Petitions: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.50 p.m.)


17. Political parties at European level and rules regarding their funding (


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
(IT) With this vote, the European Parliament has expressed its confidence in the European Ombudsman, whose mandate will last until the end of our parliamentary term.
I must point out that this is a positive vote for all of us, for all European citizens. The European Ombudsman will deal with citizens' complaints concerning the maladministration of our institutions. The Ombudsman has responded before Parliament, he has answered questions concerning how to make his own work more transparent, how to improve cooperation between Parliament and the Ombudsman's officers, as well as communication with the public.
His role will be very important in defending European citizens, in helping them in their contacts with public administration, and perhaps also in making European citizens feel they are in a common Europe. Reducing what is, at times, an unproductive burden of bureaucracy is an objective that we must all work towards.
The European Union will be even more political if it is able to put citizens at the heart of its action. This is why I hope that the new Ombudsman will be able to apply past experiences to further improve the positive relationship with European citizens.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that our rapporteur, Mrs Joly, and all the political groups, have done an excellent job of drafting this report, which I, along with my colleagues from the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), strongly support.
In particular, I would like to express my support for the part of the report in which it is highlighted that negotiations on the revision of the Cotonou Agreement should take account, on the one hand, of the consequences of the financial crisis, and, on the other, of migration and, above all, of the need to curb illegal immigration.
This, in fact, has a very negative impact, both on the economies of the ACP countries, which, as a result of immigration, are losing the labour force and the qualified workers that are necessary for development, and on those EU countries that are the worst hit by illegal immigration, countries such as Italy, whose capacity to absorb immigrants has economic and occupational limits that cannot be exceeded if a social decline is to be avoided.
(NL) Mr President, I voted against the Joly report even though I believe we all agree on one of its central arguments, namely that we need to conduct a policy that focuses on promoting the economic development of the African countries themselves, in order to combat the brain drain and enable skilled Africans to devote themselves to the development of their own countries at long last. I understand and support this. Why, then, does the same report argue so stubbornly in favour of a policy of new emigration from African countries and of new immigration to Europe? After all, this actually promotes the brain drain of the most skilled, dynamic and enterprising Africans. I maintain that the 'Blue Card' is disastrous for Europe and particularly harmful to Africa and the African people. The 'circular migration' that is mentioned, last but not least, is a pipe dream, as these immigrants do not return home and a new breeding ground for illegal immigration is created.
Mr President, our agenda this week, and today particularly, has been thin, meagre and truncated. We all know why. The week has been given over to backroom manoeuvring. I would say manoeuvring in smoke-filled rooms but, this being Brussels, I will say smoke-free rooms.
We have come through this nonsense of the hearings. It has produced candidates concerning whom I have to say that I have not heard of a single Member of this House who thinks we are now about to appoint the 27 best-qualified men and women in the whole of the European Union to the awesome powers concentrated in the hands of the European Commission. Not only will they be the executive, they will also have the right to initiate law - a concentration of power that is extraordinary in any context, but all the more so when we bear in mind that they are not directly answerable to the electorate. This is the most exclusive electorate in Europe - 736 MEPs get to decide who will run the continent.
You do not have to be a eurosceptic to find that objectionable. It seems to me extraordinary that this continent, which exported the idea of representative government and parliamentary democracy, which carried the seeds of democracy to far continents where they found fertile soil, should now have taken the axe to the ancestral tree here in Europe. All of us are diminished by that process.
Mr President, when considering EU-ACP relations, surely the first principle should be how we help take people out of poverty in many of these countries.
When I speak to entrepreneurs in these countries, they complain to me about how, even 40 years after independence for many of them, they have suffered from the problems of 40 years of socialism, where they are still dependent on primary economies and also over-dependent on aid.
The entrepreneurs in these countries also tell me how trade barriers actually harm these countries and how it makes imports of food and medicines more expensive for the very poorest citizens. They complain about EU tariff and non-tariff barriers, and I am glad that the EU-ACP goes some way to tackling some of the tariff barriers, if not the non-tariff barriers.
I am also pleased that the Commission has actually set up a unit that helps entrepreneurs in developing countries to export into the EU. We must remember the first principle is that the best way to help the poorest out of poverty is to encourage more trade and to help the entrepreneurs in poorer countries.
(NL) Mr President, paragraph 31 alone, which calls on the Commission to include the principle of circular migration and its facilitation by granting circular visas, was sufficient reason to vote against the Joly report. 'Circular migration' is a mirage. It is something that exists in official EU documents and the like but not - with a few exceptions - in the real world. What circular migration boils down to is that an immigrant is granted a limited residence permit but remains in Europe after its expiry date and goes underground. This is the reality of so-called circular migration. Circular migration is a driving force for illegal immigration; the Commission knows it and Parliament knows it too. Nevertheless, this term is used time and time again to make people believe that many immigrants return to their countries of origin further down the line. We would do well, therefore, to stop covering up reality as soon as possible.
Mr President, with your permission, I just want to make a point regarding time-keeping because far too often here in this House, too many people are going way over their time - and they are allowed to do so. Some take nearly double the time allotted. I would appeal to the President and Vice-Presidents to use their gavel to effect, so that time-keeping is within the rules and that those who want to come in on catch-the-eye, etc. have an opportunity to do so.
Written explanations of vote
Mr President, the role of the European Ombudsman for the citizens is of vital importance for the proper functioning and the transparency of the European institutions, which represent some 27 Member States and almost 500 million citizens. I would like to focus, in this House, on the importance of the Ombudsman's role in the protection of EU languages, given the numerous complaints received in the past few years concerning linguistic discrimination, complaints which have also concerned the Italian language. I am therefore delighted by the reappointment of the European Ombudsman and, as well as wishing him well in his work, I invite him to pay due attention to linguistic protection.
I welcome the re-election of Nikiforos Diamandouros to the office of European Ombudsman for another term until 2014. I also support the Ombudsman in his following primary objectives: to ensure that the European Union's citizens will enjoy the benefits and resources of the Treaty of Lisbon and to achieve better cooperation with national and regional ombudsmen, thereby ensuring greater transparency of activity at European level.
in writing. - I fully support the re-election Mr Nikiforos Diamandouros to the office of European Ombudsman. The European Ombudsman investigates complaints against the institutions and bodies of the European Union. The Ombudsman must be an independent, non-partisan and impartial public servant. Mr Diamandouros has proven himself to be a highly professional and efficient advocate on behalf of the citizen. He has not been fearful of being critical of any European Institution, including the European Parliament, when necessary. Now that the Charter of Fundamental rights has the same legal value as the treaties, I am confident that the charter, and especially, the right to good administration, will be at the heart of Mr Diamandouros' work as Ombudsman.
In a Europe that wishes to be closer to citizens and more at the service of the people of Europe, it is essential that those people are able to exercise effective control over the institutions and bodies of the EU. This is precisely where the role of the European Ombudsman proves to be indispensable, as the citizens report to him any administrative irregularities, discrimination, abuse of power or absence, or the refusal to answer a specific question put to an EU institution or body.
In this regard, I welcome the election of the new European Ombudsman for the next five years, and hope that in his mandate, he will be guided by the founding values of the European Union - liberty and justice. This will ensure that European citizens have better institutions and effective control over them, making the EU stronger, fairer and more united.
The European Ombudsman acts in order to tackle cases of poor administration by Community institutions and bodies, either on his own initiative, or by following up a complaint. This means that the European Ombudsman is helping to construct a Europe of Citizens just as the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has become legally binding. It should be noted that the right to good administration is a fundamental right for European citizens, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In 2001, the European Parliament approved a resolution on the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which must be respected by the institutions and bodies of the European Union. I would argue that this code should become a European law, which would have legislative coherence in the EU and would be a guarantee that those very basic principles would be adhered to by its institutions when dealing with citizens. It is crucial that European citizens know their rights and how they can go about protecting them and recovering them if they are violated.
Mr President, in the European Parliament, we have, in fact, evaluated Mr Diamandouros' work as Ombudsman every year when we debated the annual reports he submitted, and they have always received top marks. In the course of his work during two terms of office, Mr Diamandouros has undertaken numerous initiatives to raise awareness of the office of Ombudsman, which has meant that increasing numbers of citizens have been using his help. The latest figures, which come from 2008, show 3 406 complaints in comparison with 3 211 the year before. It is worth noting the fact that the Ombudsman has not restricted himself just to examining complaints which are formally admissible, but has also given information about the possibility of claiming rights in the case of complaints which do not, in fact, come within his remit.
In addition, Mr Diamandouros has initiated very valuable cooperation between ombudsmen of the individual Member States, which has enabled exchange of information and good practices. On his initiative, liaison officers have been appointed in the offices of national ombudsmen, and information on the implementation and application of EU law is published in the 'Ombudsman Newsletter'. Therefore, I sincerely congratulate Mr Diamandouros on his achievements and on his re-election as European Ombudsman, and am counting on fruitful cooperation during the current term of the European Parliament.
in writing. - Dear colleagues, I rise today in appreciation of the work of our ombudsman, Mr Nikiforos Diamandouros. He has executed his duties in line with all of the rules and he has done so with independence and integrity. He is someone who is championing the principal that EU institutions must be transparent. Let's be frank colleagues; our citizens are not as engaged in European affairs as we would like them to be. Therefore, it is necessary that our EU institutions operate as if from behind a pane of glass. This ombudsman has so far demonstrated an ability to operate with this principal so I welcome his re-appointment. Many thanks.
in writing. - I am very pleased that Nikiforos Diamandouros has been re-elected as European Ombudsman. He has been a very good champion of citizens' rights, and I am pleased he will continue in this role.
In the vote to elect the Ombudsman, I voted for Pierre-Yves Monette. He was the only one to take the trouble to introduce himself to the non-attached Members of the European Parliament and to answer their questions.
We have, today, reached a decision on the election of the European Ombudsman. This election is extremely important for the citizens of the European Union, because the European Ombudsman deals with the protection of human rights. He examines complaints made by EU citizens about improprieties in European institutions. In this way, Europeans have a certain kind of control over every body, office, institution and agency of the Union.
Therefore, it is extremely important that our citizens be aware of their rights. They need to know that, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, their influence on the functioning of EU institutions has increased. In addition, according to the new ombudsman, the European Ombudsman is going to work more closely with other European institutions. It is also pleasing that citizens of the new Member States are making use of the possibility to lodge a complaint, which is testified by the relatively high number of complaints recorded in previous years. This shows that the residents of the new Member States are interested in issues connected with the European Union and are not indifferent to the EU.
I voted in favour of the report on the temporary suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira, as this aims to increase the competitiveness of economic operators from the Azores (manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers). This would ensure more stable employment in the Azores and thus overcome the economic disadvantages that exist due to the islands' location.
This temporary suspension of taxes, allowing local economic operators in the Azores and Madeira to import a certain amount of raw materials, parts, components and finished products duty-free, covering areas such as fishing, agriculture, industry and services, provides favourable conditions for long-term investment.
These measures will also go some way to helping small and medium-sized enterprises and local farmers, allowing them to create jobs and invest in the outermost regions. Given the current economic crisis, the need for specific measures to stimulate economic activity and stabilise jobs is paramount.
I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores on the basis of the report by my excellent Polish colleague, Mrs Hübner. The regional authorities of Madeira and the Azores, in agreement with the government of their Member State, Portugal, have requested the temporary suspension of Common Customs Tariff duties to promote the competitiveness of local economic operators and to stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the Union. I am completely in favour of the Union supporting the special features of the outermost territories, provided that such tolerance does not feed speculation or deviate from its intended objective.
I support the Commission's proposal on the temporary suspension of the application of Common Customs Tariff duties, as I believe that the EU must demonstrate, and not just declare its solidarity with regions fighting the consequences of the economic crisis. I believe this measure is coordinated with the European Economic Recovery Plan, because the economic crisis has affected different EU Member States and EU regions in different ways, and therefore we must ensure that there are measures to meet the specific economic needs of each Member State or region.
Since these islands are dependent on tourism, and tourism is in decline, there is a growing threat of unemployment and the collapse of small and medium-sized business and this would hit the inhabitants of these far off islands particularly hard. By applying the customs exemption, the Community must also ensure that this measure ensures the basic objective - to promote local enterprise and help local farmers and small and medium-sized businesses to survive this difficult period - and that these principles are applied to other EU Member States.
The development of the outermost regions is severely hampered by factors such as the structure of society and the economy, extreme remoteness and insularity, their small size, difficult terrain and climate, and their economic dependency. This means that it is vital that the European Union continues to pay special attention to these regions, identifying problems and areas of potential, studying their differences and weaknesses, so that it can implement policies and measures that are suitable for their economic and social development. I welcome the proposal for a Council regulation, as this represents an incentive for sustainable development and the integration of the outermost regions into the world economy. The temporary suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties will allow the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores to overcome the economic disadvantages that arise from their geographical location, and also tackle the specific effects that they are experiencing due to the economic crisis. I applaud the initiative by the regional authorities of Madeira and the Azores and their commitment in contributing to a development strategy for their regions, which also contributes to the competitiveness of the European Union, and its capacity for sustainable economic development.
I voted in favour of the report on the temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores. This suspension will help to strengthen the competitiveness of local economic operators and will contribute to creating and maintaining jobs in the outermost regions, acting as a counterbalance to the economic disadvantages arising from their geographical location, without affecting the consolidation of the internal market or the principle of free competition within the EU.
I believe that the temporary suspension of autonomous customs duties is essential in order to strengthen the competitiveness of economic operators in the Portuguese Autonomous Regions of Madeira and the Azores, so as to ensure more stable employment on these islands.
This suspension will allow local economic operators on Madeira and the Azores to import raw materials, parts, components and finished products duty-free, since these products are to be used locally, for processing or manufacturing.
The approval of this exception is crucial for the development of these Portuguese Autonomous Regions, both of which rely heavily on the tourism industry and are consequently highly vulnerable to the volatility of this sector. This means that their full economic development is limited by the characteristics of their local economy and their geographical position.
In the light of this, any incentive for local industry certainly provides support necessary for improving the living conditions for local people, and opens the way for the creation of jobs on the islands, which is essential for retaining people and creating conditions for development.
The temporary suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties will allow local economic operators in the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores to import a certain quota of raw materials, parts, components and finished products duty-free. These raw materials will have to be used in farming and for industrial processing and maintenance in the autonomous regions.
This suspension will be in force until 31 December 2019, and measures are expected to be put in place to prevent this giving rise to any unfair competition. This strengthens the competitiveness of SMEs and farmers in our autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores.
This measure is tailored to the specific needs of these outermost regions, and will stimulate economic activity, thus helping to stabilise employment. The local economies of Madeira and the Azores largely depend on domestic and international tourism, which have been affected by the current economic crisis. This means that this suspension is completely justified, and it is expected to have a positive impact on the economic development of these regions.
I would like to call for swifter analysis and decision making in these kinds of processes, so that we can respond to them in a more efficient and timely manner.
I therefore voted in favour.
The regional authorities of Madeira and the Azores called for the introduction of the temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products, with the aim of strengthening and ensuring more stable productivity and employment in these outermost regions.
We agree with the content of the proposals contained in the document. However, we believe that components which fall outside the agricultural purposes stipulated in the regulation could also be considered as components for industrial purposes, particularly in the field of energy and the environment, such as parts and components for the energy industry, especially so-called 'clean energy' (wind power, solar power, etc.)
The suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores until 2019 is very important for these outermost regions of the EU at this time of global economic crisis. It is vital for helping SMEs and local farmers, as it will strengthen the competitiveness of local economic operators and ensure more stable employment in these regions.
The regional authorities of Madeira and the Azores have requested the temporary suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties in order to strengthen the competitive position of the local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the Union. In order to ensure that the goods imported, be they raw materials parts or finished products, do not distort competition, they will be subject to controls ensuring their use by local companies on the islands for a period of at least two years before they can be sold freely to companies situated in other parts of the Union. How is that to be implemented in practice? As no plausible clarification can be given, I have abstained from the vote.
I welcome the position that the Commission has taken on the 10-year suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores, and the report by Mrs Hübner, which together:
1. Establish positive discrimination in favour of the outermost regions of the Azores and Madeira, acknowledging that the structural limitations that affect these regions are permanent by their very nature;
2. Create conditions for stimulating economic activity and employment in the island groups, thus also contributing to demographic stability in the islands.
This is an example of the cohesion that can be achieved by a European Union built on the principle of solidarity.
The development of the outermost regions is circumscribed by their remoteness, insularity, climate and difficult geographical features, and their economic dependence on a limited number of goods and services.
The regulation that we will vote upon today will allow Madeira and the Azores to import a range of finished products for agricultural, commercial or industrial use, along with raw materials, parts and components for use in agriculture, processing or industrial maintenance, with the benefit of exemption from customs duties until the end of 2019.
Furthermore, this exemption will be extended to the whole territory of both regions, not only their duty-free zones, thus benefiting all types of local economic operators.
I recall that this matter was subject to a simplified legislative procedure so as to speed it up. The Chair of the Committee on Regional Development herself was the rapporteur for the proposal, which has allowed it to be submitted to plenary for voting without it being put to debate.
I am very happy with the final result, which incorporates the amendments that I proposed, covering a range of products to equip the Free Zone of Madeira, contained in a regulation from 2000 but having lapsed in 2008, along with additional requests presented in 2008 and 2009, which were not contained in the initial proposal by the Commission.
The proposal from the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs proposing the appointment of Ana Palacio Vallelersundi to the panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is, in principle, to be welcomed. However, from an institutional point of view, it is incomprehensible why a separate panel of seven people should make binding proposals to the national governments. I therefore voted against this proposal.
In today's vote on the appointment of Ana Palacio Vallelersundi to the panel set up to assess candidates' suitability to perform the duties of judge or advocate-general in the Court of Justice and the General Court, I voted against the proposal, because, in addition to the candidates' first-rate legal knowledge, I expect the person appointed by the European Parliament also to examine their social suitability and competence. In this regard, I have no confidence in Mrs Palacio, because I fear that she would not take account of the possession of social values and an understanding of human nature when assessing the judges and advocates-general. Particularly in view of the stipulation of the goals and values in the Treaty of Lisbon - the social market economy has been mentioned here - and the enshrining of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in primary law, this will be absolutely essential in the selection of judges and advocates-general in future.
The temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores is intended to give a long-term perspective to investors and enable economic operators to reach a certain level of industrial and commercial activities. As a socialist, I believe that these measures should be retained for as long as these regions are facing major economic problems. I welcome the Commission's proposal because the adoption of this measure will bring stability to employment in the medium term and to the economic and social environment in these outermost regions of Europe which are faced with specific problems. However, I cannot but draw your attention to the risks which the temporary suspension of customs duties entails for products which have originated from such countries. This is why we must monitor closely the impact this suspension has on competition.
In accordance with Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament is one of the institutions which proposes candidates to be members of the panel whose task it is to give an opinion on candidates' suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice. In view of the fact that there are only seven members of the panel and that their task is a very responsible one, it is important they be persons of impeccable reputation and high ability. As a Member of the European Parliament and thanks to the new powers given by the Treaty of Lisbon, I have an influence on the election of one of the seven people on the panel, and I am pleased with the candidature of Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi. Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi was a Member of the European Parliament for eight years, and was twice elected by fellow Members as a member of the Conference of Committee Chairs.
She was also Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Justice and Home Affairs. In addition, her other professional achievements, such as holding the position of Chief Adviser to the World Bank and being Spain's first female Minister for Foreign Affairs, do not leave any doubt that she will be the right person in the right job.
I voted in favour of the report on the revision of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement because I believe that this text contains key elements to be taken into account in the negotiations that are currently under way.
The coherence of different European policies - whether in trade, development or agriculture and fishing - should be the principle foundation for our relations with this bloc of developing countries.
The new situation, represented by strategic partnership agreements, must be taken into account. These agreements, which are essentially trade agreements, create new platforms for parliamentary dialogue and are to be respected. The new challenges that we are facing, such as climate change and the economic crisis, should give rise to responses that will be included in the new Cotonou Agreement, which is expected to be finalised in March.
It is also important that the European strategy for relationships with ACP countries takes account of the closeness and contacts which the outermost regions have with these countries. The outermost regions can act as the prime intermediaries for the EU in economic partnership agreements. The outermost regions give a special dimension to external action by the EU, thus participating in the development of a genuine policy of broader neighbourhood.
I voted in favour of the report by my fellow French Member, Mrs Joly, on the second revision of the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific)-EU Partnership Agreement ('Cotonou Agreement'). I share the positions of this report on the need to adapt the use of this special instrument with the ACP countries in the light of the current crises, such as climate change, soaring food and fuel prices, the financial crisis and extreme poverty in Africa. The ACP countries are partners of the European Union, and we must nurture this partnership with the aim of having allies in the major negotiations on global governance that are due to take place.
I voted in favour of the report on the Second review of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (the Cotonou Agreement). This is a timely report and it is right and proper that the issue of the Economic Partnership Agreement be discussed on a continuous basis. The primary aims of the Cotonou Agreement are to end poverty, to support sustainable development and to help ACP countries integrate with the global economy.
The agreements and trade talks which are currently taking place, and those which will take place in the future, must move toward fulfilling and strengthening the provisions of the EU and its partners in relation to child labour.
Article 50 of the Cotonou Agreement relates to the promotion of fair working standards and to the improvement of international measures to end child labour. Issues that relate to child labour must be given top priority in EU trade agreements.
As such, I welcome the articles of the report which request that the EU and the ACP start discussions on the future of ACP-EU relations from 2020 onward and which recommend giving a larger role in this process to independent parties, i.e. organisations that are not states or governments.
in writing. - The second revision of the Cotonou Agreement is taking place in a very challenging environment when the global economy is facing crisis. I believe that the revision of the agreement will allow the major principles of cooperation between the EU and the ACP countries to be refreshed and reinforced. The situation has changed since the agreement was first signed and new challenges and problems have arisen. The negotiations on the agreement should encompass such extremely important points as the fight against climate change in developing countries, the practical use of immense renewable energy resources, the food crisis and the acquisition of arable land.
A lot of attention should be given to migration problems. In recent years, we have witnessed hundreds of young Africans drowning off the shores of the EU. Massive immigration is a result of failing economies, impoverishment of the people, human rights violations and many other causes. Those things should be addressed clearly in the revised agreement.
in writing. - I am voting in favour of the draft report on the second revision of the Cotonou Agreement, which introduces key issues about sustainable development and the gradual integration of ACP countries into the global economy. Issues such as climate change, energy security, training and cooperation in educational matters are essential for economic and social development in the ACP countries. Global warming, which predominantly affects developing countries, may also present an opportunity for us. The renewable energy resources that these countries have at their disposal are essential for their economic and social development, and allow them to move towards a state of energy independence, thus helping to tackle the global crisis. Likewise, investment in education and training is important in combating poverty, unemployment, illegal immigration and the brain drain, contributing to development in the ACP countries and helping them to build their own economy.
in writing. - I support this report, which asserts that the second revision of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement must be consistent with the actual global crisis and be carried out in a way that fully respects a partnership of equals. This current second revision of the agreement is a great opportunity to address the root causes of the financial, climate change, food and energy crises, and to learn from past mistakes, bringing meaningful changes to the Cotonou framework, as well as enhancing ACP unity, cohesion and solidarity. The report calls for a stronger reinforcement of the human rights clauses and sanctions. Also the report expresses our regret that parliaments (European Parliament, JPA and national parliaments of the ACP countries) were not consulted by the Member States and had no input in the decision-making process leading to the identification of the areas and articles for revision and to the establishment of the negotiating mandate. The primary objective of the Cotonou Agreement is the reduction and, eventually, the eradication of poverty in a way consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy.
I voted in favour of the report on the second revision of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement to defend the need for changes that will allow us to tackle the great challenges that we are currently facing, such as climate change, the financial crisis and the food crisis.
I welcome the support that Parliament has given to the ACP countries, which want to see climate change addressed as a cross-cutting issue in the second revised version of the Cotonou Agreement. However, I regret that the parliaments (the European Parliament, the Pan-African Parliament and the national parliaments of the ACP countries) have not taken the opportunity to contribute with proposals and to participate actively with Member States in the decision-making process for revising this important agreement.
I hope that the second revised version of the Cotonou Agreement will help to promote sustainable development in ACP countries, which will allow social cohesion and facilitate the fight against poverty.
The effects of the crisis, linked to climate change, are severely felt in the ACP countries, and are becoming increasingly worse. In view of this, the issue of food sovereignty is a vital one. Natural resources should be used properly and the development of renewable energy should be encouraged.
We need to guarantee that all the ACP countries will benefit from a commercial framework that is at least equivalent to the situation previously in force. I would also argue that the European Development Fund (EDF), which backs the cooperation policy for development within the scope of this agreement, should incorporate the budgetary powers of Parliament.
I therefore voted in favour.
Like the rapporteur, we also believe that the second revision of the Cotonou Agreement is a good time to make amendments.
The report sets out principles which, if implemented, would be a step towards improving the agreement, as illustrated by the defence of food sovereignty and security for ACP countries, along with the fight against tax havens.
At the same time, I would condemn certain important aspects, such as the attempt to move towards greater regionalisation in ACP-EU relations, due to the threat that this would pose to the coherence and strength of the ACP group of states.
Elsewhere, the report falls short of what is needed. The state of dependency and subordination to which the ACP countries are subject and the role that current policies on cooperation and development aid have played in establishing this state - a key issue - are not adequately addressed. The consequences that may arise from the implementation of the Economic Partnership Agreements proposed by the EU within this context are not addressed either.
The reservations and objections raised by several ACP countries should have been welcomed in the report, along with their priorities regarding, for instance, the European Development Fund.
in writing. - Dear colleagues, it is with delight today that I address this parliament as we have moved towards a more equal role in the relationship between richer and poorer countries while strengthening human rights. The revision of this agreement must be consistent with the needs of the new world we live in and must be based on a partnership of equals. This is a new world with a new economy where fair distribution of wealth and tackling climate change are new priorities. I wish to commend the work of my own group in the European Parliament who have inserted those principles of eradication of poverty into this revision.
This report undeniably contains some very valuable suggestions and often laudable intentions. The priority given to renewable energies, the obligation for multinationals operating in ACP countries to declare their profits and taxes, the incorporation of the concept of food sovereignty and the criticism of the externalisation by Europe of the management of migratory flows are all proposals that we support. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this report does not change anything in the Cotonou Agreement.
That agreement is a symbol of the European Union's complete adherence to the ultra-liberal logic of the WTO. We are not taken in: the 'development' referred to is a front for the self-serving motivations which have dominated this dismantling of the Lomé agreements. We denounce the implementation of the European Partnership Agreements set out in that agreement, the Commission's use of blackmail in the form of development aid to ensure their conclusion, and the resultant pillaging of the economies of the ACP countries. We are voting against this text so as not to support the European Union's abandonment of the one economic cooperation instrument that is not governed by the obsession with free and undistorted competition or its bowing to the demands of the United States at the WTO.
The recent tragedy that hit Haiti is proof that partnership agreements are not adequate for resolving problems. Therefore, this second revision of the Cotonou Agreement is an excellent opportunity to make adjustments relating to current challenges such as climate change, the steep increase in the price of food and petrol, the financial crisis, and the extreme deprivation in several ACP countries. This is the time to devise measures that will effectively solve the various problems that continue to affect the great majority of countries involved.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the various political groups on their excellent work on this report, which I fully support.
Within the report, I would like to focus attention on the negotiations on the revision of the Cotonou Agreement. In fact, such agreements should take account of varied critical aspects, such as the effects of the financial crisis, the increase in migratory flows and, above all, in illegal immigration.
I am convinced that only an adequate assessment of economic cooperation would make it possible to control the negative impact of the crisis and its consequences, both for the economy of ACP countries, which are losing that workforce and that qualified labour that are necessary for development, and for EU countries that are the worst hit by illegal immigration.
in writing. - It is important that all aspects of the Cotonou Agreement are reviewed in the light of recent developments which are having a significant impact on ACP countries. But I would particularly like to add my voice to the concerns about regional integration, which is relevant not just to ACP countries but also to Latin American countries and particularly the Andean Community. The effect of some trade agreements (agreements which are, according to Commission officials, supposed to promote development) can be to jeopardise trade between countries in a given region and therefore run contrary to the stated development objective of promoting regional integration. The European Union must constantly re-evaluate its trade policies and the impact they have in this regard. Failure to do so, or to act appropriately, risks negative effects on long-term development.
in writing. - I will vote for this report but I must make the point that certain organisations supported by the Commission, given the responsibility of delivering projects under EU-ACP partnerships, have been mired in corruption and have orchestrated a campaign of discrimination and victimisation against the members of staff who brought the said corruption to light.
I refer, of course, to the organisation known as CDE, who, with Commission support, have dismissed all whistleblowers from office and have done little to put right failings in the governance and senior management of this organisation.
When the OLAF investigation into CDE found that corruption had taken place and that the Commission had failed to exercise due diligence as members of the management board of the CDE at the time the fraud was taking place, one would have expected action and certainly protection for the whistleblowers concerned. Neither has happened, to the ultimate shame of the European Commission.
Whilst I vote in favour today, I wonder whether there is an urgent need in future to examine in more detail what appears to be the inability of the EU side of these partnerships to exercise proper financial control.
The Cotonou Agreement, dating from 2000, which regulates the cooperation between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, is revised every five years. Its objectives are the eradication of poverty and the gradual integration of ACP countries into the global economy, whilst adhering to the objective of sustainable development. This revision is taking place against the background of a global financial crisis, rapid climate change, strain on food and energy prices, and a discussion on land use and the sustainability of foreign investment.
It is high time we strengthened parliamentary control of the country strategies and the European Development Fund (EDF) and strove for consistency in our trade, foreign and development policies. It is time we took a holistic approach to tackling climate change and put the maximum focus on renewable energy. It is time we combated illicit financial flow from developing countries and reformed European Investment Bank (EIB) policy in the direction of greater transparency with regard to tax havens. It is high time we recognised that land ownership and clean water are fundamental rights. It is time we admitted that fair access to natural resources really can help lift people out of poverty. The report emphasises this, and thus receives my support.
I abstained on Mrs Joly's report on the second revision of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.
This report contains a large number of specific proposals on the renegotiation of this agreement - more commonly known as the Cotonou Agreement - which I support.
For example, the need to take account of the situation of the world's poorest countries, in the light of their particular characteristics with regard to climate change, democracy and human rights, brain drain, corruption, and the particular features of their economy, particularly their agricultural economy.
However, the amendments tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) adopted in plenary alter the report completely. A particular example is Amendment 3, which denies populations the right to define their own agrarian policies.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the second revision of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (the 'Cotonou Agreement'). This agreement, which regulates the political, trade and development cooperation relations between the European Union and the 77 ACP countries, and which relates to the period 2000-2020, was already revised in 2005.
In the provisions forming the subject of the second revision, it is rightly requested that ad hoc provisions relating to climate change be included, that the provisions relating to renewable energy be reviewed, that the provisions relating to rural development and food safety be enhanced, and that greater efforts be made to curb illegal financial flows and tax havens.
I am certain that this revision will be able to strengthen the partnership relations between the EU and ACP countries and to ensure greater synergy and cooperation in view of the common objectives to be achieved.


16. EC-Denmark Agreement on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (


Voting time


1. Budgetary control of EU funds in Afghanistan (


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


6. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (


27. Translation expenditure (vote)
Report: Alexander Stubb


10. Accountability report on financing for development (


3. Russia: attacks on human rights defenders, and the Anna Politkovskaya murder trial
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Russia.
author. - Madam President, Russia is one of the EU's most important trading partners. Amongst other things, it is responsible for supplying EU Member States with a large percentage of their energy needs. Furthermore, today's Russia is not what that country was in the past. In this respect we are pleased, for we wholeheartedly wish Russia to be a modern and democratic nation with which we can cooperate to further world peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, our wishes - and now our trust-building - are being shaken by the violation of human rights and disrespect for the rule of law that is still taking place in Russia, albeit at a much reduced rate. A good example is the totally unacceptable way that the whole affair concerning the brutal murder of Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 has been handled by the Russian authorities.
With this motion for a resolution, we call upon the Russian Government to do its utmost to ensure that the road to democratic reforms taken by Russia, and its consequent cooperation with the EU, are not put in jeopardy by the human rights violations still occurring in that country.
author. - (PL) Madam President, Elena Bonner spoke here yesterday, at the Sacharov Prize award ceremony, which she attended with her daughter, Tatjana Yankelevich. Her words still echo in this Chamber today. They were significant words indeed - conveying a message to the Europe of today, to the world of today, from someone who survived the totalitarian regime in Russia and who represents the true voice of Russia in today's world.
We, in the European Parliament, are concerned by the current situation in that great country. Lawyers and human rights activists are persecuted, intimidated, threatened with violence and live in fear for their lives. This is all part and parcel of Russia's current political system.
On 4 December 2008, the police searched archives, located in the offices of the Memorial organisation, a distinguished human rights institution active in the field of recording the crimes of totalitarianism. I have to admit that I cannot imagine what reasons the Russian authorities might have had for seizing equipment belonging to Memorial, its computers or its files on the Gulag period. I cannot think of any explanation as to why such files might pose a threat to public order in modern-day Russia.
We are also concerned about the trial of Anna Politkovskaya's killers. Not only is it our expectation that the trial will clarify exactly who committed this murder, who was responsible and on whose orders it was carried out, we also expect the court to explain all the circumstances surrounding this shocking killing. That is why the trial should be open to journalists, the media and all those who wish to monitor the proceedings.
I also think that a clause on human rights should feature in fundamental agreements between the European Union and Russia. The real Russia is the one that Mrs Bonner described yesterday in the European Parliament.
author. - (NL) Madam President, after 1991, Russia was for a while a land of open differences of political opinion and political debate with a multi-party system and varying opinions about the future. Unfortunately, this most democratic period was also accompanied by administrative incompetence, random privatisations and corruption. The chaotic period under President Yeltsin in the 90s has created a climate for a hark-back to a strong, central authority without much scope for opposition or critical investigative journalism.
Although now, contrary to what happened in the Communist era, various parties take part in the elections, the power resides with one party once more, other parties are systematically sabotaged and the leader of the ruling party is being glorified. A large proportion of public opinion is behind this leader and has no time for any criticism, alternatives or opposition. This is set to stay this way, as long as Russia has suddenly become rich and successful on the back of gas and oil exports. The scope for real democracy has as a result been limited considerably.
Those who oppose current prevailing opinions point to the enormous chasm between the rich and the poor, the high level of secrecy, intolerance, the limited rights of autonomous regions, the treatment of ethnic minorities, the violent situation in Northern Caucasus, the neglect of economically weak regions, the abuse of conscripts, discrimination against homosexuals, the impunity of some murderers, the unilateral party choice of police and justice, and the restriction of freedom of non-governmental organisations and media.
Our sympathies must lie with the critics. We can help those critics by setting a good example and supporting human rights activities in the fight against disappearances, intimidations, secrecy and killings. In practice, countries with a well-functioning parliamentary democracy unwittingly contribute to the opposite.
We help the critics not by erecting a rocket shield or by supporting Georgian efforts to occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These are seen as acts of hostility that only result in people rallying round Mr Putin. Neither do we help them, in our need for gas and oil, by condoning the human rights violations in Russia. The resolution is right to state that, in our contacts with Russia, human rights, the rule of law and democracy should receive priority.
author. - Madam President, this debate is long overdue. We continue to quote the word 'interdependence'. That interdependence does not only relate to energy and trade. It also concerns values, justice, human dignity and truth. These are values to which Russia committed itself when it became a member of the Council of Europe.
This debate should remind us of our shared responsibility for the alarming regression in the field of democracy and human rights in Russia.
On 3 December 2008, 17 Russian human rights groups sent a joint statement to the EU. Europe's reaction has not been adequate, they tell us, to what is taking place in Russia and with Russia's relations with neighbouring states like Ukraine and Georgia. The EU has failed to hold Moscow to the same standards it insists on holding other partners to. It is precisely that failure, they conclude, that has allowed the Russian authorities to crudely violate human rights and international law.
Yesterday, Elena Bonner delivered to us the essence of Andrei Sakharov's message: do what you have to do; do what your conscience tells you to do. Should we not do this, we risk sharing responsibility for gassing justice and human rights in our neighbourhood, while making pragmatic attempts to secure energy supplies for ourselves.
Can we make a difference? All those people who have experienced the brutality and seeming omnipotence of Soviet totalitarianism can assure you that we can make a difference if we value our own values seriously. The Russian people deserve to enjoy the same values and justice we do.
Madam President, in Russia, murder and assassination continue to be used as a means of silencing human rights activists and anyone who thinks differently.
In Moscow, on 28 October, Fr Otto Messmer, the Jesuit Superior of the Russian Region, and Fr Victor Betancourt from Ecuador, were murdered. On 31 August, Magomet Yevloyev was killed. Attempts have also been made on the lives of Ahmed Kotiev, Zurab Tsetchoev, Dimitri Kraiuchin, Stanisław Dmitriewski and Karina Moskalenko. On 4 December, Russian public prosecutors organised a raid on the offices of the Memorial organisation, during which a database containing the details of thousands of victims of Stalin's regime was seized.
The trials concerning the murders of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinienko indicate that the Russian authorities are trying to prevent a fair outcome and that they are trying to prevent the world from knowing who ordered the killings. In Russia, it is common practice to arrest peaceful protestors and bully conscripts.
I strongly protest against violations of human rights in Russia. I call on the Russian authorities to stop persecuting human rights activists.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, we have expressed our will to cooperate with Russia on many occasions. We want economic exchange and political dialogue with the country. Europe and Russia need each other. All the more worrying, then, the developments with regard to the rule of law and democracy in the country, whose people have already suffered under Soviet dictatorship for so many decades.
All the democratic indicators have been pointing downwards since Vladimir Putin took office: press and media freedom, freedom of expression, assembly and association - and not just for political parties - judicial independence and respect for minorities.
The condemnation of Russia on various occasions by the European Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg is depressing proof of the civil-rights situation in the country. One of the things that the raid on the Research and Information Centre 'Memorial' in Saint Petersburg on 4 December shows is that the current leadership is obviously seeking to throw off the burden of the country's Stalinist legacy and to gloss over Stalin's terror. This is not a good basis for the development of the democratic society on which successful economic and social development in the country is conditional, or for confidence on the part of its European neighbours in its being a reliable, peaceful partner.
It is in the common interest for us to press for a return to rule of law and democracy in Russia in all our contact with the government, civil society and the business community.
Madam President, Russia is too important for us not to be concerned about what is happening in that country. During the Communist period, it was not freedom of speech that was the problem. Instead, the problem involved one's freedom after speaking. Today, the situation seems to be even worse. Now, it is not only freedom that is at stake, but people's very lives.
The Resolution highlights the numerous and shocking assassinations of human rights activists, or people regarded as inconvenient by the national or local authorities for other reasons. The people responsible for these killings are allowed to disappear from the country, as in the case of Anna Politkovskaya's killers, or are allowed to hide behind their parliamentary privilege, as in the case of Alexander Litvinyenko's murderers. This alarming situation means that it will be difficult for us to treat Russia as a country with a real will to uphold the basic principles of the rule of law.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) I am sorry about the confusion earlier regarding the order of my speech.
Human rights and freedom are the most important pillars of the European Union and they must also underpin our dialogue with Russia.
Unfortunately, the list of violations is getting longer by the day, and the difficulty facing human rights activists in their work is also getting worse from day to day.
Several violations of human rights have taken place in recent months, among many others. The home of Stanislav Dmitrievsky, a consultant to the Nizhny Novgorod Foundation for the Promotion of Tolerance, has been attacked. Armed troops have kidnapped and beaten Zurab Tsetchoev, a human rights defender in Ingushetia. Relatives of Ilyas Timishev, a human rights lawyer, have been detained, questioned and ill-treated.
I would also recall here that last week, on 12 December, the Spanish government decided to extradite Murat Gasayev to Russia. Mr Gasayev, a Russian citizen from Chechnya, was detained by the Russian secret service in 2004 and tortured for three days, according to Amnesty International.
Mr Gasayev fled to Spain, where he sought asylum in 2005. His application was turned down on the basis of a confidential report drawn up by the Spanish authorities to which neither he nor his lawyer had access.
Spain is a signatory to the Convention against Torture, and his extradition is based on the diplomatic assurances given by the Russian authorities for it to go ahead.
Countless reports by human rights organisations have repeatedly raised concerns about the use of torture in the Russian Federation, particularly in the republics of the northern Caucasus, such as Chechnya and Ingushetia.
If Murat Gasayev is extradited, there is a very real danger that he will be subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment once he is in Russian custody.
I will finish - I am now using the extra minute of speaking time, as agreed - by repeating something that a colleague in my group, Mr Horáček, said. Last July he recalled that the prisoners in the Yukos case, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, are detained in the Siberian prison of Chita. There are others too.
I would therefore like to request that we do everything in our power to secure their release, and also encourage Russia to make freedom of opinion and freedom of the press a reality and not to hinder the work of NGOs. All these factors are vitally important for our common future in Europe.
Madam President, today, once again, criticism has been levelled at the Russian government for tolerating, or sometimes even instigating, activities that are far removed from the principles of citizenship which are fundamental in any civilised country. Russians have been outraged by the kidnapping, intimidation or even murder of human rights activists. At the same time, however, there is also significant support in Russia for this very government, in spite of the blatant way in which it crushes all opposition.
The majority of Russians like strong leadership - even ruthless leadership. Russians want to rebuild the Russian empire, regardless of how this end is achieved. Europe is pretending not to notice this, as economic interests are, of course, of the utmost importance. And a large part of the Russian population want the former Soviet republics to reunite with Russia, even those which today belong to the European Union. This poses an even more serious problem than the human rights violations taking place in Russia. And yet, in spite of this greater danger, we remain silent on the subject.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, Russia is Europe's largest and closest neighbour and, because of our trade relations, also one of the most important. What happens in Russia is very important to Europe for these reasons. Also what happens in Russia has a very big influence on Europe. For these reasons, as well as the human rights violations which it contains, this is a very important resolution.
I would like to highlight the fact that I met with Gary Kasparov, while he was a candidate for the presidency of Russia, in this Parliament here in Strasbourg. He came as an honoured guest when he was a candidate. Kasparov made it clear to us - even then - that the Kremlin's attitude towards political activity meant that they treated him as a subversive and a criminal - many of the things we are talking about today - liable to manhandling and always under threat of arrest and the arrest of his supporters.
Sometimes this sort of activity even goes beyond Russian borders and even into the EU. On a recent trip by the Petitions Committee to Bulgaria, we were told by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which is suffering severe persecution in Bulgaria, of the influence of Russia in their situation.
We must put aside considerations of our fear about energy security that soften our approach to Russia and make us tiptoe in their presence, and speak to Russia strongly and clearly, reminding them that they are members of the Council of Europe and signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg Accord, and we must insist that they respect democracy and human rights in Russia and beyond.
(DE) Madam President, the problems with the rule of law in Russia are not random aberrations but a cancer, spreading systematically. We are in phase 2 of the Putin era, with Mr Medvedev as window-dressing, and the third phase is currently in preparation.
Mr Putin began his first phase with the second Chechen war, an attack on a small country that was akin to genocide and was motivated by massive colonial interests in its raw materials. Since then, the matter has escalated; the rule of law and freedom of the press have been curtailed, human rights defenders such as Karinna Moskalenko have been pursued all the way here to the European capital of Strasbourg, and we have seen a total lack of progress and, as I said earlier, not just random aberrations but the systematic loss of the little democracy and rule of law that remain.
Therefore, the European Union must show considerably more vigour. In our negotiations on an agreement, we owe this to the people - Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko and many others - who have died for daring to investigate these aberrations or call a spade a spade.
Anyone discussing the subject openly in Russia puts their life at risk, and each time there is talk of a mysterious, obscure context. Therefore, we who live in freedom and relative safety have a duty to ensure that some light is shed on the circumstances at long last, and that we in this House at least do what we can; that is, to speak clearly and frankly to the Russian powers that be. After all, that is the only language they understand, as Elena Bonner made clear in her moving speech yesterday.
Let us follow the example set by courageous people such as Elena Bonner and Andrei Sakharov, and let us stop being hypocritical and kidding ourselves at long last. Let us tell it like it is. This would be the best service we could render the Russian people.
Madam President, two years ago Anna Politkovskaya was murdered. She was shot down at home, in the lift of her block of flats. A gun was dropped beside her. It was broad daylight. The question at the time was 'who pulled the trigger?'. The question since then has been 'who pulled the strings that pulled the hands that pulled the trigger?'. It was in the style of a mafia killing, but she never wrote about the mafia. She only wrote about the Russian Government and its actions in Chechnya. It was a warning - a warning to other free-spirited journalists to keep off the authoritarian grass.
It will succeed unless world opinion and a clear message from the EU institutions force a proper trial and a proper exposé of those who gave the orders. We cannot bring Anna back, but we can bring her justice. We can make her a symbol of freedom, and not one of suppression. We must unite to that end.
(PT) Madam President, we are about to end an extremely important debate which, as has already been said, is one that we should have had a long time ago. Russia is vital to us in all respects, but particularly as a country in which human rights must be respected. These human rights necessarily include the rejection of xenophobia and homophobia, and I want to call on all Members to ensure that an explicit reference is made to these two great scourges in Russia, which are rightly considered as such in the motion for a resolution, and that they do not agree to remove these references.
- (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the resolution refers directly to reprehensible cases.
This resolution must not be an urgent resolution but a constant appeal to the Russian authorities, since we condemn their persecution methods. This resolution is an appeal to the Russian people, the militants and the Russian heroes who will fight for freedom until such time as no one has to fear being executed for having exercised his or her right to freedom of expression.
I believe that we should communicate our appeal within the context of the relations and the meetings between the Russian Government and our European Commission.
- (PL) Madam President, today we are discussing human rights violations, such as Mrs Politkovskaya's murder, as well as other incidents which have taken place in Russia, and which are indicative of the state's policy of terrorism against its own people.
We must be aware of the fact, in addition to its human rights violations, Russia is also becoming more imperialistic and, after a brief pause at the start of the nineties, is once again threatening its neighbours. This situation stems from the fact that Communism has never been formally held to account and condemned. Today, we can talk about Germany being a democratic country which respects its people, because Germany has overcome Hitler and its Nazi past.
Today, we must try to ensure that both here, in this Chamber, and wherever we can exert our influence, the Communist past is dealt with, as this is the only way to stem the tide of Russia's policy of terror at home and its imperialist ambitions abroad.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, on 5 November, in his first annual speech to the Federation Council, President Medvedev made explicit reference to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
This symbolic reference during this, the anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, shows the interest taken by the new president in matters relating to judicial reform and to the impact of these reforms on human rights. His words are encouraging, but the European Union will have to monitor developments in this area very closely. The reality of the last few weeks has reminded us once again of the major challenges faced by human rights defenders in Russia. We have listened carefully, of course, to the various speakers, Madam President. They have made a point of stressing the serious threats to human rights in Russia.
Two years on from her death, the murder trial, in the case of Anna Politkovskaya, has begun. It was initially open to the public, then continued in camera, then was re-opened again to the public. The trial will be followed closely by all those who defend freedom of expression.
As the murder of Magomed Yevloyev - who was killed while in police custody at the end of August - reminds us, in Russia, journalism is becoming an increasingly dangerous profession.
At the beginning of December, Memorial, one of the oldest and most prestigious of the NGOs working on the painful past of 20th-century Russia, was the subject of a police search. This search resulted in the confiscation of historical archives on the gulags.
If we really want to continue the work that we began in April during the conference on the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe - a conference that I myself opened - then it goes without saying that historians absolutely must have access to the archives. The search of 4 December is a worrying message for those who believe in the need for a debate, and an honest one at that, on the deep wounds of the past. This debate is needed to ensure necessary reconciliations in the future.
Of course, the consultations between the EU and Russian authorities on human rights represent so many opportunities to reiterate the need for the commitments to which Russia subscribed in the area of human rights to be honoured. The Commission is continuing its work in support of the initiatives of civil society, not least through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.
Support for judicial reform is also a priority in our cooperation programmes with Russia. During the last meeting with Russia I came into contact with the new officials in charge of justice, and I fully intend to pursue a demanding dialogue with them. Furthermore, the European Union and Russia are currently negotiating a new contractual basis to replace the existing partnership and cooperation agreement.
Obviously respect for human rights must be a key element of this new agreement. The commitments that the parties have undertaken within the framework of the UN, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe have to find their place; the Commission remains active in this regard. Mrs Ferrero-Waldner has asked me to thank you for having introduced this debate and has assured me of her personal commitment. I would add my own commitment to this, since I have the opportunity to hold a dialogue with the Moscow authorities in the area of security and justice.
That is all I can say on this matter, Madam President. I hope that 2010 will be an opportunity for the Russian officials to honour their commitments better, for this is something that they have not done in the course of this year.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place now.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - Severe human rights violations persist in the ongoing Yukos affair. Five years after Mikhail Khodorkovsky's arrest, he and other Yukos officials remain incarcerated under questionable circumstances. Of gravest concern is the case of former Yukos lawyer Vasily Alexanyan, held in pre-trial detention since 2006. Now near death suffering from AIDS, lymphatic cancer and tuberculosis, Alexanyan has stated that he refused to submit to blackmail to provide false testimony against Khodorkovsky in exchange for medical treatment. His previously controllable medical condition therefore developed terminal complications. Even with expiry in December 2008 of the statute of limitations for the allegations against him, judicial authorities will only release Alexanyan if he pays an unconscionable bail of EUR 1.4 million. Meanwhile, Khodorkovsky has not been paroled, though eligible for release under Russian law and practice. Investigators have prepared implausible new charges against Khodorkovsky and have been holding him in pre-trial detention for nearly two years.
The handling of these and several other cases exposes deep weaknesses in Russia's justice system. The release of these people will be a benchmark of Russia's success combating 'legal nihilism'. The EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should be contingent upon resolution of rule-of-law issues including the issue of political prisoners.
in writing. - (FI) Russia is a member of the Council of Europe and of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and is, or at least it should be on the basis of its membership, fully committed to a respect for human rights. The country's actual human rights situation, however, is poor. Xenophobia and homophobia are on the increase, according to the Moscow Bureau for Human Right, and in 2008 have led to the death of 100 people on the grounds of race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation. In October Otto Messmer, leader of the Russian Jesuit order, and the Ecuadorean priest Victor Betancourt were brutally murdered in their Moscow flat. The problem is that the Russian authorities do not in practice condemn such crimes as these.
Furthermore, if you defend human rights in Russia it means putting yourself in a particularly dangerous situation. The situation for human rights activists is a serious concern, as are the problems that NGOs that promote human rights have to face. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has handled numerous cases brought by Russian citizens. The judgments suggest that many cases involve serious breaches of human rights and oppression on the part of the Russian state authorities.
We now have to take a serious view of these matters as we negotiate a new framework agreement that provides a comprehensive context for relations between the EU and Russia. The talks that were initiated at the EU-Russia summit in November must recognise the key status of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. We must also insist that the Russian authorities comply with all the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights without delay.
Human rights lawyers that deal with allegations of abuse and at the same time take enormous personal risks investigating cases deserve the greatest respect for the valuable work they do. They should be guaranteed the protection of the state and adequate support by the international community.


Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


11. Green Paper on better ship dismantling (


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 24 April 2008.


13. Macro-financial assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina (


Earthquake in the Abruzzo Region of Italy (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the earthquake in the Abruzzo region of Italy.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission sends its condolences to all families who have lost their loved ones in the recent earthquake in Italy.
The Commission has been in close contact with the Italian civil protection authorities since the first hours after the earthquake. Member States started offering their help through the Community Civil Protection Mechanism at a very early stage of the disaster.
While this earthquake was very powerful and brought a lot of destruction, national resources were able to cope with the immediate disaster response.
However, on 10 April Italy made a request for technical experts who could support the country in analysing the stability of buildings damaged by the earthquake. A team of eight national and Commission experts was selected. The team was despatched to the site of the earthquake on 18 April. In addition to the assessment of the stability of the buildings, the team will propose solutions with regard to damaged buildings.
The Commission is currently cooperating with the Italian authorities in order to identify options for other EU support. Possibilities may include the EU Solidarity Fund and the reprogramming of the Structural and Rural Development Funds.
This earthquake is a tragic reminder that natural disasters are a continual threat for all Member States. Over the last decade earthquakes, heat waves, forest fires, floods and storms have killed many people in Europe and destroyed costly infrastructure and precious natural spaces.
The Member States and the Community need to combine their strength to prevent disasters and their impacts and to ensure a rapid and effective European response to major disasters. Experience has shown that an integrated and multi-hazard approach should be taken to develop effective measures in both in prevention and in direct response to disasters, as outlined in the Commission communication of March 2008 on reinforcing the Union's disaster-response capacity.
Furthermore, in February 2009 the Commission adopted a Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters that represents the state of the art and paves a way for future Commission initiatives. It suggests improving the consistency of existing prevention instruments and complementing them, thus reinforcing the added value of EU action.
The Commission would welcome feedback from the European Parliament on the approach proposed in this important communication. Furthermore, thanks to the preparatory action on an EU rapid response capability introduced by the European Parliament in the 2008 and 2009 budgets, the Commission is currently testing, with the Member States, ways to improve the overall immediate response capacity of the EU. Together, these initiatives are contributing to shaping a genuine European disaster management policy for all types of disaster.
Thank you, Mr Kallas. May I take this opportunity to welcome Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Tajani, and so that I am not reproached for being careless or insensitive, I would remind you that we have already observed a minute's silence, yesterday, in commemoration of the victims of this disaster.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, between 2002 and 2007 earthquakes were the fourth most frequent natural disaster in the European Union. After this latest and sadly most serious tragedy in the Abruzzo region, we must join together to face these terrible events, common to many states of the Union.
To date, we have the European Solidarity Fund and the Community Mechanism for Civil Protection: two instruments that are very important yet still insufficient for an area, like Europe, that is at risk from earthquakes. In the case of the Abruzzo earthquakes, an application is being processed for access to the Solidarity Fund for the reconstruction of the areas destroyed. The figure could amount to EUR 500 million, as Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani told the press. It has not yet been possible to quantify the extent of this earthquake and the damage caused: the Abruzzo region is in need of urgent and substantial intervention, which the Italian Government has been managing in a prompt and thorough manner from just a few minutes after the earthquake.
This action does however require European coordination, while respecting national and local competences. On 14 November 2007, Parliament itself unanimously adopted a resolution on the regional impact of earthquakes, concerning prevention and the management of the damage caused by tragic events of this kind. This document should serve as the starting point for a coordinated European policy in this matter, as stated in the written question by Mr Vakalis, co-signed by 50 or so Members of this House. We therefore hope that the European Commission will take on the ideas expressed in this resolution and apply them to create a European agenda for the prevention and management of earthquakes.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my condolences once again, on behalf of the members of the Italian parliament and all the members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, to the families of the victims, to the Abruzzo region and its citizens and to Italy. I would also like to say that our Group, which from the outset has been close to the people so tragically hit, will be sending a delegation to the Abruzzo region, led by our chairman, Mr Schulz. The numbers are frightening: it is true, as Mr Albertini said, there is no final count as yet, but we can nonetheless say that there have been around 300 deaths. It is a tragedy: 50 000 evacuees, thousands of houses destroyed, hundreds of public buildings devastated, including schools, and a prestigious cultural, architectural and artistic heritage in ruins.
As the President of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, said, the response to the events was immediate and effective. This response came from the state, but also from non-state actors; from the world, from volunteers, from communities in Italy and elsewhere, from the provinces, from the regions, from the Red Cross and from the fire service: a truly extraordinary display of solidarity. Perhaps the Italian Government - in fact never mind the 'perhaps' - the Italian Government would have done well to take up the suggestion to amalgamate the referendum with the European elections and administrative elections, in order to save some hundreds of millions that could have been spent helping those affected by the earthquake.
There are certain responses Europe must make: firstly, it must activate the Solidarity Fund; we spoke to Vice-President Tajani about this just hours after the tragic events. Secondly, it must re-programme the Structural Funds, and thirdly, Commissioners, it must utilise the unused funds from the previous and new programming periods. Fourthly, it must amend the rules on the Cohesion Policy and the Structural Funds as regards the possibility of reinstating under Objective I, that is to say in the disadvantaged, underdeveloped regions, those regions which, due to exceptionally serious natural events, have seen their GDP, or wealth, drop below 75% of the Community average. So then, we do not want an ad hoc law for the Abruzzo region, but a law applicable to any region that may find itself in this position. Fifthly, we must investigate with the Commission the possibility of tax breaks for the economic activities and construction work which should, we all hope, pick up again in the Abruzzo region. Finally, I call for the implementation of the directive on building materials, which was recently updated and improved by Parliament.
To conclude, a tragedy such as this does not require rhetoric, rather it requires effective, tangible responses, as well as a close eye to ensure that the earthquake rubble does not become the site for further profiteering and illicit practices that line the pockets of the big criminal groups. We must be vigilant and give our best efforts: we must all work so that, with our help, our friends in the Abruzzo region can smile again.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a terrible tragedy in my country has hit the important central region of the Abruzzo and the city of Aquila. It has been a disaster that has affected human lives, including young lives; it has struck houses, our homes; churches, our places of worship; monuments, our culture; companies, our workplaces; universities, our centres of learning; and has left great devastation in its wake.
We have all rallied round these people and we can now say this: firstly, that they have responded with great dignity, despite being so intimately and so practically affected, losing their most valuable possessions such as their homes - and, as we know, the home is central to Italian culture - yet these people have reacted with dignity and want to start living again, rebuilding what they had, their own communities, within the places that represent that community and in keeping with tradition and continuity. I am reminded of the importance of the university and of small and medium-sized enterprises for that region, which is at present suffering from severe economic hardship and lack of recovery.
I should also say that there has been an extraordinary mobilisation on the part of the institutions: the government, Parliament, all the opposition forces, as well as the majority who, with great wisdom and responsibility, regard the work to be done in a spirit of unanimity: local institutions, volunteers, civil protection, the thousands upon thousands of young people and adults who went to Abruzzo and who represent social groups, associations and the Catholic community; everyone has made a contribution. Even those who did not travel there have done something: economically, culturally, our country's entire cultural, social and economic spheres are being mobilised, which is very important.
It will, however, be important to remember this, as Mr Pitella said, when it comes to reconstruction, because in addition to these positive aspects of the tragedy, the structural weakness of our building methods has come to light, and I believe that here, alongside calls for justice, there should be a commitment to identifying liabilities and to reconstruction.
A word about Europe, Mr President: when disaster struck, Europe was there, as it will be in the future through the funds and other actions that have been mentioned. I would wish for there to be a visible presence, too, so that Europe is recognised not only in the money that arrives, but also in the faces and in the institutions. I propose that a joint delegation from this Parliament visit the region, without pomp, without publicity, but in order to say that Europe is made up of institutions and people, and that these institutions and people want to support and go on supporting Aquila, the Abruzzo and my country, also, which has been so severely damaged.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the Community institutions for the support they have shown for Italy and the people hit by the earthquake. These have been difficult days, further aggravated by the weather conditions of the last 48 hours.
But after the grief and destruction comes the time for practical proposals and reconstruction, the time to restore a future for the Abruzzo region. We are asking the European institutions to do their bit; in fact the Commission has already given its guarantee through Vice-President Tajani, who was very prompt to assure us of his commitment in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
As the Commission itself today confirmed, first of all we must verify all available financial resources, guarantee the swift activation of the European Solidarity Fund for natural disasters, and then look at the possibility of making full use of and reprogramming the European Social Fund and other Community programmes to support employment and businesses. However, we are calling in particular for the possibility of introducing extraordinary legislative measures, tax breaks, incentives and aid possibly as an exception to current de minimis provisions. These would be measures authorised by the European Union and valid for two or three years, that is to say for the time needed until the end of the emergency and reconstruction.
On these subjects and on these objectives, as today's debate has also shown, we are all in agreement, there are no divisions. I too would like to conclude with heartfelt thoughts for the victims, their families and the people affected, but I am especially proud, as an Italian woman from that area, to extend special thanks once more for the efforts made by the institutions, all the political parties and above all the rescue teams, civil protection and the Red Cross. I also thank all the voluntary organisations and individual citizens who did what they could and made a personal contribution or gave money to express their solidarity and provide real help; they are a truly outstanding example of efficiency and humanity.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance joins with all the Members who have spoken before me in expressing our condolences, our strong sense of solidarity and our support for those who have suffered as a result of this great tragedy, this disaster, this natural event, which was, however, caused by a whole host of things, and I do hope that the European Union, in a visible way, will be able to make a positive contribution to this situation.
There is one thing that cannot be denied: the impact of this earthquake could have been much less severe, the tragedy should not have been this great, because it is clear that a whole series of buildings and houses have collapsed and they should not have done. There has been negligence, there has been fraud and there has been deception, and we must establish who is liable, because this, too, is an essential part of reconstruction, which is also the moral reconstruction of the Abruzzo, its people and our country as a whole. Reconstruction should be an opportunity for huge innovation in sustainable development for those people who have shown us all that they not only have great dignity, but also great courage and an overwhelming desire to start afresh.
At this point, the least demagogical, most practical approach that will allow Europe to take swift action to support the emergency efforts and reconstruction in the Abruzzo is to review the region's 2007-2013 operative programme, that is to say the Structural Funds. The Abruzzo operative programme currently provides for EUR 140 million in European cofinancing, for a total programme cost of EUR 345 million, with the difference made up by national cofinancing.
We are well aware that one of the problems we must face is that of Italy's organisation in cofinancing the funds that the European Union is sure to grant, and on this point we Members must be extremely vigilant.
As I was saying, first and foremost, we must ask for the other European funds already planned for the Abruzzo, such as the Social Fund, to be reviewed and redirected towards measures and priorities that serve reconstruction. In this context, the Abruzzo operative programme could involve a reallocation of structural fund resources earmarked for other Italian regions that are now more competitive. We know that the European Commission is willing to evaluate grants, and this same mechanism can be used for other Member States.
Following this, the Italian authorities, primarily the government, with the cooperation of all local bodies concerned, must move quickly to calculate the cost of the direct damage sustained, in order to meet the deadline of 15 June 2009 for submitting an application for funds within the framework of the European Solidarity Fund. The amount of support granted will depend on the damage sustained, but will not in any case be more than a few million euros. This fund exists precisely in order to provide fast, effective and flexible economic assistance, therefore it is important that the Italian authorities quantify this damage, otherwise it will be difficult to get funding.
The national authorities also need to get to work on the loan application to the European Investment Bank, so that adequate sums can be granted for fast and sustainable reconstruction in this region.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first comes grief for so many innocent victims, then a commitment to rescue efforts, overcoming the emergency and reconstruction, in which Italy gives of its best.
European assistance in this is important, but we also need a European framework to help to prevent these disasters, which often have more than just natural causes; we therefore need a prevention framework, a natural disaster warning system on which to build a civil protection and prevention network. In addition to this, we need a land policy that provides guaranteed standards on land use that respect its balance, as well as safe building standards.
The Abruzzo earthquake also involves this, and, without wishing to be controversial, we must investigate all the liabilities, so that we can avoid a repetition of these serious events, and above all we must focus on land reclamation rather than on new demolition works. For this reason also it is vitally important that the Soil Framework Directive be adopted, which will provide structural support for appropriate management of European land, and European funds should be reformulated in line with prudent land policy, thereby creating a healthy environment and good jobs.
(DE) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, our Italian fellow Members have rightly viewed this debate as a very important one for their country and requested the floor, yet it is also a debate for all Europeans. After all, we are a European community. We are pleased to have the opportunities presented by the Solidarity Fund, and we should like its use to be as targeted as possible - including by the Italian Government and the regional bodies. We wish to express once more our condolences to the numerous victims, and we hope that Europe is able to help bring relief as soon as possible.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would simply like to draw attention to the sympathetic response to this tragic event throughout Italy and also in Europe. When things like this happen, they allow us to observe the cohesion of the country and the Community, which can only nourish the hope of general solidarity and peace, including inner peace, that we enjoy within Europe.
I would also say that we must undoubtedly, openly and urgently tackle those responsible for the poor construction work that caused neighbouring buildings to react differently. Finally, on the sidelines there has been some dispute over the predictability of earthquakes; I will not go into it now, but simply say that studies on radon indicate that earthquakes are preceded by an increase in this gas. I therefore think, as is right for any scientific research, that Europe can and should use all its structures to encourage further studies on this, because, as is the nature of science, it may yet contribute to the purely hypothetical possibility of predicting such devastating events.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, there is no doubt that there is a strong feeling of solidarity in all Member States, and in the Commission as well, concerning this terrible earthquake. There are mechanisms for providing help, and the Commission services acted immediately. Everything must be done in close collaboration with the Italian authorities. Last year we had the huge disaster of the forest fires in Greece and before that we had forest fires in Portugal and the floods in Germany and the Czech Republic. In all these cases the European Union expressed solidarity and helped as much as it could. It will do so in this case as well.
First of all, we are awaiting calculations of the scale of the damage and then we can decide how best to use the Solidarity Fund. The Commission itself cannot launch Solidarity Fund money; this can only be done after receiving the request from the Member State and after the calculation of the scale of the damage.
Many Members raised the question of the reprogramming of the Structural Funds, and DG REGIO is discussing this. My colleague Danuta Hübner will visit the area soon and discuss concrete possibilities. We are in permanent contact with the civil protection department in Rome to help, and also to help prepare the Solidarity Fund application, so there is no doubt that the Commission will do whatever it can to help the victims of this disaster.
Concerning safe building standards, these standards exist but the question is how closely these standards are followed in Member States. The standards definitely exist: they exist in directives and they exist in national legislation as well.
Our civil protection mechanism, at the heart of which is a monitoring and information centre working 24 hours a day, will collaborate with Member States in disaster prevention and also in addressing the consequences of disasters.
Once more on behalf of the Commission I express our condolences. We will do whatever is possible to help people in this disaster area.
To conclude this debate, on a personal note and also on behalf of the Bureau of the European Parliament, I take this opportunity to express my condolences and sympathy once again for the victims and the families affected, and of course to pledge every possible support for the people of the region so badly hit.
The debate is closed.