Documents received: see Minutes


3. Personal data protection in the European Union (
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would urge a vote in favour of this report to ensure that we have a broad basis for future negotiations with the other institutions and offer my thanks for so doing. I would also like to thank you for your excellent cooperation with the other groups and with the other rapporteurs. Thank you very much for your patience.
(Applause)


14. (


Written declarations included in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes


Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes


8. Agreement between the EU and Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports (


Opening of the sitting


Baltic Sea cod (debate)
The next item is the report by Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a multi-annual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks - C6-0281/2006 -.
Mr President, firstly I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Chmielewski, and to both the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the report. The objective is to have the proposal agreed at the June Council next week. During discussions held in the context of the Council preparations, many changes have been introduced to the original proposal, some of which go in the direction of your suggested amendments.
As you are well aware, both cod stocks in the Baltics suffer from over-exploitation, with the eastern cod stock falling so far below safe biological limits that it may be in risk of collapse in the near future. At the same time, ICES has indicated that misreporting of catches occurs in 35 to 45% of cases in the eastern Baltic, which not only results in an additional unaccounted fishing impact on the stock but also affects the accuracy of scientific advice.
The current situation not only harms the cod stocks in the Baltic but is also threatening the fishing sector reliant on this resource. Cod is one of the most important fish stocks for the industry in the Baltic. It is therefore crucial, not only from an ecological but also from a social and economic perspective, to bring fishing into balance with resource availability as soon as possible, so that fishers can once more count on stable and high catches.
The multiannual plan presented by the Commission has been developed on the basis of past experience with managing cod fisheries in the Baltic and on several consultations held with stakeholders, Member States and scientists. It aims at rebuilding the stocks not only towards safe biological limits but even beyond, to levels that will provide the highest sustainable catches, thus providing stability in the long term for the fishing sector concerned, by reducing total allowable catches and fishing efforts step-by-step to the levels corresponding to this objective.
Turning now to the report, the recitals of the plan correspond to the measures that are later outlined in the actual provisions. I can therefore only accept Amendments 1 and 5, which correspond to the provisions of the plan, such as the request to specify the status of the eastern cod stock in the first recital. Amendment 4 is acceptable in principle. However, the split into western and eastern parts is determined by scientific evidence that there are two separate cod stocks in the Baltic, and not by the ecological features of the two areas.
The report proposes several amendments to the rules outlining the procedure for reducing total allowable catches and fishing effort to sustainable levels. Amendments 8 to 11 would result in a mitigation of the reduction process and would limit its application.
In view of the serious situation of the stock and the need to limit all types of fisheries catching significant amounts of cod, I cannot accept these amendments. I am, however, aware of the need to define a system that the industry can deal with. The Commission has therefore changed its plan by combining the summer ban and the days absent from port. This will increase flexibility for the industry, and will thus particularly benefit small-scale fleets, for which a fixed and rigid system is more difficult to work with. Moreover, an article on the European Fisheries Fund has been included in the plan to ensure financial compensation for the industry.
Changes to the effort system mean that several of the provisions on control and monitoring have also been changed. The margin of tolerance has been raised to 10%, except for cod, and the rules on discharging have been deleted, which should correspond to the provisions of Amendments 14 and 16 of the report.
Concerning Amendment 15, the rules on entry and exit from the area have been changed as well, meaning that the specified requirements apply only where the vessel is leaving the area in which it has been fishing.
As misreporting is presently one of the key problems in the management of the Baltic cod fishery, it is crucial to improve these rules to monitor comprehensively how much is taken from which cod stock, and when. For similar reasons, I cannot accept Amendment 13, which limits the requirement for a log book to vessels with a special permit for cod fishing.
The report proposes to reduce the valuation period from three to two years and to introduce a provision on the monitoring of the socio-economic impact of the plan in Amendments 17 to 19.
New cod recruits enter the fishery at the age of two to three years on average. If an evaluation began during the second year, it would be very difficult to detect any effects on the stock and, consequently, on the industry. The Commission is, however, planning a project that will monitor not only the ecological but also the socio-economic impact of the plan as a first step towards the impact assessment to be made in the third year of the application of the plan.
Finally, I turn to the three amendments tabled by Mr Schlyter last week. They are not acceptable to the Commission for the following reasons. The objective of the basic regulation for the common fisheries policy is to ensure sustainable management in ecological, social and economic terms. It is therefore the Commission's responsibility to strive for a balance between these three pillars, albeit based primarily on scientific advice regarding the stocks. I thus consider a gradual reduction of TACs and fishing efforts until target levels are met, as advised by ICES, to be a good balance in this respect.
ICES also recommended using relative targets such as fishing mortality instead of fixed ones such as biomass, because they are less sensitive towards scientific uncertainty and the environmental variations affecting the stock.
In the current situation whereby a high level of misreporting is interfering with management and scientific advice and in view of the possible upcoming revision of the biomass reference points for the eastern stock, the inclusion of biomass targets is not appropriate. However, as an expected outcome of the plan is the improvement of the basis of scientific information, the inclusion of biomass reference levels could be considered in the course of the revision of the cod recovery plan, which is envisaged to take place after the plan has been in force for three years.
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, the Council regulation which is the subject of this report is a long-awaited important legislative proposal, and constitutes an attempt to deal with the very considerable needs of the fisheries sector in one of the most significant bodies of European water. This in itself is good reason to congratulate those responsible for the report. They have tackled the difficult challenge of drafting a long-term programme for the regeneration and catches of Baltic cod. Cod is a fish that provides many families with their livelihood. It is the most important fish in the Baltic and therefore generates great interest amongst those involved in fisheries. Emotions are running high in the Baltic region concerning Parliament's opinion and subsequent Council rulings.
A report referring to verified data taking scientific forecasts on the development of cod stocks and fishing possibilities as a content-related starting point represented an opportunity for achieving satisfactory compromises in these circumstances. It was essential for the Committee on Fisheries to intervene with regard to the Council's legislative proposal because it was necessary for the document to take account of the inevitable socio-economic consequences of the planned catch restrictions. I am glad the Commissioner mentioned this.
One of the amendments adopted was tabled by the rapporteur and bound the European Commission to monitor these consequences and propose essential management measures to Parliament. Another amendment adopted involved reducing the restrictions on fishing days laid down in the regulation from 10% to 8% and increasing the so-called reporting limit from 100 kg to 300 kg. I am referring to the Committee on Fisheries. The Committee on Fisheries also adopted the suggestion made by the Council of Ministers regarding adjustment of the margin of error in fishing log book entries from 8% to 10%. The proposal on increasing the minimum size of cod caught in the Baltic to 40 cm was endorsed too.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that report was strongly influenced by the view that the fishing capacity of the Baltic cod fleet is currently far too large in relation to the available fishing quotas. There is still no proposal for a systematic resolution of this problem at the level of the Union and the individual Member States. Stronger and stronger warnings are being voiced urging great caution with regard to automatic decisions on scrapping the fleet. It would be preferable to seek solutions allowing the fishing capacities defined to be retained until stocks are replenished. We shall obviously need something to fish with when that time comes.
I believe that sooner or later the issue of the length of the summer bans will become part of the debate on the plan for rebuilding cod stocks. The Commissioner referred to the bans today. It should be noted that a tendency to favour so-called days absent from port rather than the bans used to date is gaining strength in those Member States seeking ways to further reduce the fishing effort by introducing additional days when fishing for cod is banned.
The scientific advice accompanying the general discussion on the Council regulation has indicated the need to review the assessment of biological reference points used to date, and I am glad the Commissioner mentioned this today. It should be added that none of the Baltic countries queries the introduction of fishing mortality as a method of defining the achievable aims of the multiannual plan for rebuilding Baltic cod stocks. I refer to Article No 4 of the plan.
It does seem essential, however, to launch an in-depth debate on the subject of appropriate values of biomass reference points adjusted to the actual state of the stocks and the current general situation of the Baltic Sea ecosystem. This will be in line with the Community's commitment to introducing the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. I refer to Recital No 5. I should emphasise that the biomass limit values currently in force were adopted in 1998 on the basis of data gathered in the 1960s and 1970s. They cannot therefore be appropriate to the current condition of stocks.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the intention of the earlier Council Regulation 2371/2002 mentioned in the document dealt with in the opinion was to retain the precautionary principle in connection with the introduction of fundamental changes to the fisheries policy. The precaution applied to both management of the stocks and assessment of the socio-economic impact of the changes. This principle should remain in force following the accession of the four Baltic countries to the Union.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - (SV) Thank you, Mr President. As the person in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety responsible for cod fishing, I wish to begin by complaining that so few of our views are included in the report on which we are to vote tomorrow. We have a shared responsibility for ensuring that it is possible to fish for cod in the Baltic Sea in the future too. The situation where cod is concerned is a serious one. In spite of reduced quotas, cod stocks are close to critical level. If we are to prevent stocks from collapsing completely, we need still stricter distributions of quotas. These quotas need to have a scientific foundation rather than be based on long drawn-out political wrangling, as the focus in fishing must in the first place be on the environment and on a long-term approach, not on short-term labour market policy objectives. I am only sorry that the Committee on Fisheries appears to think in precisely the opposite way.
The Commission's proposal for reduced fishing quotas is a step in the right direction, but it will be of no help if we do not make sure that it is complied with, because the greatest among the many threats to cod is illegal fishing. It is said that between 35% and 45% of the total share of cod landed has been fished illegally. What is most important, therefore, is not new rules but guarantees that the existing rules are complied with. It is therefore incomprehensible to me why the Committee on Fisheries refuses to accept, for example, my demands that strong measures be taken against those countries that close their eyes to illegal fishing. What, moreover, is most terrible of all is that we know which countries they are.
I am convinced, however, that, in the long term, we need an entirely new system for fisheries policy - one that makes fishermen themselves have a sense of responsibility for the survival of cod. One system that has shown itself to be effective is that involving individually transferable fishing quotas. Fishermen should be given an incentive of their own to take responsibility for the survival of the stock. I believe that, in that way, we can obtain a better fisheries policy in the EU. Annoying as it is that the Committee on Fisheries does not appear to want this system, it is gratifying that the Commission seems to take a positive view of the possibility of introducing individually transferable quotas.
In conclusion, I would just point out one thing I do like about the report by the Committee on Fisheries, namely that it incorporates my proposal for an increase in the minimum size of the cod that is caught. This would give the fish more scope to reproduce and would make for more stable stocks. In common with my fellow Swedish Conservatives, I unfortunately cannot, however, vote in favour of the report before us today.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, against the backdrop of the decline in Baltic cod stocks identified in the ICES studies and of demands from the relevant fishing crews for operating conditions that will enable them to preserve their livelihood, I would like to commend the work of my honourable colleague, Mr Chmielewski. He has had to do the splits in order to reconcile the Commission's proposal and sustainable fisheries on the one side with the resolute demands of the fishermen on the other.
If sustainability is to be more than an empty word, however, it must be reflected in working practices on fishing vessels and in personal attitudes to scientific prescriptions. Accepting catch quotas is one side of the coin. In particular, this means not only fulfilling the prescribed basic conditions but also supporting the new measures to improve stocks and more effective supervision by the Member States.
Unfortunately, supervision is a weak point in some Member States. There is sufficient untapped potential in this area. The involvement of regional advisory bodies is not only helpful; it is also an urgent necessity.
The proposal from the Commission therefore points in the right direction, and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament supports both the proposal and the rapporteur's efforts to strike a fair socio-economic balance.
I appeal to all those in positions of responsibility to take good heed of the information provided by ICES and other scientific bodies when fixing the total allowable catches and quotas for cod and devising measures to halt the decline in cod stocks. The Baltic is a sensitive sea, and we should bear that in mind whenever we consider any measure.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Thank you, Mr President. The situation for cod in the Baltic Sea is a very serious one. For 2007, the ICES has recommended that no cod be fished in the eastern part of the Baltic, yet in spite of these recommendations a considerable quantity of cod will be landed. Where western stocks are concerned, 30% more than the recommended number will be fished, and in addition there will be unreported and illegal fishing. The Committee on Fisheries is trying to water down the Commission's proposal, which basically does not consider the consequences for biological diversity, either.
As always when fisheries issues are debated in this House, the socio-economic consequences of fishing are referred to. Certainly, a ban on fishing for cod may harm professional fishermen. However, overfishing means that, before long, there will be no fish left to catch. In the era of globalisation, it is necessary to be flexible and to be prepared to make structural changes in society. Tomorrow, I shall vote against Parliament's proposal, even though I believe that the Commission's proposal is unsatisfactory too.
(SV) Mr President, I myself live on the Baltic Sea and have therefore been able to monitor at close quarters how bad things are there. The situation not only causes a deterioration in people's quality of life, but also, as Commissioner Joe Borg himself pointed out, threatens economic development along the whole of the Baltic Sea coast. People throughout the EU expect us, in this House, to make vigorous efforts to save the eco-systems in our seas. I should therefore ideally have liked to have seen the House support a ban on cod fishing, as proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in its opinion. A ban would also have made it simple to get to grips with the illegal fishing that quite a few Members have talked about. There is obviously no majority in favour of this in the House at present, but I nonetheless hope that a majority is able to support Amendments 20 to 22, one of the provisions of which is that the largest permitted catch shall be based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. That really should go without saying. The fact that we do not act on the basis of existing scientific knowledge is one of the reasons for the current threats to cod and to the whole of the Baltic Sea's eco-system.
(ET) The Baltic Sea is an inland sea and, thanks to its poor connection with the open seas and oceans, it is a very distinctive sea. The limited water exchange with the Atlantic Ocean unfortunately also means that the Baltic Sea is very vulnerable - the sea lacks the ability to dilute large quantities of pollution and, what is more, fish stocks recover very slowly there after overfishing.
In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, we discussed at great length the topics of overfishing for cod and illegal fishing in the Baltic Sea. The committee agreed that cod fishing should be prohibited for some time in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea or that a zero fishing mortality rate should be established. The objective of this would be to permit cod stocks, which are in very bad condition, to recover, so that they might later be managed sustainably once again.
I regret that the Committee on Fisheries has not taken that one key position of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety into consideration in connection with managing the cod stocks of the Baltic Sea. It should also be in the long-term interests of fishermen to halt fishing at the moment, so that cod stocks, which are in a critical condition at the moment, might recover.
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank you for the number of points that have been raised. I think it is clear that we share a common objective, that of ensuring the long-term sustainability of cod stocks in the Baltic and thus the livelihood of the fishers in the region. While we may differ on the means of achieving this objective, I have no doubt that our aim is the same. On the specific points raised, I would like to make the following points.
Firstly, we must propose schemes for effort limitations and take into account the effort exerted by small-scale fleets since their catches represent around 50% of total catches. We are, however, ready to consider flexible mechanisms in order to enable them to apply the plan without it being too much of a burden. I would like to stress that the eastern cod stock has been declining continuously over the last decades, as has the average catch size. The serious situation of this stock is therefore self-evident and, while it is crucial to take account of the socio-economic perspective, it is primarily the ecological status which requires recovery, that is of paramount importance. In this regard, an annual reduction of 10% has been identified as the minimum in order to be able to detect changes in the development of the stock status or the sector deriving from the plan. A decrease of the annual reduction would also confront the sector with a longer reduction period and therefore delay the benefit of bigger and more stable catches and would make it unlikely that the MSY levels can be reached before 2015, as is required under the Johannesburg Commitment.
Finally, it is important to underline that control is the key issue, particularly in this fishery. We hope to reach a solid and workable solution to this issue in the Council next week.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The sitting was suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)


1. Murder of human rights activists in Russia
I have received six motions for a resolution concerning the murders of human rights lawyers in Russia (Rule 122).
author. - (FI) Mr President, we really ought to spare a thought here for the human rights activists who were recently murdered in the North Caucasus and light a candle in memory of them. We have to remember that Natalia Estemirova, Zarema Sadulayeva, Alik Dzhabrailov and many others who have suffered and lost their lives in their defence of human rights deserve the support of all of us. Unfortunately, we were not able to support them enough while they were alive.
It is alarming that Russia has not been able to conduct criminal investigations rigorous enough to solve these murders and bring the guilty to justice. I have noted that the European Union has communicated with Russia officially on the subject. Quite obviously, however, our efforts are insufficient, and we will have to consider seriously how we can make the rule of law work in Russia and how we can raise this issue's profile a lot higher when we negotiate the new partnership and cooperation agreement with that country .
We also need to think about how we might support human rights defenders in Russia better than we do now. We should discuss whether we could offer protection to those in danger and whether the EU institutions can arrange visas for them promptly, so that they can escape from Russia, where they and their lives are at risk. In the opinion of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, it is important that the European Parliament should have a centre which disseminates information on the situation of human rights activists whose lives are in danger and which endeavours to help them in collaboration with the other institutions. There is much we can do. Anna Politkovskaya once said that the West can do so much, but the West does so little.
(Applause)
Mr President, I am going to use the brief amount of time I have to clarify the position of my group, which did not sign the joint declaration and which is tabling a separate resolution.
I would like to tell you, firstly, that we are fully in agreement with the joint resolution with regard to Natalia Estemirova, Zarema Sadulayeva and Alik Dzhabrailov.
We have been shocked by these new assassinations which, in fact, are just a sample of the assassinations of human rights activists in Chechnya.
In our resolution, we have called for exactly the same thing as the joint resolution calls for: we condemn the attack, we call for an enquiry, and we express our concern over the deterioration of human rights for militants in Russia.
Where our position diverges is with regard to the additional reference in the joint resolution to all human rights defenders and to the situation in the North Caucasus region in general. We think that there may be other places in which to make these points - and I undertake to do so - particularly in the resolution that will precede the summit between the European Union and Russia. We would like this agenda on human rights activists and the protection of these activists to form part of that resolution, but also of all the negotiations that we have in the future with Russia.
So, the problem here, I would add, is simply one of time and of place. This is a political issue that should be dealt with politically and not just here, when we are dealing with urgent cases. That is why we have decided to make the distinction but, of course, on the substance of the problem, we are fully in agreement with the other groups.
author. - Mr President, allow me to present the Chamber with a few facts. Only this year in January, Stanislav Markelov, the human rights lawyer who represented the assassinated journalist Anna Politkovskaya, was gunned down in the middle of the afternoon in downtown Moscow. On the same occasion, Anastasia Baburova, a journalist who tried to protect him, was also shot and died.
In July, Natalia Estemirova, a well-known Russian human rights activist and journalist, was found dead in Ingushetia after being abducted by armed men in neighbouring Chechnya. Less than a month later, another non-governmental activist, Zarema Sadulayeva, and her husband were abducted and killed.
In August, journalist Malik Akhmedilov was shot dead shortly after leaving his home in Dagestan. Six outstanding journalists and human rights activists dead in less than eight months.
These abductions and murders are only the peak of what results from the deterioration of the human rights situation in Russia, where independent voices, including lawyers, journalists and other activists, face increasing violence, threats and unjustified prosecution.
Human rights violations in Russia, and especially in North Caucasus, can no longer be ignored. We cannot be so naive as to believe that super-powerful Russia, with one of the strongest intelligence services in the world, is not capable of finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice.
We all, regardless of our political colour, have to understand that impunity for attacks against human rights defenders will contribute to more violence and a growing culture of lawlessness. The Russian authorities must ensure the physical safety and freedom of movement and expression of human rights defenders, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on human rights defenders.
author. - (DE) Mr President, our former Oldest Member, Otto von Habsburg, was once asked whether he regretted being an MEP rather than an emperor. He said no, because if he was an emperor he would have to call a fool 'Your Excellency' but as an MEP he could call a fool a fool. I am reminded of this story when human rights issues come up.
We are not a diplomatic body; we are a political parliamentary body. We can speak the truth. There is a saying that goes 'the fish stinks from the head down'. It is not the case - and I would like to thank Mrs Weber for giving such a clear speech - that these incidents and murders in the Caucasus are in any way random or the work of some dark force, but rather, since Mr Putin came to power, which is linked to the matter of Chechnya and the mysterious explosion of houses in Moscow, there has been a trail of blood there for years that always leads back to Chechnya and affects innocent people: civilians and, in particular, human rights activists who, like those mentioned - and many of these people were known to us personally - not only work for the human rights of Chechens but also for a democratic Russia, for an understanding between the peoples of Chechnya and Russia and for peace in the Caucasus. These people are being murdered one after the other.
Mrs De Keyser, this is why it was necessary to hold an emergency debate. We will make ourselves a laughing stock if a woman who received praise in this House and who visited us in Strasbourg on account of her commitment to human rights is murdered in front of our eyes and we then postpone the debate on the subject to some later date.
Russia is watching closely to see whether we are in a position to respond immediately - and we must respond immediately by saying very clearly: put an end to the murders, to the violation of human rights and grant freedom to Chechnya and Russia, but above all put an end to the systematic violation of human rights and murders in mysterious circumstances.
author. - (PL) Once again, the issue of human rights violations in Russia has appeared on the European Parliament's agenda.
In addition to the systematic persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, human rights activists are regularly being murdered. Journalists and NGO workers in Russia risk their lives every day in the course of their work. Threats, kidnappings, torture, arbitrary detentions and murders are becoming commonplace. The fact that the Russian authorities are not actively investigating these crimes, that no real results have been achieved and that the perpetrators remain at large, not only proves the complete ineffectiveness of the authorities' actions, but also their tacit consent and indifference.
Respect for human rights should be a key issue in relations between the European Union and Russia. It is our duty to demand that Russia ensures that proper and effective investigations are implemented, that the perpetrators are punished and that it puts an end to these horrific murders.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a new MEP, let me start by saying that human rights issues are also extremely important to my party, the German Left, and that we condemn any violation of human rights - irrespective of where or by whom they are committed. That has nothing to do with interfering in national affairs.
I have for years been genuinely concerned and outraged by the fact that, time and again, human rights activists involved with the situation in Chechnya are being murdered. Natalia Estemirova, Stanislav Markelov, Zarema Sadulayeva, these are examples of murders that are truly shocking. It is therefore important that we in this House concern ourselves with this issue.
I am concerned that cases like the murder of Anna Politkovskaya are not investigated. If this process is now re-opened, I most sincerely hope that the perpetrators are found and arrested, because otherwise there is a risk of more bloodshed and it will be seen as a licence to commit acts of this kind. What we expect is simply for an immediate and full investigation to be carried out into these murders and for this matter to be dealt with ruthlessly, for Russia not to wait any longer but to take up the fight to protect human rights itself. It must not be the case that protecting human rights somehow condemns people to death. I also believe that the forthcoming EU-Russia summit needs to tackle these issues as a matter of urgency, and not merely as side issues, but with the prominence that they deserve.
Personally, I also expect human rights issues to be discussed honestly in this House. I would have preferred not to debate issues such as these on Thursday afternoon and I believe this topic should also concern us even if it was about enterprise and trade. Such issues are often given secondary priority. That is what we want to change and that is also something I wanted to say here.
Mr President, in a country with a high crime rate, one could put forward the theory that the deaths of human rights activists are a coincidence. They are coincidental because, generally speaking, many people fall victim to crime in these countries. Today, on 17 September, I have to remind you all of a sad anniversary, namely the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Following this invasion, Soviet troops shot at least 21 768 Polish citizens. Why have I mentioned this fact? It is because the Russians now claim that this was an ordinary crime, in the same way that the murders of human rights activists are 'ordinary crimes'.
The scale on which human rights activists are being murdered in Russia is such that to interpret this phenomenon as the result of 'ordinary crime' is utterly reckless. The theory that these murders are 'coincidental' is not a viable one. The systematic nature of these killings means that there has to be something in the political and social climate in Russia that has caused such frequent killings. The moral crisis in that country, a tendency to trivialise death, dehumanisation, relativism and vanishing values are to blame for the fact that this problem is not taken seriously. I think that our resolution is well-balanced and will help the Russians resolve this matter.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (LT) The Social Democrat Group cannot remain indifferent to the recent murders of human rights activists in Russia. The deaths of Anna Politkovskaya, Natalya Estemirova, Zarema Sadulayeva, Andrei Kulagin must not remain meaningless. We condemn utterly the perpetrators of these barbarous actions and the fact that sadly in some regions of Russia there is an atmosphere of impunity and political murders are not investigated.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has promised that the perpetrators of the murders will be found and punished. His reaction was stronger than the previous president's, but so far these are only words. Time will tell if the Russian authorities are able to carry through the commitments made, so important to the country's citizens and the international community. In our opinion, evaluation in the proposed resolution of Russian actions in the Northern Caucasus has exceeded the resolution's area of application, therefore the social democrats have decided to adopt their own separate document. The social democrats are convinced that the human rights situation in Russia would really improve if EU-Russia human rights consultations were stepped up. The European Parliament, the State Duma, civil, social and human rights organisations in the EU and Russia should make an active contribution to these consultations. We stress that the protection of human rights must be discussed at length at the next meeting of the leaders of the EU and Russia. This matter is becoming an inherent part of the new agreement between the EU and Russia.
(LT) This debate and the European Parliament resolution on the murder of human rights activists in Russia is particularly important, especially now as we hear one news report after another on the murders in Russia of the human rights defenders Natalya Estemirova, Alik Jabrailov, Zarema Sadulayeva and others. The European Union cannot remain indifferent to the brutal killing of human rights activists. In our relations with Russia we must underline and we do underline that investigations into these murders take too long and as a rule end without establishing who was guilty. Such an unacceptable practice is becoming the norm in Russia, especially in the case of crimes in Chechnya, where impunity is thriving. One of our fundamental values is respect for human rights, human dignity and human life, and no pragmatic interests can be above these values. I think that as a matter of honour Russian President Dmitry Medvedev should ensure that everything is done to fully investigate the kidnapping and murder cases involving human rights defenders, and to bring those who are guilty to justice.
Mr President, the human rights situation in Russia has changed for the worse. We now call on the Russian authorities to do everything in their power to ensure the protection of human rights defenders. We know that the crucial thing that is lacking is a will to do that 'everything'. It can be done, as the Kremlin exercises a decisive influence on Russia's power structures and judiciary. Because of this, the failure of the Russian judiciary to protect human rights defenders makes one assume the complicity of the regime in these crimes.
Our message today should be addressed to the EU governments and the Commission. As long as the Kremlin assumes that worries about the fate of human rights defenders remain on the level of declarations, with no consequences on economic relations, Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev can conclude that the EU has not been able to draw lessons from the blatant murder of Anna Politkovskaya.
(PL) We are indeed discussing human rights violations in Russia on a day of significant symbolic value. Exactly 70 years ago, on 17 September 1939, the Red Army - in collusion with Hitler - occupied one third of Poland, which was then fighting against the German invasion. Stalin's forces murdered thousands of Poles, and hundreds of thousands were taken away to Soviet labour camps. In Katyń, thousands of Polish officers were murdered on Stalin's orders. To us, 17 September will forever remain a day of shame for Stalin's Russia.
Today's Russia is not brave enough to face this horrific truth. Its current government is providing unconvincing justifications for their former alliance with Hitler. To this day, Moscow is refusing to grant access to the archives on the Katyń massacre.
The histories of many countries contain horrific events. It is a measure of the maturity of a nation when it is able to confront its past and denounce that which needs to be denounced in its history. Today's Germany is an example of such an attitude. It is only then that the past will cease to be a burden for today's Russia and will allow it to enter the community of free and democratic nations with its head held high. Only then will Russia be able, once and for all, to drop the millstone of its Stalinist past from around its neck, and to stop fighting against its own citizens, who are currently risking their lives to defend fundamental freedoms and human rights.
We honour the victims of those murders. We will remember you all.
(PT) Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The murder of Natalia Estemirova prompted great sadness in all of us in this House, since we learnt of her abduction on the very day when we gathered here for the first time, and heard of her murder just a few hours later. That is something that cannot fail to move anyone, wherever in the world they may be. As my colleague Mrs Ernst has already said, I firmly believe that the left must defend human rights and the defenders of human rights everywhere, regardless of the country they are in.
These attacks, this onslaught against human rights activists in Russia, have had very worrying effects. They work as intimidation and will certainly be extremely traumatic for all those who want to defend human rights in Russia. They are therefore the first layer in an offensive that will later result in the deterioration of the whole human rights situation, not to mention the human rights of the activists themselves.
The effects of these murders are therefore unpredictable and worrying. Without a swift and effective judicial investigation and with no guarantee that the safety of human rights activists will be respected, the situation may in fact become extremely worrying. That is why I shall take great pleasure in voting in favour of this resolution and in following up its appeals to the Russian authorities to protect human rights activists.
I come from Portugal, from the other end of Europe, and next week I shall be going to Russia. In fact, I am going to the Russian embassy tomorrow to get my visa. I believe that the relations between Europe and Russia are of the greatest importance and that Europe owes much to Russia. The first thing that Europe owes Russia is sincerity and clarity in the protection of the human rights and freedoms of our Russian fellow citizens of Europe.
(FI) Mr President, your language is so beautiful that I decided to try to thank you in Hungarian: köszönöm. Mr Tavares, I would like to respond to your comments. Work on behalf of human rights is not just the concern of the left; it also concerns us on the centre-right, and let us hope this will encourage us to cooperate. Mrs Ernst mentioned something that is absolutely right. We are discussing this here, while in plenary most Members are already on their way home, and we have to work together to make this a political priority.
I was once a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and when the Subcommittee on Human Rights was set up I was a member of that too. When I tabled amendments, sometimes I submitted them to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and my colleagues would ask why I was still tabling amendments on human rights there, as we had a Subcommittee on Human Rights for that. At the time I thought that something was wrong if our Subcommittee on Human Rights was to become a ghetto or human rights were to become the preserve of such a body. Let us work together to prevent this from happening to human rights.
(BG) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Posselt's statement has annoyed me. I would like to underline that Mrs De Keyser's achievements in defending human rights cannot be brought into question in a discussion of this nature. She has proven herself as a key person working on this issue in this House.
I will not under any circumstances allow, and do not believe it is right for us to question the commitment of the S&D Group to the protection of human rights, because we also did this when your group, Mr Posselt, was attempting to trivialise the crimes at Guantanamo and the treatment of prisoners in Iraq by US troops.
On the subject of human rights in Russia, there is indeed a serious problem, which we acknowledge, and the resolution which we are submitting is sufficiently tough and incisive. However, we do think this Parliament needs to focus on the issues, and not simply to come up every time with a long list of problems in our relations with Russia, when these have no effect over there.
What we are doing in this respect is continuing to send a delegation from the S&D Group to talks in Moscow next week, where this particular issue will be raised. Do not use human rights emergencies like this one to produce a long list of issues. This is not the purpose of today's debate.
(SK) I would like to express my sadness and profound disquiet over the events which took place in June this year in the Russian Federation. I feel shaken by the brutal murders of Russian activists such as Natalia Estemirova and Andrei Kulagin and others who were involved in supporting human rights and who advocated truth and justice. Every effort must be made to detain and punish the murderers. I welcome and support measures which must be taken in order to solve these murders.
There was also a breach of international agreements in August 2008 when, during the conflict between Russia and Georgia, Russian armed forces attacked inhabited areas and failed to protect the civilian population from a violation of their rights by armed fighters from South Ossetia on territory which de facto came under Russian control. The Russian Government must state unequivocally that human rights violations will not be tolerated.
Mr President, a culture of criminal impunity is developing in Russia with regard to the abuse of human rights activists. Journalists who dare to challenge the official view of things are harassed; ethnic minorities suffer disproportionately from violent crime, which seems to go unsolved; campaigners for greater freedoms are at best marginalised and at worst forcibly silenced.
It is hard to see precisely where the threat to human rights defenders in Russia comes from, but time and again we see wanton abuses going unpunished and a lackadaisical approach from the judicial authorities.
Russia has got used to the equivocation of the EU. This is clear from the way the Union has reacted to Russia's bullying of Ukraine or Russia's invasion and occupation of sovereign Georgian territory last summer.
Clearly there are vital strategic questions at stake in the EU having good relations with Russia, but we cannot allow these questions to erase our obligation to speak out for our fundamental freedoms and shared European common values, freedoms and values the Russian people themselves should be enabled to share fully in peace and security.
(HU) I have been involved professionally for 25 years in protecting human rights. This is why, in particular as a lawyer, I feel a deep sense of sympathy when I think of my colleagues who have lost their lives in connection with this quite wonderful profession. I would also like, on this note, to express my sincere sympathy to their families and loved ones.
What would be the right course of action at a time like this? To call for an immediate, thorough investigation carried out by the relevant state agencies. I would like this Parliament to have the confidence and moral authority to do this. However, I am afraid this is not the case. Why? Because such demands are only made of states outside the European Union. However, things are different when it comes to human rights being grossly violated in a European Union Member State, as happened in my country, Hungary, where people were shot in the eye at a mass gathering of several thousand people staged by the party of the man currently presiding this session, Vice-President Pál Schmitt, to commemorate the anniversary of the 1956 revolution and fight for freedom. This Parliament has not had any investigation conducted into this case and the crisis situation which has continued since then.
I am afraid that as long as this does not happen and as long as someone who was a member of the government which sanctioned shooting at people can be Vice-Chairwoman of Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, , we cannot have any real confidence and the moral authority in another country, to ask for this kind of investigation to be carried out in a country outside the European Union. I would therefore ask you to propose and demand an immediate investigation into human rights violations in Hungary. Thank you.
(RO) I wanted to say, first of all, that I am disappointed that, when the dairy crisis was being discussed, the chamber was full, and now, when human rights are being discussed, I do not think that there are any more than 40 of us left in the chamber. It is a pity that this is how things are. I am not saying that the dairy crisis is not important, but a problem such as human rights is of paramount political importance to each one of us.
I would also like to say that I find unacceptable the whole idea that this year when, as is well known, many countries in Central and Eastern Europe are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the collapse of Communism, a power right on our doorstep, which was the originator of these Communist regimes, demonstrates such indifference to crimes perpetrated against human rights activists. I believe that the break with totalitarianism must be clearly affirmed by every one of us.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, today's debate on the situation of human rights defenders in Russia is timely and very appropriate. The recent wave of violence against human rights defenders has put the spotlight on the grave dangers they run in the course of their work. Many have paid the ultimate price for bringing to light violations of human rights. We pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives and to those who continue their work in such an environment.
Much of the violence against human rights defenders has taken place in the North Caucasus, against the background of growing instability. The Commission knows many of them. They are highly respected partners in the implementation of human rights projects. Innocent civilians, law enforcement personnel and government officials have lost their lives in the ongoing struggle in the region.
Violence against human rights defenders is not restricted to the North Caucasus. There are reports of activists, lawyers and independent journalists across the Russian Federation facing violence, harassment and intimidation. The EU must continue to speak out against this violence and insist that Russia uphold the commitments it has entered into as a member of the United Nations, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.
It is crucial that the attacks and violent deaths of civil society activists are properly investigated and that the perpetrators are promptly identified and punished. It is only through the effective and lawful prosecution of these killings that the climate of fear and impunity can be dissipated.
President Medvedev has spoken out against what he has termed the 'legal nihilism' prevailing in Russia. The EU stands ready to support Russia in its continuing reform of the judicial system. The EU highly values the opportunity it has to discuss its concerns on human rights with the Russian authorities. We welcome the more open attitude President Medvedev has taken to discussions with the EU on these issues.
The next EU-Russia summit is another opportunity to continue these discussions. This must be complemented by exchanges among experts. The regular EU-Russia human rights consultations offer an opportunity to broaden the scope of these discussions and the range of interlocutors with whom we discuss human rights issues.
The safety of human rights defenders must be the first concern. We urge the Russian authorities to make every possible effort to ensure that those who work on shedding light on violations of human rights are able to do so without fear of violence or intimidation.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure
Colleagues, we shall start with the signing of the Lex Citizens' initiative. Dear Minister Martonyi, President-in-Office, dear Chairs, rapporteurs, today we are considering legal matters: the very important signing into law of a very important piece of European legislation. It is important because we are giving another check to balance the powers of our institutions.
This regulation on the European Citizens' initiative, which has been adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, aims at providing our citizens with the same political initiative that the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament already enjoy. One million signatures are needed - only 0.2% of our citizens - to invite the European Commission to act in matters that concern them directly. It allows them to be heard. I will indeed establish a direct link between the citizens and the Union's institutions, bridging the gap between them, between all of us in the European Union.
The European Parliament and the Council worked hard to achieve a rapid adoption of this citizen-friendly regulation at first reading. I would like to thank all those who contributed to this success: the various Presidencies - in particular the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies -, the Commission and the Members of this House. I would like to give particular thanks to the Chairs of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and the Committee on Petitions (PETI), Carlo Casini and Erminia Mazzoni. I will ask you to come forward for the signing of the procedure. The four rapporteurs, Alain Lamassoure, Zita Gurmai, Diana Wallis and Gerald Häfner - I hope you are present and we can go through the procedure together - as well as the many other Members involved as shadow rapporteurs.
You can be proud of the work done for our citizens. With the Council we shall now sign this act into law but, before that, I will ask our guest, who will often be present in the European Parliament this half-year, Minister Martonyi, to say a few words.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, in this unique and solemn moment, I recall the early days of the European Convention when we were discussing how what used to be called the 'democratic deficit of the European integration process' could be eliminated, or at least reduced. There was a common goal which we all shared, and that was to enhance the democratic functioning of the European Union.
One way of doing that has just been found, and that is to foster the participation of the citizens themselves in the democratic life of the Union. That is how, and that is why, the right of the citizens' initiative was included in the Treaty, and now citizens can approach the European Commission directly and invite it to submit a proposal for a legislative act of the European Union.
I firmly believe that this is a milestone on the path towards more democracy in the Union. It is also the first element of direct democracy. It establishes direct contact and dialogue between the institutions and citizens and encourages cross-border direct dialogue and cooperation. It also encourages a sense of ownership: Europe is not them - Europe is us, and Europe will develop as we shape it ourselves, all of us together. Yes, our motto, 'A strong Europe with a human touch' depends upon all of us.
To achieve these goals and to implement the Treaty, clear, simple and user-friendly rules of procedure had to be established. This has now been done and was the result of the good cooperation between all the institutions - the Commission, the Council and first and foremost, the European Parliament. I would like to extend my special thanks to Mr Maroš Šefčovič of the Commission; I would like to express my thanks to the Spanish and the Belgian Presidencies, both of them members of our trio; and very special thanks and congratulations also have to be extended to the European Parliament, to all those who were involved in this extremely important job: the chairs of the committees, and also the rapporteurs Alain Lamassoure, Zita Gurmai, Diana Wallis and Gerald Häfner, and all the other Members who participated in this extremely important work.
This is a demonstration of the excellent cooperation and understanding not only between the European institutions, but also among the different political families or groups. I can only express my hope that this cooperation and this understanding will have set a model for the future, both for the institutions and for the political groups.


3. Approving the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (


9. 'made in' (origin marking) (vote)


8. Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy - Eastern Dimension (