kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
therefore the commission is strongly committed to ensuring that non discrimination directives are effectively implemented so as to foster a fairer and more inclusive society including labour markets providing opportunities to all. the draft outline of the european pillar of social rights
among others the areas of social protection social advantages education and access to and supply of goods and services.
sixty four of the respondents were concerned about discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin fifty eight for sexual orientation fifty for disability and the same percentage for religious belief.
to improve awareness of rights and access to justice we support the strengthening of the national equality bodies.
directives prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sex do not cover social protection social advantages and education as you know.
through the report on reasonable accommodation for disabled people in the employment context in the european union;
for example we are currently expecting important rulings on two pending cases relating to dismissals of female workers wearing islamic headscarves in private firms.
the survey shows for example that citizens are increasingly aware of their rights in this area which is the first critical step in order to improve their enforcement.
the report also pointed to the necessity of combining existing legislation with appropriate policy action by improving specifically awareness of rights and indeed access to justice.
last but not least in two thousand and fifteen we proposed a full list of actions to advance on lgbti.
in two thousand a duty was imposed on our member states to provide protection against discrimination in the areas of employment and occupational and vocational training.
awareness raising with the help of equality bodies and the social partners is of utmost importance at all levels of society considering that the victims themselves still have difficulty in recognising discrimination let alone fighting it.
we asked the member states to find ways to help victims including for example by means of court tax exemptions or reductions or legal aid and assistance from specialised ngos.
the report highlights the necessity of collecting equality data both at the level of member states and the european union in order to make it easier to prove the existence of discrimination and particularly indirect discrimination.
the impartiality of such bodies must be ensured and their activity supported including through adequate funding.
in fact it is important to recognise the legal standing of ngos with a legitimate interest in the relevant judicial or administrative procedures.
i particularly want to emphasise the issue of multiple discrimination which is often a consequence of the existence of fragmented rules and standards across member states.
in two thousand i was part of a human rights organisation network that advocated for the adoption of anti discrimination legislation at the eu level.
i cannot stress enough the role of equality bodies in awareness raising and data election in helping the victims but also the employers to understand how to change their policies in line with equality requirements.
it comes as no surprise that while some member states have gone beyond its requirement by extending protection against discrimination to other areas including access to goods and services others are still pretty far from implementing it at the minimum level.
it is important to note that access to justice is still limited in many discrimination cases and the report strongly recommends that the member states ensure that victims can obtain accessible legal advice and assistance at all stages of the legal process including confidential counselling in person
sixteen years later i have the privilege as a member of this european parliament to evaluate how the employment equality directive has been implemented.
this report deals with core issues such as disability age religion and belief and sexual orientation but it also looks at the horizontal aspects which underpin them.
some of the issues are more straightforward and can be measured more easily.
these include for example the provision of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities the use of universal design in public places the inclusion of social clauses in public procurement procedures the need to conduct a review of upper age limits for certain jobs and act on them and also the need for member states to work towards ensuring mutual recognition of partnership status matrimonial regimes and parenting rights.
but equally some issues are very difficult and very sensitive. some have a significant impact at national level sometimes because of culture history or more recent events.
all i would say on that aspect is that when you justify discrimination in the area of employment on those issues you open a pandora's box.
we expect that the funds will start to flow to the beneficiaries soon and we foresee no absorption problems.
we never said that this was going to be easy.
almost six times more than we can finance.
i am persuaded that it will be a success.
it was not possible to find a way to overcome the political and technical obstacles which led russia to decide not to participate in the baltic sea programme.
this may provide some extra funds to increase the budget of other sea basin programmes. given the small amount involved we do not expect equivalent matching funds from the european regional development fund.
we are about to review the way enpi works and there we share the same goal.
but the glass is more than half full.
has been an enormous challenge.
we will also review that aspect but i have to say that the risk is small because the cbc programmes have a clear territorial focus and we systematically screen all the selected projects to avoid
the european regional development component of the budget will go back to spain to be used by spain in accordance with the structural funds regulation.
they cover the entire european union land border the sea crossing between italy and tunisia and the three big sea basins that the eu shares with its neighbours the black sea the baltic sea and the mediterranean sea.
the commission is about to start a reflection on the enpi with a view to the legislative proposal for a revised regulation that it intends to table in late.
there are a number of adjustments we need to make including to the budget.
we wanted to fully involve local actors and ensure that projects were jointly selected and implemented.
under all of these programmes we have now launched calls for proposals for an amount of eur two hundred and seventy five million. the response to these calls for proposals has not been poor.
on the contrary it has been excellent.
we saw this as a way of empowering local authorities promoting local development and ultimately strengthening local democracy.
we are receiving hundreds of applications;
we wanted the new programmes to be jointly designed and jointly managed by member states and partner countries.
a way around sensitive foreign policy issues had to be found and this was not always possible.
i understand you have concerns about duplication of financing between cross border cooperation and other enpi programmes.
the commission as much as the european parliament wants to have programmes that are easier to prepare and can be implemented faster.
the enpi component has been reallocated to other enpi programmes in the southern neighbourhood.
the benefits of cross border cooperation and the way it works had to be explained to partner countries and its implementation mechanisms adapted to take into account their administrative and legal constraints.
secondly we are considering reducing the enpi allocation to the baltic sea programme.
we have encountered difficulties that have caused delays but we need to remember that these difficulties were mostly related to difficult foreign policy issues rather than implementation problems.
this is regrettable but as you can see we are confronted here with long standing policy issues reflecting core national interests.
two thousand and eleven in this context we will consult practitioners and stakeholders to see what shortcomings have been identified and how they can best be addressed. in conclusion implementing the enpi cross border cooperation component
for european neighbourhood policy.
we have lived up to it and we are about to see the results.
and now you want to spend eur.
is that what you mean by more europe or is it an attempt to draw these countries into the eu?
after all jos barroso himself called this an empire. we are told that the eu is to prevent further wars in europe but if you look at the record you will find that such wars were due to the empire builders.
do you never learn?
now you are doing it all over again.
it sounds like empire building to me.
one one billion of hard pressed european taxpayers' money on a programme to help partner countries along the eu borders.
in britain my government is raising taxes freezing public sector pay and pensions and cutting back on welfare while finding gbp forty five million every day for this place.
that will be ready in december.
is there a goal we could define?
it is important that we pass the reality check on this particular issue of cbc.
do our partners feel they have ownership of this policy?
do we have the necessary resources?
it should be noted that in the case of russia there is an imminent threat that most of the available funds will remain unused since there are no ongoing projects and the first goal for proposals was launched as late as this year. i would like to ask the commissioner to explain the situation of the cbc programmes with russia specifically and to give his view on whether the framework of the european territorial cooperation programmes would not make a better basis for implementation of the external cross border cooperation programmes.
mr president ensuring a stable and prosperous neighbourhood is the first priority of european foreign policy.
the regional approach should be stronger and more visible. it should be combined also with enhanced cooperation among the partner countries themselves especially among the neighbouring ones.
there are reasons for this there are difficulties with this but we should act together to overcome them.
the european union's description of its neighbourhood policy sounds like an old man of questionable character armed with a bag of sweets explaining how innocent his motives are. the european neighbourhood policy is not about membership of the european union it says.
however we do have some sweets in the form of action plans on economic and social cooperation and development which contribute to sustainable growth in partner countries.
it must be emphasised that the european union's motives are beyond reproach as innocent as those of the old man of questionable character.
it does not want to take possession of neighbouring states for improper purposes;
it just wants to talk about shared values.
i have some advice for neighbouring countries do not talk to strangers bearing sweets.
to an extent the eastern partnership developments and the euromed barcelona process reflect my concerns.
in the southern dimension solving the western sahara question and fighting religious fundamentalism particularly in secular countries like egypt and tunisia could also be an area where cross border cooperation could become a priority.
sadly for most of the countries of the european neighbourhood policy it is all about bilateral eu relations with brussels with little or no interest really in regional integration amongst themselves or in cross border cooperation.
and raise awareness of the new eu safeguards for procedural rights.
in the specific case mentioned by parliament the procedure has been handled by the uk and swedish judicial authorities without intervention of governments.
the average surrender time for those who did not consent was forty eight days and this contrasts very favourable with the pre european arrest warrant position of a one year average for the extradition of requested persons and has undoubtedly reinforced the free movement
the commission is not aware of any evidence that the request from sweden to the united kingdom for the surrender of mr assange to face allegations of sexual offences indicates that the european arrest warrant system is being used for other than its purpose.
these measures are designed to obviate the possibility that evidence is being obtained in breach of the fundamental rights of suspects.
two thousand and ten secondly the right to information about rights the letter of rights which is going to reach an agreement very soon.
that is why and i think that everybody in this house agrees the arrest warrant is an important tool to catch criminals and to render our criminal justice systems more effective.
this is just to underline the legal basis of the question but of course the whole question is a what if' question because nothing concrete is on the table.
that is the reason why the commission asks for action. first the commission calls on the eu member states to exercise a proportionality test when they call for an arrest warrant and to fill the gaps where their legislation fails to fully comply with the framework decision setting up the arrest warrant.
that is why the commission has started to set up procedural rights for persons who are taken into custody.
because pursuant to article twenty eight of the council framework decision a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a european arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third state without the consent of the competent authority of the member state which surrendered the person.
this is unnecessary and may damage the legitimacy of this powerful eu mutual recognition tool.
this report focuses on the fundamental aspects of the operation of the arrest warrant highlighting for the first time since it became operational in january two thousand and four not only its successes but also its shortcomings.
it will include a provision for access to a lawyer both in the issuing and the executing states in european arrest warrant cases. all these procedural rights apply to the arrest warrant.
not later than today the commission adopted the third proposal on procedural rights the proposal to ensure access to a lawyer and the right to have a third person notified when a person is deprived of his or her liberty.
let me just underline that between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine almost fifty five zero european arrest warrants were issued about twelve zero were executed and during that period roughly sixty of the requested persons consented to their surrender on average within fourteen to seventeen days.
surrender under the council framework decision creating the european arrest warrant is an entirely judicial procedure where the governments have absolutely no possibility of interfering in the process.
speaking about safeguards for procedural rights the report also reflects on the overarching importance of fundamental rights and mutual trust in the member states' judicial systems.
independent legal opinion in england has said that the allegations against mr assange would not constitute rape under english law.
nevertheless the tick box on the eaw marked rape contains no definition or explanation of what constitutes the crime.
mr assange arrived in sweden less than a month after wikileaks leaked the afghanistan war logs and announced it had many more revelations to come. senior figures in the usa have called for mr assange to be assassinated or kidnapped and for the us government to act as if it were at war with wikileaks which they describe as a terrorist organisation.
in my opinion the evidence shows that it is most certainly happening in the case of julian assange.
without a charge the usa cannot extradite him from the uk but they need him locked up somewhere while they work it out preventing him from returning to australia. the european arrest warrant offers the perfect expedient.
there are simply no real safeguards.
the americans are still building a case against him and do not know what they can charge him with if anything.
as i have said many times in this chamber under the european arrest warrant extradition or rather judicial surrender to use the correct term is now merely a bureaucratic formality.
having said all that my question to the council and the commission is not is the eaw being abused for political purposes?
if the council and commission are honest they will have to admit that it can.
all this coincides with the convenient issuing of a european arrest warrant against him.
mr assange remained in sweden for five weeks to answer the allegations but he was not questioned as the investigation was unduly delayed.
the complainant's lawyer in sweden has reportedly stated that the ladies themselves cannot tell if the acts in question constituted rapes because they are not lawyers.
mr assange has not yet been charged with any specific offence. a previous investigation against him for what the swedes designate as minor rape' was dropped by a senior prosecutor in stockholm almost four months before the eaw was issued. the reinstated investigation leading to the eaw saw a failure of the prosecutor to interview witnesses that could clear mr assange.
you should be putting your emphasis on persuading the courts to invoke article twenty one of the two thousand and three extradition act.
is the earl of dartmouth aware that it was the liberal democrats with support from the conservatives in the upper chamber of the british parliament who managed to insert in the two thousand and three extradition act which implemented the european arrest warrant a power for a judge to refuse a surrender under a european arrest warrant if fundamental rights of that person would be breached.
ukip just shouts impotently from the sidelines while we get on and do the business of making sure that fundamental rights are protected.
lack of evidence is no bar to extradition.
whilst most of these are serious violent sexual or dishonesty offences the list also includes the nebulous thought crime offences beloved in so many continental countries so that the arrested person could be sent for trial or rather automatic conviction to one of those wretched places.
even people accused of behaviour that is not an offence in the extraditing country can be surrendered under the european arrest warrant if the offence is one for which there is no requirement for dual criminality.
the fact that such warrants are issued for the purpose of prosecuting a person on the grounds of his political opinions ought to constitute a legal bar to surrender but i suspect that some political opinions would be less equal than others.
we must reinstate the requirement that a court will extradite a person only when there is compelling evidence that a serious offence under the extraditing country's laws has been committed.
everybody in this house knows that detention conditions have a direct impact on the smooth functioning of the mutual recognition of judicial decisions and are the basis for cooperation between judges in the eu.
treatment of detainees.
national governments are responsible for detention issues and prison management but the commission's role is to make sure that judicial cooperation works and fundamental rights of all citizens are upheld.
the time that a person can spend in detention before being tried in court and during court proceedings varies a lot between member states.
i would like to tell them that next week the commission will adopt a green paper on detention.
the negative elements are in the implementation.
in order to make this proportionality test easier the commission will present an amended handbook as a guideline for the application of the proportionality test. training which is very high on the agenda for the coming weeks months and years will be very important because
those negative elements have to be eliminated.
i agree with all those parliamentarians who have underlined the problem of prison conditions in europe.
that is why the green paper will kick off a public consultation which will run until thirty november and will help to explore more closely the links between detention issues and mutual trust in europe's area of justice.
but the system is impeded if judges refuse sometimes rightly so to extradite accused persons because the detention conditions in the requesting country are substandard. we all know about prison overcrowding and the allegations of poor
all of these can must and are being dealt with.
mr president i had the honour to be the rapporteur in this house when the european arrest warrant was approved in two thousand. and one and two thousand and two colleagues who were in the house at the time will recall that we urged the commission and the council to build more civil liberties safeguards into the legislation and we secured from the commission a commitment to a draft directive on the rights of defendants in criminal legal proceedings. not all of the safeguards we called for were inserted and the draft directive on defendants' rights sat for many years in the council's in tray.
as many speakers have said in this debate the arrest warrant is a hugely valuable tool in the fight against cross border crime.
in two thousand and two parliament had no powers of codecision in these matters.
it has brought justice to many victims. where problems have arisen they have come from poor implementation into national law from frivolous use of the warrant for petty crimes and from unacceptable conditions of detention.
nonetheless we believed that on balance the arrest warrant was the right move.
i salute the authors of the oral questions today with the exception of one who opposes all judicial cooperation for speeding up the process of improving it.
the results of these omissions are at the root of this debate today.
i fear that we are moving forwards with the eio whilst its very foundations and the european arrest warrant on which it is based are decidedly shaky.
it is essential that we do not make the same mistakes again.
it has so far contributed to the extradition of almost twelve zero drug smugglers child sex offenders rapists and terrorists and has avoided lengthy extradition procedures in the process.
there have been simply too many examples of substandard conditions for prisoners too many misplaced warrants and too great a lack of redress for those who have been victims of errors.
proportionality protection and redress are the key to reforming this tool.
however what this tool was never intended for was to investigate and punish petty crimes such as the theft of a pig stealing a chocolate bar or exceeding a bank overdraft limit.
what you see today is a rare occurrence here. nearly all political groups and all nationalities collected here are saying that now is the time to review re evaluate and if necessary amend.
we must draft this new legislation with a clear working memory as to the flaws and obstacles of the european arrest warrant.
we are now currently working on the european investigation order a partner to the european arrest warrant.
we need to rebuild the trust in and value of this tool and reserve it for only the most serious of crimes whilst guaranteeing and maintaining the highest of standards in its use.
mr president in the anglo american world the primary purpose of the law is to protect people from random arrest and arbitrary imprisonment.
the law in continental europe in particular the former eastern bloc simply does not have that priority and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
to make matters worse the british government has opted into the european investigation order which is a further attack on the liberties of the british people.
secondly we need to have an explicit human rights check in the executing state.
we have constantly criticised the council for not progressing that agenda on the basis of the commission's comprehensive proposal.
thirdly it needs to be recognised when it is not reasonable to execute a european arrest warrant so that someone is not followed by alerts in the schengen information system around europe even though their surrender has been refused once on valid grounds.