Murder of women in Mexico and Central America
The next item is the debate on the report (Α6-0338/2007) by Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on the murders of women in Central America and Mexico, and the role of the EU in fighting this phenomenon (2007/2025(ΙΝΙ)).
rapporteur. - (ES) Madam President, although the murder of women is a global problem, there are areas of the world that, due to both the magnitude and the complexity of the phenomenon, have become paradigmatic cases.
Those places are also, very regrettably, mirrors that reflect many of the problems that, to varying degrees, affect societies governed by social patterns based on a patriarchal culture. This is the case, for example, with Mexico and the countries of Central America.
In fact, it was in Mexico where the concept of feminicide began to take shape, especially when the Special Prosecution Service for investigating and prosecuting cases of feminicide in the Republic of Mexico, chaired by the congresswoman Marcela Lagarde, established that the concept referred to, and I quote, 'the sum total of crimes against humanity consisting of criminal acts, kidnappings and disappearances affecting girls and women in a context of institutional collapse'.
In short, it is a breakdown in the rule of law that promotes impunity. Although the concept is in the progress of being developed, some advocate the use of the term 'feminicide' in order to contrast it with the term 'homicide'...
I would like to ask for a little quiet in the House.
rapporteur. - (ES) Thank you, Madam President. I will continue.
I was saying that, although the concept is one that is constantly evolving, in fact some feel it is necessary to talk about feminicide in order to contrast it with the concept of homicide, and it is significant that what it highlights is the existence of one of the most alarming phenomena of our time: the murder of women for the simple reason that they are women.
Over the last two years the European Parliament has done a great deal of work on this issue, and there will be an important milestone in this process when tomorrow, 11 October, the Plenary adopts the report on the murders of women in Mexico and Central America and the role of the European Union in fighting this phenomenon.
The report is also the result of a long and intensive process of dialogue with all the sectors involved and numerous compromises between the political groups. I would like to take this opportunity, in fact, to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their support and inform you that also present here today are Marjo Searle and Arsène Van Nierop, the mothers of Brenda and Hester respectively, who were both murdered in Mexico.
With the adoption of this report the European Parliament will be in line with other institutions that have already expressed their positions on the issue. This has been done by the Council of Europe and the United Nations, and of various parliaments and governments all over the world. Its content will represent considerable progress, both in defining the problem and in various parties taking responsibility in the fight to eradicate it.
One of the principles that comes out of the report is recognising, as a starting point for any analysis, the multiple causes and forms of this type of crime that exist.
It is certain that, for example, the highly publicised case of Ciudad Juárez - more than 400 women murdered since 1993 - has a great deal to do with the fact that it is a border city with the typical problems of such areas. However, there are also many factors that require efforts to be concentrated and integrated public policies to be implemented.
These policies include: prevention, investing in education for equality and reversing the patriarchal culture; improvements in data collection and forensic investigation; facilitating and speeding up reporting of crimes; training police, judges, prosecutors and doctors in this type of crime; monitoring of local businesses and multinational companies that operate in the area, many of which subject female workers to incredibly vulnerable conditions; legislative reforms and transposition of regulations at the appropriate levels of society; and finally, placing a special emphasis on support for victims and their families.
Regarding the latter issue, however, I would like to report here and deeply regret the fact that, on many occasions, the victims are despised and even criminalised; and their families are persecuted and even accused of harming the good image of a city or country simply because they want to raise awareness of the problem and because they want to demand, and do demand, justice.
Obviously those with the main and biggest responsibility for implementing all the measures proposed are the governmental institutions of the countries directly concerned, and in this case it is obvious that they are Mexico and the countries of Central America.
However, bearing in mind that the European Union has an association agreement with the former, which, moreover, includes a clause for democracy and respect for human rights, and that, in addition, a similar agreement is being negotiated with the Central American region, it is more than justifiable for the European institutions to take sides and make specific commitments regarding this problem.
Nobody should see this as interference by the European Union in the internal affairs of another country, especially given that, even though considerable progress has been made, as acknowledged in the report, especially from a legislative point of view, the magnitude of the problem requires greater effort and commitment from the whole world, especially Europe.
In short, I hope that after all these months we have achieved the necessary level of agreement and consensus so that tomorrow, in the vote, this resolution will be adopted by a majority of the House and we will finally send a clear and firm message about what it means to fight violence against women, in particular in the regions concerned.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, as a woman and also as a member of the Commission, first of all I would like to thank the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality for the defence of women in Europe, but also worldwide.
This report, presented today, is indeed to be seen within this context of a global fight against gender-related violence. This is how we see it, and I thank the rapporteur very much, Mr Romeva i Rueda, for what he said.
Feminicide is a tragic issue which covers a much broader problem, that of violence against women, which we must fight at all levels: at local, but also at global levels. And I would like to talk to you about what we as a Commission are doing to address the question of gender violence in general, again, and also in particular. To promote it through our external relations policy in Mexico and in Central Asia.
Also, if you allow me, I would like to say a few words about my recent visit to the region, because I was there just last week (but not in Mexico). I visited Panama, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. I had already been in Mexico and I will go there most probably next year.
I can tell you that the Commission is on the frontline in the effort of preventing violence against women. Let me remind you that, on 8 March 2006, the Commission issued what we called a 'road map for equality between men and women', outlining the eradication of all forms of gender-based violence as a priority objective.
In March of this year, we adopted a communication on gender equality in development cooperation, stating that gender-based violence in all its manifestations violates women's human rights and is indeed a serious obstacle to the achievement of equality, development and peace.
The Commission also supports projects on education and on awareness-raising interventions aimed at engaging all adolescents in programmes aiming at changing their behaviour in relation to violence against girls and women.
For instance, as I said, I was just in El Salvador, and I visited a programme that is called 'Pro Jóvenes', which is for girls and boys - but especially for girls - who have either already been in the so-called Maras, or who could enter into the Maras, in order to prevent them from doing so. I was most impressed by this programme.
The New European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights also provides a wide scope for activities in the field of gender equality.
Concerning the situation in Mexico, I would like to point out that EU-Mexico relations are based on our 1997 global agreement, in which Article 1 identifies human rights as a fundamental element of EU-Mexican relations. On that very basis, both parties have established what I think, in the mean time, is a fruitful cooperation in the fields of human rights and justice, a cooperation which is then carried out through our different Commission programmes implemented by the Mexican federal authorities, as well as through projects carried out also by non-state actors and by NGOs. The Mexican authorities also keep us informed about gender-related violence in Mexico. So we learned that a number of cases had been resolved and many others were under investigation.
My last personal conversation with the new Mexican Foreign Minister - who is, as you know, also a woman - was in Santo Domingo, where we mentioned this question of feminicide and where I got some relevant information about what the Mexican Government is doing. They have also a special human rights adviser, another lady who is also working particularly on this issue.
In the case of Central America, as a region, the country where the issue is most critical is Guatemala. Our approach has been to confront the issue, both in our dialogue with the authorities and through, again, a number of activities on the issue of violence against women. This includes the mainstreaming on the gender dimension in all the cooperation programmes.
The Commission also organised, in March last year, an important communication campaign targeted at young people and decision-makers on how to stop violence against women. In the same period we also welcomed the creation of a national commission on feminicide, composed of officials from the executive, the judiciary and also the congress, and a total of 18 state institutions.
Recently, we also noted the creation of an international commission against impunity in Guatemala, which we also strongly support. As a part of this Commission programme supporting the judiciary, a specific component is dedicated to feminicide. In particular to activities carried out by the so-called CEPROM. This is the presidential office in charge, with whom we have a memorandum of understanding on cooperation.
Let me also mention our support for the preparatory work for the revision of the law against feminicide, now before Congress, with a view to the revision of the penal code.
Finally, let me say that I found a lot of goodwill and pro-European spirit in this trip to Central America on this issue. I was really positively surprised by the interest in enhancing regional integration, and cooperative attitudes also towards the forthcoming negotiations of an association agreement. I must say it was very important to see that even the interest in Panama was much higher than I expected. I am looking forward to the possibility of everybody there being included.
The first message that I passed on there was the importance of achieving progress on the negotiations that will finally start at the San José Process in Costa Rica. This is important because, naturally, it will be a political dialogue there; there will be a cooperation programme, and there will also be free trade negotiations. But it will be a compact programme.
Social cohesion will be among the most important issues in the whole of Latin America, including Central America, and there this programme also has a very great importance.
Indeed, juvenile violence and violence against women are issues that we find have to be there because we have to all do everything in order to diminish violence in society.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot ignore the reality of feminicide in Central America. In many regions of the world, women make an essential contribution to the most worthy societal structures of humanity. Thanks to their feminine intuition, women enrich our understanding of the world. They help to make human relations between people more honest and authentic.
The time has come to condemn and severely punish all forms of violence perpetrated against women, not only in Central America but also in several countries of Europe. In this regard, the participation of women in managing material aid and assistance given to the victims of this violence could be of fundamental importance.
Ladies and gentlemen, if the EU Member States can bring their experience to resolving problems, we should not withhold our expertise. That is why I remain convinced that bilateral cooperation between the Member States and the states of Central America can be effective.
I bear witness here to a frankly sensitive job within the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. I thank the rapporteur, Mr Romeva, for his political sense and cooperation. We have tabled some amendments by common agreement. If these amendments are adopted, we can take pride in a job that may improve the situation of women and thus of the whole of Central American society.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur for the excellent work done, for the ongoing dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs, and for the openness and receptivity to suggestions presented to him. Many people took part in the process and I think that is quite exemplary.
The Socialist Group will therefore support the content of the report and the proposals for amendments tabled. We know that when there are problems of any kind it is always the women who suffer most throughout the world, Europe, America, Asia, Africa, everywhere. Poverty and social exclusion are the lot of women, as are violence, psychological and physical violence and extreme violence resulting in death. This report deals with that extreme violence, with the death of many women in Central American countries and Mexico.
I had the opportunity to visit Guatemala, along with the rapporteur under the umbrella of the European Union-Central America Delegation, and to hear the amazing accounts and reports of many non-governmental organisation officials. We know that many feminicide murders are committed in Guatemala and in Ciudad Juárez. Feminicide, as the report mentions, cannot be explained purely in terms of a general climate of violence. Account must be taken of the context and of the discrimination which still continues against women and it is an absolute tragedy that many cases go unpunished. There is, moreover, the case referred to in the report of two Dutch citizens who were also feminicide victims.
Therefore, although some progress has been made and some measures have been taken, these are not enough; we need to go much further and, above all, we need to create effective protection measures for witnesses and victims, so that the perpetrators may be punished and the European Parliament's missions to those countries can always place that item on their agenda.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, violence against women in Mexico and Central America has, in recent years, reached dramatic proportions, with thousands of women having been the victims of violent deaths, which on many occasions have been extremely cruel in nature and often accompanied by sexual abuse and torture.
Although in many cases the perpetrators of such atrocious crimes are sick-minded individuals, in many situations organised criminal activity is very much involved, and the implication of human trafficking, prostitution and drugs is largely in evidence.
It is very sad that in Mexico and Central American countries the functioning of the rule of law in certain cases leaves a lot to be desired, either because of real organisational deficiencies in the police and judiciary systems, or because of corruption and impunity.
The rapporteur, Mr Romeva i Rueda, is to be congratulated for making sure that this report is strong enough to send the necessary message not only to the governments of the countries concerned, but also to the world as a whole, about the totally unacceptable high level of femicides in the aforementioned states.
The small number of final amendments - which incidentally have the rapporteur's full support - are useful and make this report more complete. My group fully supports all those amendments.
It is to be hoped that this report will be voted through this House with a very large majority, so as to give a very clear signal to all concerned that the problem of the killing of women in Central America, as indeed in other parts of the world, is a matter that should attract our full attention and necessitates the taking of very drastic and effective remedial measures.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, as a member of the Mexico delegation, I would particularly like to thank the Committee on Women's Rights and specifically the rapporteur for the fact that this problem, which has also cast a shadow on many discussions with our colleagues in Mexico, has been dealt with. I am hoping for a very broad majority tomorrow, which expresses one opinion and which emphasises how seriously we heave dealt with this problem.
In view of the appalling figures, the reports on the harassment of witnesses and solicitors, death threats and threats of torture, harassment of families, of situations which can in no way be accepted, it is the European Union's duty to speak out and it is also its duty to point out the peculiarity of this phenomenon. It represents a particularly dramatic development of a global phenomenon concerning the way in which women are treated, which must be quickly brought to an end in the 21st century.
It must be addressed on a very amicable basis with our counterparts in the countries concerned because a positive development is only possible in a society when women are able to live free of fear and aggression and when threats, which are made against them and from which they suffer because they are women, are prosecuted appropriately.
I therefore welcome all the positive measures being adopted here. We need witness protection, we need a better legal system, we need education. Then we shall be able - so I believe - to support women in Mexico, in Latin America, in order to achieve a level of protection for them that is acceptable to us.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Thank you, Madam President. I would like to thank the rapporteur very much for his excellent work and also for his commitment and the knowledge that he possesses in this area, and I want to say straight away that our Group fully supports this report.
This form of feminicide that we are now discussing has grown, above all in areas where we have companies investing in subcontractor plants and where women are completely dependent on men, socially, economically, in all areas. The young women employed in these assembly plants are not only likely to be affected by the increased violence but they also work under highly degrading conditions that reinforce the image of women as inferior beings who can be murdered, tortured, kidnapped and so on. I note the measures stated by the Commission, but I would also want to see even tougher and stronger pressure being put on these countries by the European Union. We must show that it is completely unacceptable to sign agreements on respect for human rights while murder is still going on. We should be able to freeze trade agreements until we can see that the demands we have rightly made are being complied with, until for example the governments in the relevant countries invest sufficient resources in finding and bringing to justice the authors of the crimes. This wide-scale brutality against women has now been going on for almost ten years and rather than being reduced, it has actually grown, so it is high time to take action. Thank you.
(ES) Madam President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his work and, in particular, for being willing to express Parliament's inescapable and unwavering commitment to the serious and urgent problem of violence against women.
I welcome the fact that, since it was in committee, this report has become more balanced, less paternalistic and has gained the right perspective, as, sadly, violence against women is not confined to one region, one country or one continent, but is global and universal, and we should take this into consideration for future work done by this House.
Unfortunately, and perhaps under different circumstances, it also happens in the European Union. I would like to say, without going any further, that in my country the statistics are devastating: 166 000 cases reported to the courts, 48 000 people detained last year (one every twelve minutes) and almost 70 women murdered; the last one yesterday, her throat cut by her partner.
I think that these terrible statistics, Madam President, should lead us to think profoundly about the role of our Parliament, which I do not see as a court that punishes and pontificates, but as an institution that has its own effective strategies for seeking, by mutual agreement with our partners and on the basis of dialogue, cooperation and good practice, solutions for eradicating this process.
The case of Mexico, which is very significant and is cited in the report: this is a country that has a high level of violence to start with, which European Union citizens have been victims of, and whose families we stand with. However, we also have to recognise that it is a society that is fighting, which is not happy with the situation and is valiantly struggling to overcome this problem, by mobilising the State authorities, the federal authorities and the local authorities, and the whole of society and all its political parties, and therefore, Madam President, the report recognises the progress that has been made.
It is important, and I will conclude with this, to ask the Commission for the human rights action plan to be concluded quickly and ambitiously, Madam President. I would like to finish by saying that violence against women is a problem of abuse, it is a problem of cowardice, it is a problem of intolerance and, above all, Madam President, it is a problem of fear and powerlessness, of fear of accepting the will of others and, above all, fear of peacefully imposing will and reason based on argument, peacefully and not through violence.
(HU) Madam President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Romeva i Rueda for his report, which takes a position on an important problem. I am very pleased that, as a fellow member, he is taking the situation of women so seriously.
Violence against women is a violation of human rights that prevents women from exercising their fundamental rights. It therefore counts as one of the greatest global barriers to equality of the sexes in society. This phenomenon occurs to differing extents but is present globally, and so action must be taken against it globally, in harmony with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
States themselves, Mexico in this case, are responsible for respecting and creating the freedom and safety of their citizens, so they must guarantee the instruments necessary to prevent, shed light on and punish violence against women, even if the violence occurs within the family.
I think it is very positive that Mexico has taken legal steps towards equality for men and women. Nevertheless, the fight against violence against women cannot merely be restricted to the use of legal instruments, since this is a complex phenomenon that requires complex treatment, legal, administrative, preventive, advisory, victim-support, dialogue and monitoring tasks and obligations for the state in question.
The European Union - which has committed itself on several occasions to ensuring global equality, and which has defined the road map for equality for the period 2006-2010 published by the European Commission, and to which the Commissioner referred as one of its main priorities, as well as the halting of violence against women - cannot remain silent in the face of such atrocities.
When forming external relations, developments in human rights and the equality of women must be considered as emphasised criteria. The report is excellent, and I recommend that it be adopted.
(PT) We cannot stay indifferent to violence committed against women in any part of the world, in particular in our own countries. We are therefore paying particularly close attention to this serious problem in Mexico and some countries in Central America, where there is still feminicide which cannot be attributed solely to a general climate of violence. We know that it is also necessary to take account of discrimination within the local social and economic context which is unfavourable to women and is even worse in the case of indigenous women living in serious poverty and economic dependence, with the additional problem of the activities of criminal gangs.
Here too, we therefore proclaim our solidarity with the women who are victims of such violence and add our voice to the call to see women's rights upheld, and their dignity respected; we naturally support the report of our fellow Member, Mr Romeva.
(ES) Madam President, firstly I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. I would like to highlight a few issues from it and also point out one aspect that I think perhaps is missing.
In order to win the battle against murders of women and against impunity we need to attack on a variety of fronts. In the short term, we need to eliminate all discrimination in legislation, facilitate reporting of crimes and protection measures for victims, witnesses and family members, and improve the judicial and prison systems.
In this field, I agree that there is a need for the European Union to offer its full cooperation to these countries in order to overcome the difficulties and delays in the implementation of women's rights in legislation, to encourage the ratification of international agreements on the protection of human rights and to support the revision and updating of national legislation in this field. I will therefore support the Obiols-Estrela amendment along those lines.
Improving the situation in the long term requires that we promote education in values through gender equality and education campaigns and awareness-raising from childhood in schools, in order to promote a social conscience that will bring an end to violence against women and the stigmatisation of the victims by the authorities.
Perhaps a more specific mention of the issue of education is what I think is missing. I think that all the efforts that we are making in this direction will do little to put an end to this blot on society that should not have a place in 21st century societies.
Madam President, many thanks for this truly important debate, and in particular my sincere thanks once more to the rapporteur.
As I said a little while ago, as a woman and as the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy this issue is of course particularly important to me, and it is absolutely correct to say - as indeed I did at the start - that it is a general issue, one that unfortunately affects all of us in all countries. This includes the European Union, but it is of course much more the case in poor countries, countries without the proper socioeconomic conditions, countries lacking, in particular, an effective police system - meaning that difficulties arise even at the detection stage - and also, in most cases, an effective judicial system. After all, that too is crucial. We are also aware that, in many of the countries that have been mentioned here, such as Central America and Mexico, along with many others, the phenomenon of corruption still exists, and mafia organisations work together with leading figures in the judiciary in some cases, which means that the detection rate is still very poor.
I agree with much of what has been said today: firstly legislative measures and secondly implementation measures. In addition, I can reiterate that the Commission already has programmes in place and is working on these matters. However, the time factor also has to be taken into account, of course. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not one that can be eradicated overnight; it can only be brought under control gradually in the context of socioeconomic development. Sadly, it is something that we shall all have to deal with for some time to come.
Preventive measures must be taken, of course; I have just highlighted the example of 'Pro Jóvenes' as it is such an interesting programme. Ladies and gentlemen, if you ever return to El Salvador - or even Guatemala, but particularly El Salvador - I would recommend taking a look yourselves. This is at least a dash of good news.
I can only affirm that we shall of course continue our programmes, and shall also continue to conduct our assuredly critical dialogue with Mexico, but I readily admit that, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, Mexico itself must be prepared to tackle this issue and take up the cause. The thing is that, when a crime has been detected too late, it is very difficult to determine all aspects after the event. Consequently, it is also very important to draw on all the relevant methods of modern police technology, as detection is the first factor and justice the second, and of course the question of general non-discrimination in society is also decisive.
I can only assure you that I am most certainly on your side in this matter.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 11 October 2007.
Written declarations (Rule 142)
in writing. - (SK) On 8 March 2007 on the occasion of International Woman's Day, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality in the European Parliament began its campaign for the eradication of violence against women.
This report on feminicides in Mexico and Central America is part of the overall initiative, the aim of which is the global eradication of violence against women. It is in these countries in particular that the number of violent deaths has grown significantly in the past years.
According to the official Mexican statistics, 6 000 girls and women were killed between 1999 and 2006. The most alarming statistics come mainly from countries that have deep-rooted economic inequalities in society, and in particular where women traditionally are economically dependent on men: countries such as Guatemala, Salvador, Honduras - the third poorest country in South America - and Nicaragua.
Feminicides in Ciudad Juárez and Guatemala are particularly alarming, and for this reason I welcome today's debate. I believe that only through in-depth analysis of these issues, which should take place prior to the 2008 EU-LAC summit in Lima, will we be able to assess the measures adopted, including the experience of the Mexican authorities, which will help to combat violence against women both in the EU and South America.
We must step up our efforts to protect women from all types of violence.
The problem of feminicide and the impunity of the perpetrators in Mexico and Central America has not improved in spite of massive efforts. Therefore, the governments of Mexico and Central American countries should continue to step up their endeavours towards the prevention and detection of feminicide and other cases of violence against women.
In this connection, I would ask the governments of Central American countries to intensify their monitoring of the exercise of corporate social responsibility by the maquiladora (sub-contractor) companies. In addition, the European principles of equal opportunities and equal rights for women and men must influence the proactive human rights policy of the EU more strongly.
Consequently, I call on the Commission to make a proposal concerning how the various European initiatives designed to combat feminicide can be better coordinated with local authorities and institutions in future. All the available external policy instruments must be used. In this connection, I would ask the Commission and the Member States to step up activities to verify compliance with the democracy and human rights clauses of existing and pending agreements.
When negotiating the association agreement with the countries of Central America, an assessment of the impact on gender equality should be carried out as part of the assessment of the impact on sustainable development. The European human rights policy, and in particular women's rights, must on no account be up for consideration as a result of economic and geopolitical interests.


Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes


EU 2020 - Follow-up of the informal European Council of 11 February 2010 (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


Voting time
The next item is voting time.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)


Documents received: see Minutes


12. European Network for the Protection of Public Figures (


5. Cross-borders transfers of companies' registered offices (


6. One year after Lisbon: the EU-Africa partnership at work (


Voting time
We shall now proceed to the vote.
(For the outcome of the vote and other details: see Minutes)


1. (


Adjournment of the session


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


The effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation (short presentation)
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Enrique Guerrero Salom, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation -
Mr President, Commissioner, the financial and economic crisis is producing the bitterest, severest effects on emerging and developing countries, especially on the lower income ones. This crisis has slowed down the sustained growth that has been occurring in many of these countries over the last decade: economic growth that was creating jobs, helping to straighten out their public accounts, making it possible to bring down their foreign debt, encouraging the expansion of their business activity and, in addition, helping them to obtain more official development aid.
These countries had already been suffering in the years prior to the crisis, however: firstly, the food crisis, which endangered the survival of hundreds of millions of people; then, the energy crisis, which used up many of the resources of those that did not produce oil or gas; finally, the climate crisis, the effects of which on harvests and infrastructure harm the poorest countries most of all.
The financial crisis added to this fragile situation in which these countries found themselves. As the European Commission itself points out, having affected the developing countries and emerging countries, the third wave of the financial crisis damaged the poorest countries, turning this crisis, in theory an economic one, into a development, social and humanitarian crisis.
In fact, all areas of activity in these countries have been damaged. Economic growth, which will be much lower in 2009 than in previous years, has been damaged. Trade has decreased, which will weaken these countries' current account balances. There is less foreign investment and little access by these countries to international funding, and we are seeing a growing protectionist reaction from the developed countries.
At the same time, emigrant remittances have fallen and Official Development Assistance has also been reduced. As a result, hundreds of millions of people have been added to the list of the poorest and hundreds of thousands of children will die at an earlier age on continents such as Africa.
In the face of this reality, the European voice must make itself heard by requiring us to uphold the Official Development Assistance undertakings made; by requiring new sources of additional resources to help these countries; by requiring charges and taxes on emigrants to be lightened; by requiring that attempts at protectionism should be resisted and support for a Doha Development Round to be held; by requiring action against tax havens and tax evasion; and also by working for a debt moratorium or debt cancellation for the poorest countries.
As rapporteur for this report, I wanted to obtain the greatest possible consensus and I agreed, in negotiation, to amendments by all the parliamentary groups, but I am still willing to submit an oral amendment to Section 34 of this report tomorrow, with the aim of adding further votes. This would be further authority for something I believe to be vital: that the European voice should be united and strong as regards aid to developing countries.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like first of all to congratulate the rapporteur for this very comprehensive report.
As rightly emphasised in this report, developing countries have been affected by the crisis much harder than initially expected. In fact, they have been hit through several transmission channels, such as volatile commodity prices, declining export revenues and tourism earnings, as well as falling capital flows and remittances. One common feature is the increase in the financing needs of many countries.
Many developing countries were often obliged to cut social expenditure (notably in nutrition, health and education), entailing severe social and political consequences and threatening not only the achievement of the MDGs by 2015, but also undermining past progress observed in recent years. Despite some first signs of global recovery, developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, will certainly lag behind.
The EU has shown leadership and unity through a joint EU response to the crisis framed within the global response, namely within the United Nations, the G20 and G8. We have acted quickly and efficiently to translate pledges into concrete commitments to help developing countries cope with the crisis.
Last spring, the EU adopted a set of comprehensive, timely, targeted and coordinated measures to cushion the human impact of the crisis, boost economic growth in developing countries and protect the most vulnerable.
The EU response comprises not only the Community response but also the EU Member States' response (their respective bilateral responses as well as their contributions to the resources of the international financial institutions as called upon by the G20). Moreover, close collaboration with the World Bank and the IMF has enabled us to ensure the consistency of our respective analyses and the complementarity of our assistance.
As highlighted in the report, the Commission has set up and is currently implementing a very concrete and short-term ad hoc mechanism, named the Vulnerability FLEX, to support the most vulnerable countries with poor resilience capacity, with a view to enabling them to maintain priority spending, notably in the social sectors.
Other measures include reallocations following ad hoc country reviews and the advanced Mid-Term Review of the 10th European Development Fund, which is currently ongoing, support under the traditional FLEX instrument, frontloading of aid where feasible, etc.
Official Development Assistance (ODA) has played, and will continue to play, a critical role in supporting our partners' efforts in coping with the crisis. In this context, the Commission welcomes your support in urging Member States to stay committed to achieving by 2015 the 0.7% ODA/GNI target. Other donors should take similar ambitious targets for ODA increases, and we must call upon the entire donor community to live up to their commitments in terms of aid volumes and effectiveness.
On 21 April, the Commission will publish its yearly spring development package of proposals to Member States. This year, the focus will be on the actions that remain necessary to achieve the MDGs. The package will adopt a comprehensive approach and define an action plan for accelerated progress towards the MDGs. It will also provide an opportunity to make an ambitious EU contribution to the forthcoming UN High-Level MDG Review in September. In doing so, the EU will remain credible about its commitments and continue to play a leading role in international development.
(RO) The economic and financial crisis has also hit Moldova, a developing country, very hard. This country's economy declined by 9% last year according to IMF estimates, and the unemployment rate has passed the 6% mark. Direct investment needs to be encouraged.
I should point out that Moldova has employed for a period of one year nine senior European advisers who will provide assistance to the main ministries in Chişinău.
Bearing in mind that we speak the same language, our neighbours from across the River Prut can benefit from Romania's expertise in absolutely every area.
The cost of money transfers made by emigrants from the countries they work in must be reduced. The commitment made by the G8 leaders to cut these costs from 10% to 5% in the next five years is a first step in this direction.
I would like to welcome today the record financial support amounting to USD 2.6 billion which has been granted to Moldova for the 2011-2013 period. The agreement was reached today by Prime Minister Vlad Filat during the Donor conference.
(ES) Mr President, although the epicentre of the crisis is not located in the developing countries, they are the ones that have been seriously and deeply affected by its huge wave.
The credit crunch, the uncertainty produced by the depression and the fall in international trade, investment flows and remittances from emigrant workers have been the main channels for the spread of a crisis preceded by a great deal of volatility in the prices of basic products and foodstuffs, and generated in circumstances of massive global imbalances.
A concerted response to the crisis must take the developing countries into account and their agenda must form an essential component of global economic cooperation.
Through the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we have asked that the International Monetary Fund consider the burden that the crisis has produced on the public finances of the developing countries in the report it is to prepare for the forthcoming G20 meeting, and that the Commission issue a communication in which an assessment is made as to how a tax on financial transactions might help to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, correct the global imbalances and promote sustainable development.
I am glad that Mr Guerrero has taken up these proposals and I congratulate him on his splendid report.
(SV) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his important report.
I am convinced that the best way to counter the crisis is with more free trade and globalisation, not with protectionism. Europe must therefore keep its markets open in order to combat the recession, stimulate growth, both in Europe and worldwide and, in so doing, combat poverty.
In a few days' time, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly will meet in Tenerife. My colleagues from the ACP countries always tend to point out the problems that the EU's subsidised agricultural products create on their markets. They need trade, but our policy counteracts the establishment of healthy markets for agricultural products in developing countries.
The EU has shown leadership says the Commissioner, but we can do much better. It is a matter of fair trade, Commissioner.
(PT) The food, energy, climate, financial, economic and social crises referred to in the report are nothing more than different incarnations of the same structural crisis that has been dragging on for decades. In some regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa, wealth per capita has been continuously diverging from that of other regions in the world over decades. Despite the disparities that exist at present, developing countries tend to have certain characteristics in common: dependence on exports of a few raw materials, a lack of economic diversification, a strong focus on agriculture, the energy and extractive industries or tourism, and a strong field of foreign capital.
A progressive export and liberalisation model for trade has been pushed on these countries, if necessary, by resorting to blackmail. As shown by the negotiation process for economic partnership agreements, this leads to the exacerbation of the dependency of these countries, thwarting any possible indigenous development. Yet it is foreign debt that continues to be the principal drain on the resources of developing countries. It is paid many times over, yet as it is always growing, the debt has reached a colossal amount and self-perpetuates the overexploitation of these countries, thus maintaining the tenor of their relationship with the countries of the northern hemisphere. Cancelling the debt is simply a matter of justice.
Keeping to the speaking time, too, is a matter of fairness.
(DE) The biggest financial and economic crisis since the 1930s has, as we know, not only hit Europe hard. The developing countries are suffering particularly badly from the effects of the crisis, and they are least able to do anything about it. Irresponsible speculation, greed for quick profits which are completely unrelated to the real economy, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon countries, and a financial system that is coming apart at the seams have brought the world to the brink of a financial abyss.
Another cause of the crisis is a globalisation concept that has made complete deregulation its highest priority. The countries of Europe are getting themselves ever deeper into debt in order to restart their economies. However, in many cases, it is not possible for developing countries to do this because of their poor financial situation. Therefore, they must be given the opportunity to protect their own national economies more effectively against imported goods which are sold at dumping prices and which destroy local markets and local people's livelihoods.
We must give the developing countries the chance to emerge from the crisis under their own steam. Traditional development aid can probably be considered to have largely failed in its purpose. Ultimately, we have to tackle the root of the problem and impose strict regulations on the financial markets, prohibit speculative practices and quickly introduce a tax on financial transactions.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 25 March 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The EU has a duty to help developing countries overcome difficulties linked to the global economic crisis and poverty, which came about through no fault of their own.
It is very important that the European Commission determinedly strives for the implementation of international development cooperation reform and that together with the Council, it improves the coordination of bilateral and multilateral development cooperation, since gaps in this area are the main reason why the effectiveness of aid for development may suffer.
Developing countries need aid to reduce poverty and isolation, measures that contribute to development and measures necessary to exit the crisis, especially in this difficult period.
We will be able to implement the broad commitments adopted by generally having better coordination and action that is administered more effectively and transparently, striving for broad agreement between the main aid providers, partner countries, financial institutions and civil society.
By implementing these actions, the European Union must be the leader and act more resolutely. To that end, all European Union institutions must make greater commitments and on this matter, Parliament has undoubtedly made its opinion very clear.
The developing countries have ended up the main victims of the financial crisis, in spite of the initial predictions which maintained that the developed countries would be hit hardest. The theory suggesting that developing countries are not tied in strongly enough to the global economy to be seriously affected by the crisis on the financial markets has been disproved by reality. We are seeing the crisis deepening in many developing countries, with unprecedented unemployment rates and exponential growth in government debt and budget deficits. While all this is going on, developed countries which have not felt the impact of the crisis very strongly or have had available effective instruments for mitigating its impact have experienced economic growth, albeit tentative. The economic crisis is already affecting the population directly, while unemployment is on the rise in developing countries. The efforts being made to bring about economic recovery by the states which continue to feel the effects of the crisis could affect whole social groups, as the recovery measures can only have a painful impact. EU funding programmes are the most comprehensive and inclusive among the financial aid schemes available globally. The Member States affected must benefit as appropriately as possible from the money allocated for tackling situations which restrict economic activity and have social ramifications.
in writing. - The global financial and economic crisis has hit the developed world so deeply that we are now struggling with a social and unemployment crisis. But in the least developed countries, such problems, for which they are not responsible, are compounded by the consequences of food and climate crises, with dramatic implications for a sixth of the world's population who suffer from hunger. As the largest combined aid donors, the EU Member States must fulfil their Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments, improve aid effectiveness and coordination and strengthen their efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The extent of the damage caused by speculation in the financial sector highlights the importance of preventive measures such as taxation of financial transactions and warrants considering compensation from the sector for the costs of the crisis. As tax havens and off-shores deprive developing countries of multiples of the amounts raised through ODA, inaction in this field is unacceptable.
Although today we can already speak of an improvement in the economic and financial crisis in some EU Member States, we should recognise that for the developing countries, this crisis, with all its cruel effects, is still in full swing. Without a doubt, we should consider economic development to be the key phrase for resolving the current global crisis. However, while undertaking the revitalisation of our own economy, we should not forget that the continuation of the crisis in the developing countries also hinders global economic growth very significantly, and therefore also hinders our own development. I think that the Member States of the European Union must continue to give aid to reduce poverty and exclusion in the developing countries, continually adapting this to new circumstances and conditions. Considering the severe effects of the global crisis on the developing countries in particular, I support those who say that, despite the crisis, all the EU Member States could increase their collective development aid by 0.7% of their GNI by 2015. It is important to take measures to promote development and to get us out of the crisis today - in 2010. Therefore, I support those who say that, in the current situation, highly-developed countries both within and outside the EU should take steps to reform international development cooperation. We cannot allow a lack of intervention on our part to cancel out previous achievements in the areas of poverty and exclusion, and we cannot allow a situation to arise in which, instead of the current hundred million people living in extreme poverty, we have a billion people in such a position.


4. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Lithuania - construction of buildings (


16. Protection of Communities' financial interests - fight against fraud (


14. Fisheries and aquaculture in the context of ICZM in Europe (
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me briefly mention Integrated Coastal Zone Management, designed, above all, to protect fisheries and fish farming. The debate on the report has been cancelled owing to the debate on the situation in Georgia, which is an urgent and important matter. That is why I am speaking today.
My report is mainly about the protection of the environment, hence I ask for your votes in support of it. I note that the Committee on Fisheries has voted unanimously.
My report contains different proposals, four of which are particularly important. The first is the completion of the marine survey plan; second, the long-term plan but also continuing discussions, at which representatives of all professions, especially fishermen, participate. Thirdly, there is the possible formation of a central coordinating body, as there has been a lack of coordination between bodies in past years. Fourthly, a schedule should be set up because, since 2002, when there were similar talks, some actions have been taken without a defined timescale.
I suggest that what we decide upon should take place according to a timed schedule. Because I believe that all of us desire the protection of the ocean, I ask you to vote in favour and I thank you in advance.


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


Statement by the President
Perhaps I might make a comment to the topic we have just discussed. Yesterday - Sunday, March the eleventh - was the third anniversary of the terrorist attack in Madrid on 11 March 2004, when 192 people were killed. The day of this appalling event has become a European day of commemoration for the victims of terrorism. It is a day for keeping memory alive - the memory of the victims of terrorism - and for solidarity with them and their families, with those who lost their lives and also with those who still suffer the effects of it, whether physical or psychological.
It is a day for fostering awareness, for, following the attack on Madrid, the bombings in London on 7 July 2005 resulted in more victims within the European Union, and, elsewhere around the world, too, it is still too often the case that too many people are being killed by violence motivated by fanaticism. Terrorism is an attack on freedom and democracy. Terrorism is an attempt at making things happened through blind violence and, in the process, destroying values, the values that are the foundation of the European Union and its Member States. Terrorism is a crime that cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. It represents one of the greatest dangers to the security, stability and democratic values of the international community and is also a direct assault on our citizens.
The European Union and the international community of states must be determined in fighting terrorism in whatever shape or form. There can be no justification for terrorism, and, in fighting it, we can allow ourselves no weakness; that is why we need a strong and united Europe. If we are to fight it effectively, we need to go beyond mere close cooperation and develop a coherent common policy that meets the needs of the public while also reflecting our understanding of human rights and human dignity.
Let me, then, say once more that this House does not see Guantanamo as compatible with our European legal order, and that we must ensure, in joining together to fight terrorism in Europe, that we do so in a manner consistent with the values that we are defending.
On the occasion of this day commemorating the victims of terrorism, we must again declare ourselves willing to fight terrorism in whatever form and also to take the action needed in order to do so. We must not forget the victims of terrorism; the punishment of their murderers is a debt we owe to them, but a determined policy must also have the object of preventing, in so far as possible, terrorism and terrorist acts on European Union soil and anywhere else in the world, in line with the principles of the international community and our system of law.
On 5 March this year, Daniele Mastrogiacomo, an Italian journalist and Afghanistan correspondent for the newspaper 'La Repubblica', was abducted by the Taliban. He was simply doing his job, which was to report on the situation in that country. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing this House's solidarity and my own with Mr Mastrogiacomo's family and with the newspaper 'La Repubblica'.
I would also like, speaking on behalf of this House, to express the same solidarity with the German citizen and her son, both of whom were abducted in Iraq in February. We urge and demand of the persons who are holding Mr Mastrogiacomo and the organisation Kataib Siham al-Haq, which abducted the two German citizens and long-term residents of Iraq, that they should let these people go free - free and unharmed - without delay. We must not allow ourselves to be blackmailed by violence.
I now ask that we remember the victims of terrorism.
(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)


Petitions: see Minutes


Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes


15. Development of an EU criminal justice area (


31. 2008 discharge: SESAR joint undertaking (SJU)


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Monday, 18 December 2006.
(The sitting was opened at 6.20 p.m.)


Closure of the sitting


Misleading business directories (debate)
The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Erminia Mazzoni and Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on misleading business directories (Ο-000087/2011 - Β7-0315/2011).
deputising for the author. - Madam President, two and a half years ago, I presented to this plenary a report on misleading business directories. The message that this Parliament gave was clear: that there is a serious problem with fraudulent practices by misleading business directories, that tens of thousands of our small businesses, voluntary organisations, and even charities, are falling victim to these fraudulent practices, and that we need a concerted approach to stop once and for all such deceptive practices.
Two and a half years later, unfortunately, we are back here in plenary to discuss the same subject because there has been a serious lack of action to combat the problem of misleading business directories. This is not acceptable.
Let me remind colleagues what we are talking about here. Basically, what this involves is that a misleading business directory sends out a form, which appears to simply request people to update their own personal details or their business details, in return for what appears to be a free entry, a free listing in the business directory. At first glance, one does not notice any cost, any payment that might result from filling in this form. However, after submitting the form, victims receive a letter demanding payment of EUR 1 000 per year for three consecutive years. If they do not pay, the misleading business directories resort to what are essentially bullying tactics: harassing telephone calls, threats of legal action and pursuit by debt collectors.
The most worrying thing is that such illegal tactics are being used under the very noses of the authorities of several Member States, who are well aware of these practices and have not taken any action to stop them. The European City Guide, Construct Data, TEMDI, EU Business Services, World Business Directory, Expo Guide and DAD are still operating unabated. The Commission has already stated that such misleading practices are against EU law, but it has not done enough to stop them. This is why we are here today.
deputising for the author. - Madam President, the volume of complaints regarding misleading directory companies shows that this is a serious problem for SMEs. Rogue business directory companies are both inflicting financial damage and harassing small companies. In the period from 2003 to mid-2008, nearly 14 000 complaints and enquiries were documented. Hundreds of letters of complaint are still being received from new victims.
The difficulties involved in tracking down activities of this nature undermine the very functioning of the Internal Market. Misleading practices are illegal under the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
But there is a lack of effective legal remedies and enforcement. The Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, as the committee responsible for the legislation, has recently taken up this issue with the Dutch authorities, drawing their attention to fraudulent practices by a business directory company established in the Netherlands.
The answer of the Dutch authorities clearly shows that Member States are mostly concerned about what happens in their own territory. I believe that given the cross-border nature of the problem, more cooperation between Member States on enforcement would also be absolutely crucial to stop the fraudulent practices.
The Commission could itself take a more active role in working together with the Member States on cross-border enforcement using existing EU-wide networks to facilitate cooperation between the Member States. More emphasis should be placed on effective and dissuasive sanctions against such fraudulent practices in all Member States, which would put such directory companies out of business and enable those who run them to be punished.
It should be envisaged to extend the scope for the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to encompass all commercial practices in a business-to-consumer relationship, whether aiming at the protection of consumers or competitors. In that way, most if not all unfair business-to-business commercial practices in the retail sector would be covered and governed by the same set of rules as unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, with which they generally overlap.
It is also important to help businesses combat the scam by improving access to information and awareness raising by improving redress mechanisms. I wish to ask the Commissioner: what are the major obstacles for stronger involvement of state authorities in cross-border enforcement cooperation, and what measures does the Commission envisage in the fight against rogue directory companies?
Member of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission shares the European Parliament's concerns and misgivings and its critical analysis of this issue. The misleading practices of business directories are causing problems for numerous companies. Three years ago, we commissioned a survey and received thousands of complaints. We can only assume that this is just the tip of the iceberg, which means that the number of businesses that feel they have been misled could be many times greater.
Mrs Reding, the Commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, is currently collecting data in order to establish the scope of the problem. I want to emphasise the fact that practices of this kind are already banned under the terms of Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and of anti-fraud legislation in the various Member States. However, some of these fraudulent practices take place across national borders and are used in business transactions between different companies and, as things currently stand, it is difficult to prosecute the perpetrators.
In order to address and resolve this problem, Mrs Reding plans to issue a communication by the end of the year which will report on the status of the implementation of the existing directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising and on the current opportunities for revising it and which will provide an evaluation of the situation. She is considering improving the content and looking at the conclusions to be drawn from misleading practices. She is also focusing on how the cooperation between the national authorities on the prosecution of cross-border cases can be improved.
She also plans to propose that citizens and companies should be made more aware of the growing problem of misleading business directories and to highlight the need for more public relations activities in this area. The 2006 directive has been implemented by all the Member States. Nevertheless, the Commission has asked the Member States to inform us about the implementation and the measures they have taken and to submit a status report as soon as possible, before the planned communication is issued. This process was supported by a conference organised at the end of May by the Commission involving national authorities, interest groups and independent experts. The conference focused on the fraudulent practices of business directories and, in particular, cross-border activities.
During the debate, it became clear that better and more systematic cooperation between the authorities in the Member States is needed and this will be incorporated into Mrs Reding's communication at the end of the year. I can assure you that we see this issue as being just as urgent as you do. This is why we want to take the next steps as quickly as possible. However, for formal reasons, we must ensure that those businesses which are affected are involved in an appropriate way and, therefore, we need the time to do this. On the basis of the results of the consultation process and after examining all the arguments, the Commission intends to take further corrective measures to prevent misleading and illegal cross-border practices. Thank you very much for your broad support on this matter.
Mr President, Commissioner, no one could disagree with what you have said. I wish to relate the trouble suffered by a fellow Greek, who complained to me about a similar misadventure as the result of misleading advertising and gave me all the relevant documents. It says at the top of the letter sent out by the misleading company that the information is free of charge. Seeing that he had to enter certain information, my fellow countryman entered the information and sent off the letter. In tiny print at the bottom of the letter, it said, as Mr Busuttil said earlier, that he had to pay EUR 1 000 a year. Some time after that, the alleged legal department of the company sent out letters, which I have here, asking my fellow countryman to pay EUR 3 529.38, which apparently included interest and the company's legal costs.
Commissioner, obviously, there is a legislative framework. However, we do not know if these directives are being applied and have been adequately transposed by the Member States. The Stockholm programme says that we need to address these issues directly. We stand next to our fellow citizens; we are involved in their day-to-day problems. Our fellow citizens need to understand that we are not in some far off place, that we do not deal only with major European issues. We are with them in their day-to-day lives. We need to resolve this issue immediately.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (SK) Madam President, it is clear, first and foremost, that these companies are not only misleading, but are also fraudulent.
Entrepreneurship is meaningful insofar as it contributes to society as a whole, but if someone engages in pseudo-business in order to lure other, honest traders and companies to a directory purely for the sake of their own enrichment, and in doing so uses subterfuge, this is downright fraud, no matter how much they protest that they are not doing anything illegal. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that these directory company practices clearly are outside the law according to the directive on misleading and comparative advertising.
Nevertheless, there is no need to introduce new legislation. Rather, we should be concentrating on applying the law in practice as quickly and effectively as possible. The problem is that these companies often swoop on undertakings in another EU Member State, and these frequently small family businesses either do not have the knowledge or the ability to put up a legal defence, or find that it will cost them a lot of money and effort. I have only one additional question: does the Commission believe there is scope for a public campaign to name the individual companies involved and call on honest business not to associate with them?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I would say to the Commissioner that over the last number of years, I have met many Irish citizens who have been victims of misleading business directory companies.
For example, I met a school secretary who paid over EUR 2 000 because the school could not afford to pay it as she felt responsible because she had signed the form. She also felt very foolish. She thought nobody could be so stupid as to do what she had done, not realising of course that this happens to people all the time.
I met an elderly lady whose husband was a taxi driver. She received a form on which there were some errors. She merely thought she was correcting the errors, sent the form back and subsequently received threatening letters for two years. She was terrorised by those letters to the extent that she was afraid to open the letter when it arrived at her door. I could not tell her not to pay the money. All I could say was that if I were in her position, I would not pay the money. That was the best advice I could give her.
There are lots of other examples, which I know you have heard. The truth is that citizens expect to be protected by European legislation and they cannot understand why European legislation does not protect them in this respect. There is an ambiguity here. As I said, I tell citizens that I believe that they are protected, but I cannot guarantee it. It is my understanding, for example, that one of these companies was convicted in one region of Spain, and yet all it did was simply move to another region and continue its work.
One of the matters that concerns citizens is that they are not sure of how legal systems operate in other countries. They may feel that within their own Member State they will be protected, but they are not sure what happens in another Member State. Equally, if these companies move outside the EU, they also have concerns about that.
It is good to hear, therefore, that the Commission shares our concern and that it is pushing for cooperation between Member States and again looking at cross-border cases and trying to inform citizens and companies.
Commissioner, you said the situation was urgent, but it has been urgent for a very, very long time. Citizens see many areas where EU legislation impacts on their lives, and so they cannot understand why they are not protected from fraudulent companies. I would ask you, Commissioner, to understand that the word 'urgent' means 'now'.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, I absolutely agree with what Mrs Harkin has just said. In my constituency in Scotland, it is the elderly and people who run bed-and-breakfast establishments or self-catering holiday cottages that fall foul of this criminal activity. They enter addresses into this directory and then receive a bill for a thousand euro. The elderly are terrified when they get these threatening letters from the supposedly legal representatives of these companies.
This is a cross-border criminal activity. These companies give their identities and they give their addresses. We have to track them down, close them down, prosecute them and protect the citizens of the European Union. When any member of the public contacts me in my constituency, I simply say to them to write back to the company and tell it to send all future correspondence to me. They never hear another thing. However, these people must also be imprisoned.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, this motion is badly needed. Even though we have the 2006 directive, it is plain that it is not working as well as it should. The companies we have heard of exist solely to swindle unsuspecting and sometimes over-stretched organisations, and I find that particularly outrageous when they are damaging community enterprises, often with limited budgets.
Using tactics like those of bully-boys and racketeers, they dangle promises in front of unsuspecting people, but I think the message has got to be that if an offer seems to be too good to be true, then most probably it is. These companies are like predatory sharks and they should be stopped.
Certainly, our group welcomes this resolution, it is very timely and we will be supporting it, as it calls on the Commission to require Member States to adequately enforce the directive.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, I know the European City Guide best and, in spite of attempts to close it down, this menace continues. In the UK in May 2008, the Misleading Marketing Regulations came into force. They outlaw using the small print of any document to hide the true cost of a service. So the Office of Fair Trading can now take action against UK companies, but there is a serious drawback.
The OFT does not have jurisdiction to tackle any scams from elsewhere, including from other Member States, so the problem continues and I continue to receive my share of complaints. More to the point, while they may operate elsewhere due to lax policing, why can my own government not prevent what comes from mainland Europe? The answer to that lies at the heart of this useless EU, which has demolished national frontiers. The free movement of people, goods and services provides perfect cover for the people traffickers, the terrorists and for threatening, traumatising scams aimed at fleecing the unwary.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we can summarise in figures the situation regarding misleading business directories that are supposed to be free. Four hundred petitions have been sent to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions. Fifty thousand very small businesses, associations or organisations have been affected and harassed into paying. An average of EUR 1 000 is required to be paid over three years for unwanted contracts, as Mr Busuttil has already mentioned.
These figures only partly reflect the suffering of the victims of these scams. These people are already taking risks by starting up their company, and quickly have to face the challenges of business, the economic crisis and the uncertainties of the future. We must prevent them from being subjected to these fraudulent practices, which they do not have the financial or human resources to resist.
Several proposals are possible: firstly, we must put a stop to these scams that are weakening our economy. To do so, Commissioner, it would be advisable to speed up the revision of the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, in light of the fact that fraudulent advertising is increasing and becoming more sophisticated.
We should then create a blacklist of these companies, serving as a reference based on the principle of 'naming and shaming'. With help from the national authorities responsible for fighting fraud and from the affected businesses, we could have a simple and effective tool for deterrence and prevention. Finally, we must severely punish those involved in this system. The penalties and fines incurred are often lower than the amounts collected in these scams. We should encourage Member States to be stricter in this area.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Oettinger, the Commission shares the European Parliament's concerns. This is very nice, but we have been waiting for years for the Commission to take action and to make some genuine progress in this area. We have Mr Busuttil's report in front of us. In the last parliamentary term, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection repeatedly highlighted the fact that we finally need to do something to help people. The problem is that people are still waiting for this help to arrive.
Many of the small voluntary organisations that are affected do not have the financial means or the chutzpah to defend themselves. Only last week I received another letter asking: 'How can I defend myself? I do not have the money for a lawyer, so I cannot take legal proceedings'. I believe that we must finally give the citizens of Europe an effective means of ridding themselves of this problem.
Madam President, dodgy scams, which are fraudulent in nature and prey on small businesses using a veil of legitimacy - often with Europe in their titles - must be made illegal. These scams do not just damage small businesses, which are threatened, harassed and bullied into paying fees for something they believed to be free; they damage the European Union when we do not take firm action to help.
It is the mantra of the European Commission, after all, to 'think small first', yet I have been raising this issue, as many colleagues have said, for many, many years, and yet no direct action has been taken: why not? We hear about surveys, information gatherings, and stakeholder meetings. We need action not words, and if we say that we will only wait to the end of this year, or give it another few years, then that is just too little too late: we must act now.
So, given the nature of these scams and their EU-wide and cross-border nature, will the Commission consider introducing a form of legal aid to assist SMEs in tackling these scams? These types of scams will continue until the Commission takes tough action.
Madam President, the European Parliament has received hundreds of petitions from small businesses across the EU who claim to have fallen victim to these schemes. While paying these outrageous fees may put innocent companies under severe financial hardship, the victims are often too small to afford the legal costs of bringing actions against these directory companies.
These companies often target victims that are based in another Member State. This creates legal uncertainty for the victims, as they often do not know what the legal status is of such contracts in another country. The directory companies play on that uncertainty.
Whilst the Commission has clearly stated that the directive on misleading and comparative advertising outlaws the misleading practices of these directory companies, it must also look at the transposing of that directive by the Member States in order to clarify whether citizens are protected equally across Europe. The fact that this directive has been transposed by Member States does not necessarily mean that these measures are either comprehensive or in conformity with one another.
(EL) Madam President, unfair commercial practices are like water. As soon as they find a crack, in they go. They have found two cracks here. One crack is the 2006 directive, which has already been mentioned; the other crack is the regulation on cooperation between the Member States.
Commissioner, as you have the support of all the factions in Parliament, of the entire Parliament, you should act quickly, because time is money. As my fellow Members have already said, at least three years have passed, three years during which these people, these hustlers, as they have rightly been called by numerous fellow Members - and I am with them - are misleading colleagues and are misleading small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of the European economy. You need to act and to act quickly.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed vital to know whether the directive on misleading and comparative advertising has been properly transposed and applied in the Member States. However, we must also quickly and fully address other fundamental aspects of this problem, which can also be applied to other forms of cross-border scams.
Firstly, the Commission, Member States and their organisations must provide consumers with information upstream. It is unacceptable that more and more citizens are being scammed.
Secondly, victims should have access to class actions in order to assert their rights. We have been waiting for these actions for over 20 years.
Thirdly, the current discussion on the reform of alternative dispute resolutions could also include provisions to deal with these scams.
Commissioner, we expect you to take swift and concrete measures in this regard.
Madam President, the position is exactly as colleagues have pointed out. I know this because in my own constituency, particularly in Cork, a company called the European City Guide has been fraudulently engaging with businesses all over the place. Despite the fact that, as I understand it, it was asked to cease trading by the high court in Catalonia in 2001 and was found to be guilty of misleading practices in the Belgian courts and by the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading, it continues to trade. This is not good enough.
It is very important that we do two things: firstly, we have to try and raise awareness amongst businesses right across Europe to ensure they are vigilant and do not fall foul of these misleading companies and, secondly, we have to bring in legislation that ensures that, when they are taken to court, they either cease trading or are put behind bars. It is as simple as that.
(CS) Madam President, Parliament has received over 400 petitions, and I myself have received many complaints from businesses, non-profit organisations, schools, charities and even government institutions which have become victims of the fraud perpetrated by business directory companies. They make costly financial commitments in the belief that they are updating their information. The operations of rogue directory companies are deliberately managed across borders or from third countries. We need a clear pan-European solution, but the European Commission, which holds the legislative initiative, has done nothing for years, despite all the efforts of the European Parliament.
In my role as shadow rapporteur, I have put forward numerous solutions in Parliament's report. In reality, all the Commission need do is propose blacklisting these prohibited deceptive advertising practices under the relevant directive. We need a robust European legislative solution, and we need it quickly.
I urge the Commission to apply the accelerated legislative procedure. Many honest citizens have lost a lot of money because of the Commission's blameworthy laxity in this case. In my opinion, a Europol investigation is also warranted.
(CS) Madam President, the unfair practices of some of these so-called business directory companies continue to pose a serious problem. Their operations always rely primarily on circumventions of the law and on very poor law enforcement. Many entities are deterred from taking legal action by the cost. Conversely, there have been many instances of absurd judgments based on the formalistic approach taken by judicial and other supervisory bodies.
What these swindlers mostly rely on, however, is the poor level of legal knowledge among the institutions responsible and, regrettably, their lack of willingness and courage in many cases, and a certain indolence. Their formalistic interpretation of the law allows them to avoid getting involved, to avoid prosecuting these cases, and to wash their hands of them. Paradoxically, it is then the swindlers' interests that are protected rather than their victims.
The question put to the Commission rightly asks how the Member States approach this issue. How have they applied the directive on misleading and comparative advertising? Unless the state plays an active and not just a formal role, this problem will remain truly intractable and the petitions from defrauded victims will accumulate. And yet we are not powerless in this matter.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Oettinger, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) strongly supports the move to free small and medium-sized businesses from the menace of business directories, which allegedly provide a service for these companies, but which ultimately do not have any real consequences except invoices. However, as you, Mr Oettinger, have rightly said, Directive 2006/114/EC provides a legal basis for this which has obviously not been successfully implemented in some Member States. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will tackle the root of the problem and take a systematic approach to resolving it as quickly as possible in the Member States where the situation is particularly bad. Of course, because of the cross-border nature of the entries, the problem can spill over from these Member States into other neighbouring countries.
A broad-brush approach will not work in this case because it is clear that the problem lies with certain Member States.
(RO) Madam President, business directories are one of the most widely used sources of information about the offerings available in a particular business sector. They enjoy a high standing among European consumers thanks to their prestige. This is why misleading business directories cause harm to the people who use them. This practice can be ended by implementing the directive on misleading and comparative advertising properly. Unfortunately, not all Member States have transposed this text into their legislation. This means that the victims cannot be compensated for the harm they have suffered. Revising the directive would provide the instruments needed to combat this practice. Supplementing EU legislation with specific provisions would also limit the appearance of misleading business directories. I think that the victims of these practices must have the opportunity to have direct recourse to the justice system.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that this is really a European problem. Everyone is familiar with these cases and we are hearing stories from a number of different countries. I have a whole stack of these cases on my desk and I admit that I would have fallen for most of them. The problem is, and we have covered this on numerous occasions, we have Directive 2006/114/EC, we discussed the matter in 2008 in the Committee on Petitions, and we have held debates here in plenary, but the problem is continuing and even growing in size.
Mr Oettinger, I heard what you said at the beginning and I have the impression that the problem has landed with you. Perhaps a new Commissioner will have a new opportunity to take action in this area. I would like to ask you to take the problem seriously. It may seem to be a small problem, but it has a serious economic impact and it affects small, medium-sized and family-run companies in particular and they form the backbone of our national economies and our society. If we do not succeed in stopping this in all the Member States and in implementing the directive uniformly and effectively throughout Europe, even greater damage will be caused.
Member of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, I am grateful for the wide-ranging and consistent description of the situation given by the committed Members who are here today. I will inform Mrs Reding about this and encourage her to draw up a comprehensive communication covering the strengths and the weaknesses of current European and national law and to revise the directive on this basis.
It is clear that the 2006 directive has been implemented by the Member States. Therefore, this is not primarily a problem of adapting national law. Firstly, in the event of cross-border problems, the law is often not even applied in many cases, as a result of the less than ideal cooperation between the authorities in the different Member States, and, therefore, these cases are not investigated at all. Secondly, there is often a failure to prosecute. Criminal law is a matter for the Member States, both in terms of setting penalties and of formal investigations of these cases by the authorities, public prosecutors or the courts.
Thirdly, and now I am coming to the heart of the matter, the 2006 directive only covers unfair practices in business dealings between businesses and consumers and not between one business and another. This means that it mainly provides protection for private citizens against these fraudulent companies. It does not protect citizens who are entrepreneurs, sole traders, retailers, businesspeople and tradesmen or who own small or medium-sized businesses against this type of fraud. However, it is precisely this point, extending the scope of the directive to include business dealings between companies, which was opposed by the majority of the Member States during the legislative process at the time. This means that we quite deliberately restricted ourselves on the basis of this directive to European regulation of dealings between fraudulent companies and citizens and not between fraudulent companies and small businesses. European regulation of the issue which you are rightly complaining about on the basis of practical experience was not wanted at the time.
The directive was an ambitious European project and, at the time, the Commission was concerned that the whole proposal would be sabotaged and that there would be no directive at all if it had insisted on extending the directive beyond the relationship between fraudsters and citizens. In the light of the specific examples you have mentioned here and the cases of abuse uncovered by the Commission, it may be possible to broaden the scope of the directive beyond the relationship between fraudulent companies and citizens in the revision which is due to take place next year. We will start work on this immediately.
Finally, there are Member States which have satisfactory provisions under substantive and criminal law covering the relationship between fraudsters and citizens and which prosecute cases of this kind. Good examples include Austria, Belgium and France. There are other Member States, and you have referred to some of them here, where the national regulations are not adequate. We must wait and see whether these Member States will be prepared in the Council in a year's time to vote in favour of a general, EU-wide, standardised regulation to protect citizens who are also businesspeople.
I have received one motion for a resolution from the Committee on Petitions tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The problem is real, unfortunately very widespread and can be observed almost across the whole European Union. The victims sign a contract in good faith to be advertised in a business directory after having been led to believe that this would be free of charge. Then the operators require payment on different grounds, and continuously harass, put under psychological stress and even threaten with legal action those who do not pay up. A review as to whether the corresponding Union law is effectively implemented by Member States is inevitable in order to avoid further misleading advertising and, if necessary, a new amendment of the relevant Union law should be proposed in order to solve the current problem. The most important thing now is to demonstrate to the enterprises in trouble that we not only understand their plight but also fully support them. At the same time, it is imperative to ask misleading business directory companies to cease and desist their deliberately misleading business activities, because they are contrary to the spirit of the Union's competition policy.


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting : see Minutes


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes