8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/1

A.

whereas the IPA is the new financial instrument that replaces the instruments and programmes for candidate and potential candidate countries, namely Phare, SAPARD, ISPA, pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey, and CARDS, and aims to streamline EU funds in a flexible way so as to tailor them to the specific needs and management capacity of those countries,

B.

whereas the IPA consists of the following five components covering priorities defined according to the needs of the beneficiary countries, namely:

C.

whereas the IPA is a key factor for improving the quality of life of citizens, social standards, infrastructure and regional and cross-border cooperation, and for promoting respect for human rights in candidate and potential candidate countries,

D.

whereas the purpose of parliamentary control over the implementation of the budget in the area of enlargement policy is not only to ensure that EU funds have been used in accordance with the governing provisions and with the policies of the EU, but also to assess whether they have been effectively allocated to the priorities identified in the strategy and progress reports for the beneficiary countries and whether they have achieved the desired results in view of common EU interests,

E.

whereas it is vital to examine the implementation of the IPA rigorously and at an early stage so as to avoid the problems that were identified belatedly in the implementation of previous pre-accession instruments, bearing in mind that irregularities not taken into consideration in due time will multiply and that it will be very difficult to deal with them later as they will assume the form of permanent malpractices,

F.

whereas the fight against corruption and the sectoral reforms (in the judicial, police and public administration sectors) have a bearing not only on good governance and the rule of law but also on the general business climate,

G.

whereas the IPA, notably through the review of Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Documents (MIPDs), offers considerable flexibility allowing for adaptation to the evolving needs and managing capacity of the beneficiary countries,

H.

whereas, under Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 (‘the IPA Regulation’), the Commission is obliged to submit to the European Parliament and the Council, by 31 December 2010, a mid-term evaluation report on the implementation of the IPA, accompanied if appropriate by a legislative proposal to amend that Regulation,

I.

whereas, further to Parliament’s request, the Commission has undertaken to carry out already in 2009 a mid-term review of the package of external aid instruments, including the IPA,

J.

whereas Parliament should, from now on, communicate with the national parliaments of the beneficiary countries under the IPA,

1.

Welcomes the structured dialogue established with the Commission on the implementation of the IPA, and recalls its position in this respect, notably the need to grant all beneficiary countries equal access to the full range of policy tools available under the instrument, to give adequate priority to the fight against corruption and organised crime and to pay increased attention to institutional capacity-building, particularly at parliamentary level, the development of civil society organisations, measures to promote the principle of tolerance and non-discrimination, human development and regional cooperation in key policy areas;

2.

Is pleased by the high rate of implementation of IPA commitments in 2007; regrets, however, that the first IPA programmes were only adopted at the end of 2007 and that the actual implementation started only in 2008, due in part to the late adoption of the new instrument and in part to delays on the part of beneficiary countries in setting up the requisite structures and management systems; urges the Commission to push ahead with the implementation of projects and to monitor the allocation of funds and the results obtained so as to ensure that the IPA has a visible impact in the countries concerned;

3.

Notes that, due to the late adoption of the IPA Regulation and of Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 (‘the IPA Implementing Regulation’), and subsequently of the first Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework and the MIPDs, the monitoring, evaluation and reporting on 2007 IPA programmes and projects was limited and has not yet yielded results; stresses that the smooth transition from previous pre-accession instruments to the IPA requires continuity in programming, adequate implementation of projects and execution of payments;

4.

Considers that there was satisfactory coherence between the 2007 IPA national programmes and the EU pre-accession policy, as most of the objectives set out in the programmes were in line with the priorities identified in the respective Commission progress reports;

5.

Notes that the main focus for the candidate countries lies in the implementation of European standards, namely statistical, environmental and fiscal standards, which is consistent with the EU’s enlargement policy; points out however that the importance of the political criteria, notably democratic governance, respect for human rights, freedom of religion, women’s rights, minorities’ rights and the rule of law, should not be undermined, since their non-fulfilment can lead to complications and delay in negotiations; considers that there should be a better balance between projects earmarked for meeting the political criteria and projects earmarked for the implementation of the acquis;

6.

Reminds the Commission that the Union’s legitimacy and capacity to promote reforms can be greatly enhanced if the IPA targets its assistance to areas of direct benefit for the citizens of the candidate and potential candidate countries, particularly in view of the needs and challenges generated by the global financial crisis;

7.

Is consequently of the opinion that the IPA should support the efforts by the beneficiary countries to meet the requirements laid down in the roadmap for visa liberalisation, so that the citizens of the Western Balkans can finally enjoy freedom of movement and participate fully in EU programmes and schemes; welcomes the Commission’s intention to further increase the allocation of IPA funds to the Tempus, Erasmus Mundus and Youth in Action programmes;

8.

Takes note of the fact that the Commission was in a position to give accreditation for decentralised management to Croatia for Components I to IV and to Turkey for Components I and II towards the end of 2008; encourages the Commission to continue to work intensively with candidate and potential candidate countries so that those countries become able in the near future to manage funds in a decentralised manner and thus get full access to all IPA components; points out, however, that the conferral of management powers is conditional and subject to their effective exercise;

9.

Emphasises that the use of the IPA is a shared responsibility between the Commission and the national governments of the candidate and potential candidate countries; calls on the Commission to improve the cooperation and communication between its delegations and the respective authorities, to establish permanent control over the project implementation procedures and to work towards common measures for improving the administrative capacity of beneficiary countries;

10.

Stresses the need for transparent and effective IPA management and control, taking into account the specificities of each country’s internal audit and control systems as well as best practices in the pre-accession procedures of former candidate countries;

11.

Expects the Commission to report every year to Parliament and its responsible Committee on Budgetary Control on payments and implementation of IPA funds, as well as on the remaining funds from ISPA, IPARD and SAPARD, giving details for every recipient country and examples of best practice, and reporting on all problems or irregularities encountered;

12.

Notes that horizontal issues, such as environmental impact assessment, good governance, civil society involvement, equal opportunities and non-discrimination, are not sufficiently present and visible in the 2007 IPA projects; invites the Commission to develop, in particular, multi-beneficiary regional or horizontal programmes, notably on the fight against corruption and organised crime, intercultural dialogue and gender equality;

13.

Notes that limited funds are allocated for large geographic areas or comprehensive policy areas and that these funds are fragmented into many small projects rather than concentrated in fewer, more visible projects; points out that the annual national programmes should strike a balance between providing an adequate response to the key priorities identified in the progress reports and avoiding over-fragmentation of the funds;

14.

Highlights the need, as a matter of the utmost importance and urgency, to use the IPA to strengthen in all beneficiary countries the fight against corruption and organised crime with a special focus on money laundering, illegal migration and human trafficking; notes that, although all 2008 progress reports identified corruption as a serious problem and a key priority, not all 2007 IPA programmes take corruption sufficiently into account; suggests that funds should be earmarked for this purpose, as in the cases of Croatia (15) and Montenegro (16), and calls on the Commission to develop a more coherent strategy in this context, building upon the lessons learnt from the last enlargement rounds;

15.

Notes that civil society organisations (CSOs) in the beneficiary countries should be more actively involved in the development and initiation of projects; points out that future IPA programmes should tackle the systematic donor dependency of CSOs, so as to avoid the existence of CSOs ‘on demand’, and should also address the development of some of the CSOs along ethno-political conflict lines, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo (17); expects the new Civil Society Facility to tackle many of the problems with regard to the diversity, complexity and fragmentation of EU programmes;

16.

Insists that constant support for CSOs in candidate and potential candidate countries is needed in order to create a competitive environment among them and to ensure sustainability in their work for results-oriented IPA implementation and continued activeness in project management;

17.

Notes that IPA-funded projects and activities score low in terms of EU visibility ‘on the ground’ and have not generated ‘bottom-up’ legitimacy for further EU rapprochement;

18.

Considers that education and youth employment as preconditions for long-term stability and development have not been adequately addressed; highlights the need to combat unemployment, especially youth and long-term unemployment, as a cross-cutting issue of great importance; suggests in this regard that the Commission should examine the possibility of making greater use of the flexibility provided for in the IPA so as to allow funding, where appropriate, of measures related to components III to V through the first two components;

19.

Notes that regional financial support under the IPA is relatively small in size (approximately 10 % of the total IPA), given in particular that it covers eleven intervention areas in six countries, from education and youth to nuclear safety;

20.

Is concerned that the total 2007 IPA allocations for Component II amounted to only EUR 38 800 000 out of a total IPA of EUR 497 200 000 (that is, less than 8 %); points out that this contradicts the Commission’s assertion that cross-border cooperation helps reconciliation and good neighbourly relations and is particularly relevant in a region with a recent history of conflict; regrets that effective cooperation has been difficult to establish, in practice, for a number of reasons, including mismatches of structures and procedures between some partners, as well as political difficulties; calls on the beneficiary countries and the Commission, under this component, to pursue further existing cooperation and to develop new cooperation, in line with the objective of fostering good neighbourly relations and promoting economic integration, especially in the fields of the environment, the natural and cultural heritage and the fight against corruption and organised crime;

21.

Is also concerned that no 2007 IPA programme submitted by the beneficiary countries directly addressed women’s rights or gender equality, although gender issues have been identified as a major challenge both in progress reports and MIPDs; once again calls on the Commission to provide pre-accession funds for strengthening women’s rights in the Balkans, in particular through women’s NGOs and women’s organisations; invites the Commission to earmark IPA funds accordingly, so as to promote gender budgeting in pre-accession policy and to encourage the beneficiary countries to submit relevant project proposals;

22.

Emphasises the need to involve more and more non-governmental organisations in the design and implementation of IPA-funded projects so as to ensure that IPA assistance reflects real needs and expectations, to contribute to a greater visibility of IPA projects and to promote the development of a lively and proactive civil society in the beneficiary countries;

23.

Invites the European Court of Auditors to submit by the end of 2010 a mid-term special evaluation report on the implementation of the IPA;

24.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the European Court of Auditors, as well as to the governments, parliaments and national audit institutions of the beneficiary countries under the IPA.

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/7

A.

whereas, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the adoption of a Community instrument in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications can be considered only if it can be shown that on a national level it is impossible to remove an obstacle preventing the establishment or the functioning of the internal market,

B.

whereas late payment and non-payment of debts jeopardise the interests of businesses and consumers, especially where the creditor and the enforcement authorities have no information about the debtor’s whereabouts or his or her assets; whereas this is exacerbated by the present economic climate, in which cash-flow is essential to the survival of businesses,

C.

whereas the problems of cross-border debt recovery may constitute a serious obstacle to the free circulation of payment orders within the EU and may impede access to justice; whereas, moreover, if judicial decisions cannot be enforced, the doing of justice is undermined together with standards of commercial morality,

D.

whereas, in general, debt recovery is a major problem, which is made worse where claims are of a cross-border nature, particularly for small businesses which do not have specialised lawyers or dedicated debt-collection departments at their disposal and are often placed in the invidious position of having to commit staff, scarce financial resources and, above all, time to this problem rather than to productive activities,

E.

whereas there are indications that the Late Payments Directive (3) is not sufficiently respected or known about; whereas if that Directive were now updated and properly implemented it could have a considerable impact in reducing late payment or non-payment,

F.

whereas there are huge divergences under the different systems of national contract and insolvency law as to how creditors may secure their debt at the point of contract, particularly by the use of retention-of-title clauses or other such mechanisms which are sometimes circumvented because of those divergences,

G.

whereas the adoption of Community legislation concerning the effective enforcement of judgments must apply to all debtors, without any distinction being made in advance between debtors acting in good or in bad faith,

H.

whereas the avoidance, late payment and non-payment of debts is often exacerbated by insufficient care by the parties at the time of their pre-contractual and contractual dealings; whereas there is a need for greater emphasis on commercial awareness and the possible use of ‘European-style’ optional clauses under the Common Frame of Reference (CFR) which would ensure that parties properly consider these issues at the beginning of their commercial relationship,

I.

whereas it has been brought to Parliament’s attention that there may be a serious problem in cross-border cases involving recalcitrant debtors, that is to say, persons who could pay their debts or discharge their liabilities but who do not do so or persons in respect of whom there is a risk that they will not pay what they owe even if judgment has been given against them; whereas it appears that such persons often hold substantial assets in different entities, nominees and trusts and successful enforcement cannot be obtained without the requisite information; whereas it is often necessary to obtain such information without alerting the recalcitrant debtor – who will often be in a position to remove assets to another jurisdiction at short notice,

J.

whereas it has further been brought to Parliament’s notice that certain sovereign States do not honour arbitration awards or judgments handed down by the courts of another State, with the result that ‘vulture funds’ have emerged which acquire this sovereign debt at a much reduced figure and then seek to make a profit from enforcement; whereas it might arguably be better and fairer to give the original creditors the means to obtain redress themselves,

K.

whereas it is argued that there are few States which have no assets at all outside their own borders and that, if the creditor has no prospect of obtaining enforcement in his or her own Member State (only) or in the State concerned, then the only effective redress is through courts abroad, particularly the courts in other Member States of the EU,

L.

whereas under the Brussels I Regulation (4) each Member State has its own provisional measures shaped and governed by its national law and ex parte orders are not the subject of mutual recognition and enforcement under that Regulation; whereas inter partes orders are given effect to by a recipient court with the nearest equivalent relief available from that court,

M.

whereas provisional measures include:(i) orders for disclosure of information about assets which may be made the subject of measures of execution of a judgment and (ii) orders preserving assets pending enforcement, and (iii) can also take the form of an interim payment order, giving the creditor immediate payment pending resolution of the underlying dispute,

N.

whereas the grant of provisional measures should be subject to conditions similar to those applied by the Court of Justice, namely the creditor would have to persuade the court that he has a justifiable claim on the merits (an enforceable right in the shape of a court order or authentic instrument or evidence of the claim making out a prima facie case – fumus boni juris), and to demonstrate urgency (a real risk that enforcement of the claim may be frustrated if the measure is not granted (periculum in mora)), and whereas the grant of such measures may be made subject to the lodging of security,

O.

whereas in small-scale cases, particularly where legal costs could otherwise be prohibitive, justice delayed is justice denied and whereas, in larger-scale cases, it can be the absence of information about assets which proves to be the greatest obstacle; whereas, therefore, recourse to provisional measures orders might well provide a neat solution in both types of cases,

P.

whereas, moreover, any Community action to make information available needs also to be considered in the context of these types of cases, in which lack of information causes serious injustice; whereas, unless there is information available to the creditor about the assets of a debtor (and a fortiori a recalcitrant debtor) which may be taken in enforcement of a judgment, the creditor will not be able to enforce it,

Q.

whereas, in practice, this problem is not confined to cases where there has already been a judgment which has not been honoured: it may also arise before claimants bring their claims,

R.

whereas, however, it is absolutely essential that any measures proposed should be proportionate; whereas, moreover, they should not merely replicate what can already be achieved through existing national measures and should be confined to cross-border claims, and unnecessary and inappropriate harmonisation should be avoided,

S.

whereas some concern has been expressed that certain of the ideas on the effective enforcement of judgments in the European Union through the transparency of debtors’ assets could violate fundamental rights, including the right to privacy (data protection), undermine procedural safeguards and run counter to the constitutional traditions of many Member States,

T.

whereas any proposals made must be cost-effective and integrated into other areas of Community policy in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort,

1.

Welcomes the above-mentioned Commission Green Paper of 6 March 2008, because it contributes to the Lisbon Strategy;

2.

States that the lack of transparency in the information required to oblige debtors to fulfil their obligations is contrary to common principles of good faith and pecuniary liability; insists that inadequate knowledge of the national laws on enforcement procedures or their ineffectiveness is likely to slow down completion of a unified internal market and leads to unnecessary costs;

3.

Points out that late payment, non-payment and the problem of debt recovery damage the interests of creditor businesses and consumers, reduce confidence in the internal market and undermine legal action;

4.

Supports an integrated and effective strategy based on the principles of ‘better lawmaking’, and considers that the objective to be achieved should be payment that ensures non-discrimination, the protection of sensitive data and legal guarantees with proportionate measures that provide the requisite transparency and significantly reduce processing and management costs;

5.

Insists that, besides publicly available information, the creditor should have access to the data required – subject to supervision by, or with the assistance of, a competent authority – in order to initiate the enforcement procedure and recover the debt by procedures readily applicable throughout the internal market;

6.

Agrees with the Commission that cross-border debt recovery through enforcement of judicial decisions is a major internal market problem, but considers that the solutions mooted by the Commission need further work in order adequately to address the most difficult problem, that of recalcitrant debtors;

7.

Observes that such a manual might be laborious and expensive to produce and update, that, for individuals seeking redress, it might be easier to have one regime to deal with, and that in the majority of cases creditors will have to seek advice from lawyers in the relevant foreign jurisdiction; considers that, nevertheless, a streamlined version may be useful in the absence of a workable cross-border regime;

8.

Strongly believes that the publication of national directories of foreign lawyers exercising their internal market rights under Directives 77/249/EEC (5) and 98/5/EC (6) would be useful; points out that such national directories could be linked to a Commission website and could be complementary to the manual;

9.

Is opposed to providing unjustified, indiscriminate and arbitrary access to all kinds of data held on population, social security and tax registers, and in favour of an adequate and proportionate framework designed to ensure the effective enforcement of judgments in the European Union;

10.

Argues that access to population registers (where they exist) might be useful for tracing hapless private individuals who default on maintenance payments or personal loans, and for avoiding abuses;

11.

Considers that, whilst improved access to social security and tax registers has been a successful innovation in certain jurisdictions, it is necessary also to ensure observance of the rules on data protection and confidentiality; points out that this is a sensitive matter to the public; notes, moreover, that there may well be legal problems in using information for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was collected;

12.

Observes, in addition, that tax returns and social security records are confidential in many Member States and that the idea of a register, with all the risks which it entails of records going astray, would not be welcomed there and would be regarded as an abuse of executive power;

13.

Maintains that, if the proposal were disproportionate to the end sought, it could be open to abuse and could constitute a violation of the right to privacy;

14.

Considers that the idea of improved cooperation between public enforcement bodies may be worth exploring further, but points out that such bodies do not exist in all the Member States;

15.

Takes the view that a debtor’s declaration can usefully form part of the procedure for enforcing a judgment, where it can be backed by sanctions under national law;

16.

Considers that there is no need for Community action in this area, as long as it is not proved that the Member States’ existing instruments are not efficient;

17.

Suggests that consideration could be given to the idea of introducing a form of Community provisional measure additional to those of national courts; considers that this could take the form of a simple, flexible procedure to which effect could be given throughout the EU, thereby avoiding delay and unnecessary expense; takes the view that it would also be effective and fair to non-parties;

18.

Proposes that such a measure could apply to arbitration claims as well and could also be taken into account in the context of the forthcoming review of the Brussels I Regulation;

19.

Calls on the Commission to treat this matter as a priority and to carry out (a) a detailed appraisal of the problem, (b) a feasibility study of possible Community instruments and (c) an impact assessment of possible Community-law remedies confined to trans-border aspects; considers that the Commission’s inquiry should also identify and duly justify the proper legal basis for any Community instrument proposed, which should be limited to cross-border cases and be complementary to and not interfere with the application of purely national remedies in this area;

20.

Urges the Commission fully to consider pre-contractual and contractual measures that could be linked with the development of the CFR and any optional instrument deriving therefrom, so as to ensure that parties to European cross-border contracts consider issues of late payment and non-payment when contracting;

21.

Eagerly anticipates the review of the Late Payments Directive and urges the Commission to proceed with this as quickly as possible, given the current economic climate;

22.

Suggests that a study should be carried out of the divergent national legal approaches to retention of title and other similar mechanisms, with a view to ensuring their mutual recognition;

23.

Suggests that a party who has acquired proprietary rights recognised in a court judgment should be able to enforce those rights under the same conditions as the transferor;

24.

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

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/12

A.

recognising the importance of the petitions process and its specific attributes, which enable the responsible committee to seek solutions and explanations for EU citizens who petition Parliament,

B.

having regard to the growing number of EU citizens who petition Parliament, together with the efforts by the Committee on Petitions to further expedite its procedures in order to provide a better service for citizens seeking its assistance,

C.

whereas several of the recommendations adopted in the 2007 Annual Report are yet to be implemented by Parliament’s authorities, such as the request for an urgent improvement of the administrative resources, including linguistic and legal expertise, of its Committee on Petitions in order to increase Parliament’s capacity to conduct independent investigations of petitions addressed to it, and, for instance, closer cooperation with SOLVIT in the field of petitions and complaints regarding the internal market, and the establishment of a common EU portal for European citizens,

D.

mindful of the fact that, in spite of considerable progress in the development of the structures and policies of the Union during this period, citizens remain directly aware of many shortcomings in the application of the policies and programmes of the Union as they affect them directly, and whereas these are frequently the subject of petitions received,

E.

whereas the institution of the ‘Citizens’ Initiative’ under the Treaty of Lisbon will result in even greater public participation in the activities and work of the European Union,

F.

whereas, consequently, Parliament has a responsibility to ensure better application of Community law by the individual Member States in the interests of EU citizens and residents, and thus to work in cooperation with Member States to achieve this objective,

G.

whereas, however, many Member States remain reluctant to cooperate actively with the responsible committee, in particular by failing to attend meetings of the committee, and whereas this denotes a lack of loyal cooperation with the institution,

H.

whereas failure to cooperate actively and in a timely manner with the work of the responsible committee in the interest of the correct application of Community law raises doubts about the desire and intent of the Member State concerned to correctly apply EU policies and objectives and therefore exposes the authorities to measures in the form of sanctions and penalties which are available under the terms of the Treaties as well as to public criticism,

I.

recognising, however, that many Member States demonstrate a good level of cooperation and work with Parliament in an effort to respond to the concerns of citizens as expressed through the petitions process,

J.

recognising the constructive contribution made to the petitions process by the services of the Commission, which regularly provide, at the request of the responsible committee, preliminary assessments of many petitions received,

K.

whereas such cooperation could and should be further enhanced, notably as regards procedures pursuant to Articles 226 and 228 of the EC Treaty in duly justified cases,

L.

whereas Parliament has considered that it would be legitimate for it to make use of its powers under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, if this proved necessary in order to put an end to a serious infringement of Community law which has been revealed in the course of examination of a petition and where a significant difference of interpretation persists, despite efforts to resolve it, between Parliament and the Commission, as regards the action required under Community law for the protection of citizens’ rights in the case concerned,

M.

whereas the infringement procedure does not provide a remedy for petitioners even when a Member State is obliged by the Court of Justice to modify its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with EU legislative acts,

N.

whereas the inability to provide a non-judicial remedy directly to EU citizens who have been or have become victims of the lack of proper application of EU law constitutes a basic injustice which requires further consideration by the EU institutions, and in particular by Parliament,

O.

whereas, under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, Parliament has the right to bring actions before the Court of Justice under the same conditions as the Council and the Commission and whereas, pursuant to Article 201 of the EC Treaty, Parliament is empowered to exercise control over the activities of the Commission and thus has at its disposal both the legal and the political instruments to respond more effectively to citizens’ legitimate concerns,

P.

whereas Parliament should review its own procedures in order to facilitate actions, notably under Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure, before the Court of Justice when the rights of petitioners are at stake,

Q.

whereas it should be recalled that, pursuant to Article 6 of the EU Treaty, the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which also constitute a basic element of the Copenhagen criteria for accession to the EU, and whereas Article 7 of the EU Treaty lays down specific procedures which can be initiated for serious and persistent breaches of the principles mentioned, or a clear risk thereof,

R.

mindful of the motions for resolutions submitted to plenary in 2008 and adopted by an overwhelming majority of Members, pursuant to Rule 192(1) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the basis of petitions received concerning the impact of the Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and concerning misleading directory companies,

S.

whereas increased concerns over energy supply security have resulted in projects for pipelines for natural gas and liquefied natural gas which, especially when they are rushed through without proper evaluation of the risks and alternatives, have raised petitioners’ concerns over the lack of consideration given to potentially serious risks to the environment and human health and safety in respect of, notably, projects in the Baltic Sea, Wales and Ireland,

T.

whereas it is evident from the examination of petitions that the lists of projects mentioned in the Annexes to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended, do not cover a number of important installations and activities which have emerged since the latest amendments to those Annexes, such as re-gasification plants and bio-diesel plants,

U.

whereas the many petitions presented in relation to the Natura 2000 network have continued to show that ending loss of biodiversity constitutes a major challenge for the Union and that the Habitats Directive (2) and the Birds Directive (3) constitute basic and indispensable tools for fulfilling the EU’s commitment to end biodiversity loss by 2010,

V.

whereas the examination of petitions has also shown that the lack of sufficient sources of fresh water is frequently aggravated by other factors such as growing demand for water due to excessive urbanisation and leisure projects, inadequate maintenance of infrastructure and prevention of leakage, intensive use of water by industrial agriculture and a pricing policy which does not encourage the sustainable use of water,

W.

mindful of the recommendations made by the Committee on Petitions following visits to Fos-sur-Mer, Cyprus and Romania,

X.

bearing in mind the concern expressed by the Committee on Petitions in relation to certain infrastructure projects in the Rila Mountains in Bulgaria, observed during a fact-finding visit in 2008,

Y.

whereas although Ann Abraham, the UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, addressed the Committee on Petitions in December 2008 and presented it with her findings, which took her four years to complete, the subsequent response by the UK Government in January 2009, involving possible ex gratia payments to those disproportionately affected, cannot be regarded as a proper remedy for the many victims of the debacle,

Z.

recognising the positive and constructive cooperation with the European Ombudsman in 2008, the support provided by the Committee on Petitions for the recommendations contained in his Annual Report for 2007 and his Special Reports on complaints 1487/2005/ and 3453/2005/ respectively concerning the use of languages by the Council and the Commission’s application of the infringement procedure, and welcoming the modifications to his Statute approved by Parliament,

AA.

whereas in 2008 the Committee on Petitions received 1 886 petitions, of which 1 065 were declared admissible and 821 were declared inadmissible; whereas the number of petitions that do not meet the conditions of Rule 191(1) of the Rules of Procedure has significantly risen since the beginning of 2007,

1.

Welcomes the involvement and contribution of petitioners at each meeting of the Committee on Petitions, which allows for a direct and open dialogue with European Parliament representatives and continues to encourage individual EU citizens and community associations to come forward with issues which concern the area of activity of the European Union and which affect them directly, believing that this process enables Parliament as an institution to play a significant role in monitoring the application of Community law by the Member States and to better defend and promote the fundamental rights of all EU citizens as defined in the EU Treaty;

2.

Urges national and regional parliaments, as representatives of EU citizens, to remain vigilant in relation to the way in which Member States apply the Treaties and EU legislative acts, notably as regards issues related to the environment, social and employment rights, the free movement of persons, goods and services, financial services, citizens’ fundamental rights including their right to legitimately acquired property, recognition of their professional qualifications and all forms of discrimination, and calls on the EU institutions to communicate effectively with the citizens so that they are aware of their rights and of the duties of the national and local institutions;

3.

Emphasises that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Parliament cannot regard as admissible petitions which seek to appeal against decisions of competent authorities or judicial bodies of Member States and that information to that effect must be communicated in a clear and understandable way to the petitioners; emphasises, moreover, that complaints must fulfil the conditions of Rule 191(1) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure before they can be declared admissible;

4.

Calls for those recommendations adopted in the 2007 Annual Report which have not yet been implemented to be implemented within a reasonable timeframe;

5.

Calls on the Commission, all Member States and their national, regional and local institutions, together with their Permanent Representatives, to cooperate fully with the responsible committee of the European Parliament when investigating allegations or proposals contained in petitions, on a loyal and constructive basis, with a view to finding solutions to issues raised through the petitions process;

6.

Requests that a full review of possible procedures to ensure remedial action for EU citizens be conducted by the responsible bodies in the European Parliament, the Commission and Council, and that a new interinstitutional agreement incorporating reinforced powers for committees of inquiry be negotiated in order to further strengthen the rights of EU citizens;

7.

Believes that such a review would complement any eventual implementation of the Lisbon Treaty by providing additional safeguards based on the declared rights and obligations of EU citizens and EU institutions;

8.

Recalls that, as emphasised by Parliament in its resolution of 20 April 2004 on the Commission communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (4), respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is founded and defence of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are a particular responsibility for Parliament as the directly elected representative of European citizens, and further recalls that Parliament expressed the view in that resolution that ‘ignoring the possible need for penalties must create the impression that the Union is not prepared or is not in a position to use all the means at its disposal to defend its values’;

9.

Calls on the Commission, once again, to ensure that greater recognition is given to, and greater emphasis placed on, the petitions process, notably as regards application of the infringement procedures and the requirement to inform the Committee on Petitions directly and officially when decisions are taken to initiate proceedings under Articles 226 and/or 228 which are related to the issues raised in individual petitions;

10.

Recalls that Parliament has considered that allegations of serious infringements of Community law which the Committee on Petitions has deemed well founded in the course of the examination of petitions but which the Member State concerned refuses to admit, and which are likely to set a precedent at the national level, should ultimately be examined by the Court of Justice in order to ensure the consistency and coherence of Community law and the reality of the internal market (5);

11.

Acknowledges that infringement proceedings, even where successful, may not result in any immediate remedy regarding the specific concern raised by individual petitioners, and that this frequently undermines public confidence in the ability of the EU institutions to meet their expectations;

12.

Takes the view that, as there are clear indications that the objective of ending biodiversity loss in the EU by 2010 cannot be achieved, urgent action must be taken in order to render the application of the Habitats and Birds Directives more effective, and calls on the Commission to do its utmost to ensure that those directives are applied by the Member States in a manner which is consistent with this objective;

13.

Calls for the Commission, in cooperation with Parliament, to promote to Member States the importance of forward thinking – especially in the area of planning approval – in helping to prevent potential breaches of provisions of Community law that have been adopted but are not yet in force;

14.

Recognises that, sometimes, it is impossible to find solutions to the complaints raised by petitioners, on account of weaknesses in the applicable Community legislation itself;

15.

Is concerned by the large number of petitions received by the Committee on Petitions seeking voting rights for resident ‘non’-citizens of Latvia in local elections; recalls that the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have recommended that non-citizens should be permitted to participate in local elections; urges the European Commission to closely monitor and encourage the regularisation of the status of ‘non’-citizens in Latvia, many of whom were born in Latvia;

16.

Notes that many petitions received by Parliament from individuals and associations largely concern matters which do not constitute an infringement of Community law and which should therefore be resolved by exhausting all legal avenues of redress existing in the Member States concerned; further notes that, once all appropriate action has been taken at national level, the appropriate appellate body is the European Court of Human Rights;

17.

Notes that the ‘one-seat petition’ signed by 1 500 000 people, which seeks to have the European Parliament meet in one location, has not yet been fully addressed; recommends that the Committee on Petitions deal with this matter as a priority during the next parliamentary term;

18.

Therefore calls on responsible legislative committees to bear in mind proposals or suggestions which may from time to time be made by the Committee on Petitions regarding the application by Member States of specific EU legislation, with a view to possible revision or further investigation;

19.

Recalls Parliament’s request to the Commission to step up its monitoring of the implementation of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (6) with regard to misleading business-directory companies and to report to Parliament on the feasibility and possible consequences of extending the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (7), specifically by replacing the word ‘consumer’ by the words ‘target of the practice’;

20.

Endorses the Ombudsman’s call to the Council to expand the language options of the websites of its Presidencies to include the most widely spoken languages of the European Union, with the aim of ensuring that citizens have direct access to the activities of the Council’s Presidencies; refers in this respect to the French Council Presidency, which published its official website in compliance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations;

21.

Endorses the Ombudsman’s call to the Commission, with reference to the implementation of the Working Time Directive (8), to handle complaints by citizens in conformity with principles of good administration in the field of the Commission’s discretionary powers regarding the opening of infringement procedures;

22.

Welcomes the constructive cooperation between the Ombudsman and the EU within the appropriate institutional framework; endorses the Ombudsman’s repeated calls for the adoption of a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, common to all EU institutions and bodies, as approved by Parliament in its resolution of 6 September 2001 on the European Ombudsman’s Special Report to the European Parliament following the own-initiative inquiry into the existence and the public accessibility, in the different Community institutions and bodies, of a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (9); is of the view that the Ombudsman, the Commission and Parliament should develop a common EU portal for the treatment of complaints addressed to the EU institutions;

23.

Urges the implementation by all parties of UN Security Council Resolution 550 (1984) on the Cyprus issue, which would lead to the full restoration of property to its legitimate owners in Varosha; suggests that, in the event that there are no visible results by the end of 2009, the committee responsible might consider bringing the issue of the Famagusta petitioners to plenary;

24.

Calls on the Romanian authorities to adopt measures to conserve and safeguard Romania’s cultural and architectural heritage, pursuant to Article 151 of the EC Treaty, as called for in Parliament’s Declaration of 11 October 2007 on the need for measures to protect the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Joseph in Bucharest, Romania, an endangered historical and architectural monument (10); with reference to the problems concerning restitution of property confiscated under the Communist regime, points out that, under Article 295 of the EC Treaty, property ownership is a matter of national competence;

25.

Requests the French authorities to prepare an epidemiological assessment to determine the impact on the area close to Fos-Berre, in the immediate vicinity of the incinerator plant under construction at Fos-sur-Mer; recognises that Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (11) does not prohibit the construction of an incinerator in an area already affected by atmospheric pollution, but points out that, under Directive 1999/30/EC and Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (12), measures are to be taken to ensure compliance with European standards on atmospheric pollution;

26.

Recalls the recommendations contained in the 2007 Annual Report of the Committee on Petitions with a view to reviewing the administrative procedures for the treatment of petitions, such as, for instance, the transfer of the registration of petitions to the Petitions Committee secretariat, close cooperation with SOLVIT, further enhancement of the petitions database, the development of an EU portal for European citizens, etc; welcomes the drafting by Members of a Code of Good Practice for the treatment of petitions, which would come into force at the beginning of the next parliamentary term;

27.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution, and the report of the Committee on Petitions, to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, their committees on petitions and their national ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/18

A.

whereas equality between men and women is a fundamental principle of Community law and whereas, in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty, its promotion is one of the tasks of the Community,

B.

whereas Article 3(2) of the Treaty lays down the principle of gender mainstreaming by stating that, in all its activities, the Community should aim to eliminate inequalities and to promote equality between men and women,

C.

having regard to the steady increase in the percentage of female Members of the European Parliament from 17,5 % in 1979 to 31,08 % in 2009,

D.

having regard to the low proportion of female Members in top positions in Parliament bodies (for example, chairs or members of the bureaux of committees or delegations),

E.

whereas women are over-represented in Parliament’s Directorates-General for Internal Policies and External Policies, where they account for 66.5 % and 66 % of staff respectively; noting, however, the major progress achieved over the last few years in the Directorate-General for Internal Policies, as evidenced by the 2007 Equality – Good Practices Award for the creation of a working environment conducive to equality and gender mainstreaming, together with a major increase in the percentage of women in senior administrative posts (for example, in 2005 the percentage of female heads of unit rose from 5 % to 30 %),

F.

whereas the majority of parliamentary committees generally attach importance to gender mainstreaming (for example in the context of their legislative activity, their institutional relations with the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, the drawing up of a programme of action for equality, etc.), although a minority of committees rarely or never take an interest in the matter,

G.

whereas in practice the network for gender mainstreaming in parliamentary committees, consisting of MEPs and staff, has not yet achieved the desired results,

H.

whereas the High-Level Group on Gender Equality and Diversity has proposed that a similar network should be established in the interparliamentary delegations for the purpose of gender mainstreaming in the context of EU external relations,

1.

Stresses that the call for gender equality must be translated into a practical approach which does not set women against men;

2.

Stresses that gender mainstreaming is a positive development for both women and men;

3.

Points out that gender mainstreaming involves the reorganisation, improvement, development and assessment of policies to ensure that an equal-opportunity approach is incorporated into all policies at all levels and at all stages by those normally involved in policy-making;

4.

Reiterates the need to adopt and apply a gender mainstreaming strategy incorporating specific targets in all Community policies which fall with the purview of parliamentary committees and delegations;

5.

Stresses the importance of the task of the High-Level Group on Gender Equality and Diversity and calls on it to continue to encourage and promote this process throughout Parliament, in its relations with the Commission, the Council and other institutions and in cooperation with them;

6.

Congratulates the parliamentary committees which have put gender mainstreaming into practice in their work, and calls on the other committees and delegations to do likewise;

7.

Calls for the strengthening of the gender mainstreaming network with regard to interparliamentary delegations and election observation missions;

8.

Encourages the Secretary-General to prioritise training in gender mainstreaming for officials working at every level in parliamentary committees and delegations; reiterates its call for all Members of Parliament to be provided with equal opportunity training from the beginning of the next Parliament;

9.

Continues to encourage networking amongst those officials working in parliamentary committee and interparliamentary delegation secretariats who, in the Directorates-General for Internal Policies and External Policies, are specially trained in gender mainstreaming, so as to ensure regular exchanges of best practice;

10.

Stresses the need for the parliamentary committees and delegations to have at their disposal appropriate means of gaining a sound understanding of gender mainstreaming, including indicators, data and statistics broken down by gender, and for budgetary resources to be allocated with an eye to ensuring equality between women and men;

11.

Stresses that the implementation of gender mainstreaming should take account of the specific features of each parliamentary committee or delegation; calls for the committees and delegations to play an active role in the regular assessments carried out under the auspices of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality on the basis of the questionnaire submitted to the chairs and vice-chairs responsible for gender mainstreaming, including any shortcomings in the work of the committees and delegations as well as the progress made in implementing gender mainstreaming in each committee;

12.

Stresses the importance for parliamentary committees and delegations of ensuring that their role and responsibilities in the field of gender mainstreaming are clearly defined;

13.

Stresses the importance of effective and coordinated cooperation by the High-Level Group on Gender Equality and Diversity with the gender mainstreaming network within the committees and interparliamentary delegations and with the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality;

14.

Calls on the Secretary-General to continue to implement the integrated strategy for combining life in the family and at the workplace and to facilitate the career development of female employees;

15.

Urges the political groups to take account of gender equality objectives in selecting staff to fill senior posts;

16.

Calls on its Bureau to stress, in its dealings with the parliaments of the Member States, the positive example set by the High-Level Group on Gender Equality and Diversity;

17.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Council of Europe.

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/20

A.

whereas relations between the European Communities and Turkmenistan are currently governed by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Trade and Commercial and Economic Cooperation concluded in December 1989; whereas this agreement does not contain a human rights clause,

B.

whereas the Interim Agreement on Trade and Trade-related Matters of 2 December 1998, concluded between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, is now undergoing approval in the Council,

C.

whereas a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with Turkmenistan was initialled in May 1997 and signed in 1998; whereas since then 11 Member States have ratified the PCA - France, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Greece still have still to do so - and the 12 new Member States will ratify it by means of a single protocol; whereas Turkmenistan ratified the PCA in 2004,

D.

whereas the PCA, once fully ratified, will be concluded for an initial period of 10 years, after which it will be renewed annually, provided that neither of the parties terminates it; whereas the parties may expand or amend the PCA or elaborate further on it, in order to take new developments into account,

E.

whereas Turkmenistan plays an important role in the Central Asia region, so that close cooperation between it and the European Union is desirable,

F.

whereas the situation in Turkmenistan has improved since the change of president; whereas the regime has indicated its willingness to carry out major reforms; whereas substantive progress is still needed in several key areas, such as human rights, the rule of law, democracy and individual freedoms,

G.

whereas the proposed Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) between the European Communities and Turkmenistan stipulates respect for democracy and human rights as a condition for cooperation,

H.

whereas the ITA would therefore have the potential to contribute to the advancement of the ongoing democratic reforms in Turkmenistan,

I.

whereas the ITA includes a mechanism which allows either party to terminate it by notifying the other party,

1.

Notes that after the change of president in Turkmenistan there are signs of an ambition to carry out reforms in key areas; welcomes in particular the creation of a National Institute for Democracy and Human Rights; takes note of the process of revising the Constitution, which aims to strengthen democracy, individual freedoms and the rule of law; notes, further, the revision of the electoral law; welcomes Turkmenistan’s accession to international conventions such as the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty and the Convention on the Political Rights of Women; welcomes the reforms of the educational system, aiming at higher quality and more equality for students;

2.

Calls on the Turkmenistan Government to move swiftly towards democracy and respect for the rule of law; calls, in particular, for open and democratic elections, freedom of religion, the development of a genuine civil society, the release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, the lifting of restrictions on travel, and access for independent monitors;

3.

Stresses the need for the European Union to further encourage these developments; underlines that the Turkmenistan Government’s activities must be carefully and regularly scrutinised;

4.

Asks the Council and Commission to keep it regularly and substantively informed about the human rights situation in Turkmenistan;

5.

Deplores the fact that in several areas, particularly human rights and democracy, the situation is still unsatisfactory; draws attention in particular to the need for all political prisoners to be unconditionally released; underlines the importance of the removal of all obstacles to free travel and to free access for independent monitors, including the International Red Cross; calls for further improvements in civil liberties, including for non-governmental organisations; stresses the need to implement reforms at all levels and in all areas of the administration;

6.

Underlines the importance of economic and trade relations for the opening-up of Turkmen society and the improvement of the democratic, economic and social situation of Turkmen citizens;

7.

Sees the ITA, while at the same time laying down rules governing economic relations, as a possible stepping stone towards steady and sustainable relations between the European Union and Turkmenistan and as a potential lever to strengthen the reform process in Turkmenistan;

8.

Underlines that the ITA is not a blank cheque for Turkmenistan; calls, therefore, for strict monitoring and regular reviews of developments in key areas in Turkmenistan and, if appropriate, for a suspension of the agreement if there is evidence that the conditions are not being met; asks for regular updates on the monitoring by the Commission and the Council;

9.

Calls on the Council and Commission to include a clear suspensive human rights clause in the PCA; stresses that the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights should be respected; calls on the Council to accept any request from the Parliament to suspend the agreement;

10.

Calls on the Council and Commission also to include a revision clause in the PCA; asks to be consulted on any revision of the PCA;

11.

Points out that the PCA requires Parliament’s assent in order to come into force; whilst the ITA unfortunately does not require its assent, calls for the points raised in this resolution to be taken fully into account, since otherwise its assent to the PCA might be jeopardised; accordingly, intends to base its opinion on the ITA on the answers received from the Council and the Commission in their statements;

12.

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

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/23

A.

whereas migration into Europe will always be a reality as long as there are considerable differences in wealth and quality of life between Europe and other regions of the world,

B.

whereas a common approach on immigration in the EU has become imperative, more so in a common area without internal border controls where action or inaction by one Member State has a direct impact on others and on the EU as a whole,

C.

whereas poorly managed migration may disrupt the social cohesion of the countries of destination and may also be detrimental to countries of origin as well as to the migrants themselves,

D.

whereas regular migration represents an opportunity from which migrants, their countries of origin (which benefit from their migrants’ remittances), and Member States may benefit; whereas, however, progress in the area of regular migration must go hand-in-hand with effective action on combating irregular immigration, recalling notably that such immigration encourages the existence of criminal human trafficking rings,

E.

whereas a genuine common migration policy for the Community must be based not only on the fight against irregular migration but also on cooperation with third countries and transit countries and on an appropriate policy for the integration of migrants,

F.

whereas Europe’s migration policies must comply with the norms of international law, particularly those that concern human rights, human dignity and rights to asylum,

G.

whereas the EU is and must continue to be a welcoming environment for those who win the right to remain, be they migrants for reasons of work, family reunification, or study, or persons in need of international protection,

H.

whereas migrants have played a vital role in the development of the EU and the European project in recent decades, and it is essential to recognise both their importance and the fact that the Union continues to need migrants’ labour,

I.

whereas, according to Eurostat, population ageing in the EU will become a reality in the medium term, with the working age population projected to fall possibly by almost 50 million by 2060; whereas immigration could act as an important stimulus to ensure good economic performance in the EU,

J.

whereas the growth and jobs aspects of the Lisbon Strategy may be hindered by a shortage of labour, which may prevent the goals from being achieved, and whereas unemployment is currently rising; whereas this shortage may be addressed in the short term by appropriate and structured management of economic immigration,

K.

whereas migrants often have to work as casual labourers or in low-skilled jobs, or in jobs for which they are overqualified,

L.

whereas the EU should also increase efforts to address problems of labour and skill shortages internally, by tapping into currently underemployed sectors, such as people with disabilities, people at an educational disadvantage, or those who have been long-term unemployed asylum seekers already resident,

M.

whereas the number of women immigrants is constantly increasing in the EU, accounting for approximately 54 % of the total number of immigrants,

N.

whereas most women immigrants encounter significant problems in integrating and in accessing the labour market due to their low level of education and the negative stereotypes and practices brought from their countries of origin, as well as the negative stereotypes and discrimination that exist in the Member States; whereas, nonetheless, many young women with a high level of education come to the EU to take relatively unskilled jobs,

1.

Strongly supports the establishment of a common European immigration policy founded on a high level of political and operational solidarity, mutual trust, transparency, partnership, shared responsibility and joint efforts through common principles and concrete actions, as well as on the values –enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2.

Reiterates that the management of migration flows must be based on a coordinated approach taking into account the demographic and economic situation of the EU and its Member States;

3.

Considers that the development of a common immigration policy could substantially benefit from an increased and regular consultation with representatives of civil society, such as organisations working for and with migrant communities;

4.

Regrets that, so far, too little has been done to establish a common legal immigration policy and welcomes the new legislative instruments adopted within the framework of the common European legal immigration policy;

5.

Emphasises that a coherent and balanced common European immigration policy adds to the credibility of the EU in its relations with third countries;

6.

Reiterates that the effective management of migration requires the involvement of regional and local authorities and a genuine partnership and cooperation with third countries of origin and transit, which often have the impression that decisions are being imposed on them unilaterally; emphasises that such cooperation can only take place when the third country respects international laws on human rights and protection, and is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees;

7.

Considers that immigration into the EU is not the solution to overcome the challenges faced by developing countries and that a common immigration policy must be flanked with an effective policy for the development of the countries of origin;

8.

Welcomes the adoption of the above-mentioned European Pact on Immigration and Asylum and the actions, tools and proposals put forward by the Commission in its above-mentioned Communication on a Common Immigration Policy for Europe: Principles, Actions and Tools; calls on the Council and the Commission on to rapidly move to the implementation stage of these commitments;

9.

Welcomes the institutional implications of the Lisbon Treaty, in particular the extension of co-decision and qualified majority voting to all immigration policies, the clarification of EU competence on visas and border controls, the extension of EU competence on asylum as well as the extension of EU competence in respect of legal and irregular migration;

10.

Considers that a common immigration policy also necessarily requires the establishment of a common asylum policy, and recalls the above-mentioned resolution on the future of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and the Commission proposal for a regulation to establish a European Asylum Support Office;

11.

Considers that legal migration continues to be necessary in order to address Europe’s demographic, labour market and skills needs owing to the effect of demographic decline and ageing on the economy; it also contributes to the development of third countries through the cycle of exchange of knowledge and know how and through the transfer of migrant remittances; calls for the implementation of secure systems which facilitate these financial transfers to third countries;

12.

Considers that regular migration must be the alternative to irregular immigration as it offers a legal, safe and organised entry route to the European Union;

13.

Recalls that projections presented by the Commission estimate the need for 60 million migrant workers by 2050 and that this requires the opening-up of channels for legal migration;

14.

Stresses the need for a comprehensive assessment of the EU’s skills and market needs; considers, however, that each Member State should retain control over the number of persons required for its labour market needs and take into account the principle of Community preference as long as transitional measures apply;

15.

Supports the development of national ‘Immigration Profiles’ with the purpose of giving an integrated picture of the situation of immigration within each Member State at any given moment, with labour market needs being a central aspect of these profiles;

16.

Reiterates the need to increase the attractiveness of the EU for highly qualified workers, even through the availability of information on destination and host labour markets, taking account of the implications that this may have on the brain drain in countries of origin; considers that the brain drain can be mitigated through temporary or circular migration, by providing training in the countries of origin in order to preserve occupations in key sectors, particularly education and health, and by signing cooperation agreements with countries of origin; calls on the Member States to refrain from pursuing active recruitment in developing countries suffering from lack of human resources in key sectors, such as health and education;

17.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop mechanisms, guidelines and other tools to facilitate circular and temporary migration as well as measures, in cooperation with the countries of origin, to offset the loss of human resources, offering concrete support for the training of professionals in key sectors weakened by the exodus of talent;

18.

Welcomes the approach initiated by the document on the ‘blue card’ for a common legal immigration policy, but calls on Member States to make more progress towards common rules on an immigration policy which is not limited to highly skilled workers;

19.

Expresses its satisfaction at the adoption of the blue card relating to conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment and urges the Commission to present initiatives for other categories of work as soon as possible, also with the aim of further countering irregular immigration and the exploitation of the undocumented immigrants;

20.

Calls for new measures to further facilitate the reception of students and researchers and their movement within the EU;

21.

Draws attention to the importance of recognising the skills of immigrants, paying particular importance to the formal, non-formal and informal qualifications obtained in their country of origin; considers that this recognition will combat the wastage of skills that is being seen repeatedly among immigrants, notably women, who often end up in jobs for which they are over-qualified;

22.

Calls on the Commission to take into account, in future documents on the issue, the question of skills recognition and the incentive for lifelong learning, also ensuring that the Member States provide immigrants with opportunities to learn the language of the host country in order to ensure their social, professional and cultural integration in the European Union and giving them an improved ability to support their children’s development; calls also on the Commission to make use of the results of deliberations on the linguistic education of migrant children and the teaching in the Member State of residence of the language and culture of the country of origin, and calls for the framework which will be proposed to respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

23.

Reaffirms that the European Employment and Job Mobility Network (EURES) network is an appropriate tool to ensure a transparent, responsible and effective balance between supply and demand in the labour market; therefore suggests expanding the concept of the EURES network to allow contact between European employers looking for workers with certain qualifications and job-seekers from third countries; proposes that Special Centres (already set up and to be set up) or EU Representations in third countries be used as a platform to extend the EURES network and to guarantee ongoing and expanded advice concerning tools and support for self-employment or recourse to micro-credit; stresses that Europe’s need for highly skilled labour should not lead to a brain drain from third countries, with consequent damage to their emerging economies and social infrastructure;

24.

Takes the view that immigrants from so-called third countries should be granted the right to mobility within the EU, so that - as legal residents in a Member State – they can take up employment as frontier workers in another Member State without being required to apply for a work permit, and that such immigrants should be granted full freedom of movement as workers following a period of five years’ legal residence in a Member State;

25.

Stresses the importance of coordination between the local and regional authorities, which have particular responsibility for training, and national and European authorities in managing labour market needs, in accordance with the principle of Community preference; emphasises that this cooperation is essential to effectively implement an immigration policy capable of filling the labour shortage experienced in certain sectors and Member States and to integrate immigrants effectively and appropriately;

26.

Calls on the Commission to make more information available in countries of origin on the possibilities of legal migration as well as on the rights and obligations of migrants once they arrive in the EU;

27.

Calls on Member States to make satisfactory use of Community funding mechanisms relating to immigration policy so as to create more and better jobs for migrants;

28.

Stresses that integration enhances cultural diversity in the EU and should be based on social inclusion, anti-discrimination and equal opportunities, namely through the possibility of access to health, education, language training and employment; considers that integration policies should be also based on appropriate innovative programmes and acknowledges the key role played by local and regional authorities, trade unions, migrant organisations, professional federations and associations in the integration of migrants;

29.

Supports integration efforts by the Member States as well as by regular migrants and beneficiaries of international protection, taking into account respect for the identity and values of the EU and its Member States, including respect for human rights, the rule of law, democracy, tolerance and equality, freedom of opinion and the compulsory schooling of children; recalls that integration is a two-way process which involves adjustments on the part of both the immigrants and the host population as set out in the common basic principles (CBPs) adopted by the Council and may benefit from the exchange of best practices; acknowledges that integration is more difficult to achieve in Member States which are facing significant migratory pressures due to their particular geographical situation, but must nonetheless not be abandoned as an objective; calls on other Member States to contribute towards alleviating such pressures in a spirit of solidarity, facilitating the integration of beneficiaries of international protection who are within the EU Member States, in parallel with the promotion of legal migration;

30.

Emphasises that a good integration process is the best tool to eliminate mistrust and suspicion between native citizens and migrants and is fundamental to removing any xenophobic ideas or actions;

31.

Encourages the development of mutual learning mechanisms and the exchange of best practice between Member States in order to strengthen the ability of host countries to manage increasing diversity and also a system of common indicators and adequate statistical capacity to be used by Member States to evaluate immigration policy outcomes;

32.

Recalls that a key element is the inclusion of migrant organisations who play unique roles in the integration process by giving migrants opportunities for democratic participation; calls on the Members States to facilitate systems for the support of civil society in the integration process through enabling migrants’ presence in the host society’s civil and political life, enabling participation in political parties, trade unions and the opportunity to vote in local elections;

33.

Welcomes the initiative taken by the Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee to improve the coherence of integration policies by launching the European Integration Forum with the participation and involvement of social organisations and immigrants’ associations, with the aim of exchanging experiences and drawing up recommendations; calls on the Member States to coordinate their integration efforts by exchanging the best practices contained in their national integration plans;

34.

Calls on the Commission to take the necessary measures to ensure financial support for the structural and cultural integration of immigrants, also including the implementation of EU programmes such as Lifelong Learning, Europe for Citizens, Youth in Action and Culture 2007; notes that teachers are in most cases ill-prepared for having large numbers of migrant children in classes and calls for better training for teachers and for adequate financial support;

35.

Highlights the fact that school programmes and lifelong learning play an important role in the integration process by developing skills, notably language skills; considers, too, that barrier-free participation in training programmes and lifelong learning should be a right and an opportunity for newly-arrived immigrants;

36.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue to promote anti-discrimination policies, including those implemented by the public authorities;

37.

Calls on the Member States to respect and support the relevant directives: Council Directives 2000/78/EC (17), 2000/43/EC (18) and 2004/113/EC (19), which seek to combat discrimination;

38.

Calls on the Member States to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1990 (20);

39.

Calls on the Commission to collect gender-related data on immigration into the EU and to arrange for the analysis of those data by the European Institute for Gender Equality in order to highlight further the particular needs and problems of women immigrants and the most appropriate methods of integrating them into the societies of the host countries;

40.

Calls on the Member States, when drawing up their integration policies, to allow in the proper way for the gender dimension and for the specific situation and needs of migrant women;

41.

Calls on Member States to guarantee respect for the fundamental rights of immigrant women, whether or not their status is legal;

42.

Calls on the Member States to support information campaigns aimed at migrant women, with a view to informing them about their rights, the possibilities of education and language training, professional training and access to employment, and to prevent forced marriages, female genital mutilation, and other forms of mental or physical coercion;

43.

Stresses the need for a comprehensive master plan setting out the overall objectives and architecture of the EU’s border management strategy, including the details showing how all related programmes and schemes in this area can be better optimised; takes the view that, when considering the architecture of the EU’s border management strategy, the Commission should analyse first of all the effectiveness of the existing border management systems of the Member States, in order to bring about the optimal synergies between them and provide additional information regarding the cost-effectiveness of the new proposed systems, Entry/Exit, Electronic System of Travel Authorisation, Automated Border Control and the Registered Traveller Programme, within the framework of EU integrated border management;

44.

Emphasises that integrated border management should strike the right balance between ensuring the free movement of a growing number of people across borders and ensuring greater security for EU-citizens; does not deny that the use of data offers clear advantages; is, at the same time, of the opinion that public trust in government action can only be maintained if sufficient data protection safeguards, supervision and redress mechanisms are provided for;

45.

Calls for an assessment on the feasibility of an integrated four-tier approach, whereby checks would be carried out systematically at each stage when immigrants are travelling to the Union;

46.

Stresses that the EU border strategy should be complemented as well by concrete measures aimed at strengthening the third country borders within the framework of the Africa-EU Partnership and the European Neighbourhood Policy (the Eastern Partnership, EUROMED);

47.

Calls for the replacement of current national Schengen visas with uniform European Schengen visas, allowing for equal treatment of all visa applicants; wishes to be informed on the exact timetable and the details of both the policy study and the technical study of the Commission which will analyse the feasibility, the practical implications and the impact of a system requiring third-country nationals to obtain electronic authorisation to travel before travelling to EU territory (Electronic System for Travel Authorisation, ESTA); calls for the improvement of cooperation between Member States’ consulates and for joint consular services for visas to be set up gradually;

48.

Calls on the Council to adopt arrangements based on solidarity among Member States with a view to sharing the burdens arising from border policing and to coordinate the Member States’ national policies;

49.

Considers effective combating of irregular immigration as a crucial part of a comprehensive EU migration policy, and therefore regrets that effective decision-making in this field is hamstrung by the insufficient ability of the Member States to really work together in their mutual interests;

50.

Expresses its shock at the human tragedy that is caused by illegal migratory sea routes, notably in the Union’s southern maritime borders, where boat people leave the African shores on perilous journeys towards Europe; strongly calls for urgent action to stop this human tragedy once and for all and to reinforce dialogue and cooperation with the countries of origin;

51.

Recalls that irregular immigration is often operated by criminal networks which have, so far, proved to be more effective than common European action; is convinced that such networks are responsible for the death of hundreds of people whose lives are lost at sea every year; recalls that, in accordance with international obligations, Member States have a shared responsibility to save lives at sea; calls, therefore, on the Commission and on Council to redouble their efforts in the fight against organised crime, human trafficking and smuggling which occur in various parts of the EU, and particularly to try to dismantle all the networks by tackling not only the people smugglers, who are merely the visible linchpin, but those who, at the top of the ladder, derive the most advantage from these criminal operations;

52.

Calls on the Commission to intensify awareness programmes in countries of transit and of origin on the dangers of irregular migration;

53.

Welcomes the new Directive on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals and considers it an effective tool in curbing the exploitation of migrant workers and to reduce the attractiveness of one of the main pull factors for irregular migration;

54.

Urges the Member States not to delay the transposition of the new directive, which lays down penalties for employers who recruit illegal immigrants;

55.

Believes it is essential to reinforce the channels of dialogue with the countries of origin and establish cooperation agreements with those countries, with the aim of eliminating the inhuman and catastrophic phenomenon of irregular migration;

56.

Considers that, despite repeated increases in its budgetary means at Parliament’s insistence, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) is not yet able to provide sufficient co-ordination of control efforts at the Union’s external borders owing to its limited mandate and because of a lack of effort in engaging third countries, especially in so far as maritime operations are concerned;

57.

Welcomes the Commission’s initiative for a proposal to review the mandate of FRONTEX and considers that its reinforcement is urgently required, in particular by extending its coordination capacity and its ability to coordinate permanent missions in areas which face high migratory pressures at the request of the Member States concerned and its ability to engage with third countries; believes that emphasis should also be placed on increasing FRONTEX’s risk analysis and intelligence gathering capacity;

58.

Considers that FRONTEX requires adequate resources, not just financial ones, if it is to fulfil its mandate in a meaningful manner and calls for the deployment of new technologies to combat irregular migration on Member States to increase the pooling of technical means and on the Commission to bring forward legislative proposals to establish compulsory solidarity on the same basis as that envisaged for the Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABITs);

59.

Calls on FRONTEX and the Commission to carry out a study, with estimates, on the possibility of FRONTEX acquiring its own equipment and on the requirements for the possible upgrade of FRONTEX operations at sea into an EU coast guard without undermining Member States control of their borders;

60.

Considers that FRONTEX can only be fully effective if efforts are intensified on complementary actions, such as readmission and cooperation with third countries; calls on the Commission to support FRONTEX in this regard;

61.

Supports the establishment of specialised FRONTEX offices to take account and better assess the specific situations in borders of particular sensitivity, especially for the land borders to the East and the maritime borders to the South;

62.

Notes that differences in the interpretation of legal terms, the interpretation of the international laws of the sea and differences in national legislation and procedures have all hampered FRONTEX operations; calls for comprehensive studies to be carried out in order to seek a common approach and to sort out conflicting differences between national legislation and procedures;

63.

Calls for further and constant cooperation between FRONTEX and national bodies and agencies;

64.

Calls for further developments on the concept of a EUROSUR also by improving coordination between Member States;

65.

Notes that fishermen, private vessels and private workers at sea often encounter illegal immigrants before a country’s naval forces; stresses the need to inform such parties more clearly about their international law obligations to aid immigrants in distress and calls for a mechanism of compensation for lost work as a result of rescue operations;

66.

Stresses that there is a clear need for reliable statistics in order to establish concrete tools for fighting irregular migration at EU level and calls on the Commission to take the necessary measures to provide those statistics;

67.

Considers that migrants who are not entitled to international protection or who are staying irregularly on the territory of the Member States have to be required to leave the territory of the European Union; notes, in this regard, the adoption of the Return Directive and calls on Member States, in the context of its transposition, to preserve more favourable provisions already laid down in their domestic law; calls on Member States to ensure that returns are conducted with due regard to the law and the dignity of the persons involved, giving due preference to voluntary return;

68.

Calls for a system of Return Counselling Services to be established in closed and open accommodation centres, serving as a contact point for persons wishing to learn more about return assistance;

69.

Calls on the Commission to establish monitoring and support for social and professional reintegration mechanisms in countries of origin for migrants having been returned;

70.

Calls on Member States to assign priority to gearing their readmission policies to a common policy in preference to bilateral agreements;

71.

Calls, with regard to readmission agreements, for Parliament and its competent committees to be kept regularly informed, throughout the discussions with third countries, of progress and any obstacles encountered by negotiators;

72.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States only have bilateral readmission agreements with third countries providing full guarantees for the respect of the readmitted persons’ human rights and having signed the 1951 Geneva Convention;

73.

Calls on the Commission to pursue the effective enforcement of the obligation of third countries to readmit their nationals who are staying irregularly on EU territory, as envisaged in Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000; calls for the strengthening of these provisions during negotiations on the new ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) Agreement;

74.

Stresses the need for a genuine European dimension in return policy through the mutual recognition of return decisions; urges more co-operation among Member States in the implementation of returns and the strengthening of the role of FRONTEX in joint return operations;

75.

Calls for the strengthening of co-operation, including through consular co-operation, with countries of origin and transit to facilitate readmission procedures, and calls on the Commission to evaluate existing readmission agreements with a view to facilitating their implementation and to draw lessons for the negotiation of future agreements;

76.

Calls on the Council to consider enacting legislative provisions with a view to establishing a European ‘Laissez Passer’ issued to illegally residing third-country nationals with a view to facilitating readmission to third countries; action should be taken to incorporate the European ‘Laissez Passer’ in the Union’s readmission agreements to render it binding on the third countries concerned;

77.

Deeply regrets the fact that Member States have demonstrated insufficient solidarity in the face of the growing challenge of immigration; calls for an urgent review of the Framework Programme on Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows for the period 2007-2013 (21) and its four financial instruments so that they may reflect new realities arising from increasing migratory pressures and be used to address urgent needs, such as in the case of situations of mass migratory influxes;

78.

Notes the commitments made by Member States in the above-mentioned European Pact on Immigration and Asylum in relation to the need for solidarity; welcomes in particular the inclusion of a voluntary burden-sharing mechanism which enables the intra-EU reallocation of beneficiaries of international protection from Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on their national asylum systems, due in particular to their geographical or demographic situation, to other Member States, and calls on the Member States to implement these commitments; welcomes also the allocation of EUR 5 million in the EU’s 2009 budget for this purpose under the European Refugee Fund; insists, however, on the introduction of binding instruments; calls on the Commission to implement this mechanism forthwith and to propose immediately a legislative initiative to establish such a mechanism at European level on a permanent basis;

79.

Welcomes the recast of the Dublin regulation and the proposed provisions for a mechanism to suspend Dublin transfers if there are concerns that Dublin transfers could result in applicants not benefiting from adequate standards of protection in the responsible Member States, in particular in terms of reception conditions and access to the asylum procedure, as well as in cases where these Dublin transfers would add to the burden on those Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures due, in particular, to their geographical or demographic situation; stresses, however, that these provisions would turn out to be a political statement rather than an effective instrument to seriously support a Member State without the introduction of a two-fold binding instrument for all Member States;

80.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a recast regulation concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints, and reminds Member States of their obligations of fingerprinting and sending data under the current Eurodac Regulation; takes the view that biometric data, such as fingerprints, must be exploited to enhance the effectiveness of border control operations;

81.

Regrets that cooperation with third countries has not achieved sufficient results, with the notable exception of Spain’s co-operation with third countries such as Senegal and other countries in sub-Saharan and north Africa; calls for targeted support for third countries of transit and origin to help them build an effective border management system, involving FRONTEX in border assistance missions in those countries;

82.

Reminds the Commission, the Council and the Member States that it is essential to continue the dialogue initiated with countries of origin and transit as a follow-up to the EU-Africa ministerial conferences on migration and development held in Tripoli, Rabat and Lisbon;

83.

Calls for implementation of the policy instruments developed within the framework of the ‘Global Approach to Migration’ (22) as well as the 2006 ‘Rabat Process’ on migration and development and the EU Africa Partnership on Migration, Mobility and Employment agreed in Lisbon in December 2007;

84.

Stresses the importance of a development policy in third countries of origin or transit as a means of addressing the challenge of immigration at its roots; calls for an improved co-ordination of the Union’s immigration and development policies, taking fully into account strategic objectives such as the Millennium Development Goals;

85.

Observes, however, that development policy cannot constitute the only alternative to migration, as there can be no development based on solidarity without permanent mobility;

86.

Calls for a strengthening of cooperation with the International Organisation for Migration and other international organisations in the establishment of new regional offices in sensitive areas where practical assistance concerning, inter alia, legal migration or voluntary return of immigrants, is required;

87.

Stresses the importance of establishing Migration Information and Management Centres, as the one inaugurated in Mali in October 2008; believes that such centres should be able to contribute significantly to tackling migration problems by addressing the concerns of the potential migrants, returning migrants and migrants residing in EU; calls on the Commission to provide the necessary information regarding the projects of setting up other centres within the framework of EU-Africa Partnership and asks the Commission to look into the possibility of creating such centres in the Eastern neighbouring countries;

88.

Stresses that all agreements with countries of origin and transit should include chapters on co-operation on immigration and calls for an ambitious policy with third countries on police and judicial co-operation to combat international criminal organisations engaged in human trafficking and to bring the persons concerned to justice, with the engagement of Europol and Eurojust; also calls on the Commission to intensify its support, including financial and technical assistance, in favour of third countries so as to create economic and social conditions discouraging irregular migration, drug activities and organised crime;

89.

Calls on the Commission to promote the negotiation of global European agreements such as that signed with Cape Verde, to make progress in the global negotiations it is holding with Morocco, Senegal and Libya, and to promote the conclusion of agreements with immigrants’ main countries of origin;

90.

Calls for support for third countries in developing their national legislative framework and establishing immigration and asylum systems with full respect for international law, and calls on third countries of transit to sign and respect the 1951 Geneva Convention;

91.

Calls on Member States to consider the issue of ‘environmental refugees’, migrants who cannot currently be regarded as economic migrants and who are also not recognised as refugees as referred to in the 1951 Geneva Convention;

92.

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

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/35

A.

whereas the political definition of the TEN-T policy as described in Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (3) and Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (4) led to a ‘wish list’ of 30 priority projects inspired mainly by national interests,

B.

whereas the external competitiveness of railway and maritime freight transport as compared with road transport must be improved in order to ensure that balanced use is made of motorways, maritime routes and rail freight corridors,

C.

whereas the 30 priority projects led to a proposal of the Commission to provide around EUR 20 000 000 000 in EU funding within the 2007-2013 financial framework to the trans-European transport network as a whole which was finally reduced to around EUR 8 000 000 000, of which only EUR 5 300 000 000 for the 30 priority projects, at the Council’s insistence,

D.

having regard to the European Union’s well-known inability to comply with the rules on TEN-T funding laid down in its Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (5), which creates uncertainty in planning the funding of projects,

E.

whereas it is necessary to strengthen the Commission’s ability to pursue major cross-border projects, especially in the rail sector, that require ongoing closer cooperation between the Member States involved and funding over many years, extending beyond the time-frame of the multi-annual financial framework,

F.

whereas the annexes to the above-mentioned Commission communication of 14 May 2008 show that around 49 % of appropriations for transport projects are spent on roads, around 31 % on railways and around 9 % on urban transport, but it is not clear precisely which specific projects are co-financed,

1.

Recognises that the first attempts at developing an EU transport infrastructure policy, inspired by the ‘missing links’ of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), were boosted by the Commission communication of 2 December 1992 entitled ‘The future development of the common transport policy’, with the justification to ‘achieve economic growth, competitiveness and employment’ and were put on track by former Transport Commissioner Karel Van Miert; notes that Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks (6) and Decision No 884/2004/EC tried to be oriented towards the abovementioned aims; and draws attention to the stimulus given to this policy by the Commissioner responsible for energy and transport matters, Vice-President Loyola de Palacio;

2.

Considers the reports of the TEN-T Coordinators to be interesting examples for further coordination and integration of a limited choice of important projects; therefore asks the Commission and the Member States to pursue the efforts aimed at the enhancement of the existing priority projects; considers that medium–long term investment should be continued in line with the objective of completing the whole network;

3.

Welcomes the early submission of the above-mentioned Commission communication of 4 February 2009, with the aim to review fundamentally the EU transport infrastructure and TEN-T policy, according to challenges relating to current and future transport, cross-border mobility, and financial, economic, regional (including permanently disadvantaged regions), social, safety and environmental challenges;

4.

In this respect, does not see the rationale for introducing the vague notion of a TEN-T conceptual pillar, which would overload the list of priorities; believes that, contrary to the expressed goal of the Commission, a pillar expressly displayed as conceptual will not improve the TEN-T policy’s credibility, which will rather be achieved by developing concrete projects;

5.

Agrees therefore to develop a more coherent and integrated network approach, reflecting the needs for intermodal connections for citizens and freight; emphasises therefore that priority must be given to rail, ports, sustainable maritime and inland waterways and their hinterland connections or intermodal nodes in infrastructure links with and within new Member States and that particular attention must also be paid to cross-border transport links, as well as to better links with airports and sea ports in the trans-European networks; emphasises that attention should be paid to the different but complementary needs of both passengers and freight; recommends that Member States and regional authorities improve intermediate stations and local interconnections as links to TEN-T in order to minimise the costs associated with being in a peripheral area;

6.

Calls on the Commission to provide particular support for priority projects with intermodal links and consistent interoperability that pass through several Member States; points out that connecting economic areas along these priority projects is a national task;

7.

Notes with approval that environmentally friendly forms of transport receive a disproportionately large share of consideration in the list of priority projects; calls on the Commission in this connection to ensure that these proportions are preserved in future when projects are implemented;

8.

Stresses the need to integrate climate protection and sustainable development for all modes of transport in the European infrastructure policy to comply with the EU targets to reduce CO2 emissions;

9.

Calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to integrate European environmental legislation into decision-making and planning for TEN-T projects, such as Natura 2000, SEA, EIA, Air Quality, Water Framework, Habitat and Bird Directives as well as the Transport and Environmental Reporting Mechanism (TERM)-reports on indicators for transport and environment by the European Environment Agency;

10.

Urges the Commission to minimise unclear or contradictory provisions relating to declarations of common interest and the application of environmental legislation; believes, furthermore, that once TEN-T status is granted to projects, the Member States should not abuse the European legislation referred to in paragraph 9 in order to block the implementation of TEN-T projects;

11.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take into account as relevant factors for European transport infrastructure policy new developments, such as the global financial crisis, demographic change, enlargement, new neighbouring countries, and intensified connections with Eastern and Mediterranean countries;

12.

Stresses that, especially in the present context of the economic crisis, the development of TEN-T and the integration of transport in the Union with that of the neighbouring countries is the most reliable means of ensuring both the long-term sustainability of the internal market and economic and social cohesion in the Union;

13.

Calls on the Commission to intensify its efforts to improve European coordination of territorial development (Territorial Agenda of the European Union as well as the principle of Territorial Cohesion) and transport planning by taking account of regional accessibility through improved networks between the regions; notes that large differences between mountainous, coastal/island, central, peripheral and other trans-border areas have to be considered, as does the need for better integration of urban mobility systems into the TEN-T;

14.

Calls on the Commission to give particular priority to key projects relating to the main rail, road and inland waterway routes to ensure cross-border connections with the new Member States and with third countries;

15.

Suggests in this connection that the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) should be included as a basis for planning and that the available ESPON studies should be included as scientific, planning-oriented background information on transport development;

16.

Emphasises the need to incorporate both the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and those of the Recovery Plan in the development of TEN-T policies, given the key importance of the mobility, accessibility and logistics thereof for EU competitiveness, and to improve territorial cohesion;

17.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to integrate green corridors, rail freight networks, European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) corridors, maritime ‘highways’, such as short sea shipping, existing inland waterways with limited capacity or locks with insufficient capacity, dry ports, logistics platforms, and urban mobility nodes, as well as the projected extension of the TEN-T to the countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and Eastern and Mediterranean countries into an intermodal TEN-T concept, based on planned actions in favour of more environmentally friendly, less oil consuming and safer modes, to ensure an optimal use of all modes of transport and promoting the compatibility of connections between the various modes of transport, in particular rail links in ports; moreover, calls for consistency between the current and future TEN–T framework and the legislation proposed on rail freight corridors;

18.

Notes that until recently only 1 % of the European infrastructure funds were used for inland waterways according to the latest research; considers that sufficient European support is needed to develop the inland waterway infrastructure in Europe, in order to use the full potential of the inland waterways as a sustainable and reliable mode of transport;

19.

Calls on the Commission to seek to ensure that the expansion of rail freight transport is intensified with a view to higher network efficiency and faster transport;

20.

Welcomes in this connection the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for competitive freight (COM(2008)0852) and the above-mentioned Commission communication of 18 October 2007;

21.

Underlines the importance of enabling information sharing in intermodal transport, in order to promote and support interaction between soft infrastructure and hard infrastructure (information systems such as ERTMS/RIS/ITS/SESAR/Galileo), to improve interoperability, rolling stock (ERTMS hard- and software equipment in trains and noise reduction of freight wagons), green logistics, intermodal connections and nodes, decentralised door-to-door supply chain services and mobility management;

22.

Stresses the importance of developing harmonised and standardised Intelligent Transport Systems for the TEN-T in order to have more efficient, fluent, safe and environmentally friendly transport management;

23.

Recommends that implementation of the TEN-T be improved by providing better access to information through systems like the TENtec Information System by establishing an open method of coordination involving benchmarking and the exchange of best practices;

24.

Focuses on the need to boost the efficiency of existing infrastructure within TEN-T projects in the short term, in particular where the implementation of such projects has already started, in order to make the corridors more viable and efficient and without simply waiting for the long term realisation of very large projects within these corridors;

25.

Supports the Green Paper’s ‘Structural option 3 for the shaping of TEN-T’, i.e. a dual layer, consisting of a comprehensive network, based on the current TEN-T maps, and an intermodal ‘core network’, still to be defined and with rail, sustainable waterways and ports and their connection with logistical centres as priorities;

26.

Supports the concept of a ‘core network’ consisting of a ‘geographical pillar’ and a ‘conceptual pillar’, whereby the ‘conceptual pillar’ contains criteria and objectives enabling projects, corridors and network parts to be identified flexibly over time rather than rigidly at the start of the budgeting period for the entire period; takes the view that it should be possible to expand TEN-T flexibly during the budgeting period in order to adapt to changing market conditions;

27.

Recognises the crucial role of Member States, in consultation with their regional and local authorities, stakeholders of civil society and local populations, in deciding, planning and financing transport infrastructure, including European cross-border coordination and cooperation; expects more coherence from the Council between requests for TEN-T projects and decisions on TEN-T budgets; in view of the mid-term review of the EU financial framework and also with regard to the current discussion on the EU Recovery Plan, asks Member States to properly consider the issue of the necessary financial support to the transport infrastructures which are part of the TEN–T network as a priority according to the EU policy so far established;

28.

Fully agrees with the Community aim of reducing administrative burden and therefore strongly encourages the Commission to revise the financial frameworks for the TEN-T priority projects with a view to further cutting red tape;

29.

Asks the Member States and the Commission to reinforce the coordination of the policies pursued at national level in order to establish consistency in the co-financing and the realisation of the TEN-T programme in accordance with Articles 154 and 155 of the EC Treaty;

30.

Emphasises in this regard that the financial crisis puts greater pressure on the European Union, Member States and regions to base decisions concerning transport infrastructure projects on sound cost-benefit assessments, sustainability and the European trans-border added value;

31.

Notes, however, that investing in transport infrastructure is one key way of tackling the economic and financial crisis, and therefore calls on the Commission to speed up the infrastructure projects linked to TEN-T and financed under the Structural and/or Cohesion funds; calls on Member States to reassess their investment priorities taking into account this approach, in order to speed up the TEN-T projects under their responsibility, particularly in cross-border sections;

32.

Reminds the Commission that EU co-financing for transport infrastructure projects by TEN-T, cohesion, regional funds and the EIB must correspond with the following criteria: economic viability, enhanced competitiveness, promotion of the single market, environmental sustainability, transparency for taxpayers and citizen’s involvement (partnership principle); in this respect, emphasises the importance of developing public-private partnerships to finance TEN-T projects and the need to come up with flexible solutions for the problems that arise in works of this scale (geographical and technical difficulties, public opposition, etc.);

33.

Calls on the Commission to ensure in this connection that projects assessed under EU financial programmes take account of their possible impact on national financing for other necessary investments which are not supported from EU funds; takes the view, in particular, that the appropriations used by Member States to supplement EU-funded projects should not be allocated at the expense of maintaining or investing in feeder lines; takes the view, rather, that projects should therefore be drawn up and assessed at least partially on the basis of their potential for integrating (and not neglecting) the development and maintenance of the necessary supplementary feeder infrastructure;

34.

Underlines the quickly growing investment needs of the European air transport market under the Single European Sky II package as well as the proposed ‘total aviation system approach’; therefore calls on the Commission to consider raising the share of the available funding for airports and ATM/ANS when revising the TEN-T budgetary framework;

35.

Notes that more research and development is needed on best and most efficient practice in transport infrastructure financing and its positive impact on competitiveness and quantitative and qualitative employment, including public-private partnership experiences in this regard, as has been started already in current Commission studies;

36.

Stresses the need to set up a task force within the TEN-T Executive Agency in order to increase the use of public-private partnership to finance some priority project or sections, and to diffuse the solutions as best practice;

37.

Stresses that increased reliance on public-private partnerships and the European Investment Bank would be no substitute for a significant portion of budgetary funding for large-scale projects with an intergenerational pay-back period;

38.

Favours reconsideration of the TEN-T’s budget by the Member States in the context of the mid-term review of the financial perspectives 2009-2010, with a view to reversing the drastic cutting back of other projects and the ambitions to develop railways and waterways that go hand in hand with them;

39.

Stresses the need to allocate a percentage of toll revenue from road infrastructure to funding TEN-T projects in order to increase the leverage effect on borrowing;

40.

Asks the Commission to set out a selection of examples of regional trans-border rail connections, which have been dismantled or abandoned, favouring especially those which could interconnect with TEN-T;

41.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to consider the Eurovelo-Network and Iron Curtain Trail as an opportunity for promoting European trans-border cycling infrastructure networks, supporting soft mobility and sustainable tourism;

42.

Asks the Commission, in order to boost the competitiveness of the whole rail TEN network, to propose – by the end of its mandate - a legislative initiative concerning the opening of the rail domestic passenger markets as from 1 January 2012;

43.

Regrets the slow pace of implementation of priority projects in border areas, particularly those in the Pyrenees that are vital for the Iberian Peninsula and France;

44.

Encourages the Commission to keep the Parliament and the European Council involved in its (multi)annual proposals and choices on co-financing TEN-T projects;

45.

Asks the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council, for every priority project, regularly and at least once a year, on the state of play of each project, on the reliability of the project’s costs, on the feasibility of each project and on the timing of project’s implementation;

46.

Calls on the Commission and the EIB to submit an annual list of specific co-financed projects to Parliament and Council in the case of regional, cohesion and EIB co-financing of TEN-T projects, as is already the case for TEN-T co-financing;

47.

Maintains that, from an ecological and economic point of view, multimodal transport systems, enabling different means of transport to be used on a given route, are in many cases the only viable and sustainable option for the future;

48.

Emphasises that, within the newly enlarged Schengen area, the transport infrastructure between Western and Eastern Europe is of immense significance given the economic growth potential - especially in the new Member States - linked to it; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop and promote transnational road and rail links between Eastern and Western Europe, supporting in particular cross-border transport infrastructure through a specific action programme implemented in cooperation with local, regional and national authorities; also, points out that better interconnection of TEN-T and third country transport networks would improve the position of border areas in particular and bring added value to interregional cooperation and the EU as a whole;

49.

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

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/41

A.

whereas the EU wishes to limit global warming to 2 °C and to halve biodiversity loss; whereas the Eliasch Review estimates that USD 17-33 billion will be required annually to halve deforestation by 2030,

B.

whereas a sustainable forest economy is of vital importance in combating deforestation and is an essential aspect of economic development,

C.

whereas deforestation accounts for some 20 % of global greenhouse gas emissions, is a major driver of biodiversity loss and constitutes a serious threat to development and, in particular, to the livelihoods of the poor,

D.

whereas deforestation occurs at the alarming rate of 13 million hectares per year, primarily in tropical forests, but also to a certain extent in Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe,

E.

whereas deforestation results in environmental damage which is hard to reverse, such as long-term disruption of water conditions, steppe-formation and desertification, and biodiversity loss, the overall economic costs of which far exceed expenditure on protection and improvement measures,

F.

whereas forest degradation takes different forms and is difficult to define, but has major impacts on climate, biodiversity and goods and services,

G.

whereas a significant deviation from ‘business-as-usual’ emissions growth in developing countries, including a reduction in emissions related to deforestation, needs to be achieved in addition to a 25-40 % reduction in industrialised countries by 2020 compared to 1990 to limit global warming to 2 °C, according to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

H.

whereas reducing deforestation will play an important role as regards not only climate change mitigation but also adaptation to climate change,

1.

Stresses the need for more coherence between forest conservation and sustainable management policies and other EU internal and external policies; calls for a quantified evaluation of the impact on forests of EU policies such as energy (especially biofuels), agriculture, sustainable production and consumption, procurement, trade and development cooperation;

2.

Calls on the Commission to present to Parliament and the Council proposals for stringent Community sustainability requirements for all timber and timber products sourced from forests;

3.

Calls on the Commission to publish by the end of 2009 a comprehensive study assessing the impact of EU production, consumption and trade in both food and non-food commodities on deforestation and forest degradation; calls for the study to evaluate and specify any negative contribution by different industry sectors and make recommendations for further policy and innovation, in order to reduce such impacts;

4.

Points out that problems relating to water conditions must be dealt with carefully in the context of the forest economy, and points to the vital need for joint development of forest and water resources and harmonisation of the relevant EU policies, with a view to restoring and improving the water retention capacity of ecosystems;

5.

Welcomes green public procurement (GPP) policies and the promotion of instruments such as eco-labelling and forest certification schemes; calls for the swift adoption and implementation of GPP policies for wood products across the EU; calls on the Member States to base their public procurement policy on high sustainability standards and accordingly to set realistic targets in relation to such standards;

6.

Considers that significant financial support must be provided to developing countries to halt gross tropical deforestation by 2020 at the latest, and that demonstration of commitment to this will be decisive in the international negotiations for a comprehensive global post-2012 climate agreement;

7.

Recognises that mobilising sufficient funding under a global climate deal will be absolutely crucial for halving and eventually halting global deforestation; supports, in this context, the Commission’s proposal to create a Global Forest Carbon Mechanism (GFCM) within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, based on a permanent financing scheme; calls on Member States to back up their commitment to halting global deforestation and forest degradation by earmarking a significant part of the auctioning revenues from the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) for reducing deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries and by focusing the negotiations on funding sources as outlined in the Commission Communication of 28 January 2009 entitled ‘Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen’ (COM(2009)0039); calls on Member States to support the Commission’s proposal to embrace the funding proposal made by Norway and to allocate part of future revenues from auctioning of Assigned Amount Units to the GFCM;

8.

Advocates that the support provided via the GFCM should be performance-based and provided on the basis of verified results in terms of reduction of gross deforestation and forest degradation; stresses that this support should also provide co-benefits in terms of biodiversity protection, increased resilience, and improved livelihoods in forest regions;

9.

Emphasises the need to fully respect the rights of local forest people including indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent to the use of forests customarily used by them; considers it essential that local communities and indigenous peoples are involved in a meaningful and comprehensive way at all stages when measures for reduced emissions from forest degradation and deforestation are being assessed, planned and implemented;

10.

Stresses that any mechanism under the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries that is concluded as part of the post-2012 international climate agreement should first and foremost ensure that old-growth forests are protected;

11.

Notes that the process of deforestation in Eastern Europe is contributing to the degradation of the natural environment and also affecting, inter alia, quality of life;

12.

Notes that forest credits in the carbon market could, in the medium and long term, be part of a mix of policies addressing deforestation, if accurate forest carbon accounting methodologies and reliable monitoring mechanisms can be ensured; stresses that a final decision regarding the inclusion of forest credits in the ETS should be taken following a rigorous analysis of the feasibility of all potential funding mechanisms and an evaluation of the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties and of the conclusions drawn from the pilot projects;

13.

Recalls that any credits from forest projects that are used to offset greenhouse gas emissions in industrialised countries cannot be double-counted towards the deviation targets from ‘business as usual’ that developing countries are expected to commit to in the post-2012 international climate agreement;

14.

Points out that any system of compensation for reducing deforestation and forest degradation under a future climate regime must take into account not only carbon sinks but also the ecosystem services and social benefits provided by forests;

15.

Calls on the EU to promote strong social and environmental standards for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD); calls on the EU to advocate REDD mechanisms that go beyond the current Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project approach and address underlying causes of deforestation, such as poor governance, poverty, corruption and lack of law enforcement, by supporting policy and institutional reform at both local and national levels;

16.

Regrets that the Communication, contrary to its title, does not deal with forest degradation; calls on the Commission to develop action plans and pilot projects and to show commitment in its own forestry policy to stopping not only deforestation but also forest degradation (including in the European Union) by also developing and establishing proper monitoring systems in order to obtain appropriate data on soil and biomass in forests;

17.

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

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/43

A.

whereas urban transport constitutes a considerable proportion of all transport, with the legal basis therefore constituted by Articles 70 to 80 of the EC Treaty granting the European Union shared competence with the Member States in that field,

B.

whereas numerous European directives and regulations, cross-cutting or modal, have an impact on urban transport and these need to be aligned through a targeted approach to the issue of urban travel,

C.

whereas the European ‘Climate Plan’ adopted by the European Council of 8-9 March 2007 sets the ambitious objectives of a 20 % reduction in energy consumption, a 20 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and a 20 % share of renewable energies in overall energy consumption by 2020, and these targets cannot be achieved without a strategy suitably tailored to urban transport,

D.

whereas the CIVITAS research and development programme has been a great success, reflecting the importance, for transport-organising local authorities and companies, of European investment in innovative urban transport programmes,

E.

whereas the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds finance urban mobility programmes, but have the drawback, on the one hand, of lacking any European urban mobility strategy or objectives and, on the other hand, of being unequally allocated across the Union,

F.

whereas urban areas are prime intermodal and interconnection poles for Trans-European Transport Networks, which must help achieve their general aims of sustainable European mobility and the sustainable competitiveness of networks of EU towns and cities,

G.

whereas urban areas are important centres of business activity and whereas goods transport is vital to satisfy the needs of the population and at the same time faces challenges owing to restricted storage space and limited time-slots for delivery,

H.

whereas strict compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and the right to local planning autonomy precludes a prescriptive European policy, but allows the Union to adopt an incentive strategy of the same nature as its regional and cohesion policy without imposing top-down solutions,

I.

whereas the issue of urban areas cannot be addressed through modal policies, but only by means of an approach centring on users and integrated transport systems,

J.

whereas an efficient and sustainable urban transport policy for the benefit of both European citizens and the European economy will only be guaranteed by ensuring fair treatment between the transport of goods and of passengers and between the different modes of transport,

K.

whereas urban planning which takes account of the demographic change in society by, for example, locating housing designed for the elderly in city centres and shops close to where people live can contribute significantly to traffic avoidance,

L.

whereas there is a need for robust urban travel strategies that optimise the relevant instruments by developing intermodal exchange platforms and integrating various travel systems,

M.

whereas there is a need for reliable and more systematic statistics enabling an assessment of local public policies and an exchange of best practices in the field of urban travel,

N.

whereas the various techniques applied in urban transport are of economic and technological importance in terms of the European Union’s competitiveness and its external trade,

O.

whereas the time limits imposed by the forthcoming European legislative elections mean that it must keep to the timetable set for the parliamentary debate on the action plan on urban mobility announced by the Commission,

1.

Regrets that the action plan on urban mobility announced by the Commission has not been published and, while approving of separate initiatives, stresses the need for a cohesive approach; decides, therefore, to follow up its own initiative report, fully respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by drawing up proposals for a European action plan on urban mobility;

2.

Recalls that urban transport is subject to the subsidiarity principle, but nevertheless stresses that local authorities often cannot meet these challenges without European cooperation and coordination, and that the Commission must therefore provide studies and a legal framework, finance research, and promote and disseminate best practices in formats which are accessible to everyone in all EU languages;

3.

Asks the Commission to publish a compendium of binding European regulatory provisions in this area and offer regions and cities a common frame of reference to make it easier for them to make choices as regards the planning and implementation of development strategy;

4.

Proposes the immediate launch of a programme for the upgrading of statistics and databases on urban mobility by Eurostat, including in particular:

5.

Suggests that a European internet portal and forum on urban mobility be launched immediately in order to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of information, best practices and innovations, particularly in the field of soft transport;

6.

Suggests that an annual European prize be created incorporating the CIVITAS awards into the European mobility week, to reward outstanding and transferable transport initiatives and projects;

7.

Proposes that a new generation CIVITAS initiative be developed (CIVITAS IV), around calls for projects covering, inter alia:

8.

Proposes that Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) research and development be stepped up, that it be better co-ordinated with the needs and objectives of urban residents and local authorities and that it be directed towards:

9.

Calls for national and European funding for ITS applications to be increased so as to enable greater deployment of ITS by local authorities;

10.

Requests that the integrated approach principle be promoted in a partnership-based governance framework that brings together urban, peri-urban, national and European players and that takes account of transport-related issues such as social integration, noise, safety, competitiveness, environment, etc.; reiterates its request that an integrated approach be compulsory in the programming and choice of Structural Fund projects;

11.

Recommends the introduction of integrated sustainable urban travel plans in conurbations with over 100 000 inhabitants, comprising:

12.

Recommends that a permanent European forum on urban transport governance be created for representative transport-organising authorities, including user and citizens’ organisations and professional federations of transport operators, in order to promote the exchange and dissemination of best practices;

13.

Proposes that European financing in the field of urban transport be made conditional on the existence of integrated urban mobility plans (urban travel plans);

14.

Advocates cooperation between, and the operational integration of, authorities responsible for the organisation of public transport, traffic and parking in European cities of over 250 000 inhabitants, in comparable areas, based on movements of population and goods and in line with local circumstances;

15.

Urges transport-organising authorities to set themselves proactive, coherent targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions by means of mobility policies set out in the above mentioned integrated sustainable urban travel plans and to derive from these targets specific performance obligations for public or private transport service operators;

16.

Proposes that experiences in the field of tariff integration (including the ‘Interoperable Fare Management’ project) and the provision of intermodal information and information between transport-organising authorities in EU conurbations be evaluated, in order to facilitate the exchange of best practices;

17.

Advocates the setting-up of an urban mobility observatory within the Commission, but does not wish a new agency to be created;

18.

Regrets the fact that during the current aid programming period 2007-2013, only some 9 % (equivalent to EUR 8 000 000 000) of all Structural Fund spending on transport (equivalent to EUR 82 000 000 000) is earmarked for urban transport; considers this proportion too small to be able to meet the challenges of devising appropriate mobility in European cities and environmental and climate protection;

19.

Strongly recommends that the possibility be examined, under the financial framework for 2014-2020, of a European financial instrument for urban mobility (integrated programme of the Marco-Polo type) enabling the co-financing of:

and proposes that this financing be allocated as an incentive, on the basis of calls for tender that meet European specifications;

20.

Calls for the Commission to draw up a report on zones with access regulations in urban areas in order to assess their impact on mobility, quality of life, emissions and external effects, health and safety, taking into account the need for a system of enforcing criminal and non-criminal cross-border traffic offences;

21.

Proposes that an information and urban transport ticketing network for the main urban destinations in the European Union be set up in stations and airports of departure, where these are located in the EU;

22.

Recommends that a ‘users charter’ be drawn up for urban transport, to include pedestrians and cyclists,the distribution of goods and services and covering road sharing, in order to reduce the current disparities;

23.

Takes the view that the urban planning model of the ‘short journey city’ is the best means of ensuring environmentally acceptable and climate-compatible mobility in cities;

24.

Encourages the Commission and local authorities to step up and expand their initiatives relating to ‘car-free days’, as implemented during the annual European car-free day;

25.

Calls on the Commission to come up with a harmonised approach towards green zones and the development of a single European green zone sticker as soon as possible in order to prevent the development of different approaches per city or Member State with considerable inconvenience for citizens and companies;

26.

Considers that urban mobility initiatives should also seek to establish inter-urban networks in order to link up major cities, ensure their economic development and facilitate the rapid transport of individuals and goods;

27.

Suggests that a European policy be introduced for the standardisation and certification of equipment as regards safety and health, comfort (noise, vibrations, etc.), network interoperability (‘busways’, tram-train, etc.), accessibility for PRMs or people with child strollers, soft transport and clean-engine technologies (buses, taxis, etc.), on the basis of a carbon audit and an impact analysis of the costs for operators and users;

28.

Urges constant care to ensure that all decisions take account of the need to ensure proportionality between costs and benefits and the possibility of subsidising less affluent users;

29.

Suggests that guidelines be issued on minimum recommendations for quality of service, evaluation and participation by users and citizens, in the context of the opening-up of urban transport networks to competition under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007;

30.

Suggests that a significant proportion of the appropriations released by the European Economic Recovery Plan be allocated to the financing of ongoing urban transport and public transport investments and projects that can be financed immediately and implemented before 31 December 2009;

31.

Notes that, under the European Economic Recovery Plan, Structural Fund resources for sustainable infrastructure projects are being brought forward; calls on Member States and the regions as a matter of urgency to use a substantial proportion of these resources for climate-compatible urban transport;

32.

Calls on the Commission to take note of the proposals contained in this resolution, and of Parliament’s wish for it to take the initiative in this area, leading as soon as possible to an action plan;

33.

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

8.7.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/50

A.

whereas Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) are advanced applications which use Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for transport and providing innovative services on transport modes and traffic management;

B.

whereas ITS have great potential for more efficient use of all modes of transport that can meet the needs and the challenges of European transport policy;

C.

whereas road traffic congestion affects 10 % of the road network and yearly costs amount to 1 % of EU GDP, road fatalities still amount to 42 953 (2006), far above the intermediate target set to reduce to 25 000 by 2010 and road transport accounts for 72 % of all transport-related CO2 emissions while 40 % of Europe’s CO2 road transport emissions are due to urban traffic;

D.

whereas ITS has proved essential in reducing energy consumption and greening transport;

E.

whereas intelligent applications have been developed for different transport modes such as railway transport (ERTMS and TAF-TSI), maritime and inland waterway transport (LRITS, SafeSeaNet, VTMIS, RIS), air transport (SESAR) and land transport, such as livestock transport;

1.

Stresses that ITS is a key instrument for using existing infrastructure effectively and for making transport more efficient, safer and secure and environmentally cleaner, thus contributing to the development of sustainable mobility for citizens and the economy;

2.

Stresses the positive effect on sustainable development that ITS have in improving the economic performance of all regions, including urban areas, establishing conditions for reciprocal accessibility, increasing local and inter-regional commerce, and developing the European Union’s internal market and the employment associated with the activities deriving from the implementation of ITS;

3.

Considers that ITSs can improve the living conditions of Europe’s citizens, particularly those living in urban areas, and will also contribute to improved road safety, reduce harmful emissions and environmental pollution, increase traffic efficiency, improve access in outlying areas and pursue the priority of reducing traffic;

4.

Deplores the delay in setting up a common framework for the implementation of ITSs in the EU and the lack of coordinated deployment of ITS with specific targets due mainly to barriers to interoperability, a lack of efficient cooperation among all actors, and unsolved data privacy and liability issues;

5.

Welcomes the Commission Action Plan on ITS(‘the action plan’) as a common framework of actions and programmes with clear deadlines for the delivery of results;

6.

Strongly believes that it is necessary to set up an instrument fostering the use of ITS in transport policy; supports a legislative instrument for laying down the framework for the deployment of ITS and requests that the Commission provide better information on the current situation with regard to actions, funding and programming of the action plan in order to ensure that a clear set of actions with deadlines is established in the Directive laying down the framework for the deployment of ITS;

7.

Is aware of the limited Community financial aid granted (in 2008) to the EasyWay action, which is a project for Europe-wide ITS deployment on the main Trans-European road network (TERN) corridors in 21 EU Member States led by national road authorities and operators with associated partners from public and private stakeholders;

8.

Points out that ITS should be deployed across all transport modes and for all travellers in Europe, in a coordinated approach with Galileo applications; strongly supports its immediate deployment in order to enhance intermodality between the public and private sector and within public transport through the improvement of overall information and increased capacity management;

9.

Urges the Commission and Members States to address the issue of liability which constitutes a major barrier to the smooth and coherent development of ITS in Europe;

10.

Considers that interoperability in the development of ITS is paramount for coherent and effective ITS deployment in Europe; stresses that in case of TERN investment (construction or maintenance), efforts should be made to comply with the necessary deployment of ITS services;

11.

As there is already a significant supply on the European ITS market, requests that the Commission defines specifications for the minimum level of ITS applications and services that is achievable by all Member States and necessary for the efficient deployment, implementation and operation of ITS;

12.

Considers it important to prepare a market demand assessment evaluating the real need beyond the defined minimum level of ITS applications and services and to strengthen internal market aspects of ITS through standardisation and an appropriate regulatory framework;

13.

Stresses the importance of cross-border cooperation both at the technical and administrative level at the EU external borders, which is crucial for the effective implementation of ITS in the EU;

14.

Stresses the need to provide the critical mass of data and information in the following five basic areas as a minimum for effective ITS deployment: real-time traffic and travel information; road network data; public data for digital maps; data for minimum universal traffic information services and multimodal door-to-door journey planners;

15.

Calls for minimum universal traffic information services to cover Trans-European network (TEN-T);

16.

Stresses that the large-scale adoption and implementation of ITS necessitates adherence to transport service information and timetables for the various modes of transport;

17.

Stresses the importance of providing real time information to travellers and for the infrastructure and of making this more accurate, reliable and uniform while respecting Europe’s specificities (geographical, cultural and linguistic) and ensuring geographical continuity;

18.

Considers it essential for the development of ITS to guarantee the private sector access to road, traffic and travel data while respecting privacy and addressing the issue of intellectual property rights;

19.

Believes that it is essential to ensure harmonised, interoperable and reliable ITS whilst preserving users’ freedom choice on ITS;

20.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to coordinate and link ITS with EU urban mobility initiatives for more efficient transport mobility and management fluidity and reducing congestion from roads, TEN-T corridors, freight corridors and conurbations;

21.

Considers that cross-border cooperation and the development of programmes for the effective deployment and implementation of ITS, such as the EasyWay project, is necessary;

22.

Calls on the Commission to indentify priority information, transport equipment and vehicle standards for advancing ITS deployment and measures promoting more harmonised highway infrastructure;

23.

Considers it essential that the assessment of the economic cost per vehicle and for the infrastructure deriving from ITS deployment be based on a cost-benefit analysis covering all associated costs (economic, societal and environmental);

24.

Advocates the development of user information procedures and systems regarding available urban transport services and the state of the networks, making use of GSM technology for example;

25.

Calls for research into integrated fare structures coordinated by the authorities of a given region and especially the technical aspects thereof;

26.

Urges the development of intermodal technologies providing better access to transport and urban mobility for persons with reduced mobility;

27.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to prepare for the harmonised deployment and integration of the eCall application in all EU countries by 2010, as soon as the standardisation tests are completed;

28.

Considers that ITS applications and deployment should:

29.

Urges the Commission to continue the process of reducing communication costs so that the communication and information equipment based on telecommunication could be used in a more comprehensive way;

30.

Welcomes the suggested ‘eFreight’ initiative and urges the Commission to introduce the principle of ‘Intelligent Cargo’ with a view to achieving a multimodal ITS services approach for freight, focusing on dangerous goods;

31.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to pay the same attention to both passengers and freight, in order to avoid discriminating against passenger traffic, which is particularly damaging for the mobility of persons;

32.

Advocates an appropriate regulatory framework on the human machine interface (HMI) and other ITS protocols and stresses the need to address liability issues;

33.

Calls on the Commission to address the issue of vulnerable transport users, including people with reduced mobility and to extend the actions on fostering ADAS deployment and others such as ITS and HMI to two-wheelers under the sub-actions proposed in the action plan;

34.

Urges the Commission to use TIS potential to the full for the purposes of preventive action against smog and high ozone concentrations and the reduction of noise levels and particle, NOx and CO2 emissions;

35.

Stresses the importance of defining a common platform architecture for standardised interfaces and protocols that would facilitate the use of ITS, cooperative systems and specifications for infrastructure-to-infrastructure (I2I), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V);

36.

Calls on the Commission to implement a road map on ITS with common platforms on ITS applications and deployment and with the participation of the private and public sector and to establish the appropriate framework for solving ITS liability issues;

37.

Notes that training on ITS applications should be encouraged to enhance users’ capacity on transport and facilitate human-machine interaction;

38.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to provide an open forum for exchanging information and addressing ITS issues;

39.

Emphasises the need to respect privacy and considers that privacy and data security and protection issues from the early phases of the ITS design development should be considered when defining architecture and implementation measures (‘Privacy by design’);

40.

Invites all parties involved in ITS applications to comply with the EC directives on the protection of personal data and privacy on communications (Directives 95/46/EC (11) and 2002/58/EC (12)) and calls on the Commission to ensure the appropriate use of data under ITS applications and deployment;

41.

Believes that the use of anonymous data on ITS applications is necessary for the unimpeded deployment of ITS while ensuring privacy and compliance with the EC legal framework on data protection;

42.

Calls upon the Commission and the Member States to develop strong leadership and genuine governance towards the deployment of ITS in Europe;

43.

Encourages the promotion of the development of national and European multimodal door-to-door journey planners, taking due account of public transport alternatives, and their interconnection across Europe;

44.

Urges the Commission to better use the EU capabilities from the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) programmes EGNOS and Galileo and enhance multimodal interconnectivity;

45.

Stresses, that these technologies should be applied in such a way as to avoid incompatibility between transport modes, and that there should be freedom of choice to use any of these technologies;

46.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to bear in mind that ITS should actively involve local and regional authorities and interested parties operating on European territory in the planning process and the implementation process;

47.

Stresses the importance of public-private partnerships (PPP) in implementing ITS and calls on the Commission and the Member States to take active steps to promote and facilitate their use;

48.

Calls on the Commission to provide a full explanation of the funding of the action plan and its programming and on the Council to secure sufficient funding;

49.

Urges the Member States, in carrying out the mid-term review of structural fund utilisation, to assess and include among the priorities for 2010 - 2013 urban mobility and reduced traffic congestion to be achieved by means of ITS;

50.

Points out the need for the significant potential of urban areas to be better defined and exploited, and highlights the role that rural and outlying areas can play in achieving balanced development and medium- and long-term objectives;

51.

Considers that it is of vital importance to implement intelligent transport networks in areas with high tourist potential with a view to easing traffic flows, reducing accidents and increasing safety; considers that ITS contribute to the economic development of the regions including outlying regions;

52.

Stresses the importance of inter-regional, cross-border and trans-national cooperation in developing and implementing ITS and urges the Commission to develop a system for exchange of good practice widely available in all EU languages, but urges the Member States to ensure that best practices are shared and exchanged among the regions themselves, with the dual objective of securing the transfer of ITS know-how and avoiding internal fragmentation within the system;

53.

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