Preparations for the Russian State Duma elections in December (debate)
The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the preparations for the Russian State Duma elections, which will be held in December.
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much again for this agenda item. I think it is important that we take time to reflect on the upcoming Russian elections. May I also thank Parliament for the resolutions on Russia. Your resolution of 9 June on the opening day of our most recent EU-Russia Summit had real impact. Of course, Russia is a partner with whom I work on a large number of foreign policy issues, but today, I want to just focus with you on the upcoming elections.
I think a number of decisions have been taken recently in Moscow which give us some ideas as to what we can expect in December for the Duma elections, and in March 2012 for the presidential poll.
Russia is already in pre-election mode, with new party alliances and increasing debate. There are some encouraging signs: President Medvedev is calling for economic and political modernisation, and Finance Minister Kudrin insists on free and fair elections. At the same time, political pluralism still faces obstacles.
As honourable Members will be aware, on 22 June, the Russian Ministry of Justice refused to register the new liberal opposition People's Freedom Party (PARNAS). Parliament here is, of course, fully aware of this case; one of the party's leaders, Mr Kasyanov, has spoken here several times, and I met briefly with him today in Strasbourg.
The main reason given for the refusal to register this party was that a few minors, young people and people who were dead had been found among the party's 46 000 members. Another of the Party's leaders, Mr Ryzhkov, has rejected these claims as false or groundless. But, even if you exclude those people, he would say that the party would still have the required 45 000 members. Honourable Members know that the earlier political party, the Republican Party of Russia, met a similar fate in 2007, when authorities ordered its dissolution.
On 12 April 2011 this year, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that this dissolution was in violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As far as I am aware, the authorities have not yet acted upon this judgment. PARNAS seems to have been denied registration on the basis of this very same and unchanged law.
The Court also noted that minimum party membership requirements in Russia are the highest in Europe. The Court was not persuaded that these requirements are necessary, and stressed that small minority groups must also have an opportunity to participate in elections. It said that frequently changing membership requirements, linked with regular checks, had imposed a disproportionate burden on political parties in Russia. I think that ruling should give the Russian leadership pause for thought.
At the EU-Russia Summit, we again emphasised the need for political pluralism. President Medvedev acknowledges that a focus on too much stability results in stagnation. Two weeks ago, he introduced a bill which would lower the threshold for parties to enter the Duma from the current 7% to 5% - but, of course, this only applies to the Duma elections in 2016. We know that the purpose of democratic elections is to give voters a real choice, and a sense that their vote matters for the outcome. Our main contribution is to offer election observation; consultations between Russia and OSCE/ODIHR are ongoing.
Russia seems keen to cooperate, and to avoid a repeat of the situation we saw in 2007, when it did not admit any long-term observers. Long-term observation is important, in particular, to be able to evaluate whether there is fair access to television and other media during the campaign. We received encouraging signals at the summit, and I look forward to a request being sent from Moscow to the OSCE. I am also sure that many honourable Members would be interested in participating in this observation.
Let me close with a few remarks about other human rights and rule of law issues in Russia. I believe our Partnership for Modernisation opens new opportunities for cooperation in this field, and I welcome the joint project with the Council of Europe on reforming the appeal system for civil and criminal court cases in Russia.
I also welcome the opening of new forms of dialogue with civil society, in particular, the creation of an EU-Russia Civil Society Forum. Likewise, I welcome President Medvedev's decision to examine the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev and Magnitsky cases. The conclusions of the Magnitsky case were presented yesterday, while those on the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev cases will take more time. Let me restate that in their cases, the second verdict was disappointing.
To conclude, Russia remains an essential partner for the EU and a challenging one. I think there is an interesting debate going on within the country about the modernisation of society and economy, and changing attitudes and expectations will materialise and shape the new realities.
The nine months ahead will be very important for Russia's future development. We believe the democratic process must come from within Russia. We will continue to build our engagement, we will continue to build on our common interests, and we will continue to stand firmly behind our values.
Mr President, Baroness Ashton, during the last plenary session, I pressed for the debate that we are holding today. We do enjoy practical collaboration with Russia, but for us there is one important matter above all others - a fundamental value - and that is democracy. I get the feeling that, at this point in time, the Russian authorities are doing their best more to not permit political parties than to actually put democratisation and modernisation into practice.
What is more, technical requirements can never be, and must never be allowed to be, an obstacle to the freedom of assembly or to establish a political party. In fact, precisely that kind of public debate and political participation by the citizens is something that governments should actually be encouraging. In this connection, I also have a question for Baroness Ashton; namely, have you heard that Boris Nemtsov was today issued with a travel ban by the authorities in Moscow and, if so, what are you going to do about it?
In the name of my group, I call on Russia, which is a member of the Council of Europe, to make adjustments to its disproportionately severe legislation governing the registration of political parties, as the European Court of Human Rights has called for recently in a carefully worded judgment.
Finally, there is currently a motion before the Duma that seeks to simply disregard judgments from the European Court of Human Rights. I honestly do not see what advantage Russia envisages gaining by de facto withdrawing from the Council of Europe or simply denying the existence of the European Court of Human Rights.
My thanks to Baroness Ashton for her efforts. I also thank her for the clear position that she just took. The question for Baroness Ashton and for all of us here is, and remains: how can we ensure that fair and proper elections are held in Russia and how can we ensure that we can actually act as monitors of such elections on the ground?
Mr President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be brief, because the subject of Russia comes round every four weeks and I stand by the opinion that I expressed four weeks ago. Yes, we regret the fact that yet again, parties in Russia, most recently the liberal party, are not approved and therefore cannot stand for public election. I am convinced that no nation in the world will put up with this in the long term. I am also convinced that our Partnership for Modernisation could be implemented much more effectively if the Russian Government could allay concerns about democratic shortcomings and the rule of law with bold decisions. Until such time as that happens, we shall not let this subject rest, also because we believe that it is in the interest of our partner, in other words, Russia itself.
For my part, I should also like to add that I am equally convinced that we can achieve a great deal more by stepping up our talks and our cooperation than by adopting monthly resolutions, however appropriate these may be. Human rights and democracy are indivisible. Our public contribution to this is important, our criticism of Russia is justified, but we would be even more credible if we were to identify the shortcomings within the EU with the same honesty and acuity and perhaps even more unanimously than before. As long as Members of this House maintain - as they did yesterday - that modern Hungary is a model democracy, then, what my fellow Member from the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) said continues to apply: that the self-righteousness of some Members of this House is hair-raising. I agree with that. I am not saying this to please anyone in Moscow, but because I am firmly convinced that we can make a much more effective contribution than we are making at present.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
(PL) Madam President, I should like to ask Mr Fleckenstein about the comparison he made in the final part of his speech, namely, that we cannot criticise Russia, since similar violations of human rights also take place in Europe, for example, in Hungary. Did I understand correctly, or was there a mistranslation of some kind? I believe that these matters cannot be compared, and I would like clarification in this respect.
(DE) Mr Migalski, you are absolutely right. The two things cannot be compared. However, I believe that you enhance your credibility by dealing with the problems in your own backyard - quite irrespective of any criticism, including of Moscow.
My second point is that, while we are perfectly entitled to criticise Moscow, the question must be how we can most effectively help bring about some kind of change. I am convinced that that will not be achieved through repeated resolutions.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the Russian Minister of Justice has consistently refused to register any new political parties since February 2009; the most recent being the People's Freedom Party, whose two leaders are among us today in the gallery: Mr Mikhail Kasyanov and Mr Boris Nemtsov.
Madam High Representative, the future of EU-Russia strategic relations must be directly linked to efforts to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights in Russia. The Kremlin is breaching Russia's commitments as a Member of the Council of Europe and a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore ought to be disciplined if the requirements for political pluralism continue to be disregarded.
Moreover, the Russian authorities continue to pressure the opposition. Yesterday, for example, the authorities issued a six-month exit ban for Mr Boris Nemtsov, one of the leaders of the party PARNAS.
I recall that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe holds the right to withhold verification of the credentials of parliamentarians elected through elections deemed to be in breach with European standards.
The European Union must also insist that the Kremlin withdraws all decisions and regulations concerning the non-registration of political parties in Russia that do not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Putin has got until September to reconsider, when the elections are announced, but we can already see that the tracks have been laid.
Madam President, the December elections to the Duma will point the way for developments over the next few years in our largest continental neighbour. Will we see restricted democracy, or even creeping authoritarianism? Unfortunately, we are under no illusions. All the facts point to a slow drift towards an autocracy ruled by the pro-Kremlin 'United Russia' party. Examples of what I have in mind include amendments made by the government to the electoral law increasing the electoral threshold to 7%, a stepping up of attacks and blackmail against opposition activists, the absence of pluralism in the media and a refusal to register political parties. This is a clear indication of the path the Kremlin has chosen.
The escalation of such measures should be linked to the results of opinion polls published by the independent Russian media, which show that there is less and less support for the actions of those in power. In view of these facts, what should we do? Above all, we should endeavour to obtain the release of opposition activists and politicians. We must respond in a spirit of solidarity to all violations of human rights, paying particular attention to attacks on the free press, and support the development of free speech by inviting Russian journalists to participate in the European debate.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow, we will once again be adopting a resolution on Russia. It will, in fact, be the fourth resolution on Russia this year, which is a clear indication of the backlog of problems and the difficulties in communication that have built up between the European Union and Russia.
Our most recent resolution expressed our concerns and expectations in respect of the forthcoming Duma and presidential elections in Russia. Baroness Ashton, I can only hope that, together with Presidents Barroso and Van Rompuy, you addressed this very clearly in your talks with President Medvedev in Nizhny Novgorod. Yet what effect has that had? What has happened since then? By failing to allow the liberal PARNAS party, the Russian Government has demonstrated that it is clearly hell-bent on backing up its 'controlled' democracy and 'controlled' justice with 'controlled' elections. Even President Medvedev - and you stressed this yourself - has called for competition between political parties, as he has recognised that a governing party without competition will stagnate and then lead the country into stagnation.
It is thus in Russia's own interest for us not to let the Russian Government get away with infringing international obligations, as Russia is a member of the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, all of which should actually guarantee that it complies with all the generally recognised electoral standards. Only in April - and you pointed this out, too - the European Court of Human Rights found that the disbanding of the Republican Party was disproportionate and unlawful and called on Russia to follow up as necessary by 12 July.
I believe that the only possible follow-up is for these electoral obstacles to finally be removed and the way cleared for free, real, fair and proper elections. Russia repeatedly demands freedom of travel within the EU, yet freedom of travel without free elections at home is a hamstrung and restricted freedom and leads to emigration rather than modernisation.
(HU) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs Ashton for the letter she sent me recently concerning my 11 May speech.
In connection with the Russian elections to be held on 4 December, I would definitely like to emphasise the importance of creating the status of a European Union election observer. I, myself - at the invitation of the 'Civil Control' social organisation - participated at the regional elections as an observer in March of this year. On this occasion, I was able to speak with Viktor Churov, the President of the Russian Election Committee, who informed me that currently, there is no agreement between the two countries about sending election observers. This is why I find it particularly important that OSCE negotiations be concluded successfully, and that representatives of the European Parliament also be able to participate officially in Russian elections. This is what I ask of Mr Fleckenstein, Chair of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, that in September, at the next committee meeting in Warsaw, we definitely raise this issue with the Russian negotiation partner.
Madam President, I would like to thank the High Representative for her detailed statement. The Russian decision to block the registration of a credible political party prior to the elections is not an aberration; it is yet another example of Russia's refusal to play by the rules while claiming to be a genuinely democratic post-Soviet entity.
But politically motivated killings, kidnappings and jailings, sanctioned by a corrupt justice system or ignored by the judicial authorities, are a common feature of the Russian democracy. Indeed, one can say that the Russian authorities perfected democracy to the point where opposition is not necessary any more and the voters are no longer essential. But if Russia is not willing to be honest with its own people, we should not expect honesty in Russia's relations with the EU. It might take one to kozachok, but it surely takes two to tango.
So I call on you and the Commission to make any further negotiations with Russia conditional on the fair preparation and conduct of the elections in December. Human rights and democracy should be at the centre of our relationship with Russia, and if we are ready to reset our relations with Russia, then Russia should reset its own relations with democracy.
(PL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, thank you very much for having raised the issue of human rights in your speech and, in particular, the Magnitsky affair. I have to tell the Commissioner that literally 90 minutes ago, in a room 100 metres away from the plenary chamber, the delegation for relations with Russia turned down an opportunity to vote through and adopt a statement on the Magnitsky affair, and rejected the stated intention of clarifying the cause of his death as quickly as possible and of punishing the culprits. It should be noted that the delegation did so in response to a motion to block the statement tabled by Mr Schulz, who has spoken so eloquently and genuinely about the problems of Russian democracy. Even hypocrisy has its limits. On the one hand, we talk about how we want to promote democracy in Russia while, on the other, we block the clarification of matters that are fundamental to this democracy, such as the death of Mr Magnitsky.
Madam President, I listened with interest to Mr Ungureanu's speech, and I would like to ask him how much time he has spent in Russia, since he presents himself as such a profound expert on this country, because, in my opinion, a full assessment of this broad issue - which is no simple matter, of course - requires spending a certain amount of time in Russia and learning about life not only in the centres, but also in the regions, and perhaps it would be a good thing if you could tell us about this.
Madam President, I thank my colleague for his very interesting question. I agree that you need to know the internal realities of Russia. The exact answer is that I spent altogether around two months in Russia at different times. I hope this will satisfy him.
Mr Migalski, do you not think that your comments were completely unfair? We absolutely did not reject the substance of your statement on Mr Magnitsky. All we said was that it is very much out-of-date. You wrote it four weeks ago. The Fedotov report has now been published, and it sets out the details and circumstances of Mr Magnitsky's death very clearly. We needed to take that on board. Your statement needs to be revised. However, our opinions on the case are the same. I wish to distance myself from this hypocrisy. What you have said in this connection is outrageous. It is defamatory to say what you have said. Your time would be better spent updating your statement!
(PL) Madam President, to start with, Mr Schulz has misunderstood the purpose of the blue-card procedure, which is to ask questions, not to make pronouncements. However, I can tell Mr Schulz that four weeks ago, when he received the previous version of the statement on the Magnitsky affair, he said back then that he did not wish to comment on the matter, and he believed back then that we should not vote on it, since he did not wish to put his name to it. I would therefore ask him not to start trying now to justify what I believe is a hypocritical position. I will not retract my statement, although it may not be to his liking.
(CS) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, if the Russian Federation wants to be a respected partner of Europe, it must abandon the totalitarian practices by means of which it is now eliminating the opposition, including the earlier exclusion of the PARNAS party from the elections.
I used to live in the former Eastern Bloc, and I am therefore very familiar with the path Russia is gradually treading from totalitarianism via an authoritarian system to democracy. The current government, however, despite the judgment of the European Court of Justice, is systemically changing the electoral rules and frustrating free competition between political ideas. This proves, unfortunately, that the government is only pretending to build a democratic Russia. President Medvedev, in particular, is tightening the reins again.
Baroness Ashton, I hope you will continue to insist on compliance with human rights in the Russian Federation, and on ending those practices which will otherwise become a barrier to cooperation within the framework of the Eastern Partnership policy. I firmly believe that these practices are intended to secure one-party government indefinitely, as a fellow Member said here earlier. I am concerned, despite everything, that the autumn elections to the Duma will not be declared to have been free.
I would therefore like to ask a question in advance, if I may. What measures are you planning to take, Baroness Ashton, on behalf of the EU? What can we do now to avoid or at least minimise such a situation? Current events in Russia show that Russia is actually moving more towards an authoritarian system than towards democracy. That is bad for Europe as well.
Madam President, I will start by saying that I have a dream. I have a dream that Russia will one day be a democratic and wealthy country; wealthy not only for a small portion of the people but wealthy for all citizens. Each election provides a chance for this.
You can use it or you can lose it. I completely agree with the previous speaker in what she said and I will not repeat it. I just wanted to draw your attention to one very important aspect we did not achieve.
Before the elections, Russia needs long-term election observation - not just for a few days in election time - but long term. This is because the people have very limited access to the mass media. We have listened to representatives of the new party, PARNAS. They told us this situation is very unequal. This is a very important issue for our common future.
Please, Baroness Ashton, fight for this long-term observation mission.
(NL) Madam President, it is clear that the Russian leadership in the Kremlin is not enamoured with serious opposition, which explains its non-registration of PARNAS on very dubious grounds. I read an interesting interview with one of the party's joint chairs, Mikhail Kasyanov, the former Prime Minister of Russia, about the motives behind this decision. He expects us to send a signal. We are doing so with this debate and tomorrow, we will also do so with the resolution. I am firmly behind it.
In the meantime, we can talk of an unhappy continuity in Russian history. Four years ago, you had to vote for a particular party, namely Mr Putin's and Mr Medvedev's party. It is now 2011, and this situation is repeating itself. The Pan-Russian Popular Front has recently been established. Unbelievable as it is, every possible association is being included without the members knowing anything about it. A member of the architects' association has just discovered this fact and protested about it. Mr Putin is to investigate the matter. It is absolutely obvious that we need to make clear to our Russian partner that political pluralism is political pluralism and nothing else, even in Russia.
(SK) Madam President, Russia is one of the European Union's most important partners, a partner which, through its economic power and growing economic potential, will soon be having a greater impact on life in Europe. It is therefore surely important for us that political power in that country should reflect the plurality of opinions held by the citizens of that country. On the other hand, to expect that any world power - be it the US, Russia or China - would allow itself to be dictated to by us regarding the rules it should apply when organising its parliamentary elections is, in my opinion, a sign of over-confidence on our part. Like the authors of this resolution, I, too, sincerely hope that not just the December elections to the Russian Duma, but all elections organised in Russia, are honest, transparent and fair, but I am not sure we should send a message like this to a partner with whom we say we enjoy good relations. I firmly believe that Baroness Ashton has sufficient authority in Moscow to convey our concerns in a more diplomatic and sensitive manner.
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, honourable Members, thank you again. I found that a very interesting and stimulating debate. As we think about how to address some of the areas of concern that honourable Members have quite rightly raised, I just want to make three very straightforward points.
First of all, we have to continue to articulate our expectations to Russia as far as free and fair elections are concerned, and we will recall the international commitments that Russia has taken in this regard. I think it is very important as we move towards the elections that we continue to send that strong message: that we want to see these elections be fair and free; that we want to see the international commitments fully followed.
Secondly, we want as well to offer our election observation. I said earlier that consultations between Russia and OSCE/ODIHR are ongoing; they seem keen to cooperate. I hope that will happen and that this will also help in the light of some of the comments that honourable Members have made about the need to look at the long-term nature of observation.
Thirdly, we also need, and again Members made this clear, to make sure that at the level of the modernisation partnership, we are working closely to help support that process. We currently have 16 bilateral partnerships, and these look at issues like foreign investment, know-how and technology, as well as the rule of law of modern democratic institutions and civil society involvement.
Because I think it is also clear from what honourable Members have said that we want to send a very clear message to the people of Russia that we are a supportive friend, that we want to see progress, we want to see modernisation and we want also to be a source of inspiration when it comes to the democratic values we hold and our absolute passion for human rights.
I have received five motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 7 July 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
I welcome the statement made by the High Representative at such an important time for every democracy in the world. I think that a real partnership between the EU and Russia must be based not only on common interests but also on sharing principles and values. These must include respect for the rule of law and for fundamental rights and freedoms.
It is vital that, in the run-up to and during the elections in December 2011, Russia lives up to expectations in terms of respect for democratic standards. Political pluralism is a definitive feature of modern societies. The organisation of free and fair elections ensures the expression of a variety of opinions, visions and options. This will allow the Russian authorities to make a significant contribution not only to strengthening the democratic nature of the state, but also to offering a viable model for neighbouring countries.
in writing. - The ability and willingness to provide an environment for free elections is a cornerstone of the democratic functioning of any country. The refusal to register the PARNAS party for the elections must be taken very seriously. This is a clear signal that Russia is not willing to allow free and fair elections.
In fact, Russia is mocking democracy. The case of Khodorkovsky is no longer that of one individual, but has become a grotesque symbol of the entire Russian judiciary system and the situation of the rule of law in Russia.
The EU cannot continue treating Russia on a case-by-case basis. It is unacceptable for the EU to allow Russia to dictate the agenda, as recently seen at the EU-Russia Summit that was dominated by the marginal issue of vegetable imports and exports, rather than Russia's serious violations of the rule of law and human rights.
We have to be clear that, if there is no change in Russia, the EU will not continue talks on anything with its so-called strategic partner. There can be no talks on the new PCA unless Russia takes concrete action to improve the judiciary system and to apply the rule of law and democratic principles.
We are seeing a great many alarming developments in the run-up to the forthcoming elections to the Duma, such as the refusal to register the PARNAS party and the increase in the electoral threshold. These developments, coupled with examples where freedom of speech has been disregarded and representatives of the press and media have been attacked, both of which are already regular occurrences in Russia, have given rise to widespread alarm. Russia should change its policies on the opposition and the free press. In particular, I support the call to lift the ban on leaving the country imposed on the opposition activist, Boris Nemtsov. The Russians should understand that respect for democratic standards is essential in order to improve relations between Russia and the rest of the world. Despite the fact that Russia is one of the European Union's largest and most significant partners, and despite the fact that it is assuming a more important role on the international stage, the European Union should continue to implement measures aimed at changing the situation in this country. I am counting on Baroness Ashton's future actions yielding better results. In the longer term, we should take concrete steps to encourage Russia to change its policies. I also hope that the forthcoming observation mission will have a positive impact on the course of the elections.
in writing. - In view of the lively and emotional debate on the resolution on the preparations for the Russian State Duma elections in December 2011, I wish to state that amendments to, and the regulation of, electoral laws should not favour specific parties or groups of entrepreneurs which are supported by specific Members of the European Parliament.
It looks as though financial oligarchic groups are lobbying with the intention of reshaping the existing political and economic balance in the Russian Federation, rather than changing the legal situation. In hearings and discussions, we should hear not only the opinion of opposition representatives from outside parliament, but also official Russian opinion.
I would like to emphasise that many of the former high-ranking Russian officials who chose to leave the so-called political elite did not make any changes to the legislation and constitution of the Russian Federation when they had the chance. Their current appeals for action therefore seem strange. We should cooperate with the Russian Federation on elections and not dictate conditions, since dictating will not have any effect.
Russia is one of our main partners. It is also a Member State of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. This is why we pay particular attention to it during European Parliament debates.
Five months ago, we adopted a resolution in which we expressed doubts about the rule of law in Russia.
Last month, we emphasised in point 12 of the resolution on the EU-Russia Summit the need for free and fair elections by implementing the standards set out by the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
Here we are again obliged to return to this subject, against a background where the PARNAS party has been deprived of the right to take part in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. This is an unfortunate decision. Some of the registration procedures used in Russia for political parties and candidate lists have proved to be unjustified. They have become an impediment to free and fair elections.
It is vital for the credibility of these elections in December that the Russian authorities allow the OSCE/Council of Europe to carry out some long-term election monitoring missions. This will allow the international community to see whether progress is being made in establishing democracy in Russia or whether we are not dealing somehow with an imitation democracy.


Consumer confidence in the digital environment (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Roithová on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on consumer confidence in the digital environment.
rapporteur. - (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that, after a year's work, I and the shadow rapporteurs can now present to you the complete report on consumer confidence in the digital environment.
With this report Parliament is sending out a strong political plea to the Commission and the Member States to update the conditions for online business and to take steps to enhance consumer confidence as regards the most recent trends in the digital environment. Businesses and consumers are waiting for unequivocal, simple, enforceable rules that will enhance online business culture in the European market. The report is merely the start of the whole process. I am aware that implementing it would involve a considerable amount of work for the Commission, which is already limited in terms of financial and human resources
Public hearings and studies have revealed some telling facts, to which we cannot turn a blind eye. Just 6% of consumers buy online from suppliers in other Member States. One third do not receive the goods or services they order on account of their nationality, their country of residence or the country in which their payment card was issued. Some modern electronic services providing digital content are only available to customers in the old EU-15.
Users are bound by any number of digital contracts that they have simply clicked on and have not read. They are therefore unaware that these contracts may contain a number of unfair and misleading contractual arrangements. We have discovered that not even legal experts are capable of deciphering the exact content of digital contracts, for example, licensing arrangements with the end user. Small businesses are unaware of their obligations in e-commerce and have difficulty in making their way around 27 different legal systems. Consumers do not know their Internet rights, and indeed, there is no document summarising these rights. Users are not sure what they can and cannot do with the digital content they have purchased. They are afraid of resolving claims in another country and do not know about counterfeit medicines sold on the Internet. We therefore propose the following: a worldwide campaign to be launched by the Commission to highlight the dangers of counterfeit medicines; the creation of a Europe-wide early-warning system to combat fraudulent activities on the Internet; and an extension to the scope of contracts on which bans are to be imposed due to unfair contractual arrangements.
The principle of the single market is less restriction and more opportunity. Paradoxically, however, it is as though this principle did not apply to the electronic environment, despite the cross-border opportunities. I would venture to say that 27 separate national markets are hampering the development of the information society in Europe, which lags behind that of the USA and Asia.
If we are to demolish the artificial or natural obstacles to e-commerce we will have to overcome the fragmented rules of the Member States. This will be possible in the long term if the political will is there to achieve complete harmonisation. Such a dynamic sector, however, calls for a quicker and more flexible solution. This is why in the report I opted for coordinated work on voluntary standards, or rather super-standards, for example an optional standardised contract geared towards cross-border e-commerce. The content must be agreed upon by business and consumer organisations, in which the Commission will have a vital role to play in terms of coordination. Holders of the European trustmark for cross-border e-commerce must adhere to these standards. Consumer organisations welcome the implementation of the trustmark and are committed to revealing and disclosing any misuse, with the help of existing technical and legal resources.
We also call for the formulation of a European Charter of Users' Rights in the information society. The European Parliament is one of the first parliaments in the world seeking to clarify consumer Internet rights. If the Charter is widely accessible and available in all official languages, consumers will begin to demand their rights and businesses will begin to uphold the Charter and not to risk having to spend money on resolving disputes.
I feel that the report will act as an inspiration for improving standards in the digital environment.
I should now like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their outstanding help: Mrs Herczog, Mrs Rühle, Mr Schmidt and Mrs Jäätteenmäki and the assistants, in particular Mr Jirsa for his invaluable expert advice. I also appreciate the support of the coordinators, the chairman and the secretariat of the committee and the services. I was delighted with the constructive communication from consumer organisations, businesses and individual members of the Commission staff. I should in particular like to commend Mrs Kuneva on her obliging and very open attitude. She has embarked on her new post in the Commission in an outstanding fashion. I believe that we will be able to overcome any difficulties that may arise when our proposals on increasing confidence in the European digital environment are put into practice.
Mr President, I am really very pleased to be here today to discuss with you this very important topic of how we can improve consumer confidence in the digital environment.
I would like to start my speech by thanking Mrs Roithová and all the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent and very close cooperation - and this is not just a matter of courtesy, but a sincere recognition of very hard work.
I am glad that the Commission and the European Parliament agree on a common line in approaching this very important and challenging issue. This is clearly an important and ambitious report, and I think we all broadly share the same objectives and analyses of the problems.
The digital economy - and more specifically e-commerce - has great potential to improve consumer welfare by making a greater range of products available, boosting price competition and developing new markets. It is also central to completing the retail side of the internal market. At present, retail markets are still fragmented along national lines into mini-markets, as Mrs Roithová indicated. This makes no sense in the age of e-commerce and the internet. E-commerce is changing the face of retail, but only at national level. The internet is borderless but consumers, businesses and regulators are not. Fifty per cent of European consumers who have a computer at home have made an e-commerce purchase in the previous 12 months, but only 12% of those with a computer at home bought cross-border. This indicates the need for action to increase consumer confidence on the retail side of the internal market and the necessity to solve the fragmentation of the market to achieve finally a citizens' market.
As you know, since the beginning of the year we have launched two major initiatives for consumers: the consumer policy strategy and the consultation on the review of existing consumer protection legislation. Our objective as a Commission is to help the EU rise to the challenges of growth and jobs and reconnecting with its citizens. This objective will be met if, by 2013, we can credibly demonstrate to all citizens that they can shop from anywhere in the EU - from corner shop to website - confident that they are equally and effectively protected.
The need to improve consumer confidence in the digital economy runs through every aspect of this strategy. Mrs Roithová's report shows that the obstacles - including regulatory obstacles - are numerous. My predecessors made progress in tackling some of them with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation, which established the European Consumer Centre (ECC) network. My priority now is to tackle the remaining obstacles, with the reform of existing consumer protection legislation related to consumer contracts.
As you know, we have initiated a broad consultation on the future of consumer protection, and we have started to analyse reactions from the stakeholders. We are looking forward to Mrs Petre's report after the summer. Your views and your support will be an important reference for our follow-up work and for specific proposals. The Commission's follow-up to the review of the acquis is a basis on which build consumer trust. The development of standardised consumer contracts may be something to investigate further once this solid base is established.
One of the aims of this exercise is to reduce the regulatory fragmentation of the internal market by targeted harmonisation of issues that cause particular problems for consumers and businesses. We will, inter alia, consider whether standards and standardisation can play a role in this process.
Similarly for self-regulation. The Commission has done some important work to establish a best practice model for self- and co-regulation, and we will continue to do so in the future. I share your concerns about the interplay of different legislation governing online transactions or digital goods. There are many precise laws, and consumers and businesses may not be sufficiently aware of their rights and duties in the digital environment. I will examine how best to clarify these issues with my colleagues, Mrs Reding and Mr McCreevy.
Thanks to your input, we will explore the idea of a practical guide which would cover information society services and help citizens to understand their rights better. I would also like to thank you for insisting on the importance of enforcement - I fully agree with you. Quality legislation is not enough if it is not backed up by effective enforcement. We have set up a network of national enforcers in the European Union and we will now gradually enlarge the network to third country partners in order to enhance its efficiency.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your commitment to helping European citizens to enjoy all the benefits of the internal market and the digital economy. I look forward to working with you to fulfil our common goals and to achieve a citizens' internal market.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Roithová for such a wonderful report.
Consumer confidence in the digital environment largely depends on our ability to provide consumers with protection and clarity within that environment.
We must bear in mind that SMEs are also consumers, and the European Union must promote the use of these new technologies and encourage SMEs to participate in on-line markets. At the same time, we must promote consumer confidence on these platforms by ensuring that transactions are transparent and fair.
Consumers must be aware of their obligations and rights in the digital world. For some products, such as MP3 players, DVD players and computer game consoles, the consumer is obliged to accept very strict conditions in the small print, and in some cases this verges on the illegal and violates the right to privacy.
At the same time, the producers of these devices are expanding the use of digital rights management systems in order to prevent unauthorised copies. This creates fear, and that can undermine consumer confidence. In order to resolve the problem of interoperability, open standards are required that create a safer, more open and more trustworthy environment.
Software patents are also a serious threat for software developers in SMEs, who cannot afford the legal costs. Fear in this environment is not compatible with confidence either amongst SMEs or amongst consumers.
Digital platforms can only provide growth and development if they are based on open and interoperable standards. Standards can contribute to less fragmentation of markets and the use of open-source software can also make a considerable contribution to promoting on-line security.
Improving the security and confidence of consumers depends upon certain key elements: legislation, mechanisms for strengthening and creating regulatory instruments such as codes of conduct and confidence marks.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to welcome this report and to thank my colleague, Mrs Roithová, for her outstanding work, and the shadow rapporteurs, who are here as well. It has been a very good team effort. I also want to thank Mrs Kuneva for her very positive response.
This report shows the value that a parliamentary committee can bring to a complex issue, particularly one that cuts across so many policy areas. The special message I want to put to the Commissioner is that I hope she will take this forward and become the champion of consumers in the e-world and in e-commerce, because, as she said, it is not just her services that have a share in this - it is also those of Mrs Reding and of Mr McCreevy, and, indeed, of Mr Frattini and of Mr Verheugen, in his role as champion of enterprise, in particular small enterprise. As far as Mr Frattini is concerned, I want to emphasise again the concern that many of us feel about the proposed reform of the Rome I Regulation in particular, which is in serious danger of undermining the provisions for small businesses to be active in the world of e-commerce. There are also important data protection provisions that consumers feel concerned about in terms of giving up their data and going online, which also come under his area. Therefore, I think it needs that coordinated approach.
I also want to pick up on what Mr Hammerstein-Mintz said, that small enterprises are the ones we need to look at in particular. Large enterprises can build complex websites in different languages, based in different countries, but we want to allow small enterprises with an innovative and exciting product and service based in one EU country to be able to access that EU market freely and simply, to take real advantage of the powers that e-commerce offers them. We have to be very careful that we design the regime in such a way as to ensure that we do not discourage them from doing that, because we want not only consumers to go online but also businesses to put their products online, and to make the two work together, because that is what we have the opportunity to do in our dynamic e-commerce market as it moves forward from here.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work over the last eighteen months, during which she has demonstrated considerable openness and willingness to compromise. Not the least, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her openness as we have been working together in this area ever since she was elected to this position.
The result of this work is a report whose ambitious political messages have not, contrary to what usually happens, been diluted by the numerous compromises made. If anything, they have been reinforced by them. This is exactly what we need; after all, it is how Europe's society and economy are gearing up for the digital age which is at stake. What is required here is for increasingly wider sections of European society to have access to information technologies. We must therefore emphasise, at any rate, as a footnote to this report the importance of e-inclusion, in other words, how important it is that the inhabitants of rural areas, those with disabilities, the older generations and those on the lowest incomes can be included in Europe's vibrant digital society.
There is no question that the future belongs to the information society and knowledge-based economy. As we have already realised, we also have to accept that business, the goods and services market along with consumption itself are becoming knowledge-based and digital. However, consumers are still consumers even on the Internet, with rights and obligations. They need to know, above all, what exactly they are facing: brochures, free newspapers, products or even services.
Equipped with this knowledge, they need to behave just as discerningly as if they were in a conventional library, bank, travel agents or store. They need to know what they can and cannot do. In return for their compliance, they can then enjoy the protection afforded to law-abiding consumers in the traditional market too. However, there are numerous aspects of the digital environment which are fuelling the lack of consumer confidence. The easy, rapid flow of information, the frequent lack of information for consumers and the quick and extensive spread of illegal behaviour are just some of the many reasons why anyone using the Internet can cross the boundary of law-abiding consumer activity, even acting in good faith. It is our political responsibility as politicians to devise those tools for Europe's digital environment, which will allow our Internet users to remain law-abiding consumers.
On behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I can say that we will support the idea of a digital consumers charter in the longer term, which will provide every single consumer with clear, comprehensible information about what they should do in particular situations when using the Internet. Parliament is also aware that the dynamic development of the digital environment and the ongoing monitoring of consumer protection legislation will have a major impact on the content of any future charter. However, consumers also need information until then, which is why we are asking the Commission, even in current circumstances and based on current legislation, to provide some guidance as to what rights and protection e-consumers have.
With this in mind, we are proposing that a network of consumer protection centres should be set up, based on the model of the SOLVIT system and Dolceta website. In other words, a European e-consumer information and support portal, which can help Europe's online consumers by offering advice, answers and solutions. Similarly, we support clarification of the legislation governing the use and protection of digital content. After all, the interoperability between the tools and content, on the one hand, and online management of rights, on the other, are two important principles.
Finally, I would like to draw the attention of consumers and industry to the fact that this is something in their joint interest. Based on the model of traditional markets, the digital market too depends on law-abiding behaviour. There are currently a large number of committees involved in this area. We would therefore like the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, which is linked to consumers and is the most responsive, to coordinate within the Commission the further efforts in this area.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SV) Commissioner, Mr President, few could have imagined how the Internet would fundamentally change the world, both politically and economically. In spite of attempts by totalitarian regimes to limit the flow of information, the Internet is winning millions of new users. The way in which we use the Internet is also rapidly being transformed from the passive acquisition of information to an interactive approach. We buy and sell goods and services on it, and we chat and meet each other there. We have even acquired another life on the Internet, a virtual reality that, for some people, becomes more important than reality itself.
There are statistics showing a 21% annual increase in Internet commerce, and even though cross-border shopping within the EU is not extensive, there is a lot to indicate that it will increase. More than half of European households own a computer - an increase of approximately 4% in one year. Forty-two per cent of all households are on the Internet, and here too the increase is one of 4% in one year. In my own country, a good 75% of the population have an Internet connection at home. It is nonetheless gratifying that the biggest increase is taking place in the new Member States.
As many of my fellow Members have pointed out in this House, the number of frauds and other acts of deception is increasing concurrently with this development. In the light of this, Mrs Roithová's report is an important step towards improving consumers' faith in the digital market. We know that, in parallel with Parliament's work, the Commission reviews the whole of the EU's consumer legislation.
Paragraph 19 of the report proposes what it calls a European trust mark. That is obviously a good idea, but I can see certain problems. Firstly, the costs of keeping such a quality mark updated may prove to be considerable. The Commission has itself calculated the costs at EUR 1 million per country per year, which is a considerable sum of money. Secondly, there is a danger of the trust mark being stolen, misused or falsified.
Another important point is the setting up of an EU charter of users' rights and obligations in the information society. This is not a new issue and is obviously an important area for the Commission, as the Commissioner also pointed out in connection with the ongoing review. I believe that the wordings proposed in the amendments better take account of the complexity and speed of the changes in the digital environment.
It perhaps does not even need to be said, but the digital environment obviously needs an efficient framework in the form of rules and legislation. All actors who make use of the Internet need to be aware of their rights and obligations. We need informed and educated consumers. We need not only vendors and entrepreneurs with a sense of responsibility but also bold innovators who envisage new possibilities and new jobs. We of course also need laws that operate in a changing environment.
The Commission has to balance all these interests with a view to an EU that is better able to become more competitive and to comply with the requirements of the Lisbon Strategy.
Last of all, I should like to point out that we must never forget that it is freedom and free access to information that has formed the basis for the huge success of the Internet.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Roithová for tackling such an important issue. We should remember that work on developing the Internet began barely 40 years ago, yet we can now speak of an Internet revolution.
This extraordinary instrument opens up tremendous opportunities in many areas. It also presents us with many challenges. It may be used for laudable purposes but may unfortunately also be exploited for criminal activities. The same is true of many other instruments used by men and women as they develop civilisations.
The use of digital technology in electronic commerce for the purchase of goods and services ought to be seen in this context. As stated in the report, the legal and technical solutions applied should comply with a range of criteria. I would like to make a few remarks in this regard.
Firstly, access to the Internet retail market should be far more widespread. This is linked to more generalised access to broadband Internet, a matter that has been repeatedly mentioned in the House. At present only around 25% of households in the European Union have a broadband connection, and therefore enjoy a high quality connection.
Secondly, the purchaser needs to be certain that making purchases in this way is secure, both as regards the transaction itself and in terms of the relevant guarantee for the goods and services purchased, regardless of borders.
Thirdly, the fact that the transactions are often anonymous cannot be allowed to facilitate criminal activity in any way. I have in mind piracy of films or musical works that are protected intellectual property. It is therefore essential to clarify the expression 'for personal use only'.
Fourthly, other activities conducted through the Internet, such as the purchase of paedophile or pornographic material and the propagation of prostitution call for specific action by the police and prosecuting authorities. This is weighing on our consciences.
Fifthly, payments over the Internet must be undertaken in a way that ensures full security for both parties. Sixthly, advertisements for goods or services that can be purchased electronically must allow potential purchasers to verify the information put out.
My seventh remark is that the security of bank transactions undertaken by electronic means needs to be drastically improved. My eighth remark is to point out the importance of using digital means to provide certain medical services, diagnosis, and monitoring at a distance, notably in more remote areas.
My penultimate point relates to the importance of distance education. Finally, we would do well to remember that the disabled in particular benefit greatly from the opportunity to use digital platforms as consumers.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that high quality, honesty, transparency and flexibility must be essential features of the soundly based market in digital services open to competition that we wish to create.
on behalf of Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my special thanks go to the rapporteur. Through her efforts we have an excellent own-initiative report to approve today. I hope and am confident that the Commission will take the report's recommendations and conclusions on board when reviewing European consumer rights.
Our group supports your report, Mrs Roithovà, and most of your compromise amendments. However, we do regret your decision to water down your proposal on the subject of the European trustmark. We will therefore not be voting for Amendment 4 and we will also be rejecting the Liberals' amendments.
Intellectual property rights cannot be allowed to erode consumer rights. Consumers need clear information about their legal position when dealing with digital content and digital rights management. They are entitled to interoperable solutions.
The report addresses important issues, calling for a European charter of user rights, the creation of a European early warning system and a database for combating Internet fraud, the inclusion of an external audit obligation for specific electronic services such as online banking, and standardising European provisions for cross-border electronic invoices. It also calls for a coordinated global approach for the digital environment, including an analysis of external factors such as privacy protection, citizens' access to information technologies and Internet security.
The report also calls on the Commission to examine measures to deal with class actions in the case of cross-border digital environment disputes between businesses and consumers. We will be supporting the report and hope that it will be adopted in the plenary.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Mr President, trade and the exchange of goods, services and capital are the very bases of economic prosperity. Therefore, any technology that reduces the transaction costs for commerce is also fundamental to increased prosperity. With the world becoming more interconnected with the help of modern communications, safe and quick methods of payment and the removal of a good deal of protectionism, ever more countries around the world are now being drawn into global trade. In the long run, this is to the advantage of everyone on earth. It is therefore the EU's most important task to do everything it can to facilitate trade, firstly within the EU area and secondly between the EU area and the rest of the world.
The EU is very successful at facilitating trade within the EU area and has made a considerable contribution to the EU countries' economic development. The big exception is agriculture, in which precisely no liberalisation has taken place and in which there are, then, major gains in prosperity still to be brought about.
When it comes to trade between the EU area and the rest of the world, matters look nothing like so good. EU protectionism in respect of the surrounding world is extensive and embraces not only the agricultural sphere but also labour-intensive industrial products. The economic costs for the poor countries of the world and for EU consumers are very great. It is, therefore, above all in these areas that we wish to invest our political resources in order to design an EU policy for increased trade and increased prosperity.
EU trade is at present a phenomenon of limited scope, but I dare say we all believe that it is a form of trade with a great future. Mrs Roithová is therefore discussing an area that will prove to be very important in the future, but the question is that of what the EU's role might be in this area at this stage in the development of e-commerce.
Mrs Roithová and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy maintain that consumers do not dare to make cross-border purchases via the Internet within the EU because of poor legal certainty. Perhaps that is so, but do we know it for a fact? Every new area and every new problem that is identified are presented in this House as evidence that the EU needs to intervene. The tiresome phrase 'this shows that the EU is needed' is repeated like a mantra. In any socio-economic analysis of such problems, however, the attempt is first made to establish what the market failures are, whether they can be corrected through political measures and, if so, what these measures might be, and at which political level they should be resorted to.
In this House, the very point of departure is, more often than not, that the failures can and should be remedied at EU level. Every problem that is identified is taken as a pretext for advancing the EU's strategic positions at the expense of the Member States or of international bodies that are more global in scope. Constantly, man merkt die Absicht ['the intention is noted'].
E-commerce is still in its infancy, and we do not know what is slowing down its growth, in which areas it will flourish and what forms it will then take. I would therefore advise the House to oppose all these proposals concerning EU-directed and EU-sponsored grant programmes and education and information campaigns and to wait before calling for charters of rights, dispute resolution mechanisms and harmonisation of contract law at EU level, and I advise it to say no to a logo for a European trustmark in this area.
Those countries and regions that are creative and that are pioneers in various areas are those that offer entrepreneurs the freedom to feel their way towards solutions that politicians or officials cannot normally foresee. Where e-commerce is concerned, we shall find that there are very strong incentives for companies to create security for consumers. Such security will therefore be brought about by the financial market with the help of new insurance services and through the development of trademarks by producers themselves.
- (SK) Allow me to thank Mrs Roithová for this report. It is responding to a dynamically developing digital environment. This is an area of everyday life for all of us, whether we are consumers or business people. New technologies offer huge opportunities to make full use of the internal market. Statistics, however, show that only 6% of European consumers participate in on-line transactions, and 33% experience problems, because their country of residence is different to that of the sellers of the goods.
According to the Eurobarometer survey, 48% of merchants in the European Union are ready to sell across borders, but only 29% of companies are actually involved in cross-border transactions with at least one other country of the European Union. And yet 57% retailers in European Union sell via the Internet. The largest barriers to cross-border transactions include the uncertainty of transactions, different accounting rules, difficulties in the resolution of complaints and disputes, differences in national legislation on consumer protection, problems in provision of after-sales services, extra costs arising due to cross-border delivery, and the cost of translations.
The use of the on-line environment is more complicated than the off-line environment due to its many barriers. Because of this, I consider important the proposal to elaborate a strategy to build consumer confidence. It should be an attempt to respond and to implement steps for making Internet transactions more attractive, thus bringing an end to the fragmentation of the internal market in the digital environment. This should lead to improvements in access to goods and services offered on-line in other Member States.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Roithová, many thanks for your excellent report. My thanks also go to the shadow rapporteur Mrs Herczog, who was responsible for working on the report within my group.
This is a subject of particular importance to our citizens. It was very good to hear that Commissioner Kuneva will be taking action in this area. That is essential, and we can only support her efforts. We will be behind the Commissioner one hundred per cent.
Our citizens have a whole range of problems in the digital environment. Goods do not arrive, or they arrive late. They may want to order a product in another country, but find themselves unable to do so because the company says that they are resident in the wrong country. Or they place an order and suddenly find themselves landed with a subscription. These are the problems that our citizens encounter. Of course, within the European Union there is already some very positive regulation within this area, but it is very disjointed. It is vital that we create positive legislation for this area that meets the expectations of our citizens and, more importantly, of consumers.
We want the citizens to enjoy the benefits of the single market in this arena. However, they can only benefit if we provide them with legal certainty, if they understand the basis on which they can do business, if they know that when they have a problem with a company they will be able to seek redress - and not have to wait 12 or 15 years for a result. They will also benefit from a more open market if they are able to compare prices and access more information. As you can see, there is still a lot to do in this area.
The citizens are expecting not only that we regulate the internal market, not only that we establish constructive and simpler rules for businesses, thereby ensuring that companies are free to move within the European Union. Our citizens also expect a Europe that works for them, in which policies are not just designed to encourage the economy, with the citizens merely expected to contribute to that economy. Instead, consumer protection should also determine policy, particularly in the digital arena. It must be clear that we are making policy for consumers, and that the economy serves the consumers. If this happens, Commissioner Kuneva - and I know this is your intention - then we will achieve our objective, namely a Europe for the citizens; a Europe in which they are free to make online purchases in another country without problems or obstacles, and in which they have rights, including the possibility of redress. You will certainly have the full backing of my group, Commissioner, and we will be very happy to work with you to achieve your aims.
(PL) Mr President, the role of the on-line transactions market in the provision of products, services or information on these is now invaluable. Mrs Roithová rightly pointed out in her report, however, that the development and increased importance of that market is affected by its fragmentation across the various Member States of the European Union.
I agree that the aforementioned lack of harmonisation of provisions across the territory of the European Union and the lack of consumer confidence in transactions on the digital market may endanger the European Union's competitiveness on the world market especially as Europe is now lagging behind the United States and certain Asian countries.
Creating a European information system is certainly a good idea although it will require time and tremendous financial investment. It does appear, however, that such a proposal may increase the security of on-line transactions between entities in different countries. This is because it is precisely the diversity of provisions across Member States and the lack of access to them that enterprises cite as the main cause of the uncertainty about entering into transactions of this kind.
I believe that the situation in the new Member States where there is a shortage of financial resources for information campaigns on access to electronic services and their quality is also an urgent matter. The individual citizens of these countries often lack access to services of this nature, particularly in rural areas. The report rightly refers to discrimination against consumers in this group of countries regarding e-commerce. In my view, the Commission ought to deal with this situation as a matter of urgency, because all Union consumers are entitled to equal treatment.


2. Brazil: extradition of Cesare Battisti
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Brazil: extradition of Cesare Battisti.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in international law, a political refugee is a person who, owing to a fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality.
Cesare Battisti is not a political refugee. Regardless of the cover offered by France for many years, we are talking about a mass-murderer, who carried out or ordered four murders, and who hid behind the pretext of political struggle to evade a life sentence. It is disgraceful that a great country such as Brazil can deny the extradition of an unpunished criminal by granting him political refugee status. The Italian authorities and, above all, the relations of the victims, insist that this criminal is brought to justice.
Faced with the arrogance of President Lula in denying extradition, the EU cannot leave the Italian Government by itself. Europe has, and must use, all the diplomatic instruments at its disposal to ensure that Mr Battisti is delivered to Italy, even at a cost of threatening to suspend cooperation agreements with Brazil.
Mr President, respect for the independence of judicial powers and the legality of their decisions is one of the prerequisites for the rule of law and democratic society. Each person deserves the right to a fair trial and the judgment of an independent court of law should be respected.
In this case, the Brazilian Supreme Court decided to allow Battisti's extradition. The decisions taken in Italy to request extradition were all taken in the proper legal order. The European Court of Human Rights did not consider the appeal. In other words, this case is disposed of.
Now, the Brazilian authorities must act to ensure that the law is applied and extradite Battisti. My group hopes that the European External Action Service will do its utmost to ensure that the judicial system and rule of law prevail.
Mr President, the truth is that I have made no attempt to conceal my discomfort with the issue and the situation, as I do genuinely believe that we are faced with an important issue. However, it is an issue that affects both Italy and Brazil and there are many forums in which I believe we must tackle the issue. However, I am not convinced that this forum, which is for discussing resolutions on violations of human rights throughout the world, is the right one.
I say this with the utmost respect, and from the outset, I offer my complete solidarity with all victims of terrorism in all corners of the world, not least this one. I say it in order to encourage general reflection on how these types of issue end up being discussed on a Thursday afternoon session, when, and I stress this point, in this context, we have a sub judice situation with a resolution already in place.
It is difficult for our group to support this situation and it is for this reason that we feel obliged to abstain. We intend to abstain, and I stress this, not because the content or issue do not merit reflection, only that we feel that this is not the time or the place to do it.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, through this resolution, we are appealing to the European institutions to play a role in affirming the rights of justice and legality as they carry out their diplomatic functions.
Today, the European Parliament is asking loud and clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights not be regarded as just a collection of papers, and that citizens not be seen as mere consumers of the common market, but as holders of inalienable and non-negotiable fundamental rights. The relations of the victims of Cesare Battisti - who killed four decent, hard-working people in a senseless bloodbath in front of their families and children - came here yesterday in this spirit of trust.
Commissioner, with passion and the force of the law behind us, we are relying on everyone to do their part and, in these last few seconds, I should like to ask my fellow Members to dedicate a minute of reflection to the memory of the victims.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today in this Chamber to remember that the European Parliament and democratic institutions must protect and support the relatives of the victims of terrorism and provide the sense of justice that European public opinion demands.
In the resolution we have tabled and are shortly to vote upon, we point out that relations between Brazil and the European Union are based on mutual recognition and respect of the rule of law and of fundamental rights. There are therefore no question marks over our friendly relationship with Brazil.
I should like to point out that, in Italy, the defendant, Cesare Battisti, has been found guilty of four murders. Although a fugitive, Mr Battisti had the legal assurances in his trials - which were all conducted in the presence of his defence lawyer - that the Italian justice system had run its course, with all levels of justice exhausted, and that they sentenced him to two life sentences.
Mr President, even France - where Cesare Battisti had previously fled - decided back in 2004 to accept Italy's extradition request, recognising his crimes and the corresponding sentences, because Cesare Battisti is a criminal who must be brought to justice. Brazil's contradictory behaviour is difficult to understand, not least because the Brazilian authorities have not officially recognised him as a political refugee, which is one of the reasons to suspend the bilateral agreement between Italy and Brazil regarding extradition.
This is why the decision of the Supreme Court seemed incomprehensible to the victims' families and the wider public. Mr President, we are representing a Europe of rights and of rights for all. The victims have the right to know that those guilty of such heinous crimes will serve their sentence in the prisons of their own countries.
Mr President, I am not Italian, I am not Brazilian, I am a citizen of a Member State of the European Union, and I do not want the Union to be a Union which has lost its sense of proportion - a Union in which a criminal enjoys the same rights as the victims of crimes and their families. This is not acceptable. It is a question of certain elementary standards - I would even say human standards - and not European ones. Speaking as someone who is not very emotionally involved and who, I suppose, can look at the situation coldly and objectively, it seems to me I can say on this matter that a certain loss of balance has, in fact, occurred here, which is inconceivable to our taxpayers and our voters. I think the decision of the Brazilian Supreme Court is incomprehensible and will be incomprehensible to everyone who looks into it.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Romeva i Rueda, yesterday in a touching press conference held in Parliament, the relatives of the victims of the indiscriminate murders of Cesare Battisti spoke fairly and with dignity to once again present the issue at the heart of this tragic affair.
It is not a matter of revenge, but justice must be done. Therefore, because justice must be done, Cesare Battisti must be extradited, and because Mr Battisti must be extradited, we hope that through this resolution, Parliament can authoritatively and credibly amplify this same cry: it is not a matter of revenge, but justice must be done.
The European Union is a political project in which we have combined our values and our ideals to definitively defeat the power of ideologies, totalitarian ideologies, arbitrary violence and the limitless evil of terrorism. In order to realise this project, today, we forcefully ask once again: let us not seek revenge, but let us ensure that justice is done.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it happens all too often that intellectuals or high-powered institutions in some countries refuse to understand the phenomenon of Italian terrorism, raising doubts about the trustworthiness of our judicial system.
Since this is the legal basis for the refusal to extradite Cesare Battisti, we cannot but reject it. Cesare Battisti, an individual with something of an ambiguous past, is the product of a time in which thousands of young people - many of whom were desperately lonely - chose armed struggle as a means of political struggle and ended up turning the alienating utopian dream they believed in into a crime. Other countries have experienced similar tragedies but none have so far offered the protagonists of these any chances to reform, unlike Italy, which, in fighting terrorism, really cemented its sense of national unity.
Taking up the appeal of the victims' relatives, we therefore ask for Cesare Battisti to be brought before the Italian judicial system, which will know how to show - as it has done in hundreds of other cases of former terrorists who are now reintegrated into social and civil life - that to be punished is also to make amends, as the Italian, Cesare Beccaria, taught Western legal civilisation, and not just intimidation or brutalisation, as the Brazilian authorities fear.
Mr President, we are dealing with a matter that is not truly urgent, but there is no lack of topics concerning truly urgent matters, such as the imprisonment and assassination of trade unionists in Colombia, repression and death in Honduras, or the tragic situation in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
If you want to talk about Brazil, then it would be a matter of true urgency to demonstrate our solidarity with the people affected by the storms that recently lashed the state of Rio de Janeiro, in particular, the cities of Nova Friburgo, Petrópolis and Teresópolis, which killed more than 700 people, left more than 13 000 people homeless, and caused incalculable damage.
It is lamentable that the European Parliament has not commented on this tragedy and has not asked the European Commission to express its active solidarity to the President of Brazil and its availability to provide any aid necessary. Therefore, from these seats, we congratulate the new President of Brazil, Dilma Roussef, on her recent election. We send our feelings of solidarity and deep regret for the tragic consequences of the storms, feelings that extend to the Brazilian Congress, the families that are the victims of this tragedy and all the people of Brazil.
With regard to the resolution presented here, we insist on the need to respect the decisions of the legitimate authorities of Brazil, where Cesare Battisti is being held, and to await the decisions of the legitimate authorities of Brazil, without pressure from this Parliament. Therefore, I propose that the proposal be withdrawn in order to avoid a deplorable decision.
(The speaker agreed to take two blue card questions under Rule 149(8))
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to reply to the fellow Member who said that there are many other urgent issues to be dealt with and so on, simply by stating the fact that, in contrast to many other issues which are quite clearly worthy of our interest, this is an urgent issue that involves not only a country outside the European Union, but one within it, and we are also referring to citizens who have been killed or disabled and who are European citizens.
(PT) Mr President, I have already said, and now repeat, that this is not a truly urgent matter. We know that the legitimate authorities in Brazil have this case in hand and that the Italian citizen is being held in Brazil. Therefore, what we are saying is that this Parliament must not put pressure on the legitimate authorities in Brazil. We have to await the decisions that they will make in due course. With regard to urgent matters, we have a whole host of issues here, including, in Brazil, solidarity with the victims of the storms, which have left more than 700 people dead.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just have a simple question for Mrs Figueiredo. Do you not think that 30 years - because many years have passed since these people were killed - are not enough to ask urgently for justice, at last?
(PT) Mr President, as we have already said and now repeat, Mr President, it is a matter of how we are discussing this matter. We are discussing it at a time when we should be discussing urgent issues. Even from the statements that Mrs Angelilli has made, it is clear that it could have been debated at other times and that it still can be debated at some other time, but not now as a matter of urgency. What was urgent was solidarity for the 700 people who died in the last few days in Brazil as the result of the storms.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Cesare Battisti is not a romantic hero as some have depicted him, but a savage murderer with a history of robbery who has been found guilty of killing four people with shots to the back of the neck.
He benefited unjustly from Mr Mitterrand's doctrine of political asylum and has been protected and idealised by some left-wing French intellectuals. Having fled to Brazil to avoid repatriation and prison, Mr Battisti was saved by President Lula due to an erroneous decision that was probably made for political reasons, with no regard for the suffering of the victims and their relatives.
Mrs Figueiredo, Parliament's request to the Brazilian authorities and to the Commission does not only ask for the respect of legal rules and bilateral agreements, but also aims to affirm the principle that no ideological reason can justify the actions of a murderer and no country may guarantee him impunity.
We must never forget that there is ethical value in the moral compensation of victims by serving a punishment. This is at the foundation of the social contract that props up all communities that are civilised, or that aim to be.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 31 years after the blood spilled by the victims of the barbaric murders carried out by Cesare Battisti and his gang, it has still not been forgotten.
The pain of the victims' relatives, whom we heard from yesterday in a press conference in Strasbourg, is genuine proof of this. Indeed, it was Mr Mastella - then Minister for Justice in the Italian Government - who made major efforts through institutional actions to give final justice to the Battisti case.
Today, together with the relatives of the victims, the citizens of Italy and the whole country, it is the European Parliament - showing its extraordinary unity with a joint motion for a resolution - that is forcefully asking another country, which is a friend of Europe and a friend of Italy, for the immediate extradition of Cesare Battisti, who is a criminal and a terrorist and who has been convicted with definitive judgments, so as to finally bring to an end this difficult and painful episode that has been dragging on for too long.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 'By himself, he was a petty crook or a minor felon, but he was bright and like me, he also believed he could become a politician. The people most emotionally and physically wounded by the crimes of his gang have never asked for revenge but, most civilly, even now, they ask for truth and justice. Not because it is a life sentence, but because the judgment has been made and so that the punishment decided upon according to the rules of our legal system may be respected and carried out'. Those are the words of Arrigo Cavallina, who recruited Cesare Battisti in prison when he was serving a sentence for robbery, talking about Mr Battisti, his crimes and the families of the victims.
This is the very essence of the entire affair: he was a common criminal, who reinvented himself as a terrorist and who has been sentenced to life in prison for carrying out or ordering the murders of four defenceless people, having sheltered first in Mexico, then France, and now in Brazil, protected by a network of international support as if he were a romantic revolutionary and not a ruthless murderer.
This is why the extradition of Cesare Battisti to Italy is not just the latest act in a long history of presumed political persecution, as some armchair intellectuals would still have us believe, but the legitimate claim of a Member - not to mention founding - State of the European Union to have the international treaties and its own judicial system respected.
(Applause)
Mr President, I challenge your decision to allocate catch-the-eye simply on the basis of who had not spoken in the Pakistan debate. This is an entirely different debate on a different issue. So far, it has been a debate between Lusophones and Italophones. That is great, but perhaps other countries might want to have an opinion on this well, as well as other delegations from other political groups.
I fully agree that this is a completely different debate but we have an allocated time of two minutes, so I am free to give time to two people. If you were in my shoes, how would you do it? I want to give a fair go to everybody who did not speak in the previous item, a fair go to the representatives of each political group. It is very much the situation that mainly our Italian colleagues spoke, so I will take care of that and give the floor mainly to non-Italian Members.
(FI) Mr President, to some extent, I understand the frustration felt by some of my fellow Members concerning the urgency of a resolution on Cesare Battisti.
At the end of December, after President Lula da Silva issued a decision not to allow extradition, Berlusconi announced that he would recall his ambassador to Brazil and continue to fight to get Battisti extradited back to Italy. This is doubtless part of that same struggle.
It does not, however, reduce the seriousness of Battisti's crimes. He has evaded the Italian judiciary for 30 years now and so far, therefore, he has escaped a life sentence for murder. Relations between the EU and Brazil are based on trust, inasmuch as there is a respect for democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Raising criminals to the status of political refugee cannot be accepted.
(RO) Mr President, I consider that respect for judicial independence - a fundamental standard shared by the European Union and Brazil - should take precedence over all other considerations. I firmly believe that the excellent relations between the two sides at both an economic and political level will be backed up by equally good cooperation on judicial matters, so that Cesare Battisti, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for four murders and other crimes, will serve his sentence under the law which governs him.
There is a bilateral extradition treaty between Brazil and Italy. As such, we must address an appeal to Brazil to respect this agreement. As the controversy has a high-level political aspect, I believe that dialogue should be initiated at this level with the new Brazilian head of state.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am slightly surprised by the number of Members here in the Chamber for a Thursday afternoon. As someone who attends every Thursday afternoon, I find the sudden interest in human rights issues quite extraordinary.
I would have welcomed this, had I not noticed that those attending are mostly Italian Members, who do not usually take an interest in human rights and who are, for that matter, often the first to ...
(Protests)
My dear fellow Member, would you like to make yourself clear? Then please speak into the microphone and I will answer you. That is what you would call a personal accusation. You are Italian, I am French, I respect you as an Italian. Anyone can see that there are, after all, a majority of Italian Members in the House, which, for a Thursday afternoon, is unusual to say the least. I am here every Thursday afternoon myself, sir! Every Thursday afternoon, I am here in plenary!
(Heckling)
Let me have quiet to speak! I am not in the habit of interrupting my fellow Members and I do not tolerate being interrupted! Mr President, may I please have my allotted time?
(The President asked the speaker to continue)
I have also noticed that, generally speaking, Italian Members are the first to ask that their democracy be respected and that no one interfere in Italian affairs. That is a fact. You only have to read the European Parliament debates to realise that. We are not here to find out whether Cesare Battisti is guilty or not guilty. I know -and I am speaking to you now - that the Years of Lead are a difficult period for Italians to come to terms with. I do know that. I know that there were many victims. However, I also know that not all those guilty of terrorist attacks were tried in Italy. I repeat: not all those guilty of terrorist attacks were tried in Italy!
(Heckling)
Could you please let me speak without interrupting me? You would think that we were in a national parliament! This is not how things are done in the European Parliament! Mr President, would it be possible to speak without being interrupted?
(The President asked the speaker to conclude)
I believe we have no business, on a Thursday afternoon, interfering in relations between Brazil and Italy. We are here to ensure that the right to justice is observed, I fully agree with that, but then let us give the Brazilian Supreme Court time to issue its ruling. The matter is now before the Brazilian courts, the Supreme Court has yet to issue its ruling, this issue does not come under ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
(FR) Mr President, it is my custom to respect my fellow Members and I am prepared to answer the question. I would very much like them to show the same tolerance towards me.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if you respect your fellow Members, Mrs Vergiat, you absolutely should not dare to say that your Italian fellow Members are never interested in human rights.
I have been here for 16 years. You can check the record of my work in Parliament, and I certainly do not deserve to be lectured on human rights by you.
On behalf of my fellow Members, we should like to ask whether or not you are ashamed to raise doubts about these four people?
Do you know what jobs these people did? They were very humble people. One was a security guard, one was a butcher, another a trader and another an agent of the public security forces.
Yesterday, the children of these people, who were between 10 and 15 years' old at the time, told us that every single day, they remember their fathers in a pool of blood. Do you really think it is appropriate to pick fights?
Mr President, I regard this as a question in the form of a personal accusation. No, I am not ashamed, Mrs Angelilli, because I made a point of saying that I thought that the Years of Lead were difficult years for Italy. I do think that the Years of Lead were difficult years for Italy! I know how many victims there were in Italy. I have taken a personal interest in this period.
Therefore, no, I am not ashamed. I am not questioning the victims; I am questioning the use, by Italian Members, of a Thursday afternoon sitting reserved for human rights issues to debate an issue which strictly concerns Italy and Brazil. I think - and I hope that the Commissioner will also respond in this way - that the European Union has no business interfering in affairs between Italy and Brazil; that is not its role. These sittings are reserved for human rights! What is more, Mrs Angelilli, I have not lectured you on this matter!
I shall accept no more blue card questions. We have had the arguments and we have had the counter-arguments. (We now move to the next speaker.)
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am raising a point of order which is based on the Rule in relation to the composition of the agenda. I should just like to point out that this issue is on the agenda as a result of a decision taken by the Conference of Presidents which was then ratified by a vote in plenary last Monday.
It is not on the agenda due to the wishes of the Italian Members. It is an official act requested first by the Conference of Presidents and then by all of Parliament.
(Applause)
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union really must ensure that the treaty signed between Brazil and Italy, which aims to regulate the terms and procedures of cooperation in matters of extradition, is respected.
The Brazilian Supreme Court has granted the extradition of Cesare Battisti, who has been found guilty in some seven trials and sentenced in absentia to four life sentences for as many murders, with definitive judgments issued by the Italian judicial authorities. Incredibly, the outgoing President of Brazil has refused to deliver this criminal to Italy. Furthermore, in an act of extreme contempt for our country, a group of left-wing Brazilian members of parliament went to visit Cesare Battisti in prison and took photos of themselves celebrating with him.
The European Union, which has excellent commercial and economic relations with Brazil, cannot but intervene to enforce the law and the right of the victims' relatives to justice. Just yesterday, the victims' relatives met Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, who - for once - were all in agreement, irrespective of their political affiliation.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is fully aware of the outgoing Brazilian President's recent decision to refuse extradition of an Italian citizen, Mr Battisti, sentenced in absentia to a life sentence and several other terms of prison by the Italian court.
I have taken due note of your views on this particular case, and I share your feelings towards the victims and their families. However, the Commission considers that there is no scope for its involvement in this case. The European Union has not concluded any extradition agreement with Brazil and, even if this had been the case, it would have no right to intervene in individual extradition cases. A decision on extradition between European Union Member States, or between European Union Member States and third states, are entirely the preserve of the judiciary.
Italy's relations with Brazil on criminal cooperation are governed by a bilateral extradition treaty concluded in 1989. The Brazilian authorities have used their discretionary power within the law to refuse extradition of Mr Battisti.
I would like to add, in no uncertain terms: in the case of extradition, I have no doubts that Italian justice delivers the high standards expected of European Union Member States.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
I am against the initiative of this resolution, because I believe that the case of Cesare Battisti's extradition does not have a place in a debate in this House on urgent cases of 'Breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law', simply because it does not represent a breach of human rights, democracy or the rule of law in Brazil and also because it is not an urgent matter. This is a legal and political dispute between Brazil and Italy and a decision by the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil is pending. At this time, this House should be sending two other messages to Brazil: one of solidarity regarding the disaster in which more than 700 people lost their lives, and one of delight on account of the democratic election of President Dilma Rousseff. Brazil is, without doubt, a democratic country that has made significant progress in political, civil, social, economic and cultural affairs in the last decade and is a model in the fight against poverty and hunger, thanks to the government's Zero Hunger and Family Allowance programmes.
in writing. - The rule of law must be upheld. The credibility of public institutions depends on it. Brazilian President Lula was authorised by the Brazilian Supreme Court to extradite Cesare Battisti, an Italian citizen convicted of four murders, among other charges. On 31 December 2009, President Lula's last day in office, he refused to extradite Battisti to Italy. I expect the Brazilian authorities to make an apolitical unbiased final decision; a decision that upholds the rule of law. The rule of law is fundamental to Brazilian-EU relations. Our treaties are founded on the principles of human rights and fairness. I trust these principles to remain mutual.


The need for measures to protect the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Joseph in Bucharest, Romania - an endangered historical and architectural monument (written declaration): see Minutes
(DE) Mr President, President Pöttering asked us yesterday to be on time for the vote. Many of us tried, but the lifts here in the building are not capable of bringing our colleagues down from the upper floors in time. Perhaps something could be done about this, or the bell could be rung a bit earlier.
Well, Mr Rack, do not worry: we did begin again at exactly 12 noon and it is now 12.04 p.m., so we are not doing too badly.