnete – ale skutočne vás chcem požiadať. Ďakujem.
               

Presidente. – Mi pare che il gruppo ALDE non sia favorevole a tenere la discussione e quindi a spostare il voto. Quindi procediamo alla votazione – e sarà l'Aula a decidere – se, come propone il gruppo ALDE, si debba avere una discussione sullo Stato di diritto e la corruzione a Malta e in Slovacchia con votazione giovedì.
               

(Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta)


Martedì


                  A norma dell'articolo 113, paragrafo 6, del regolamento i gruppi ENF e GUE hanno presentato un'obiezione alla relazione dell'on. Hilde Vautmans sulla decisione che istituisce uno strumento europeo per la pace. Il termine per la presentazione di emendamenti è martedì alle 13 e la votazione avrà luogo giovedì.
               

                  Propongo che la discussione si svolga mercoledì come ultimo punto all'ordine del giorno. Vi sono obiezioni?
               

(Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta)


                  Il gruppo ENF ha chiesto di aggiungere come secondo punto della mattinata le dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sulla sentenza del Tribunale che annulla la decisione della Commissione del 23 dicembre 2015 relativa all'aiuto di Stato concesso dall'Italia a favore di Banca Tercas. Di conseguenza la seduta inizierebbe alle ore 8.30.
               

Marco Zanni,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come lei ha spiegato, chiediamo che su questa tematica e decisione importante, che ha avuto un impatto devastante in termini di risparmi bruciati nonché di effetto sulla fiducia nel sistema bancario italiano ed europeo, la Commissione si confronti con quest'Aula.
               

                  Ci sono centinaia di migliaia di cittadini che aspettano una risposta, dopo quattro anni, dopo aver subito gli effetti nefasti di questa decisione della Commissione, che pochi giorni fa il Tribunale ha definito illegittima.
               

                  Ci aspettiamo una discussione e una risposta ed è necessario che in un confronto con l'Aula emergano anche le responsabilità che hanno portato a questo sfacelo. Chiedo che la richiesta venga posta in votazione con appello nominale.
               

Presidente. – C'è qualcuno che vuole esprimersi contro la proposta del gruppo ENF? Procediamo alla votazione sulla richiesta di inserire una discussione che dovrebbe iniziare alle 8.30 di martedì sulla sentenza del Tribunale che annulla la decisione della Commissione del 2015 relativa all'aiuto di Stato concesso dall'Italia a favore di Banca Tercas.
               

(Il Parlamento respinge la richiesta)


Mercoledì


                  Ci saranno adesso delle richieste per quanto riguarda il pacchetto mobilità.
               

                  Prima delle richieste volevo informarvi che, in seguito alla decisione della Conferenza dei Presidenti di fissare un termine per la presentazione di emendamenti entro venerdì scorso alle 13, i servizi della Plenaria, i giuristi linguisti e i traduttori hanno lavorato giorno e notte per tutto il fine settimana per garantire la pubblicazione di quasi mille emendamenti e la preparazione delle votazioni.
               

                  Vi informo che tutti gli emendamenti dovrebbero essere disponibili sul sito web entro le 17.30 di oggi in lingua inglese. Nelle altre lingue saranno disponibili nel corso del pomeriggio di domani. Le liste di voto, invece, saranno disponibili questa sera.
               

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, this is about a Tuesday vote we are going to have on the discharge. On the vote on the Commission's discharge report there are a couple of amendments tabled, mainly by our friends from the S&D Group, about the Commission Secretary-General's position. One of those amendments you have deemed admissible. However, you have said that another one, which talks about what the consequences should be for the position of Mr Selmayr, is inadmissible. If I read Rule 170 where you can judge whether something is admissible, I fail to see how you can judge that this is inadmissible. This is a political decision which should be left to the House. Therefore, I urge you to recall your decision in calling this amendment inadmissible and let the House vote on it tomorrow.

(Applause)


Presidente. – Per quanto riguarda la questione Selmayr, ho chiesto ai servizi di effettuare un controllo sull'ammissibilità e inammissibilità degli emendamenti. Le risposte che ho avuto e che ho condiviso mi hanno portato a decidere a favore dell'ammissibilità dell'emendamento che riguarda la richiesta di dimissioni del Segretario generale della Commissione, perché questa è una richiesta politica da parte degli estensori dell'emendamento. Poi l'Aula, sovrana, deciderà il da farsi. L'altro emendamento metteva in diretta connessione il suicidio di una povera funzionaria. (Cenni di diniego da parte dell'on. Eickhout) … E allora a quale emendamento si riferisce?
               

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, it's true there was another amendment about suicide and that was ruled inadmissible. I am not referring to that, because I see the reasons why that could be called inadmissible. Here I am referring to an amendment creating paragraph 258(d), where the amendment says: ‘Given this new and serious situation, and recalling each recommendation on discharge for 2016, urges the European Commission to take the necessary action to amend definitely the unbearable position of the current Secretary-General, and this for all EU institutions’. So this is still about the position of the Secretary-General and, as you just said, that is a political decision and should be left to the House. One part you leave to the House; this part not, and I think you have already just given the answer as to why this part also should be left to the House. I urge you to please leave it to the House.

Presidente. – L'emendamento a cui lei fa riferimento è direttamente correlato all'emendamento sul suicidio, ragion per cui i servizi che ho incaricato di effettuare un controllo mi hanno detto che a loro giudizio si trattava di un emendamento inammissibile e quindi anch'io l'ho ritenuto inammissibile. Poi, sul voto politico – e ripeto, sul voto politico – inerente alle dimissioni del Segretario generale l'Aula si esprimerà.
               

                  *
               

                  **
               

                  Un gruppo di deputati che raggiungono almeno la soglia bassa e i gruppi ECR ed EFDD hanno chiesto che la discussione sul pacchetto Mobilità comprendente tre relazioni di Ismail Ertug, Merja Kyllönen e Wim van de Camp siano ritirate dall'ordine del giorno.
               

Андрей Новаков,
от името на брой членове на ЕП, достигащи поне ниския праг. – Yважаеми г-н Председател, скъпи колеги, на края на този мандат Европейският парламент е на път да направи една от най-големите си грешки, а именно да допусне пакет, който три пъти е отхвърлян, да бъде гласуван за четвърти път без да имаме време да видим нито един компромис, нито едно споразумение. Това ще прилича на хвърляне на зарове.
               

                  Хиляда и шестстотин поправки са гаранция за пълна бъркотия. Гласувайте в подкрепа отпадането на пакет ‘Мобилност’ и спасете хляба и работата на милиони европейци.
               

Kosma Złotowski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Komisja Transportu rozpatrywała pakiet mobilności. Komisja doszła już kiedyś do porozumienia, ale Parlament Europejski to porozumienie odrzucił. Dzisiaj w przypadku dwóch z trzech sprawozdań nie mamy żadnego porozumienia. Żadna z poprawek w żadnym kształcie przez Komisję Transportu nie przeszła. Czy na tej sali mamy rozstrzygać o 1600 poprawkach w gronie posłów, którzy mają tylko bardzo ogólne pojęcie, czego one dotyczą? Dlatego wnoszę i popieram wniosek o to, aby sprawozdania Wima van de Campa i Merji Kyllönen, które nie uzyskały w komisji żadnej zgody, pozostały w tej kadencji Parlamentu nierozpatrzone.
               

Ismail Ertug,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, I have to say that this is absolutely not the right way to do things, because we have been working now for almost two years on these dossiers, on this Mobility Package One. We have found proper compromises through and around this Parliament, and in order to avoid the miserable situations on the motorways in Europe and to have some legal certainty, we have to vote within this term and here in Strasbourg this week.
We have found a proper solution. I would like to reiterate that once again. There is no need not to vote. It is just a political game by those colleagues who do not want to have the content of these legal issues.
Therefore, I really urge the House to vote this week for the Mobility Package One.

(Applause)


(Il Parlamento respinge la richiesta)


Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, vous avez décidé de mettre à l'ordre du jour le paquet mobilité. J'attire votre attention sur le fait qu'il y a plus de 1 000 amendements qui ne sont pas traduits. Vous avez voté, nous allons respecter votre choix. Mais, maintenant, chacun doit prendre ses responsabilités. Il convient aujourd'hui d'être responsable. Être responsable, ça veut dire quoi? Ça veut dire porter le mieux-disant social pour l'ensemble de nos travailleurs, notamment du routier. Ne faites pas ce que vous avez fait la dernière fois, à savoir essayer d'instrumentaliser ce texte pour que, finalement, nous nous retrouvions sans texte.
               

Antanas Guoga (PPE). – Mr President, the Lithuanian delegation is not here. They would have all voted in favour of delaying this. It's really unfair. We should delay this vote, and you should know this: Lithuania and the small countries of Europe are being hurt by this. Please, Mr President, think about the small countries who are supporting the European course and who are fighting for the European course. You are hurting us with this amendment. Put that on the record.

Presidente. – L'Aula è sovrana. Avevo accennato anche al problema della traduzione e a come sarebbe stato risolto. Poi il Parlamento vota per appello nominale ed è l'Aula, ripeto, a decidere il da farsi.
               

                  Per quanto riguarda la giornata di mercoledì, il gruppo del PPE ha chiesto di aggiungere nel pomeriggio una dichiarazione della Commissione sulle minacce alla sicurezza derivanti dalla rapida diffusione di contenuti terroristici online.
               

Roberta Metsola,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the PPE Group would like to request a Commission statement on the security threats arising from the rapid dissemination of terrorist content online. As you, Mr President, outlined earlier, the horrific scenes in New Zealand and Utrecht, and the fact that they had an immediate global reach, only reinforces the urgency of the situation.
We know only too tragically that our space online is being abused to recruit extremists and fuel hate. We cannot allow any space for terror to flourish online; our online space must be made more secure. The EU is facing a range of terrorist attacks and threats of a violent nature from both network groups and lone actors, all of whom use the internet as a means to communicate, disseminate and recruit. We believe that this is not acceptable. While I know that legislative processes are ongoing, this week must be about sending a strong political signal. It is too important and too urgent to ignore.

Daniel Dalton (ECR). – Mr President, the Christchurch attack reminded us all that we need to do more in this area; we can all agree on that. The question is how. I am the rapporteur of this file. The Commission has already made a legislative proposal on this. We are negotiating it at this moment. At this moment compromises are circling. We are having shadows' meetings. We are going to vote on this in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) next week, and it's going to be discussed in plenary next month. So maybe I won't, but you will all get a chance to debate this at length next month. That is the proper parliamentary process, and we should follow it.
It is not right for the Commission to be able to give a statement to us on their proposal while we are in the midst of negotiating it in committee here. So, whilst I have sympathy with the approach from the European Peoples' Party (PPE), I think that we should reject this request.

Presidente. – Pongo in votazione la richiesta del gruppo del PPE di aggiungere nel pomeriggio di mercoledì una dichiarazione della Commissione sulle minacce alla sicurezza derivanti dalla rapida diffusione di contenuti terroristici online.
               

(Il Parlamento respinge la richiesta del gruppo PPE)


(L'ordine dei lavori è così fissato).
               

IN THE CHAIR: PAVEL TELIČKA


Vice-President

13.   Report on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Jeppe Kofod and Luděk Niedermayer, on behalf of the Special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance, on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (2018/212(INI)) (A8-0170/2019).

Jeppe Kofod,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, this actually is a very, very important debate. We conclude many years of work of this Parliament fighting against tax evasion, tax avoidance and financial crimes. What we have before us is the most comprehensive work done to date by this Parliament in fighting tax evasion and financial crimes and also tax avoidance.
Take the example of tax evasion and avoidance: it costs about EUR 1 trillion a year. That means EUR 2000 per European citizen per year – money that has to go to hospitals, to schools, to ensure that our society has money for the weakest and the most vulnerable people. Tax is stolen, is actually stolen from the most vulnerable people. So, therefore, this fight is so important.
In the European Union we have the biggest single market. We are attracting a lot of money and business, but at the same time, we are not effective in stopping financial crimes and money laundering. Dirty Russian money, a lot of money is coming into our single market without proper detection or prevention, but also without proper law enforcement and also without proper sanctions of the institutions and banks that let us down when we see big money laundering scandals.
In my own country we had the scandal of Danske Bank where money flew through a branch in Estonia, up to EUR 200 billion of suspected money, a lot probably laundered from, for example, Russian oligarchs or criminals, into our single market. We have to detect it and stop it much better. Therefore, in this work we have a lot of good recommendations. First of all, having an effective minimum corporate taxation in Europe is really what we need now in our single market to stop the race to the bottom on corporate taxation. That's the first thing and we will fight for that.
Secondly, we need to end harmful cross-border tax practices by Member States. Some Member States are facilitating this but they should stop doing this, we should have fair taxes in Europe. On money laundering, we need a centralised process where we cooperate between European countries, because today it's too easy to bring your dirty money and make it clean and use it all over Europe. This is a threat to our financial and economic stability. It's a threat to our justice system in Europe and we need to do something about it. For example, we need a centralised Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) that could cooperate and ensure that our national law enforcement really implemented the anti-money laundering legislation we have adopted in this Parliament. We have a problem of implementation.
We also see that when the biggest corporations on this earth, the tech giants, are doing good business here, creating a lot of value in their interaction with European users, they do not pay fair taxes on the value they create. We need to also call on them to pay fair taxes and we need legislation to ensure that that happens. We need a common, consolidated corporate tax base. We need transparency, so we need country-by-country reporting when it comes to corporate taxes so we can also see whether they behave in a socially responsible way. And we need our countries, our Member States, to ensure that they follow the standards they should.
I have to say that it's a big step forward that this Parliament and Commission and Council has taken to make a list of third countries' non-cooperative jurisdictions. But, if you applied some of the same criteria that we use on third countries on European Member States will see that some of them fall short. They also facilitate aggressive tax planning and that had to stop – our own government has to stop this practice that is harming their neighbour, even in the European Union.
Therefore, I think before us we have a very good and comprehensive report but I have to say that a lot has to be done in the future as well. Therefore, I also call for a more permanent structure in this Parliament to deal with taxation and financial crimes. We want to be successful, we want to continue our work. Thank you for your attention.

President. – Thank you, Mr Kofod. Now, for four minutes, the second rapporteur, Mr Niedermayer.

Luděk Niedermayer,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, the report concludes the work of the Special Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance (TAX3) and includes around 300 amendments that aim to close the remaining loopholes in legislation in the area of financial crime and tax evasion, as well as to propose a solution to new issues revealed by the recent scandals and findings. We discuss not only money laundering or tax fraud, but also digitalisation, distances and growing interconnectedness. It seems that existing tax systems are not addressing this issue properly, and we are facing big problems in the area of tax collection. Our report also reflects the previous revelations of the TAX2 and PANA Committees, as well as the work done on the reports, especially the report on increased transparency of corporate taxation that I had the pleasure to prepare for Parliament with Anneliese Dodds.
Since the first initiative of the Parliament in this area, many things have changed. There is an improvement in transparency. We are improving the fairness of taxation and trying to simplify the tax regime and improve cooperation between the Member States in the area of the exchange of information. There has been a significant improvement on a global level. I am not only talking about the BEP Initiative that is introducing new standards in this area globally, but also about upcoming work in the area of digital taxation. As a result of that, we are witnessing an improvement in transparency in taxation all around the world, but we should also be pushing to find good ways to modernise and strengthen tax systems in order to assure the fair collection of taxes.
At the same time, we must ensure that those who pay their fair share of taxes – especially SMEs – are not burdened by excessive red tape and that tax collection itself is not too costly and inefficient. Dramatic changes are also associated with the bigger role of digital taxation, and we must find a new concept of how to deal with the new situation in the economy. It's a pity that the Council is not able to proceed with key initiatives in this area, including the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) and digital taxation. I hope we will play a role in the global economy in an effort to find a good solution to the problems that emerge with the changes in the economy.
I must say that the TAX3 report is also a good example of finding agreement across the political spectrum. I am proud to be a part of finding this agreement. We don't always agree on everything, and this is not surprising. I believe in common solutions in the areas where we cannot find solutions at the level of individual Member States and their governments, but I still believe that a significant part of taxation is the sole responsibility of the Member States and we should respect that, especially if it applies to the setting up of the minimum effective tax rate. I very much support the work of the OECD in this area, but I still don't support the proposal made by Members to create an 18% minimum effective tax rate. I believe that many areas in the area of taxation are within the competence of Member States.
But I would say that, in the majority of cases, we are able to find very strong common ground. I am glad that, after the Council, in cooperation with the Commission, introduced a list of non-cooperative third jurisdictions for tax purposes, the Commission also looked at the EU Member States and evaluated some indicators that suggest that aggressive tax planning is being facilitated by those countries. This is very important.
I also very much appreciate – and I guess we all appreciate – the improved transparency in the work in the Council, especially in the light of changes in the behaviour of the Code of Conduct Group. I hope there will be a growing will among the Council Members to move forward on the most important issues that will improve the functionality of the single market.
Throughout the work of the TAX3 Committee, we dealt with many money-laundering issues. I regret that the Commission had to open the infringement procedure as No Member States transposed the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive properly. Our legal framework is very strong to protect our financial system, but it will only work if it's implemented properly. Unfortunately, we are not moving in this direction.
We also dealt with other issues, especially the issue of golden visas, where the Committee strongly believed that were only very limited, if any, benefits on the side of the Member States that provide this solution. That's why, in our report, we call for golden visas and similar instruments to be banned and for an increase in transparency and due diligence requirements in the meantime before this will be fulfilled.
Let me finish by thanking all my colleagues who worked on this report, especially Mr Kofod, our co-rapporteur, and the other shadow rapporteurs. I especially appreciate the work of the staff members of our teams and the members of Parliament's Secretariat.

Pierre Moscovici,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je suis très heureux de cette opportunité, qui sera probablement la dernière pour moi, dans cette législature, de dresser devant vous le bilan de notre combat commun pour une fiscalité plus juste.
               

                  Je veux d'abord vous remercier et rendre hommage au travail, à la fois gigantesque et minutieux que vous avez mené, et saluer les rapporteurs.
               

                  La commission TAX3 s'est réunie à trente-quatre reprises, a réalisé cinq missions d'enquête, a auditionné des centaines d'experts et a commandé six études sur des sujets spécifiques, qui ont été ensuite méticuleusement analysés. Le rapport dont nous débattons aujourd'hui prolonge le travail de la précédente commission d'enquête PANA et vient conclure un mandat de douze mois.
               

                  Bravo à cette commission et bravo à ce Parlement pour ce très gros travail accompli.
               

                  Au cours de ces quatre dernières années, je pense que nous pouvons dire que nos deux institutions sont devenues des alliés naturels dans le combat pour la justice fiscale.
               

                  Ce dernier rapport trace une feuille de route pour que ce combat, avec un autre Parlement, avec sans doute un autre commissaire, avec une autre Commission en tout cas, se poursuive. J'espère que cela nous inspirera tous.
               

                  Pour ouvrir le débat, je souhaiterais réagir aux recommandations les plus emblématiques du rapport dans le domaine de la lutte contre la fraude et l'évasion fiscale ainsi que le blanchiment de capitaux.
               

                  Je l'ai déjà dit mille fois ici: le système fiscal international n'est plus adapté à la réalité du vingt-et-unième siècle. En effet, ses règles ne permettent pas de saisir le caractère mobile et immatériel des nouveaux modèles économiques, c'est pourquoi il faut le réformer d'urgence.
               

                  Ayant dit cela, je regrette qu'un accord n'ait pas pu être trouvé sur la proposition de taxe sur les services numériques, lors de la réunion du Conseil ‘Ecofin’ du 12 mars dernier. Je pense toutefois que ces travaux ont marqué de bons progrès et que la base de soutien qui, au départ, était extrêmement restreinte, est au final devenue malgré tout extrêmement large.
               

                  J'ajoute qu'ils ont eu un mérite, effectif déjà, qui était d'avoir accéléré les discussions internationales. C'est désormais à ce niveau que le travail va se poursuivre et, naturellement, l'Union européenne et la Commission vont s'y investir.
               

                  Ces discussions vont s'articuler, nous le savons, autour de deux grands piliers, qui iront au-delà de l'économie numérique: la révision des règles d'attribution des profits et des droits taxés et l'instauration de nouvelles règles d'imposition minimum.
               

                  Pour peser dans cette discussion, et c'est la volonté de l'Union, nous devons garder en tête que nous ne sommes pas un simple ensemble de vingt-sept, et qui sait, peut-être vingt-huit États-membres. Nous représentons un marché intégré, riche de 500 millions de consommateurs, avec un pouvoir d'achat en moyenne très élevé et c'est là notre atout sur la scène mondiale.
               

                  C'est pourquoi le message que je veux passer ici, c'est que nous devons impérativement nous coordonner en amont du sommet du G20. Il serait absurde qu'il y ait deux, trois, quatre voire cinq propositions qui émanent de l'Union européenne, cela nous affaiblirait. Parler d'une seule et même voix permettra à l'Union européenne de mieux défendre ses intérêts, de mieux faire valoir ses engagements: une fiscalité simple, propice à l'investissement, mais aussi, et avant tout, une fiscalité juste.
               

                  Après avoir regretté l'échec de la taxe sur le numérique, je me réjouis que les États membres aient trouvé un accord pour une liste européenne de quinze juridictions considérées comme non coopératives.
               

                  Je voudrais qu'on arrête cet autodénigrement perpétuel qui affaiblit le travail de l'Union européenne. Le succès, car c'en est un, réside bien sûr dans la liste, puisqu'en tant que telle, elle est crédible. C'est la liste la plus importante à l'échelle internationale. Mais le succès réside surtout dans le processus, dans la méthode de dialogue utilisée, dans les très nombreuses réformes qu'elle a permises. Des dizaines de juridictions, partout dans le monde, ont coopéré avec nous et ont mis en place, soit pour sortir de la liste, soit pour éviter d'y entrer, de réelles réformes fiscales.
               

                  Désormais, la situation des pays qui n'ont pas d'impôt sur les sociétés ou qui proposent un taux zéro est prise en compte, à la fois par l'Union européenne – mais là encore, nous avons influencé le débat international – et aussi par l'OCDE.
               

                  J'entends bien sûr les critiques sur les pays sélectionnés et sur l'absence de certains États membres pointés du doigt dans votre rapport TAX3. C'est un sujet de divergences entre nous, sur lequel j'ai parfois du mal à m'expliquer, ou du moins à me faire comprendre. Je maintiens qu'il n'y a pas, au sens des standards internationaux de bonne gouvernance, de paradis fiscaux dans l'Union européenne. Affirmer le contraire affaiblit en vérité l'effort que nous avons fait ensemble pour faire adopter, par exemple, l'échange d'informations partout dans l'Union européenne. Il y a eu des progrès dans la transparence.
               

                  Cela ne suffit pas pour que tout soit parfait, je vais parler moi-même de trous noirs fiscaux. Disons qu'il y a encore un certain nombre de pays – et là, nous nous retrouvons – qui ont des pratiques qui sont trop favorables à l'optimisation fiscale ou à la planification fiscale agressive.
               

                  Pour lutter contre ces pratiques fiscales agressives intra-européennes, que je réfute, que je refuse, que je condamne, nous disposons d'autres instruments que d'une liste: la législation européenne, que nous avons considérablement renforcée, le code de conduite, les procédures d'aide d'État, le Semestre européen. Entre nous, il y a une nuance, mais en vérité il y a surtout un très large accord.
               

                  Je pense qu'il nous faut impérativement renforcer ces instruments et continuer d'améliorer notre législation pour aller vers plus de justice et vers plus de transparence fiscale dans l'Union européenne.
               

                  Lorsque les impôts ne sont pas collectés, nous savons bien que ce sont les plus fragiles, les plus vulnérables, les plus pauvres qui sont privés des biens publics dont ils ont besoin. Et c'est le consentement à l'impôt qui est menacé. Si les plus riches ne paient pas d'impôts, alors pourquoi voudrait-on que les plus modestes s'en acquittent volontiers?
               

                  Nous pouvons aller encore plus loin pour éliminer les pratiques fiscales néfastes. Je pense d'abord aux ‘rulings’, aux multinationales qui en abusent pour transférer leurs bénéfices. Afin d'éviter cela, nous devons nous assurer que nos règles de transparence s'intègrent au travail quotidien des inspecteurs des impôts. La coopération administrative doit être renforcée, en s'assurant que les États membres y consacrent les moyens nécessaires car, nous le constatons avec le tout récent scandale, la défaillance de la coopération a pu créer des opportunités qui ont été dûment exploitées.
               

                  Je pense aussi aux conseillers fiscaux qui jouent un rôle-clé dans l'élaboration des montages de planification fiscale agressive. Nous avons introduit, ensemble, des règles qui visent à améliorer la transparence sur ces montages à l'égard des administrations fiscales à partir du 1er juillet 2020, qui seront accessibles aux administrations fiscales de l'Union, c'est un progrès très significatif. Il faudra, là encore, être très vigilant sur la mise en œuvre.
               

                  Je pense ensuite à la lutte contre le blanchiment d'argent et le financement du terrorisme. Sous l'impulsion de ma collègue, Véra Jourová, d'importantes avancées ont été obtenues, qu'il s'agisse de la directive antiblanchiment ou du droit d'accès aux informations pour les États membres.
               

                  Je pense enfin à la lutte contre la fraude à la TVA. Nous avons renforcé le pouvoir des administrations nationales en matière de détection précoce de la fraude en matière d'enquête, nous avons favorisé le partage et l'exploitation de l'information fiscale et douanière, mais également la coopération entre les agences d'Eurofisc, celles d'Europol et l'Olaf. Nous poursuivrons pour rendre Eurofisc encore plus réactif, je crois qu'il y a là une piste pour l'avenir qui est très importante.
               

                  Je ne veux pas être exhaustif ici, votre rapport se suffit à lui- même, mais, en conclusion, je voudrais m'arrêter sur une recommandation emblématique du rapport, qui est aussi pour moi une forme de message politique pour les élections européennes, pour le prochain Parlement, pour la prochaine Commission, pour le Conseil à l'avenir, il s'agit du passage progressif à la majorité qualifiée. Non seulement je souscris pleinement à cette démarche, mais je l'appuie en proposant de recourir aux clauses passerelles pour y parvenir.
               

                  Je vois trois raisons qui rendent, non seulement nécessaire, mais vital, le passage de l'unanimité à la majorité qualifiée en matière fiscale.
               

                  Premièrement, l'Union européenne aurait ainsi la capacité de réagir plus vite et plus efficacement dans un domaine où, nous le savons, les défis sont désormais globaux, où les attentes des Européens sont immenses et où le vote à l'unanimité est incontestablement un frein.
               

                  Deuxièmement, le vote à la majorité qualifiée renforcerait la légitimité démocratique des décisions fiscales prises dans l'Union européenne. Le Parlement européen – je sais que vous y êtes attachés –, serait colégislateur des intérêts de tous les Européens car vous êtes leur voix, et ils seraient ainsi mieux représentés. Enfin, le champ d'action de la politique fiscale en Europe serait élargi. J'ai parlé de biens publics: oui, nous devons absolument avoir une fiscalité de l'énergie, de la lutte contre le changement climatique de l'impôt sur les sociétés. Je continue de militer pour l'assiette commune consolidée d'impôt sur les sociétés, et pour cela, nous avons besoin du vote à la majorité qualifiée. Nous pourrons aussi poursuivre des objectifs sociaux plus larges. J'ai parlé de la protection de l'environnement, je pense aussi à la régulation des marchés financiers. J'appelle donc le Parlement européen, mais aussi les partis politiques européens qui le composent, à s'emparer de cette proposition, à faire vivre le débat, car cette réforme est aussi une façon pour votre institution, non seulement de renforcer ses pouvoirs, mais de faire entendre une voix que les États membres ont parfois du mal à écouter, celle de l'intérêt général européen. Et si demain, dans le prochain Parlement européen, il y a une majorité aussi large pour cette proposition que celle qui aujourd'hui se bat pour la lutte contre la fraude et l'évasion fiscale, alors ce sera un progrès considérable pour la démocratie, pour l'efficacité, et cela changera profondément, et la règle du jeu et le jeu lui-même.
               

Werner Langen,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte zuerst den Bericht loben. Er umfasst 410 Anmerkungen und Einzelpunkte. Er ist das Ergebnis einer langjährigen Arbeit von vielen Kollegen, insbesondere der beiden Berichterstatter. Zuerst einmal: Danke, und es ist die Fortsetzung der Arbeit in TAXE, TAX2 und im Untersuchungsausschuss.
               

                  Zweitens: Das Thema Steuergerechtigkeit, fairer Steuerwettbewerb, Geldwäsche und Steuerhinterziehung muss auf der Tagesordnung des Parlaments bleiben. Es genügt nicht, dass wir jetzt eine Legislaturperiode darüber geredet haben, und am Ende versandet das alles. Deshalb ist es auch richtig – und, Herr Moscovici, Sie haben in den fünf Jahren vieles vorgelegt, ein Lob dafür. Aber Ihr letzter Vorschlag, dass das Parlament das in der Hand hat, vielleicht bei der Frage, wie wir die Einstimmigkeit überwinden: Solange die Mitgliedstaaten blockieren können – und zwar alle möglichen Staaten, auch mein sozialdemokratischer Finanzminister ist gegen die Körperschaftsteuer-Bemessungsgrundlage und gegen die Digitalsteuer gewesen –, werden wir keine Fortschritte erreichen. Deshalb sind Appelle nicht ausreichend. Wir müssen auch die Steueroasen – und da möchte ich Ihnen widersprechen – innerhalb der EU benennen. Ich will nur zwei nennen: Das ist Luxemburg, wo die Fondserträge nicht besteuert werden, das sind die Niederlande, wo die Lizenzen nicht besteuert werden. Wenn wir darüber nicht ehrlich sind, können wir nicht weltweit als Maßstab gelten.
               

Evelyn Regner,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich bin stolz auf unsere Arbeit im Europäischen Parlament. Wir sind der Motor beim Schließen von Steuerfluchtrouten. Danke daher an die Berichterstatter!
               

                  Wenn die Mitgliedstaaten das umsetzen, was jetzt auf dem Tisch liegt, dann käme das einer Revolution in der europäischen Steuerpolitik gleich. 825 Milliarden Euro entgehen uns aufgrund von Steuerbetrug. Was könnten wir mit dieser irren Summe machen? Alle Jugendlichen könnten eine Chance auf Beschäftigung haben. Aber woran scheitert es? An den Mitgliedstaaten.
               

                  Die Einstimmigkeit in Steuerfragen muss weg! Seit bald zwei Jahren blockieren die Finanzminister, wenn es darum geht, Steuertransparenz zu zeigen. Her mit der öffentlichen Konzernsteuererklärung! Wir wollen wissen, wo große Konzerne ihre Steuer zahlen und wo nicht.
               

                  Und schließlich her mit den europaweiten Mindeststeuersätzen! Stimmen Sie alle hier im Plenarsaal morgen bei dieser Forderung mit, wenn wir über den Bericht abstimmen!
               

Roberts Zīle,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I would like to start by thanking both co-rapporteurs and everybody who was involved in this report because steering through the House this important file, with so many amendments, was not easy.
Money laundering has been, and unfortunately remains, a big problem within countries and across the European Union, and the fight against it is still a priority. I think the report has made a good road map of what should be improved. Cooperation with Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and also the Golden Visas issue have already been mentioned, but still there remain some differences which in my opinion could be fixed during the plenary vote this week.
First, whereas the report appropriately condemns some banks for money laundering, it is clear that the problem is wider. My relevant amendments which noted the systemic issues of money laundering were voted down in committee and I think we can commit to this issue because it's not only due to a few bad apples in a given year, or in a particular country or particular bank, but I think we have to understand that there are some kinds of areas in the banking sector which do some kinds of ‘pre-wash’, and some ‘main washes’ follow in other places in the European Union, unfortunately.
Second, the report suggests that the EU should speak with one voice in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). However, it is not acknowledged that there are so many EU Member States which are not even members of FATF but they are still in, I would say, the lower league on the money wall with very different countries which are not members of the European Union.

Petr Ježek,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, from the first tax scandal of this parliamentary term, the Lux Leaks scandal, until now, the European Parliament has been the leading light in the fight against financial crime, tax evasion and tax avoidance. Throughout the work of the TAXE 2 and PANA Committees, we have consistently highlighted the issues and our recommendations for dealing with them in an effective manner. The report of the TAX3 Committee is the last example of this. It had overwhelming support in committee.
I thank the co-rapporteurs, shadows, coordinators and all other colleagues, including staff and the Secretariat. We have once again outlined our recommendations for action at EU level. The Commission has been largely responsive throughout and has come up with a number of important initiatives. However, Member States are not doing enough. The Council has consistently dragged its heels on tax issues, and it is clear that from the perspective of the EU institutions, the Council is the weakest link.
Without political will, there can be no quick progress. It is essential that the European Council discusses these issues and finds a way forward. Without this, we will be stuck on Groundhog Day. Parliament will continue to react and investigate tax crimes within the Union, but without action from EU leaders, we will remain trapped in this vicious circle. The Europeans deserve better.

Molly Scott Cato,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, tax avoidance is so important to our citizens. It undermines public services, fuels rising inequality and undermines the social contract, so why are we failing to make faster progress? One important reason is that we have our own European tax havens – such as the UK, the Netherlands, Malta, Luxembourg and Ireland – whose governments talk tough but block the European cooperation we need to make progress.
I am proud that we now have consensus across this House to ban letterbox companies from our continent and to end the outrageous scam of buying citizenship via Golden Visas, but the Greens would go further. We would push for minimum tax rates across the Union, prevent tax avoiders from having access to public contracts and stop individual Member States from having a veto to block tax progress.
As we come to the end of this Parliament, we can feel pleased with our progress on tax. But we need the next Parliament to transfer the pressure to Member States. The health and future of our Union depends on them joining us in the battle against inequality and injustice.

Miguel Urbán Crespo,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, con la votación de este informe concluimos el trabajo de toda una legislatura; un trabajo para tratar de establecer cuál es el fallo para que perdamos miles y miles y miles de millones por evasión y elusión fiscales.
               

                  La Unión Europea, señorías, es conocida por toda Europa por imponer la austeridad a las cuentas públicas, recortando derechos sociales, y todo ello con el mantra de que no hay dinero, de que nos tenemos que apretar el cinturón. Mientras tanto, la ciudadanía ve cómo esa misma Unión Europea que tiene capital en Luxemburgo ha facilitado la evasión fiscal de las grandes fortunas y las multinacionales y no ha emitido más que declaraciones a la hora de perseguirla. Por cada nueva legislación, se encuentra un agujero por el que el dinero se sigue escapando en cantidades astronómicas.
               

                  En este informe aparece reflejado cómo Suiza incumple normas internacionales de transparencia. ¿Cuánto tendremos que esperar hasta que la Unión imponga sanciones comerciales contra Suiza y la obligue de verdad a cooperar, al igual que el resto de paraísos fiscales? ¿Cuánto tiempo tendremos que esperar hasta que la Comisión Europea señale a países miembros como Luxemburgo o Malta como guaridas fiscales? ¿Cuánto tiempo tendremos que esperar para que lo que decidamos en esta Cámara no sean recomendaciones sino medidas de obligado cumplimiento contra la evasión y la elusión fiscales?
               

                  Hasta que no tomemos medidas decisivas contra la sacrosanta libertad de movimiento de capitales, todo será papel mojado.
               

David Coburn,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal and should be stopped. Tax avoidance, the limiting of tax exposure for companies and individuals, is perfectly legitimate. No one wants to pay more taxes than required. In British law, directors are obliged – obliged – to limit shareholders' exposure to taxation. The purpose of business is to benefit the people who have worked and invested in companies, not to provide a pool of money for the excessive EU salaries and madcap social job creation schemes which do not work. Only business creates real long-term jobs, not state bureaucrats.
Britain cuts bureaucracy to help small- and medium-sized businesses to build employment, which is why our small business sector is strong and unemployment low, unlike France – ask the gilet jaunes, Mr Moscovici, they don't seem to agree with the way France is run.
Money laundering is of course a very bad thing, but the use of terrorism, money laundering linked with terrorism, is just an excuse that is always used. It doesn't cost money to use some of the methods that terrorists have used. This is just an excuse to interfere in people's private affairs and interfere in business. This is why Great Britain is leaving the EU – at least I hope so if we can get rid of this prime minister, and I must apologise on her behalf, but there we are.

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Tytuł tego sprawozdania powinien brzmieć: ‘Nie kradnij! Rząd nie znosi konkurencji’. Prawdziwe nadużycia finansowe to nie unikanie opodatkowania, tylko działalność rządów. To rządy zabierają jednym, żeby dawać drugim. To rządy drukują pieniądze, pozbawiając wartości nasze oszczędności. To rządy pozwalają na system rezerwy cząstkowej, który umożliwia bankom wielokrotne pożyczanie tych samych pieniędzy. Za każdą z tych rzeczy obywatel poszedłby siedzieć, a rządy jeszcze oczekują oklasków. To nie unikanie podatków wymaga usprawiedliwienia, to podatki wymagają usprawiedliwienia. Podatki to zabieranie przez jednych ludzi pieniędzy drugich ludzi, roszczenie sobie przez jednych prawa do dochodów drugich. To wymaga usprawiedliwienia, a nie unikanie tego. Unikanie tego jest wręcz obowiązkiem człowieka, tak aby te pieniądze nie wpadły w ręce głupich polityków, którzy je najprawdopodobniej zmarnują. W takim kontekście mówicie zawsze: zabraknie na szpitale, na szkoły. Powiedzmy o tym, że może zabraknie na wycieczki. Same wycieczki organizowane przez posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego kosztują ponad 20 mln euro. Może zabraknie na program Erasmus, dzięki któremu studenci jeżdżą sobie za pieniądze podatników z jednego miejsca w drugie. Niech na to zabraknie pieniędzy! I chwała Panu!
               

Othmar Karas (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Mit diesen 410 Empfehlungen gegen Steuerflucht, Geldwäsche und Steuervermeidung, für mehr Steuergerechtigkeit und Steuerfairness legen wir das größte Paket an Forderungen auf den Tisch, das es je gab. Das zeigt: Wir wissen, was notwendig ist, und wir haben für das, was notwendig ist, auch eine breite Mehrheit im Europäischen Parlament. Wir haben die Unterstützung in der Kommission. Wir haben ein Problem: Wir haben einen Mangel an politischem Willen in den Mitgliedstaaten, den Kampf wirklich aufzunehmen. Und wir haben das Einstimmigkeitsprinzip, das hier Blockaden ermöglicht. Ich fordere daher die Mitgliedstaaten auf: Beenden Sie die Blockade! Beseitigen Sie das Einstimmigkeitserfordernis, damit wird die Digitalsteuer bekommen, damit wir eine gemeinsame Bemessungsgrundlage für Unternehmenssteuern bekommen, damit wir eine länderspezifische Steuerberichtspflicht bekommen, damit wir die Finanztransaktionssteuer bekommen, und der Grundsatz …
               

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Paul Tang (S&D). – Mr President, let me start with some words of gratitude, first of all for the report and to the rapporteurs Niedermayer and Kofod for the excellent report, but also to the Commissioner, Pierre Moscovici, who has used his five years tirelessly, taking every angle, every opportunity to put tax on the agenda and with success – so my personal deep appreciation for that.
The issue at hand, Mr President, is the growing inequality magnified by tax avoidance which allows the 1% of the rich and the big to shift the bills of schools and healthcare and other things onto the 99%; a growing inequality which is meeting growing resistance. It is time that we took our own political responsibility in the European Union. In two ways: first of all we need a structural reform of the corporate taxation system. It has been put forward by the Commission and it has been supported by the European Parliament and now we have to bring it into the international discussion in the OECD. The European Union has a united point of view which shows that apportionment of profit is a way to block the shifting of profits on paper, of shifting real activities.
Second, there is ample evidence that at least five EU Member States are tax havens in everything but name, damaging other Members in the Union, depriving them of essential tax revenues. It is time to call a spade a spade, to call Luxembourg, Ireland, the Netherlands, Cyprus and Malta EU tax havens. We are already listing tax havens outside the European Union; it is nothing more than consistent and credible that we also label the tax havens inside the European Union. Therefore, let's take our responsibility and vote for Amendment 96 tomorrow.

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


David Coburn (EFDD),
blue-card question. – Thank you, Mr Tang. You've been seeing the riots in France, the gilets jaunes. Obviously they don't agree with what you're saying and quite frankly it's not so much the rich who are getting away with lots of money, its that there's too much money being spent by the state on crazy schemes and the working classes are not getting a fair deal and they're not getting jobs. You need to have a free economy, a capitalist economy like the UK, in order to have jobs. It's the only way you can create them. They have to be created by business and not by the state, and this strangulation is not going to help, is it?

President. – Mr Coburn, was the last sentence the question?

David Coburn (EFDD). – I thought it was the answer.

President. – I sort of tried to detect the question in there, but never mind. Mr Tang, go ahead.

Paul Tang (S&D),
blue-card answer. – Let me give one example from the Paradise Papers: Nike, based in the Netherlands, paid 33% in tax on profits in 2007; in 2017 it was only 13%. During the crisis they saw their tax burden fall. Do you know who paid more taxes? The people that work, that just have a wage income. So yes, the yellow vests would very much support this because its the big and the rich that benefit …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, kuluneen vuoden aikana olemme saaneet TAX3-valiokunnassa paljon uutta tietoa talousrikosten, veropetosten ja veronkierron ongelman laajuudesta.
               

                  Toimeksiantomme aikana paljastui myös Danske Bankin Viron-yksikön 200 miljardin euron rahanpesutapaus, joka on yksi suurimmista rahanpesuun liittyvistä skandaaleista. Rikollinen toiminta sai jatkuaVirossa vuosia, ja vaikuttaa siltä, että viranomaiset katselivat toimintaa läpi sormiensa. Ilmeisesti likaisenkaan rikollisen rahan alkuperä tai pankin asiakkaan tunnistaminen eivät ole kiinnostaneet pankinjohtajia silloin, kun asiakkaalla on rahaa riittävän paljon, ja tämä on hyvin huolestuttavaa.
               

                  On varmaa, että kesällä aloittavalla parlamentin pysyvällä verovaliokunnalla tulee riittämään työtä. Tästä pitävät huolen jatkuvasti julkisuuteen nousevat veroskandaalit, joista viimeisimpänä esimerkkinä on ‘Troikan rahanpesula’, joka paljasti venäläisten liikemiesten junailemaa massiivista rahanpesua muun muassa Nordea-pankin kautta. Lopuksi haluan kiittää kaikkia TAX3-työhön osallistuneita kollegoja ja henkilökuntaa.
               

Eva Joly (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, dans quelques semaines, je quitterai mes fonctions de députée européenne après dix années de combat contre la corruption et pour la justice fiscale.
               

                  Je quitte ce Parlement avec un mélange de satisfaction et d'amertume et avec un vœu pour l'avenir.
               

                  Ma satisfaction, c'est de voir qu'après dix ans, grâce aux lanceurs d'alertes et aux commissions d'enquête sur l'évasion fiscale et leurs remarquables rapporteurs, les demandes des Verts pour plus de transparence et de coopération fiscale sont de plus en plus partagées dans cet hémicycle. C'est la victoire de nos idées et je m'en réjouis.
               

                  Mon amertume vient du manque de volonté politique pour transformer les idées en actions pour mener à bien les indispensables réformes comme l'ACCIS ou The Country-by-Country Reporting.
               

                  Mon vœu pour l'avenir, c'est que les citoyens se saisissent de leur immense pouvoir pour rendre majoritaires ceux qui défendent l'intérêt général plutôt que les multinationales, pour que la justice fiscale soit le cœur du projet européen et qu'elle devienne enfin une…
               

(Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, the right of national parliaments to defend their country's taxation systems and decide on their country's taxation systems must be protected. Tax sovereignty should not be up for negotiation. But the obligation on national governments to combat corporate tax avoidance and provide for maximum tax transparency should also not be shirked. This report shows that Parliament is listening to the concerns of citizens regarding corporate messing on their tax obligations, but the question remains as to whether governments are listening?
During the TAX3 mandate we learned that, with the help of the Irish Government, Apple has created a new structure that has allowed it to avoid paying EUR 2.5 billion to the Irish revenue annually since 2015. Apple has done this by using a 100% capital allowance for intangible assets, as well as other means. It appears that Apple is breaking Irish tax law but that it has not been challenged for doing so by the Irish Government.
We believe that this amounts to selective treatment and we ask the Commission to examine whether this is illegal state aid. If we don't tackle the issue of massive tax avoidance by huge corporations then we are damaging …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, όλοι πλέον θα έπρεπε να μπορούν να αντιληφθούν τις εγγενείς παθογένειες της λεγόμενης ενιαίας αγοράς της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως: Lux Leaks, Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, Football Leaks, Bahamas Leaks, Camp EX –και πόσα ακόμη οικονομικά σκάνδαλα δεν έχουν αποκαλυφθεί– δείχνουν το μέγεθος του προβλήματος. Δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει ενιαία αγορά, όσο υπάρχουν διαφορετικά φορολογικά συστήματα στα κράτη μέλη. Όσο ισχύει αυτό, θα οδηγούμαστε σε νόμιμη φοροαποφυγή προς όφελος των μεγάλων εταιρειών και γενικά όσων διαθέτουν τα χρήματα και τα μέσα για κάτι τέτοιο. Όμως η παράδοση της φορολογικής εξουσίας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα συνιστούσε ουσιαστικά κατάργηση των εθνικών κρατών και κάτι τέτοιο για εμάς είναι ανεπίτρεπτο. Επιπλέον, ποτέ οι λαοί της Ευρώπης δεν έχουν ερωτηθεί αν το επιθυμούν αυτό. Τέλος, όσον αφορά τη δυνατότητα ελέγχου εκ μέρους του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου, είμαστε σύμφωνοι και υποστηρίζουμε την παραχώρηση τέτοιων δικαιωμάτων. Το μόνο άμεσα εκλεγμένο όργανο της Ενώσεως είναι εκείνο το οποίο διαθέτει νομιμοποίηση για κάτι τέτοιο.
               

                  Με την ευκαιρία της εθνικής επετείου της επαναστάσεως του 1821 να ευχηθώ σε όλους τους Έλληνες: Χρόνια Πολλά και Ζήτω το Έθνος!
               

Anne Sander (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, le travail mené dans le cadre de la commission TAX3 est un signe fort avant les élections européennes. Il témoigne d'une volonté forte et de l'ambition des députés européens de lutter contre le blanchiment, l'évasion fiscale et l'ensemble des scandales financiers. Mais la balle est maintenant dans le camp des États membres et il est important qu'ils fassent preuve d'une ambition politique beaucoup plus importante lors de la prochaine mandature et que les propositions du Parlement puissent servir de base aux prochaines actions.
               

                  Parmi les chantiers qui se trouvent devant nous, nous devons mettre l'accent sur l'harmonisation de la base fiscale des entreprises, la lutte contre la fraude à la TVA et la fiscalité des entreprises du numérique. Mais, surtout, les États membres doivent prendre leurs responsabilités et il est essentiel que nous puissions passer à la majorité qualifiée sur les sujets liés à la fiscalité. C'est la seule condition pour avoir plus de justice fiscale.
               

Alfred Sant (S&D). – Mr President, reports on measures to combat tax abuses need to be factual, focused and clear on the causes of abuse and the remedies. On such grounds, regretfully, this report is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, it takes on board at face value mere allegations and suspicions. Disparate elements of financial statecraft get associated with tenuous unsubstantiated links to incipient crime. Worse, a bias against smaller states in the commercial institutions is palpable.
So the experience of Pilatus Bank in Malta is highlighted. That of Deutsche Bank in Germany – though of much greater concern – is ignored. Meanwhile, financial services professionals are considered like criminals in waiting. Throughout, a one size fits all approach is adopted. The thrust of discourse follows an agenda that promotes tax harmonisation. This disregards the fact that tax flexibility is the only remaining competitive tool for small peripheral economies in the single market. Obviously, the report had to take political considerations into account. Here, however, there have been pushed close to the limit of what I would regretfully call ‘tax populism’. I repeat, this report is fundamentally flawed.

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


Ana Gomes (S&D),
blue-card question. – I totally disagree with you Mr Sant and I want to ask you, what have you done to prevent your country, Malta, from being indeed a tax haven that puts in question the fight against organised crime, not only financial crime but including terrorism in the EU? What have you done to prevent e-gambling, crypto-currencies, the corruption that was exposed in the Panama Papers, the two members of your government that are still in government despite being totally exposed in the Panama Papers? Please tell us, what have you done to prevent that?

Alfred Sant (S&D),
blue-card answer. – All I need to do is repeat what I just read. Unfortunately, the report – which Madam Gomes will have read – takes on board at face value mere allegations and suspicions. Disparate elements of financial statecraft get associated in her mind, in her world view, with tenuous unsubstantiated links to incipient crime. This is not the way for a serious parliamentarian to move forward.

Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Wir haben in den letzten fünf Jahren hier in vier verschiedenen Sonder- und Untersuchungsausschüssen den Bereich der Steuerkriminalität und auch der Geldwäsche aufgearbeitet. In der Folge gab es in diesen fünf Jahren mehr Fortschritte im Kampf gegen Geldwäsche und Finanzkriminalität als in den letzten zwanzig Jahren davor in der Europäischen Union.
               

                  Doch wichtige Vorschläge der Europäischen Kommission sind jetzt im Rat der Mitgliedstaaten blockiert. Mich ärgert es unsäglich, dass die große Koalition in Deutschland auch daran mitwirkt, eine europäische Digitalsteuer und eine verbindliche Steuertransparenz über die Steuerzahlungen der Großunternehmen im Rat der Mitgliedstaaten zu blockieren. Es wird Zeit, dass diese Blockade gegen die Steuergerechtigkeit endlich ein Ende findet, und das muss auch Thema in diesem Wahlkampf werden. Man kann nicht von Steuergerechtigkeit hier im Europäischen Parlament reden und dann in den gleichen Parteifamilien von Christdemokraten, Sozialdemokraten und Liberalen im Rat der Mitgliedstaaten diese Vorschläge blockieren.
               

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


Thomas Mann (PPE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Auch ich war Mitglied in den drei TAXE-Ausschüssen und im Untersuchungsausschuss zu den Panama Papers, und ich bin froh über das, was die Whistleblower und vor allem die Journalisten in unheimlich akribischer Arbeit geliefert haben. Meine Frage ist aber: Warum haben die Mitgliedstaaten selbst, die unterschiedlichen Finanzminister, sich so wenig bewegt? Das hat weniger mit Parteibuchromantik zu tun, sondern mit der Frage, warum sie nicht gesagt haben: Wir werden dafür sorgen, dass wir endlich diese Möglichkeit, dass das alles in den Mitgliedstaaten entschieden wird, verändern, und das muss auf europäischer Ebene stattfinden.
               

Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Herr Kollege Mann! Ich würde erst einmal gern sagen, dass ich es sehr bedaure, dass Sie dem Parlament bald nicht mehr angehören werden. Ich habe Sie hier immer als verlässliche Bank für europäische Kooperation geschätzt. Das möchte ich erst einmal persönlich sagen.
               

                  Das Zweite: Warum machen die Mitgliedstaaten das nicht? Es gibt kleine Staaten, die ein wirtschaftliches Interesse daran haben, dass Gewinne, die anderswo erwirtschaftet wurden, bei ihnen versteuert werden, und zwar niedrig versteuert. Das schadet dem Binnenmarkt als Ganzem und ist inakzeptabel. Zum anderen ist es so, dass auch ein gewisses Maß Ideologie dazugehört. Als wir hier angefangen haben mit der Arbeit, haben viele noch das Lied vom Steuerwettbewerb gesungen …
               

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Steuerskandale der letzten Jahre haben verdeutlicht, mit welch ungebremster Fantasie und teilweise auch krimineller Energie Konzerne, Banken und Vermögende Steuerflucht begehen, Steuervermeidung betreiben und auch vor offenem Steuerraub nicht zurückschrecken. Dadurch entgehen den europäischen Staaten jährlich hunderte Milliarden Euro – das ist bereits erwähnt worden –, die in der Bildung fehlen, in der Gesundheit oder in der öffentlichen Daseinsvorsorge.
               

                  Die Europäerinnen und Europäer wollen Steuergerechtigkeit, und dafür brauchen wir dringend ein Parlament, das über entsprechend starke demokratische Werkzeuge und Instrumente im Kampf eben für diese Steuergerechtigkeit verfügt. Und deshalb braucht es auch hier einen ständigen Unterausschuss in diesem Haus, der sich mit Steuerflucht und Finanzkriminalität befasst.
               

                  Aber es braucht vor allem den politischen Willen für Mindeststeuern für Unternehmen, für einen starken Schutz von Whistleblowern und eine umfassende öffentliche länderspezifische Berichterstattung, um Steuerflucht effektiv zu unterbinden.
               

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


President. – Colleagues, the request I just got from Mr Sośnierz will be the last blue-card request I am able to take, for time reasons. A number of you have also requested the floor under the catch-the-eye procedure.

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Powiedział Pan o sprawiedliwości podatkowej. Jest tylko jeden sprawiedliwy system: kiedy ja zatrzymuję to, co ja zarobiłem, a Pan zatrzymuje to, co Pan zarobił. Dlaczego Pan uważa, że ma prawo zaglądać do cudzych portfeli i sprawdzać, ile kto zarobił i to opodatkowywać?
               

Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Werter Kollege! Natürlich ist Steuergerechtigkeit ein Begriff, den Sie anders bewerten als ich. Aber mir geht es zunächst einmal darum, dass Unternehmen nicht weiter die Steuern senken können, und zwar auf Kosten der Allgemeinheit in Europa. Mir geht es darum, dass endlich effektive Mindeststeuersätze in Europa greifen, die verhindern, dass die öffentliche Daseinsvorsorge immer weiter ausgehöhlt wird. Denn zur Steuergerechtigkeit gehört insgesamt auch, dass wir endlich wieder zu einer gerechten Entwicklungschance für alle Europäerinnen und Europäer in der europäischen Gesellschaft, in den Mitgliedstaaten gelangen.
               

José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, quisiera, en primer lugar, agradecer el trabajo realizado por los coponentes, que después de escuchar a comisarios —como el comisario Moskovitz, el comisario competente, que nos acompaña hoy—, ministros, empresarios y expertos, han formulado una serie de recomendaciones a nivel nacional, europeo e internacional para luchar contra el fraude fiscal, para luchar también y simplificar la fiscalidad de las empresas, para luchar contra el blanqueo de capitales y reforzar dos ámbitos que son particularmente oportunos en este momento y que no han sido objeto de la acción de otras comisiones anteriores. Me refiero a la fiscalidad digital y también al fraude sobre el impuesto relativo al valor añadido.
               

                  Hay un punto que me interesa destacar, señor presidente, y es que la cooperación entre los Estados miembros en este ámbito ha sido sorprendentemente ineficaz. El texto dice que esta cooperación ha sido deficiente, disfuncional y lenta. Creo que tenemos que tomarnos en serio esta materia: las cifras son astronómicas y, como ha dicho el comisario, tenemos que luchar decididamente desde el punto de vista de la cooperación entre la Comisión y los Estados miembros.
               

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, este relatório expõe a Europa que não queremos, a que consente paraísos fiscais no Luxemburgo, Holanda, Chipre, Malta, Irlanda e buracões para lavar dinheiro da City of London até à Madeira. A dos governos que prostituem a União Europeia, vendendo vistos gold a cleptocratas e criminosos do mundo inteiro. A dos governos que fazem aumentos brutais de impostos sobre os cidadãos para canalizar milhares de milhões para bancos, explicando que não há dinheiro para escolas, hospitais, serviços públicos, enquanto deixam as grandes multinacionais e grandes fortunas beneficiar de amnistias fiscais e apagões fiscais, como aconteceu no meu país, com a bênção da Troika. A dos ministros no Eurogrupo, que prosseguem na corrida para o fundo na selva e na injustiça fiscal, deixando as grandes empresas tecnológicas continuar a não pagar impostos e organizações criminais, incluindo terroristas, continuando a beneficiar da fraude carrossel no IVA.
               

                  Os cidadãos exigem uma União de direito, que assegure equidade fiscal, concorrência leal no mercado interno, sem tax dumping, com combate eficaz à fraude fiscal, ao branqueamento de capitais e ao financiamento do terrorismo. Uma Europa que aplique o CCCTB e impostos sobre transações financeiras, sobre as plataformas tecnológicas, sobre empresas poluentes que reforcem o orçamento europeu e os orçamentos nacionais.
               

David Casa (PPE). –Xogħolna hawn hu li niddefendu liċ-ċittadini tagħna. Għalhekk dejjem inkun jiena l-ewwel wieħed kontra l-abbuż tal-poter. U ma naċċetta qatt illi jkun hemm korruzzjoni, serq mill-poplu u mill-ogħla livellijiet tal-Gvernijiet, huma min huma. L-interessi tan-nies għandhom jiġu l-ewwel. Għandhom jiġu l-ewwel dejjem. Aħna hawn irridu nkunu t-tarka tan-nies u għalhekk fuq dawn l-aspetti, dan ir-rapport huwa tajjeb ħafna. Imma mbagħad irridu nkunu konsistenti. Il-proposti li ġejjin mix-xelug fuq it-tassazzjoni ma jgħoddux għal numru ta' pajjiżi Membri, ma jgħoddux għaċ-ċittadini li nirrappreżenta jien. Ma nistgħu qatt naċċettaw li jkun hawn proposti li għandhom għan wieħed: li jorbtulna jdejna ta' kif niddeċiedu fuq is-sistemi tat-taxxi tagħna. Jien niġġieled kontra l-korruzzjoni lejl u nhar imma bl-istess enerġija nixtieq niġġieled kontra proposti li jkollhom effett negattiv fuq l-impjiegi f'numru ta' pajjiżi, inkluż Malta u Għawdex. Ili niddefendi s-sovranità għal ħmistax-il sena fis-sistema tat-taxxi u hekk se nibqa' nagħmel.
               

Peter Simon (S&D). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Moscovici, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Fünf Jahre habe ich jetzt die sozialdemokratische Fraktion in den Sonderuntersuchungsausschüssen TAXE, TAX2 und TAX3 und im Untersuchungsausschuss zu den Panama Papers hier im Hause geleitet. Es war eine gute Zeit. Wir sind in vielen Bereichen regulatorisch weiter vorangekommen, und wir sind es insbesondere, weil wir mit Kommissar Moscovici auf Seiten der EU-Kommission einen kongenialen Partner hatten, der hier mit uns gemeinsam fest an einem Strang gezogen hat für mehr Steuergerechtigkeit in Europa, für eine wahrhafte Bekämpfung von Geldwäsche. Wenn wir unsere eigene Arbeit aber für die Zukunft aufstellen, so ist es ist wichtig, dass wir die im Bericht des TAX3-Ausschusses bereits enthaltene Forderung nach ständigen Strukturen hier im Plenum noch einmal verschärfen. Meine Fraktion hat dazu einen Änderungsantrag eingereicht. Es muss klar sein, dass wir hier ausschussübergreifend zusammenarbeiten, weil wir alle einen anderen Blick auf die Dinge werfen. Jemand, der im Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Währung arbeitet, hat einen anderen Blick auf die Dinge als beispielsweise Ana Gomes aus dem LIBE-Ausschuss. Ich bitte alle …
               

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Brian Hayes (PPE). – Mr President, it was said in this debate already that we are a community of law and the law of the Treaties is clear in respect of the requirement of unanimity when it comes to taxation matters. That's deliberately put into the treaties to ensure that smaller Member States are not disadvantaged as a consequence of bigger Member States who have bigger domestic populations and a bigger capacity to get tax in.
On the second point, I reject the idea that no progress has been made. We have made progress on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) base erosion and profit shifting process (BEPS). We've made progress on country-by-country reporting. We've made progress when it comes to clear obligations of tax authorities. We've made progress on the Fourth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD 4) but the truth of the matter is, there is no majority, sufficient unanimous majority, in the Council for a financial transaction tax, for a digital tax, or for a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB). That is the reality that we face.
I think another tactic has to be employed – a new tactic by the Commission where they would benchmark the best practices that are available through the country-specific recommendations, that they would benchmark the best practices and measure those practices and do it in an annual report. That's the way to make progress.

(The President cut off the speaker)


Емил Радев (PPE). – г-н Председател, скандалите в последните години, като Панамските досиета, Досиетата от Люксембург, случаите на милиарди евро, изпрани през редица европейски банки, доказаха, че въпреки строгите правила на Европейския съюз, още много следва да се направи, за да стане борбата срещу укриването и избягването на данъци и срещу изпирането на пари по-ефективна.
               

                  Докладът на Специалната комисия ТАКС 3, който обсъждаме днес, съдържа редица препоръки в тази насока, включително някои изключително смели предложения, като създаването на Европейска финансова полиция.
               

                  Имайки предвид трансграничния характер на укриването на данъци и на изпирането на пари, недопустимо е държавите членки да отказват да споделят информация. Културата на тайнственост следва да бъде заменена с култура на обмен на данни и информация.
               

                  Радвам се, че с Директивата за обмен на финансова информация, която договорих по-рано тази година, бяха положени основните на едно по-силно сътрудничество в рамките на Европейския съюз между звената за финансово разузнаване. Надявам се, при следващ преглед на законодателството, обменът на информация да бъде вече задължителен и то в конкретно определени срокове. Това е нужно не само в името на европейската сигурност, но и с оглед проследяването потока на мръсни пари, тяхното спиране и … (председателят прекъсва оратора)


Catch-the-eye procedure


Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie chciałbym, aby odniesiono wrażenie, że jest dobrze, bo przygotowaliśmy określony akt prawny. Chcę raczej zauważyć, że zarówno podczas debaty, jak i prac nad tym dokumentem więcej było rozmaitych utyskiwań niż pozytywnych ocen. Zwrócę uwagę na trzy problemy, które zostały już szeroko opisane. Po pierwsze, złote wizy i związany z nimi wielki problem. Po drugie, procedury wdrażania, które są zbyt wolne i zawodne. Po trzecie, luki prawne i europejskie raje podatkowe. Mówię o tym, bo nie wierzę w prostą moc sprawczą samych aktów i samej biurokracji. Bardzo istotne jest, aby wykazać się tu konsekwencją i starać się doprowadzać do takich porozumień, które będą w końcu skuteczne.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la commissione speciale sui reati finanziari, l'evasione fiscale e l'elusione fiscale ci consegna una relazione conclusiva senza compromessi: l'Europa ha un grave problema di riciclaggio di denaro e frode fiscale.
               

                  Gli Stati membri dell'Unione non hanno fatto abbastanza per colmare le lacune sulle norme fiscali: anzi, molti governi hanno manifestato una mancanza di volontà nel contrastare l'elusione fiscale e i crimini finanziari, bloccando norme che puntavano a una base imponibile comune e a un prelievo digitale.
               

                  La stessa Commissione europea ha evitato di proporre una riforma che avrebbe messo fine al potere di veto dei governi in materia fiscale, cosicché ben sette Stati membri, Lussemburgo, Belgio, Cipro, Ungheria, Irlanda, Malta e Paesi Bassi, agiscono di fatto come paradisi fiscali e questa è una situazione che non può durare oltre.
               

                  Europol ha poteri troppo limitati: al momento coordina, per lo più, il lavoro delle forze nazionali, quando queste sono disposte a collaborare. È necessaria una forza di polizia finanziaria europea, dotata di poteri investigativi.
               

Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señor presidente, señorías, yo creo que el Parlamento ha hecho un buen trabajo en esta materia. También lo ha hecho el señor Moscovici. Creo que hay una alarma social enorme en toda la Unión Europea sobre la evasión fiscal y también sobre lo que pasa internamente en la propia Unión Europea.
               

                  Hay dos cosas que creo que tenemos que denunciar. En primer lugar, yo creo que la cooperación entre Estados no es suficiente. Sinceramente, creo que tenemos que evitar que los Estados entre sí se estén haciendo daño fiscal. Hay Estados que se están aprovechando de una manera absolutamente vergonzosa de ventajas fiscales que dan a las empresas, en perjuicio de otros países. Esto hay que pararlo. Creo que un mercado único e integrado no permite esto.
               

                  Y, en segundo lugar —como bien se ha dicho— la regla de la unanimidad. La unanimidad acaba siendo un derecho de veto de los países que no quieren poner coto a esta situación. Y esto tenemos que pararlo con las cláusulas pasarela, pero estas también reclaman que haya un acuerdo del propio Consejo. Por eso hay que trabajar incluso en la reforma de los Tratados.
               

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, nije pitanje trebamo li se boriti protiv financijskog kriminala, utaje poreza i izbjegavanja plaćanja poreza, nego kako to najučinkovitije činiti, a da pritom ne narušimo ulagačku klimu i ne stvorimo previše represivno okruženje koje potiče sivu ekonomiju.
               

                  Ovo izvješće, kao mnoga druga dosad, preporučuje osnivanje novih nadnacionalnih tijela, što smatram nepotrebnim budući da smo trenutno daleko od najviše moguće razine suradnje nacionalnih tijela pa ne znamo predstavljaju li nova tijela dodanu vrijednost ili samo teret. Idemo prvo poraditi na boljoj suradnji pa ćemo vidjeti dalje.
               

                  Poziv na harmonizaciju poreznih stopa, konkretno PDV-a, također je nešto što ne mogu podržati. Pojednostavljenje poreznih sustava umjesto ujednačavanja na razini EU-a bilo bi puno korisnije jer bi se, osim otežavanja prijevara, pozitivno utjecalo na gospodarski rast, otvaranje poslova i ulagačku klimu u Europi.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, unlike most of us, some big business leaders don't believe they should pay their fair share in taxes. This report highlights the scale and the international dimension of the problem. It's disappointing, therefore, to see Theresa May otherwise engaged with Tory Brexit at a time when the European Union is showing leadership in tackling financial crime. My constituents are tired of abusive business practices. They've left our public purse depleted and pushed our public services to breaking point. As with austerity measures, the effects of financial crime are felt most acutely by the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. But the Conservative Party have always looked out for their own, the bankers, big business, those who already have and want more. We should therefore see Brexit for what it is – a project by the Right for the Right. An opportunity for them to turn the UK into an offshore tax haven, where the offer of deregulation fires the starting pistol on a rapid race to the bottom.

Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, es evidente que el informe recoge muchas de las medidas en materia de lucha contra el fraude y la elusión fiscales que hemos trabajado en este Parlamento. Creo que ha sido una legislatura donde se han hecho avances. Ahora necesitamos que el Consejo desbloquee muchas de las cosas que le hemos mandado y, particularmente, el establecimiento de una base común imponible del impuesto de sociedades, que sería la piedra angular para realmente avanzar hacia la justicia fiscal en la Unión Europea.
               

                  Tengo que decir que el informe, mañana, va a señalar algunas cuestiones también muy importantes, como por ejemplo la eliminación de los visados de oro; también señalará y denunciará esa tendencia, muy negativa, de ir rebajando constantemente los tipos nominales del impuesto de sociedades en muchos países. Parece que algunos no se enteran de los efectos de esta tendencia mayoritaria en Europa —el señor Pablo Casado quiere proponer que en España el tipo nominal del impuesto de sociedades baje por debajo del 20 %—. Esto es algo que va totalmente en contra de la tendencia mayoritaria en esta Cámara, y yo me alegro. Por ello, espero que mañana este informe salga aprobado con una amplia mayoría.
               

Monika Beňová (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. Daňové úniky, finančné podvody či daňové raje majú veľmi negatívny vplyv, aj iný ako finančný, a to je vplyv na našu spoločnosť a na nárast extrémizmu. Enormný rast rozdielov medzi malým počtom veľmi bohatých ľudí, reprezentujúcich spravidla globálne korporácie, využívajúce všetky tieto tri nástroje alebo aspekty, ktorých každoročné zisky prezentované v médiách sú v príkrom nepomere s prepadom kvality života strednej triedy a s nárastom chudoby v Európskej únii, je neakceptovateľný. V súčasnosti však máme veľmi efektívne dva nástroje, ktoré by sme mohli presadiť. V prvom rade je to zákaz participácie na finančných zdrojoch Európskej únie, ako v ideálnom prípade aj členských štátov a na ich rozpočtoch, pre všetky schránkové firmy a firmy domicilované v tzv. daňových rajoch. A ten druhý nástroj je jasná európska daňová politika, ktorá neumožní výhody pre veľké korporácie a pre daňové úniky zo strany jednotlivých členských štátov.
               

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we in the Greens/EFA Group are fully committed to tax justice and the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, and thus we see the TAX3 report as a basically good report. But despite Parliament's commitment, the reality is that still a lot has to be done to achieve fair and transparent tax systems across the EU.
This flawed reality means, for instance, Member States facilitating aggressive tax planning or schemes that straightaway make them tax havens on a race to the bottom when it comes to corporate tax rates that undermine revenues and damage the public interest, or the lack of political will amongst too many Member States to deliver on key tax legislation, such as the common consolidated tax base, the taxation of digital services or public country-by-country reporting.
We need results in this very important matter. We need to avoid the unanimity rule in the Council and move towards qualified majority, finally engaging this Parliament not as an opinion give, but as a co-legislator.

Pervenche Berès (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, le rapport que nous allons adopter apporte une touche finale à un travail conséquent, cohérent et constant de ce Parlement au cours de ce mandat, à la fois sous l'impulsion de l'opinion publique mais aussi aiguillonné par plusieurs scandales qui ont émaillé ce mandat.
               

                  Il constitue aussi, sans doute, une feuille de route pour le prochain Parlement européen tant il contient de recommandations utiles, y compris celle que nous espérons inscrire de la création d'une sous-commission permanente. Il permet de déboucher sur des accords, l'interdiction ou l'appel à l'interdiction des visas dorés ou la félicitation de ce qui est arrivé en termes de coordination de la lutte contre le blanchiment d'argent en Europe.
               

                  Mais il faut aussi mieux balayer à l'intérieur de l'Union européenne et, comme d'autres l'ont dit avant moi, nous devons appeler un chat, un chat. Il y a des pays dans l'Union européenne qui constituent des paradis fiscaux. Nous devons regarder cette réalité en face. De la même manière, nous devons aller vers un impôt sur les sociétés, avec un taux minimum de…
               

(Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, a fraude e a evasão fiscal representam na União Europeia um bilião de euros. Em Portugal são dez mil milhões de euros que deixam de entrar para os cofres do Estado, a totalidade do orçamento da saúde e da educação. Mas, deste montante, 20%, cerca de dois mil milhões de euros, é fraude do IVA, ora justamente o único imposto que está harmonizado dentro da União Europeia. E, portanto, deixemo-nos de falsos pretextos: há muito a fazer para lá da harmonização fiscal.
               

                  Os paraísos fiscais, a transferência de lucros para os paraísos fiscais, a transparência, a troca automática de informação, e temos que questionar, também, esta vaca sagrada da União Europeia que é a liberdade total de circulação dos capitais, porque a verdade, e poucos o admitem, mas a fraude fiscal ou o planeamento fiscal agressivo é indissociável do sistema capitalista e exprime o domínio de classe das multinacionais sobre o poder político.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Pierre Moscovici,
membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, merci pour ces échanges dynamiques, ces nombreuses remarques qui témoignent de votre intérêt, et plus que de votre intérêt, de votre implication sur ces sujets.
               

                  Je crois que nous pouvons être fiers collectivement des progrès que nous avons réalisés pour renforcer la justice fiscale dans l'Union européenne. Depuis 2014, nous avons réussi à faire adopter 14 propositions, dont 8 contre la fraude et l'évasion fiscale, malgré le verrou de l'unanimité. C'est plus que ces vingt dernières années et je pense que nous n'avons pas à rougir de cela.
               

                  Mais, parmi les combats qui nous restent – car il en reste beaucoup, comme votre rapport est très riche et comme beaucoup de parlementaires, je voudrais défendre plusieurs idées que je soumets à la sagacité de ceux qui nous succéderont.
               

                  D'abord, de couper les schémas de transfert entre entreprises au sein du marché intérieur à travers une clause anti-abus que je crois tout à fait nécessaire. Ensuite, l'idée d'une fiscalité minimale dans les discussions au sein de l'OCDE me paraît, bien sûr, devoir être étudiée mais aussi être défendue.
               

                  Évidemment, nous devons continuer à militer pour plus de transparence dans les schémas fiscaux des États membres – que nous les appelions paradis fiscaux ou pas, mais la cause de la transparence s'applique à tous. Il ne doit plus rester de trous noirs fiscaux ou de pays qui puissent être suspectés de pratiques trop favorables à l'optimisation fiscale.
               

                  Nous devons promouvoir évidemment une fiscalité qui soit juste et transparente pour les entreprises. Pour moi, cela passe naturellement par l'assiette commune consolidée d'impôt sur les sociétés, sur laquelle Paul Tang et Alain Lamassoure ont travaillé de manière remarquable au cours de ce mandat.
               

                  Nous devons continuer la réforme de la TVA pour pouvoir mettre fin à la fraude massive qui la concerne. Pour la seule TVA extraterritoriale, entre les frontières, c'est 50 milliards d'euros qui sont concernés, dont nous pourrions aisément faire 40 milliards d'économies par an.
               

                  Enfin, nous devons lutter contre la planification agressive entre États membres. C'est une cause tout à fait importante.
               

                  Tout ceci demandera de la détermination, de l'ambition, de la combativité de votre part et de la nôtre, mais aussi un changement de règle. C'est pourquoi nous devons absolument porter le débat sur le passage du vote à la majorité qualifiée. Encore une fois, ce n'est pas qu'un changement de règle, c'est ce qui permet profondément de changer de monde, de changer d'air et d'être capable enfin de saisir la réalité de la fiscalité d'aujourd'hui. C'est ce qui nous permettra aussi d'avoir une capacité d'attractivité dans le monde, car nous nous affaiblissons si nous ne sommes pas capables de créer ensemble cette souveraineté fiscale.
               

                  Pour moi, cela doit devenir un thème central de la campagne des élections européennes. Je compte sur chacune et chacun d'entre vous pour défendre cette solution. Je le ferai à ma place. J'ai noté d'ailleurs qu'elle était défendue sur beaucoup de bancs de la gauche à la droite. Je suis réaliste, je sais bien qu'il faudra du temps pour faire adopter cette proposition car nous avons, malheureusement, le devoir de requérir l'unanimité pour passer de l'unanimité à la majorité qualifiée. Aujourd'hui, elle est loin d'être réunie parmi les ministres des finances qui en ont parlé pour la première fois dans un conseil Ecofin. Ils en reparleront dans les semaines qui viennent sous la présidence roumaine. En tout cas, je le souhaite ardemment, je le demande ici à cette tribune, dans cet hémicycle. J'ai constaté des réticences ou des résistances. Pour les vaincre, il faut la pression d'un Parlement, un Parlement qui représente un peuple et c'est la raison pour laquelle c'est tout à fait fondamental que nous puissions nous positionner sous le regard des citoyens européens et peser sur les États membres. Plusieurs d'entre vous ont noté leur responsabilité, je partage ce point de vue.
               

                  Quoi qu'il en soit, la Commission et le Parlement européen devront continuer à se battre côte à côte pour promouvoir la justice fiscale dans la campagne à venir et au-delà de cette campagne. Ils vont être offensifs et inciter tous les partis à s'emparer de cette problématique, les pousser à en faire un sujet central de leur programme pour l'Europe de demain, pour nous assurer que c'est un combat commun pour la justice fiscale qui puisse se poursuivre à l'avenir, notamment dans la prochaine mandature.
               

                  Mais, puisque ce sera sûrement – je le dis – ma dernière intervention, en tout cas sur ce thème, dans cette mandature car je serai encore là pour la prochaine ou pour le début de la prochaine, je veux dire ma conviction, après près de cinq années passées avec vous, qu'il s'agit d'un sujet qui rassemble, qui est un des sujets fédérateurs de l'idée de l'Europe pour demain. C'est vrai qu'il y a toujours eu des expressions de sensibilités diverses, une très large majorité, très large, qui s'exprime dans le soutien à vos rapports pour militer pour cette cause. Cette cause est devenue celle des Européens. Elle est celle qui nous unit et qui nous réunit.
               

                  Pour finir, je veux remercier encore le Parlement européen pour le formidable travail qu'il a fait pour faire avancer à nos côtés, avec nous, cette grande cause de la transparence, de lutte contre la fraude et l'évasion fiscale. Nous avons fait beaucoup. Beaucoup reste à faire. C'est un combat qui doit continuer et nous le continuerons ensemble.
               

Jeppe Kofod,
Rapporteur. – Mr President, allow me first to thank all my colleagues for this very, very good and important debate and support for the report, and especially to thank Mr Niedermayer, my co-rapporteur, and all of the Members of the TAX3 committee and previous committees that worked so hard on tax issues and also financial crimes and money laundering. I also want to thank the Commission in particular, and now also Commissioner Moscovici but also Commissioner Jourová who is here. Thank you so much. We worked very closely with you on anti-money laundering, but also on tax, of course. On taxation, I want to say that we managed to get 14 new pieces of legislation through this term, but I think we have much more to do when it comes to fair taxation.
Commissioner Moscovici, you are absolutely right. I think Europe has to show the way for a 21st-century corporate tax system that is fair to citizens, fair to Member States, and of course fair to businesses. I heard in the debate today from Mr Coburn that this is the punishment of big corporations, but the Commission itself revealed that small- and medium-sized enterprises have a tax burden 30% higher than multinational corporations, so if we want to ensure fairness and equal competition we need to do something about big corporations tax dodging.
I always wanted to say that during our work we saw that if you are rich enough, or if you are a rich enough and big enough company, you put yourself above the law and the spirit of the law. I think that type of behaviour should not be tolerated. I think we in Parliament, as representatives of the people of Europe, should take a hard stance against the big corporations or ultra-rich people that we saw in the Panama Papers that were not only putting themselves before tax laws, but also before laws as such.
So colleagues, I want to say thank you. I look forward to the vote tomorrow, but I think we have only just started our work. In the new Parliament we need to implement and hold our governments, our executive authorities, accountable for what we have done here, so thank you very much.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 26 March 2019.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Caterina Chinnici (S&D),
per iscritto. – L'evasione fiscale, l'elusione fiscale ed i reati finanziari, causano gravi conseguenze sul bilancio europeo, sottraendo indebitamente risorse destinate ad offrire servizi ai cittadini. Inoltre i reati finanziari e il riciclaggio, oltre a privare gli Stati di entrate fiscali, alterano la leale concorrenza tra imprese, e vengono talvolta sfruttati dalle reti terroriste e dai gruppi della criminalità organizzata per finanziare le proprie attività illecite. Ritengo quindi che per contrastare queste gravi minacce, gli Stati membri debbano rafforzare ulteriormente lo scambio d'informazioni tra autorità nazionali, oltre a dare piena attuazione alle vigenti direttive europee antiriciclaggio. In effetti, oggigiorno, l'evoluzione tecnologica facilita la mobilità dei capitali consentendo di spostare ingenti somme di denaro da un paese all'altro, in tempi brevissimi. Per tale motivo ritengo sia essenziale rafforzare la cooperazione tra FIU nazionali e autorità di contrasto, istituendo una FIU europea, incaricata di coordinare il flusso informativo. Nell'ottica di un rafforzamento dell'attività di supervisione a livello europeo, ritengo inoltre opportuno ampliare i poteri dell'Autorità Bancaria Europea (EBA) in materia di lotta al riciclaggio di denaro, ed inoltre istituire una vera e propria polizia finanziaria dotata di capacità d'indagine in seno all'agenzia Europol.
               
14.   Situation of rule of law and the fight against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and Slovakia (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the situation of rule of law and fight against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and Slovakia, tabled by Claude Moraes, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (O-000015/2019 – B8-0017/2019) (2018/2965(RSP)).

Sophia in 't Veld,
deputising for the author. – Mr President, it's a pity that the Council isn't here, because I think the Council should be part of this debate here today, and before I go into the oral question and the resolution, I would first like to remind us again what started this, or what triggered this whole process, and that was the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Jan Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kusnirova, and I think we should always recall their names and make sure that they're not forgotten.
We are discussing today the oral question and the draft resolution that we will vote on later this year. It has been drafted together with all the main political groups by the rule of law monitoring committee, and it is the result of almost a year, 10 months, of hearings, on-site visits, meetings, correspondence, video conferences with governments, with the police, public prosecutors, journalists, NGOs, experts, farmers and many, many more. I think that if we look at the text of the resolution as it is today, it focuses on Malta and Slovakia, but not exclusively. It is on the one hand highlighting concerns and criticisms and shortcomings, but I'm happy to say that it is also welcoming and noting some very positive developments, and I think the lesson that we can draw from this is that Europe works. It is clear that the intervention of the European Union helps the Member States come back on track where they risked running off the tracks when it comes to the rule of law and fundamental rights. The resolution makes a couple of recommendations which are also summarised in the questions to the Commission.
We have some specific common recommendations on Malta and Slovakia. One is a recommendation to the European Commission, inviting the European Commission to start a rule-of-law dialogue with Malta. We think that that would be justified. At the same time, I also intend to put forward amendments recognising the fact that the Maltese Government has now announced that they will implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission – but nevertheless, I think a dialogue would be appropriate.
We would also recommend that the brain behind the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia is caught. Not just the people who committed the murder, but also the brain behind it. And we also have a general call to end the scheme of golden visas and golden passports, not just in Malta but in all Member States.
With regard to Slovakia, we note that the probable brain behind the murder has not only been caught but also charged with, amongst other things, the murder of Jan and Martina and I'm happy to say that further inquiries into corruption and connections with organised crime are being conducted.
Nevertheless, some concerns remain concerning the so-called system of revolving doors. We see some of the people who stepped down actually coming back in other jobs. And we would also urge the Slovak Government to end the deadlock in the nominations to the Constitutional Court, and to refrain from adopting the new media law.
And finally, there are some general recommendations to all of us. First of all, it has become clear to me in the course of the work of the rule of law monitoring group that we need to strengthen Europol because now Europol can now basically only do its job when it is invited by the Member States. People will say, yes, that's subsidiarity. But we also see that when public authorities themselves are engaging in wrongdoing, we should have the means, as the European Union, to come in. Why? Because we are a system all together. If one of the Member States undermines the rule of law, if one of the Member States doesn't apply our common rules and standards, then basically the whole European system is broken. So I think we have every reason to strengthen that system and strengthen Europol.
I would also call on the Commission to reinstate its annual corruption report, because we don't feel that the current formula in the European semester is strong enough.
And finally, we would urge the Commission, in particular Mr Timmermans who is not here today, to finally respond to the call, the repeated calls, of the European Parliament for a comprehensive mechanism, the so-called DRF pact – the democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights pact. And I see that neither Spitzenkandidat, Mr Weber and Mr Timmermans, is really committed to a comprehensive, non-political objective mechanism, and the Member States only want a peer review mechanism.

(The President cut off the speaker)


Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the European Commission fully shares the commitment of the European Parliament and its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), to ensure respect for our common European values. The Commission has taken action by initiating, for the first time, the procedure set out in Article 7 of the Treaty in relation to the actions of the Polish Government. The European Parliament initiated the procedure in relation to the actions of the Hungarian Government. The Commission has used its role of guardian of the Treaties by launching a number of infringement proceedings related to the rule of law.
All EU Member States are monitored by the Commission in the context of the European semester. In 2019 the Country Report on Slovakia stresses, in particular, that long-standing concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary remain largely unchanged and do not appear to have been addressed.
The 2019 Country Report on Malta underlines that recent reforms have not fully ensured the independence of the judiciary, as also confirmed by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, and I agree that we have to continue the dialogue with Malta, and we will do so.
The European semester assessment also increasingly prioritises the fight against corruption. This is important for our economy and society. Since 2015, Slovakia has received recommendations on fighting corruption on a regular basis. The Commission raised concerns about the accountability of the police and the low number of criminal prosecutions, as well as the insufficient protection offered to whistle-blowers.
As for Malta, the Commission is concerned about the lack of efficiency in handling high-profile corruption cases at both the level of investigation and prosecution. The Commission addresses these recommendations on a yearly basis with both countries.
Let me now turn to the safety of journalists and media freedom. As regards safety of journalists, the Commission stands firm on the protection of freedom of expression and media freedom. Democracy cannot survive if journalists are no longer able to report freely, if they are intimidated, harassed, threatened or even killed for doing their job. It is crucial that the masterminds of the assassinations of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Ján Kuciak and his fiancée, Martina Kušnírová, are brought to justice.
Law enforcement and police investigations into individual crimes remain an individual Member State competence, but Member States have a number of obligations when investigating such crimes. They also have positive obligations to create favourable conditions so that freedom of expression can be effectively exercised. I have to repeat again exactly what I offered both to Malta and Slovakia, that our agencies Europol and Eurojust are fully available to support the investigation into those horrible case.
Now let me turn to the investor citizens schemes and investor resident schemes. As regards investor citizenship and resident schemes in the EU, the Commission adopted a comprehensive report on 23 January 2019. As a next step, the Commission proposes to set up a group of experts from the Member States to look into the specific risks that arise from investor citizenship schemes. This group will develop, by the end of this year, a common set of security checks for investor citizenship schemes.
The Commission intends to present in June an initiative on further strengthening the rule of law within the Union. To prepare this, the Commission intends to adopt a communication on the state of play and the possible next steps for further strengthening the rule of law in the Union, with the objective of consulting all institutions and interested parties. The work of the European Parliament is particularly relevant to feed the reflection on the future initiative. The Commission will take due account of the resolution on an EU pact on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. In this context, it will also consider proposals including those relating to the use of possible peer-review mechanisms on the rule of law.

Roberta Metsola,
f'isem il-grupp PPE. – Jiena kburija b'pajjiżi, kburija bil-poplu Malti, kburija li aħna membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea, ta' din l-unjoni ta' valuri. Kburija li ġejja minn pajjiż żgħir imma bi storja kbira, li ta kontribut lid-dinja. Dan huwa li jagħmilna lkoll Maltin, li ċ-ċokon tagħna mhux ostakolu u għaliex l-ideat ma jiddependux mill-qies jew mill-pożizzjoni ġeografika.
               

                  Ħdimna u wasalna, u għamilna hekk għaliex id-determinazzjoni tagħna ġejja mill-integrità tagħna. Il-karattru tal-poplu Malti u Għawdxi huwa dak li dejjem iddistingwiena. U aħna kellna nissieltu biex insostnu l-identità Ewropea tagħna. F'din il-mixja ffaċċjajna l-ostakoli kollha immaġinabbli, inkluż minn nies li ironikament illum jinsabu f'dan il-Parlament. Imma minkejja kull kampanja negattiva li saret aħna dejjem konna konvinti minn dak li jagħmilna Maltin, Għawdxin u Ewropej. Il-valuri Maltin huma l-valuri Ewropej u ejja nkunu ċari, l-assassinju tal-ġurnalisti m'għandux ikun aċċettabbli għalina. Il-korruzzjoni u l-qerq mhumiex aċċettabbli. L-impunità u l-inġustizzja m'għandhom ikunu aċċettabbli qatt. Jiena nippromwovi u niddefendi dak li jagħmilna Maltin u Ewropej, dejjem u kullimkien. U dan huwa l-ispirtu ta' din ir-riżoluzzjoni: tipprovdi qafas ta' kif għandhom isiru l-affarijiet fil-futur.
               

                  Jiena ser inżomm il-bandiera ta' pajjiżi fil-għoli anke meta dawk fil-poter u sħabhom jagħmlu minn kollox biex ikasbruha. Jiena qiegħda fil-politika għax għandi twemmin, għandi valuri u għandi prinċipji, u ħa nibqa' nagħmel hekk billi nitkellem f'isem il-poplu Malti u Għawdxi.
               

Josef Weidenholzer,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie sind Voraussetzung dafür, dass sich die Menschen sicher fühlen können. Vertrauen ist nur möglich, wenn Regeln eingehalten, Korruption und politische Willkür verhindert werden und Meinungsfreiheit respektiert wird. Das gilt nicht nur innerstaatlich, sondern auch zwischenstaatlich. Die Sorge um die Entwicklung in einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten ist deshalb keine Einmischung in innere Angelegenheiten, sondern vielmehr eine gesamteuropäische Verantwortung.
               

                  In vielen Mitgliedstaaten gibt es Anlass zur Sorge, ob dieses Grundverständnis auch wirklich respektiert wird. Im Falle Polens und Ungarns sind bereits entsprechende Verfahren nach Artikel 7 im Gange. In Malta und der Slowakei hat die Ermordung von Daphne Galizia und Ján Kuciak, die den kriminellen Dimensionen der Korruption in ihren Ländern auf der Spur waren, die europäische Öffentlichkeit verunsichert.
               

                  Unsere Arbeitsgruppe hat sich intensiv mit dem Prozess der Aufklärung dieser Verbrechen und den Strukturen im Justizsystem der betreffenden Länder beschäftigt. Dabei war auch die Frage maßgeblich, ob es sich hier um eine systematische Verletzung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit handelt. In beiden Ländern gibt es in der Tat strukturelle Probleme. Im Fall Maltas wurde deswegen auch die Venedig-Kommission bemüht, deren Vorschläge auch aufgegriffen werden. Positiv hervorzuheben ist auch der europäische Mehrwert der Tätigkeit von Europol. Leider bestehen auch berechtigte Zweifel, ob wirklich nachhaltige Konsequenzen gezogen werden – sowohl was die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz als auch die Freiheit der Presse betrifft.
               

                  Wir dürfen gerade jetzt nicht lockerlassen. Wir brauchen ein europäisches Bewusstsein für Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Und deswegen hat die Installierung eines eigenen Rechtsstaatlichkeitsmechanismus, den das Europäische Parlament schon seit Langem fordert, für uns oberste Priorität. Dass die Kommission diesbezüglich nicht sehr klar ist und bereits wieder eine Art halben Rückzieher machen wird, ist mehr als bedauerlich.
               

Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner,
ECR-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, Transparency Internationalin korruptioindeksin mukaan Slovakia on EU:n kuudenneksi ja Malta kahdeksanneksi korruptoitunein maa.
               

                  Ongelmien esille tuomisessa väärinkäytösten ilmoittajien ja tutkivien toimittajien työ on ensisijaisen tärkeää. Meitä kaikkia ovat järkyttäneet viimeisten vuosien aikana tapahtuneet toimittajien murhat Maltalla ja Slovakiassa. Murhat on ehdottomasti selvitettävä perusteellisesti ja niiden tilaajat ja tekijät saatava oikeuden eteen vastaamaan teoistaan. Pidän huolestuttavana väitteitä, että Maltan hallituksessa olisi tahoja, jotka saattavat olla vastuussa toimittajan murhasta ja siksi pyrkivät estämään tutkinnan etenemistä.
               

                  Sekä Malta että Slovakia osallistuvat kansalaisuuksien tai oleskelulupien kauppaan. TAX3-erityisvaliokunnassa käsittelimme näitä kultaisten viisumien järjestelmiä laajalti. Jäsenmaiden tulisi lakkauttaa tällaiset käytännöt pikaisesti, sillä niihin liittyy paljon riskejä liittyen esimerkiksi rahanpesuun, korruptioon ja turvallisuuteen, ja tällainen rikollinen toiminta ei voi olla yhteisten arvojemme mukaista toimintaa.
               

Sven Giegold,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Der Verlust an Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Demokratie und der Einhaltung von Grundrechten in einigen Mitgliedstaaten der EU ist wirklich besorgniserregend. Das trifft Europa ins Herz. Denn Europa war niemals nur eine Geschichte der Maximierung von Interessen der Mitglieder, sondern immer auch eine Wertegemeinschaft. Und deshalb ist es so entscheidend, dass alle Mitgliedstaaten sich an diese Prinzipien halten. Deshalb ist es richtig, dass wir endlich einen starken Rechtsstaatsmechanismus bekommen, der in allen Mitgliedstaaten – in allen – öffentlich nachvollziehbar, durch ein unabhängiges Expertengremium untersucht, ob Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Demokratie und Grundrechte eingehalten werden.
               

                  Und wenn Länder das systematisch nicht tun, dann muss dies auch Konsequenzen haben. Insbesondere sollte im Rahmen des nächsten mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens gelten: Wer europäische Fördergelder verausgaben will, der kann dann eben, wenn er starke Rechtsstaatsverstöße aufzuweisen hat, diese Entscheidungen nicht mehr selber treffen, sondern die gehören dann in die europäischen Institutionen.
               

Barbara Spinelli,
a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa legislatura ha evidenziato che lo Stato di diritto e i diritti umani nell'Unione sono pericolanti, che esistono giornalisti che rischiano la morte. La risoluzione che discutiamo è uno dei tanti contributi del Parlamento in materia.
               

                  Il monitoraggio, tuttavia, presuppone che il nostro ruolo sia neutrale, mai elettoralistico, attento a evitare doppi standard e atteggiamenti punitivi, e che l'obiettivo sia quello di rafforzare gli anticorpi nazionali, senza pretendere di sostituirci totalmente a essi, presupposti che non ritengo del tutto soddisfatti nella risoluzione.
               

                  Non chiedo di abdicare al nostro ruolo, ma di renderlo incensurabile. Il rischio, altrimenti, è che le istituzioni europee vengano sempre più considerate un potere orwelliano e che lo Stato di diritto sia percepito come imposizione esterna da osteggiare.
               

Laura Ferrara,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la persistente incapacità dell'Unione europea di contrastare fenomeni che minacciano stato di diritto, democrazia, diritti fondamentali in alcuni Stati membri, tra cui Malta e Slovacchia, è stata ripetutamente evidenziata dal Parlamento, senza che le altre istituzioni europee abbiano dato un seguito con adeguate azioni.
               

                  Da anni sosteniamo la necessità di istituire un meccanismo europeo di monitoraggio, idoneo a prevenire e contrastare determinate violazioni. Ma ancora una volta ci ritroviamo a chiedere alla Commissione quali misure intende prendere in considerazione in merito alle carenze riguardanti la separazione dei poteri, l'indipendenza della Magistratura, la lotta contro la corruzione e la criminalità organizzata, la sicurezza dei giornalisti e la libertà dei media.
               

                  Un fenomeno, ad esempio, non circoscritto soltanto a Malta riguarda i programmi relativi ai visti d'oro e al loro impatto sull'acquisizione della cittadinanza dell'Unione europea, i diritti di ingresso e di soggiorno, diventati merce di scambio per ottenere da cittadini stranieri consistenti investimenti, non sempre sottoposti a rigorose regole di controllo e trasparenza. Ecco, su questo aspetto sono necessarie regole precise, per meglio preservare i confini dell'Unione europea da attività criminali.
               

                  La lotta alla corruzione deve essere sostenuta in Europa colmando le lacune legislative nella prevenzione e nel contrasto del fenomeno ed è per questo che attendiamo in Europa misure come, ad esempio, quelle contenute nella legge ‘spazzacorrotti’ approvata in Italia, che prevede, tra l'altro, il Daspo ai corrotti nella Pubblica Amministrazione, gli agenti sotto copertura e la totale trasparenza nei finanziamenti ai partiti.
               

Pál Csáky (PPE). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. Chcem podporiť túto rezolúciu, ktorá nie je mierená proti občanom Malty alebo Slovenska, ale opačne, je na ich ochranu a je smerovaná proti niektorým politickým praktikám aj vlády Malty, aj Slovenska. Táto rezolúcia je založená na ochrane demokratických hodnôt a tie musia byť rešpektované všetkými vládami. Čo sa týka mojej krajiny, Slovenska, boli sme šokovaní z toho, že sa niekto opovážil zavraždiť novinára a jeho snúbenicu. Ešte viac sme boli šokovaní, keď sme sa dozvedeli, že chápadlá talianskej mafie siahali priam na Úrad vlády a že v našej krajine sa našli ľudia, ktorí plánovali vraždu ďalších troch dôležitých ľudí, prokurátora, zástupcu generálneho prokurátora a známeho advokáta, ktorý predtým vykonával funkciu ministra spravodlivosti. V krajine sa niekoľkokrát uskutočnili protestné desaťtisícové pochody, ktoré protestovali proti korupcii a proti politickým praktikám. Dovoľte mi teda, aby som sa poďakoval Európskemu parlamentu, ktorý sa svojimi aktivitami postavil jasne na stranu občanov, ktorí odmietajú takéto deformácie. Chcem ešte upozorniť aj na to, že slovenský parlament dlhodobo ignoruje aj požiadavku petičného výboru Európskeho parlamentu na prehodnotenie svojho stanoviska ohľadne aplikovania princípu kolektívnej viny na skupinu vlastných občanov. Hovorím o uznesení slovenského parlamentu z 20. septembra 2007 a žiadam Európsku komisiu o kontrolu, či toto uznesenie je v súlade so základnými dokumentmi Európskej únie.
               

Monika Smolková (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. Pred rokom sme bezprostredne po vražde novinára Jána Kuciaka a jeho priateľky všetci vyjadrili presvedčenie, tu na tejto pôde, že orgány činné v trestnom konaní budú úspešné a že spravodlivosť zvíťazí. Dnes som veľmi rada, že opäť na pôde Európskeho parlamentu môžeme povedať, že spravodlivosť dostala zadosť, že boli obvinení konkrétne piati ľudia z objednania a vykonania vraždy. Pred dvoma týždňami tu v pléne hovoril premiér Slovenskej republiky Peter Pellegrini medzi iným aj o tom, ako jeho vláda v oblasti právneho štátu robí opatrenia, aj bojuje proti korupcii. Vláda Slovenskej republiky schválila a úspešne uvádza do života návrh protikorupčnej politiky Slovenskej republiky na roky 2019 až 2023, ktorý sa prioritne zameriava na verejnú správu, ústredné orgány štátnej moci a ktorý vychádza zo štandardov západnej Európy a myšlienok OECD. Musíme si však povedať pravdu. Nie iba na Malte a na Slovensku je potrebné bojovať proti korupcii. Štatistiky hovoria jasnou rečou. Ročne na daňových únikoch a vyhýbaniu sa daniam prichádza Európska únia o jeden bilión eur. Je na mieste otázka, dokedy bude mať EÚ daňové raje a kedy príde ozajstná, taká európska legislatíva, ktorá zabráni podvodom a daňovým únikom a zneužívaniu pri čerpaní eurofondov. A na záver – ešte mám päť sekúnd – pani komisárka, chcem sa vám poďakovať za vašu návštevu na Slovensku a veľmi pozitívne vyjadrenia v oblasti rómskej problematiky.
               

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, já opakovaně jsem byl v minulém roce i v tomto roce na Maltě i na Slovensku a musím říci, že jsem byl poněkud zděšen množstvím případů, kdy docházelo k porušování pravidel Evropské unie.
               

                  Občané Malty i Slovenska doufají v Evropskou unii, která jim má pomoci právě bojovat proti věcem, kvůli kterým zemřeli dva zmínění novináři. Je to zaprvé korupce a zadruhé je to nefunkčnost právního státu. Neříkejme si o tom, že tato věc není dostatečně známá. Je dostatečně známá a my musíme být opravdu jako poslanci Evropského parlamentu i jako zástupci Evropské unie dostatečně tvrdí a nekompromisní nejenom při vyšetřování těchto případů, ale při nastavování lepších pravidel. Evropská unie se musí ukázat jako nikoliv bezzubá mašina, která toleruje některé excesy, ale jako ta, která požaduje důkladné vyšetření a nastavení pravidel do budoucna, aby se podobné případy neopakovaly.
               

Alfred Sant (S&D). – Kwistjonijiet dwar is-saltna tad-dritt qed jintużaw biex imexxu 'l quddiem interessi polarizzati u partiġġjani li jeżistu fil-politika nazzjonali Maltija. Qed isiru akkużi dwar Malta li huma fattwalment żbaljati u mgħawġa bil-għan li jkun jista' jingħata bidu għal aktar hekk imsejħa inkjesti. Darba wara l-oħra investigazzjoni ta' dat-tip raw kif għamlu biex iħammġu isem il-gżira. Il-mod kif ħadem il-grupp ta' monitoraġġ fil-Kumitat LIBE ta' dal-Parlament li mexxa investigazzjoni f'dil-linja kien imċajpar u arbitrarju. Membru ewlieni tal-grupp huwa wkoll membru ewlieni tal-partit tal-oppożizzjoni f'Malta. Kif nistgħu nippreżentaw ruħna bħala difensuri tas-saltna tad-dritt meta nippermettu li ġudizzji ta' portata kbira dwar il-valuri jsiru minn grupp li l-membri tiegħu jagħżlu lilhom infushom minn ġewwa u bla ebda trasparenza. Malta għandha kull ħila biex tqis l-operat demokratiku tagħha u tirriformah, waqt li tirrispetta għal kollox is-saltna tad-dritt. Dan jgħodd għal kull qasam fejn tista' tqum xi kriżi. Il-ġimgħa li għaddiet il-Gvern Malti kkommetta ruħu li se jwettaq bidliet leġiżlattivi li jirriflettu r-rakkomandazzjonijiet li għamlet dan l-aħħar il-Kummissjoni ta' Venezja dwar governanza. Personalment, nemmen li ma kienx hemm għalfejn li dan l-impenn isir daqshekk malajr. Il-bidliet jeħtieġ li jiġu diskussi f'Malta, fost il-Maltin, mal-Maltin, mhux ma membri preġudikati ta' din il-Kamra. Madankollu, hija ħaġa żgura li d-deċiżjoni li ħa l-Gvern tikkostitwixxi sinjal ċar, anki bil-kejl dubjuż ta' din il-kamra, li Malta hi u se tibqa' tkun Stat li jirrispetta bis-sħiħ is-saltna tad-dritt. Nistenna li l-Membri ta' dan il-Parlament jaffaċċjaw il-fatti b'onestà.
               

Асим Адемов (PPE). – г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, категорично осъждам убийствата на журналистите в Малта и Словакия. Това, което се случи в тези страни, е недопустимо и е в разрез с европейските ценности, европейските правила, така че ние от ЕНП категорично осъждаме тези убийства.
               

                  Настояваме съответните страни да разследват и да предоставят цялата истина пред обществото. Не само тези, които са извършители, но и тези, които са подбудители и подучители на тези убийства, защото журналистите в европейските страни трябва да имат свободата и сигурността да разследват престъпленията на своите правителства, разбира се, там, където ги има.
               

                  Не съм съгласен с тези колеги, които се опитаха да поставят до тези страни и България, като страна, в която се убиват журналисти, защото в България такъв случай нямаше.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, a União Europeia é uma comunidade de leis baseada na democracia, nos direitos humanos e no Estado de Direito. Infelizmente, nalguns Estados-Membros estes princípios não passam de letra morta e os jornalistas de investigação pagam com a própria vida a coragem de denunciar as fragilidades da democracia, o clientelismo político, a corrupção e os abusos de poder nos seus países.
               

                  Foi esse o preço pago pelo eslovaco Jan Kuciak, assassinado por investigar as relações do crime organizado em altas esferas do poder político no seu país e em Malta, por Daphne Galizia, sem que tenha sido aberta, até hoje, uma investigação pública, credível, que permita apurar quem foram os reais mandantes do seu brutal assassinato.
               

                  Quando somos lestos nas críticas ao Governo polaco ou ao senhor Orbán não podemos ignorar o que estes crimes brutais procuraram silenciar. A politização do poder judicial e das forças policiais, a debilidade da luta contra a corrupção e a lavagem de dinheiro nestes dois Estados-Membros, agravados no caso de Malta, tal como no meu país, Portugal, pelos programas de vistos gold que constituem, muitas vezes, um vergonhoso esquema de branqueamento de capitais que escancara as portas da União a criminosos e corruptos.
               

Miriam Dalli (S&D). – Għalija, pajjiżi u n-nies tiegħu huma l-aktar ħaġa importanti. Imma nhar il-Ħamis dan il-Parlament se jintalab jivvota fuq riżoluzzjoni li tagħti l-impressjoni li dan huwa xi pajjiż, jiġifieri Malta, li ma jinteressahx mis-saltna tad-dritt. L-ironija hija li filwaqt li dan il-Parlament illum qed jiffoka fuq Malta, f'Malta għandna gvern li llum stess, u f'anqas minn mitt jum, qed iressaq emendi fil-parlament fuq il-parir tal-Kummissjoni Venezja biex jirriforma l-liġijiet. U qed nieħu gost nisma' lir-rapporteur tgħid li se tressaq emendi u nixtieq nara dawn l-emendi għaliex kif inhi r-riżoluzzjoni bħalissa ċertament li ma tagħtix stampa ċara ta' dak li qed jiġri. U l-Kummissarju semmiet il-ħatriet ġudizzjarji bħala eżempju fejn skont hi ma sarx biżżejjed. Li ma semmietx il-Kummissarju huwa li l-gvern attwali jaqbel ma' aktar riformi li jirrikjedu emendi kostituzzjonali li jeħtieġu żewġ terzi tal-membri tal-parlament, kif ikkomunikat lilek Sinjura Kummissarju f'ittra mibgħuta lilek. Dawn huma riformi ta' liġijiet li gvern preċedenti li jagħmel parti mill-EPP ma indirizzax f'ħamsa u għoxrin sena.
               

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, falou no papel dos whistleblowers. Peço-lhe que siga de perto o que está a passar-se, no meu país, com Rui Pinto, o whistleblower John dos Football Leaks, que está preso preventivamente e sente estar em perigo de vida.
               

                  Liderei a missão a Malta depois do assassinato de Daphne Caruana Galizia. Considero insuportável que ainda não se tenha prendido os mandantes do assassinato e que, talvez, e temo, se prepare a libertação dos executantes, porque a investigação está bloqueada pelo primeiro-ministro Joseph Muscat que comanda a polícia e o procurador-geral. Porque, efetivamente, não há separação de poderes em Malta e é por isso que agora estão a fazer as tais alterações de que falou a minha colega Miriam Dalli.
               

                  Em Malta, como na Eslováquia, tudo aponta para que a captura do Governo pela máfia esteja por trás destes assassinatos, dos assassinatos de Daphne, de Jan e de Martina.
               

                  É intolerável que Joseph Muscat continue a proteger os corruptos postos pelos Panama Papers no seu Governo e que continue a atacar aqueles que pedem justiça por Daphne, incluindo os seus filhos, perseguindo-os com processos de difamação. Pergunto aos colegas da minha família política que tendem a
               

(A oradora aceita responder a uma pergunta formulada ao abrigo do procedimento ‘cartão azul’ (artigo 162.o, n.o 8, do Regimento))


Miriam Dalli (S&D),
blue-card question. – Since I was mentioned in an incoherent speech, which I couldn't even follow, I would like my colleague to kindly specify more clearly, if you are against these reforms – because that is what I am understanding from you.

Ana Gomes (S&D),
blue-card answer. – (start of speech off mike) … reforms that can indeed ensure the separation of powers and the rule of law. That's exactly the reason why they are not there. These are not being respected, and that's the reason why the investigation into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia is blocked. That is outrageous. I hope that anyone serious like yourself would be against that.

Monika Beňová (S&D). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. Bude to teraz náročné. Toto už je druhá správa o stave a o situácii na Slovensku a na Malte. A ja, podobne ako v rozprave pri prvej správe koncom minulého roka, chcem povedať, že mi je úprimne ľúto smrti pána Kuciaka, jeho priateľky pani Kušnírovej, a aj pani Galicie. Nemôžem však hodnotiť túto správu ako netendenčnú. Táto správa je tendenčná, pretože som bola v pravidelnom kontakte s pani spravodajkyňou a dávala som jej informácie, ktoré sa do tejto správy nedostali. Takže ak dovolíte, poviem ich teraz. Na Slovensku boli v pomerne rýchlom čase nielen otvorená spolupráca so všetkými relevantnými agentúrami, ktoré spomínala pani komisárka, ale boli už aj obvinení, či už vykonávatelia alebo zadávatelia vraždy. Veľmi ma mrzí, že sa prehlbuje takáto brázda medzi západnou a východnou Európou a že sme tu každý mesiac už na zasadnutiach svedkami toho, ako západoeurópske štáty kritizujú východoeurópske štáty za porušovanie pravidiel právneho štátu. Je to veľká škoda pre nás všetkých…
               

(prerušené predsedajúcim)


(Rečníčka súhlasila s tým, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty (článok 162 ods. 8 rokovacieho poriadku))


Sophia in 't Veld,
deputising for the author, blue-card question. – Look, I've heard your criticisms. I've heard them before. I think they're unfounded and I wasn't going to react. But I would really like you to clarify the last statement about how this resolution indicates that there is a rift between eastern and western Europe. I have always maintained that there is no eastern Europe or western Europe or central Europe or northern Europe or southern Europe… there is only one Europe, and that is what I have been working for for the last 15 years, and I don't accept your statement.

Monika Beňová (S&D),
odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Veľmi jednoduchá odpoveď. Hovorila som to v kontexte toho, ako tu už každý mesiac kritizujete niektorý členský štát z východnej časti Európskej únie. Raz je to Česká republika, raz Maďarsko, potom Poľsko, potom Rumunsko, potom Bulharsko a teraz Slovensko. Je to už na programe každého jedného zasadnutia. A len upozorňujem na to, že to naozaj neprispieva dobrej spolupráci medzi členskými štátmi. Hovoríte o korupcii. V predchádzajúcej rozprave – škoda, že ste tu neboli – sme hovorili o Holandsku, o vašej krajine, ako o krajine, kde prijímate zákony a legislatívu, ktorá vytvára predpoklady na korupciu, a to tým, že poskytujete finančné benefity veľkým spoločnostiam…
               

(prerušené predsedajúcim)


Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, Comisaria Jourová, Eslovaquia y Malta son dos Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, y sus ciudadanos están representados en este Parlamento Europeo y merecen todo nuestro respeto. Pero no hay ni un solo Estado miembro que pueda librarse del foco y de la prioridad que este Parlamento Europeo ha puesto en el Estado de Derecho y en la lucha contra la corrupción, lo que significa garantizar pluralismo informativo e independencia judicial en la investigación de los delitos.
               

                  Ha habido dos asesinatos de periodistas, lo que pone de manifiesto la necesidad de que Eslovaquia y Malta hagan sus deberes para aclarar completamente, con la colaboración de Europol, esos asesinatos. Garantizar la seguridad de los periodistas y luchar contra la corrupción significa también acabar con los esquemas de visas doradas que permiten inversiones ilícitas, blanqueo de dinero procedente de negocios ilícitos, además de la necesidad de asegurar la transparencia y la aseguración de los whistleblowers que denuncian los graves delitos que puedan tener lugar y que necesitan ser depurados judicialmente.
               

                  Por tanto, es imprescindible —y se lo hemos dicho a los primeros ministros en sus comparecencias en este Parlamento— que Malta y Eslovaquia aclaren esos asesinatos cuanto antes.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this has been a very important debate because it covered several existentially crucial and important topics. We spoke about the rule of law and freedom of the media. We didn't speak so much about the necessary space for civil society, which is also part of the same thing. Whenever we see a worsening of the situation in a Member State, we see that it usually refers to all three of these pillars, which we should pay attention to.
I will now stay more with the rule of law principle and the mechanisms the Commission uses to uphold and monitor the rule of law in the Member States. As I said before, we use the whole toolbox and all the instruments available. We launched Article 7 for the first time. We are covering this important issue in the European Semester. We use infringements where possible and where needed, and we also use something which I didn't mention at the beginning, the Justice Scoreboard, which is a very useful yearly benchmarking exercise and shows, among other things, how the people, the citizens and the businesses in all the countries grasp and perceive the independence and quality of the judiciary system. We are also newly adding the criteria of how the fight against corruption is done in the Member States. So these are all the instruments we have in our toolbox.
Let me now say a few words about the new initiatives. As I said at the beginning, we plan the communication on the rule of law to clarify what we mean by the rule of law – that it is not purely a Member State issue, but is a European issue which has been covered by the recent case law of the European Court of Justice and which will be fully reflected in our communication on the rule of law.
Another initiative is the linking of the rule of law with the new budget. I think that this should also be mentioned here. We also adopted the new initiative on the protection of whistle-blowers and, last but not least, the European Public Prosecutor's Office, which should start working from 2020, is a very important contribution to the fight against corruption and financial crime related to EU money.
This is a long list of initiatives. We need to enforce the law, to bring all these initiatives to life and to explain to the citizens of the EU why we are doing this and why it is very important.
I spoke about the need to uphold the rule of law and to run all these initiatives from the side of the European Union. At the same time, as a citizen of the Czech Republic, I would like to add that maybe I feel a similar thing to some of you, namely that we should trust more the people living in our countries and our Member States, that there are democrats and that they have enhanced a way to solve the problems. They should not be put aside. We should trust them and we should trust the active citizens. That's why I also mentioned civil society organisations and the active citizens who raise their voices and express their dissatisfaction if something is wrong in their country. I am not calling for demonstrations, I'm not calling for riots, I just say we should trust more the people living in our Member States because they are democrats and they know what to do – among other things, to go to the elections and vote for democratic powers.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 28 March 2019.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Kinga Gál (PPE),
írásban. – Nagyon elkeserítő, hogy a XXI. század Európájában az oknyomozó újságírásba bele lehet halni. Mindent meg kell tenni annak érdekében, hogy kézre kerüljenek az elkövetők és, hogy hasonló barbár cselekedetek soha többé ne fordulhassanak elő! Ugyanakkor elfogadhatatlan, hogy a máltai és szlovákiai gyilkosságokkal összefüggésben tartott vitát arra használja az európai parlament, hogy egy újabb általános jogállamisági vita keretében Magyarországot ostorozza, ahol nem öltek meg újságírót, nem ül börtönben egyetlen újságíró sem és senkit nem hurcoltak meg koholt vádak alapján.
               

                  Az pedig egyenesen felháborító, hogy ‘a jogállamiság és a korrupció elleni küzdelem helyzete az Európai Unióban, különösen Máltán és Szlovákiában’ címet viselő parlamenti állásfoglalástervezetben olyan hivatkozás is van, amelyben az Európai Parlament sürgeti a tanácsot, hogy részt vehessen a Magyarország elleni 7-es cikk szerinti eljárásban, amihez az alapító szerződések alapján semmi joga sem lenne. Egyértelmű a baloldali és liberális EP képviselők szándéka, hogy minden fronton nyomást gyakoroljanak hazánkra, hogy megváltoztassuk a tömeges migrációt ellenző álláspontunkat. Csakis így jelenhetnek meg a hazánkkal szemben megfogalmazott kritikák tartalmilag Magyarországot nem érintő jelentésekbe és állásfoglalásokban is!
               

Urmas Paet (ALDE),
kirjalikult. – Nii Maltal kui ka Slovakkias on ajakirjanikud pidanud oma töö eest maksma eluga. On oluline tagada ajakirjandusvabadus nii Maltal kui ka Slovakkias ning järgida õigusriigi põhimõtteid. Tuleb jätkuvalt tegelda korruptsioonivastase monitoorimisega ja tegelda ka selliste probleemidega nagu nn kuldsed viisad ning kaitsta Schengeni ala usaldusväärsust.
               
15.   Discontinuing seasonal changes of time (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Marita Ulvskog, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on discontinuing seasonal changes of time (COM(2018)0639 – C8-0408/2018 – 2018/0332(COD)) (A8-0169/2019).

Marita Ulvskog,
Föredragande. – Herr talman! Om några dagar ska vi ju ställa om klockan till sommartid igen. Det blir andra gången det senaste halvåret som vi ändrar på våra klockor. Den här tidsomställningen, som vi genomför två gånger per år, har vi haft under flera årtionden. Syftet när tidsomställningen infördes var att vi skulle spara energi. Men så är det inte längre. Med ny teknik och andra levnadsvanor så tjänar vi ingenting på omställningen. Vi sparar inte energi.
               

                  Jag har varit Europaparlamentariker i tio år och under de här åren har jag fått otaliga mejl och brev och samtal från människor i en rad olika frågor. Men en av de frågor som har återkommit med jämna mellanrum är att man mår dåligt av tidsomställningen. De som påverkas, påverkas olika mycket. För en del är det inte så stora besvär, andra reagerar mycket starkt. Det är framför allt sårbara grupper som barn, äldre, långtidssjuka och grupper som redan har fysiska, och kanske ibland psykiska, problem som drabbas av omställningen. Mot den bakgrunden är det mycket rimligt att vi ser över systemet med den säsongsbaserade tidsomställningen. Den ger inget energisparande. Den leder sannolikt till negativ påverkan på många människor.
               

                  Med start i namninsamlingar och medborgarinitiativ från människor i olika EU-länder har vi i Europaparlamentet fått del av väldigt många medborgares åsikter och upplevelser. Det finns faktiskt inget annat ämne som har berört och engagerat så många EU-medborgare – vanliga EU-medborgare som inte är djupt engagerade i politik – som tidsomställningen. Massor av människor hör av sig. De gör det i brev till oss i Europaparlamentet, de gjorde det genom en enkät som kommissionen genomförde förra året. Det handlar om miljontals européer. Och då är det faktiskt dags att vi som förtroendevalda lyssnar på dessa reaktioner.
               

                  Jag har det senaste halvåret, i samband med att vi bytte till vintertid, arbetat fram ett förslag om att avskaffa tidsomställningen. Det har sedan förberetts och röstats igenom i sju av parlamentets olika utskott, vilket bland annat också visar hur många områden som berörs av den här tidsomställningen. Förslaget är nu att vi ska avskaffa tidsomställningen hösten 2021. Det ger medborgarna ett väldigt tydligt besked om att vi har lyssnat och samtidigt ger vi också till berörda parter tydliga besked om att vår inre marknad ska ha gott om tid för att ställa om och inte påverkas negativt. Den måste ske på ett organiserat sätt, denna omställning, så att vi fortsättningsvis har en välfungerande inre marknad när det gäller transporter och en massa andra saker.
               

                  Avskaffandet innebär att EU:s medlemsländer måste ta ställning till vilken permanent standardtid de ska välja att ha därefter. Det måste självklart också ske på ett organiserat och koordinerat sätt. Vi får förstås inte skapa ett lapptäcke av olika tider i EU. Därför föreslår jag också att medlemsländerna måste samarbeta med varandra när de ska välja tid och att de ska informera varandra och kommissionen senaste våren 2020. Men bort med den onödiga tidsväxlingen. Jag hoppas att alla lyssnar och röstar för.
               

Violeta Bulc,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would first like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur, Ms Ulvskog, to the shadow rapporteurs and to the members of all six committees of this House that have adopted opinions on the Commission's proposal.
As you are aware, the Commission decided last year to propose the discontinuation of the seasonal time change. This was done in response to calls from this Parliament, from several Member States and from many citizens that have been writing to me and to other Commissioners during our mandate. Available evidence suggested that the justification for the time change arrangement currently applicable has become irrelevant. It is equally clear that a discontinuation would help to make people's lives easier and deal with some health issues that have been related to the current system.
The results of the Commission's public consultation are very straightforward: 4.6 million Europeans responded, of which 84% supported the abolishment of the clock change. In this context, we very much appreciate the support given by the rapporteur and the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) for stopping the changing of clocks in the EU twice a year.
As you know, the Commission has been deliberately very ambitious and proposed to see the last seasonal time change already this year. However, given that the Council has not yet established its own position, we recognise that it becomes impossible to meet such a deadline. I therefore take good note of your report's position in favour of stopping seasonal time changes in 2021.
Allow me to comment further on some of the amendments tabled, which we see as more challenging. First, you have proposed to introduce a new coordination network involving Member States and the Commission to discuss jointly and assess Member States' decisions on standard time and their impact on the internal market, and if the Commission considers that the choice of a Member State would significantly affect the proper functioning of the internal market, the Member State in question would have the obligation to defend its choice and explain how it will address its negative impact.
The Commission sees very well the intention behind such amendments and shares the view that an adequate coordination between Member States is necessary. However, the choice of standard time is a Member State prerogative. There is no change here. The decision on standard time has always been taken at national level.
The Commission cannot support new legal provisions in the directive that would not be in line with this division of responsibilities between the EU and Member States and would not respect the principle of subsidiarity. This being said, I would like to reassure you that I know from my discussions with Member States so far that all of them see as clearly as we do the need for a coordinated approach. I am confident that they will choose their respective standard time in a responsible and coordinated manner. No one wants to see a patchwork of time zones within EU.
Secondly, the Commission has legal concerns with the proposed empowerment to postpone the application of the new arrangements via a delegated act. Such an empowerment should in principle only relate to non-essential elements, while the entry into force is clearly an essential element of the proposal.
To conclude, let me thank you once more for all your constructive work. I now look forward to the debate and to your vote. Indeed, having the European Parliament adopting its position before the parliamentary recess will sent a very clear and strong message to Council that this House is ready to take this proposal forward towards a successful outcome.

Bolesław G. Piecha,
autor projektu opinii Komisji Ochrony Środowiska Naturalnego, Zdrowia Publicznego i Bezpieczeństwa Żywności. – Panie Przewodniczący! Zmiana podejścia do dyrektywy 2000/84/WE ma bardzo duże znaczenie. Pewnie ma znaczenie polityczne, ale to obywatele w referendach i w badaniach opinii publicznej sami wyrazili stanowisko, że nie chcą sezonowej zmiany czasu. Poza tym zmiana ta ma aspekty gospodarcze, na temat których nie chciałbym się wypowiadać, bo one są zapewne bardzo skomplikowane, zwłaszcza jeżeli chodzi o różnego rodzaju działania wspólnego rynku. Natomiast jako sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej ENVI chciałbym zatrzymać się przez chwilę nad sprawami zdrowotnymi.
               

                  Po pierwsze, wszystkie badania w tym zakresie, prowadzone również w ramach nowej dyscypliny jaką jest chronobiologia, a także dane statystyczne dotyczące zdrowia publicznego, jak na przykład zwiększona liczba zawałów serca, samobójstw, wypadków drogowych, które zdarzają się w tym okresie, przemawiają za tym, że jest to zjawisko dla zdrowia publicznego i zdrowia obywatela niekorzystne. W związku z tym komisja ENVI poparła stanowisko, według którego należy jak najszybciej zrezygnować z sezonowej zmiany czasu i uchylić dyrektywę Unii Europejskiej w tej sprawie. Jednocześnie opowiadamy się za tym, aby zgodnie z zasadą pomocniczości państwa członkowskie w sposób zharmonizowany określiły swój czas standardowy. Zdajemy sobie sprawę, że te państwa są w różnych szerokościach geograficznych i że czas nasłonecznienia na północy i południu Europy jest inny.
               

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID-MARIA SASSOLI


Vicepresidente


Sven Schulze,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Industrie, Forschung und Energie. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Es gibt mit Sicherheit wichtigere Themen aktuell in der Europäischen Union als die Abschaffung der Zeitumstellung. Nichtdestotrotz haben sich in einer Online-Petition mehr als vier Millionen Menschen in Europa dafür ausgesprochen, dass wir die Zeitumstellung abschaffen.
                  

                     Die Kommission hat sehr schnell geliefert. Ich war Verfasser der Stellungnahme des Industrieausschusses dazu, auch wir haben von unserem Ausschuss sehr schnell geliefert. Die Mehrheit im Industrieausschuss hat sich auch klar dafür ausgesprochen, dass wir die Zeitumstellung in Europa abschaffen. Dass die Abschaffung nicht schnell kommt, sondern wahrscheinlich erst 2021, das finde ich bedauerlich. Es gibt aber auch aus Industriesicht gute Gründe dafür, beispielsweise im Luftverkehrssektor, wo es um time slots geht, die oft über mehrere Jahre hinaus schon vorverhandelt sind – da kann man nicht so schnell darauf reagieren –, oder auch bei Gasnetzbetreibern.
                  

                     Jetzt liegt es aber nicht an der Kommission, es liegt es auch nicht mehr am Parlament – wir werden ja sehr wahrscheinlich dafür stimmen – sondern es wird an den Mitgliedstaaten liegen. Die Mitgliedstaaten müssen jetzt dafür sorgen, dass wir einen Flickenteppich auf europäischer Ebene vermeiden. Ob sie das hinkriegen, daran gibt es Zweifel. Deshalb auch mein Aufruf an die Mitgliedstaaten, hier schnell zu reagieren und dem Willen der Bürger, dem Willen der Kommission und dem Willen des Europäischen Parlaments zu entsprechen.
                  

Igor Šoltes,
pripravljavec mnenja Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov. – Gospod predsednik, lep pozdrav naši dragi komisarki.
                  

                     Večkrat smo se v tem parlamentu pogovarjali o tej temi. Jasno je, da to ni najpomembnejša tema na svetu in tudi ne v Evropi, je pa seveda zelo pomembna zaradi vidikov, ki smo jih omenili tudi tu, iz zdravstvenih, tudi ekonomskih in številnih drugih, o katerih smo bili priča v zadnjih razpravah.
                  

                     Mislim pa, kar je potrdilo tudi mnenje odbora IMCO, da podpiramo napor k opustitvi premikanja ure, hkrati pa seveda opozarjamo, da moramo oceniti tudi vse posledice te spremembe, ki gotovo bodo nastale na številnih sektorjih, tudi na transportnem sektorju, tudi v določenem sektorju gospodarstva. In zato je potreben določen časovni okvir za prilagajanje tej spremembi.
                  

                     Res pa je tudi, da moramo storiti vse, da ne pride do zmešnjave na evropskem notranjem trgu, in da storimo vse, da poskusimo čim bolj poenotiti in vnaprej predvideti to mavrico sprememb.
                  

Ulrike Müller,
Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Landwirtschaftsausschusses. – Herr Präsident! Als Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des Agrarausschusses sind mir folgende Punkte ein besonderes Anliegen: Aktuell haben wir in Europa ja drei Zeitzonen, und wissenschaftliche Studien belegen, dass die jährliche Zeitumstellung Auswirkungen auf den Biorhythmus und die Gesundheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger sowie auch auf Tiere hat. Gerade Familien mit kleinen Kindern und Milchviehhalter unter den Landwirten kennen die Probleme, die sich bei der zweimal jährlichen Zeitumstellung ergeben.
                  

                     Im AGRI-Ausschuss haben wir uns für die Einführung der Standardzeit ab dem Jahr 2020 entschieden. Folgendes muss jedoch bei der Abschaffung berücksichtigt werden: Der Binnenmarkt muss auch künftig funktionieren. Dazu ist eine Koordinierung der Mitgliedstaaten untereinander von entscheidender Bedeutung. Und was unbedingt verhindert werden muss, ist ein Flickenteppich der Zeitzonen in den unterschiedlichen Mitgliedstaaten. Die Mitgliedstaaten sollen sich gemeinsam entscheiden: Wollen wir in der gesamten EU eine Standardzeit oder die Sommerzeit? Also sorgen wir für ein Ende des Uhrendrehens so früh wie möglich, jedoch mit so viel Koordinationszeit wie nötig!
                  

Pavel Svoboda,
zpravodaj Výboru pro právní záležitosti. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, zpráva o konci střídání letního a zimního času, o které budeme zítra hlasovat, je kompromis, který plně podporuji.
                  

                     Tato zpráva, bude-li přijata, se stane velkým úspěchem Evropského parlamentu, který naplní přání mnoha Evropanů. Zpráva je výsledkem práce skupiny sedmdesáti poslanců EP napříč politickým spektrem všech osmi frakcí Parlamentu, kterou jsem od začátku tohoto mandátu měl tu čest koordinovat. Obsahem návrhu je, abychom v roce 2021 ukončili střídání letního a zimního času. Důvodem k tomu je především negativní dopad na lidské zdraví.
                  

                     Zároveň je důležité, aby tato iniciativa neomezovala fungování vnitřního trhu, a proto jsem rád, že návrh obsahuje pojistku, která dává Komisi pravomoc delegovaným aktem případně prodloužit datum realizace směrnice o dvanáct měsíců. Jsem rád, že jsme stihli podstatnou část legislativní práce na tomto návrhu nyní před volbami do Evropského parlamentu, a vyzývám Radu, aby svoji část práce odvedla stejně dobře jako Evropský parlament a Komise.
                  

Wim van de Camp,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Meneer de Voorzitter, er kan geen misverstand over bestaan dat ik persoonlijk een groot voorstander ben van de zomertijd. Met name de sportmensen en de motorrijders, zoals u, wij houden erg van dit systeem. Maar om met collega Koch en Annie Schreijer-Pierik te spreken: als 20 % van de Europeanen last heeft van die wisseling van de tijd, dan moeten wij daar serieus naar kijken.
                  

                     Er is best wat af te dingen op de enquête. Vijf miljoen mensen hebben gereageerd, 497 miljoen mensen niet. Dat is ook wel iets om even rekening mee te houden, mevrouw de commissaris.
                  

                     Zoals ik al heb gezegd, steun ik het verslag van de transportcommissie. Een aantal zakelijke elementen, waaronder de energiebesparing, zijn vervallen. Het gevaar dreigt echter dat de interne markt erdoor komt te lijden. Ik betreur het zeer dat u op voorhand het coördinatiemechanisme al afwijst. Het coördinatiemechanisme dat is ontwikkeld door de rapporteur en de schaduwrapporteurs is wel degelijk nodig om die interne markt en daarmee ook de transportsector overeind te houden. Ik hoop dat u daar nog eens goed over na wil denken.
                  

Liisa Jaakonsaari,
S&D-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, Euroopan kansalaiset ovat pyytäneet kellojen siirtelyn lopettamista ja meillä Euroopan parlamentissa on nyt velvollisuus vastata tähän pyyntöön.
                  

                     Tuo kellojen siirtely on keinotekoinen, ja sen kuuluu jäädä historiaan. Useat tutkimukset ovat osoittaneet, kuten Marita Ulvskog sanoo, että sen hyödyt ovat minimaalisia ja haitat esimerkiksi terveydelle ovat luultua vakavammat.
                  

                     Eurooppalaista näkökulmaa tarvitaan kuitenkin nyt tässä asiassa. Jäsenmaiden tulee koordinoida aikajärjestelmänsä niin, että EU:n sisälle ei synny pirstaleisia aikavyöhykkeitä, ja tämän takia sisämarkkinoiden toimiminen ja turvaaminen on keskeistä. Komissio oli meitä radikaalimpi ja olisi lopettanut jo tänä vuonna. Tämä on tietenkin mahdotonta, mutta kannatan mahdollisimman nopeaa aikataulua toimeenpanon osalta. Toivon, että jäsenmaat sopivat tästä aikajärjestelmästä mahdollisimman nopeasti.
                  

Kosma Złotowski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Rzeczywiście większość Europejczyków wypowiedziała się zdecydowanie przeciwko zmianie czasu. To już przestarzały zwyczaj, z którego więcej jest szkód niż pożytku. Bardzo dobrze, że został też uwzględniony nasz postulat, aby do tej zmiany doszło dopiero w 2021 roku, bo Unia Europejska nie jest przecież samotną wyspą. Mamy umowy komunikacyjne z krajami leżącymi we wszystkich strefach czasowych i umowy te są podpisywane z wyprzedzeniem.
                  

                     Sposób, w jaki Komisja przygotowała ten projekt od strony technicznej i merytorycznej, jest naprawdę skandaliczny. Brak porządnej oceny skutków był dla nas wręcz żenujący. To wszystko Komisja powinna była przekazać nam wcześniej, a nie zakładać, że od razu całą sprawę załatwimy. Otóż nie, Pani Komisarz, nie załatwimy, i to właśnie z powodów transportowych.
                  

                     Cieszę się, że od 2021 roku nie będziemy już przestawiać wskazówek. Chciałbym tylko podkreślić, że do kompetencji każdego z naszych państw należy określenie jego strefy czasowej.
                  

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica,
en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor presidente, comisaria, ‘No por mucho madrugar amanece más temprano’ dice un refrán para subrayar que las prisas son siempre malas consejeras. Y ese es exactamente el sentido que tiene el acuerdo al que ha llegado la Comisión de Transportes para acabar, sin prisa pero sin pausa, con estos cambios de hora estacionales.
                  

                     Sin prisa, porque hemos acordado dar dos años más para permitir a los Estados de la Unión decidir si optan por su horario de verano o por el de invierno, de manera ordenada y transparente; sin prisa, porque hemos diseñado mecanismos de coordinación y evaluación para garantizar que las decisiones que se adopten no generen nuevas y peligrosas distorsiones en el mercado interior y en sus servicios básicos.
                  

                     Sin pausa, porque muchos estamos de acuerdo en que los cambios bianuales deben terminar. Hay muchos datos que avalan que estos cambios pueden perjudicar, más de lo que pensábamos, a la salud de los europeos, particularmente la de los más jóvenes y la de los de más edad. Y también está claro que no contribuyen al ahorro de energía en los términos que motivaron su puesta en marcha.
                  

                     Por eso, es buena idea poner en marcha una comisión evaluadora entre Estados y autoridades comunitarias que analice, desde abril del año que viene, las propuestas de horario de cada Estado e identifique, prevenga y ayude a evitar posibles problemas. Superada esta etapa de evaluación previa, en el 2021 acabarán de una manera ordenada los cambios estacionales de horario.
                  

                     El acuerdo, además, prevé exhaustivas evaluaciones que permitirán comprobar que lo que hemos decidido, efectivamente, no produce más problemas que los que pretendía resolver. Siguiendo esta hoja de ruta, tenemos que demostrar a los 4 600 000 ciudadanos que participaron en esta consulta pública que las instituciones europeas escuchan, que están cerca, que trabajan con seriedad y rigor sobre las inquietudes ciudadanas y que tratan de jugar el papel que les toca: informarse, moderar entre posiciones contrapuestas y decidir, tratando de fijar con transparencia, posiciones equilibradas. Si con esta forma de hacer generamos confianza y proximidad, el tiempo que dediquemos a acabar de manera ordenada con los cambios de hora será oro.
                  

Jakop Dalunde,
för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Vissa av mina kollegor här i plenum verkar fråga sig om kommissionen inte har något viktigare att ägna sig åt än frågan om vi ska fortsätta att ställa om våra klockor två gånger om året. De har tydligen inte förstått hur viktig den här frågan faktiskt är.
                  

                     Mer än 4,5 miljoner medborgare runt om Europa har yttrat sig, och en stor majoritet vill att Europa ska sluta med säsongsbaserade tidsomställningar. Dessutom finns det vetenskapliga bevis på att det finns stora hälsofördelar med att ha en och samma tid året om. Varje gång vi ställer fram klockan så ökar antalet hjärtattacker, självmord och trafikolyckor nästa dag.
                  

                     Nu är vissa oroliga att antagandet av det här direktivet kommer att leda till ett lapptäcke av olika tidszoner, men tack vare våra gröna ändringsförslag så säkerställer vi att det finns en koordinationsmekanism som minimerar den risken. Det här förslaget är väl genomtänkt, träffsäkert och levererar det som efterfrågas av Europa: en harmoniserad strategi för att avskaffa tidsomställningen.
                  

Merja Kyllönen,
GUE/NGL-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, hyvät kollegat, aikasääntelystä on tullut yksi isoista EU-kysymyksistä varsinkin omassa kotimaassani ja ymmärrän sen hyvin, koska tämä on yksinkertainen, konkreettinen, helposti käsiteltävä ja jokaista kansalaista koskettava asia, minkä vuoksi meidän on otettava – ja on hyvä, että on otettu – asia vakavasti.
                  

                     Me olemme kuulleet ihmisiä ja toimineet heille merkittäväksi koetussa asiassa erittäin nopeasti. Ja vaikka me emme nyt saakaan päätöksiä aikaan ihan tälle vuodelle emmekä vielä seuraavallekaan, niin sillä, että meillä on olemassa päivämäärä tai ajankohta, vuosi sille, että me tämän päätöksen teemme, on ihmisille valtavan iso merkitys.
                  

                     Terveysvaikutukset ihmisille ja eläimille ovat kiistämättömiä: valon vaikutus ihmisen mieleen, mielenterveyteen, tasapainoon, jaksamiseen. Kaikki vaikutukset, joita me voimme huomioida liikenteessä ja teollisuudessa, ovat tärkeitä niin, että me ymmärrämme antaa riittävästi aikaa sopeutua tilanteeseen turvallisesti.
                  

                     Minä uskon, että me kykenemme löytämään koordinoidun, fiksun ratkaisun asiassa, joka on saanut kansalaisten kiinnostuksen Euroopasta ja eurooppalaisesta päätöksenteosta todella heräämään.
                  

Daniela Aiuto,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, purtroppo le motivazioni che mi portano a dissentire da questa proposta sono molteplici. Innanzitutto, manca un'adeguata e necessaria valutazione d'impatto da parte della Commissione europea, indicante gli effetti negativi che il cambiamento del regime orario avrebbe sulla vita delle persone, sulla loro produttività e sull'ambiente.
                  

                     Inoltre, tale direttiva indurrebbe degli effetti attualmente non stimati e non chiari su molteplici settori trasversali come quello agricolo, quello commerciale, in cui si potrebbero avere distorsioni della concorrenza, e quello energetico, che potrebbe vedere un aumento esponenziale dei consumi annui. Infatti, l'adozione dell'ora legale nei mesi estivi comporta un risparmio notevole in termini di elettricità utilizzata ogni anno all'interno dell'Unione e l'adozione di questo progetto di legge potrebbe risultare estremamente deleteria in tal senso.
                  

                     Altro elemento non accettabile è la discrezionalità lasciata agli Stati membri nel decidere il regime orario che ritengono più adatto, in quanto un quadro armonizzato a livello europeo è opportuno sia internamente che nelle relazioni con i paesi terzi.
                  

                     Per concludere vorrei sottolineare che non vi è nessun supporto scientifico fondato e certo per dire che il cambio d'ora impatti negativamente sulla salute delle persone e sulla sicurezza e che le consultazioni dei cittadini sono state condotte in modo non idoneo e senza un reale dibattito nei diversi Stati.
                  

Joëlle Mélin,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, le changement semestriel d'heure d'hiver en heure d'été n'a clairement plus de raison d'être. Les économies d'énergie invoquées initialement ne sont plus quantifiables et les effets négatifs du changement régulier ne sont plus à prouver. Il faut d'ailleurs remarquer que c'est principalement le passage d'heure d'hiver à l'heure d'été qui apporte le plus de désagréments sérieux. Il apparaît aussi que si ce choix d'été était avalisé par certains pays, ces désagréments persisteraient avec de lourdes conséquences sur la physiologie humaine, animale et végétale.
                  

                     Mais le cœur de ce dossier est, comme toujours, la préoccupation de la stabilité du grand marché économique européen, alpha et oméga des valeurs marchandes.
                  

                     Il est clair que la fin des changements d'horaire est une nécessité qui doit s'accompagner d'une réelle coordination, stable et pérenne. Mais, là encore, en laissant légitimement le choix à chaque État membre de déterminer ses horaires journaliers, l'Union européenne ouvre la porte à des difficultés comme seule l'Europe sait les créer quand elle construit et déconstruit dans les domaines où elle aurait été bien inspirée de ne pas s'aventurer.
                  

                     À force de vouloir s'immiscer dans la totalité des actes de la vie quotidienne des Européens, toujours au nom de leur bien-être, l'Europe de Bruxelles a construit des freins. Lorsque les faits prouvent qu'il n'y avait pas de raison de mettre en place certaines contraintes, les annuler devient alors un véritable casse-tête. Que cela serve de leçon. Cessons la production effrénée de textes, qui sont tout sauf libératoires. Changeons donc d'Europe.
                  

Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Bürokratieabbau heißt: Wir sollten uns von dem trennen, was nichts nutzt und uns nicht guttut. Die Zeit ist reif, lasst uns dem Unsinn der zweimaligen jährlichen Zeitumstellung ein Ende bereiten! Machen wir Schluss mit den gesundheitlichen Nachteilen für zirka zwanzig Prozent der europäischen Bevölkerung, mit den wirtschaftlichen Nachteilen für eine Vielzahl von Unternehmen, mit den negativen Auswirkungen auf die Straßenverkehrssicherheit und mit den Störungen des Biorhythmus von Tieren!
                  

                     Nunmehr haben auch Kollegen eingesehen, dass die Zeitumstellung aufgehoben werden muss, die früher dagegen waren. Dankes chön! Seit einem Jahrzehnt setze ich mich dafür ein. Die Abschaffung der EU-Richtlinie zur Sommerzeit bedeutet dabei bei Weitem nicht, dass die Sommerzeit abgeschafft wird. Im Sinne der Subsidiarität sollten die Mitgliedstaaten entscheiden, ob sie dauerhaft bei der Sommerzeit oder bei der Normalzeit bleiben wollen. Um dadurch entstehende Nachteile für den Binnenmarkt zu vermeiden, unterstütze ich den geplanten Koordinierungsmechanismus. Drei Zeitzonen in der EU sollten genug sein, um einen Nachteilsausgleich für die Staaten in Randlage zu gewährleisten.
                  

Момчил Неков (S&D). – г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, скъпи колеги, темата със смяната на времето не се обсъжда за първи път в тази зала.
                  

                     84% от европейските граждани отговориха в най-мащабното допитване провеждано някога, че искат смяната на часовото време да се премахне. Науката и опитът също показват, че тази практика е икономическа отживелица, която носи рискове за здравето и оказва влияние върху продуктивността на работещите. Оказва влияние и в сектор селско стопанство. С настоящата директива това е на път да стане факт.
                  

                     Намирам предложението за нов механизъм за координация, както и препоръката за съвместно взимане на решение за държавите членки на регионален принцип, за правилно, за да няма разпокъсване на сега функциониращия единен пазар. Затова и го подкрепям.
                  

                     Призовавам Съвета да последва този балансиран подход и да пристъпи към приемане на така предложената директива в най-кротки срокове, за да отговорим на интереса на мнозинството европейци.
                  

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Voorzitter, ook mijn delegatie was het eens om een eind te maken aan de halfjaarlijkse omschakeling tussen winter- en zomertijd. Het maakt een vereenvoudiging mogelijk in het dagelijks leven van de burger. Die omschakeling levert immers geen of niet langer de energiewinsten op, zoals aanvankelijk de bedoeling was, maar het heeft wel een hele reeks negatieve effecten. We dreigen echter in de contradictie terecht te komen dat door een afschaffing van de omschakeling de bestaande harmonisatie in twijfel wordt getrokken. We willen zeker absurde tijdsprongen met onze naaste buren en onze eerste handelspartners vermijden, want dan vereenvoudig je het leven van de burger niet, je compliceert het alleen maar, én je compliceert de werking van de interne markt. De oproep van dit Parlement om te komen tot een coördinatiemechanisme is in die zin een goede aanzet. De huidige geharmoniseerde economische ruimte mag niet kleiner worden door de afschaffing van de bestaande richtlijn. Er zal uiteindelijk een keuze gemaakt moeten worden: een permanente zomertijd óf wintertijd. Hiervoor, commissaris, moet er inderdaad een debat gevoerd worden op basis van objectieve gegevens en zal onderling overleg en coördinatie nodig zijn.
                  

Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als man die Zeitumstellung eingeführt hat, wollte man Energie sparen. De facto spart man zwar jetzt abends Energie, aber morgens muss man mehr nutzen für Heizung und für Licht. Man wollte auch gleichzeitig Unfälle verhindern. Es gibt jetzt weniger Unfälle abends, aber mehr morgens, und da sind auch Schulkinder einbezogen.
                  

                     Apropos Kinder: Man hat gemerkt, dass nach der Zeitumstellung die Leistungen, die Konzentrationsfähigkeit der Kinder in der Schule nachlassen. Das wollen wir ja eigentlich auch nicht. Chronobiologen wurden ausgezeichnet mit dem Nobelpreis, weil sie herausgefunden haben, dass es für die Menschen gesundheitlich ein großes Problem darstellen kann, gerade für Ältere und Kranke, wenn diese Zeitumstellung da ist, auch für Kinder. Wenn das jetzt alles herausgefunden ist, warum sind wir in der EU dann nicht bereit dem zu folgen? Russland und China haben gemerkt, es bringt nichts, und haben die Zeitumstellung wieder abgeschafft. Ich denke, so klug sollten wir auch sein.
                  

                     Und was den Binnenmarkt angeht: Als die Zeitumstellung eingeführt wurde, hat man sich ja auch auf eine Zeit geeinigt. Die Schweiz hat sogar auch mitgemacht, obwohl die Bevölkerung das gar nicht wollte. Aber sie haben gesagt, wir brauchen den Binnenmarkt, wir wollen Handel – ich weiß, die Schweiz gehört nicht zur EU –, und sie haben sich geeinigt. Das geht sicherlich auch, wenn wir uns jetzt dazu entschließen. Darum stimmen Sie bitte dafür!
                  

James Carver (EFDD). – Mr President, Commissioner in the five years I have been a Member in this place, much has changed. Nevertheless, there is one thing that hasn't – the old adage that the EU knows best.
I have to agree with the House of Commons submission of its reasoned opinion in relation to this subject, which noted the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the discontinuation of seasonal time changes. This plan is yet another example of harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. So much for the idea of subsidiarity. Again we see your philosophy of ever-closer Union selfishly being put ahead of the rights of national governments.
Mr President, it should be for an individual Member State to enact seasonal clock changes, as their economy or indeed geography deem it necessary, not the EU institutions. Should Her Majesty's Government surprise us by actually respecting and enacting the vote to leave the EU, then I trust they will see sense and ignore this proposal.

Ева Майдел (PPE). – г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, чрез днешния дебат ние показваме, че чуваме своите граждани. Бих искала да се присъединя към колегите, които казаха че 84% от нашите граждани ясно заявиха, че не желаят повече да сменяме стрелките на часовника. Именно затова, като докладчик за групата на ЕНП в комисията по вътрешен пазар, активно работих за преустановяването на тази практика.
                  

                     Редица проучвания потвърждават, че в дните след смяната на времето се увеличават оплакванията от безсъние и загуба на концентрация, увеличават се също така и пътните и работни инциденти.
                  

                     Ако преди години основният аргумент за въвеждането на сезонна смяна на времето бе именно спестяването на електрическа енергия, то днес този аргумент е вече невалиден. Пред здравето няма икономически аргумент, който да можем да изложим.
                  

                     Ние се вслушахме в притесненията на европейците и точно за това работихме за тяхното разрешаване в последните месеци. В доклада си ясно посочваме, че до 2021 година трябва да престанем да сменяме времето.
                  

                     Но сега е ред на Съвета да постигне съгласие и да претворим една ясна гражданска позиция в реалност.
                  

James Nicholson (ECR). – Mr President, I listened to a number of speakers today saying that this is not the most important issue that Europe has facing it at this present moment in time. How right they are! Because when you see the many problems that behold us in Europe, certainly I do not believe this is at the top of the tree, and simply doing this for the sake of it is not, in my opinion, good government and is not good decision-making. The Commission has already admitted that there is insufficient evidence to support any change to the status quo, and I think it is right in that.
I come from Northern Ireland and we have enough problems, not only with the backstop and Brexit and the border, but it seems to me to be totally crazy that where I live, four miles up the road Keady and Castleblayney would be in different time zones; Newry and Dundalk would be in different time zones; Belcoo and Red Lion would be in different time zones – it just would not make sense. So we have enough problems and we don't want to go down that road. What we have at the moment works, so I would say don't change it now, and I call on Members to do the right thing and reject this proposal.

Peter Liese (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Warum einfach, wenn es auch kompliziert geht! So möchte ich das Verhalten des Rates und einiger Bedenkenträger hier im Haus bezeichnen. Warum einfach, wenn es auch kompliziert geht! Die große Mehrheit der Menschen hat nicht nur in einer Online-Konsultation der Europäischen Kommission – und warum machen wir dann eine Konsultation, wenn es uns dann egal ist, was die Leute sagen, das nimmt die Kommission ja sonst auch ernst –, sondern auch in repräsentativen Umfragen gesagt, sie will es nicht. Und als Arzt sage ich Ihnen: Es gibt gesundheitliche Probleme. Wie groß die sind, das muss man noch weiter untersuchen. Aber wenn sie auch nur subjektiv sind, warum sollen wir das dann ignorieren, zumal es – wie schon oft gesagt wurde – keinen Vorteil dieser Zeitumstellung gibt? Und deswegen müssen wir sie abschaffen.
                  

                     Die Dinge, die da jetzt alle vorgetragen werden, sind meiner Ansicht nach wirklich keine überzeugenden Argumente gegen den Vorschlag des Verkehrsausschusses. Denn dass wir in Europa theoretisch unterschiedliche Zeitzonen und einen Flickenteppich bekommen können, das ist auch nach gegenwärtigem Recht möglich. Jeden Tag kann jeder Staat entscheiden, in eine andere Zeitzone zu gehen. Das verhindert die jetzige Regelung nicht. Wir machen es sogar besser, indem wir diesen Koordinierungsmechanismus einführen. Also bitte: Große Mehrheit morgen für den Vorschlag des Verkehrsausschusses, und dann soll der Rat sich endlich an die Arbeit machen.
                  

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Wydawać by się mogło, że likwidacja sezonowej zmiany czasu to temat, który nie powinien wzbudzać żadnych wątpliwości. W tej izbie powinna panować pełna zgoda, bo jeśli nie zgodzimy się w tak łatwej kwestii, to w jakiej? Nie powinniśmy się dzielić, a jednak są wątpliwości. Cieszę się, że należę do tych mieszkańców Europy, którzy w konsultacjach obejmujących 4,5 mln obywateli opowiedzieli się za zniesieniem sezonowej zmiany czasu, i całkowicie ich postulaty popieram. Przemawiają za tym badania naukowe, zdrowotne, gospodarcze, a także kwestie rolnicze, więc nic tylko przychylić się do tych postulatów i odejść od starych przyzwyczajeń. A jak pokazuje ta dyskusja, najtrudniej rozstać się ze starymi przyzwyczajeniami, nawet jeżeli nie mają one umocowań naukowych ani ekonomicznych. Żałuję, że rezygnacja ze zmiany nastąpi dopiero w 2021 roku, ale rozumiem, że państwa członkowskie muszą mieć czas na przygotowanie i że Komisja nie będzie już absolutnie ubiegała się o kolejne przesunięcia. Dwa tysiące dwudziesty pierwszy będzie rokiem, kiedy odejdzie do lamusa sezonowa zmiana czasu.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, all during my life I never saw much sense in this biannual clock change and I was delighted when came here to the European Parliament to be part of a working group that set out to end it, and of course as we progressed over the last five or six years, we got all the evidence from research which show that from a health point of view, animal welfare, energy, that the biannual clock change has outlived its usefulness. So I was very pleased when Commission President Juncker suggested that it would end this year, he wanted 2019 based on the consultation which the Commission had undertaken, which showed that 84% wanted it ended, and that was the biggest response ever, 4.6 million people responded. That must be a fair indication of the way people feel about it across the European Union. I agree completely with colleagues, so it will work effectively and to avoid the situation that Jim Nicholson mentioned, there should be a coordination mechanism so the Member States can sit down and look at it and agree on what way they will go forward. End biannual clock change and then have either summer or wintertime forever more — makes sense.

Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE). – Voorzitter, ik mag toch wel zeggen dat na een enquête nog nooit zoveel mensen in Europa hebben gezegd dat ze iets anders willen, en daar moeten we naar luisteren. Alleen in mijn eigen Nederland heeft men daar niks aan gedaan, in Duitsland wel. Het gaat natuurlijk niet meer over energiebesparing, dat weten we allemaal. Dat is toen zonder onderzoek naar voren gebracht.
                  

                     Het gaat om het bioritme van de mens. We hebben moeders met kleine kinderen, we hebben ouderen, we hebben hartfalen: er zijn zoveel voorbeelden. En als het gaat het bioritme: de Nobelprijswinnaar heeft dat naar voren gebracht. En natuurlijk: het gaat om goede coördinatie tussen de landen. Maar als wij dat in Europa hier met elkaar niet voor elkaar kunnen krijgen voor de gewone mensen in Europa: wat zijn we dan nog waard? Daar moeten we mee aan de slag en ik heb vertrouwen in het Finse voorzitterschap.
                  

                     Laten we echt een einde maken aan deze historische fout. Ieder jaar 500 miljoen mensen die er last van hebben en twee keer per jaar. Laten we daarmee stoppen. En ik wil tot slot ook zeggen: dit is nu met onderzoek naar voren gebracht, dat we ermee moeten stoppen. Het eerste is zonder onderzoek naar voren gebracht. Zeven commissies hebben gezegd dat we ermee aan de slag moeten gaan, en met name de TRAN-commissie. Ik zeg het ook tegen mijn Nederlandse collega's die hier aanwezig zijn: de TRAN-commissie gaat over transport, maar het gaat niet alleen over transport maar ook over mensen.
                  

(De spreker stemt ermee in te antwoorden op een ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement))


Matthijs van Miltenburg (ALDE),

                           ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag. – Ik zal het in het Nederlands doen. Mevrouw Schreijer-Pierik, u komt uit een Nederlandse regio die grenst aan Duitsland. Wellicht kiezen Nederland en Duitsland voor verschillende standaardtijden in de toekomst. Hoe gaat u inwoners van uw grensregio of van andere Europese grensregio's uitleggen dat zij in hun dagelijkse leven misschien wel twee horloges nodig hebben? Hoe voorkomt u dat de interne markt versnipperd raakt? En hoe voorkomt u dat het dagelijks leven van die mensen, die ondernemers, die werknemers in die grensregio's verder ontregeld raakt?
                  

Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE),

                           ‘blauwe kaart’-antwoord. – Wij mensen uit Nederland kunnen samen met Duitsland heel snel zorgen voor één tijd. We hebben nu al drie tijdzones in Europa en daar komen wij met Duitsland en België zeker wel uit. Maar wat u niet doet: u luistert niet naar de mensen in Nederland. U luistert alleen maar naar de industrie en dat is iets wat ik zeer zeker niet doe. Dit verslag heb ik al meer dan twaalf jaar in de Kamer gedaan en nu hier vier jaar in het Europees Parlement. Ik hoop dat u nog met me meewerkt op een andere plek, en dat dit nou een keer afgelopen is.
                  

Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! No i kończymy lata wysiłku wielu osób. W poprzedniej kadencji już był powołany ten obecny zespół roboczy, wtedy przewodniczył mu pan poseł Herbert Reul, dziś przewodzi temu zespołowi Pavel Svoboda. To z inicjatywy tego zespołu powstał projekt rezolucji, finalizowany w chwili obecnej sprawozdaniem o zmianie dyrektywy, którą przygotowała Komisja Europejska. W wielu parlamentach, również w Europie – w Finlandii, w Polsce, słyszymy tutaj również, że i w innych parlamentach – podjęto tę sprawę, czyli to nie jest sprawa nowa. Równocześnie ta konsultacja pokazała, że kilka milionów obywateli państw członkowskich chce zatrzymania tej dwukrotnej zmiany czasu. Uważamy, że ta zmiana musi utrzymać harmonizację stref czasowych. Lepiej to zrobić wcześniej niż później, ale rok 2021 to lepiej późno niż wcale.
                  

                     Myślę, że Unia musi się zaczynać od rozpoznania trosk obywateli. Jedną z tych trosk właśnie była ta kwestia zmiany czasu, bo pokazywano, jak wiele kłopotów, w tym zdrowotnych, również takich egzystencjalnych, rodzinnych to sprawia. Więc możemy powiedzieć, że wybiła godzina, abyśmy zakończyli tę dwukrotną zmianę czasu, jakkolwiek to się jeszcze troszeczkę przeciągnie.
                  

Werner Langen (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Niemand wird bestreiten, dass eine Minderheit vorübergehende Gesundheitsprobleme hat. Aber ich bin davon überzeugt: Die Zeitumstellung hat sich insgesamt bewährt. Der Mensch braucht Sonne, er braucht Sonnenlicht. Und wenn ein Arzt hier sagt, die Beschwerden sind so groß, dann hat er diesen Aspekt voll vernachlässigt.
                  

                     Die Online-Befragung war überhaupt nicht repräsentativ: weniger als ein Prozent. Vier Millionen Antworten kamen aus Deutschland. Auch dort waren es unter fünf Prozent. Wenn ich hier herumgucke, dann sind bei dieser Debatte noch nicht mal zwei Prozent der Abgeordneten anwesend. Was ist das für eine Stimmungsmache, die dem zugrunde liegt? Ich halte das nicht für gerechtfertigt. Der Vorschlag ist unausgegoren, es fehlt eine Folgenabschätzung. Der Schnellschuss schadet dem Binnenmarkt und gehört in den Papierkorb.
                  

                     Deshalb sage ich: Ich werde dagegen stimmen. Und ich freue mich jetzt schon auf den 31. März 2019, wenn die Sommerzeit kommt.
                  

Alojz Peterle (PPE). – Gospod predsednik, spoštovana gospa komisarka, drage kolegice in kolegi. Pozdravljam spremembo in si želim, da prenehamo s premikanjem ure čim prej. Razlogi za to niso samo ekonomski. Na prvem mestu morata biti človek in vprašanje, kaj umetno spreminjanje časa pomeni za njegovo fizično in duševno zdravje.
                  

                     Raziskave opozarjajo na večje tveganje pri ljudeh z boleznimi srca in več možnosti za srčno kap. Težave se pojavljajo pri prilagajanju človekovega biološkega ritma. Ljudje so prikrajšani za spanec, zniža se jim sposobnost koncentracije, več je nesreč pri delu.
                  

                     Utrujeni ali nenaspani vozniki v prvem obdobju po menjavi ure povzročajo prometne nesreče. Čeprav gre le za eno uro razlike, ima to lahko negativne posledice na splošno počutje ljudi.
                  

                     Očitno so razlogi, da s premikanjem ure prenehamo in to si želijo tudi državljani. Ne sme pa prehod na novo ureditev povzročiti dodatnih težav. Namen predloga je, da ljudem življenje poenostavimo.
                  

                     Nihče si ne želi, da bi imelo deset sosednjih držav po novem deset različnih ureditev časa. Torej nazaj k naravi in več usklajenosti na ravni Evropske zveze.
                  

(Govornik se strinja, da bo odgovoril na vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka (člen 162(8) Poslovnika))


Werner Langen (PPE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Ich habe nur eine ganz kurze Frage: Worauf gründet der hochgeschätzte Kollege seine Aussage, dass Gehirnschläge zunehmen? Ich habe das nicht gelesen. Die amerikanischen Studien belegen das Gegenteil.
                  

Alojz Peterle (PPE),
Odgovor na vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka. – Torej, jaz se zanašam na raziskave, ki so jih zbrali moji strokovni sodelavci in jim verjamem, da so našli prava dejstva in predlagali prave argumente.
                  

Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Voorzitter, de Europese Commissie wil dat de lidstaten naar een permanente zomer- of wintertijd gaan, maar argumenten zijn er helemaal niet. Er is een hoorzitting geweest in de Commissie vervoer en deskundigen zijn het erover eens: al dat gepraat over gezondheidsvoordelen voor het stopzetten van het huidige systeem, maar die zijn er niet. En ook de argumenten over de verkeersveiligheid die zal verbeteren: die zijn er niet. We zijn hier puur bezig met emotie, terwijl er geen feiten op tafel liggen die aantonen dat het nieuwe systeem zal werken.
                  

                     Dus het Commissievoorstel is tijdverspilling. In plaats van harmonie te brengen op de interne markt nemen chaos en verwarring toe. Er wordt een nieuwe lappendeken bedacht waar we niets mee opschieten. Dus ik ben vóór verwerping van het Commissievoorstel. Laat Juncker hier maar eens een keer wakker van liggen. Het Parlement moet zijn tanden laten zien.
                  

(De spreker stemt ermee in te antwoorden op een ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement))


Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE),

                           ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag. – Het lijkt wel een beetje een Nederlandse discussie te worden. In mijn land, Nederland, hebben veel collega's in het Europees Parlement zich hier niet voldoende in verdiept. Ik ben hier vijf jaar mee aan de slag geweest met heel veel anderen. We hebben rapporten van cardiologen, van verkeersveiligheid, enzovoort, enzovoort, die liggen allemaal bij onze rapporteur op het bureau. Daar kunt u naar gaan kijken. Nu op het allerlaatste zeggen dat er niks aan de hand is, vind ik te voorbarig en eigenlijk geen recht doen aan de mensen die daar zorgvuldig mee aan de slag zijn gegaan. Ik vraag u dan ook hiernaar te gaan kijken.
                  

Peter van Dalen (ECR),

                           ‘blauwe kaart’-antwoord. – Er is een uitgebreide hoorzitting geweest, georganiseerd door dit Parlement. Er zijn tal van deskundigen aan het woord geweest en die deskundigen hebben elkaar allemaal tegengesproken. Er ligt gewoon geen duidelijke analyse met argumenten op tafel om nu over te stappen op een systeem van de Commissie. En wat gaan we dan doen? Dan gaat de emotie regeren, want ‘er zijn zoveel burgers die dat willen’. 1 % van de Europese bevolking wil dit en geen argumenten!
                  

Presidente. – Per quanto riguarda la procedura del catch-the-eye, abbiamo fatto un'eccezione perché le domande ‘cartellino blu’ tra parlamentari dello stesso gruppo non dovrebbero essere usate. Tuttavia, essendo la discussione particolarmente coinvolgente, è stata fatta un'eccezione.
                  

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                        


Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to address mostly colleagues Mr van Dalen and Mr Langen. Instrument of a rural economy invented by Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II continued by dictators Stalin and Hitler during World War II, the instrument called ‘annual clock change’ must be stopped. The EU after all is a peace project isn't it? It seems that clock change is the last remnant of the Second World War, so let's do away with it.
We should not give the Council, and colleagues who think like you, more extra time to sort out all sorts of obscure objections, even if governments cannot make reasonable decisions and threaten our logistical systems and common markets with patchworks and chaos. We should call their bluff. Everybody can adjust with time zones and different official times. The Tokyo and New York stock exchanges can work together despite different times.

Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana povjerenice Bulc, dakle, ovo što se ovdje radi o najnevažnijoj važnoj stvari računajući po ovoj raspravi, ali i gledajući, zapravo, reakcije naših građana, moram se osvrnuti na nekoliko činjenica koje su ovdje danas rečene.
                  

                     Dakle, prvo, kao član ove neformalne radne skupine u Parlamentu od početka podupirem da se ukine pomicanje sata i naravno da ću sutra glasovati upravo za prihvaćanje izmjene te direktive, ali pitam cijenjene kolege koji navode druge argumente znaju li temeljem koje studije je pokrenuto, znači uvedeno pomicanje kazaljke na satu. Koji su to argumenti bili kada pozivaju da Komisija danas radi traljavo posao i da nije napravila svoj dio utjecaja što se tiče ove Direktive.
                  

                     Druga stvar koju bih htio navesti, tko je tada pitao građane, a građani su danas jasno rekli da su oni za ukidanje pomicanja kazaljke na satu. Reprezentativni uzorak, 22 000 građana Republike Hrvatske sudjelovalo je u ovom savjetovanju. To je deset puta više nego što sudjeluje u nacionalnim savjetovanjima za nacionalne zakone za implementaciju europskih direktiva.
                  

João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, o debate e a decisão sobre a mudança sazonal da hora não pode ser dissociado das particularidades geográficas, sociais, culturais e outras de cada país.
                  

                     A Comissão Europeia vem agora, em nome de um dito bom funcionamento e harmonização do mercado único, propor a imposição do fim da mudança sazonal da hora. Recordamos que não existe uma posição fechada da comunidade científica, nem sobre os moldes em que as mudanças de hora sazonais devem ser feitas, nem sobre os benefícios ou os prejuízos da existência de tais mudanças e das suas implicações para a saúde e o bem-estar da população.
                  

                     Lembramos, também, algo que a Comissão Europeia parece ter-se esquecido: o estabelecimento da hora legal é da competência dos Estados-Membros. Por tudo isto, defendemos que a existência ou não de mudanças da hora sazonais deve ter em conta a vontade da respetiva população, a opinião da comunidade científica e o interesse de cada país, pelo que rejeitamos quaisquer imposições da União Europeia nesta matéria.
                  

José Blanco López (S&D). – Señor presidente, el cambio horario tiene consecuencias sobre el día a día de la gente. Tiene implicaciones económicas, energéticas, de seguridad, de conciliación, que van a afectar a la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos. Por ello, no se puede tomar a la ligera.
                  

                     La propuesta que ha formulado la Comisión carece de una evaluación exhaustiva —ya se ha dicho—, tanto de la Directiva 2000/84/CE como de la propuesta presentada. No se pueden tomar decisiones de forma precipitada; decisiones que pueden acabar generando barreras y fronteras horarias donde no existen. Y, antes de seguir adelante con este debate, con un debate como este, es necesario —y es necesario por imperativo— analizar con profundidad las implicaciones que conlleva esta decisión.
                  

(Fine della procedura catch-the-eye)


Violeta Bulc,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I have listened very carefully to this very passionate debate. Before I comment further, please allow me to clarify one very important point. It is a national prerogative to decide on the time zone – today, already, it exists. As it was pointed out today, we have three times already in the EU and this does not represent any disturbance to the internal market. I would very much appreciate it if you take this into consideration when you are commenting on this topic.
While I am still noticing some resistance in your comments, I see that after a long and thorough examination, you are ready to adopt your final position in line with the original proposal that was made last year. This is a very important message to European citizens because the response to the questionnaire about the time change was almost ten times bigger than the response to any other questionnaire and any other any other consultation we ever had at EU level. So people do care. We are obliged to respond.
This issue can be seen as more complicated than one would expect at first sight. This is mainly due to the division of competences between Member States and the Union, and that is today. This is not something that the Commission came up with for the purpose of this file. It is really important to recognise this division and respect it while making decisions. As I already said, the Commission will ensure, within its powers, a close monitoring of the implementation of this Directive and we will work together to avoid any transitional disruptions for European citizens and economic operators. I am personally very confident that each of the Member States is equally aware of this and they will make well-considered and coordinated choices in the months to come. But it is their choice. All the Commission has in its power is to make sure that we all make decisions at the same time. This is something we will exercise.
I even encourage Member States, in order to be sure which time to choose, to do the national consultations and I believe that the time that you envisioned will be sufficient time to carry them out in a democratic, open and transparent way. At the end, let me thank you, one more time, all of you – rapporteur and Members – that you dedicated your time to this file, and by adopting your position, this House will be ready to start the negotiations with the Council after the recess. I am sure this will lead to a swift outcome, most likely already under the Finnish Presidency. Good luck tomorrow and thank you very much for your attention.

Marita Ulvskog,
Föredragande. – Herr talman! Tack så mycket till alla som har använt möjligheten att tänka fritt och högt i den här frågan. Det är en oerhört spännande debatt, en av de intressantaste jag har lyssnat till och deltagit i under åtminstone de senaste åren i Europaparlamentet. Det säger en del om engagemanget, för det handlar om en begriplig fråga.
                  

                     Det handlar också om att transportutskottet, som är ett så praktiskt inriktat utskott, naturligtvis aldrig skulle komma med ett äventyrligt förslag som på något vis innebar störningar på den inre marknaden. Inte vet jag, jag är gammal kulturminister från början, om vi hade gett uppdraget till kulturutskottet kanske det hade blivit lite äventyrligt, men transportutskottet är ett utskott som står med båda fötterna på jorden. Det här handlar om att ta bort den tidsomställning som inte ger den energispareffekt som vi trodde för rätt länge sedan.
                  

                     Nu ska vi i stället gå tillbaka till en ordning som innebär att länderna, som vanligt, måste samordna sig. Och så har vi en tidszon, vi har en samhörighet tidsmässigt, som innebär att vi fortsätter att fungera utan störningar. Det här är ingen revolution och det är inte heller federalism, utan det är en mycket praktisk åtgärd som kanske kommer att spara pengar dessutom, men som kommer att vara bra för människors hälsa – och det är ju det som gör att vi är engagerade i frågan.
                  

                     Så jag vill tacka er alla för en otroligt spännande debatt. Det har varit väldigt värdefullt att lyssna till den. Jag känner att det här kan bli något riktigt, riktigt bra. Vi kanske hittar på bra idéer på helt andra områden om vi kan vara så kreativa som vi varit i kväll. Så tack så väldigt mycket till er alla.
                  

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
                  

                     La votazione si svolgerà nel corso della prossima tornata.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)



Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE),
schriftlich. – Ich unterstütze die Abschaffung der Zeitumstellung. Das Ergebnis der öffentlichen Konsultation war mehr als deutlich: 84 % der 4,6 Millionen Menschen, die sich an der Konsultation beteiligten, haben sich für die Abschaffung der seit den 1970er Jahren stattfindenden halbjährlichen Zeitumstellung ausgesprochen. Ich hoffe nach dem heutigen Votum, dass die Uhrendreherei so schnell wie möglich der Vergangenheit angehört. Jetzt geht es vor allen Dingen darum, dass der Binnenmarkt weiterhin einwandfrei funktionieren kann. Und ich fordere die Mitgliedstaaten auf, dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass zwischen Nachbarländern keine Zeitunterschiede von zwei Stunden entstehen.
                  

Krzysztof Hetman (PPE),
na piśmie. – Cieszę się bardzo, że finalizujemy prace nad odejściem od reliktu przeszłości, jakim jest zmiana czasu. Już za dwa lata Unia Europejska będzie mogła korzystać ze stabilności, jaką daje pozostawanie w jednym cyklu czasowym. Bez wątpienia skorzystają na tym wszyscy, a przede wszystkim dzieci, osoby starsze i chore oraz rolnicy. Oznacza to również szereg korzyści m.in. dla europejskiego transportu czy systemów informatycznych. Dlatego nie miałem wątpliwości, by głosować za tą dyrektywą, i cieszę się, że podobnego zdania była większość posłanek i posłów. Chciałbym teraz jednak zaapelować do państw członkowskich, aby po pierwsze bez zbędnej zwłoki uzgodniły swoje wspólne stanowisko w Radzie, a następnie sprawnie i rozsądnie skoordynowały proces zmiany przy zachowaniu harmonizacji stref czasowych.
                  

Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR),
kirjallinen. – Tutkimukset ovat osoittaneet, että kellojen siirtely häiritsee ihmisten vuorokausirytmiä ja vaikuttaa kielteisesti heidän hyvinvointiinsa. Kielteisiä vaikutuksia siirtelystä koituu myös eläimille. Kellojen siirtelystä luopuminen on asia, joka näkyy konkreettisella tavalla kansalaisten elämässä välittömästi – toisin kuin monet parlamentissa käsiteltävät suuret asiakokonaisuudet. Tämän johdosta on ymmärrettävää, että asia on herättänyt paljon kiihkeitä keskusteluja. Komission kesällä 2018 järjestämän kyselyn 4,6 miljoonasta vastaajasta selkeä enemmistö, peräti 84 prosenttia, kannatti kellojen siirtelystä luopumista. Kansalaisilta saatu viesti on hyvin selkeä. Pidän hyvänä, että turhasta kellojen siirtelystä on määrä luopua vuoteen 2021 mennessä siten, että jäsenmaat saavat itse päättää, seuraavatko ne pysyvästi talvi- vai kesäaikaa.
                  

Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE),
rakstiski. – Eiropas Komisijas veiktais pētījums parādīja skaidru iedzīvotāju nostāju - 84 % eiropiešu uzskata, ka ir jāatsakās no ziemas un vasaras laika maiņas, izvēloties vienu. Es nevaru nepiekrist. Uzskatu, ka ir pienācis laiks izbeigt regulāro pulksteņu grozīšanu. Iemesli, kuru dēļ Eiropa aizsāka regulāro laika maiņu, vairs neiztur kritiku 21. gadsimtā. Kaut gan gribētos pārstāt pulksteņu grozīšanu jau šogad, kā to sākotnēji ierosināja Eiropas Komisija, ir saprotams, ka, piemēram, transporta sektoram ir nepieciešams laiks, lai sagatavotos šīm pārmaiņām, tādēļ atbalstu atteikšanos no laika maiņas, sākot ar 2021. gadu. Latvijai ir svarīgi, lai laika maiņas izbeigšana notiktu harmonizētā veidā un lai mēs paliktu vienā laika joslā ar saviem kaimiņiem – Igauniju, Somiju un Lietuvu. Taču, ja kādam ir bažas, ka mēs paliksim vienā laikā ar Maskavu, uzreiz saku, ka tas nav iespējams.
                  

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE),
písemně. – Usilování o zrušení střídání času bylo jedním z bodů programu KDU-ČSL pro volby do Evropského parlamentu v roce 2014 a jsem hrdá na to, že se nám tento politický slib podařilo dodržet. Zrušení střídání času podporuji již od počátku této diskuse. Kromě všeobecného znepokojení ze změn času, které vnímám ve svém okolí mezi občany, jsem své rozhodnutí stavěla především na vědeckých poznatcích, které byly mnohokrát v Evropském parlamentu diskutovány, poprvé již v březnu 2015. Diskuse mě utvrdila v tom, že střídání času přináší spíše potíže nežli výhody. Na počátku minulého století, kdy se střídání letního a zimního času v různých evropských zemích zavádělo, byly hlavním motivem ekonomické úspory. Tyto předpoklady se však dle vědeckých zpráv nepotvrdily a ve skutečnosti jsou úspory marginální. Stejně tak se objevovaly predikce, že změna času sníží počet dopravních nehod zaviněných nedostatkem denního světla. Ze studií však vyplývá, že se počet nehod při jarní změně času naopak zvýšil, a to v souvislosti se zkráceným spánkem řidičů. Navíc se ukázalo, že střídání času způsobuje zdravotní komplikace až u 20 % populace a má i negativní dopad na biorytmus zvířat, což způsobuje pokles produkce především při dojení. Směrnici podporuji, protože těmto negativním dopadům učiní přítrž.
                  

Claudia Țapardel (S&D),
în scris. – Numeroase studii ne arată clar că numărul consecințelor negative îl depășește pe cel al beneficiilor pentru a justifica renunțarea la schimbarea sezonieră a orei. Aceasta generează costuri și sarcini administrative adiționale pentru anumite sectoare economice, în special pentru transporturi. De exemplu, dacă am înceta schimbare orei de două ori pe an, am contribui la îmbunătățirea planificării pe termen lung a curselor pentru transportul de marfă, precum și de pasageri.
                  

                     Este adevărat că la acest moment există o divergență între statele occidentale, care preferă să păstreze ora de vară, în timp ce statele din Europa de nord preferă ora de iarnă, însă consider că este esențial ca statele membre să găsească o soluție de compromis care să fie în avantajul tuturor. Executivul european a înțeles că trebuie să existe o armonizare la nivel european în acest sens și consider că abolirea acestei practici va fi pozitivă pentru toate statele membre.
                  
16.   Common rules for the internal market for electricity – Internal market for electricity – European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators – Risk-preparedness in the electricity sector (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta,
               






—



                        la relazione di Jerzy Buzek, a nome della commissione per l'industria, la ricerca e l'energia, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sul mercato interno dell'energia elettrica (COM(2016)0864 - C8-0495/2016 - 2016/0380(COD)) (A8-0044/2018),
                     










—



                        la relazione di Jerzy Buzek, a nome della commissione per l'industria, la ricerca e l'energia, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sul mercato interno dell'energia elettrica (COM(2016)0861 - C8-0492/2016 - 2016/0379(COD) (A8-0042/2018)
                     










—



                        la relazione di Morten Helveg Petersen, a nome della commissione per l'industria, la ricerca e l'energia sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che istituisce un'Agenzia dell'Unione europea per la cooperazione fra i regolatori nazionali dell'energia (COM(2016)0863 - C8-0494/2016 - 2016/0378(COD)) (A8-0040/2018), e
                     










—



                        la relazione di Flavio Zanonato, a nome della commissione per l'industria, la ricerca e l'energia, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sulla preparazione ai rischi nel settore dell'energia elettrica e che abroga la direttiva 2005/89/CE (COM(2016)0862 - C8-0493/2016 - 2016/0377(COD) (A8-0039/2018)
                     





Martina Werner,
stellvertretende Berichterstatterin. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Arias Cañete, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Heute habe ich die Ehre, meinen Kollegen Jerzy Buzek, unseren Berichterstatter zum Strommarktdesign, zu vertreten. Der eigentliche Berichterstatter des Parlaments, Herr Kariņš, hat die Verhandlungen mit dem Rat und mit der Kommission erfolgreich zu Ende geführt, ist jetzt aber mittlerweile Premierminister in Lettland, und daher kann er logischerweise heute nicht hier sein. Aber ich möchte mich trotzdem an dieser Stelle ganz herzlich für seinen Einsatz, für seine Verhandlungsführung und für die sehr gute Zusammenarbeit bedanken.
               

                  Die Europäische Kommission hat ihre Vorschläge zum clean energy package im November 2016 veröffentlicht. Die beiden Dossiers zum neuen Strommarktdesign sind die umfangreichsten, wenn nicht sogar die weitreichendsten des gesamten Pakets.
               

                  Worum geht es jetzt eigentlich konkret? Die Verordnung führt neue Regeln für den europäischen Strommarkt ein. Der Strommarkt hat sich in den letzten Jahren enorm verändert. Die Rollen der einzelnen Marktteilnehmer vom Erzeuger bis zum Verbraucher haben sich auch enorm verändert. Daher war es halt notwendig, dass der europäische Strommarkt neu gestaltet und fit für die Energiewende gemacht wird. Im Strommarkt der Zukunft muss Strom zunehmend dezentral erzeugt werden, Investitionen müssen in nachhaltige Energiequellen getätigt werden, und die noch national ausgerichteten Strommärkte müssen regional viel enger zusammenarbeiten. Dem Verbraucher kommt im zukünftigen Strommarkt eine zentrale Rolle zu. Darauf konzentriert sich dann die Richtlinie. Stromkunden wird es von nun an möglich sein, sich auch aktiv einzubringen.
               

                  Die Richtlinie hat aber auch die Verstärkung des Verbraucherschutzes zum Ziel. Um einmal ein ganz konkretes Beispiel zu nennen: Stromkunden erhalten in Zukunft Rechnungen, die sie dann auch auf Anhieb verstehen werden. Das kennen Sie sicherlich alle: Bis man auf der Stromrechnung zur relevanten Info kommt, muss man ein paar Seiten blättern und dann wahrscheinlich noch in den Fußnoten nachschauen. Von nun an werden die wichtigsten Informationen auf der ersten Seite gebündelt auftreten. Darüber hinaus werden zertifizierte Internetseiten in allen Mitgliedstaaten zur Verfügung stehen, damit auch jeder einzelne Europäer, jede einzelne Europäerin die verschiedenen Stromtarife miteinander vergleichen und dann den für sich passenden auswählen kann.
               

                  Das Europäische Parlament hat dabei besonderen Wert darauf gelegt, dass gerade die schutzbedürftigen Stromkunden nicht zu kurz kommen. Energiearmut ist heute auch eine Realität in der EU, und gerade deswegen sind die Mitgliedstaaten von nun an verpflichtet, ganz genau zu beobachten, ob ihre nationalen Maßnahmen ausreichen, um Menschen, die von Energiearmut betroffen sind, zu unterstützen.
               

                  Mein besonderer Dank an der Stelle gilt den Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus der Europäischen Kommission, die mit ihrer Expertise auch ganz entscheidend zum erfolgreichen Abschluss dieses Dossiers beigetragen haben. Herzlichen Dank auch an Sie, Herr Kommissar Arias Cañete, für den immer sehr konstruktiven Austausch, auch bei wirklich schwierigen Verhandlungen.
               

                  Die österreichische Ratspräsidentschaft hat auch einen enormen Beitrag dafür geleistet, dass wir morgen dann endlich über diesen Bericht abstimmen können. Wir haben insgesamt nur sechs Triloge gebraucht. Gut – das vorletzte Mal haben wir 17 Stunden und im letzten Trilog dann 16 Stunden verhandelt. Aber trotzdem: Das ist natürlich eine enorme Leistung, dass dieses umfangreiche Dossier mit wirklich kontroversen Themen innerhalb der österreichischen Ratspräsidentschaft dann zum Erfolg geführt hat.
               

                  Ich möchte mich an dieser Stelle und zum Schluss auch bei meinen Kolleginnen und Kollegen für die vertrauensvolle und sehr konstruktive Zusammenarbeit bedanken, auch bei unseren Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern aus dem ITRE-Sekretariat und allen anderen Dienststellen des Parlaments, bei den politischen Beraterinnen und Beratern, den einzelnen Fraktionen, und natürlich möchte ich auch ganz besonders den Assistentinnen und Assistenten für ihren Einsatz danken. Wir haben gemeinsam viel für die europäische Energiewende und für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger der EU erreicht.
               

Morten Helveg Petersen,
ordfører. – Hr. formand! Jeg vil også gerne starte med at takke alle, der har været involveret i forhandlingerne her: Kommissionen, Ministerrådet og ikke mindst alle de gode kolleger her fra Europa-Parlamentet. Vi har vitterligt tilbragt mange timer sammen, forhandlet hele nætter væk. Men jeg synes, vi er nået frem til en stribe resultater, som vi kan være godt stolte af. Det skulle vi også gerne have gjort, fordi min frygt er, at vi er – og vi risikerer at være – i gang med at tabe klimakampen, hvis ikke vi er ambitiøse nok! Det skal vi være her i Europa-Parlamentet, og det skal man være blandt regeringerne på tværs af Europa. Paradokset er jo, at mens politikere tøver, så går borgerne på gaden og forlanger handling. Vi ser, hvordan teenagere over hele Europa demonstrerer for et bedre klima og forlanger løsninger på de klimaforandringer, der vil sende mennesker på flugt fra tørke og oversvømmelser i de kommende år. De forlanger løsninger på den luftforurening, der hvert år er skyld i, at 400 000 europæere dør.
               

                  Alt for mange regeringer hænger fast i snævre nationale interesser, der blokerer for den vigtige grønne omstilling, og forhandlingerne om den store energipakke er desværre et godt eksempel herpå, for selv om vind og sol nu er billigere end kul, så går det stadigvæk for langsomt med den grønne omstilling til vedvarende energi. Selv om et stærkere fælles agentur, ACER, kan være med til at sikre, at vindenergi fra Nordsøen kan give Europa grøn strøm i stikkontakterne, så er der mange regeringer, der foretrækker stadig at holde liv i gamle kulkraftværker. I vores forhandlinger var det tydeligt, når vi i Europa-Parlamentet forsøgte at forstærke ACER, så var der nationale regeringer, der forsøgte at udvande, og når vi kæmpede for et mere uafhængigt ACER, så var der nogle, der strittede imod. Det var en kamp at tilføre ACER flere beføjelser og ressourcer, og er det stadigvæk, men heldigvis fik vi indført, at ACER kan opkræve gebyrer, hvilket er helt afgørende for, at ACER kan udføre sine vigtige opgaver.
               

                  De typer af kampe er selvfølgelig et stort problem, fordi manglen på fælles løsninger sker på bekostning af klimaet. Vi så det også i forhandlingerne om el-markedsforordningen, hvor der var medlemslande, der kæmpede imod åbne og frie grænser for energi. Men kun ved at integrere vedvarende energi på tværs af grænser kan vi vinde klimakampen. Heldigvis landede vi et flot resultat – nogle gange ikke så meget på grund af Rådet, som på trods af Rådet. Lad mig sige det helt klart: Klimakampen er den vigtigste kamp! Netop derfor er det så ærgerligt, at der er mange regeringsledere, der lider af, hvad jeg vil kalde for et grønt hukommelsestab. De siger en ting i Paris, når de underskriver flotte erklæringer, men når de så sidder ved forhandlingsbordet i Bruxelles, kan alt pludseligt være glemt! Det så vi desværre i sidste uge, da vores regeringsledere mødtes i forbindelse med topmødet for at give håndslag på et CO2-neutralt Europa i 2050. Det blev desværre kun ved snakken! Men Europa skal gå forrest i den grønne omstilling og i klimakampen, og vi skal investere langt mere i forskning og nye teknologier, end vi gør i dag. Pengene kan vi passende finde ved at finde på klimaskatter på plastik og på brændstof til fly og på kul for min skyld, og det er på tide, at vi lægger pres på de regeringer, der ikke lever op til de aftaler, de måtte indgå.
               

                  Jeg vil gerne endnu en gang sige tak til alle, der har været involveret i alle de forhandlinger, vi har været igennem: Kommissionen, Ministerrådet og ikke mindst kollegerne her i Europa-Parlamentet. Jeg synes, at vi skal huske på, at vi om to måneder beder vores borgere om at gå ud og stemme. Som politikere hverken kan eller skal vi ignorere borgernes krav om at tage klimakampen seriøs. Vi skal lade os inspirere af de folkelige bevægelser og tage ansvar. Det skylder vi vores børn og børnebørn!
               

Flavio Zanonato,
relatore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quando abbiamo mosso i primi passi su questo pacchetto di proposte decisivo per l'unione dell'energia, ormai molti mesi fa, sapevamo che il percorso non sarebbe stato facile. Numerosi erano e sono gli interessi in gioco e le resistenze sulla via dell'integrazione tra i mercati energetici.
               

                  Ebbene, per quanto il percorso sia stato per certi versi anche più tortuoso del previsto, è proprio grazie a questo confronto franco e serrato, prima in Parlamento poi nei triloghi, che sono andati consolidandosi i punti di caduta negoziale e le soluzioni legislative migliori. In ambito di gestione del rischio del settore elettrico, il risultato che rivendico con orgoglio premia il lavoro di questo Parlamento su tutti gli aspetti sostanziali della proposta.
               

                  Ricordiamo il tema: oggi, quando si verifica un'improvvisa interruzione nell'erogazione dell'energia elettrica – e questo può avvenire per un evento drammatico, un fatto climatico, un fatto terroristico, un sovraccarico particolare, una rottura – gli Stati membri sono lasciati a loro stessi e al buon cuore – mi si faccia passare questa espressione – dei paesi vicini, dove le interconnessioni lo permettono. La dinamica, come dimostrato dalla crisi dell'inverno 2017 nel sud-est europeo, colpisce i cittadini europei perché impatta sulla fruibilità dei servizi, sui prezzi dell'energia, sull'equilibrio finanziario delle famiglie e della produzione industriale. La questione era, ed è, come favorire – in condizioni di crisi energetica – la circolazione dell'energia a determinate condizioni verso dove ce n'è più bisogno nell'Unione, a prescindere dai confini politici nazionali.
               

                  Come Parlamento, dunque, avevamo un compito su tutti, ovvero assicurare che i criteri di mutua collaborazione in caso di crisi energetica fossero adeguatamente stringenti, tanto sul piano delle metodologie per la valutazione degli scenari tra paese e paese, quindi sul principio di interoperabilità, quanto sui criteri di mutua assistenza.
               

                  Devo riconoscere al Consiglio la determinazione nel difendere le sue istanze, senza tuttavia trascurare la disponibilità al dialogo verso il compromesso, e alla Commissione il preziosissimo lavoro di mediazione in alcune fasi decisive del negoziato, senza il cui contributo non saremmo giunti così presto a un accordo quadro.
               

                  Il testo al voto di quest'Aula va quindi nella direzione auspicata dal Parlamento. Sul piano della definizione delle metodologie, che servono a inquadrare scenari di crisi paese per paese e in seguito a permettere interventi in caso di crisi, queste dovranno essere omogenee, redatte in conformità a un modello unico e libere da condizionamenti di attori di mercato non istituzionali.
               

                  Per quanto riguarda invece il principio della mutua assistenza, essa è riaffermata in termini ancora più stringenti, quando si specifica che l'unico elemento ostativo riconosciuto agli obblighi di mutua assistenza degli Stati membri occorre solo e soltanto nel caso in cui non ci siano le infrastrutture, dove le interconnessioni quindi lo permettano. Gli Stati membri hanno il dovere di assistersi.
               

                  Si prevedono inoltre linee guida più dettagliate per la definizione dei criteri di compensazione, la cui natura è lasciata tuttavia al libero arbitrio delle rispettive autorità nazionali.
               

                  Abbiamo corso il rischio che questo negoziato diventasse lo strumento per modificare equilibri nei negoziati sugli altri fascicoli del pacchetto, un pericolo di cui eravamo – lo ero anch'io – ben consapevoli ma che, credo, che abbiamo superato, anche grazie alla proficua collaborazione con gli altri colleghi relatori.
               

                  Voglio ringraziare fortissimamente il presidente Busek, che ha dato un sapiente coordinamento nei negoziati, i colleghi relatori ombra per una collaborazione veramente eccellente lungo tutte le fasi di questo fascicolo, e il Commissario Cañete, che ha lavorato con noi molto bene.
               

VORSITZ: EVELYNE GEBHARDT


Vizepräsidentin


Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, it's a real pleasure to be here today to discuss the concluding building blocks of our Clean Energy for all Europeans package. These four legislative acts – the Electricity Regulation, the Electricity Directive, the Risk-Preparedness Regulation and the new rules for the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) – are the final pieces in the jigsaw. With this, we are completing the biggest legislative package the European Union has ever had on energy policy, and we are finalising a new, modern rulebook for the energy sector across our continent which is fit for the challenges ahead.
I thank the European Parliament for its strong support throughout the constructive negotiations. This allowed us to secure a political agreement last December. My special thanks reach out in particular to the rapporteurs: Krišjānis Kariņš, whom I congratulate once more for having become Prime Minister of Latvia in January this year; Flavio Zanonato; and Morten Helveg Petersen. Of course, I would also like to thank Jerzy Buzek, Chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, all political group coordinators, and all the shadow rapporteurs involved, without whom these agreements would not have been possible.
This close cooperation has made it possible to preserve the complementarity and the consistency of these proposals. We have agreed an ambitious package which will take us one step closer to the completion of the Energy Union. This was one of the priorities of the Juncker Commission that you endorsed almost five years ago.
Taken together, the agreed legislation will ensure that the European Union electricity market is more secure, more sustainable and more competitive. In short, these new laws are good for consumers, good for the economy and good for the planet. From a consumer perspective, it is the first time that European energy legislation has included so many measures to protect and to empower consumers. Consumers can become active players and individually benefit and drive the energy transition. This is essential. The cleaner energy transition will not succeed unless we take consumers along and win broad societal support.
Through our energy market legislation, consumers will gain better information. Household bills will become clearer so that consumers can better understand what they are paying for. Switching will become easier and faster. In principle, it will become possible within 24 hours as of 2026.
Easily-understandable comparison tools will help consumers make rational choices and benefit from lower prices. In this context, I have to mention that the Commission will transmit for the minutes a declaration as regards alternative dispute resolution and on how we will assess the effectiveness of such mechanisms. Smart meters will help consumers save energy through adapted consumption and reaction to market prices. Again, this will help them to save money and benefit directly from more competitive markets.
Consumers can become prosumers and can invest in global generation, consume, store or sell electricity to the market. They can do this individually or collectively. For the first time, the new legislation recognises the concept of citizens' energy communities. With these measures, we will follow up on our pledge to put the consumer at the heart of the Energy Union. The new rules bring advantage also from a wider economic perspective. The rules on the electricity market will make markets more integrated and more flexible. The market will deliver better signals to prompt and enable more investment, in particular in clean and flexible solutions. This in turn will not only have a direct positive impact on the electricity price, it will also create more growth and jobs.
We have reinforced regional cooperation and the rules to keep cross-border capacity open for trade. This will bring us a step further towards integrating national markets into a true internal electricity market, which is a precondition for a cost-effective decarbonisation of the power system.
The same holds true for the new common framework on capacity mechanisms. This will ensure that such mechanisms will only be used where needed, and if so, that they will be open across borders. This will bring considerable economic efficiency gains.
In this context, I have to mention that the Commission will transmit a declaration for the Minutes as regards the ambitious opinion of reform implementation plans, which may be in the context of state aid assessment or separate. Furthermore, the Commission will transmit a declaration as regards the definition of interconnectors, highlighting the difference between electricity and gas.
Finally, energy security is vital for our business and economy. With the challenges of the energy transition, we must also ensure security of supply for the economy and for our citizens. The new Risk-Preparedness Regulation will make our system more resilient and will ensure better coordination among Member States and introduce a spirit of solidarity.
I come now to my third point: to consider what the new electricity market design brings for the environment and sustainability in a more long-term perspective. We have already agreed ambitious targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and the new market design will make a major contribution towards achieving this and will help us to meet our Paris Agreement commitments. The markets will become more flexible, more free for increasing sales of renewable electricity. At the same time, with the new emission limit in future capacity mechanisms we will ensure that the solutions to our security of supply are consistent with our climate objectives. The agreed transition arrangements are realistic, and we will allow all players to adapt to these new requirements.
All of the above will help European industry and economy by giving a clear sense of direction, but it will also reduce local air pollution for the benefit of our citizens. We know that our new rules are looked at with great interest also in other parts of the world. I want to underline again that, with this package of measures, we are the first party to the Paris Agreement to have adopted all necessary domestic legislation for fulfilling our commitments. At the same time, it puts us in a good position for the upcoming discussion on the long-term strategy. Thanks to your help, the European Union is showing a clear path for the rest of the world to follow. I look forward to the debate.

Carlos Zorrinho,
relator de parecer da Comissão do Meio Ambiente, da Saúde Pública e da Política do Consumidor. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, ao longo desta legislatura a União Europeia ficou aquém da sua ambição e da sua obrigação no aprofundamento institucional e político para a competitividade e para a convergência. No entanto, houve exceções: a União da Energia e a União Digital são bons exemplos e é por isso que estamos aqui a debater hoje esta legislação.
                  

                     Não basta, no entanto, avançar. É preciso ter em conta as escolhas e a forma como elas asseguram a liderança da União na transição energética, a competitividade industrial e o acesso das pessoas a uma eletricidade limpa, saudável e com um preço adequado.
                  

                     É preciso também assegurar o princípio da eficiência energética, em primeiro lugar, garantir uma transição justa, reforçar a transparência e a capacidade de regulação do mercado e dar prioridade de despacho à produção feita com base em fontes renováveis para reduzirmos, de facto, as emissões.
                  

                     Um mercado interno único não pode ser sinónimo de mercado sem regras. Tem que ser um mercado onde se possa competir com padrões justos, de forma transparente e coordenada, sem por em causa a segurança e a inovação.
                  

                     É tempo, por isso, de dar uma nova luz para a União Europeia e para os seus cidadãos.
                  

Werner Langen,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte zuerst einmal sagen, dass wir fast drei Jahre gebraucht haben, um dieses Paket zu verabschieden. Das lag nicht an der Kommission und auch nicht am Parlament, sondern überwiegend am Rat, der geblockt hat. Im Ergebnis können wir zufrieden sein mit diesem Paket. Ich war in den Verhandlungen für die ACER dabei. Der Kollege Petersen hat die Verhandlungen sehr gut geleitet; ich will das hier ausdrücklich bestätigen. Aber wir haben im Ausschuss schon am 21. Februar 2018 unsere Stellungnahme mit großer Mehrheit verabschiedet. Wir haben dann fast das ganze Jahr gebraucht, um uns mit dem Rat zu einigen! Denn die Kommission wollte der ACER weitgehende Rechte geben, der Rat überhaupt keine. Wir haben das erreicht – und insofern hat das Parlament auch vermittelt –, dass die Rolle der ACER in einem sich verändernden Binnenmarkt gestärkt und verändert wurde. Bisher war sie in erster Linie für die Koordinierung, Beratung und Überwachung der nationalen Regulierungsbehörden zuständig. Wir sind heute so weit, dass die ACER beschränkte, aber immerhin Entscheidungsbefugnis erhalten hat und dass die ACER über angemessene finanzielle Ressourcen verfügen kann und die regionalen Koordinierungszentren überwacht.
                  

                     Deshalb komme ich zu dem Fazit: Die Überarbeitung der ACER-Verordnung ist gelungen.
                  

Martina Werner,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir haben zwei Jahre ganz intensiv an der Reform des Strommarktes gearbeitet. Mit dem Ergebnis, dem neuen Strommarkt-Design, stellen wir heute die Weichen für eine dezentrale, nachhaltige und sichere Stromversorgung, damit die Energiewende auch auf europäischer Ebene gelingt.
                  

                     Die Wahl der Energiequellen spielt dabei natürlich eine zentrale Rolle. Die Erneuerbaren sind die Energiequellen der Zukunft. Und daher habe ich mich auch als Verhandlungsführerin meiner Fraktion dafür eingesetzt, dass der Strom aus erneuerbaren Energiequellen durch den Einspeisevorrang als Erstes in die Netze eingespeist und bei Engpässen auch als Letztes abgeschaltet wird. Gleichzeitig haben wir durchgesetzt, dass emissionsintensive Energiequellen wie zum Beispiel Kohle in Zukunft nicht mehr mit staatlichen Subventionen gefördert werden. Und wir Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten haben auch erreicht, dass Bürgerenergiegenossenschaften in Zukunft bevorzugt behandelt werden und keinen unverhältnismäßigen, unfairen und intransparenten Regeln und Kosten ausgesetzt sind.
                  

                     Für meine Fraktion war es auch wichtig, dass der Verbraucherschutz von Stromkunden gestärkt wird. Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher können von nun an Stromtarife aus vertrauenswürdigen und verifizierten Internetseiten vergleichen und ihren Anbieter ab 2022 auch innerhalb von 24 Stunden wechseln. Stromrechnungen werden einfacher zu verstehen sein, weil die ersten Informationen auf der ersten Seite gebündelt werden.
                  

                     Ich hätte mir gewünscht, dass Teilnetzbetreiber – wie unsere Stadtwerke – eine aktivere Rolle übernehmen beim Ausbau der Ladeinfrastruktur für E-Mobilität. Leider hat das keine Mehrheit gefunden, und das ist meiner Meinung nach eine wirklich vertane Chance, denn gerade bei der Elektromobilität können Stadtwerke den flächendeckenden Ausbau der Ladeinfrastruktur vorantreiben, gerade weil sie einen enormen Beitrag für die Akzeptanz von Infrastrukturprojekten leisten.
                  

                     Zum Schluss möchte ich mich an dieser Stelle auch noch einmal ganz herzlich bei meinen Kolleginnen und Kollegen für die sehr vertrauensvolle und sehr kooperative Zusammenarbeit bedanken.
                  

Angelika Mlinar,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs for reaching another milestone in the completion of the Clean Energy Package, which will provide our citizens with a greener market-based system that better answers the interconnected reality of our European electricity market.
As shadow rapporteur for the regulation of risk preparedness in the electricity sector, I strongly welcomed the Commission's proposal, which is very much needed, as was sadly shown by the uncoordinated cross-border response to the cold spell that affected southern Europe in January 2017. In line with the Emergency and Restoration network code, we worked on structured multilevel frameworks that oblige Member States to define and coordinate their strategies ex-ante. Timely assistance will be enhanced by programming solidarity interventions in a clear and predictable manner, in particular by fixing compensation schemes in advance.
I believe the agreement negotiated by our rapporteurs has secured three key elements. It delivers a truly Union approach thanks to a unique risk assessment methodology approved but ACER and the strong involvement of the regional coordination centres in all phases of the planning procedure. It provides for greater transparency and incentives for data sharing, with safeguards for confidentiality, and it minimises collective costs arising from supply disruption and market distortion by allowing non-market-based solutions only as a last resort.
The future implementation of this regulation will successfully lower the risk of black-outs and it will also lower the electricity bills for consumers while decreasing our Member States' dependence on third countries' energy supply. At the end, I would like to conclude by thanking all the rapporteurs and the negotiating teams for the fruitful and efficient cooperation.

Florent Marcellesi,
en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora presidenta, descarbonizar nuestro sistema energético es una prioridad absoluta, y con esta normativa estamos dando un paso en la dirección correcta. Me alegra que gracias al Grupo de los Verdes este acuerdo sirva para apoyar las energías renovables, la gestión de la demanda y las cooperativas energéticas y que hayamos puesto fecha de caducidad a las subvenciones al carbón.
                  

                     Es hora de una transición justa más allá de las energías sucias, y de que nadie tenga que escoger entre fin del mundo o fin del mes. Pero tenemos que hacer mucho más si queremos cumplir con el Acuerdo de París, empezando, señor comisario, por no autorizar subvenciones a nuevas centrales contaminantes en Polonia y Grecia. Por eso, insto a la Comisión Europea a redoblar su nivel de ambición climática. Desde el Grupo de los Verdes estaremos muy atentos. Esto se lo debemos a la Juventud por el Clima que cada semana deja sus clases para darnos una lección magistral.
                  

Cornelia Ernst,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ja, ich glaube wir müssen uns beim Strommarkt-Design schon die Frage stellen, ob das, was herausgekommen ist, in der Tat ausreichend ist für die nächsten Jahrzehnte. Ist das entschlossen genug, um dem Klimawandel etwas Substanzielles entgegenzusetzen, der erneuerbare Energien zwingend voraussetzt? Ja, und die Frage ist auch: Ist das nachhaltig genug für Energiesicherheit in den nächsten Jahren? Und ist das sozial genug? Unsere Antwort ist – wenn wir ehrlich sein wollen: Das Glas ist halb voll! Wir begrüßen, dass regulierte Preise, beispielsweise auf dem Strommarkt, erhalten bleiben, und kritisieren zugleich, dass gegen Energiearmut nur halbherzig vorgegangen wird – mit weichen Formulierungen, die wir hier finden.
                  

                     Wir sind froh, dass Bürgerenergien – und ich glaube, das ist ein großer Fortschritt – zum ersten Mal geregelte Rechte erhalten, vor allem auch dann, wenn es darum geht, die Akzeptanz von erneuerbaren Energien zu erhöhen, ist das sehr, sehr wichtig. Aber wir ärgern uns, dass die Verbraucherschutzrechte nicht weit genug sind. Wir unterstützen, dass künftig die schmutzigsten Kohlekraftwerke außen vor bleiben in der Sicherheitsreserve und nicht mehr subventioniert werden können. Aber, ehrlich gesagt, mit den Kapazitätsmärkten können wir nur schwer leben, weil wir ja eigentlich etwas anderes brauchen, nämlich einen konsequenten Einspeisevorrang erneuerbarer Energien, nicht nur kleiner Energieanlagen, sondern als grundsätzliche Regel. Das konnten wir leider nicht erreichen, obwohl wir als Linke uns dafür eingesetzt haben. Was also halb voll ist, ist eben auch halb leer.
                  

Jonathan Bullock,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, Europe's electricity crisis is the result of irresponsible energy policy-making choices of the unelected Commission in Brussels. In today's report, Mr Kariņš addresses fundamental issues such as the intermittency of renewable energy and the collateral effects of the EU energy subsidies. Mr Zanonato, on the other hand, strongly believes that further EU harmonisation shall prevent future electricity crises in Europe.
The EU focused its energy policy on unreliable, expensive, intermittent renewable sources. These authoritarian decisions are undermining competitiveness and are driving energy-intensive businesses outside of Europe, increasing what's called ‘the carbon leakage’ phenomenon. Consequently, we are losing jobs and investments altogether.
I sincerely hope that the UK will exit the EU repealing all parts of the EU energy and climate policy, which is failing. The UK has a chance to get back in the real world and invest in reliable energy sources such as nuclear and coal, while also exploring national indigenous energy resources such as the local undiscovered shale gas.

Christelle Lechevalier,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, indispensable au fonctionnement de nos entreprises, à la vie des particuliers ou encore aux déplacements, l'énergie est, par nature, l'une des principales politiques stratégiques d'un État.
                  

                     Si, pour nous, la coopération entre États membres en matière énergétique est nécessaire et souhaitable, la souveraineté nationale dans ce domaine hautement stratégique n'est pas négociable. Derrière l'objectif affiché de lutte contre le changement climatique et de protection des consommateurs, l'ambition de la Commission est la création d'un grand marché de l'électricité européen où la logique nationale devra s'effacer devant ses volontés.
                  

                     Les principes d'augmenter nos échanges transfrontaliers, de gérer nos pics ou nos creux de consommation électrique en coopération avec nos pays voisins, d'intégrer des énergies renouvelables produites par des consommateurs ou d'adapter nos moyens de production aux nouvelles technologies sont, en soi, positifs. Ce sont cependant des démarches qu'entreprenaient naturellement les États membres entre eux et sur leurs territoires depuis des décennies.
                  

                     La volonté dogmatique de la Commission est d'imposer par idéologie des mesures qui tueront toute forme de souveraineté énergétique et d'initiative nationale, tant sur la normalisation technique pour les interconnexions électriques que sur la gestion des flux entre pays voisins. L'accent doit être mis sur une coopération libre entre les États, et non sur une soumission progressive à des décisions arbitraires et idéologiques émanant de la Commission et de ses agences.
                  

                     Par ailleurs, la Commission affiche clairement sa volonté de libéralisation totale du marché de l'énergie. Rappelons que les exemples extra-européens de libéralisation et de privatisation à outrance des marchés de l'électricité, se sont, dans leur grande majorité, soldés par des échecs cuisants et coûteux.
                  

                     Chacun des quatre textes de ce paquet est une pierre supplémentaire à l'édifice du marché électrique européen et à la dépossession des États membres de leur souveraineté énergétique mais aussi diplomatique.
                  

                     Ici, deux visions s'opposent: d'une part, la vision ultralibérale de la Commission et de ses complices qui déconsidèrent l'énergie comme un marché parmi tant d'autres à internationaliser et à ouvrir à la concurrence; d'autre part, notre vision illibérale de l'énergie comme étant un bien public essentiel au fonctionnement de la nation et devant être géré à son échelle, avec des coopérations libres entre États.
                  

José Blanco López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, con el debate sobre la regulación del mercado eléctrico culminamos la legislación del paquete de energía limpia. Yo, señor comisario, quiero felicitarle por el trabajo que ha impulsado desde la Comisión, pero también quiero reconocer hoy que este Parlamento estuvo a la altura de las exigencias y a la altura del desafío que tenemos por delante, que es hacer una legislación energética en consonancia con los acuerdos de París y con el gran desafío que tiene la humanidad, que es la lucha contra el cambio climático; con una mayor penetración de renovables; con más eficiencia energética; con un papel más activo de los consumidores; con un papel también —que no olvidamos— para combatir la pobreza energética. En definitiva, la Unión Europea es el gran actor global que tiene una legislación segura y que responde al desafío de este tiempo.
                  

                     Podemos, por lo tanto, como europeos, sentirnos orgullosos del trabajo que hemos realizado y, a su vez, reivindicar que hay que hacer más cosas, porque el desafío es de una envergadura enorme.
                  

Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, prvo koristim priliku da kao izvjestitelj u sjeni za Uredbu o ACER-u zahvalim kolegi Petersenu na izvrsnoj suradnji i vođenju pregovora koji su rezultirali time da, naravno, ambicije koje smo mi imali što se tiče ACER-a, nisu ostvarene, ali je ipak ACER osnažen dovoljno da se zapravo može efikasno provoditi energetska politika Europske unije kroz cijeli paket energetske unije.
                  

                     Ono što želim naglasiti, mislim da današnji kolege nisu istaknuli, a tiče se zapravo ovog tržišta električne energije, to je problem implementacije na koji je povjerenik Cañete u više navrata sugerirao i u razmjeni mišljenja govorio na našim odborima. Dakle, energetsko siromaštvo je obveza država članica koje moraju izvršiti implementaciju ovih direktiva. Aktivno sudjelovanje građana u proizvodnji energije također je nešto što moraju izvršiti. Integrirani klimatsko-energetski paketi odnosno planovi pokazuju već sada da postoje rizici oko toga kako će države članice uspješno implementirati upravo ove uredbe i direktive o kojima danas raspravljamo. Europski budžet, kohezijski fond, Europski fond za regionalni razvoj, Horizon Europe – o njima danas i sutra odlučujemo kako će oni zapravo poduprijeti javnim novcem upravo provedbu ovih direktiva u državama članicama.
                  

Miroslav Poche (S&D). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, já bych chtěl poděkovat panu zpravodaji Petersenovi, stínovým zpravodajům i rakouskému předsednictví, konec konců i panu komisaři za velmi konstruktivní spolupráci na dosažení kompromisní dohody. A jsme přesvědčen, že se nám podařilo u agentury ACER dosáhnout velmi dobré dohody, která umožní efektivní fungování agentury.
                  

                     Podařilo se nám prosadit silnější a transparentnější agenturu, která bude mimo jiné dohlížet na regionální koordinační centra. Regionální koordinační centra budou hrát významnou roli v situacích, kdy provozovatelé přenosových soustav budou rozhodovat o otázkách vyžadující společný přístup.
                  

                     Jsem rád, že se nám podařilo vyřešit dlouhodobý nedostatek finančních i lidských zdrojů agentury. Jsem rád, že všechny zúčastněné strany uznaly nutnost financovat více tuto agenturu. Pevně věřím, že agentura ACER díky novým legislativním úpravám zajistí lepší fungování jednotného evropského trhu a bude se umět vyrovnat s novými výzvami, které celý balíček přináší.
                  

Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ja bym chciał poruszyć inny aspekt tego problemu i nie wracać w zasadzie do tego, cośmy już uzgodnili, tylko powiedzieć coś o przyszłości i doświadczeniach wynikających z tego procesu naszej pracy nad projektami legislacyjnymi, które weszły w skład tego pakietu.
                  

                     Otóż wydaje mi się, że przyszedł czas na określenie warunków dla prawdziwie sprawiedliwej transformacji energetycznej. Zanim wdrożymy kolejne ambitne cele klimatyczne – a wiemy, że obecnie projektuje się kompletnie neutralną emisyjnie gospodarkę unijną do 2050 r. – więc zanim to zaczniemy, zadbajmy o ludzi najbardziej zagrożonych z powodu eliminowania konwencjonalnych źródeł energii takich jak węgiel, ropa czy gaz ziemny. Niech przestrogą dla nas będą masowo wyludniane tereny, tzw. regiony powęglowe, jak w północno-zachodniej Bułgarii, czy nawet protesty francuskich żółtych kamizelek zapoczątkowane wzrostem cen paliw. Ja bym nie chciał, żeby sceny z Paryża powtarzały się w innych europejskich metropoliach.
                  

                     Transformacja energetyczna wymaga indywidualnego podejścia do poszczególnych krajów i regionów. Wymaga odpowiedniego przygotowania, nakładów środków finansowych. Musi iść w parze z bezpieczeństwem dostaw energii, utrzymaniem konkurencyjności poszczególnych gospodarek. Przede wszystkim jednak w centrum tego procesu postawmy gospodarstwa domowe, szczególnie te, którym już dzisiaj zagraża ubóstwo energetyczne.
                  

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, having been involved in the whole climate area all during this mandate, I'm very pleased with the progress it has made. I think that great credit is due to Commissioner Arias Cañete, Mr Ristori and many others, who firstly ensured that the Paris Agreement got over the line and now, too, the Clean Energy Package has put in place all the necessary legislation to deliver it. I think we can be very proud of that.
Secondly, connectivity is absolutely vital in this whole area, especially if we want to make greater use of renewables. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow; if it blows in one area, it doesn't blow in another. So to maximise it, connectivity is absolutely important. The internal market for electricity will help to bring that about. Indeed, there is a group in Ireland with former President of Parliament, Pat Cox, and people like Eddie O'Connor, who recently developed what they call the super node across Europe. That would deliver the connectivity that would be necessary to make maximum use of a renewable source.

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il nuovo pacchetto sulla riforma del mercato dell'elettricità permetterà di responsabilizzare i clienti, semplificare il mercato transfrontaliero di energia elettrica, garantire la sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento e agevolare una produzione di energia elettrica rispettosa del clima.
                  

                     Di fondamentale importanza è il rafforzamento dei diritti dei consumatori, stabilendo informazioni più chiare in merito alle condizioni di contratto, bollette energetiche più trasparenti, strumenti di confronto, contatori intelligenti per controllare meglio i consumi e, non da ultimo, la possibilità di cambiare fornitore in 24 ore.
                  

                     Tuttavia, l'accordo non mi sembra abbastanza ambizioso per quanto riguarda la transizione verso un'energia pulita e l'autoproduzione con contestuale autoconsumo, che dovrebbero essere maggiormente rafforzati.
                  

                     Il pacchetto europeo dovrebbe consentire il passaggio da un modello fossile e centralizzato a uno decarbonizzato e decentrato, con un grosso passo avanti per l'autoconsumo istantaneo. L'obiettivo, cioè, dovrebbe essere agevolare chi intende fare autoproduzione con contestuale autoconsumo nell'ambito di un modello decarbonizzato.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, let me close by thanking you again for your excellent cooperation and for being such a reliable partner in the course of the negotiations on these dossiers. You have supported and strengthened the level of ambition in the ‘Clean Energy for all Europeans’ proposals, and Europe can be fully satisfied with the results. I trust that in your vote tomorrow you will maintain your ambitious approach and thereby remain such an important player in defining our future energy policy fit for the 21st century.
This is an example of a key area where Europe is moving forward. This is an example of promises made to citizens five years ago that are delivered, and this is an example where the role of the European Parliament was decisive in bringing the priorities of our citizens from words to action. For sure, implementation will be decisive, and we will use governmental relations for facilitating the need in the context of national plans for energy and climate.
Now that the young Europeans have taken to the streets, asking governments to take action, and now that the European Parliament electoral campaign is going to start, I encourage all of you – European political parties and their Spitzenkanditaten – to explain what you have done and to define and develop in your electoral programmes the vision on these vital issues, seeking the views, the engagement and the support of our citizens.

Die Präsidentin. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar!
                  

                     Nun sollte ich Frau Werner das Wort geben. Sie hat sich vorhin bei mir entschuldigt, dass sie bei einer parallel laufenden Sitzung sein muss und deswegen nicht mehr anwesend sein kann.
                  

Morten Helveg Petersen,
ordfører. – Fru formand! I slutningen af 2016 fremsatte Kommissionen sin store energipakke. Vi sætter nu punktum i denne uge og ser frem mod næste kapitel efter flere års hårdt arbejde. Vi får også meget arbejde i den næste mandatperiode. Man kan sige, at i denne har vi jo fokuseret på at vedtage lovgivning, som med kommissærens glimrende ord er den største samlede energilovgivning i EU's historie, men det er kun papirer, hvis det ikke bliver implementeret. Derfor får vi også i de kommende år en vigtig rolle i Parlamentet med at holde øje med, at lovgivningen faktisk bliver implementeret. Det er helt afgørende for klimakampen, og jeg synes, det er rimeligt at sige, at det, vi har oplevet gennem de sidste par år, netop har været, at det er Parlamentet, der har været med til at holde fast i og oven i købet løfte ambitionerne. Det, synes jeg, er vigtigt at sige her ved indgangen til en europæisk valgkamp.
                  

                     Vi har sat højere mål for energieffektivitet og for vedvarende energi, men netop målet for vedvarende energi afhænger jo af implementeringen, af ACER, af el-markedsforordningen, idet handel med elektricitet på tværs af grænser er selve forudsætningen for den grønne omstilling.
                  

                     Næste periode handler også om klimaambitionerne frem mod 2050, og for mig at se er der ingen tvivl om, at EU skal gå forrest. Derfor skal vi have som målsætning, at EU er CO2-neutral senest i 2050. Jeg oplevede selv for nylig ved en klimademonstration i København, at det er tydeligt, hvordan befolkningen forlanger handling på dette område. Det skal vi tage ansvar for! Lad mig slutte af med til sidst endnu en gang at sige hjerteligt tak til Kommissionen, til kommissæren, og til alle kollegerne her i Europa-Parlamentet for det glimrende samarbejde. Det tegner godt!
                  

Flavio Zanonato,
relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non ho, a dire la verità, molto da aggiungere a quanto ho già detto prima, perché condivido quanto affermato dal Commissario Cañete e condivido la gran parte dei contributi dei miei colleghi parlamentari che sono intervenuti sui diversi punti.
                  

                     Per quel che riguarda quei pochi interventi critici che sono venuti da una parte di quest'Aula, pur avendoli ascoltati con attenzione, vorrei evidenziare che non riguardano il dibattito in corso, bensì la questione se sia opportuno creare un mercato unico dell'energia, con tutte le conseguenze che questo comporta e con gli obiettivi che ci siamo dati.
                  

                     Noi invece discutiamo sul come fare questo tipo di operazione perché siamo convinti. Quindi la discussione si sposta su un tema che è completamente diverso e che non è quello del mercato unico dell'energia.
                  

                     Mi fa piacere poter ringraziare, in conclusione, nuovamente il mio presidente, l'on. Buzek. Desidero ringraziare anche il Commissario Cañete e ho visto che in Aula è arrivato il Direttore generale, Dominique Ristori: lo voglio ringraziare con forza perché è stata una delle persone che ha dato un grande contributo alla discussione e ha permesso anche a me di comprendere meglio alcuni meccanismi.
                  

                     Vi ringrazio: lavoriamo per attuare le cose che decideremo nella prossima seduta.
                  

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Dienstag, 26. März 2019, statt.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162)



András Gyürk (PPE),
írásban. – Két és fél éve nekivágtunk, hogy egy átfogó reformmal versenyképesebbé, megfizethetőbbé és környezetbarátabbá tegyük az európai villamosáram piacot. Ahogy már a kezdetekkor elmondtam, a mostani és mindenkori reformcsomag legfontosabb célja kizárólag a fogyasztók támogatása lehet. Minket az európai polgárok küldtek ide, hogy képviseljük őket, ezért az ő érdekeiket kell szem előtt tartanunk, amikor a jövő törvényeit megalkotjuk.
                  

                     A Parlement által javasolt javaslatcsomag eltörölte volna a lakossági fogyasztók számára létrehozott szabályozott árakat, kizárólag a piac ingadozásaira bízva a villamosáram árának kialakítását. Ez a lépés egy tollvonással megszüntetett volna megannyi lakossági kedvezményt, így többek között a magyar rezsicsökkentést is. Örülök, hogy az intézményközi egyeztetések alatt győzedelmeskedett a józan ész, és ez a tiltás kikerült a szövegből, ezért szavazatommal is támogatni fogom a javaslatot.
                  
17.   Representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Geoffroy Didier im Namen des Rechtsausschusses über den Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Verbandsklagen zum Schutz der Kollektivinteressen der Verbraucher und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 2009/22/EG (COM(2018)0184 - C8-0149/2018 - 2018/0089(COD)) (A8-0447/2018).
               

Geoffroy Didier,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire Jourová, chers collègues. Ayant intégré le Parlement européen il y a un an seulement, je mesure la chance mais aussi la responsabilité qui est la mienne d'être le rapporteur d'une réforme aussi précieuse pour les consommateurs de tous les pays d'Europe.
               

                  Demain, nous allons rendre possibles les actions collectives contre les pratiques illégales de grandes entreprises.
               

                  Ma tâche n'était au départ pas aisée. Beaucoup craignaient, par exemple, que cette réforme puisse donner lieu à des litiges abusifs, calomnieux, instrumentalisés pour déstabiliser une entreprise concurrente et reproduise ainsi les dérives du système américain. Il n'en sera rien car j'y ai veillé tout particulièrement. D'autres craignaient que ce texte finisse en fourre-tout où ce ne serait plus uniquement le consommateur qui serait concerné mais le citoyen, l'individu dans tous ses contours, lequel utiliserait ce recours pour demander par exemple à une entreprise de l'indemniser sous prétexte qu'elle aurait contribué à la pollution de l'air qu'il respire. Il n'en sera rien car cela aurait été – chacun l'aura reconnu – dénaturer l'esprit du texte qui vise avant tout à protéger les droits des consommateurs.
               

                  En réalité, je crois pouvoir dire que nous avons construit, en étroite association avec tous les rapporteurs fictifs, que je tiens ici à remercier chaleureusement pour leur excellent état d'esprit, un subtil équilibre qui concilie, d'une part, l'exigence d'une protection accrue des consommateurs, d'autre part, la nécessaire sécurité juridique des entreprises.
               

                  Ce texte va même plus loin puisqu'il démontre, peut-être pour la première fois, que l'un et l'autre, protection d'une part, sécurité, d'autre part, ont tout intérêt à aller ensemble.
               

                  Chers collègues, le fait d'adopter ce texte à quelques semaines des élections européennes pourrait être une belle démonstration que lorsque nous nous y mettons ensemble nous rendons l'Europe concrètement utile à la vie quotidienne de chacun de nos concitoyens.
               

                  Grâce au recours collectif européen, en effet, un passager aérien, un acheteur de voiture, un propriétaire d'une machine à laver pourra avec d'autres intenter une action en justice contre une pratique illégale de sa compagnie aérienne, de sa marque de voiture ou de celle de son appareil ménager.
               

                  Ces consommateurs verront leurs droits défendus par une entité qualifiée dont le financement sera transparent et ils obtiendront ainsi réparation de leur préjudice.
               

                  Enfin, pour asseoir sa légitimité, notre recours collectif européen s'est fixé quelques principes fondamentaux. Le premier, ce recours ne se substitue pas à ceux existant déjà dans certains états. Respectueux des traditions juridiques nationales, il viendra s'y ajouter ou alors créer une protection nouvelle dans les neuf pays européens qui n'en disposaient pas jusqu'ici. Deuxième principe, l'intégralité de l'indemnisation devra revenir au consommateur. Les entités qualifiées, qui ne seront là que des véhicules permettant aux consommateurs de faire triompher leurs droits, ne pourront en effet en tirer aucun profit.
               

                  Enfin, pour éviter les abus, nous avons fixé pour principe que le perdant au procès paiera la procédure, mais nous avons aussi fixé la règle selon laquelle on ne peut pas être indemnisé deux fois pour le même préjudice.
               

                  Chers collègues, je vous invite à voter demain en faveur de cette réforme car elle n'est le texte d'aucun parti, d'aucune idéologie ou d'aucun lobby. Cette directive ne poursuit qu'un seul et unique objectif: mieux protéger les droits de tous les citoyens d'Europe.
               

PRÉSIDENCE: Sylvie GUILLAUME


Vice-présidente


Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Didier, for his dedicated work on this proposal, as well as all the other Members of the European Parliament from the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO).
The Commission welcomes the swift progress on this file and hopes that Parliament will adopt its first reading position tomorrow. We can all agree that consumers across the EU should be able to enforce their rights effectively in ‘mass harm’ situations, and that is why the Commission proposed this directive. Via the representative actions for the protection of the collective interest of consumers, qualified entities, such as consumer associations or independent public bodies, will be able to act. They will be able to stop infringements of consumer law and help obtain redress for those consumers who have been harmed. This will especially help vulnerable consumers in situations where they shy away from defending their rights individually.
The proposal responds to the need for strong public and private enforcement of EU consumer rights. In line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the proposal gives Member States considerable room for manoeuvre on key procedural points. Our aim is to find solutions that safeguard consumer rights and ensure that traders are also treated fairly. From the beginning, we made it very clear that the Commission does not want to create a litigation culture in Europe, and the proposal on representative actions in no way lends itself to such an interpretation. We define a clearly European way of collective redress that is fair for consumers and businesses, that does not contain punitive damages, and is not bringing US-style class actions to the EU. In particular, we set strict standards for qualified entities which want to act on behalf of consumers.
I welcome that the report is pursuing the same objective. In particular, I note the proposed strengthening of the criteria for qualified entities and the preservation of Member States' discretion as to the precise procedural modalities. Member States share the objective of ensuring clear and effective rules for an efficient and proportionate collective redress system suitable for the European model. I am convinced that, with the new deal for consumers, and in particular with the collective redress initiative, we are sending a clear message to European consumers that the EU cares about them. I therefore think that your vote in this pre-election moment is very important.

Pavel Svoboda,
za skupinu PPE. – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, myslím, že je na místě úvodem poděkovat panu kolegovi Didierovi za úsilí, které do vyjednávání výsledného textu vložil, stejně jako Vám, paní komisařko.
                  

                     Občané Evropské unie očekávají vysoký standard ochrany práv spotřebitelů a tento návrh k němu bezpochyby přispívá. Předložený text ale také správně obsahuje řadu ustanovení, jejichž cílem je zamezit zneužívání hromadných žalob. Jsem rád, že výsledný text obsahuje řadu pojistek, například zákaz paralelních sporů, které zamezí tomu, aby hromadné žaloby zneužívali ti, kterým nejde o práva spotřebitelů, ale pouze o vlastní zisk. Proto budu hlasovat pro předloženou zprávu.
                  

Mady Delvaux,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, malgré un lobbyisme féroce et une grande résistance de la droite de ce Parlement, nous avons trouvé un bon accord, grâce aussi à M. Didier.
                  

                     Aujourd'hui, seulement dix-neuf États membres ont des mécanismes d'action collective et peu sont vraiment efficaces. La nouvelle proposition de directive garantira des standards minima européens qui protègeront les consommateurs, lesquels pourront s'allier pour réclamer des indemnités qui leur sont dues.
                  

                     Pour nous, les points importants étaient les suivants: faciliter la création d'entités représentatives qui peuvent représenter les consommateurs, garantir la transparence et l'absence de conflits d'intérêts, accélérer les procédures et informer les consommateurs.
                  

                     Je suis satisfaite des résultats sur ces points mais il me reste deux regrets.
                  

                     D'abord, le champ d'application: les citoyens ne sont pas seulement des consommateurs. Des dommages sanitaires ou des dégâts environnementaux sont causés par des entreprises sans scrupules; dans ce cas-là, les victimes ne mériteraient-elles pas d'avoir accès au recours collectif?
                  

                     Mon deuxième regret est que le Conseil, frileux sur ce point, n'a pas trouvé de position commune. Par conséquent, un accord n'est plus possible dans cette mandature et cela retardera la mise en œuvre de ce mécanisme, qui est un instrument important pour les consommateurs.
                  

                     Mä sécher wäert Lëtzebuerg ganz geschwënn e Gesetz iwwer Sammelkloen kréien.
                  

Matthijs van Miltenburg,
namens de ALDE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, voor een stabiele interne markt is consumentenvertrouwen noodzakelijk. Grote schandalen zoals dieselgate, maar ook de privacyschendingen door Facebook, die schenden dat vertrouwen. Ze tonen de zwakte aan in onze Europese wetgeving als het gaat om handhaving van consumentenrecht en collectief schadeverhaal. Met de wetgeving waar we morgen over stemmen, creëren we een Europese basis voor consumenten om samen in actie te komen en schade te verhalen. We versterken de positie van de Europese consument. Dit zorgt voor een betere balans tussen consument en producent. Morgen zetten wij als Europees Parlement een stap in de goede richting. Het is nu de beurt aan de Raad om snel een standpunt in te nemen en met het nieuwe Parlement na de verkiezingen in onderhandeling te treden, zodat consumenten voortaan overal in Europa gezamenlijk hun recht kunnen halen.
                  

Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, l'Union européenne est une Europe du ‘business’ au service des banques et des lobbies, alors qu'elle aurait dû être une Europe des peuples. Elle tient aujourd'hui une occasion de commencer à se rattraper en renforçant la protection des consommateurs.
                  

                     Le projet de directive qui nous est soumis vise en effet à créer au niveau européen une action de groupe, ce que les Américains appellent une class action. Il s'agit de permettre à des consommateurs, victimes d'un même préjudice, de se regrouper pour défendre collectivement leurs intérêts par une action commune devant les tribunaux nationaux. Il y a urgence à créer cette procédure car seuls quelques États en Europe, dont la France, la possèdent déjà. Le résultat, c'est que les consommateurs américains sont beaucoup mieux protégés que les consommateurs européens. Dans l'affaire du Dieselgate, par exemple, Volkswagen a versé 22 milliards d'euros de compensation à ses clients américains alors qu'elle n'a encore pratiquement rien versé à ses clients européens.
                  

                     La procédure imaginée par le projet de directive permettra sans aucun doute d'améliorer la situation car elle est sagement conçue. Elle prévoit que l'action de groupe sera présentée par des associations sans but lucratif. Celles-ci informeront les consommateurs de la possibilité de se joindre à leur action et les tribunaux devront réparer l'intégralité de leur préjudice.
                  

                     Le projet de directive a enfin le mérite de respecter les actions de groupe nationales qui existent déjà, comme celles instaurées par la loi française du 17 mars 2014.
                  

                     Il reste à espérer que cette action de groupe européenne connaîtra plus de succès que l'action de groupe française qui présente un bilan catastrophique en raison de sa trop grande lourdeur procédurale.
                  

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Det indre marked er en god ting! Men det er et stort område, og ofte står forbrugerne som den svage part på EU's indre marked, når noget går galt. Derfor er der brug for, at vi på det indre marked i Europa får et juridisk redskab, som kan styrke forbrugerne og sikre deres rettigheder. Det er sådan et redskab, vi nu er i gang med at lave. Det synes jeg er en rigtig god ting! Kollektive gruppesøgsmål – det, at man kan gå sammen om at sikre sine rettigheder over for en virksomhed – vil betyde, at vi kan sikre, at vi får et væsentligt bedre indre marked. Vi så det med dieselgateskandalen. Det forhold, at vi ikke har mulighed for kollektive søgsmål på europæisk plan, har været med til stille forbrugerne i Europa meget dårligere, end f.eks. i USA. Derfor det glæder mig utroligt meget, at vi nu tager det første skridt i retning af at sikre et reelt europæisk redskab, som kan styrke de europæiske forbrugere. Det har vi brug for, for det er vejen til at sikre, at vi får et endnu bedre indre marked.
                  

La Présidente. – Monsieur Packet, vous avez fait votre apparition parmi nous. Voulez-vous prendre la parole maintenant, à titre exceptionnel?
                  

Ralph Packet,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, met de dieselgate werden we met de neus op de feiten gedrukt. Er schort wat met de toepassing van onze Europese regels en uiteindelijk werd de consument het grootste slachtoffer. Totaal in de steek gelaten door Europa, door de lidstaten en door de producenten. Want welke consument wil zich nu nog opwerpen tegen lange, dure en onduidelijke juridische procedures om de strijd met die grote, machtige bedrijven aan te gaan? Dat is puur David tegen Goliath. Voor mij is het simpel: onwettige praktijken moeten gemakkelijker worden stopgezet en consumenten moeten vergoed worden voor de schade die ze geleden hebben. Om die strijd aan te gaan en om de consumentenrechten te handhaven, moet een systeem van collectieve vorderingen met de nodige waarborgen slagkracht bieden om Amerikaanse wanpraktijken te vermijden. In Vlaanderen en België zijn we koploper op dat vlak en ik hoop dat onze consumenten binnenkort overal in Europa van dit belangrijk hulpmiddel kunnen genieten.
                  

Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Zunächst einmal möchte ich mich bei Frau Kommissarin Jourová bedanken, weil sie endlich etwas in die Wege geleitet hat, was wir als Parlament lange, lange Zeit verlangt haben, die Kommission aber lange Zeit unberührt gelassen hat, und da ist ein besonderer Dank dabei. Allzu gerne hätte ich heute den Bürgern und Bürgerinnen gesagt: Mensch, ja, jetzt haben wir die Verbandsklage für euch, die europäische Lösung, damit ihr zu eurem Recht kommt. Aber leider ist es nun mal so: Ja, wir machen gute Arbeit, wir haben gute Vorschläge, und dieser Bericht ist ein guter Bericht und vom Europäischen Parlament auch noch sehr stark verbessert worden, aber leider spielt der Rat nicht mit. Er hat bis heute noch keinen gemeinsamen Standpunkt, noch keine Grundlage für eine Verhandlung mit dem Parlament beschlossen. Das finde ich sehr bedauerlich. Denn damit werden für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen sehr viele Rechte auf die lange Bank geschoben. Das hindert uns daran, auch wirklich das zu machen, was wir versprochen haben.
                  

                     Wir wollen das. Wir wollen, dass endlich dieses Recht kommt. Und wir werden nicht nachlassen, auch in der neuen Wahlperiode daran zu arbeiten, damit diese Verbandsklage für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen Europas auch wirklich kommt.
                  

Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Honourable Members very much for their interventions. Indeed, dieselgate was one of the impulses which gave us the strength to come with the proposal because we had a very good reason also to explain to the opponents that we need the possibility for European consumers to go and collectively defend their rights. I could name every Member State where there is some case of mass-harm situation. For instance, in Spain, the very difficult situation through the unfavourable contracts with banks for mortgages, it covers 60 000 people and I could continue like this. So this is not only dieselgate, it's only maybe the most visible case.
I want to thank you for your approach. Again, my thanks to the rapporteur. I believe that your our report will receive the necessary support from the European Parliament. And, as for the support of the Council, we have to do our best to convince the Member States after the elections that this is the necessary step forward to better protect the interests of consumers in the EU and I believe we will get it done.

Geoffroy Didier,
rapporteur. – Madame la Présidente, la commissaire Jourová a dit deux choses très importantes. La première, c'est que l'objectif n'est pas de punir qui que ce soit, mais bien exclusivement d'indemniser les victimes et de voir leur préjudice réparé. La seconde, c'est que notre texte a bien veillé à éviter tous les dangers et les dérives des class action à l'américaine.
                  

                     Pour terminer, je voudrais remercier mes collègues, M. Swoboda qui, en s'exprimant, a démontré tout le soutien plein et entier de mon parti politique, le PPE, Gilles Lebreton, pour son état d'esprit constructif, et Mady Delvaux qui, durant toutes les discussions, m'a impressionné par son sens du dialogue et sa volonté de rechercher, et surtout de trouver un compromis.
                  

                     Oui, j'aurais aimé que le Conseil aille plus vite, mais sachez que nous veillerons, si nous sommes réélus, à poursuivre, et surtout à finaliser ce travail dans le cadre du trilogue. En tout cas, comptez sur nous, comptez sur moi pour mieux protéger les consommateurs européens, je ne lâcherai rien.
                  

La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.
                  

                     Le vote aura lieu mardi, le 26 mars 2019.
                  


Déclarations écrites (article 162)



Carlos Coelho (PPE),
por escrito. – A União Europeia tem das melhores regras de defesa do consumidor do mundo, mas o quadro atual não permite uma aplicação coerciva sólida e equitativa desta legislação na União. O risco de infrações ao direito da União que afetam os interesses coletivos dos consumidores está a aumentar devido à globalização económica e à digitalização da nossa economia, tendo o caso DieselGate exposto a fragilidade dos consumidores europeus em verem protegidos e ressarcidos os seus direitos em violações de grande escala com carácter transfronteiriço.
                  

                     Mais do que tudo, está em causa um princípio basilar em que assenta a UE: o acesso à Justiça; a 500 milhões de consumidores europeus permitindo que uma entidade qualificada possa procurar obter ressarcimento, em nome de um grupo de consumidores, que tenha sido lesado por uma prática comercial ilegal. Estabelecem-se princípios comuns harmonizados, mas respeitam-se, também, as tradições jurídicas nacionais e previne-se a litigância de má-fé.
                  

                     Juntamente com a reforma que efetuámos no Regulamento de cooperação entre as autoridades nacionais responsáveis pela aplicação da legislação do consumidor, com a revisão da Diretiva relativa aos direitos dos consumidores e agora com as ações coletivas, reforçamos e fechamos com chave de ouro o quadro europeu de proteção dos consumidores.
                  
18.   Recent developments on the Dieselgate scandal (debate)

La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration de la Commission sur les développements récents du Dieselgate (2019/2670(RSP)).
               

Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, three and a half years have passed since Dieselgate broke out. In this time, we learned that European vehicle manufacturers have violated the EU rules on vehicle pollutant emissions. This has been detrimental in many respects. It has affected the air quality and the health of EU citizens, it has affected the trust of EU consumers in EU industry, and it has affected confidence in the whole EU regulatory framework on vehicles.
Together with the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission has spared no efforts to put an end to this scandal, to restore confidence and to avoid any repetition in the future. A lot has already been achieved. In May 2018, we put in place a more efficient regulatory framework that guarantees greater independence and transparency of vehicle type-approval. This will inter alia allow for EU fines, EU-wide recalls and EU testing of vehicles. We have also introduced more accurate testing for NOx emissions with the Real-Driving Emissions (RDE) test procedure. This procedure gives a more realistic picture of actual pollutant emissions on the road, and it also contributes to the effective reduction of these emissions. Let me give a simple example. Thanks to RDE, diesel cars now emit on average 40 mg of NOx per km. Before RDE, these emissions were on average 700 to 800 mg per km in real driving conditions. We now have one of the most effective emission regulatory systems anywhere in the world.
The procedure to measure CO2 emissions more accurately has also been modernised, with the adoption of the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP). This allows EU consumers to obtain realistic information on the fuel consumption of vehicles. Both RDE and WLTP are new tests that will be constantly reviewed and adapted where necessary.
The Commission has also launched eight infringement procedures against Member States for a violation of the EU type-approval rules since December 2016. Six are still ongoing. They have already resulted in legislative changes and enforcement action in the Member States concerned. In February 2018, the Commission set up a platform in which Member States share the information on recalls of vehicles affected by Dieselgate. Based on this information, the Commission publishes regular updates on the state of play of recalls. So far, the Commission has no legal power to impose mandatory recalls. This still remains the responsibility of the Member States, which are bound to supervise the manufacturers and ensure that recall measures are effectively implemented.
As of 1 September 2020, the new Type-Approval Framework Regulation will allow for EU fines, EU-wide recalls and EU testing. For the time being, there is no comprehensive information on the effects of recalls on air quality. What is certain is that there are still about two million cars on European roads that require updating, and many of these cars are being sold to Central and Eastern Europe. We are moving our air quality problems from West to East.
Some of the new rules put in place by the Commission have been challenged before the General Court. This is notably the case of one of the Commission regulations setting up the RDE procedures, and in particular, the so-called conformity factors used in this procedure. These conformity factors are necessary to reflect the statistical uncertainty linked with the new test procedure, as well as the margin of error of the portable measuring equipment.
Last December, the General Court ruled that the Commission went beyond its powers when adopting these conformity factors. I want to inform you that the Commission has appealed that judgment. Germany and Hungary also appealed. The Commission is convinced that it did not go beyond its powers. These conformity factors are mere technical requirements that have no bearing on the emissions limits set by the co-legislators. Of course, at the same time I cannot guarantee what will be the outcome of this appeal.
This is why the Commission is preparing a proposal, scheduled for adoption in April. The Commission will propose to the co-legislators the adoption of those conformity factors. They should also empower the Commission to lower the second factor as soon as technical progress allows. We have already done that once. So Parliament will now have the opportunity to set the conformity factors together with the Council. This is good news for you.
To sum up, as acknowledged by the European Court of Auditors in its recent briefing paper on the EU's response to the Dieselgate scandal: ‘The emissions scandal has accelerated many legislative changes to the EU system of vehicle emissions checks’. The European Court of Auditors also underlined that more could be done, and that it would take some time before the legislative changes have an impact on air quality.
Because deeds are better than words, together with the help of Member States, the Commission has prepared a ‘Roadmap towards clean vehicles’. It sets out benchmarks and tools for making sure that we will never have to go through a similar story again. The Commission presented the Roadmap on Monday, 18 March 2019, at the Automotive Industry Forum in Craiova. It demonstrates what the Commission is committed to. The Commission will ensure that the commitments made in the Roadmap are fulfilled, and it expects nothing less from the industry and the Member States.
Let me also finish on a more positive note. We need to look at the future, and we spare no effort in this respect. We already have ambitious targets for CO2 reduction. We are about to adopt a major initiative to increase road safety and save lives, the General Safety Regulation, and we have to prepare for the revolution of connected and automated vehicles.

Christine Revault d'Allonnes Bonnefoy,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, tout d'abord, je regrette que ce ne soit pas Mme Bieńkowska qui soit devant nous pour parler de ce fameux facteur de conformité puisque c'est avec elle que nous avons sans cesse débattu et je suis extrêmement étonnée par votre discours, très satisfait, sur les actions qui auraient été mises en place par la Commission depuis le scandale du diesel.
               

                  Tout d'abord, revenons sur ce facteur de conformité très élastique appliqué par la Commission dans le paquet sur les tests en conditions réelles et qui a pourtant été annulé par la Cour de justice, décision qui, malheureusement, a été contestée à la fois par certains États, mais aussi par la Commission. Si la Cour avait annulé l'acte d'exécution, c'est parce que ce facteur de conformité allait à l'encontre des normes Euro VI sur les valeurs de dioxyde d'azote, soit les normes qui déterminent les seuils d'émissions des véhicules. Pourtant, le 20 février dernier, quand elle est venue devant la commission des transports et du tourisme, face aux députés de la commission EMIS, Mme Bieńkowska avait annoncé que la Commission allait remettre sur la table ce même facteur de conformité dépassant la référence légale de 110 %, puis de 50 % d'ici 2021. Je ne peux cacher ma stupéfaction. Donner aux constructeurs un droit à polluer avec une telle marge de tolérance est une insulte à ce Parlement et, surtout, met gravement en danger l'air que nous respirons.
               

                  Si la Commission présente une telle proposition, nous ne pourrons que la rejeter. Les constructeurs doivent prendre leurs responsabilités et rappeler tous les véhicules qui ne sont pas conformes à la norme Euro VI.
               

                  Je constate amèrement que la Commission tente de gagner du temps en se lançant dans une bataille juridique avec la Cour de justice. Ce temps gagné pour la Commission, c'est du temps perdu pour la planète, or nous n'avons plus une seconde à perdre et nous n'avons pas de planète de rechange.
               

                  Des millions de citoyens européens descendent dans la rue toutes les semaines pour réclamer que nous, décideurs politiques, agissions contre la pollution avec la plus haute urgence. La situation est particulièrement critique pour les habitants des grandes villes européennes qui étouffent avec ces émissions de dioxyde d'azote, mais il n'y a pas que les dioxydes d'azote. L'OMS a établi un seuil de particules fines à ne pas dépasser plus de trois jours par an. Saviez-vous qu'à Paris, nous en sommes déjà à 19 jours de dépassement? L'année 2019 sera probablement la pire concernant la pollution de l'air, mais cette situation n'a rien d'inédit et il n'y a toujours pas de suite aux procédures d'infraction engagées par la Commission contre les États, ni de la part des États, ni de la part de de la Commission.
               

Mark Demesmaeker,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, een tweede dieselgateschandaal voorkomen, dat is wat we wilden met een reeks aanbevelingen van onze onderzoekscommissie. Ik was zelf ondervoorzitter van die commissie en ik blijf de zaak opvolgen. Ik moet bekennen: het is lente, maar er is nog veel werk aan de winkel voor we kunnen oogsten. Commissaris Bieńkowska zei onlangs dat dieselgate nog niet afgelopen is, en ook een recente briefing van de Europese Rekenkamer is weinig geruststellend. Kranten kopten: tweede dieselgate is mogelijk. Wel, ik vind het moeilijk te begrijpen dat men blijkbaar niet of zeker onvoldoende leert van de fouten. Neem nu inderdaad de versoepeling van de stikstofnorm. In 2016 werd die ingevoerd en werd het invoeren van praktijktesten op de weg liever gekoppeld aan een afzwakking van die bestaande norm. We hebben tegen die versoepeling gestemd, want alle technologie is beschikbaar om de stikstofnorm in acht te nemen, ook in reële rijomstandigheden en zonder een negatieve impact op de CO2-uitstoot. Het Europees Hof van Justitie oordeelt dat de versoepeling van de stikstofnorm de facto illegaal is, en wat doet de Commissie? Zij gaat in beroep. Goede luchtkwaliteit belangt iedereen aan. De technologie is beschikbaar, wat houdt de Commissie tegen?
               

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, there are two points I would like to make tonight. The first is that Parliament never really received a proper response from the Commission to the committee of inquiry. Yes, we did receive a response from Commissioner Bieńkowska, but that was only on the recommendations, not the conclusions. And on some elements she wrote that it was the prerogative of the President of the Commission, so she couldn't answer. That's a bit weird if we consider the Commission a college. So this goes beyond air quality. This is also a matter of democratic accountability, and I certainly demand from the Commission before the end of this mandate a full and proper response to our inquiry conclusions and recommendations.
The second point I would like to make is that we never cleaned up the mess of Dieselgate. We did come up with new legislation but there are still millions of fraudulent diesel cars being driven around European cities, and what we need is a very strong coordinated European approach. At the moment it is left to the Member States, and what we see happening is that individual Member States take measures in such a way that they might get rid of those cars in their own country, but they will be exported to other European countries. So it remains a European problem, and the effects on millions of European citizens are not being taken seriously.
The only institution that can play that role, that can come up with a very strong coordinated European approach, is the Commission. So please, Commissioner, take this seriously and organise a huge summit with all Member States to get these cars off the road and force European car manufacturers to take back these cars and make them comply with European legislation through both software and hardware updates.

Bas Eickhout,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, I think I will indeed just join the dissatisfaction of the Members here. We of course know that there have been improvements – we've been working on them – but there's still a lot of issues that have not been solved. What my colleague Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy said – that there are still cars running on the streets, heavily polluting, knowing that they are just dieselgate cars, and that the Commission is not even taking action in getting Member States together on that – is really concerning.
What I would also like to add to that is a question. We know that there are a couple of infringement cases (by the way, Commissioner Bieńkowska always promised there will be more infringement cases – that was in the heat of the debate). Was that just to calm Parliament down? Was that just not telling the truth? Or are there still more infringement cases in the pipeline, and where are the others standing?
And the last point. We have cases with the Ombudsman. We want more transparency also on the technical working groups. Also here, the Commission is refusing to give the minutes of technical meetings. We really need them, all the more so because otherwise it just feels that the Commission keeps on protecting Member States and covering up their bad positions.

Merja Kyllönen,
GUE/NGL-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, hyvät kollegat, meillä on vakava peiliin katsomisen paikka myös kuluttajansuojan ja kansalaisten oikeusturvan näkökulmasta.
               

                  Kun olen kiertänyt eri paikoissa keskustelemassa ihmisten kanssa, he kysyvät hyvinkin asiallisen kysymyksen siitä, mitä he voivat tehdä ilmastonmuutoksen torjumiseksi, päästöjen vähentämiseksi, hiukkaspäästöjen vähentämiseksi, ja varsinkin diesel-ajoneuvojen omistajat kysyvät, mikä on heidän oikeusturvansa, kun he ovat hyvässä uskossa hankkineet näitä ajoneuvoja ja sitten totuus on ollutkin toisenlainen näiden varsinkin ajoaikaisten päästöjen osalta.
               

                  Eli ei ole kyse vain siitä, miltä meidän lainsäädäntömme näyttää, miltä meidän toimemme näyttävät, ovatko ne riittäviä, vaan myös siitä, mikä on kuluttajien luottamus niihin tuotteisiin, joita valmistetaan ja jotka me hyväksymme lainsäädännön kautta. Sen vuoksi näkisinkin, että meidän on laajemmin mietittävä koko polttomoottoritekniikkaa, koko dieselajoneuvojen tulevaisuutta, ja sitä, miten niitä voidaan korvata ja miten voidaan varmistaa, että myös jätteistä ja tähteistä tehty biodiesel pääsisi markkinoille, kun siinäkin näyttää olevan hankaluuksia.
               

                  Eli meillä on paljon isoja kysymyksiä, jotka kaipaavat vastauksia – ei pelkästään se, että dieselgaten jälkeen työ näyttää jäävän puolitiehen. Meillä on aidosti hyvin paljon korjattavia asioita, jotka pitää laittaa järjestykseen niin meidän lainsäädännössämme kuin myös luottamuksessa kansalaisiin päin.
               

Eleonora Evi,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, a due anni dalla nostra commissione d'inchiesta, che ha cercato di far luce sullo scandalo dieselgate, immobilismo e inefficacia sono le parole che meglio descrivono il seguito dato dalla Commissione europea, dagli Stati membri e dalle case automobilistiche allo scandalo delle emissioni.
               

                  È vero: ora abbiamo nuove regole sull'omologazione dei veicoli, basate su una sorveglianza del mercato più serrata, e stiamo lavorando al risarcimento collettivo europeo, che spero potrà tutelare i cittadini da qualsiasi futuro scandalo causato dall'impiego illegittimo di strategie di manipolazione delle emissioni.
               

                  Ma la verità è che il dieselgate pesa come un macigno, perché la sua eredità è ancora tutta da affrontare. Fino a quando i 43 milioni di veicoli diesel sporchi rimarranno in circolazione a causa della mancanza di richiami obbligatori in tutta Europa, finché i costruttori non avranno pagato per aver frodato i cittadini e per aver appestato l'aria che respiriamo nelle nostre città, non potremo scrivere la parola fine allo scandalo sulle emissioni.
               

                  Perciò oggi pretendiamo che la Commissione e i governi europei si assumano in pieno le proprie responsabilità davanti ai cittadini che, come noi, stanno aspettando quella risposta esaustiva, mai arrivata, al lavoro svolto dalla commissione d'inchiesta EMIS. Milioni di persone ci chiedono di ritirare i veicoli più inquinanti e si domandano se l'Europa avrà il coraggio di chiedere ai costruttori di sostenere, ad esempio, i costi dei programmi di retrofitting.
               

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Jeg føler lidt det samme, som mine kolleger her i salen også har givet udtryk for: Jeg kan simpelthen ikke forstå, at Kommissionen kan rose sig selv for det arbejde, der er gjort. Det undrer mig, at man kan være så tilfreds med det. Ja, vi har fået nye regler, og ja, det er godt, vi fik dem, og at de kommer til at gælde fra 2020. Men det store problem er, at der stadigvæk kører flere millioner forurenende dieselbiler rundt på de europæiske veje. Rigtig mange af vores medlemslande har end ikke sikret, at de biler, som ikke overholder reglerne, bliver tilbagekaldt og repareret! Det kan da ikke være rigtigt, at vi ikke kan få det til at fungere. Jeg tror, det er cirka tyve af vores medlemslande, som ikke efterlever disse regler. Det er et kæmpe problem!
               

                  Problemet med disse dieselbiler er, at de forurener – de skader miljøet og de skader folks sundhed. Vi ved det, og vi ved, hvilke biler det drejer sig om. Jeg kan derfor ikke begribe, at Kommissionen kan være tilfreds med det, der er sket, når der stadig kører så mange af disse biler rundt. Der må kunne gøres noget for at sikre, at medlemslandene gør noget – og fremadrettet bliver vi også nødt til at sikre, at der gøres noget! Det skal da være obligatorisk at tilbagekalde biler, hvis der opstår problemer. Derudover skal vi i øvrigt sikre os, at de efter at være blevet justeret og rettet til, bliver testet uafhængig, så vi kan være sikre på, at de overholder reglerne.
               

                  Som det også er blevet sagt, så skal vi have langt mere gennemsigtighed om dette på teknisk niveau. Det skal være muligt for NGO'er og andre at være med til at kontrollere, om de regler, vi har, bliver overholdt. Det er altså enormt vigtigt, at vi sikrer, at også den eksisterende bilpark i Europa bliver renere. Det er vigtigt for folkesundheden, og det er vigtigt for vores miljø og for vores klima. Derudover skal vi i øvrigt forhindre, at disse forurenende biler bliver solgt videre til Østeuropa, hvor de måske ikke har så mange penge og derfor kan blive fristet til at købe dem. Det er da ikke rimeligt, at de så skal leve med disse miljøkonsekvenser. Vi har brug for, at Kommissionen handler nu. Det kan ikke gå hurtigt nok!
               

Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Afera Dieselgate była ewidentnym skandalem. Niestety koncerny motoryzacyjne nie wzięły na siebie wszystkich kosztów. To klienci zostali zostawieni często sami sobie i na drodze pozwów zbiorowych próbują dochodzić roszczeń za wadliwe samochody, które im sprzedano. Jednak walka z nieuczciwymi producentami nie może oznaczać walki z posiadaczami samochodów z silnikiem Diesla w ogóle. Przez wiele lat kierowcom wmawiano, że nowoczesne diesle są ekologiczne i trwałe. Kupili te samochody, a dzisiaj poprzez zakazy wjazdu do miast stawia się ich pod ścianą. Nie tędy droga. Walka o czyste powietrze w miastach nie może odbywać się kosztem ich mieszkańców czy osób dojeżdżających do pracy, a koszty tych zakazów nie mogą spadać na osoby najmniej zamożne. Także w trosce o środowisko należy zachować zdrowy rozsądek.
               

Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, bientôt quatre ans que le scandale du Dieselgate a éclaté. Au total, c'est plus de 30 millions de véhicules diesel qui polluaient au-delà de la limite autorisée.
               

                  Ce Parlement même a créé une commission d'enquête, a fait des recommandations, toutes restées sans réponse. Et maintenant, nous subissons la pollution de l'air sans réagir, nous laissons les voitures poubelles sur nos routes, nous laissons les consommateurs floués sans réparation. Et la Commission, plutôt que de répondre à ces urgences, préfère dire au constructeur: vous ne savez pas respecter les normes, ce n'est pas grave, continuez de polluer. Mais on rêve!
               

                  Ce que nous demandons, c'est de tirer les leçons du Dieselgate et d'appliquer nos recommandations. Nous, nous avons choisi la santé des citoyens contre les intérêts des constructeurs. Et vous, pour qui roulez-vous? Alors, trêve de discours, désormais place à l'action!
               

Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you very much for tonight's debate. I found all your questions and comments to be very pertinent.
Many of you have referred to the infringement procedures concerning the follow-up to Dieselgate. In 2016, the Commission opened 18 infringement procedures against Germany, Spain, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Greece, the UK, the Czech Republic and Italy, which had either failed to impose fines on car manufacturers for breaking European Union rules or did not fully implement international legislative sanctions on car manufacturers breaking European Union emission rules.
In 2017 and 2018, the Commission sent complementary letters of formal notice to Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and the UK to request further information. A letter of formal notice was also sent to Italy regarding the emission control strategy used by Fiat 500x Euro 6 diesel model.
The information received from the Member States so far is neither fully satisfactory nor complete, and in addition, new cases of emission irregularities are being reported. The Commission will continue to follow up these cases.
Some of you also have referred to the recalls. Our Recall Information Platform was launched on 6 February 2018, and almost all Member States are regularly updating the information on mandatory and voluntary recalls and the results of this platform are public.
Today, only eight Member States have issued a mandatory recall for vehicles of the VW group with illegal defeat devices. Those are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia. In the European Union, the wide recall rate of the affected VW models, equipped with the EA189 engine, is at 80% as of 18 March 2019. Unfortunately, in some Member States, there are still recall rates below 50%.
Our overall objective is to reach a 100% recall rate and as our first step, as announced in Craiova (Romania) in the Roadmap towards clean vehicles, a minimum European Union-wide recall rate of 90% should be reached by the end of 2019.
You can be sure that the Commission is committed to making sure that we get to the bottom of Dieselgate. The Member States and industry must take all measures still necessary in order to be able to close the Dieselgate chapter.
We will continue working on the implementing rules for the type-approval framework. We will make sure that the emission rules continue to be fit for purpose. We will also be vigilant regarding the implementation of the new rules and offer all the support the Member States need to put new market surveillance rules in place.
But it has to be stressed that implementation and enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Member States themselves, as is the recalling of non-compliant cars from circulation and fixing them.
So yes, there is still work to be done and we expect all the parties – Member States and industry – to work together in order to be able to turn the page. We count on the continued support and engagement of the European Parliament to achieve this goal.

La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.
               

                  Le vote aura lieu jeudi, le 28 mars 2019.
               


Déclarations écrites (article 162)



Nicola Caputo (S&D),
per iscritto. – ‘Dopo quasi due anni dalla fine lavori della commissione di inchiesta del Parlamento europeo sullo scandalo Dieselgate (EMIS), non si è fatto abbastanza per togliere dalla strada milioni di auto diesel che inquinano più di quanto dichiarato da costruttori e autorità di omologazione’. A riportarlo chiaramente è la Corte dei conti, nel documento di riflessione dello scorso febbraio intitolato ‘La risposta dell'UE allo scandalo Dieselgate’. Dopo la decisione della Commissione di avviare procedure di infrazione contro la Germania, il Lussemburgo, il Regno Unito e l'Italia, non si è registrato un progresso della procedura oltre la prima fase, dal momento che gli Stati membri hanno deciso di non cooperare in modo sincero con la Commissione e non si comprende il motivo per cui, nonostante l'elevato numero di veicoli fortemente inquinanti in circolazione, le campagne di richiamo degli Stati membri riguardano solo un numero limitato di autoveicoli fabbricati dai seguenti marchi: Volkswagen, Renault, Daimler, Opel e Suzuki. Gli occhi del mondo sono puntati sull'Unione europea, in qualità di leader mondiale nella lotta al cambiamento climatico. La nostra credibilità dipende dalle risposte che siamo in grado di dare.
               

Carolina Punset (ALDE),
por escrito. – En los Estados Unidos, estafados por el dieselgate han devuelto millones de vehículos y cobrado indemnizaciones. En Europa, origen del fraude, las marcas implicadas no han retirado ni un coche o pagado un euro, gracias al escudo protector de las instituciones. Fue vergonzoso ver como ante sentencias judiciales prohibiendo la circulación del diésel, la comisaria de Transporte, espoleada por el sector saliera en su socorro criticando estos fallos, o como la comisaria de Comercio envió un simple tirón de orejas al sector mediante una carta. En pago a este amparo desmesurado, los constructores montan factorías en China o India, y recientes declaraciones de directivos advierten de miles de despidos por culpa del coche eléctrico. Por suerte, la electrificación del transporte es imparable. Por desgracia para el sector europeo, la práctica totalidad de coches eléctricos vendidos en el mundo se fabrican fuera de la UE. Si los esfuerzos y recursos destinados a engañar y contaminar se hubieran enfocado en tecnologías del futuro, a los constructores europeos no les hubieran robado su queso. Mientras, circularán durante años o décadas millones vehículos que emiten hasta 12 veces más GEI que su etiquetado sin que autoridades que deben proteger nuestras salud y medioambiente hagan nada.
               

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Madam President, I have a point of order. The Commission did not answer my question on why it did not respond to all the recommendations and conclusions of the inquiry committee. I'm not asking the Commissioner to respond to that immediately, but maybe you can, as President, ask the Commission to come back to that in writing as soon as possible, preferably still this week so that we can take action.

La Présidente. – Merci de ce conseil, Monsieur Gerbrandy. C'est effectivement ce que nous allons demander à la Commission.
               
19.   Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters (debate)

La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport de Michał Boni, au nom de la commission de l'industrie, de la recherche et de l'énergie, sur la proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil sur l'étiquetage des pneumatiques en relation avec l'efficacité en carburant et d'autres paramètres essentiels et abrogeant le règlement (CE) no 1222/2009 (COM(2018)0296 – C8-0190/2018 – 2018/0148(COD)) (A8-0086/2019).
               

Michał Boni,
sprawozdawca. – Pani Przewodnicząca, Szanowni Państwo, Panie Komisarzu. Chciałem bardzo gorąco podziękować wszystkim współsprawozdawcom. Udało się wypracować generalne kompromisy mimo wyjściowo znaczącej różnicy zdań. Co do paru spraw przesądzi jutrzejsze głosowanie. Ważne jest, by szukać rozwiązań rozsądnych, realnych do wprowadzenia, a niestety nie wszystko dzisiaj jest możliwe, bo nie ma realnych testów technicznych. Dlatego zobowiązujemy Komisję, by część zadań podjęła przed następnym przeglądem dyrektywy.
               

                  Co jest jednak ważne na dziś? Sektor transportu odpowiada za jedną trzecią zużycia energii w Unii, a transport drogowy – za 22% całkowitych emisji gazów cieplarnianych. Opony, głównie ze względu na opór przy toczeniu, odpowiadają za 5-10% zużycia paliwa przez pojazdy. Nowy model etykietowania opon zapewni konsumentom bardziej ekologiczne, bezpieczniejsze i cichsze pojazdy oraz pozwoli obniżyć emisyjność sektora transportu. To znaczący krok naprzód. Nakłada on konieczność pełnego informowania użytkowników o zużyciu paliwa, przyczepności na mokrej powierzchni, zewnętrznego hałasu toczenia opon. Uaktualniona etykieta będzie informowała o przyczepności na śniegu i lodzie, czego do tej pory nie było. Po raz pierwszy etykietowaniem i wymogami objęte są opony do ciężarówek i autobusów, opony C3, co w przyszłości pozwoli objąć zasadami opony bieżnikowane przy konieczności nowej metody badania ich właściwości użytkowych. Da to większą efektywność i wprowadzenie opon do gospodarki o obiegu zamkniętym. Wymogliśmy obowiązek przeglądu dyrektywy, tak by przyspieszyć prace i wymusić testy pozwalające oceniać efekt ścierania się opon w przebiegu i wydzielanie mikroplastiku. To ważne dla ochrony nie tylko środowiska, ale i dla zdrowia każdego z nas. Nowe są wymogi dotyczące ekspozycji etykiety, w tym w przypadku sprzedaży na odległość i sprzedaży przez internet.
               

                  Te nowe wymogi radykalnie poprawią widoczność wszystkich informacji dla konsumentów. Rozporządzenie poprawia też przejrzystość i egzekwowanie przepisów, gdyż wprowadza obowiązek rejestrowania opon w bazie danych o produktach. Te same informacje powinny również figurować na fakturze sprzedaży opon przekazywanej nabywcy lub być dołączone do faktury. Użytkownik będzie więc mieć możliwość lepszego poznania produktów i porównania ich pod kątem odpowiednich kryteriów. W efekcie mamy rozwiązanie transparentne, służące konsumentom, przyspieszające jeszcze lepszą jakość środowiskową opon i ich funkcjonowania, zdrowsze i bezpieczniejsze.
               

Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the existing tyre labelling regulation dates from 2009 and requires the Commission to review it in view of technological progress. After a two-year review, the Commission adopted a proposal to revise the existing rules for tyre labelling as part of the third mobility package in May last year. It is an important proposal because road transport is responsible for 27% of final energy consumption in the European Union and 20% of the European Union's total greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, rolling resistance of tyres accounts for 5% to 10% of a vehicle's fuel consumption. Therefore, having an up-to-date tyre label provides consumers with the necessary information to allow them to review their fuel consumption and save money. In fact, we estimate that an updated labelling scheme could save annually as much as 129 petajoules (PJ) of fuel by 2030, or savings of 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year – the equivalent of removing almost 4 million passenger cars from European Union roads. For consumers, this would result in EUR 7 billion annual savings in fuel costs.
Let me start by congratulating the rapporteur and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) on the progress made in Parliament. I believe that his report strengthens the Commission proposal on several points, and in particular on the rule for showing the tyre label on the internet, on the visibility of the tyre label vis-à-vis consumers in shops and with the links with international regulations on tyres.
I am also pleased that the report supports the Commission proposal as regards the inclusion of tyres in the product registration database established for energy labelling.
However, the Commission considers that it could be further strengthened in the following areas. Firstly, the report's text leaves the performance levels and related label classes from the 2009 Regulation almost unchanged. However, in the meantime, tyres in the bottom classes (F and G) can no longer be sold on the Union market, as they are banned by the General Safety Regulation. Although the proposal removes the G class and greys out the F class, leaving the remaining classes as they are today means that there is no additional incentive for tyre manufacturers to innovate and bring more efficient and safe products to the market.
Secondly, abrasion of tyres is the major source of microplastics in the environment. Addressing this is a key priority for the Commission under the recently adopted Plastics Strategy. Therefore, the Commission considers that as soon as a reliable testing method is available, new rules should be set as quickly as possible. Delegated acts would be a much quicker way of doing this than a full legislative proposal as envisaged now by the report.
Finally, there are several other points of concern, such as the weakening of controls by Member States, removing the obligation to show the label in visual advertisements and making the inclusion of the ice and snow logo voluntary instead of mandatory. I am confident that these issues can be addressed in the next phases of the co-decision process.

Edouard Martin,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, je voulais également remercier le rapporteur, M. Boni, pour son sens de l'écoute et d'ouverture.
               

                  Néanmoins, de mon point de vue, le compte n'y est pas. Nous avons trop pris l'habitude, ici et à la Commission, de parler des consommateurs, des consommateurs, toujours des consommateurs et rarement des citoyens. Or, je veux aussi parler des citoyens, et notamment des citoyens responsables.
               

                  Alors, évidemment, ce rapport sur l'étiquetage ne sauvera peut-être pas la face du monde mais c'est un premier pas vers la transparence, et c'est tant mieux. Mais il importe de ne pas rater le coche. Vous en avez parlé, Monsieur le Commissaire: les micro-plastiques représentent environ 300 000 tonnes, chaque année, au niveau de l'Union européenne, qui sont déversées sur les routes et sur les terrains de jeu où jouent nos enfants. À cela, le rapport ne répond pas.
               

                  Par nos amendements, nous demandons de véritables tests sur l'abrasion, pour éclairer et protéger les citoyens, et pour la fabrication de pneus moins polluants et plus économes en énergie.
               

                  Enfin, car nous ne saurions ignorer ce qui vient de l'extérieur, nous demandons la traçabilité du caoutchouc utilisé et nous exigeons qu'il provienne de forêts durables, sans pesticides qui polluent les nappes phréatiques, par exemple.
               

Jozo Radoš,
u ime kluba ALDE. – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, gospodine povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, kako cestovni promet troši oko 25 % jedne četvrtine ukupne potrošnje energije, a gume čine oko10 % te potrošnje, govorimo zapravo o nekoliko postotaka ukupne potrošnje energije i važno je na tome raditi.
               

                  No, gume nemaju utjecaj samo na potrošnju goriva, imaju utjecaj na sigurnost, na zaštitu zdravlja i na razinu buke i zato je logično da nakon 10 godina obnavljamo ovu Uredbu novim pravilima informiranosti potrošača i, naravno, motivima i poticajima za kupnju boljih guma tako da, zapravo, investicija u skuplje gume zapravo se dobije uštedom na manjoj potrošnji goriva.
               

                  Jednako tako, pozdravljam zabranu korištenja guma najniže kvalitete, a ostajemo, naravno, otvoreni i za uvođenje abrazivnosti, jednako tako kilometraže guma kada podaci o tim parametrima budu dostupni i vjerodostojni.
               

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a regulação sobre a rotulagem dos pneus é um domínio em que o rigor e a transparência são fundamentais, tendo em conta que se trata de um produto de elevado consumo que separa a segurança do risco, a vida da morte, a produção sustentável da exploração desregulada dos recursos, a qualidade ambiental do agravamento da poluição e da acumulação de resíduos.
               

                  O princípio da transparência e da comunicação, como o Senhor Comissário sabe, baseada no registo robusto dos dados necessários, tem que permitir que esta legislação que estamos a analisar seja útil para o setor e, ao mesmo tempo, fomente uma abordagem circular da gestão dos recursos.
               

                  O trabalho dos relatores – que saúdo – permitirá que aprovemos uma regulamentação útil que melhora a regulamentação energética, a sustentabilidade, a segurança, defendendo os consumidores, sem pôr em causa a competitividade da indústria europeia.
               

                  Uma regulamentação que, em síntese, nos permita ajudar a colocar a União Europeia sobre rodas mais seguras.
               

Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for your contributions to this debate.
Reducing the climate change impact of the transport sector is a key objective of our energy and mobility policies.
Given the contribution of tyres' role and assistance in the fuel consumption of cars, buses and trucks, it is important to ensure that users are provided with up-to-date and accurate information about tyre performance.
The aim of the Commission proposal is therefore to strengthen the information requirements on fuel efficiency, noise and safety aspects of tyres and make labels more visible and reliable.
I encourage the European Parliament to fully support the ambition of the Commission proposal to ensure that tyre users can make the best choice from an energy efficiency and safety perspective, and can gain financially.
I look forward to our further discussions on this important proposal in the next phases of the co-decision process.

Michał Boni,
sprawozdawca. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Bardzo dziękuję, także uczestnikom tej krótkiej dyskusji, za te sprawnie przekazane wszystkie uwagi. Myślę, że dokument, jaki przygotowaliśmy, jest dobrą podstawą do przyszłych rozmów trójstronnych, pewnie już w nowym parlamencie, i na pewno trzeba będzie zwrócić uwagę – oprócz tego, co już osiągnęliśmy, myślę tu o dobrych informacjach na etykietach – także na to, na co zwrócił uwagę pan Martin, to znaczy przyspieszyć prace, które będą się wiązały (…).
               

(Przewodnicząca przerwała mówcy z powodu braku tłumaczenia)


                  I will continue in English. Thank you very much again to all: to the Commissioner, to all our cooperators. I think that it is a very good background for future work in trilogues, probably in the future Parliament, and I think that we understand how important it is to have clear information addressed to consumers. But I fully agree with Mr Martin that we need to discuss and speed up our work so as to avoid the negative consequences of tyres. We are talking about microplastics, and it should be part of our European fight against the negative consequences of using plastic.
               

La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.
               

                  Le vote aura lieu mardi, le 26 mars 2019.
               
20.   One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle les interventions d'une minute sur des questions politiques importantes (article 163 du règlement).
               

László Tőkés (PPE). – Elnök asszony! Az utóbbi években az Európai Bizottság rendre, sajnos két olyan európai polgári kezdeményezést is elutasított, melyek az európai őshonos nemzeti kisebbségek ügyét voltak hivatottak támogatni. Éppen ezért elégtétellel nyugtázhatjuk, hogy az EU luxembourgi bírósága végülis mindkét esetben felülbírálta az EB jogellenes határozatait, és helyt adott az európai kisebbségvédelmi kezdeményezés, valamint a nemzeti kisebbségi régiókról szóló polgári kezdeményezés bejegyzésének. Ezúton is felhívom a figyelmet a romániai Székely Nemzeti Tanács regionális kezdeményezésére, mely példának okáért a gazdaságilag lemaradott, székelyföldi és partiumi magyar régiók kisebbségi alapon való diszkriminációjának a megszüntetéséhez, illetve ezek gazdasági felzárkóztatásához kívánja megnyerni az EU kohéziós, strukturális, regionális alapú támogatását. Egymillió aláírást már összegyűjtöttünk, hadd következzék a második millió.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, we are celebrating 40 years of Labour Party representation in the European Parliament. Labour women have played a huge role in the life of this Parliament: not just on the Women's Rights Committee, but leading in other areas such as economy, internal market, international trade, health and environment, foreign affairs, development, culture and education. I want to pay tribute to the pioneering women who came before me, and the sisters who stood alongside me in 2014: Janey Buchan, Barbara Castle, Ann Clwyd, Joyce Quinn, Christine Crawley, Carole Tongue, Pauline Green, Anita Pollack, Angela Billingham, Veronica Hardstaff, Glenys Kinnock, Eluned Morgan, Susan Waddington, Arlene McCarthy, Linda McAvan, Nina Gill, Catherine Stihler, Mary Honeyball, Glenis Willmott, Lucy Anderson, Anneliese Dodds, Theresa Griffin, Judith Kirton-Darling, Clare Moody and Alex Mayer. It is 100 years since women won the vote; now we have a statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, commemorating the Suffragette movement. She's holding a sign that reads: ‘courage calls to courage everywhere’. Well, we need that courage more than ever now, so I call on women across the UK and Europe to step up the fight to defend European values.

Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Fru talman! I Sverige sitter det omkring 8 000 ensamkommande och väntar på att utvisas eller stanna. De har fastnat i ett ovärdigt spel på högsta nivå. När socialdemokraterna behövde visa sig generösa talade de om ett Sverige som inte har några gränser alls. Och då lockades ungdomarna naturligtvis dit.
               

                  Sedan passerade valet, sedan kom samma socialdemokrater på att Sverige har väldigt många gränser. Sedan behövde man stoppa väljarblödningen åt extremhögern och då kom man på att vägra de här ungdomarna permanenta uppehållstillstånd. Och nu igen behöver man visa sig vara tuff, och då skyller man sitt usla valresultat på just de här ungdomarna och utvisar dem, trots att de har skaffat sig ett liv med sina värdfamiljer.
               

                  Detta är ovärdigt. Att leka så här med unga människors liv är verkligen skamligt. Visst, ungdomarna kom själva, det är sant. Men vi politiska partier, framför allt socialdemokraterna, har lekt med dem på ett sätt bara för att vinna några procent i opinionsmätningar. Det är skamligt och det måste få ett slut snart.
               

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, vergüenza es lo que sentimos muchos ciudadanos después de seis semanas de juicio político contra los exmiembros del Govern de Catalunya, la presidenta del Parlament Carme Forcadell y los líderes cívicos Jordi Sánchez y Jordi Cuixart.
               

                  Vergüenza de ver cómo estas doce personas —nueve de ellas después de estar entre 400 y 525 días en la cárcel— se sientan en el banquillo de los acusados por haber organizado o apoyado un referéndum, un ejercicio democrático y por haber llevado a cabo el mandato de la gente.
               

                  Vergüenza de ver cómo las acusaciones —la Fiscalía, la Abogacía del Estado, pero también la de un partido neofranquista— intentan, sin argumentos, sin pruebas, con relatos exagerados o falsos, demostrar que lo que hubo en Cataluña entre septiembre y octubre de 2017 no fue un enorme ejercicio de dignidad democrática sino una rebelión violenta.
               

                  Este juicio no es más que otro instrumento al servicio del nacionalismo de Estado, que con la desidia de la Europa oficial ha decidido que preservar lo que ellos entienden por unidad nacional bien vale unos pasos atrás en derechos y libertades fundamentales.
               

João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, a calamidade abateu-se sobre as regiões do centro de Moçambique após a passagem do ciclone Idai. Os dados apontam para uma destruição de 90% da cidade da Beira. Quase oitocentas mil pessoas estão afetadas e o número de mortos confirmados situa-se já em quatrocentos e quarenta e sete.
               

                  À devastação daquela região soma-se o risco de surtos epidémicos, nomeadamente de malária, filária e cólera, tendo sido já registadas várias mortes com sintomas desta última. As Nações Unidas apelaram a uma ajuda de emergência de duzentos e cinquenta milhões de euros especificamente para Moçambique. A União Europeia anunciou um total de 3,5 milhões de ajuda não apenas àquele país como ao Zimbabué e ao Maláui, também afetados, um valor que deve ser rapidamente reforçado, disponibilizando, além da ajuda financeira, ajuda material e alimentar, meios de salvamento e assistência médica.
               

                  Outras medidas podem e devem ser consideradas, como a canalização de verbas do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento, ou suscitando a discussão sobre medidas como o cancelamento da dívida destes países.
               

Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W ostatnich dyskusjach nad wypowiedzią przewodniczącego Tajaniego powołano się po raz kolejny tutaj na postać Altiero Spinellego, który jest jednym z patronów Europy. Jest wymieniany jako patron Europy, a jego podobizna stoi w holu naszego budynku w Brukseli, którego imię nosi ten budynek. Przywoływany jest jako wzór demokracji.
               

                  I dlatego chciałem przypomnieć, kim jest naprawdę Altiero Spinelli. Jest to włoski komunista, przedstawiciel najbardziej zbrodniczego z ustrojów w dziejach ludzkości. I co pisał w swoim manifeście z Ventotene, który jest uważany za fundament ideowy Unii Europejskiej? Otóż zdanie takie: ‘dyktatura partii rewolucyjnej stworzy nowe państwo, a wokół niego nową prawdziwą demokrację’. Żeby być pewnym, jak prawdziwą demokrację rozumie Altiero Spinelli – dyktaturę partii rewolucyjnej – dodajmy jeszcze inne zdanie: ‘Źródłem wizji i pewności nie jest namaszczenie z woli ludu’. Altiero Spinelli nie był żadnym demokratą.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, tento týden se měla završit jedna etapa Evropské unie. Poprvé v její historii odchází členský stát. Ano, Velká Británie odchází, ale nevypadá to nějak optimisticky. Nikdo se tam neraduje. Naopak, země je spíše v chaosu, zdá se, že se díváme na seriál, který nemá dobře promyšlený scénář. Nikdo neví, co bude na konci. Určitě to budou ztráty.
               

                  Čím dále tím více se ukazuje, že referendum byla obrovská chyba. Ale je nutné respektovat vůli voličů. Nicméně, co když ti samí voliči dnes vidí, že udělali chybu a třeba už si tolik brexit nepřejí? Ti, kteří ho vyvolali a přesvědčili občany, že bude lépe, nechtějí přiznat ztráty. Ale ztráty tady jsou a to na obou stranách. Jak Velké Británie, tak Evropské unie. Velká Británie a její parlament by měl buď přijmout dohodu, která umožňuje dobré soužití, anebo se vrátit a znovu položit občanům otázku referenda.
               

Момчил Неков (S&D). – Уважаеми колеги, в тази зала често даваме уроци на тази или на онази държава що е то правова държава. Често се случва на едни и същи държави да даваме тези уроци. В същото време продължаваме да си държим очите затворени за неморалността, която, за съжаление, стана вече норма в моята страна България по време на управлението на ГЕРБ.
               

                  През последните дни стана ясно, че представители на тази партия са купували имоти на цени в пъти по-ниски от пазарните. Няколко пъти се чу техният аргумент, че цената се договоря между купувач и продавач и няма нищо незаконно. Защо, скъпи колеги, младите семейства или хората с ниски доходи не успяват да пазаруват на подобни цени? Как може да наричаш себе си морален законотворец или народен представител, ако ти не умееш или просто не искаш да прилагаш закона?
               

                  Време е да се сложи край на тази морална деградация в страната с ширеща се корупция, най-задушаваната журналистика и най-нисък стандарт на живот в Европейския съюз.
               

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážená pani predsedajúca. ‘Žije ako mních.’ Toto je slovné spojenie, ktoré je synonymom hodnotového a morálneho spôsobu života. Žiaľ, pre slovenské dejiny bude takáto veta už navždy aj symbolom príčiny úkladnej vraždy. Totiž takéto označenie poslal na účel vraždy jeden skorumpovaný oligarcha na Slovensku, ktorý sa rozhodol dať zavraždiť novinára pátrajúceho po pravde. Bol to mafiánsky podnikateľ Marián Kočner, ktorý sa takto rozhodol vziať ‘spravodlivosť’ do svojich rúk. Bol to hodnotový život toho novinára, ktorý bol príčinou, že musel zomrieť. Takáto skutočnosť musí zatriasť každým človekom nielen u nás na Slovensku. Preto sa chcem na tomto mieste poďakovať misii Európskeho parlamentu za časti rezolúcie o boji proti korupcii na Slovensku a Malte, ktoré jasne pomenúvajú túto ohavnú vraždu, nefunkčnosť nášho súdneho systému či zastrašovanie novinárov vládnymi predstaviteľmi. Moja hlavná vďaka však patrí aj ľuďom, ktorí na Slovensku pochodujú a demonštrujú, pretože to je neutíchajúci motor toho, že sa odhaľuje bahno na špici politiky v našej krajine. Dúfam, že tá spravodlivejšia a slušnejšia zmena pre Slovensko naozaj nastala.
               

Miroslavs Mitrofanovs (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I will speak about the imbalance in migration processes within the EU. The European Union ensures freedom of movement for the labour force, but the structure and direction of this movement at the present moment are unfavourable for the majority of new Member States because the poorest EU countries are losing well-educated people, who are leaving for developed EU countries. This process promotes the degradation of the social structure and undermines economic cohesion.
In the next legislative period, we must elaborate a system of direct EU financial support for several categories of highly skilled professionals in new Member States in order to motivate them to continue working at home. A compensatory mechanism may be applied up to the moment when the difference in salaries between the so-called ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States becomes less pronounced and stops pushing people to leave their homes. I am speaking above all about doctors and other medical personnel. Let's come back to this idea after the elections.

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, no final da semana passada as empresas energéticas espanholas, com o aval do governo, decidiram prolongar, pela segunda vez, a vida útil dos dois reatores da central nuclear de Almaraz até 2028. Se a vida útil de trinta anos desta unidade terminou em 2011, a questão que se coloca é, Senhor Comissário, porquê ultrapassar o seu funcionamento em mais 17 anos?
               

                  Para quem não sabe, esta central está implantada numa zona de risco sísmico a cem quilómetros da fronteira de Portugal, junto ao rio Tejo, que, trezentos e vinte quilómetros depois, passa por Lisboa, encontrando pelo caminho paisagens protegidas e santuários de biodiversidade inscritos na Rede Natura 2000.
               

                  E, a juntar a esta ameaça nuclear espanhola, temos em Salamanca, junto da fronteira portuguesa, minas de urânio a céu aberto que, provavelmente, irão continuar a alimentar o sonho nuclear espanhol.
               

                  A pergunta que faço, Senhor Comissário, é para que é que serve uma Diretoria de Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental se não há avaliações de risco transfronteiriço e para quê um protocolo de cooperação de emergência nuclear entre Portugal e Espanha se, nestas matérias, Espanha trata o seu vizinho como se este não existisse? A verdade é que a Espanha está mais preocupada com a negociata nuclear do que com as consequências de um desastre para gerações seguintes e o Governo português parece estar adormecido enquanto, a cada ano que passa, continuamos a jogar esta roleta russa à espera que o azar não aconteça.
               

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, I am very concerned about the state of diplomatic relations, since the world and diplomacy in its classical sense is dying. Increasingly, refusal to negotiate and maintain contact with those with whom one has disagreements is being practised – it's presented as a brilliant diplomatic move. Even during the Cold War there were many diplomatic channels through which it was possible to clarify the situation, find acceptable solutions and, most importantly, avoid an armed conflict that could flare up even by misunderstanding. Now, some have begun to put an ‘equals’ sign between the act of negotiating and agreeing with the position of the other side.
In diplomacy, conducting a dialogue does not mean that you agree with the position of the partners in the negotiations. It is a way to hear and to be heard. Diplomacy is not about being proud and sitting in a corner and accepting a huge amount of aggressive and useless reports. It's necessary to return to diplomacy as an instrument for resolving problems in relations between countries.

Anna Záborská (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca. Dnes si pripomíname Medzinárodný deň počatého dieťaťa. Základnou povinnosťou politiky je chrániť ľudský život a jeho dôstojnosť v každej jeho fáze. Táto ochrana môže mať rôzne podoby. Naším cieľom je vytvárať prostredie, v ktorom bude každý ľudský život prijímaný ako najväčší dar a bohatstvo. Právo človeka na dôstojný život nezaniká v starobe ani chorobe. Nevzniká zázračne v treťom či tridsiatom týždni života ľudského plodu. Obhajoba ľudskej dôstojnosti nenarodeného dieťaťa je prvým krokom k tomu, aby sme si ako spoločnosť začali skutočne vážiť dar života a podľa toho nastavili naše priority vo všetkých oblastiach verejnej politiky. Od zdravotníctva a sociálnej starostlivosti cez ekonomiku a vzdelávanie až po životné prostredie a imigračnú politiku. Je ako gombík pod golierom, ktorý keď si zapneme nakrivo, bude nakrivo zapnutá celá košeľa.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dinanzi alla drammatica situazione determinata dalla xylella fastidiosa sugli ulivi secolari in Puglia, la Commissione europea, pur dovendo vigilare sulle eradicazioni ritardate dalla dissennata azione di improvvisati esperti, non può e non deve limitarsi a stanziare fondi a favore di agricoltori e relative organizzazioni di categoria. Questo non basta.
               

                  Occorrono canali preferenziali dedicati al finanziamento di stazioni di sperimentazione sul campo di pratiche che abbiano già dimostrato la loro efficacia in vitro o, meglio ancora, in ambito fitosanitario. Esistono, per esempio, pratiche come quelle sperimentate sulle viti californiane, che potrebbero essere immediatamente testate anche sugli ulivi.
               

                  Poche ore fa ho presentato un progetto pilota al riguardo e mi aspetto che la Commissione risponda positivamente alle esigenze di un settore e di un territorio devastati. Vanno assolutamente individuate soluzioni per arginare la diffusione del batterio senza dimenticare, però, prima che sia troppo tardi, di destinare attenzione e risorse alla riqualificazione paesaggistica e produttiva delle aree del Salento, ormai prossime alla desertificazione.
               

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, this just might be the last Monday night that I get an opportunity to stand here and represent the people of the north of Ireland who voted to remain within the EU, because Brexit is dragging us out of the EU against the democratically expressed wishes of the people who voted to remain. Brexit is dismantling the Good Friday Agreement. It's knocking down its pillars bit by bit and the British Government is no longer even pretending to act with rigorous impartiality or political neutrality. It is appeasing unionism by scrapping 50-50 recruitment in policing and scrapping the Good Friday Agreement guarantees for rights and equality.
Nationalism and republicanism have turned their backs on Westminster, rejecting all of the candidates who were willing to take their seats in that parliament, and this is because the majority of the people in the north of Ireland who voted to remain within the EU are seeing what the British Government is doing as a consequence of Brexit and the majority of the people in the nationalist republican community are rejecting the fact that the British Government is dragging us out of here against our wishes.
So, once again, as I stand here, I say to you, to all the people who are listening in on the screens, that even though this is the last opportunity that I might get here on a Monday night to represent them, perhaps if the solution to Brexit, which is Irish unity, is something that is embraced by all then there may be an Irish republican back here representing the people of the north of Ireland in the future.

La Présidente. – Ce point de l'ordre du jour est clos.
               
21.   Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
22.   Closure of the sitting

(La séance est levée à 23 h 04)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)