5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/1

A.

whereas according to the Court of Justice the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union constitutes a general principle of Community law,

B.

whereas a difference in treatment on grounds of age constitutes discrimination on those grounds, unless that difference in treatment is objectively justified and the means to achieve it are appropriate and necessary,

C.

whereas according to the Ombudsman the Commission has failed to justify adequately its treatment of freelance auxiliary conference interpreters (ACIs) over 65 years of age, and continues to adhere to its current policy on hiring ACIs,

D.

whereas the Ombudsman considers that this constitutes an instance of maladministration,

E.

whereas Parliament’s responsibility as the Union’s sole elected body is to safeguard and protect the independence of the European Ombudsman in the conduct of his duties towards European citizens and to monitor the implementation of his recommendations,

1.

Endorses the critical remarks of the European Ombudsman and his recommendation concerning the Commission’s policy on hiring ACIs over 65 years of age;

2.

Calls on the Commission to change its current policy of imposing an effective ban on the recruitment of ACIs over 65 years of age; does not, however, consider that compensation is warranted in the circumstances of this case;

3.

Notes that Parliament, after receiving a similar draft recommendation from the Ombudsman, acted immediately to change its practice as regards the hiring of ACIs over 65 years of age and interpreted the applicable rules in a manner that does not lead to discrimination;

4.

Considers that changing the applicable rules and removing age discrimination from the hiring process does not place a European institution under any obligation to recruit ACIs over 65 years of age, but would, if such a change were implemented, bring the Commission’s rules into line with a general principle of European Union law; in addition, considers that, given the shortage of interpreters in specific official languages, it would enhance the institution’s ability to secure the best possible service, as has been proven in the Parliament;

5.

Calls on the Commission to work together with Parliament in reviewing the rules applicable to hiring ACIs and other staff, so as to ensure that discrimination of any kind is avoided;

6.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the European Ombudsman.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/3

1.

Approves the conclusions of the Trialogue of 2 April 2009;

2.

Stresses that the agreement reached on the revision of the multiannual financial framework is the result of successful interinstitutional cooperation in responding to the financial and economic crisis that Member States are experiencing, through the promotion of solidarity in the energy resources field and the promotion of broadband in rural areas as well as the support to the agriculture sector;

3.

Recalls that with this agreement the Parliament, in its double capacity of legislative and budgetary authority, has protected its existing priorities, as it did during the 2008 budgetary procedure when an agreement on Galileo financing was reached;

4.

Agrees to the political compromise which provides for a compensation mechanism planned for the 2010 budgetary procedure, as well as - but only if necessary - for the 2011 budgetary procedure; recalls that, as stated in the Joint Declaration adopted by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission during Trilogue on 2 April 2009, the compensation mechanism will be without prejudice to the financial envelopes of the co-decided programmes and the annual budgetary procedure and will be financed by using all budgetary means available in the budgetary legal framework;

5.

Reiterates that deficits and leftovers are still unresolved from the outcome of the negotiations of the IIA of 17 May 2006 and that these deficits should be addressed in the 2008-2009 mid-term review, as provided for in Declaration 3 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, as well as in the course of the annual budgetary procedures, if possible through more flexibility and in any case by all means foreseen by the IIA of 17 May 2006; recalls, as stated by Parliament in its unilateral declaration during Trilogue on 2 April 2009, that the Commission should take on board during the mid-term review process the principles laid down in its resolution adopted on 25 March 2009;

6.

Cautions against the regular use of margins under heading 2 to finance other headings, since this could jeopardise the interests of the agricultural sector, in light of unexpected decreases in market prices;

7.

Regrets that the agreement with the Council was reached only two months before the end of parliamentary term, leaving less space for the negotiations, and regrets that this put the institutions under pressure, even if in the usual climate of loyal cooperation;

8.

Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

9.

Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

10

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/6

A.

whereas the main aim of Directive 92/75/EEC (the Framework Directive), as stated in Article 1 thereof, is to ‘enable the harmonisation of national measures on the publication, particularly by means of labelling and of product information, of information on the consumption of energy and of other essential resources, and additional information concerning certain types of household appliances, thereby allowing consumers to choose more energy-efficient appliances’,

B.

whereas the Framework Directive also states that ‘the provision of accurate, relevant and comparable information on the specific energy consumption of household appliances may influence the public’s choice in favour of those appliances which consume less energy’,

C.

whereas, as pointed out in the Commission Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (SEC(2008)2862), the original, successful A-G label has been followed as a model in different countries around the world, such as Brazil, China, Argentina, Chile, Iran, Israel and South Africa,

D.

whereas televisions are high energy consuming appliances and consequently there is considerable potential for saving energy by adding this category to the energy labelling scheme under Article 1(2) of the Framework Directive,

E.

whereas the energy labelling of televisions should be as consistent as possible with the established energy labelling schemes for other household appliances,

F.

whereas it is stated in the above-mentioned Commission Communication that ‘the existing labelling classifications will be upgraded and re-scaled every 5 years or when new technological developments justify it, based on eco-design studies, with a view to reserve A-label status for the top 10-20 % best performing equipment’,

G.

whereas it is essential for the successful implementation of the energy labelling scheme to introduce measures that will provide information on the energy efficiency of household appliances that is clear, comprehensive, comparable and easily understandable to the consumer,

H.

whereas the consumer purchasing of greater numbers of efficient appliances in place of less efficient appliances would increase the revenues of appliance manufacturers,

I.

whereas the draft Commission directive, in particular as regards the energy label design and energy efficiency classes, introduces another change by adding new A classes (A-20 %, A-40 %, A-60 %, for example) which have the potential to confuse consumers further, to hamper their proper understanding of the energy labelling scheme and to undermine their ability to choose appliances with higher energy efficiency,

J.

whereas a small number of technical adjustments to the label could result in a label which would be much clearer and more understandable to consumers,

K.

whereas evidence shows that consumers find the A-G scale clear, but the Commission has not conducted any impact assessment to show whether A-20 %, A-40 %, A-60 % alongside empty lower classes is helpful or misleading for consumers,

L.

whereas re-scaling the existing products in a closed A-G scale would, in particular, prevent the creation of empty lower classes that may mislead consumers,

M.

whereas the introduction of these additional efficiency classes on existing A-G labels, including for other products, is likely to add to confusion about whether class A represents an efficient or an inefficient product,

N.

whereas such a measure does not serve the aim of the basic instrument in providing accurate, relevant and comparable information to consumers,

O.

whereas the Commission has put forward its proposal for a recast of the Framework Directive which could introduce further changes that would have an effect on the proposed implementing measures,

1.

Opposes the adoption of the draft Commission directive implementing and amending Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of televisions;

2.

Considers that the draft Commission directive is not compatible with the aim of the basic instrument;

3.

Calls on the Commission to withdraw the draft directive and to submit a new one, based on a closed A-G scale, to the committee referred to in Article 10 of Directive 92/75/EEC as soon as possible, and in any case no later than 30 September 2009;

4.

Considers the label layout an essential element of the energy labelling directive, which should be decided as part of the revision and recast currently being considered under the codecision procedure.

5.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and the parliaments of the Member States.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/8

A.

whereas, on 15 April 2009, the DCI management committee voted by written procedure in favour of the draft 2009 Annual Action Programme for Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development (Part II: Targeted Projects) (CMTD(2009)0387 – D004766/01),

B.

whereas, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC and Article 1 of the Agreement of 3 June 2008 between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC, Parliament received the draft implementing measures submitted to the DCI management committee and the results of the voting,

C.

whereas Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 stipulates that one of the objectives of the thematic programme on non-State actors and local authorities in development is to ‘increase the level of awareness of the European citizen regarding development issues and mobilise active public support in the Community and acceding countries for poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies in partner countries’,

D.

whereas concerns were raised by 11 Member States in a ‘Joint Statement of Member States on DCI Non-State Actors and Local Authorities’, sent to the Commission on 19 March 2009, about the Commission’s intention to stop the direct financing (‘targeted projects’ procedure) of the TRIALOG and DEEEP (4) projects, which has been ongoing since 1998 and 2003 respectively, and instead oblige them to participate in a ‘call for proposals’,

E.

whereas the ‘Joint Statement’ of the 11 Member States, including 9 ‘new’ Member States, warns that the timing of the Commission’s plan to discontinue direct support for TRIALOG and DEEEP is ‘most inconvenient’, ‘taking into account the current financial situation in many of the “new” Member States and the effects that it has on the NGOs’ capability to function and to develop’, and expressing concern that ‘a gap in financing may occur which will harm these projects by causing the loss of qualified staff as well as know-how and already established networks’,

F.

whereas similar concerns were raised by the Chairman of the Committee on Development in a letter of 19 March 2009, pointing out that ‘information and capacity building in the field of development cooperation in the new Member States, and development education for the European public have been constant priorities for the committee’, and requesting the Commission to provide Parliament ‘with the objective and transparent criteria on which it decides which activities and projects qualify for direct financing’, and further requesting that ‘the implementation of this proposed measure be delayed by at least one year in order to avoid possible funding gaps and putting at risk the very survival of these very useful projects’,

G.

whereas the above-mentioned ‘General Evaluation of Actions to Raise Public Awareness of Development Issues in Europe / Development Education’ concludes that ‘the strategic use of targeted projects has helped to achieve the objectives of the “Co-financing with European Development NGOs” programme’ and that ‘DEEEP has been an important coordination mechanism for increasing dialogue, promoting exchanges of best practice and building networks and partnerships at EU level and between national platforms and the EU’, and further that ‘the contribution of TRIALOG in improving dialogue and building capacity in its work with new Member States and accession states has been effective’,

H.

whereas the TRIALOG programme contributes to meeting the need, highlighted in Parliament’s resolution of 13 March 2008 on the challenge of EU development cooperation policy for the new Member States, for an overall communication and education strategy to remedy the lack of public recognition of development cooperation priorities in the new Member States, and the DEEEP programme responds to its call for increased development education and awareness raising in European education mentioned in the same resolution,

I.

whereas, under the above-mentioned 2009 Annual Action Programme, the Commission also proposes to allocate a direct grant for a project on ‘Strengthening Cuban Managerial Capabilities’, to be implemented by the European Foundation of Management Development; whereas, under the DCI Thematic Programme for Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development, the targeted project procedure has never previously been used for activities in partner countries,

J.

whereas the Commission subsequently released an ‘Explanatory note for the DCI NSA-LA committee’ (5), in which it clarifies the selection criteria for targeted actions, explaining that these are based on Article 168 of the Implementing rules of the Financial Regulation (6), and that grants may, in particular, be awarded ‘to bodies with a de jure or de facto monopoly’ and ‘for actions with specific characteristics that require a particular type of body on account of its technical competence, its high degree of specialisation or its administrative power’,

1.

Opposes the adoption of the draft Commission decision establishing the 2009 Annual Action Programme for Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development (Part II: Targeted Projects) (CMTD(2009)0387 – D004766/01) in its current form;

2.

Requests the Commission to clarify the criteria for determining the existence of a ‘de jure or de facto monopoly’ situation, given that, in their ‘Joint Statement’, the 11 Member States mention that, from the perspective of the ‘new’ Member States, a ‘de facto monopoly’ situation still exists with respect to the Europe-wide activities carried out by Trialog and DEEEP;

3.

Insists on open, transparent and horizontal application of the criteria for awarding direct grants for targeted projects in order to ensure a level playing field for all; insists, therefore, that the same criteria be applied for Trialog, DEEEP and the project on ‘Strengthening Cuban Managerial Capabilities’;

4.

Insists that uninterrupted funding be assured, through a strategic, Europe-wide programme, for the valuable activities of promoting exchanges of best practice, and building networks and partnerships at EU level and between national platforms and the EU, and for improving dialogue and building capacity in the work with ‘new’ Member States and accession states;

5.

Invites the Commission to engage in a dialogue with Parliament in the context of its forthcoming review (7) of the system of calls for proposals for the Thematic Programmes; considers it to be inappropriate to anticipate any recommendations for modifications or improvements of the system that may result from the review; calls, therefore, for existing arrangements on directly funded actions to be left unchanged for a 12-month period, and for any future changes to reflect the outcome of the review process and to ensure long-term, predictable and sustainable development cooperation activities;

6.

Calls on the Commission to adapt its draft decision establishing the 2009 Annual Action Programme for Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development (Part II: Targeted Projects) (CMTD(2009)0387 – D004766/01) in order to include EU-wide projects for raising awareness of development issues in the enlarged EU and for development education exchange in the EU;

7.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/11

A.

whereas the major negative consequence for the EU arising from the current financial and economic crisis will be the dramatic increase of unemployment which will more severely affect the most vulnerable social groups; whereas higher levels of unemployment are associated with the increase in poverty, health inequalities, exclusion, criminality, insecurity and lack of trust,

B.

whereas, regardless of the current crisis, the EU already faced difficulties as a result of weak economic growth, an explosive demographic situation and the difficulty of living in an increasingly globalised economy,

C.

whereas in 2007, 15,2 % of the citizens of the Union aged between 18 and 24 were early school leavers,

D.

whereas employment still does not guarantee a route out of poverty for many people in the EU, with 8 % of people at work at risk of poverty in 2006,

E.

whereas in 2006, 16 % of European citizens were at risk of poverty; whereas children, large families, single parents, unemployed people, people with disabilities, young people, elderly people, ethnic minorities and migrants are particularly vulnerable,

F.

whereas women still face a higher risk of poverty than men, because of factors such as their economic dependency the gender pay gap and women's higher presence in lower-paid jobs; whereas that situation increases the risk of perpetuating poverty into the next generations,

G.

whereas price increases in recent years have had a considerable effect on household budgets and have disproportionately affected vulnerable social groups,

H.

whereas various studies (such as the Future of Work Research of the Russell Sage Foundation) have shown that one in four of those working in the most developed economies may soon be low-paid and find themselves at increased risk of poverty; whereas low-wage jobs appear to exhibit much uniformity as they often take the form of a non-standard employment relationships with low-skilled workers, part-timers, women, immigrants and young workers at a higher risk; whereas there is a tendency for low-wage work to be passed on from generation to generation and whereas low-wage work limits access to good education, good health care and other basic living conditions,

I.

whereas Article 2 of the EC Treaty provides that equality between men and women is one of the fundamental principles of the European Union,

J.

whereas the EU faces a demographic change of which the most important features are an increase in life expectancy and a decreasing fertility rate although some countries are showing signs of reversing the trend of decreasing fertility,

K.

whereas the demographic change is expected to lead to the doubling of the old age dependency ratio until 2050 with consequences regarding in particular the physical and mental health of the population,

L.

whereas the Commission ‘Demography Report 2008: Meeting Social Needs in an Ageing Society’ (SEC(2008)2911), recognises the pivotal role that informal carers play in society; whereas the Commission should consider the strong social arguments for the inclusion of carers in the formulation of future policy,

M.

whereas the effects of the financial crisis on the real economy are not fully known but it will be impossible to reach the target of creating 5 million jobs in the EU between 2008 and 2009; whereas an economic recession will lead to higher unemployment and will certainly lead to more poverty and will present challenges to the European social model,

N.

whereas the financial and economic crisis is causing increasing unemployment and insecurity, in which social cohesion across the EU is under substantial strain with social fractures and tensions in numerous Member States,

O.

whereas the EU has committed itself to the aim of socially and environmentally sustainable development, and whereas the opportunities for job creation that can arise from that commitment should be fully exploited,

P.

whereas social dialogue can be important to tackle the crisis in confidence that is being aggravated by the economic crisis as many people in our society are afraid of the future; whereas equal priority must also be given to those who are already excluded and whose current position is worsening in the current crisis,

Q.

whereas the EU's more interventionist institutional arrangements, characterised by a certain degree of income redistribution and the common notion of a ‘European social model’, have a positive effect on the quality of the working lives of millions of men and women in the more disadvantaged segment of our labour markets,

R.

whereas respect for national legal and conventional frameworks, characterised by balancing labour law and collective agreements, which regulate those models, are a precondition for harmonised values in a diversity of systems,

S.

whereas in the case of non-standard employment relationships the rules and procedures defined by the partners in collective bargaining no longer apply,

T.

whereas the renewed social agenda should be based on the principle that effective and efficient social policies contribute to economic growth and prosperity, and whereas this can also help restore the declining support of citizens for the EU,

U.

whereas it is regrettable that the renewed social agenda does not deal with the question of legal security for social services of general interest,

V.

whereas considerable concern has been voiced about the role and visibility of the renewed social agenda, including the lack of clarity of its purpose or how it will be followed up on as well as the lessening of the prominence given to the social Open Method of Coordination (OMC),

W.

whereas the European social models are a unity of values in a diversity of systems and are, in general, within the competence of the Member States; whereas the aims of social Europe, provided for in the EC Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the Lisbon Treaty, must be emphasised as the overarching goal for the EU, if they are to meet with the expectations and allay the fears of its citizens; whereas successive Spring European Council meetings have reiterated the objective of the eradication of poverty and social exclusion and the need to reinforce the social dimension in the Lisbon Strategy; whereas the failure and success of national social and employment policies also have an impact on other Member States, therefore, the debate on the reform of the European social model must be placed at the heart of the interaction between the EU and the Member States,

X.

whereas the failure of the Lisbon Strategy to decrease poverty - currently 78 000 000 people in the EU are living in poverty - and rising inequality must be of central concern; whereas the EU must make progress in relation to the development and implementation of EU and national targets on reducing poverty and social exclusion, and in key areas where indicators currently exist if people are to be convinced that the EU is there to serve the people first and only then businesses and banks,

Y.

whereas in several proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the notion ‘provisions that are crucial for the protection of the political, social and economic order’ has been used without clarifying who can decide, in this regard, which provisions are crucial for the protection of the general public policy provisions in a Member State,

Z.

whereas in the Court of Justice held that it is not up to the Member States to define unilaterally the notion of public policy or to impose unilaterally all the mandatory provisions of their employment law on suppliers of services established in another Member State and whereas it is unclear in whose hands that competence lies if not with the Member States,

AA.

whereas there is no clear distinction between labour-only subcontracting and dubious trafficking and provision of services that is based on lawful contracts with genuinely self-employed people; whereas the difference between fraudulent practices and true civil and commercial business relationships should be addressed,

1.

Calls upon the Council and the Commission, given the economic recession, to reaffirm the importance of a strong social Europe, incorporating sustainable, effective and efficient social and employment policies; calls on the Commission to develop an ambitious social policy agenda for the period of 2010-2015;

2.

Urges the Commission to put forward a coherent policy plan on decent work in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

3.

Stresses the importance of putting job creation and promotion at the top of the social agenda in these difficult times; considers that greater flexibility in the workplace is now more important than ever;

4.

Invites the Commission to combine the renewed social agenda with other initiatives such as the European pact for gender equality, the European Youth Pact and the European Alliance for families, in order for disadvantaged social groups to have better access to social benefits;

5.

Is concerned that the measures proposed in the Commission Communication on the Renewed Social Agenda are insufficiently coherent to impact on the current levels of poverty and exclusion in the EU and to address the current challenges to social cohesion;

6.

Regrets, in particular, that the Commission Communication on the Renewed Social Agenda lacks proposals on the following issues, which are crucial in order to achieve a balance between economical freedoms and social rights:

7.

Stresses the need to further develop minimum standards in employment rights; is aware that neither economic freedoms nor competition rules prevail over fundamental social rights;

8.

Notes that social policy should cover key actions such as a better balance between stronger social rights and freedoms, combating discrimination and promoting equality, modernising and reforming the European social models while strengthening their values;

9.

Notes that the delineation of what constitutes Member State provisions that are crucial for the protection of the political, social and economic order' is a political matter and should be defined in a democratically legitimised process; therefore calls upon the Commission to initiate an open debate in order to clarify the notion of what constitutes those general public policy provisions and propose legislation where necessary;

10.

Considers that this is not the time to reduce social expenditure but rather to reinforce structural reforms; adds that the EU should support the infrastructures of the Member States' social models, including social services of general interest, by reaffirming the importance of their universal access, quality and sustainability;

11.

Regrets that although the financial crisis demonstrates the importance of State action in regard to maintaining economic activity and strengthening social cohesion, the Commission has not ensured the future of and the crucial role played by public services in the EU by proposing a framework directive on services of general interest;

12.

Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal seeking to guarantee the legal security of social services of general interest;

13.

Emphasises the need to find ways to modernise and reform the national security systems to eradicate poverty with a long-term perspective, especially concerning adequate minimum income, pensions and health care services; stresses that there is potential to strengthen the financial sustainability of the minimum wage and pensions systems and the quality and efficiency of health care services by improving their organisation and access and increasing partnership between the public and private sector, respecting the principle of subsidiarity, and supporting increased efforts to establish progressive taxation systems in order to reduce inequality;

14.

Notes that some Member States have introduced the concept of a minimum wage; suggests that other Member States might benefit from studying their experience; calls on the Member States to safeguard the preconditions for social and economic participation for all and, in particular, to provide for regulations on such matters as minimum wages or other legal and generally binding arrangements or through collective agreements in accordance with national traditions that enable full-time workers to make a decent living from their earnings;

15.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that all citizens have access to basic banking services;

16.

Maintains that sport and cultural activity are essential instruments of social inclusion and help to foster personal development, promote the good of society, and nurture talents;

17.

Asks the Commission to ensure that environmental and health issues are rapidly integrated in all EU policies in order to ensure a high level of health and environmental protection, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty;

18.

Shares the Commission's determination to extend the social agenda to include new areas; deplores the fact that the environment is too often being considered only from the point of view of climate change; welcomes the renewed declarations by the Commission in favour of a sustainable economy with low CO2 emissions, but regrets the fact that the Commission's proposal contains no specific measure to take into account the social and health consequences of the environmental and climate crises;

19.

Stresses that extreme poverty and the ensuing social exclusion cannot be understood in economic terms on the basis of figures alone, but must also be understood in terms of human rights and citizenship; recognises that the principle of the free movement of capital and goods cannot, in itself, eradicate poverty and, in particular, persistent poverty and that extreme poverty deprives those affected of opportunities and prevents them from fully taking part in the community life by making them indifferent to their surroundings;

20.

Welcomes the proposals included in the Commission's work-life balance package launched at the end of 2008; encourages the Commission to make recommendations to the Member States that are clearly lagging behind the objectives of the 2002 Barcelona European Council as regards the provision of childcare for 2010; invites the Commission further to encourage employers' openness regarding flexible work arrangements, optimising the use and knowledge of ICT and new forms of work organisation thus promoting the flexibility of work schedules and its compatibility with business, administration and school hours;

21.

Invites the Commission to put forward a proposal on a better reconciliation between private, family and professional life optimising the use and knowledge of ICT and new forms of work organisation, taking into consideration the needs and well-being of children, whilst promoting more effective employment protection, which confirms parents' and carers' right to flexible working patterns, corresponding to their needs and paying particular attention to access for those on low incomes and in precarious or low-quality employment;

22.

Deplores the weakness of EU and Member State policies in the face of growing poverty, especially child poverty;

23.

Encourages Member States to provide for guaranteed minimum income schemes for social inclusion, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

24.

Suggests that new demographic challenges could be tackled by addressing the situation of women who live in poverty, who have unequal and inadequate access to nutrition, housing, education and pay, and who face difficulties in reconciling work, family and private life;

25.

Calls for a more effective prevention and combating of early school leaving under the motto that ‘school pays off’; calls for effectively organised education systems and school curricula adapted to tomorrow's job market which take account of society's needs and technological developments; calls for the further promotion of and assistance to the concept of Second Chance Schools and informal and non-formal learning that have proved to lead to higher participation of young people and adults than traditional school environments contributing to lower the drop-out rate in the EU; for that purpose, calls for the long-awaited elimination of any and all inequalities of opportunities in educational systems in the EU, in particular, the elimination of low-level and segregated education which has irreversible negative effects on marginalised groups, particularly on Roma;

26.

Insists on the need for more effective lifelong learning and training actions aiming better to equip citizens, especially the less qualified, to (re-)enter the job market smoothly and without discrimination and to contribute to social innovation; suggests emphasising entrepreneurial skills principally the entrepreneurship of women and young people, ICT and communication competences, financial literacy and language skills;

27.

Stresses the need to improve education in the EU by mobilising the process of compatibility and comparability of the Member States' educational systems with a view to facilitating the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and standards;

28.

Considers that active social inclusion policies must make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion, both for those in paid employment (the ‘working poor’) and for those not in paid employment;

29.

Highlights the necessity of promoting University-business cooperation as it is important to ensure that these partners cooperate and that they support each other for the benefit of their own organisations, of their staff and their students; considers that bridges should be built between university curricula and the world of enterprise, and that businesses should have the possibility, inter alia, to complement study programmes, to offer internships, organise open days for students, etc.;

30.

Draws attention to the need for a more balanced approach between flexibility, security and the need to ensure decent wages aiming at integrating young and elderly people, women, long-term unemployed people and disadvantaged groups into the labour market; suggests that the Member States take into consideration Parliament's resolution of 29 November 2007 on Common Principles of Flexicurity when implementing national flexicurity strategies;

31.

Considers that especially in a time of financial and economic crises, often resulting in redundancy and restructuring, worker participation in the decision-making process within companies that affect their jobs and livelihoods is of the utmost importance; welcomes the recent revision (15) of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (16); reiterates its call for the further strengthening of the functioning of European works councils as laid down in its resolution of 4 September 2001 on the application of Directive 94/45/EC (17);

32.

Stresses that social and employment policies should foster job creation and be quickly activated as a response to the current economic crisis, should provide job and education opportunities, and should mitigate loss of income; considers that those policies should actively motivate people to look for job opportunities or to start their own entrepreneurial activity; to this end considers that Member States should consider affordable financing channels, such as credit guarantees, reduced interest rates or providing a lump sum of unemployment benefits which, while also mitigating income loss, provide opportunities for education which will help unemployed people to find new jobs; recalls the Commission's holistic approach to active inclusion which encompasses adequate income support, access to inclusive labour markets and high-quality social services;

33.

Invites the Commission to take initiatives that will lead to a clear distinction between employers, genuine self-employed and small entrepreneurs on the one hand and employees on the other;

34.

Stresses the vital need to support mothers, by means of family allowances during infancy and the creation of a suitable framework for their return to the labour market, paying particular attention to single mothers in view of their vulnerability;

35.

Points out that the social economy, as another form of entrepreneurship, plays an essential role in contributing to a sustainable European economy, by combining profitability with solidarity; adds that social economy enterprises need a secure legal framework; highlights the very important contribution of volunteer work in the social field particularly in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and in the support to the more disadvantaged groups in society;

36.

Stresses that not all people are able to work, nor are there currently jobs for all, and restates the importance of implementing Recommendation 92/441/EEC, endorsed by the European Council meeting on 11 and 12 December 2008, on providing ‘sufficient resources and social assistance to live in a manner compatible with human dignity’, through the extension of minimum income schemes to all Member States and increasing levels to ensure access and adequacy;

37.

Believes that the development of microcredit can play an important role in supporting (long-term) unemployed people to move into self employment; points out that microcredit has already helped in many such situations with reintegration into working life and that this is in line with the Lisbon Strategy; calls on the Commission to improve the generation of and access to information on the possibilities and availability of micro-credit and to target actively those groups in society that could benefit most from and that have most need of micro-credit supply;

38.

Calls for the promotion of a stronger link between the implementation of flexicurity and the enhancement of social dialogue, respecting national customs and practices;

39.

Insists on the removal of bureaucratic obstacles for small and medium enterprises; calls for the further implementation of the principles proposed in the Commission's communication on a Small Business Act for Europe;

40.

While fully recognising that Member States have competence for wage policy, suggests that the social partners at national level discuss new methodologies for wage policies which could reverse the current declining percentage relation between salaries and profits and include higher financial participation of employees in companies' proceeds through the use of schemes that mitigate the impact of inflation; considers that such schemes could allow for channelling employees' extra earnings to special capital funds created by companies; calls for a debate regarding ways of encouraging companies to engage in those methodologies, and furthermore calls for a debate regarding legal frameworks that regulate the access of employees to those funds in a gradual way over time; suggests to social partners the importance of a renewed commitment to ‘decent living wages’ which guarantee minimum wages significantly above the adequate income level, to enable people to move out of poverty and to benefit positively from work;

41.

Insists that advancing non-discrimination and equal opportunities relies both on a sound legislative basis and on a range of policy tools and that non-discrimination and equal opportunities must be mainstreamed into all aspects of the renewed social agenda;

42.

Asks the Commission to conduct studies on the medium and long-term impact of knowledge mobility, in order to use the results as a strong basis for measures to mitigate negative effects;

43.

Draws attention to the negative impact (possible brain drain) that immigration may have in the development process of the countries of origin including family structures, health, education and research; recalls, on the other hand, the effects of the economic crisis in terms of imbalances in the employment markets of the host countries;

44.

Stresses the importance of ethical recruitment from third countries, particularly with regard to health-care professionals and calls on those Member States that have not already done so to develop a code of practice for international recruitment;

45.

Emphasises that the long-term impact of immigration on the demographic change is uncertain since it depends on the volatility of migration flows, family reunification and fertility rates;

46.

Considers that immigrants can, when legally employed, contribute to the sustainable development of social security systems and also guarantee their own pension and social rights;

47.

Stresses that a successful human rights based immigration policy should promote a coherent and efficient strategy for the integration of migrant people on the basis of equal opportunities rooted in guaranteeing their fundamental rights and ensuring a balance between rights and obligations;

48.

Welcomes the Commission proposal to impose sanctions on employers who employ illegally staying third-country nationals; emphasises the importance of combating the exploitation of illegally staying third country nationals whilst respecting the rights of those in vulnerable positions; in that context calls upon the Commission to promote the opportunities for lawful employment of legally staying third-country nationals;

49.

Welcomes the proposal for a directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border health care (COM(2008)0414); draws attention, however, to the fact that the directive, in turn, must not lead to a greater discrimination of citizens of the Union on grounds of their economic status;

50.

Considers that strengthening of the implementation and enforcement of existing labour laws under national and Community law and under International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions must be a priority for the EU institutions and the Member States;

51.

Stresses the need further to strengthen anti-discrimination laws throughout the EU; calls on the Commission to stimulate the exchange of best practises between the Member States with regard to promoting further the successful integration of migrants; notes that, especially in times of economic hardship, the most vulnerable people in society, who often include migrants, are disproportionally affected;

52.

Believes that in its external relations the EU could have a more proactive role in promoting core social and environmental standards; is convinced that additional efforts need to be made regarding mechanisms on the prevention, surveillance and sanction of infringements;

53.

Considers that the EU could do more to influence the international agenda concerning the decent work agenda and actively promote compliance with ILO conventions, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that this could contribute to achieving world peace and also to the protection of the EU's interests and values;

54.

Emphasises the fact that the development of the Community legal framework, either through primary or secondary legislation must not contradict international obligations under the ILO conventions;

55.

Notes that the EU should aim for a globalisation process that is more socially inclusive and economically and environmentally sustainable; notes that the way in which corporations conduct business not only has a large economic impact but also has a significant social impact, within the EU as well as in third countries, in particular in developing countries; therefore urges the Commission actively to promote the concept of corporate social responsibility, either by means of the promotion of soft law or, where appropriate, by means of legislative proposals where;

56.

Suggests strengthening the potential of structural funds, through simplification, flexibility and improvement of procedures, and the social integration dimension, with the aim to help Member States optimise the output of social and employment policies; calls on the Member States and the regions to involve the partners fully pursuant to Article 16 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds (18); strongly recommends making the European Social Fund (ESF) accessible to the partners in order to build up capacity;

57.

Stresses that the renewed social agenda must make a clear commitment that EU structural and cohesion funds will help to achieve its objectives; therefore asks the Member States to use the ESF and all the other structural funds in order to improve not only employability but also the social infrastructure;

58.

Recognises that the structural funds remain largely the main funding instrument to fulfil social objectives, asks the Commission and the Member States to promote synergies with other programmes and support coherence across the multiannual framework programmes, such as Daphne, Progress, the Public Health Programme, and the ‘Europe for citizens’ programme;

59.

Calls for particular attention to be given to the regions that are most affected by globalisation as well as to regions in the new Member States that are in the process of social convergence;

60.

Suggests that Progress could contribute to a better assessment of the modernisation of European social models through the evaluation of pilot projects;

61.

Considers that, as a result of the freedom of movement for persons, new problems are emerging in some parts of the EU, and, in particular, in larger cities, in connection with the provision of emergency social protection for people who are unable to support themselves, putting extra pressure on (charitable) private and public services which provide emergency assistance, for example for the homeless or for marginalised population groups in society;

62.

Stresses that flexibility and the acceptance of change by citizens can increase through more mutual trust which can be enhanced by a more effective and transparent social dialogue and by ensuring more effective participative democracy in policy design and delivery;

63.

Considers it particularly important for the social dialogue to encourage policies on health and safety at work and, in general, to promote improvements in the quality of life at the workplace; calls on the Commission to launch a debate on how workers who are not in full-time employment (such as temporary workers, part-time workers or workers on fixed-term contracts) can be brought into the social dialogue;

64.

Given that the results of the negotiations of the European social partners are not well-known or disclosed, calls for the promotion of awareness of the results of social dialogue to improve its impact and promote its development;

65.

Believes that the culture of cooperation, which has been replacing the conflict-based culture in the labour market, should continue to be encouraged through the promotion of the social dialogue;

66.

Believes that civil society organisations, and people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, must be more directly involved in the debates on the economic and social model, on an equal basis;

67.

Notes that the social partners should make an effort to work with multiannual plans with specific calendars and deadlines aiming at a long-term sustainable strategy;

68.

Calls for a wide debate between European stakeholders, national public authorities, employers, employees and civil society organisations, about the social agenda for the post-2010 period;

69.

Notes that Member States should support new measurable, binding and quantitative social targets and indicators for the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy, including commitments to working towards the eradication of poverty and social exclusion, and the development of a new social progress pact which would establish the goals and architecture for a new social sustainable and globally fair EU, which should build on and reinforce the social OMC as a key pillar;

70.

Notes that undertakings play an important role not only in economic terms but also in social terms in the EU; draws attention, therefore, to the promotion of corporate social responsibility and the need to make urgent progress as regards high-quality work, including a decent living wage, to underpin the social model and to prevent social dumping;

71.

Favours an effective dialogue between Parliament and civil society organisations; suggests that such a dialogue is also needed within Member States at a central, regional and local level;

72.

Notes that a European Year of Volunteering would be an ideal opportunity for the EU to connect with civil society organisations; calls on the Commission to prepare the ground for 2011 to be declared as the European Year of Volunteering by submitting an appropriate legislative proposal to this effect as soon as possible;

73.

Considers that civil society organisations should be involved from the beginning of decision-making processes, and that information should be publicly accessible, feedback should be reciprocal, and scope for change should be made clear to participants;

74.

Stresses the importance and value of the consultation process as an effective tool by which to empower citizens by enabling them to feed directly into the policy process at EU level; calls on the Commission to take further steps to raise awareness of future EU consultations via the media and other appropriate forums at national, regional and local level;

75.

Suggests that there is an urgent need for the European institutions, the social partners at national level, and civil society organisations to adopt a ‘social pact’ encompassing social actions with realistic, binding targets and indicators;

76.

Notes that civic participation starts during childhood and calls for the promotion and support of participation structures and initiatives at local, regional and national level for children and youth;

77.

Stresses the need to make progress and finalise the regulation regarding the coordination of social security systems and the directive on portability of pension rights and the proposal for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation;

78.

Calls for an improvement of the legislative process at the EU level, by making it clear why action is needed at that level, ensuring the quality of the content and delivering strong and independent impact assessments covering the social, environmental and economic effects; calls, in particular, for the effective implementation of the 2003 Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making (19);

79.

Emphasises that effective cooperation between Member States and effective monitoring of the transposition of EU law should be a priority;

80.

Considers that a better legislative process at the EU level should actively seek the involvement of civil society organisations and address the concerns of citizens, thus bringing them closer to the EU;

81.

Considers that there should be a better link at the EU level between economic, environmental and social policies, with a reaffirmation of the original Lisbon Strategy goals and the need to ensure that economic and employment policies actively contribute to the eradication of poverty and social exclusion;

82.

Emphasises the need for the adoption of a legally binding charter of fundamental social rights;

83.

Notes that the Lisbon Treaty establishes that very relevant aspects of social policy should be taken into account when defining and implementing EU policies;

84.

Considers that the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy should include a strengthened OMC and invites the Commission further to encourage Member States to define national quantified targets, namely as regards the reduction of poverty and the enhancement of social inclusion, particularly supported by new measurable and quantitative indicators;

85.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to open up opportunities for Parliament's real involvement in the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy;

86.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/23

A.

whereas active inclusion must not replace social inclusion, as vulnerable groups unable to participate in the labour market have a right to a dignified life and full participation in society, and therefore a minimum income and accessible and affordable high-quality social services must be available regardless of a person's ability to participate in the labour market,

B.

whereas active inclusion is not only related to the capacity of the individual, but also to the way in which society is organised; whereas, therefore, the structural causes of exclusion, including discrimination and inadequate service provision, also need to be addressed,

C.

whereas apparent exclusion from the labour market may be the result of a lack of availability of sufficient decent employment possibilities rather than the result of a lack of individual effort,

D.

whereas integration into the labour market must not be a precondition for the entitlement to a minimum income and access to high-quality social services; whereas a minimum income and access to high-quality social services are necessary preconditions for integration into the labour market,

E.

whereas those furthest from the labour market are often people with multiple and complex needs, difficulties or disadvantages such as long-term dependence on low or inadequate income, long-term unemployment, a low level of education and illiteracy, growing up in a vulnerable family, disability, poor health, living in areas of multiple disadvantages, precarious housing conditions and homelessness, and racism and discrimination and therefore strategies for inclusion need to reflect the diversity of those excluded,

F.

whereas social exclusion and exclusion from the labour market have a serious impact on the mental health of people affected, and whereas long-term unemployed people have a greater risk of experiencing depression and other mental health disorders,

G.

whereas those distant from the labour market have a great need for vocational training either because their schooling was inadequate or because, having spent a long time away from the labour market, they are no longer able to make effective use of their education,

H.

whereas the most vulnerable are often affected by conditionality in activation policies and whereas those effects need to be monitored and negative impacts on vulnerable groups need to be avoided,

I.

whereas active inclusion measures must also work in conjunction with the development of EU and national targets concerning the fight against poverty and social exclusion,

J.

whereas most heads of households are women, most single parents are women and most carers are women; whereas, therefore, active inclusion policies require an all-encompassing set of measures to enable women furthest from the labour market to benefit in practice from active inclusion strategies; whereas the labour market situation for women has direct links to age-related poverty which mainly affects women,

K.

whereas in times of economic downturn and growing unemployment, there is a risk of large numbers of new people made redundant swelling those already suffering from poverty and exclusion from the labour market, especially for the most vulnerable social groups such as women, elderly people, people with disabilities; whereas it is essential that social inclusion and related labour market policy be pursued by way of an integrated and coherent approach within the European Economic Recovery Plan; whereas part of public funds should be used to maintain and improve social, health and education investments and other essential social services and services of general interest,

L.

whereas the view that the best way out of exclusion is to be in work can only be truly effective if that work is sustainable, high-quality work, which is adequately remunerated; whereas the principle of equal pay for equal work also remains poorly implemented,

M.

whereas family carers provide essential services of care, education and support outside the system of employment, without income or social rights, and lack the right to re-enter the labour market and to obtain recognition of skills acquired or developed during periods of family caring,

1.

Welcomes the fact that the Commission based its Recommendation 2008/867/EC on Recommendation 92/441/EEC which recognises the individual's fundamental right to sufficient resources and assistance to live in human dignity and defines common principles for implementing that right; endorses the common principles and practical guidelines presented in Recommendation 2008/867/EC on the active inclusion strategy based on three pillars, namely adequate income support, inclusive labour markets and access to quality services; and in particular points out that any active inclusion strategy has to be built on the principles of individual rights, respect for human dignity and non-discrimination, equality of opportunities and gender equality, on the promotion of labour market integration combined with full participation in society, and on the realisation of the principles of quality, adequacy and accessibility across all three pillars;

2.

Agrees with the Council that the implementation of Recommendation 92/441/EEC needs to be improved in relation to minimum income and social transfers, that social assistance should provide an adequate minimum income for a dignified life, at least at a level which is above the ‘at risk of poverty’ level and sufficient to lift people out of poverty, and that the take-up of benefits should be improved;

3.

Welcomes the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17 July 2008 in Case C-303/06 concerning carers suffering discrimination by association; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take adequate measures to ensure that carers are protected from such discrimination in accessing the labour market and encourages the Member States to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Court's judgment is complied with;

4.

Calls on the Member States to implement adequate income support so as to fight poverty and social exclusion; points to the need for an adequate income support level based on Recommendations 92/441/EEC and 2008/867/EC which must be adequate, transparent, accessible to all, and sustainable over time;

5.

Considers it vital that the Commission and the Member States implement Directive 2000/78/EC, which establishes a legal framework for equal treatment in employment to combat discrimination in employment and occupation on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, effectively;

6.

Underlines its request to the Council to agree an EU target for minimum income schemes and contributory replacement income schemes of providing income support of at least 60 % of national median equalised income and, furthermore, to agree a timetable for achieving this target in all Member States;

7.

Recognises that the interaction of social assistance and labour market activity is complex: in particular when the available work may be short-term, seasonal, precarious or part-time and when entitlement conditions and social protection systems or marginal tax rates may have a disincentive effect on the take-up of paid employment and the social assistance system is too rigid to respond; therefore urges the development of systems, which effectively support individuals in a period of transition rather than penalising or discouraging them or removing assistance too rapidly when an individual takes up work;

8.

Points to the importance of providing for welfare benefits for vulnerable persons in a position to work; points out, however, that by virtue of the subsidiarity principle such benefits are a matter for the Member States;

9.

Points out that the recipients of adequate income support and their family members will have the opportunity to avoid the risk of poverty and to become active citizens who contribute to social and economic life as well as to intergenerational solidarity;

10.

Suggests that the Member States actively consider a minimum wage policy in order to tackle the growing number of ‘working poor’ and make work a viable prospect for those distant from the labour market;

11.

Believes that active inclusion necessitates the reduction of inequalities between regions and areas within the Community, through accelerated rehabilitation of the areas affected by the economic crisis and development of rural regions;

12.

Calls on the Member States to take action to fight clandestine or ‘submerged’ employment, which excludes those affected from certain social facilities and services;

13.

Requests that active inclusion policies should:

14.

Invites the Commission to consider whole-cost accounting in the field of active and social inclusion as experience has shown that early investment and preventive action can reduce overall cost for society in the long term; welcomes the fact that Recommendation 2008/867/EC proposes to increase investment in social inclusion accordingly;

15.

Considers that the Member States should provide targeted additional benefits for disadvantaged groups (such as people with disabilities or chronic diseases, single parents, or households with many children) which cover extra costs in connection, inter alia, with personal support, the use of specific facilities and medical and social care, establishing inter alia affordable price levels for medicines for less advantaged social groups; stresses the need to ensure decent invalidity and retirement pension levels;

16.

Agrees, especially in the light of people's often complex needs, that there is a need to design and implement tailor-made active inclusion measures that combine minimum income, labour market inclusion and social services, that there must be a focus on early identification and preventive action, and that priority should be given to targeting the most vulnerable persons;

17.

Considers that in designing and implementing such measures, the views of those at whom these measures are aimed should be taken into account; calls on the Member States to support the empowerment of social non-governmental organisations in order to facilitate their participation in the formulation and implementation of inclusion policies;

18.

Calls on the Member States to develop a more constructive approach to drugs policy with the emphasis on prevention, education and treatment for addiction rather than criminal sanctions;

19.

Calls for the de-stigmatisation of people with mental health problems and learning disabilities, the promotion of mental health and well-being, the prevention of mental disorders as well as for increased resources for treatment and care;

20.

Considers that, because problems associated with exclusion are in many cases present from the earliest years of life, preventive action is essential to identify from an early age those children and young people most at risk, well before they drop out of education and training; notes that young people excluded from school are more likely to get involved in anti-social and criminal behaviour, compounding the challenges of entering the labour market at a later date; considers that a broad stakeholder dialogue and support for preventive action and social services to improve opportunities for vulnerable children and young adults are critical to the success of inclusion policies; also stresses the importance of problems of exclusion affecting older people who lose their jobs and cannot rejoin the labour market;

21.

Considers that the needs of young people seeking a first job should be taken into careful consideration and that policies and measures that can foster the transition from education into the labour market should be taken at national level; considers further that structured dialogue with youth organisations should be continuously associated with the work of the EU institutions and of the Member States;

22.

Calls on the Member States to do more to address issues faced by carers, including the right to choose freely whether they want to be a carer and the extent of the care that they provide, the possibility of combining caring with paid work and employment as well as access to social security schemes and pensions, in order to avoid impoverishment as a consequence of caring;

23.

Welcomes the recognition of the need for universal access to affordable and high-quality social services as a fundamental right and as an essential element of the European Social Model as well as to support the maintenance of people in work and the principles set out in Recommendation 2008/867/EC; considers that such social services include stable, affordable housing, accessible public transport, basic vocational training, and healthcare provision as well as access to affordable energy and other network services; notes that progress must be made on guaranteeing universal service obligations in services of general interest; considers that the development of a plan of action to establish an EU framework directive on services of general interest to guarantee these obligations is necessary; notes that progress remains inadequate in reaching the Barcelona targets set for affordable, high-quality childcare provision, which should be strengthened to cover all children in primary education; also notes that the care needs for other dependants are also inadequately met and should be subject to a similar process;

24.

Believes that tackling discrimination faced by people in the context of access to goods, services and facilities is central to achieving inclusion and therefore welcomes the proposal for a comprehensive directive to combat discrimination outside of employment on the grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief;

25.

Encourages Member States to consider social default tariffs for vulnerable groups, for example in the fields of energy and public transport and also facilities for obtaining microcredits, so as to promote active inclusion, as well as free healthcare and education for people with difficulties of a material nature;

26.

Calls on the Member States to increase the profile of credit unions to help offer individuals a safe and regulated environment for people to save and borrow money and to counter increasingly problematic personal debt; calls on the Member States to ensure that individuals have the right to open an affordable bank account, which is an essential means by which to participate in both economic activities and society;

27.

Calls on the Member States to provide people with disabilities with the additional support necessary both in order to access the labour market and while working; calls on those Member States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify both the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol; notes that the Member States should establish appropriate procedures and structures for effective implementation of that Convention in their territory;

28.

Believes that young people face specific obstacles to active inclusion including unjustified age-related discrimination and difficulties in relation to access to affordable vocational training schemes;

29.

Welcomes the deinstitutionalisation of people with disabilities but notes that this requires a sufficient level of community-based services favouring independent living, the right to personal assistance, the right to economic independence and full participation in society within the Member States;

30.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide adequate resources to facilitate access to life-long learning programmes as a means of limiting the exclusion of older people among others from employment and to foster their continuous participation in social, cultural and civic life;

31.

Believes that more action should be taken to tackle domestic violence and the abuse of children and older people;

32.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the existing Community legislation on gender equality, equality generally, and non-discrimination is fully, properly and effectively implemented; calls for its extension and enforcement to remove structural barriers to employment and professional education and training;

33.

Believes that high-quality education is a vital prerequisite for successful future employment and integration; calls on the Member States to extend legislation on public education with a view to eliminating any and all barriers to education, ensuring integrated education and access for all; believes that those who have been excluded from the labour market for a long time must have greater entitlements to funding for lifelong learning, especially where ‘key competences’ are concerned;

34.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to apply the principle of gender mainstreaming throughout the Active Inclusion strategy;

35.

Considers that training offered should take account of the needs of the individuals concerned and be appropriate to them; calls for targeted rather than standardised training and integration measures which often disregard the needs of people with disabilities, those with caring responsibilities or persons with health problems; points to best practices from the European Social Fund (ESF) and EQUAL as regards targeted needs-based training approaches for those farthest from the labour market, recognising non-documented skills and skills acquired through non-formal education;

36.

Recommends improving the quality of education and integrating education systems with the labour market and social participation criteria, as well as reducing inequalities in access to all forms of education and in the quality of the education offered;

37.

Considers that training should also ensure that individuals are aware of their rights and obligations at work, including sound preparation in terms of health and safety and their rights to trade union membership as well as their rights to information and consultation and to lifelong learning and training;

38.

Notes that there is a risk that more imaginative approaches to prepare those furthest from the labour market for eventual access to it may be deprived of funding in favour of a more narrow approach based on easily quantifiable outcomes; calls on the Commission, therefore, to improve the funding for bottom-up approaches under Structural Funds, and particularly under the ESF, and the development of indicators that measure the progress made to social and active inclusion, so as to target innovative grass-roots initiatives to promote active inclusion, as part of the social inclusion objectives highlighted as part of the Lisbon ear-marking of Structural Funds, the proposed funding on social innovation, and through other funding streams;

39.

Notes that as a result of changing demographics, it is estimated that by 2030 the ratio of active to inactive people will be 2:1; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop active inclusion policies to ensure that carers, many of whom will be obliged to withdraw from the labour market due to caring responsibilities, are not adversely affected in later years;

40.

Points to the necessity of creating an inclusive labour market as the core of any active inclusion strategy, a labour market with decent working conditions and job diversity for all workers taking into account different workplace needs, individual workers' requirements, working patterns and time models, differing skill levels, and different needs in terms of reconciliation of family, private and professional life; notes that high-quality employment is essential to promote job retention;

41.

Calls on the Member States to promote a competitive labour market favouring the development of public and private social protection systems at reasonable cost, enabling those concerned, including members of ethnic minorities, to have the choice of reducing the risks of exclusion from the labour market;

42.

Calls on the Member States to use tools and instruments so as to motivate all actors to create inclusive labour markets and improve the participation of those farthest from the labour market; points to instruments in the context of localised social dialogue, financial incentives, tax benefits and the development of the social economy; welcomes the Commission's recommendation to provide support for the social economy as a vital source of entry jobs for disadvantaged people;

43.

Points out that the role of local and regional authorities in promoting active inclusion is threefold: as employers, promoters of economic development and employment, and as providers of public services, including services for the most vulnerable groups; calls on the Member States to establish networks at regional and local levels to advise and refer people on where they can receive help in accessing the labour market as well as specific social services (i.e. social benefits schemes, health, mental health and social care services, and vocational training) according to their particular situation;

44.

Strongly believes that more should be done to tackle the barriers to inclusion faced by asylum seekers; calls on the Member States to work to end asylum seekers' dependence on benefits by allowing them to work and consider the development of more legal immigration routes;

45.

Urges all Member States to safeguard human rights-based asylum policies in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and other relevant human rights legislation;

46.

Recognises that human trafficking results in immense suffering and social exclusion and calls on the Member States to do more to enforce anti-trafficking and anti-discrimination legislation, reintegrate the victims of trafficking into society and, in particular, to sign, ratify and implement the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings;

47.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to reject the misleading blurring of economic migration with asylum-seeking, and of economic migration and asylum-seeking with illegal immigration;

48.

Believes that the imprisonment of people without adequate rehabilitation and education creates barriers to inclusion and often only leads to further social exclusion, unemployment and crime;

49.

Believes strongly that the retention of a mandatory retirement age acts as a barrier to active inclusion and forces many people, who may want to choose to continue to work, out of the labour market unnecessarily;

50.

Calls on the Commission to coordinate closely the policy process in relation to active inclusion, in particular as regards high-quality social services, with the ongoing development of a voluntary framework on high-quality social services of general interest, and to examine without delay all possible means of clarifying the legal context in which social services general interest operate and providing them with a legal framework to serve as a point of reference, in particular by adopting legislative instruments including a framework directive;

51.

Underlines its recent request to the Commission and the Council to set targets for the reduction of poverty (poverty in general, child poverty, in-work poverty and persistent long-term poverty), for a minimum level of income provided through pensions and for access to health care and for its quality (reducing infant mortality, improving health and increasing life expectancy, etc.); reiterates its requests to set an EU target to reduce child poverty by 50 % by 2012 and to end street homelessness of children, youth and adults alike by 2015;

52.

Calls for a concrete roadmap for the implementation of active inclusion strategies based on the participation of civil society and other stakeholders, including people experiencing poverty; considers that the roadmap should specify time lines and realistic qualitative and quantitative targets based on specific indicators and on detailed dialogue between the interested parties; considers also that the roadmap should set out how active inclusion is to be implemented and monitored through the Open Method of Coordination for social protection and social inclusion, particularly at local, regional and national level; therefore welcomes the initiative of the Commission to involve local authorities in monitoring the implementation of active inclusion strategies through financing a network of local authorities' observatories on active inclusion by the Progress programme; asks the Commission and the Member States to give those observatories a strong role in the future policy process and mainstream active inclusion programmes through the national reform programmes of the revised Lisbon Strategy and in particularly the European Employment Strategy;

53.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/32

A.

whereas the realisation of women’s human rights, women’s empowerment and agency is not only important for addressing gender inequality and implementing a true gender dimension in the EU’s external relations but essential to the successful implementation of the EU’s external policies, including in the areas of aid, development, enlargement, neighbourhood policy, conflict resolution, security and peace-building and international trade,

B.

whereas although the Member States are party to all major international frameworks on gender equality and women’s rights, and although a number of policy documents exist at the EU level, the practical commitment to furthering gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment in external policies is still weak, the implementation of the existing policy documents is modest and the budgetary resources earmarked specifically for gender issues are insufficient,

C.

whereas despite considerable improvements in the promotion of gender equality over the recent years, the main EU institutions – that is to say, Parliament, the Council and the Commission – do not have enough staff appointed specifically to implement the declared gender objectives in the areas of external policy and enlargement, and most of the existing staff responsible for gender issues have to combine that activity with at least one, and sometimes two, other sets of duties,

D.

whereas the EU needs a holistic and coherent approach to gender mainstreaming,

1.

Recognises that the EU institutions have attached increasing importance to gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment but underlines that much remains to be done to put the political commitments into practice, and stresses the importance of adequate funding and of adequate staff responsible for implementing gender objectives;

2.

Recalls that gender mainstreaming requires not only high-level policy statements but also the political will of the EU and the Member States’ leadership, prioritisation of objectives and monitoring of the progress made;

3.

Welcomes the adoption of the above-mentioned ‘Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation of the UNSCR 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) on women, peace and security’, as well as the adoption by the General Affairs Council of 8 December 2008 of the guidelines on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them; calls on those Member States which have not yet adopted their national action plans on UNSCR 1325 to comply as a matter of urgency with the request by the Security Council that the States do so; invites the Commission to provide technical assistance and aid to third countries willing to develop national strategies for the implementation of the above-mentioned Security Council resolutions;

4.

Is pleased that the revised text of the European Security Strategy includes a reference to the above-mentioned Security Council Resolutions S/RES/1325 (2000) and S/RES/1820 (2008), as well as Resolution S/RES/1612(2005);

5.

Calls on the Commission to speed up its work and to propose by July 2009, in close cooperation with the Member States and the Council Secretariat, an ‘EU Action Plan on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in EU External Action’, to be applied in the 27 Member States and in negotiations with third countries, together with a set of effective monitoring instruments;

6.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to systematically include gender equality and women’s empowerment in the EU’s political dialogue and policy discussions with partner countries;

7.

Asks Parliament’s delegations to address the issues related to gender equality and women’s empowerment in its relations with third-country parliaments; underlines the importance of providing support and assistance to national parliaments of third countries, with a view to strengthening their capacity to introduce the gender perspective into their legislative work;

8.

Underlines the importance of civil society organisations in women’s empowerment; calls on the Commission to channel adequate financial support to them and to promote the participation of women’s non-governmental organisations in political dialogue processes with partner countries, as well as in peace negotiations around the world;

9.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote coherence in their policy approach relating to gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment; asks that the existing diverse policy frameworks in this field be collated into an EU Consensus on Gender, covering both internal and external policies;

10.

Encourages the regular holding of conferences to debate issues relating to equal opportunities for women and men, with the participation of delegations at the national parliament level, made up of both women and men, together with the establishment of common strategies to implement projects relating to this topic;

11.

Asks the Commission to address and prioritise, in a more consistent and systematic manner, gender inequalities in the programming and implementation of the external assistance instruments, in particular as regards the provision of assistance for the reform of the security sector; insists that gender-specific objectives, activities and funding must be included in country strategy papers and that mainstreaming of gender issues through those strategy papers must be improved; underlines the need for a holistic approach in the use of external assistance instruments, including the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Instrument for Stability and thematic programmes such as ‘Investing in People’, in order optimally to achieve the goals of gender equality and women’s empowerment;

12.

Considers that the resources allocated to the health sector, and consequently to girls’ and women’s health, are insufficient in view of the EU’s development policy commitments; underlines the need to earmark further financial resources under the external assistance instruments for women’s health programmes; points out that, according to the Court of Auditors’ Special Report on EC Development Assistance to Health Services in sub-Saharan Africa, published in January 2009, allocations to the health sector for that region have not increased since 2000 as a proportion of total EC assistance for health, while the Millennium Development Goals 2007 Progress Chart still identifies very high levels of maternal mortality there;

13.

Points out that effective gender mainstreaming requires enhanced coordination between donors and actors, accountability mechanisms and increased ownership of the development process by national governments; highlights in this regard the added value of the EC/UN Partnership on Gender Equality for Development and Peace, and of gender-responsive budgeting initiatives; welcomes the setting-up of a task force on women, peace and security as provided for in the above-mentioned comprehensive approach to the EU implementation of Security Council Resolutions S/RES1325 (2000) and S/RES/1820 (2008);

14.

Reiterates the need to focus not only on women but also on gender relations between men and women that generate and perpetuate gender inequalities; believes that, as a consequence, projects should take into consideration both men and women;

15.

Stresses that the EU should pay special attention to the needs of the most vulnerable and socially excluded women, in particular disabled women, refugees and women from minority groups;

16.

Calls on the Commission to further develop procedures, benchmarks and indicators in order to ensure that it fulfils its commitments with regard to gender equality in its external policy;

17.

Considers that the European Institute on Gender Equality, established in 2006, should become operational as soon as possible and that its mandate should be extended to external policies;

18.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to implement the ‘Brussels Call for Action to Address Sexual Violence in Conflict and Beyond’;

19.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take action to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings;

20.

Underlines that rape and sexual violence are used as a weapon of war; stresses that they should be punished as war crimes and crimes against humanity; calls for more support programmes for victims of these crimes;

21.

Underlines the need to capitalise on the EU’s partnership with the UN, drawing on the latter’s global expertise in advancing gender equality and empowerment of women, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness and impact of EU policies and aid, and to ensure coherence of external support for partner countries to help them fulfil their relevant obligations;

22.

Considers that the number of personnel currently working on gender issues within the Council and the Commission is inadequate; calls on those institutions to allocate more staff to the structures in charge of the EU’s external action with specific responsibility for gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment;

23.

Notes the continued lack of women in high-level posts within the Council and the Commission, and calls, in particular, for greater efforts to boost the number of women among the heads of EU delegations and the EU Special Representatives; stresses that the future External Action Service should have a better balance of men and women, particularly as regards high-level posts, and that it should include more staff responsible for gender issues;

24.

Calls on the Member States to include more women in ESDP missions and operations, and asks that the participation of women at all levels and in all phases of the planning and implementation be increased; underlines the need to include gender expertise from the very start of the planning of a mission or operation, as well as the importance of systematic and substantial gender training prior to the deployment of staff in missions and operations;

25.

Notes that a great deal of effort is currently being made to mainstream a gender-sensitive approach into the culture of the ESDP, inter alia by developing the quantitative dimension of gender mainstreaming within that policy (e.g. through questionnaires, the development of check-lists, counting the number of men and women in ESDP operations, etc); however, stresses the need to develop the qualitative conceptual framework required in order to understand the socio-economic context in which ESDP missions are deployed (i.e. areas of conflict) and gender-sensitive concerns in the implementation of operations and programmes;

26.

Welcomes the appointment of a gender adviser to nearly all ESDP missions, in line with the above-mentioned Council conclusions of November 2006; nevertheless emphasises that the work of such gender advisers may be undermined by the lack of a concrete EU gender policy – in particular, a lack of gender awareness and/or an unwillingness to consider its importance – and the lack of gender-specific budget lines in the financing of ESDP missions;

27.

Commends the initiatives to provide gender-related training to staff deployed on ESDP missions and in the corresponding headquarters, and the considerable effort made by the Commission to train its staff, particularly within delegations; reiterates that all staff at every level of the planning, programming and implementation of the EU’s external policies should be adequately trained; asks the Commission and the Member States to ensure that compulsory training is provided for all staff in missions and delegations, including the management, and that they are given guidance on gender issues and women’s empowerment;

28.

Is convinced that ESDP mission planning should take account of the inclusion of local women’s organisations in the peace process, so as to build on the specific contribution which they can make and to recognise the particular ways in which women are affected by conflicts;

29.

Stresses that, currently, quotas are an indispensable means of ensuring gender equality in peace and security missions and in decision-making in national and international reconstruction processes, and of guaranteeing the political presence of women at the negotiating table;

30.

Underlines the importance of gender-sensitive budgeting; points out that gender should be developed as a thematic issue in major external assistance instruments, that special appropriations should be earmarked for gender issues and that benchmarks should be defined in order to measure how efficiently the funds provided are being used;

31.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/37

1.

Welcomes the binding character that the Treaty of Lisbon gives to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and welcomes the recognition of the rights, freedoms and principles set out for all EU citizens and residents; underlines that Parliament will be committed to ensuring full respect of the Charter;

2.

Welcomes the strengthening of representative and participatory democracy arising from the introduction of, inter alia, the so-called ‘citizens' initiative’ (Article 11 of the EU Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (TEU)), whereby not less than one million citizens from a significant number of Member States may ask the Commission to submit a proposal for a legal act;

3.

Welcomes the fact that environmental protection has been given a prominent position in all EU policies and that an explicit reference is made in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to combating climate change at the international level; stresses that Parliament should continue to push the European Union to take a leading role in all policies relating to fighting climate change and global warming;

4.

Welcomes the fact that the new TFEU links the building of an area of freedom, security and justice to the protection of fundamental rights and the legal order of the European Union and of its Member States (Article 67 of the TFEU);

5.

Takes particular note of the objective of establishing a ‘highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment’ (Article 3(3) of the TEU), thereby linking the aim of completing the internal market with other objectives;

6.

Notes with satisfaction that equality between women and men has been included among the Union's values (Article 2 of the TEU) and aims (Article 3(3) of the TEU);

7.

Welcomes the fact that, according to Article 208(1) of the TFEU, the ‘Union's development cooperation policy and that of the Member States complement and reinforce each other’, whereas, according to the current Article 177(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, ‘Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation […] shall be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States’; stresses the increased responsibility of Parliament, given that the Union will have a greater role to play in terms of initiative in policy-setting, which should lead to improved donor coordination and division of labour and to greater aid effectiveness for the ‘reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty’ in the context of the Millennium Development Goals;

8.

Believes that the inclusion of territorial cohesion as an objective of the Union (Article 3 of the TEU) complements the objectives of economic and social cohesion and that the introduction of legal bases in those respective areas will increase the competence of Parliament to assess the territorial impact of key Union policies; is pleased to note that the special status of the outermost regions is confirmed by Articles 349 and 355 of the TFEU;

9.

Welcomes the introduction of horizontal provisions on a high level of employment, social protection, the fight against social exclusion, a high level of education, training and protection of human health, combating discrimination, and environmental protection, which will act as general principles underlying the European Union's policy-making (Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the TFEU);

10.

Also welcomes the fact that consumer protection has been strengthened to the extent that it is to be mainstreamed into the other Union policies to be laid down and implemented, and, as a cross-cutting task, now occupies a much more prominent place by virtue of Article 12 of the TFEU;

11.

Welcomes the solidarity provision expressly contained in Article 122 of the TFEU, whereby the Council may decide on appropriate measures if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy;

12.

Welcomes the fact that Article 214 of the TFEU recognises humanitarian aid as a fully-fledged Union policy; takes the view that Part Five, Title III, Chapter 1 (Development cooperation) and Chapter 3 (Humanitarian aid) of the TFEU provide a clear legal basis for development and humanitarian assistance to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies;

13.

Welcomes, moreover, the reinforcement of the European Union's power, in the area of civil protection, to provide ad hoc assistance and disaster relief in third countries (Article 214 of the TFEU);

14.

Underlines that the broadening of the Union's external action under the Lisbon Treaty, including the provision of new legal bases and instruments affecting areas related to foreign policy (external action and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/European Security and Defence Policy), necessitates a new interinstitutional balance guaranteeing adequate democratic scrutiny by Parliament;

15.

Welcomes the fact that energy matters will now be covered by a separate Title XXI in Part Three of the TFEU and that action in that field will thus have a legal basis (Article 194 of the TFEU); notes, however, that, while the ordinary legislative procedure will be followed as a general rule, decisions on the energy mix will remain within the competence of the Member States, while fiscal measures in that field will continue to require only consultation of Parliament;

16.

Notes positively the shared values of the Union as regards services of general economic interest and welcomes the legal basis allowing for the definition of principles and conditions governing the provision of services of general economic interest under the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 14 of the TFEU and Protocol No 26 on services of general interest);

17.

Considers that the changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in the area of the common commercial policy (CCP) (Articles 206 and 207 of the TFEU) contribute overall to the enhancement of its democratic legitimacy and its efficiency, in particular by introducing the ordinary legislative procedure and the requirement that consent be obtained for all agreements; notes that all matters falling under the CCP will come within the exclusive competence of the Union, with the effect that there will no longer be any mixed trade agreements concluded by both the Union and the Member States;

18.

Expresses its satisfaction at the insertion of a provision on a European space policy (Article 189 of the TFEU) and welcomes the opportunity given to Parliament and to the Council to adopt, under the ordinary legislative procedure, the necessary measures establishing a European space programme; considers, however, that the words ‘excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States in this field’ which appear in that article may pose certain obstacles to the implementation of a common European space policy;

19.

Points out that the Treaty of Lisbon includes a new legal basis providing for codecision in respect of intellectual property rights (Article 118 of the TFEU);

20.

Welcomes the extension of the scope of EU action in the field of youth policy, encouraging the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe (Article 165 of the TFEU);

21.

Welcomes the new legal basis laid down in Article 298 of the TFEU, which provides that ‘in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration’, since this provides the basis for a regulation governing the Union's administrative procedure;

22.

Welcomes the strengthening of the legal basis for the adoption of European Union measures in the fields of the prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union (Article 325 of the TFEU); highlights the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon removes the qualification, contained in the current Article 280 of the EC Treaty, that such measures ‘shall not concern the application of national criminal law or the national administration of justice’;

23.

Points out that the new Treaty provisions concerning judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters include a legal basis for the adoption of measures to support the training of the judiciary and judicial staff (Articles 81 and 82 of the TFEU);

24.

Emphasises that the Treaty of Lisbon also provides for the possible establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office in order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union (Article 86 of the TFEU);

25.

Welcomes the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon introduces binding provisions for the protection of the rights of the child in the internal and external objectives of the European Union (Article 3(3), second subparagraph, and Article 3(5) of the TEU);

26.

Welcomes the inclusion of tourism as a new title in the Lisbon Treaty (Article 195 of the TFEU), which provides that the Union is to complement the action of the Member States; further welcomes the provision that the ordinary legislative procedure will govern the adoption of legislative proposals falling under that title;

27.

Welcomes the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon has included sport amongst the areas in respect of which a legal basis is laid down (Article 165 of the TFEU); stresses in particular that the Union can at last take action for the development of sport and its European dimension and can take due account of the specific nature of sport when applying other European policies;

28.

Welcomes the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon will strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the European Union considerably by extending Parliament's codecision powers;

29.

Welcomes the fact that the area of freedom, security and justice is fully integrated into the TFEU (Articles 67 to 89), formally putting an end to the third pillar; welcomes the fact that most decisions in the area of civil justice, asylum, immigration and visa policies, as well as justice and police cooperation in criminal matters, will be covered by the ordinary legislative procedure;

30.

Believes that the introduction of the ordinary legislative procedure in the field of the common agricultural policy (CAP) improves the democratic accountability of the European Union, inasmuch as Parliament will be co-legislating on an equal footing with the Council; emphasises that codecision will apply to all legislation in the field of agriculture under Article 43(2) of the TFEU, and that this will notably be the case in respect of the four main horizontal texts in the field of agriculture (the single common market organisation, the direct payments regulation, the rural development regulation and financing of the CAP); points out, moreover, that legislation on quality, organic farming and promotion will also fall within the scope of Article 43(2) of the TFEU;

31.

Stresses that any power of the Council to adopt measures pursuant to Article 43(3) of the TFEU is subject to the prior adoption, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, of a legislative act pursuant to Article 43(2) of the TFEU, which prescribes the conditions and limitations attaching to the powers conferred on the Council; takes the view that Article 43(3) of the TFEU does not provide for a legal basis or for any autonomous power which would allow the adoption or amendment of any of the Council acts presently in force in the field of the CAP; calls on the Council to refrain from adopting any of the measures referred to in Article 43(3) of the TFEU without prior consultation of Parliament;

32.

Notes that the Treaty of Lisbon introduces far-reaching changes in the decision-making system for the common fisheries policy (CFP) and will also increase its democratic accountability; welcomes the fact that Parliament and the Council will establish, under the ordinary legislative procedure, the necessary rules for achieving the objectives of the CFP (Article 43(2) of the TFEU); considers, in this respect, that any subject formally included in the annual regulation other than the setting of catch possibilities and the distribution of quotas, such as technical measures or fishing effort, or the incorporation of agreements adopted within the regional fisheries organisations, which have their own legal basis, should be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;

33.

Welcomes the introduction of the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of detailed rules on the multilateral surveillance procedure (Article 121(6) of the TFEU), which should strengthen economic coordination;

34.

Believes that the responsibility of the European Central Bank (ECB) to report on monetary policy is now greater, since the ECB is recognised as an institution of the European Union; welcomes the fact that several provisions of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and of the ECB can be modified after consulting Parliament in accordance with Article 40.2 of that Statute; affirms that this does not constitute an encroachment on the independence of the ECB in the field of monetary policy or the priorities set out in the Treaty;

35.

Considers Article 182 of the TFEU to be an improvement because the multiannual framework programme and the implementation of a European research area, referred to therein, will be covered by the ordinary legislative procedure; notes, however, that the specific programmes mentioned in that article will be adopted via a special legislative procedure, implying mere consultation of Parliament (Article 182(4) of the TFEU);

36.

Welcomes the fact that, as regards the implementation of the Structural Funds, the Lisbon Treaty places Parliament on an equal footing with the Council by replacing the current assent procedure by the ordinary legislative procedure; considers that this is especially significant as regards the Structural Funds in the period after 2013, in that it enhances transparency and increases accountability in respect of those funds vis-à-vis citizens;

37.

Notes that legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation will become subject to a special legislative procedure and will require Parliament's consent (Article 19 of the TFEU);

38.

Welcomes the fact that the ordinary legislative procedure will cover measures to combat trafficking in human beings, in particular women and children, and sexual exploitation (Articles 79(2) and 83(1) of the TFEU);

39.

Welcomes the extension of qualified majority decision-making to the field of education, including sport (Article 165(4) of the TFEU);

40.

Welcomes the fact that codecision will henceforth apply to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (Article 336 of the TFEU), inasmuch as this will allow Parliament to take part on an equal footing with the Council in the adjustment of those regulations;

41.

Notes that the Treaty of Lisbon makes sweeping changes in the area of the Union's finances, particularly as regards interinstitutional relations and decision-making procedures;

42.

Points out that the Council and Parliament must agree, within the limits of own resources, on the programming of expenditure which becomes legally binding (Article 312 of the TFEU); welcomes the fact that the budget as a whole must be adopted jointly by Parliament and the Council, in compliance with the multiannual financial framework; welcomes the abolition of the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure (Article 314 of the TFEU); welcomes the fact that the adoption of the financial regulation will be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 322 of the TFEU);

43.

Refers to its resolution of 7 May 2009 on the financial aspects of the Treaty of Lisbon (4);

44.

Welcomes the fact that the simplified revision procedure with regard to the introduction of qualified majority voting and the introduction of the ordinary legislative procedure in a given area under Title V of the TEU or under the TFEU requires the consent of Parliament;

45.

Notes the introduction of an ‘exit clause’ for the Member States (Article 50 of the TEU); underlines that the agreement laying down the arrangements for the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union may not be concluded until after Parliament has given its consent;

46.

Welcomes the fact that Parliament's consent will be required for a wide range of international agreements signed by the Union; underlines its intention to request the Council, where appropriate, not to open negotiations on international agreements until Parliament has stated its position, and to allow Parliament, on the basis of a report from the committee responsible, to adopt at any stage in the negotiations recommendations which are to be taken into account before the conclusion of negotiations;

47.

Urges that any future ‘mixed’ agreement combining non-CFSP and CFSP elements must normally be dealt with under a single legal basis, which should be the one directly related to the main subject-matter of the agreement; notes that Parliament will have the right to be consulted, except where the agreement relates exclusively to the CFSP;

48.

Welcomes the fact that the President of the Commission will be elected by Parliament, on a proposal of the European Council, taking into account the elections to the European Parliament; refers to its resolution of 7 May 2009 on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union (5);

49.

Welcomes the fact that the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, together with the other members of the Commission, as a body, will be subject to a vote of consent by Parliament, as well as to a vote of censure, and will therefore be accountable to Parliament;

50.

Welcomes the new procedure for the appointment of Judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice and the General Court as provided for in Article 255 of the TFEU, under which the national governments' decision is to be preceded by an opinion on candidates' suitability to perform their duties given by a panel of seven experts, one of whom is to be proposed by Parliament;

51.

Underlines the need for transparency and democratic scrutiny concerning the setting-up of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in accordance with Article 27(3) of the TEU, and recalls its right to be consulted on its establishment; is of the opinion that, administratively, the EEAS should be attached to the Commission;

52.

Expects clarifications with regard to the criteria for, and the appointment and evaluation of, EU Special Representatives, including the definition and purpose of their tasks, the length of their mandate, and coordination and complementarity with the Union's future delegations;

53.

Underlines the need for transparency and democratic scrutiny concerning the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the activities undertaken it, namely by ensuring a regular exchange of information between the Chief Executive of the EDA and Parliament's committee responsible;

54.

Welcomes the new consultation role it will have under Article 40.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB with regard to changing the composition of the ECB Governing Council;

55.

Welcomes the fact that agencies, notably Europol and Eurojust, will be subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny (Articles 85 and 88 of the TFEU); believes, therefore, that the retention of the consultation procedure for the setting-up of joint undertakings in the area of research and technological development (Articles 187 and 188 of the TFEU) may not conform to the spirit of the legal acts of the Union establishing agencies;

56.

Calls on the President of the European Council to keep Parliament fully informed about the preparations for European Council meetings and to give a report on the results of meetings, where possible within two working days (if necessary to a special sitting of Parliament);

57.

Calls on the President of the rotating Council Presidency to inform Parliament about the Presidency programmes and about the results achieved;

58.

Urges the future Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to agree, with Parliament, upon adequate methods of keeping Parliament fully informed of, and consulted on, the Union's external action, duly involving all committees of Parliament which are responsible for areas falling under the remit of the High Representative;

59.

Stresses that, as regards the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements, the Commission will be under a legal obligation to inform Parliament of the progress of negotiations in the same way as the special committee designated by the Council as referred to in Article 218 of the TFEU; calls for this information to be provided to the same extent, and at the same time, as it is supplied to the relevant Council committee under that article;

60.

Welcomes Parliament's new role in initiating amendments to the Treaties; will make use of this right and put forward new ideas for the future of Europe, when new challenges make this necessary;

61.

Welcomes the fact that Parliament will have the right of initiative as regards proposals concerning its own composition, respecting the principles laid down in the Treaties (Article 14 of the TEU);

62.

Notes that the Treaty of Lisbon introduces a special legislative procedure for the adoption of provisions laying down the modalities and powers of temporary committees of inquiry (Article 226 of the TFEU);

63.

Welcomes the new rights conferred on national parliaments with regard to prior scrutiny of application of the principle of subsidiarity in all legislation of the Union; takes the view that strengthening the scrutiny of European policies by national parliaments will also raise public awareness of the Union's activities;

64.

Stresses that the national parliaments' new prerogatives have to be fully respected as from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

65.

Welcomes the requirement for local and regional authorities to respect the principle of subsidiarity; notes the right of the Committee of the Regions to bring actions before the Court of Justice when it considers that the principle of subsidiarity has been infringed (second paragraph of Article 8 of Protocol No 2);

66.

Appreciates the improvements flowing from the new provisions on legal acts and the hierarchy of norms, in particular the creation of the delegated act (Article 290 of the TFEU), which makes it possible to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application or to amend non-essential elements of a legislative act; points out that the objectives, content, scope and duration of any such delegation must be clearly defined by Parliament and by the Council in the legislative act;

67.

Welcomes in particular the provisions of Article 290(2) of the TFEU, which envisages Parliament (and the Council) having the right both to revoke the delegation of powers and to object to individual delegated acts;

68.

Notes that the Treaty of Lisbon and, through it, the TFEU, do not provide a legal basis for a framework measure for delegated acts, but proposes that the institutions could agree on a standard formula for such delegations that would be regularly inserted by the Commission in the draft legislative act itself; stresses that this would preserve the freedom of the legislator;

69.

Asks the Commission to clarify how it intends to interpret Declaration 39 annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, concerning the consultation of experts in the area of financial services, and how it intends to apply that interpretation, beyond the provisions on delegated acts contained in the TFEU;

70.

Notes that the Treaty of Lisbon repeals the current Article 202 of the EC Treaty concerning implementing powers and introduces in Article 291 of the TFEU a new procedure – ‘implementing acts’ – that provides for the possibility of conferring implementing powers on the Commission in cases where ‘uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts’ are needed;

71.

Notes that Article 291(3) of the TFEU requires Parliament and the Council to adopt, in advance, general rules and principles concerning mechanisms for ‘control by Member States’ of the exercise of implementing powers by the Commission;

72.

Notes that the Treaty of Lisbon no longer provides a basis for the present comitology procedures and that pending legislative proposals which are not adopted before its entry into force must be modified in order to satisfy the requirements of Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU;

73.

Is of the opinion that an interim solution could be negotiated with the Council for the initial period, so that no obstacle would occur as a result of a possible legal lacuna and the new regulation could be adopted by the legislator after due consideration of the Commission proposals;

74.

Asks the Commission to transmit to the co-legislators all pending proposals in respect of which new legal bases and changes in the legislative procedures apply;

75.

Points out that Parliament will decide what position it takes regarding opinions that have already been adopted in consultation procedures on matters which henceforth are to be dealt with under the ordinary legislative procedure, whether this involves confirmation of its previous position or the adoption of a new one; stresses that any confirmation of opinions as Parliament's position at first reading can be voted on by Parliament only after the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force;

76.

Insists on the conclusion of an interinstitutional agreement precluding the adoption of pending ‘third pillar’ legislative proposals having a fundamental rights dimension until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, so that full judicial scrutiny will be possible in respect of such matters, while measures having no impact, or only a limited impact, on fundamental rights can still be adopted prior to its entry into force;

77.

Calls on the other institutions to enter into negotiations for an interinstitutional agreement covering:

78.

Requests an update of the interinstitutional agreement between Parliament and the Council defining their working relations concerning foreign policy, including the sharing of confidential information on the basis of Articles 14 and 36 of the TEU and Article 295 of the TFEU;

79.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to consider the negotiation with Parliament of a new interinstitutional agreement providing Parliament with a substantive definition of its involvement in every stage leading to the conclusion of an international agreement;

80.

Calls, as a consequence of the new provisions on the multiannual financial framework (Article 312 of the TFEU) and on the financial regulation (Article 322 of the TFEU), for the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management to be reviewed;

81.

Considers that all necessary steps should be taken to create a European information and communication policy, and regards the joint political declaration given by the three institutions on communication as a useful first step towards the attainment of that objective;

82.

Calls on the Commission to rapidly present an initiative for implementation of the ‘citizens' initiative’, laying down clear, simple and user-friendly conditions for the exercise of this citizens' right; refers to its resolution of 7 May 2009 requesting the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the citizens' initiative (6);

83.

Calls on the Commission to adopt regulations implementing Article 298 of the TFEU on good administration, which will answer a long-standing call by Parliament and by the European Ombudsman for a common system of administrative law governing the European administration;

84.

Notes that the Treaty of Lisbon allows for the inclusion of the European Development Fund in the budget of the Union, which will enhance the democratic legitimacy of an important part of the EU's development policy; calls on the Council and the Commission to take the necessary steps for the budget of the European Union at the 2008/2009 mid-term review;

85.

Recommends urgent re-examination and reinforcement of the Union's status in international organisations once the Treaty of Lisbon is in force and the Union has succeeded the European Communities;

86.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to agree with Parliament on a strategy aimed at ensuring coherence between legislation adopted and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the rules contained in the Treaties on policies such as preventing discrimination, protecting asylum seekers, improving transparency, data protection, the rights of minorities and the rights of victims and suspects;

87.

Asks the Council and the Commission to contribute to the improvement of relations between European and national authorities, especially in the legislative and judicial fields;

88.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to provide for the establishment of an effective common energy policy with the objective of efficiently coordinating the energy markets of the EU Member States and the development of those markets, whilst integrating external aspects focusing on the sources and routes of energy supply;

89.

Calls on the Council to consider, together with Parliament, what use should be made of the provisions of Article 127(6) of the TFEU, which allow the Council to confer specific tasks upon the European Central Bank ‘relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions with the exception of insurance undertakings’;

90.

Pledges to adapt its internal organisation with a view to optimising and rationalising the exercise of the new powers conferred on it by the Treaty;

91.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the parliaments of the Member States.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/46

A.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty introduces major changes in the area of the Union's finances, in particular as regards interinstitutional relations and decision-making procedures,

B.

whereas it establishes a clear hierarchy among the basic acts governing the financial and budgetary life of the Union, thereby bringing about a much-needed clarification of the decision-making system,

C.

whereas the multiannual financial framework (MFF), which translates the Union's political priorities into expenditure programmed over a number of years and places a ceiling on Union expenditure over a given period, becomes in the Lisbon Treaty a legally binding act based on a new specific legal basis for the adoption of the regulation setting out the MFF,

D.

whereas the fact that the MFFs, on the one hand, and Parliament's parliamentary term and the Commission's term of office, on the other, do not coincide has thus far served to deprive Parliament of part of its budgetary powers, because it is often bound by a financial framework negotiated and adopted during the previous parliamentary term,

E.

whereas, if no change is made to the timetable, some Parliaments will never be able to take fundamental budgetary decisions, since the financial framework adopted by their predecessors covers the entire parliamentary term in question,

F.

whereas the current small margins available under each heading and the paltry sums allocated to the flexibility mechanisms which can be employed make it very difficult for the Union to respond appropriately to unexpected political events and may deprive the annual budgetary procedure of its substance,

G.

whereas the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty makes it essential that the institutions responsible for the Union's financial and budgetary decision-making should reach an agreement on an optimum transition to the arrangements introduced by the new legal acts and the new decision-making procedures,

H.

whereas, in the interests of the smooth functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union, the EU budget must be taken into account when coordinating Member States' budgetary strategies,

I.

whereas the European Council of 11 and 12 December 2008 reaffirmed that the Lisbon Treaty is necessary in order to help the enlarged Union to function more efficiently, more democratically and more effectively, including in international affairs, and whereas it defined an approach and legal guarantees which meet the concerns expressed by the Irish electorate, with a view to enabling the Treaty to enter into force before the end of 2009, while respecting the aims and objectives of the Treaties,

1.

Welcomes the advances brought about by the Lisbon Treaty in the area of the democratic scrutiny and transparency of the Union's finances; draws attention to the need to enhance and adapt interinstitutional conciliation mechanisms and internal cooperation procedures in order to enable Parliament to exercise its new powers to the full;

2.

Regrets that, as regards the Union's own resources, the Member States have failed to take the opportunity to establish a system of genuine own resources that is fairer, more transparent, more readily understandable to the public and subject to a more democratic decision-making procedure;

3.

Regrets, in particular, that no progress has been made in involving Parliament in the process of determining the limits to and the nature of the own resources available to the Union; points out that decision making on revenue and decision making on expenditure remain separate;

4.

Welcomes, however, the efforts made to ensure that measures implementing the decision on own resources can be adopted by means of a special legislative procedure under which the Council acts by a qualified majority only after securing Parliament's consent;

5.

Calls on the Council to employ that arrangement wherever possible in order to make the decision-making procedure more flexible;

6.

Welcomes the formal status granted in the Lisbon Treaty to the MFF, which becomes a legally binding act; points out that the MFF programmes EU expenditure and places a ceiling on Union spending over a given period, thereby helping to strengthen budgetary discipline;

7.

Welcomes the fact that the regulation laying down the MFF will have to be jointly approved by Parliament and the Council, under a special procedure;

8.

Regrets, however, that the Lisbon Treaty has retained the requirement that the Council should act unanimously when adopting the MFF, rendering the decision-making procedure very difficult and encouraging negotiations on the basis of the ‘lowest common denominator’; urges the European Council, therefore, to make use as soon as possible of the provision which enables it, by means of a unanimous decision, to impose a switch to qualified-majority voting for the adoption of the MFF;

9.

Regrets, further, that under the new procedure Parliament has only a right of approval and no genuine power of codecision; however, emphasises the fact that the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the institutions must take any measure necessary, throughout the procedure, to ensure that is ultimately successful; calls on the Council, therefore, to demonstrate its willingness, from the start of the procedure, to develop a structured political dialogue with Parliament in order to take full account of the latter's priorities;

10.

Notes that the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the MFF will determine not only the ‘amounts’ of the ‘annual ceilings on commitment appropriations by category of expenditure and of the annual ceiling on payment appropriations’, but will also lay down ‘any other provisions required for the annual budgetary procedure to run smoothly’ (5);

11.

Welcomes the fact that the Lisbon Treaty provides for the possibility of financial programming over five years, so that, if the necessary changes are introduced, the MFF can be made to match, as far as possible, Parliament's parliamentary term and the Commission's term of office, as democratic logic requires; emphasises that particular arrangements to cope with the needs of specific policies for longer-term financial periods could be required;

12.

Supports, therefore, the switch to a five-year MFF, but is aware that a full coincidence between the MFF and the term of the European Parliament and the term of Office of the Commission might be difficult, as it considers that a negotiating period of at least one year may be necessary to allow each new Parliament and each new Commission to take fundamental financial policy decisions during their terms of office;

13.

Takes a very favourable view of the incorporation of the MFF into a comprehensive approach to interinstitutional strategic programming - one which, moreover, is consolidated in the Lisbon Treaty - as suggested in the report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the institutional balance (6);

14.

Endorses the proposal made in that report that the new College of Commissioners, when presenting its ‘programme for its term of office’, should submit proposals concerning the guidelines for the financial framework which it regards as necessary to achieve political priorities for its term of office - priorities which, once the programme for the parliamentary term has been agreed between the institutions, would be developed through its proposals in the MFF;

15.

Takes the view, moreover, that at debates in plenary and hearings before the parliamentary committees the nominee for the post of President of the Commission should already be in a position to provide an outline of the likely financial implications of the political objectives the new Commission intends to pursue;

16.

Emphasises that the switch to five-year financial programming, as referred to above, could necessitate the prolongation and adjustment of the current MFF to 2016 inclusive, so that the next five-year MFF can enter into force, at the latest, in early 2017 (7); recommends that the negotiations for the next MFF be in any case concluded by the end of the first trimester of 2016, in order to allow for the budgetary procedure for 2017 to run already within the parameters of the framework that will be in force in 2017;

17.

Stresses that the negotiations should be conducted in such a way as to allow the institutions to envisage the entry into force of a new MFF already in 2016;

18.

Considers that the prolongation and adjustment of the current MFF should be considered when the next mid-term review is carried out in 2010;

19.

Emphasises that the legally binding nature of the MFF necessitates, even more than before, the introduction of more flexible implementing arrangements so that the Union can respond sufficiently flexibly and effectively to unforeseen challenges, both within and outside the Union;

20.

Draws attention to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the ceilings corresponding to the last year of the existing MFF and other provisions will be extended if the new MFF has not been adopted before the preceding MFF expires; regards this as a further argument in favour of increased flexibility;

21.

Emphasises, in that connection, the importance of strengthening flexibility mechanisms operating within and between each heading and through specific flexibility instruments which can be mobilised outside the margins;

22.

Points out that the Committee on Budgets will give its views on these matters when adopting its report on the mid-term review of the 2007-2013 MFF;

23.

Draws attention to the need, in good time prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, for the institutions to reach agreement on the arrangements for making the transition from the current interinstitutional agreement to an MFF contained in a legislative act, as provided for by the Lisbon Treaty; recalls that a period of eight weeks is required for scrutiny by national parliaments of draft legislative acts;

24.

Takes the view, in that connection, that agreement will have to be reached as to which of the provisions that currently form part of the interinstitutional agreement should be switched to the MFF, which should be incorporated into the future Financial Regulation and which might justify the retention of an interinstitutional agreement - possibly incorporating new provisions - on budgetary cooperation; points out that this process of dividing up the provisions of the current interinstitutional agreement will have to take account of the criteria laid down in the Lisbon Treaty itself;

25.

Warmly welcomes the abolition of the distinction between compulsory expenditure (CE) and non-compulsory expenditure (NCE), as a result of which Parliament now has the right to take decisions concerning all Union expenditure on an equal footing with the Council;

26.

Emphasises that the abolition of the distinction between CE and NCE is not at odds with the Union's obligation to honour its financial commitments, and welcomes the fact that the Lisbon Treaty acknowledges that it is for Parliament, the Council and the Commission to ensure ‘that the financial means are made available to allow the Union to fulfil its legal obligations in respect of third parties’ (8);

27.

Notes that the changes to the annual budgetary procedure should serve to make it more simple by laying down the principle of a single reading for each institution and by introducing a number of mechanisms designed to help the two arms of the budgetary authority reach agreement; emphasises that these changes should lead to less bureaucracy;

28.

Emphasises the strengthening of the role conferred on the Commission, which acquires a right of initiative in the budgetary sphere and may amend its draft budget until such time as the Conciliation Committee is convened;

29.

Welcomes the fact that the Treaty also acknowledges that it is for the Commission to take all the necessary initiatives with a view to reconciling the positions of Parliament and the Council during the proceedings of the Conciliation Committee, thus inviting it to play to the full its role of mediator between Parliament and the Council with a view to securing an agreement;

30.

Draws attention to the fact that the new procedure provides for only a single reading of the draft budget by each institution; emphasises that the new procedure and the single reading will no longer make it possible in de facto terms for the institutions to adjust their standpoints at second reading, as they were able to hitherto; is convinced, therefore, that this procedure will require Parliament to fine-tune its political priorities at an earlier stage and adapt accordingly its operational approach and organisational arrangements so as to enable it to achieve all the objectives set;

31.

Points out that this single reading must be used to assert Parliament's political priorities, but must also enable it to reach agreement with the Council by the time the Conciliation Committee has completed its work (or enable it to adopt its amendments again by a large majority, in the event of approval by Parliament and rejection by the Council of the text drawn up by the Conciliation Committee);

32.

Emphasises, in that connection, the importance of retaining a pragmatic timetable similar to the current one, whilst calling for conciliation to be initiated in good time; points out, moreover, that the introduction of informal arrangements for dialogue between the institutions is crucial to facilitating agreement before the procedure starts and then throughout its duration;

33.

Is convinced that the Lisbon Treaty will strengthen Parliament's powers, provided that it equips itself with the means to manage effectively both the tighter timetable and the greater need to plan ahead thoroughly which will result from the introduction of the new procedure;

34.

Takes the view that in future its resolution before the first conciliation meeting will take on increased importance, since it will enable Parliament formally to set out its budgetary priorities for the coming financial year, unencumbered by tactical considerations linked to the Council's position on the draft budget; takes the view that that resolution will thus give the other institutions a clear picture of Parliament's priorities before the interinstitutional negotiations start; adds that this will also provide Parliament with an opportunity to set out some initial guidelines concerning pilot projects and preparatory actions;

35.

Points out that these priorities will also be of great value to Parliament both as guidelines for its reading of the draft budget and as a negotiating mandate for its delegation to the Conciliation Committee;

36.

Stresses the importance of organising a trialogue in July of each year in order to enable each institution to gain a clear insight into the priorities of the other parties and to enable Parliament to apprise the other institutions of the substance of the resolution on the draft budget to be adopted in July;

37.

Highlights the political value of the establishment – in keeping with each body's respective powers – of in-depth dialogue with the counterpart committees from the national parliaments on the draft budget and Parliament's priorities for the annual budgetary procedure;

38.

Emphasises the importance which the Conciliation Committee will have in the future as the body in which political disagreements between the two arms of the budgetary authority are resolved; points out that this committee will have the task of finding, within 21 days, an agreement on a compromise text which will enter into force if it is not rejected by the budgetary authority; takes the view that the members of this committee must be drawn from the very highest political level;

39.

Welcomes the fact that the Lisbon Treaty confers a decisive role on Parliament at the end of the procedure; points out that:

40.

Emphasises that it would be desirable for Parliament's delegation to the Conciliation Committee to be headed by the chair of the Committee on Budgets and for it to incorporate, if required and without prejudice to the political nature of the procedure for the appointment of its members by the political groups, in addition to the members of that committee, members of specialist parliamentary committees in cases where the negotiations concern a specific issue within their policy area;

41.

Calls on the Council to reach agreement with Parliament quickly on the Conciliation Committee's working arrangements;

42.

Takes the view, for its part, that the Conciliation Committee should be able to meet at least twice at the highest political level, if that is necessary for agreement to be reached, its meetings to be preceded by a preparatory political trialogue, in keeping with the traditional arrangement; reiterates the need for the Council's representatives at these meetings to be issued with a political negotiating mandate;

43.

Proposes that these proceedings should be prepared by an interinstitutional preparatory working party comprising the general rapporteur and representatives of the political groups, for Parliament, and the Permanent Representative of the country holding the EU Presidency, who may be accompanied by representatives of the two other Presidencies in the troïka;

44.

Points out, further, that the institutions must reach agreement on the composition of the Conciliation Committee secretariat, which should probably consist of officials from the two arms of the budgetary authority, assisted by the Commission;

45.

Draws attention to the fact that the rule stipulating that the Commission may no longer amend its draft budget once the Conciliation Committee has been convened will preclude the use of the traditional autumn letter of amendment to take account of the updated forecasts for agricultural policy and their budgetary implications; takes the view that, if these circumstances arise, the most appropriate procedure would involve the submission by the Commission – if necessary – of a specific draft amending budget (an ‘agricultural AB’) once all the agricultural data have been finalised;

46.

Emphasises that the parallelism between the extension of Parliament's budgetary powers to cover all Union expenditure and the widening of the codecision procedure to encompass almost all legislation calls for greater account to be taken of the budgetary dimension to legislative activity; with that aim in view, regards it as essential that cooperation between the Committee on Budgets and the sectoral committees should be stepped up in order to take due account of the financial impact of Parliament's legislative activity, in particular its impact on the MFF and the annual budget; proposes, accordingly, that the legislative conciliation committees on matters with financial implications should include a member of the Committee on Budgets; to that end, draws attention to the work of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, not least as regards the specific forms of cooperation between parliamentary committees set out in the third interim report;

47.

Points out, moreover, that the Lisbon Treaty extends to all Union institutions the obligation to enforce budgetary discipline; points out that Parliament's Rules of Procedure already lay down a specific procedure designed to ensure that that principle is observed; takes the view that this procedure will have to be made more workable and effective;

48.

Welcomes the fact that the Financial Regulation becomes a regulation adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision) by Parliament and the Council, after consulting the Court of Auditors;

49.

Points out that the Lisbon Treaty contains the main provisions to be used to identify those provisions of the current interinstitutional agreement which should be retained in the future agreement and those which should instead be incorporated into the MFF;

50.

Notes, however, that the Financial Regulation should incorporate all the provisions needed to define the budgetary procedure, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty (9); takes the view that such provisions would cover the functioning of the Conciliation Committee, the mechanism triggering conciliation, and, naturally enough, the updating of the provisions of the Financial Regulation directly affected by the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. the abolition of the distinction between CE and NCE, a new codecision procedure for transfers, etc.);

51.

Regards it as vital that the institutions should reach a political agreement on these matters in due time so that, once the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the requisite changes to the Financial Regulation can quickly be made using the new procedure and, if needed, provide for provisional agreements to allow the smooth continuation of the budgetary procedure;

52.

Calls on the Commission to put forward in due time a proposal which enables Parliament and the Council to reach agreement on the application of the identification criteria referred to in paragraph 49 to the substance of the current interinstitutional agreement;

53.

Argues that these changes to the Financial Regulation must be kept strictly separate from the three-yearly review of that document scheduled for 2010;

54.

Notes that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will also have an impact on the Union budget through the institutional innovations it contains, in particular the elevation of the European Council to the status of institution, accompanied by the establishment of a fixed Presidency, and the creation of the post of High Representative and of the European External Action Service, whose task will be to support the High Representative in his or her work;

55.

Reiterates, as of now, its intention of exercising its budgetary powers to the full in connection with these institutional innovations and emphasises the importance of reaching a political agreement with the Council in due time on funding arrangements for the European Council, and, in particular, its fixed Presidency, and for the future European External Action Service; emphasises that all aspects of the funding arrangements for that service must remain under the supervision of the budgetary authority;

56.

Points out that in the framework of the CFSP and the common security and defence policy the Lisbon Treaty provides for the establishment of new procedures to grant rapid access to the Union budget and to create a start-up fund of Member State contributions; stresses, however, that all external actions of the Union should as a rule be financed from Community appropriations, and only exceptionally – in the event of an emergency – on the basis of contributions outside the Union budget;

57.

Notes that the Lisbon Treaty will also have a financial impact, however limited, by virtue of the new specific competences conferred on the Union; states its willingness to analyse, at the appropriate juncture, the practical implications of the exercise of these new competences; takes the view that these competences will certainly not be implemented en bloc immediately after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, but rather gradually as the relevant legislative proposals are drawn up; takes the view, however, that they must not be funded to the detriment of the Union's current activities;

58.

Wishes to invite the national parliaments to take part, each year, in a joint public debate on national and Community budgetary policy guidelines, prior to consideration of the respective draft budgets, in order to establish from the outset a common framework for coordination of Member States' national policies, while also taking into account the Community contribution;

59.

Points out that the decision on the apportionment of EU budget expenditure in the light of the Union's major objectives would be usefully informed by the annual publication, by each Member State, of the appropriations under national and, where applicable, regional budgets that contribute to achieving those objectives;

60.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the parliaments of the Member States.

5.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 212/54

A.

whereas the ENP and the Eastern Partnership due to be launched shortly recognise the Republic of Moldova’s European aspirations and the importance of Moldova as a country with deep historical, cultural and economic links with the Member States of the European Union,

B.

whereas the EU-Republic of Moldova Action Plan aims at encouraging political and institutional reforms in the Republic of Moldova, including in the fields of democracy and human rights, the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and freedom of the media, as well as good-neighbourly relations,

C.

whereas a goal set for June 2009 is to launch the negotiations on the new Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the EU at the EU-Moldova Cooperation Council,

D.

whereas the Republic of Moldova is a member of the Council of Europe and of the OSCE and has thus committed itself to genuine promotion of democracy and respect for human rights, including in the field of preventing and fighting torture, ill-treatment and other inhumane and degrading treatment,

E.

whereas parliamentary elections took place in the Republic of Moldova on 5 April 2009, and whereas they were monitored by an IEOM composed of representatives from the OSCE/ODIHR and from the European Parliament, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,

F.

whereas serious concern was expressed during the pre-electoral period about government control of the public media, intimidation and harassment of opposition leaders and the private media and misuse of administrative resources for the benefit of the government party,

G.

whereas between 500 000 and 1 million Moldovans live abroad, and whereas several appeals signed by a large number of NGOs and associations of the Moldovan diaspora, including one addressed in February 2009 to the President of the Republic of Moldova, the President of Parliament and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova concerning measures depriving Moldovans living abroad of the right to vote, were sent to the Moldovan authorities prior to the elections of 5 April 2009 and were ignored; whereas the number of Moldovan voters living outside the Republic of Moldova is very limited (22 000),

H.

whereas the de facto authorities of the breakaway region of Transnistria prevented a large number of Moldovan citizens from participating in the elections,

I.

whereas the IEOM concluded in its preliminary findings that the elections met many international standards and commitments, but that further improvements were required in order to ensure an electoral process free from undue administrative interference and to increase public confidence,

J.

whereas the opposition parties and the group known as Coalition 2009 complained about massive irregularities during the election of 5 April 2009 in the preparation of lists of voters and supplementary lists and in counting and tabulation,

K.

whereas, after a recount, the final results of the elections were published by the Central Election Commission on 21 April 2009 and validated by the Constitutional Court on 22 April 2009,

L.

whereas the events that followed the elections were characterised by violence and the Moldovan Government’s massive campaign of intimidation and violence, thus casting doubt on the commitment of the Moldovan authorities to democratic values and human rights and on the existence of public confidence in those authorities,

M.

whereas peaceful protests were fuelled by doubts regarding the fairness of the elections and distrust of public institutions, including those that administered the electoral process, and whereas regrettable acts of violence and vandalism were exploited by the authorities to intimidate civil society by responding in a violent and disproportionate manner and to further restrict the already fragile fundamental rights and freedoms of Moldovan citizens,

N.

whereas it is accepted that at least 310 people were arrested and detained, whereas a number of those arrested are still being held in prison, and whereas, when arrested, detainees suffered systematic ill-treatment at police stations to an extent that might be regarded as torture,

O.

whereas beatings and unwarranted arrests of civilians by unidentified police units seemed not to be directed towards pacifying the situation, but rather to lead to deliberate acts of repression,

P.

whereas serious human rights abuses committed by the Moldovan authorities, unjustified harassment of representatives of civil society and protesters and instances of disregard for the rule of law and relevant European conventions to which the Republic of Moldova is a signatory are still continuing in that country,

Q.

whereas the Moldovan Government accused Romania of involvement in the post-electoral demonstrations and expelled the Romanian ambassador; whereas the Moldovan Government also restored the visa obligation for citizens of that EU Member State,

R.

whereas it must be stressed that no serious indications or evidence have come to light on the basis of which any EU Member State could be accused of being responsible for the violent events of recent weeks,

S.

whereas a genuine and balanced partnership can only be developed on the basis of common values with regard, in particular, to democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and civil liberties,

T.

whereas the European Union is seeking to establish, through its programme for an Eastern Partnership, greater stability, better governance and economic development in the Republic of Moldova and in the other countries at its eastern borders,

1.

Underlines the importance of a closer relationship between the EU and the Republic of Moldova and confirms the need to work together to contribute to increased stability, security and prosperity on the European continent and to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines;

2.

Reaffirms its commitment to continuing a meaningful and goal-oriented dialogue with the Republic of Moldova, but attaches great importance to the introduction of strong provisions regarding the rule of law and respect for human rights, while stressing that further consolidation of relations, including through the conclusion of a new, enhanced agreement, should be made contingent on a real and manifest commitment on the part of the Moldovan authorities to democracy and human rights;

3.

Stresses that full compliance with international democratic standards before, during and after the electoral process is of the greatest importance for the further development of relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union;

4.

Strongly condemns the massive campaign of harassment, grave violations of human rights and all other illegal actions carried out by the Moldovan Government in the aftermath of the parliamentary elections;

5.

Urges the Moldovan authorities to immediately cease all illegal arrests and to conduct government action in accordance with the country’s international commitments and obligations with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights;

6.

Is particularly concerned about the illegal and arbitrary arrests and the widespread violations of the human rights of arrested persons, in particular the right to life, the right not to be subjected to physical abuse, torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to freedom and safety, the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of assembly, association and expression, and about the fact that these abuses are still continuing;

7.

Stresses that a national dialogue must be established, with the participation of the government and the opposition parties, in a serious effort to fundamentally improve democratic procedures and the functioning of democratic institutions in the Republic of Moldova, and that it must immediately address the deficiencies noted in the findings of the IEOM;

8.

Underlines, however, that internal tensions in the Republic of Moldova are very high and therefore firmly believes that there is an urgent need to set up an independent investigatory committee, involving the EU, the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and independent experts, aimed at ensuring an impartial and transparent process of investigation;

9.

Insists that all those found responsible for the brutal violence perpetrated against detainees be brought to justice; insists, further, that the findings of the investigatory committee should also lead to a genuine reform of the legal system and the police forces in the Republic of Moldova;

10.

Calls for a special investigation to be conducted into the cases of those who died during the events following the elections as well as into all allegations of rape and ill-treatment during detention and politically-motivated arrests, such as those of Anatol Mătăsaru and Gabriel Stati;

11.

Condemns the campaign of harassment launched by the Moldovan authorities against journalists, civil society representatives and opposition parties, involving in particular arrests and expulsions of journalists, interruption of access to websites and TV stations, broadcasting of propaganda on public channels and denial to opposition representatives of access to the public media; considers that these actions are intended to isolate the Republic of Moldova from domestic and international media and public scrutiny; deplores and condemns the continuation of this censorship through the letters sent by the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Justice to NGOs, political parties and the mass media;

12.

Strongly deplores the decision by the Moldovan authorities to expel the Romanian Ambassador and to introduce a visa obligation for citizens of that European Union Member State; insists that discrimination against EU citizens on the basis of their national origin is not acceptable and calls on the Moldovan authorities to restore the visa-free regime for Romanian citizens;

13.

Urges the Council and the Commission, at the same time, to undertake a review of the EU’s visa system for the Republic of Moldova in order to relax the conditions for granting visas to Moldovan citizens, especially the financial conditions, and to make better regulated travel arrangements possible; hopes, however, that Moldovan citizens will not take advantage of a better visa and travel system to start a mass exodus from their country, but will be encouraged to make an active contribution to the further development of their home country;

14.

Notes that claims that an EU country was involved in the events seem unfounded and were not discussed or repeated during the meetings held by the ad hoc delegation in the Republic of Moldova;

15.

Requests immediate and substantial proof in support of any allegation by the Moldovan Government concerning the supposedly criminal actions of the protesters and the involvement of foreign governments;

16.

Takes note of the statements by the Moldovan authorities with regard to the opening of a criminal file on the ‘attempted usurpation of state power on 7 April 2009’ and calls for the investigation to be conducted in a transparent manner and to clarify all the allegations made by the Moldovan authorities with regard to the possible involvement of one or more third countries in these events;

17.

Considers it unacceptable, while condemning all acts of violence and vandalism, to present all protests as criminal acts and an alleged ‘anti-constitutional plot’; believes that peaceful protests were considerably fuelled by doubts regarding the fairness of the elections, distrust of public institutions and dissatisfaction with the social and economic situation in the Republic of Moldova;

18.

Believes that constructive dialogue with the opposition parties, civil society and representatives of international organisations is the only way out of the current situation in the Republic of Moldova;

19.

Emphasises that any new election will require a consensus between the opposition and government on concrete improvements to the electoral process;

20.

Reiterates the importance of the independence of the judiciary, and calls for further steps to ensure the editorial independence of all media, including Radio Television Moldova, and the cessation of any intimidation against the ProTV Channel and of any threats relating to the extension of its licence, and for considerable improvements in the Moldovan electoral law as crucial elements of any future electoral process and democratic consolidation in the Republic of Moldova;

21.

Deplores the fact that the Moldovan Government made no efforts to facilitate voting by Moldovan citizens living abroad, in line with the suggestions of the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission; calls on the Moldovan authorities to adopt in due course the necessary measures enabling this to take place;

22.

Stresses the considerable discrepancies between the OSCE/ODIHR preliminary report on the conduct of the elections and the claims of widespread irregularities by a considerable number of Moldovan NGOs; points out that such discrepancies must be taken into account in any future review of OSCE/ODIHR election monitoring activities and EU contributions to IEOMs;

23.

Believes that, in order to preserve its credibility for the people of the Republic of Moldova, the EU should become involved in the management of the current situation in a proactive, profound and comprehensive way; urges the Council to consider the possibility of sending a Rule of Law Mission to the Republic of Moldova, in order to assist the law enforcement authorities in their reform process, especially in the police and justice areas;

24.

Stresses that the Council, the Commission and the Member States must make full use of the ENP and, in particular, of the new programme for the Eastern Partnership in order to establish greater stability, better governance and balanced economic development in the Republic of Moldova and in the other countries at the Union’s eastern borders;

25.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that EU funding available to the Republic of Moldova in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms has greater outreach, in particular by making full use of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the provisions of the ENPI; calls on the Commission to submit to it a detailed report on the use of all EUfunds in the Republic of Moldova, with special focus on those allocated to good governance and democratic development;

26.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to strengthen the mission of the EU Special Representative in the Republic of Moldova, in terms of both its scope and its means;

27.

Reiterates its support for the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova and points out that a more robust EU role in finding a solution to the Transnistrian question is needed;

28.

Stresses once again that the European Union must do everything in its power to offer the people of the Republic of Moldova a truly European future; urges all political forces in the Republic of Moldova and Moldova’s partners not to take advantage of the current situation of instability to divert Moldova from its European course;

29.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the OSCE and the Government and Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.