|

52011DC0400

/* COM/2011/0400 final */  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Concluding the first European semester of economic policy coordination: Guidance for national policies in 2011-2012

	COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONSConcluding the first European semester of economic policy coordination: Guidance for national policies in 2011-2012HELPING THE EU TO EMERGE STRONGER FROM THE CRISISThe EU is tackling the worst economic crisis since its foundation – governments and citizens alike have faced pressures like never before, unprecedented decisions have been taken in a very short timespan and this has been costly and painful. The crisis did not start in Europe and other major economies have suffered similar shocks. Inside the EU, the impact has varied from country to country – some Member States rebounded quickly from the initial downturn but others are facing huge challenges. The Commission's forecasts show that economic recovery is gaining ground in the EU, but it remains uneven and subject to uncertainties.There is no "back to business-as-usual": our societies will be radically affected and transformed by the shocks experienced over the last three years, our growth potential has suffered, our public finances and financial systems have been adversely affected and unemployment has hit a significant part of our population, notably our young people. For many people, there is a prospect of hardship for some time to come, and for others, a growing realisation of what a jobless recovery could entail. In many places, the reaction has been anger and frustration.The crisis has brought home to us that our economies are interconnected and that our futures are intertwined. The EU is a shared economic space, not 27 economies, and what affects one country, affects all. This is particularly the case for the 17 Member States sharing a single currency as part of the Euro area. To regain our capacity to grow and ensure that Member States performances reinforce rather than hinder each other, we need to inject the collective EU dimension into national policy-making, before decisions are taken. The need for stronger policy co-ordination at EU level is not only linked to the crisis – macro-economic imbalances had built up over several years, leaving many Member States with little or no room for manoeuvre when the crisis hit. Stronger policy co-ordination is also the best response the EU can make to the challenges of globalisation. Outside the EU, the emerging economies were less affected by the crisis and they are enjoying very strong growth rates: the EU needs constant efforts to boost its competitiveness in world markets to sustain its standards of living.A key lesson from this experience was that focusing only on the deficit criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and weak implementation did not prevent serious problems in other areas. This meant we were too late in picking up on crucial issues. And when we did pick up on them, our reticence to challenge each other constructively meant there was no sense of collective responsibility for the outcome. All too often, market pressures dictated our course of action.Faced with the immediacy of the crisis, the EU has been developing a common, coherent and comprehensive response – putting together recovery plans, coordinating the rescue and restructuring of banks and completely overhauling the supervision of financial services, providing macro-financial assistance to several Member States[1], creating new support mechanisms to safeguard financial stability in the Euro area and setting ambitious goals for a new path to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as part of the Europe 2020 strategy[2].A new EU economic governance is emerging. The legislative proposals of the Commission and the work of the Task Force headed by the President of the European Council will lead to a complete redesign of the EU tools to prevent macro-economic imbalances and reinforce the operation of the Stability and Growth Pact. In Spring this year, Euro area Member States and several other Member States[3] agreed to make additional efforts to foster competitiveness, employment, sustainability of public finances and financial stability as part of the Euro Plus Pact.The EU is now implementing a new working method – the European semester – to ensure that collective discussion on key priorities takes place at EU level, before and not after national decisions are taken. The results of this discussion must then be effectively reflected in national decision-making, in particular in national budgets and structural reforms, so that national and EU efforts are brought together in the right sequence to deliver and monitor progress over time.Based on its assessment of the programmes presented by the Member States, the Commission is now putting forward country-specific recommendations as well as recommendations for the Euro area. This guidance is limited to key priorities to be addressed in the next 12-18 months. This reflects a deliberate choice to concentrate on the most pressing challenges and what can realistically be achieved in that time frame, taking into account the specific circumstances of each Member State. For those Member States that are receiving external financial assistance, the Commission has chosen to make only one recommendation – that they implement their programme commitments on schedule. More detailed analysis is provided in supporting documents to highlight aspects of a structural nature and point to medium-term priorities, notably linked to delivering the Europe 2020 targets. Once adopted by the Council, each Member State should reflect this guidance in its national decision-making and annual budgetary processes.Box 1. The first European semesterThe European semester started in January 2011 with the presentation of key EU socio-economic challenges by the Commission in its Annual Growth Survey (AGS) and the Joint Employment Report[4]. The Spring European Council endorsed and complemented the guidance given by the AGS. Against this background, Member States were requested to present Stability or Convergence Programmes (SCPs) – dealing with the situation of their public finances – and National Reform Programmes (NRPs) – presenting key policy measures to sustain growth and jobs and reach the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy – at the end of April[5]. In addition, most members of the Euro Plus Pact have presented specific commitments made under the Pact (see below).The Commission has assessed these programmes and commitments, and is now presenting its guidance on a country-by-country basis so that the June European Council can conclude the first semester. While it is acknowledged that reforms may take time to deliver results, the Commission has focused on areas where new steps need to be taken now.In the light of this first experience, the Commissions considers that the European semester can become an effective governance method to support EU and national policy making in an integrated, transparent and timely manner, provided the Member States decide collectively on the key policy orientations to be implemented and follow up on the Council's recommendations:- The simultaneous presentation of the SCPs and NRPs enables the EU to assess national growth and fiscal strategies together, including possible risks, imbalances or trade-offs that would not otherwise be picked up. This is why the Commission is presenting an integrated set of recommendations for each Member State, respecting the different legal bases that underpin them. The Council is invited to send a single set of recommendations to each Member State, which includes the Council opinion on its fiscal situation.- Bringing together EU-level and country-specific guidance allows national agendas to be discussed and presented against the background of EU goals. This means that the EU dimension can be inserted into national policy-making before decisions are taken. It also allows the EU to take stock of national efforts and decide on complementary actions to be taken at EU level, for instance in the context of the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives[6].- The combination of short-term guidance and of medium-term targets gives the EU and its Member States the means to develop a sequence of reforms and stronger, better co-ordinated policies over time.COMMISSION ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe overall assessment of the Commission is that the programmes presented by the Member States constitute a good starting point for sustaining Europe's recovery, for addressing fiscal challenges and for driving more ambitious reforms at national level. The guidance of the Annual Growth Survey has been broadly taken up in national efforts. The adoption of national targets shows there is a significant degree of commitment to the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy[7].However, the Commission is concerned to see that the combination of these commitments would not allow the EU to meet its headline targets by 2020. On the basis of the national commitments, the EU is on track to achieve its targets for emissions reduction, for renewable energy and for early school-leaving. Additional efforts are required for reaching the targets in the areas of employment, research and development, energy efficiency, tertiary education and poverty.In 2011-2012, Member States face far-reaching challenges in a particularly demanding context. Fiscal room for manoeuvre is very limited and there is discontent among citizens in several Member States as the impact of the crisis makes itself felt. However, under the pressure of events, many of the changes needed to remedy structural weaknesses, which have often been delayed for years, are now being considered or implemented. This is most obvious in the Member States receiving assistance from the EU, other Member States and the IMF, but it is also evident, to varying degrees, in all national programmes.In its assessment, the Commission acknowledges the breadth of the reforms already embraced by the Member States and recognises that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution, and no "silver bullet": not everything should or can be done by all at once. Yet, given the seriousness of the situation and the interdependences of our economies, the Commission is recommending actions at national level in the following areas identified in the Annual Growth Survey:Pre-requisites for growth-  With 24 Member States currently in excessive deficit procedure, and public debt levels still worryingly high, most governments are now engaged in far-reaching fiscal consolidation efforts and confronted with the task of substantially revisiting the levels and structures of both their expenditure and revenue sides of national budgets. The adoption of reinforced fiscal frameworks in some Member States, including through the use of expenditure ceilings and "debt brakes", is a positive step forward. Several Member States are also reforming their public administration and social security systems in order to better control expenditure levels. The Commission considers that it is essential to stick to agreed deadlines for the correction of excessive deficits and to consolidate swiftly, moving towards the medium-term budgetary objectives specified by the Council. In this process, the Commission also calls for careful attention to be given to the quality of public spending and tax structures to preserve or reinforce growth-friendly items, such as investment in research, education and energy efficiency[8].-  Progress in correcting macro-economic imbalances, which emerged over the last decade, has been slow in some Member States; further corrections are required. In particular, those Member States with large current account deficits linked to sustained losses in competitiveness and to previously favourable debt financing conditions, must take further steps to address their structural weaknesses. In some instances, this may involve reviewing wage-setting systems, in consultation with social partners, to ensure that wages support competitiveness and develop in line with productivity growth. In other instances, the primary challenge is to proceed with productivity-enhancing structural reforms that inter alia shift economic activity towards high value-added and tradable sectors. In Member States with current account surpluses, some offsetting trends can be observed. There is scope for a further strengthening of domestic demand which lies mainly in measures to bring more people into employment and open up the services and network markets.-  The capacity of the banking sector to deliver effectively for the economy remains an area of concern in a number of Member States. The results of the new bank stress tests, which will be published shortly, must be immediately followed up by measures to address remaining vulnerabilities. Besides the ongoing regulatory overhaul at EU level, the Commission advocates a number of systemic reforms aiming at the modernisation of the governance and functioning of some national systems. Several Member States should also consider strengthening their regulatory framework for mortgages with a view to preventing housing bubbles and reducing over-indebtedness of private households.Mobilising labour markets, creating job opportunities-  Most Member States are engaged in reforming their pensions systems, both as a way to curb future ageing-related expenditure as their populations grow older, and to create additional incentives for longer working lives. Increasing the statutory retirement age and linking it to life-expectancy remain priorities, and the creation of automatic or formula-based links between retirement age and life expectancy can be an effective tool. Phasing out early retirement schemes and boosting employability of workers over 50 are a necessary part of the policy response. Given the impact of the financial crisis on private pension funds, Member States relying on a two- or three-pillar system should ensure the stand-alone viability of each of the pillars. In a number of Member States, the adequacy of pensions' level to ensure a decent standard of living in old age is or may become an issue.-  In several Member States, the crisis has led to drastic increases in unemployment, sometimes coupled with sharp falls in employment levels, and the most vulnerable have often been the most affected. The risks for certain people to fall into inactivity or exclusion may materialise if not prevented and tackled. Effective support measures and employment services are thus essential to help unemployed people find jobs and continue developing their skills. The situation of people experiencing poverty and other particularly vulnerable groups also calls for particular attention.-  Several Member States should be more pro-active in improving education performances and access to lifelong learning, both as a way to improve employability and to boost human capital. Particular efforts are needed in some Member States to tackle the issue of early school-leaving and to provide apprenticeship places and vocational training. Targeted action is also recommended to tackle the high unemployment levels of young people. Many Member States are experiencing rapid ageing of their workforces and the return to growth raises the prospect of increasing skills bottlenecks: matching educational and training outcomes with labour market needs is thus a priority.-  A number of Member States still suffer from the segmentation of their labour market with different types of contracts and need to move resolutely towards a more effective – and fair – combination of flexibility and security in working arrangements ("flexicurity"), including by rebalancing employment protection legislation, so as to stimulate job creation, labour market participation, mobility across sectors and human capital accumulation.-  Insufficient attention has so far been given to reducing the tax wedge on labour, in particular for low-wage and low-skilled workers. In a context of fiscal consolidation, many Member States will be led to revisit both the tax and expenditure sides of the national budgets. It is generally recommended to shift taxation away from labour and onto consumption and/or to support environmental objectives. Further action is also needed to remove social and tax obstacles for second earners to join or remain in the labour force. Reviewing the tax and benefit systems, improving the availability of childcare and allowing for more flexible forms of employment are recommended as priorities in this context.Frontloading growth-  Several Member States are flagged as lagging behind with the implementation of the Services Directive[9], unnecessarily delaying the dynamism of the services sector. A number of concrete steps are recommended so that they can tap into the potential of the single market to boost growth and create jobs, notably by removing unjustified barriers to entry or further opening professional services by removing quotas and closed shops, fostering greater competition in network industries and making more strategic use of the large amounts invested through public procurement.-  As part of their budgetary consolidation strategies, Member States need to consider how to prioritise expenditure on research and education and the key infrastructures that are needed to sustain growth, whilst maximising the quality of spending and efficiency of services.-  There is a need to improve access to funding for innovative companies, in particular venture capital for SMEs, and to help SMEs focusing on start-up conditions, for instance simplifying procedures for licences and permits, reducing the time and cost for granting them, and improving the protection of investors.-  Particular emphasis is placed on the need for a number of Member States to promote greater energy efficiency. This will not only support energy security and help to combat climate change but would also promote the spread of innovative technologies and boost skilled job creation.-  A number of Member States need to take steps to reduce administrative burdens on companies and to increase the capacity and performance of public administrations and of the judicial system. In several cases, urgent action is needed to modernise the business environment by reducing red tape and increasing transparency in public procurement. Several Member States are also recommended to make better use of EU funds.Box 2. The Euro Plus Pact: taking stock of first commitmentsThe Euro Plus Pact was agreed in March 2011 by Heads of State or Government of the Euro area and joined by Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. The purpose of the Pact is to strengthen the economic pillar of the monetary union, to achieve a new quality of economic policy coordination, to improve competitiveness, thereby leading to a higher degree of convergence. The Pact focuses primarily on areas that fall under national competences and are key for increasing competitiveness and avoiding harmful imbalances. It is designed to involve a special additional effort, including concrete commitments and actions that are more ambitious than those already agreed within the EU framework, accompanied with a timetable for implementation. These new commitments will be included in the NRPs and SCPs and be subject to the regular EU surveillance framework.Most of the 23 participants have presented commitments - over 100 separate measures in total - relating to most if not all of the four areas covered by the Pact: to foster competitiveness, to foster employment, to contribute to sustainability of public finances and to reinforce financial stability.However, the degree of ambition and precision of these commitments are uneven:- Five members of the Pact have not yet communicated their commitments[10].- The commitments generally focus on frontloading growth-enhancing reforms to foster competitiveness, for instance in network industries, and the service sector. Many relate to employment actions focusing on improving educational outcomes and skills. Others involve fiscal consolidation measures, for example by anchoring stricter fiscal discipline in national legislation. To a lesser extent, the commitments deal with the reinforcement of financial stability, in particular by reinforcing national supervision of financial actors. Aspects related to pragmatic coordination of tax policies, in the form of exchange of best practices, avoidance of harmful practices and proposals to fight fraud and tax evasion, would also deserve further attention in future.- Some members commit to measureable initiatives, e.g. to implement specific legislation or programmes including by indicating their financial volumes, whilst others make more general commitments to reduce unemployment of low-skilled workers, to maintain a low tax burden, to improve the business environment by reducing red tape or to implement EU directives.- Even where specific commitments are made, the majority appears to relate to on-going legislative projects rather than forward-looking reform projects initiated as a reaction to the Pact. So far, none of the commitments appear to reflect the focus on best practices and benchmarking against best performers within Europe and vis-à-vis other strategic partners which is set out in the Pact.The Commission's assessment of the commitments is reflected in its recommendations. In many cases, a specific recommendation is made in areas which are more generally described in the commitments made under the Pact, for example in areas such as pension reform, labour taxation and skills improvements.NEXT STEPSThe Commission invites the European Council to endorse its recommendations at its June 2011 meeting before formal adoption by the Council.At EU level, work will continue to follow up on the European semester:-  The legislator should adopt the new legislative package on the prevention and correction of imbalances and on the reinforcement of the Stability and Growth Pact. This will reinforce our collective tools to assess the situation and ensure adequate follow-up.-  In the light of the country-specific recommendations, the various Council formations should examine national policies and performances in their areas, monitor implementation and carry out peer reviews on specific themes to encourage mutual learning of interesting practices.-  Following on the specific recommendations addressed to its members, the Euro Group should intensify its policy co-ordination with a particular focus on identifying and preventing imbalances. It should also monitor implementation of the recommendations.-  As stated in the Euro Plus Pact, Heads of State or Government of participating Member States will monitor their commitments politically. In the light of the Commission's assessment of the first experience of the Pact, participating Member States should make their next commitments more specific, measurable and time-bound so that progress can be monitored. These commitments should be anchored in the development and implementation of the National Reform Programmes and Stability or Convergence Programmes.-  The European Parliament should be given the opportunity to examine progress on the main elements of the Europe 2020 strategy and to present its views on the Commission's next Annual Growth Survey. The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions also have a role to play in this respect.-  The Commission will take stock of progress in implementing the country-specific recommendations, first at EU level in its next Annual Growth Survey in January 2012, and then for each Member State in its guidance to follow next year. It will continue to support Member States efforts through EU level action to implement the Europe 2020 flagships and by intensifying efforts to unlock the potential of the Single Market, including through the Single Market Act.The conclusion of the first European semester marks the opening of a "national semester": in the second semester of this year, it will be for the Member States to discuss and incorporate European guidance into their 2012 budgets and national decision-making, also in view of the preparation of the next national programmes foreseen in Spring 2012.While some Member States may have chosen cautious targets and measures in this first year in the light of current difficulties, additional efforts will be required in the coming years to make sure that the EU is investing sufficiently in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Member States need to do more to protect expenditure on research and education and key infrastructures. They should open up more opportunities in the services' sector, including by breaking down barriers to job creation and competition in key network industries and by deciding rapidly on the measures proposed in the Single Market Act. Most Member States could do more to improve the business environment, through better regulation, less gold plating and by improving the access of SMEs to finance. Measures to implement "flexicurity" and to adapt skills to labour market needs should be pursued.In their pursuit of fiscal consolidation and structural reforms, Member States need to find ways of tackling the social impact of the changes now underway. In the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU chose to have a social inclusion target, with the aim of lifting 20 million people out of poverty and exclusion by 2020. The trends visible in many countries highlight a growing risk of poverty and marginalisation unless active measures are taken to counter them. On the basis of the actions described in the national programmes, Member States need to do more to deliver on this target.To build the legitimacy and effectiveness of the new EU economic governance, the Member States should decide on the best ways to involve their national parliaments, as well sub-national authorities and other stakeholders, in the development and follow-up of their programmes. The Commission stands ready to assist and engage in national discussions as part of this new, stronger EU economic governance.We need to use the momentum for change driven by the crisis to help the EU emerge stronger and fitter for the future, well able to compete with confidence and success in global markets. This first European semester is a crucial step towards achieving our Europe 2020 objectives and marks a qualitative change in the economic policy co-ordination and governance of the EU. By stepping up national action and by working together at EU level we are better placed to deliver sustainable growth and to help our citizens realise their hopes for the future.[1] Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal and Romania.[2] The Strategy includes five headline targets to be met by the EU by 2020: raising its employment rate to 75%, raising its investment levels in R&D to 3% of GDP, meeting its climate change and energy objectives ("20 20 20"), increasing the share of the population at tertiary or equivalent education levels to at least 40% and reducing early-school leaving to less than 10%, promoting social inclusion by lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and exclusion.[3] Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.[4] "Annual Growth Survey 2011: advancing the EU’s comprehensive response to the crisis" -COM(2011) 11, 12.1.2011, including the draft Joint Employment Report.[5] Portugal and Greece did not formally present Stability Programmes. Their policy priorities will be regularly discussed in the context of the follow-up to the assistance programmes.[6] The Commission has put forward a series of EU-level initiatives ("Europe 2020 flagships") to support the achievements of the Europe 2020 objectives: "Digital Agenda", "Innovation Union", "A new Industrial Policy", "Youth on the Move", "New Skills and Jobs", "A Platform Against Poverty", "Resource Efficiency". It has also put forward several key actions to tap the potential of the European single market in the form of a new "Single Market Act".[7] With the exception of the UK, which presented qualitative objectives for several areas, and Luxembourg, which recently withdrew its poverty target.[8] Which include the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies.[9] Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the Internal Market.[10] Finland, Greece, Latvia, Portugal and Slovenia.


title: Consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures European Parliament recommendation to the Council of 2 February 2012 on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures, when their leaders exercise their personal and commercial interests within EU borders (2011/2187(INI))

text:
               20.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CE 239/11

         Thursday 2 February 2012Consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures
   P7_TA(2012)0018
   European Parliament recommendation to the Council of 2 February 2012 on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures, when their leaders exercise their personal and commercial interests within EU borders (2011/2187(INI))
   2013/C 239 E/02

      The European Parliament,

               —

               having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Graham Watson on behalf of the ALDE Group, on a consistent policy towards authoritarian regimes, against whom the EU applies restrictive measures, when they exercise their personal and commercial interests within EU borders (B7-0235/2011),

               —

               having regard to the UN Charter and specifically Articles 1 and 25 and, in Chapter VII, Articles 39 and 41 thereof,

               —

               having regard to the United Nations human rights conventions and the optional protocols,

               —

               having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the two optional protocols,

               —

               having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights),

               —

               having regard to UNSC Resolution 1674 of 28 April 2006 which reaffirms the provisions of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,

               —

               having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to the European Security Strategy (ESS) entitled ‘A secure Europe in a better world’, adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2003,

               —

               having regard to Resolutions 1267 (1999) on the situation in Afghanistan and 1371 (2001) on the situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC),

               —

               having regard to Articles 21(2), 22 and 36 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

               —

               having regard Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council document entitled ‘Establishment of a Sanctions formation of the Foreign Relations Counsellors Working Party (RELEX/Sanctions)’ of 22 January 2004 (5603/2004),

               —

               having regard to the Council document entitled ‘Basic Principles on the Use of Restrictive Measures (Sanctions)’ of 7 June 2004 (10198/1/2004),

               —

               having regard to the European Court of Justice judgment in Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (ECR 11-3533 (2005)),

               —

               having regard to Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (2),

               —

               having regard to the Council document entitled ‘EU Best Practices for the effective implementation of restrictive measures’ of 9 July 2007 (11679/2007),

               —

               having regard to the Council document entitled ‘Implementation of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP’ of 21 July 2007 (10826/1/2007),

               —

               having regard to the Council document entitled ‘Update of the EU Best Practices for the effective implementation of restrictive measures’ of 24 April 2008 (08666/1/2008),

               —

               having regard to Council Common Position 2009/67/CFSP of 26 January 2009 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2008/586/CFSP (3),

               —

               having regard to the Council document entitled ‘Guidelines on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy’, last reviewed on 15 December 2009 (17464/2009),

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2008 on the evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU’s actions and policies in the area of human rights (4),

               —

               having regard to Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (5),

               —

               having regard to the foreign policy resources of the Member States,

               —

               having regard to Rule 121(3) of the Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0007/2012),

         General observations on the EU approach towards authoritarian leaders

               A.

               whereas the new Article 21 of the TEU, as introduced by Article 1(24) of the Treaty of Lisbon, recognises that the Union’s actions shall be guided by ‘democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law’;

               B.

               whereas sanctions are applied in pursuit of CFSP objectives as set out in Article 21 of the TEU which include promoting international peace and security, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, rule of law and consolidating democracy and good governance;

               C.

               whereas, within the framework of the CFSP, sanctions or restrictive measures are regarded as coercive measures short of force, such as arms embargoes, trade sanctions, financial and economic sanctions, freezing of assets, flight bans, restrictions on admission, diplomatic sanctions, boycotts of sports and cultural events and suspension of cooperation with a third country;

               D.

               whereas the application of sanctions and restrictive measures is effective only if this forms part of a cohesive overarching EU and Member State strategy on human rights;

               E.

               whereas ‘targeted sanctions’ exist in the form of personal sanctions, selective economic measures and diplomatic measures, such as visa bans, asset freezes, embargos on the export or import of specific commodities, flight bans, investment bans or the limitation of official contacts;

               F.

               whereas disagreement among Member States often leads to inconsistent application of restrictive measures which damages the EU’s credibility and has a detrimental impact on the efficiency of those measures;

               G.

               whereas the EU has often applied its sanctions policy inconsistently by treating third countries with similar human rights and democratic records differently, and as such has prompted criticism for applying double standards;

               H.

               whereas progress in information technology makes national borders increasingly irrelevant and, in a globalised world, thus reduces the capacity to isolate a country or its elite;

               I.

               whereas most of the countries subjected to sanctions are those that have remained most isolated from the international system and whose societies would most benefit from enhanced international exposure for the sake of change; whereas in certain cases restrictive measures, notably against certain individuals, can nevertheless have dissuasive and psychological effects;

               J.

               whereas decisions on sanctions by the EU should be taken only after thorough evaluation of the most efficient way to achieve democratic change in the country; whereas each decision should be accompanied by a corresponding justification;

               K.

               whereas the European Union represents to many authoritarian leaders, and persons associated with them, a source of attraction for investment, property and banking, and healthcare services, and an area in which they enjoy freedom to travel and freedom to spend their often dubiously acquired wealth;

               L.

               whereas the opportunity for authoritarian leaders to convert power into personal wealth, often including through the misappropriation of, or personal control over, state assets, offers them the incentive and boosts their capacity to usurp and continue in power; whereas further studies are required in order to minimise any relation between foreign aid for development or other purposes and the enrichment of authoritarian leaders and their inner circles;

               M.

               whereas, without concerted action, accurate information on the assets of authoritarian leaders held within the EU is difficult to obtain and the EU must persevere in seeking to obtain it;

               N.

               whereas sanctioned leaders will be affected if they are personally subject to pressure in the form of restrictions on their ability to move money, invest and access their financial assets, restrictions on prospects for travel, and restrictions on access to particular goods and services or diplomatic representation;

               O.

               whereas the multiplicity of international and regional actors necessitates dialogue and formal and informal mechanisms for consultation between those actors;

               P.

               whereas an essential aspect of an effective policy towards authoritarian regimes must balance coercive diplomacy, including restrictive measures with clear communication and constructive options not involving the use of force, with EU and Member State foreign policy resources preferring a critical and progressive dialogue over isolation;

               Q.

               whereas the review procedure, in which sanctions can be expanded, eased or lifted in response to changes in the actions of targeted leaders, is crucial for restrictive measures to be effective, and must be conducted in a rigorous and strategic manner;

               R.

               whereas all restrictive measures must comply with human rights, international humanitarian law, due process, proportionality and the right to effective redress, and must on no account penalise the most vulnerable population groups in countries affected by these measures;

               1.

               Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

                     Develop clearer definitions

                           (a)

                           to develop clear criteria for when restrictive measures are to be applied, the objectives for such measures, the form of sanctions to be applied, guidelines for their periodic evaluation and the review procedure to be followed in consultation with the European Parliament; to establish the criteria in a way that enhances the consistency and credibility of EU sanctions, but leaves sufficient flexibility at the operational level, enabling the Union to leverage the instrument as an effective tool in its external action;

                           (b)

                           to define clearly and explicitly who is to be sanctioned in the case of failed states or non-state actors, knowing well that the structures are often obscure;

                           (c)

                           to inscribe the sanctions in a comprehensive policy context, establishing specific short-term and long-term objectives for a sustainable democratisation process;

                           (d)

                           to acknowledge that sanctions are not an end in themselves and to accompany their application with clear and achievable benchmarks for the lifting of sanctions;

                           (e)

                           to systematically support the work of the International Criminal Court by ensuring that the procedures and the judgments of the court are duly regarded in EU sanctions policy;

                           (f)

                           to urge the EU Member States to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction in tackling impunity and crimes against humanity, in order to improve the international criminal justice system;

                     Build an efficient sanctions policy

                           (g)

                           to commit to maximizing collaboration and synergy amongst the 27 EU Member States, urging them to speak with a unified and consistent voice on the matter of condemning authoritarian regimes through a single integrated EU approach;

                           (h)

                           to acknowledge that sanctions which are not internationally coordinated can be inefficient and counterproductive to their stated aims, can undermine the transparency, credibility and coherence of the European sanctions policy, and can reinforce the targeted regime or reduce the relative negotiation leeway and credibility of the EU and its Member States with the state in question; to ensure better coordination and exchange of information among Member States by clear procedures;

                           (i)

                           to implement existing sanctions regimes with rigour and consistency, striving to avoid the application of double standards and extending their scope to include cases of violation of fundamental freedoms, and especially of religious freedom and freedom of expression; to ensure that countries belonging to the European Economic Area and applicant countries for accession to the European Union also apply the restrictive measures and exchange relevant information with the Union;

                           (j)

                           to deploy sanctions or restrictive measures which are targeted at and proportionate to the objective pursued, aimed at influencing only the accountable elites of repressive or criminal regimes and the responsible non-state actors of failed states minimising, as far as possible, the adverse impact on civil populations, especially the most vulnerable;

                           (k)

                           to ensure that foreign aid for development or other purposes does not end up being an incentive for the enrichment of authoritarian leaders and their inner circles;

                           (l)

                           to ensure, wherever possible, that the sanctions policy is coupled with support for civil society in the country concerned; to improve the quality and transparency of the reporting stage, so that assistance granted can be quantified precisely and its actual contribution to meeting the needs of civil society accurately assessed;

                           (m)

                           to ensure that there are no double standards when deciding on restrictive measures or sanctions and that these are applied regardless of political, economic and security interests;

                           (n)

                           to ensure that restrictive measures which limit the market activities of European companies in sanctioned countries will not be beneficial to third-country competitors;

                           (o)

                           to ensure that the Member States, as well as EU Heads of Mission and Delegation are closely involved in the process of designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating restrictive measures and their consequences on the ground by providing input for impact assessment, which makes EU presence on the ground essential; to ensure that the relevant information is forwarded promptly to the European Parliament;

                           (p)

                           to ensure that, in countries on which restrictive measures are imposed, the main actors championing democracy and human rights are closely involved in the process of designing, implementing and evaluating restrictive measures;

                           (q)

                           to commit the existing structures within the EEAS and Commission to conduct an in-depth situation analysis of the economic and societal structure of the country in question, prior to and after the adoption of sanctions, thus examining the direct and indirect effects of all specific measures on the political and socioeconomic realms of the society in question, as well as taking into account their impact on business elites, civil society groups, the political opposition and even reform-oriented elements within the government;

                           (r)

                           to commit RELEX Sanctions to fulfil its mandate to conduct research on adopting sanctions, evaluate existing sanctions and develop best practices with regard to the application and implementation of restrictive measures, and to report regularly to the Council and European Parliament on its findings;

                           (s)

                           to commit the EU legal and other relevant services to advise the Council on the precautions required to prevent the circumvention of sanctions by listed individuals;

                           (t)

                           to commit the EEAS and the Commission to a more integrated approach that shares expertise and knowledge in the drawing up, implementation and review of sanctions;

                           (u)

                           to commit the Council and the Commission to allocate sufficient time and resources and employ knowledgeable country experts and staff specialising in human rights for the analyses preceding the design of sanctions and for the evaluation of the effectiveness of sanctions;

                           (v)

                           to commit the Commission and Member States to coordinate the implementation of arms embargoes which are a Member State competence;

                           (w)

                           to commit the Commission and Member States to report annually on the implementation of sanctions efforts and their effectiveness;

                           (x)

                           to call on France and Britain and any non-permanent EU member of the UNSC to use sufficient suasion to ensure that UNSC resolutions are implemented rigorously and thoroughly;

                           (y)

                           to consider, where appropriate, activating ‘essential elements’ clauses in bilateral trade that permit the EU to impose sanctions for breach of human rights and democratic principles and engage in a coherent European foreign policy in order to support measures against authoritarian regimes;

                     Commit to a coherent policy within EU borders

                           (z)

                           to commit EU Member States to declare when persons on the sanction list have physical and financial assets held within their borders, and the approximate value and location of the assets; to call on EU Member States to collaborate in exchanging relevant information, for example through the existing Asset Recovery Offices and the Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network (CARIN): to enhance cooperation between EU Member States in the identification and confiscation of those assets;

                           (aa)

                           to commit all EU Member States to ensure the rigorous application of targeted financial sanctions or restrictive measures such as:

                                       —

                                       extending Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing to apply in a mandatory way to all attempts to open accounts or deposit money by sanctioned dictators and natural and legal person or entities associated with them, this money being the proceeds of crime, theft and embezzlement: and exploring options for other preventive mechanisms to curb the inflow of misappropriated state funds or assets into EU financial institutions;

                                       —

                                       the refusal of loans, the tightening of measures aimed at repayment of loans and the freezing of deposits, in order to ensure that, in practice, the measures deny designated persons and entities all access to all financial services within the EU's jurisdiction;

                           (ab)

                           to ensure that restrictive economic and financial measures, including targeted financial sanctions, are applied by all persons and entities operating within the Union, including nationals of third countries, as well as by Union citizens or economic entities operating outside the Union’s borders but registered or established under the legislation of a Member State of the Union;

                           (ac)

                           to ensure that sanctioned leaders, and natural and legal persons and entities clearly associated with them, are strictly prohibited from owning assets and property within the EU;

                           (ad)

                           to commit EU Member States to prohibit schools and universities, think tanks and other academic institutions from accepting funding, grants, or donations from sanctioned leaders and their natural and legal associates and to establish transparency in their private financing;

                           (ae)

                           to commit EU Member States to prohibit sports associations (including football clubs) and charity organisations from accepting funding, grants or donations from sanctioned leaders and their natural and legal associates;

                           (af)

                           to commit the EU and its Member States to strict adherence to travel bans prohibiting sanctioned persons, from travelling within the EU for any purpose other than on humanitarian grounds;

                           (ag)

                           to commit EU Member States to actively investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute persons or legal entities in Europe that have assisted sanctioned leaders and persons associated with them to evade or avoid the sanctions legally imposed against them;

                     Outreach

                           (ah)

                           to commit the EU to build international support and coalitions for its policies, especially with influential actors in the region in question and international organisations, and to associate the European Parliament fully in the process;

                           (ai)

                           to commit the EU to strengthen legitimacy and build broad public and political support for its policies, including restrictive measures and sanctions, at the EU and international levels, especially in the countries of the sanctioned regimes, and to associate the European Parliament fully in the process;

                           (aj)

                           to urge the EU to cooperate, where the UN Security Council has not applied sanctions or restrictive measures, with states that are applying sanctions, to share information and to coordinate measures in order to guarantee the greatest possible impact at international level and maximise the effectiveness of the application of Community sanctions;

                           (ak)

                           to commit the HR/VP, the Heads of Mission and the EEAS to communicate explicitly to sanctioned leaders what is required of them, and to set precise and achievable targets in order to incentivize positive change and to offer appropriate technical assistance;

                           (al)

                           to commit Member States to sharing information on listed individuals, as far as legally possible, with other states, relevant EU bodies and international organisations;

                           (am)

                           to commit Member States to ensure a reasonable degree of public access to information on national measures with regard to restrictive measures applied;

                           (an)

                           to commit the Council to consult the European Parliament fully in the sanctions review process and to seek input from the European Parliament into the political guidelines and framing of wider EU sanctions policy;

                           (ao)

                           to recall that coercive diplomacy must also be matched with positive measures such as development aid, sustainable economic cooperation and support for civil society;

                           (ap)

                           to accompany sanctions and their evaluation with measures based on cooperation and dialogue with civil society organisations and the peoples of targeted countries, with the aim of developing or strengthening a culture of respect for democracy and human rights in the country in question;

                           (aq)

                           to endeavour to mobilise frozen and confiscated assets in order to repatriate them, as soon as possible to their respective countries to the benefit of the population;

                     *
               * *

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission and the EEAS.

      (1)  OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45.

      (2)  OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59.

      (3)  OJ L 23, 27.1.2009, p. 37.

      (4)  OJ C 295 E, 4.12.2009, p. 49.

      (5)  OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15.


title: Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme for Germany, 2001-2005

text: ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---documentbreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---


Avis juridique important

|

31998H0480

98/480/EC: Commission Recommendation of 22 July 1998 concerning good environmental practice for household laundry detergents (notified under document number C(1998) 2163)

Official Journal L 215 , 01/08/1998 P. 0073 - 0075

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 22 July 1998 concerning good environmental practice for household laundry detergents (notified under document number C(1998) 2163) (98/480/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 155, second indent, thereof,Whereas detergents and cleaning products are already subject to certain Community provisions concerning the manufacture, proper handling, usage and labelling, in particular with reference to Council Directive 73/404/EEC of 22 November 1973 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to detergents (1), as last amended by Directive 86/94/EEC (2), and Commission Recommendation 89/542/EEC of 13 September 1989 for the labelling of detergents and cleaning products (3);Whereas Council Directive 88/379/EEC of 7 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (4), as last amended by Directive 96/65/EC (5), shall apply to detergents classified as dangerous within the meaning of Article 3 of the abovementioned Directive;Whereas the actions envisaged in this recommendation are without prejudice to the requirements set out in European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (6);Whereas separate Community requirements apply to cosmetic products, which are not covered by this recommendation;Whereas the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to laundry detergents established by Commission Decision 95/365/EC (7) are different from the present recommendation, so manufacturers should give due consideration to applying for the European Community eco-label in addition to complying with this recommendation;Whereas the Commission has established guidelines for the effective use of environmental agreements in a communication to the Council and the European Parliament (8); whereas the Council and the European Parliament, in their resolutions of 17 July 1997 and of 7 October 1997 on environmental agreements, have recognised that such agreements may be a valuable instrument to make optimum use of industry's own responsibility (9);Whereas the Commission considers that, in order to enhance the effectiveness and to guarantee the transparency and credibility of this industry commitment recognised by the Commission through a Commission recommendation, all the interested parties are to be consulted on the recommendation and in particular on its implementation and the results achieved;Whereas the reduction of washing temperatures would decrease energy consumption and thus decrease CO2 emissions;Whereas reducing the consumption of detergents and their packaging is likely to lower the general environmental impact related to detergents;Whereas the reduction of the poorly biodegradable ingredients in detergents will reduce the effects of detergents on the environment;Whereas industry elaborated a code of conduct in order to improve the information available to consumers to ensure proper usage and in particular the dosing of detergents by more detailed labelling, educational advertising and other programmes aimed at increasing consumer awareness, to save resources and to bring about a direct positive impact on water quality and on the environment in general;Whereas there are, within each Member State, national associations which represent the great majority of the undertakings in the detergents and cleaning products industry in that Member State, each of which is a member of the AISE (Association internationale de la savonnerie, de la détergence et des produits d'entretien) and which have committed themselves to implement this Commission recommendation;Whereas the AISE, which represents over 90 % of the detergent and cleaning product industries in the Community, has committed itself to ensure compliance with this recommendation in cooperation with the national associations;Whereas non-AISE members who are selling, marketing or producing household laundry detergents within the European Community and the European Economic Area may also participate in this undertaking;Whereas the results achieved under this recommendation should be communicated to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the public, in line with the Commission communication on environmental agreements;Whereas the implementation of this Commission recommendation should be assured on the one hand by the undertaking to the Commission by the AISE to ensure compliance with the provisions of this recommendation and on the other hand by the national associations who will cooperate with the authorities of the Member States in order to ensure the implementation of these provisions;Whereas this recommendation should be implemented as soon as possible in order to reduce the environmental impact related to the use of household detergents;Whereas further efforts by producers and consumers will be necessary to achieve sustainable development,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:Article 1 For the purpose of this recommendation 'household laundry detergents` means products sold to the general public which are intended for washing domestic laundry.Article 2 The total amount of energy used per wash cycle for the product group as defined in Article 1 should be reduced by 5 % by the year 2002 compared with 1996.Article 3 The consumption per capita in the European Community of the product group as defined in Article 1 should be reduced by 10 % by the year 2002 compared with 1996.Article 4 The consumption per capita of the primary and secondary packaging of the product group as defined in Article 1 should be reduced by 10 % by the year 2002 compared with 1996.Article 5 The content of all poorly biodegradable organic ingredients, as defined in the Annex should be decreased by 10 % for the product group as defined in Article 1 by the year 2002 compared with 1996.Article 6 Without prejudice to Council Directive 84/450/EEC (10) concerning misleading advertising, consumers should be provided with information designed to encourage the correct use of household laundry detergents.Article 7 In order to monitor the progress of this recommendation, statistics will be collected in the Member States. The collected statistics should be reported to the Commission and respectively to the national authorities. The information and the data to be collected as well as the process for data collection and verification are defined in the Annex.The national associations of the AISE and the AISE itself will provide for an outside organisation to collect and process statistics.Article 8 For the purpose of the implementation of this recommendation, the national authorities should cooperate with the national members of the AISE.Article 9 Every two years, until the goals set by the recommendation are reached, the Commission will hold consultations with the Member States, the AISE and Consumer Committee (11) on the state of implementation of this recommendation. The Commission will inform the Council and the European Parliament accordingly and make the information publicly available.Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.For the CommissionMartin BANGEMANNMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 347, 17. 12. 1973, p. 51.(2) OJ L 80, 25. 3. 1986, p. 51.(3) OJ L 291, 10. 10. 1989, p. 55.(4) OJ L 187, 16. 7. 1988, p. 14.(5) OJ L 265, 18. 10. 1996, p. 15.(6) OJ L 365, 31. 12. 1994, p. 10.(7) OJ L 217, 13. 9. 1995, p. 14.(8) COM(96) 561 final of 27 November 1996.(9) OJ C 286, 22. 9. 1997, p. 254 and OJ C 321, 22. 10. 1997, p. 6.(10) OJ L 250, 19. 9. 1984, p. 17, Directive as last amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, OJ L 290, 23. 10. 1997, p. 18.(11) OJ L 162, 13. 7. 1995, p. 37.ANNEX The AISE and its national member associations will collect all necessary data and monitor the implementation of this recommendation. For this purpose the national member associations of AISE may cooperate with the national authorities. The reference basis for the implementation of the aims of this recommendation is the year 1996.The following data will be collected for each national market:Product consumptionThe companies will provide the total detergent consumption (in tonnes/year) of household laundry detergents (solid and liquid) for each calendar year. Consumption means the tonnes of detergent sold on each national market.Packaging consumptionThe companies will provide the total consumption (in tonnes/year) of packaging associated with the abovementioned detergent consumption for each calendar year. Consumption means the tonnes of packaging used on each national market.Poorly biodegradable organic ingredientsThe companies will provide the total consumption of poorly biodegradable organic ingredients (1) (in tonnes/year) associated with the abovementioned detergent consumption (solid and liquid) for each calendar year. Consumption means the tonnes of poorly biodegradable organics in detergents sold on each national market.Energy consumptionThe reduction of energy consumption per wash load will be defined on the basis of the change of temperature distribution of wash cycles. The AISE will set up appropriate and representative habit studies on a European basis in order to find the temperature profile for each Member State.The statistics will be collected in Member States to be reported through the AISE to the Commission every second year, except on energy consumption which will be provided only for 1996 and again in the year 2002. The first report with the data for the reference basis of 1996 will be presented to the Commission in September 1998.The first progress report covering 1997 and 1998 will be presented to the Commission in September 1999. The reports to the Commission will include the data for each Member State and the average data for the EU.The compliance with the aims of this recommendation will be judged by the weighted average data for the EU.With the first report the AISE will present to the Commission a list of companies implementing the recommendation in each Member State.The collection and verification of data will be executed by an independent body with suitable expertise. Confidentiality of the data of individual companies shall be guaranteed by the independent body.(1) Poorly biodegradable organic ingredients are those which fail to biodegrade by more than 70 % in SCAS or Zahn Wellens biodegradability test as defined under C.12. and C.9 of Annex V to Directive 67/548/EEC (OJ 196, 16. 8. 1967, p. 1), as last amended by Directive 92/32/EEC (OJ L 154, 5. 6. 1992).


title: European Endowment for Democracy European Parliament recommendation of 29 March 2012 to the Council on the modalities for the possible establishment of a European Endowment for Democracy (EED) (2011/2245(INI))

text:
               6.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CE 257/13

         Thursday 29 March 2012European Endowment for Democracy
   P7_TA(2012)0113
   European Parliament recommendation of 29 March 2012 to the Council on the modalities for the possible establishment of a European Endowment for Democracy (EED) (2011/2245(INI))
   2013/C 257 E/03

      The European Parliament,

               —

               having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on the modalities for the possible establishment of a European Endowment for Democracy (B7-0391/2011),

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2011 on EU external policies in favour of democratisation (1),

               —

               having regard to Articles 2, 6, 8 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union,

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (2) and in particular paragraph 10 thereof,

               —

               having regard to its resolutions of 7 April 2011 on Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy – Eastern Dimension (3) and Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy – Southern Dimension (4),

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2010 on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2009 and the European Union's policy on the matter (5),

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2002 on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (6),

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (EIDHR) (7),

               —

               having regard to the agreements concluded between the EU and third countries and to the human rights and democracy clauses contained therein,

               —

               having regard to the Council conclusions of 18 May 2009 on ‘Support to democratic governance: towards an enhanced EU framework’,

               —

               having regard to three sets of Council conclusions: those of 22 October 2009 on ‘Democracy support in the EU's external relations’, those of 13 December 2010 containing the ‘2010 progress report and list of pilot countries’ and those of 20 June 2011 on the European Neighbourhood Policy,

               —

               having regard to the joint communication by the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs And Security Policy of 25 May 2011 on ‘A new response to a changing neighbourhood’ (COM(2011)0303),

               —

               having regard to the joint communication from the Commission entitled ‘A partnership for democracy and shared prosperity with the southern Mediterranean’ (COM(2011)0200),

               —

               having regard to the Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions on the European Neighbourhood Policy adopted on 20 June 2011, at its 3101st meeting,

               —

               having regard to the Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions on the European Endowment for Democracy adopted on 1 December 2011, at its 3130th meeting,

               —

               having regard to the Commission's thematic and geographic financial instruments concerning democratisation and human rights (such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Initiative (ENPI), etc),

               —

               having regard to the letter of support for the establishment of the EED, addressed to EP President Jerzy Buzek and HR/VP Catherine Ashton and dated 25 November 2011,

               —

               having regard to Rules 121(3) and 97 of its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0061/2012),

               A.

               whereas the EU Treaties enshrine universal human rights and democracy as founding values of the Union and as principles and objectives of the Union's external action;

               B.

               whereas Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lays down the principle of gender mainstreaming, stating that the Union shall in all its activities aim to eliminate inequalities and to promote equality between men and women;

               C.

               whereas, in its Agenda for Action on Democracy Support in EU External Relations, the Council stated that it wished to improve the coherence and effectiveness of its support, but whereas limited progress has been made in that respect;

               D.

               whereas Parliament welcomed the initiative of establishing the European Endowment for Democracy in its resolution of 7 July 2011 on EU external policies in favour of democratisation;

               E.

               whereas the establishment of the EED was supported in the letter addressed to EP President Jerzy Buzek and HR/VP Catherine Ashton by several high-profile human rights defenders, including Sakharov Prize laureates Aung San Suu Kyi and Alaksandr Milinkievic;

               F.

               whereas the EU and its Member States have not yet translated into action a truly coherent and strategic approach to democratisation matters which recognises democracy support as an issue in its own right;

               G.

               whereas the events of the ‘Arab Spring’ and the Eastern Neighbourhood have demonstrated the need for an urgent strategic engagement of the EU with authoritarian countries and those striving for democratic reforms, based on a new and different approach in order to restore credibility and offer timely assistance to the process of transition to democracy; whereas setting up the European Endowment for Democracy could be one of the most tangible responses by the EU to the challenges of democratisation, in our neighbourhood and beyond;

               H.

               whereas women play a key role in the processes of democratisation and the success of social movements;

               I.

               whereas the recent events in North Africa and the Middle East have demonstrated that women are determinant actors for democratic change and that women’s rights are often violated, with women being put at greater risk of poverty and marginalised in their country’s political, social, and economic life;

               J.

               whereas the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have underscored the urgency of addressing instability and undemocratic regimes in the EU's neighbourhood as relevant to Europe's own security and stability;

               K.

               whereas the strengthened approach to democracy and human rights support developed in the context of the EU Neighbourhood Policy and the EU Agenda for Change needs to be accompanied by an increased capacity to react both rapidly and consistently to developments concerning democracy and the rule of law;

               L.

               whereas the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) focuses on urgent measures as regards human rights defenders at risk, including journalists and opposition figures, and on longer-term measures complementing the existing EU geographic instruments;

               M.

               whereas political parties, eminent political personalities (e.g. dissidents, opposition figures and leaders of youth organisations), social movements, and representatives of civil society, the cultural sector and the media (e.g. journalists, bloggers, social media activists and artists) with a clear agenda seeking to improve democracy continue to play a central role in each democracy and democratisation process; whereas, owing to lack of resources, a restricted mandate and lengthy EIDHR procedures, support for these actors has in the past been limited;

               N.

               whereas the Foreign Affairs Council has endorsed the initiative of creating a European Endowment for Democracy (EED); whereas work is proceeding swiftly towards its establishment and there is an urgent need to reach agreement on the detailed operational aspects;

               1.

               Addresses the following recommendation to the Council, urging it to:

                           (a)

                           ensure that the EED will generate a more strategic and political approach on the EU’s part to democracy support, by providing context-specific, flexible, timely and bottom-up assistance with rapid reprogramming where this is needed to help facilitate democratic transition in partner countries;

                           (b)

                           show that, in order to achieve the objectives spelt out above, the creation of a new Fund is more appropriate and more effective than a revision of the existing instruments and in particular of the EIDHR;

                           (c)

                           clarify the mission and values of the EED in order to ensure clear criteria for the selection of beneficiaries, in particular regarding the methodology of the selection process;

                           (d)

                           emphasise the coherence and effectiveness of EU democracy support, as laid down in the Agenda for Action on Democracy Support in EU External Relations, and mandate and organise the EED in this spirit;

                           (e)

                           request that the EED guarantee the principle of national ownership of democratic processes and that democracy-building be carried out through empowerment of the bases of society, up to the highest organs of government;

                           (f)

                           ensure that the EED, while encouraging ‘deep and sustainable democracy’ in pre-transition, transition and post-transition countries, with a primary though not exclusive focus on the European Neighbourhood, receives a focused mandate, allowing it to complement democracy support measures from other instruments and underlining the added value brought by the new entity;

                           (g)

                           gain valuable experience through an initial (though not exclusive) focus on the European Neighbourhood;

                           (h)

                           guarantee that the EED plays a synergetic and complementary role relative to the work undertaken by the EU institutions, including the European Parliament, and the Member States, their agencies, and the foundations they fund, while working closely with them, creating partnerships and avoiding duplication; seek complementarity and close coordination with the Anna Lindh Foundation, particularly in order to promote democracy in the Mediterranean;

                           (i)

                           ensure that the EED provides added value by complementing and not overlapping with or curtailing the activities of the existing funding instruments, particularly the EIDHR and the IfS; note that the EED could launch projects which could later be continued by the EIDHR or the geographic instruments, creating a programming interface so as to ensure coherence and sustainability in the longer term;

                           (j)

                           define a precise methodology so as to avoid any overlap between financial instruments, the complex web of Community and parliamentary structures (OPPD, ECG, etc) responsible for human rights, and the EED before any work is started on the project;

                           (k)

                           ensure at the strategic planning level that the EED cooperates with the other EU instruments and structures engaged in human rights and democracy work, especially the EIDHR, the IfS, the CSF and the geographic instruments; ensure sound and transparent financial management and low administrative and transaction costs; bear in mind the importance of the Community method, with the Commission being invited to examine as soon as possible how EU instruments could in the future provide more rapid response mechanisms and how and when an EU trust fund could be set up if the appropriate legal basis is established in the new Financial Regulation; ensure that if the EU budget contributes towards financing the EED, this will not be at the expense of the already limited resources of the EIDHR;

                           (l)

                           enable the EED to act in three stages: pre-transition, transition and post-transition, and to kick-start projects and innovative solutions and ideas at ground level which could not hitherto be supported by the EU for reasons of procedural constraints or risk mitigation; model the EED, in addition, in such a way as to make it less risk-averse while respecting the EU Financial Regulation;

                           (m)

                           request that the impartiality of the EU Election Observation Missions be ensured, considering, therefore, that the EED should not include such missions amongst its activities to promote democracy;

                           (n)

                           address, in the early stages of funding in a specific country, a wide group of potential beneficiaries, including key pro-democracy political players (e.g. emerging political actors, grassroots movements and non-registered NGOs, and trade unions), watchdogs, whistleblowers, individual political activists, cultural actors, new media actors (bloggers and others), minority rights organisations and think-tanks, in order to enable the EED to support a wide variety of local actors striving for democratic reforms; provide support to the above-mentioned political actors and movements in a pluralist manner;

                           (o)

                           ensure that the EED pays special attention to the participation of women in the democratic reform process, by supporting women’s organisations and projects in gender-sensitive areas such as combating violence, generating employment, and political participation, extending equal access to justice and education for women and girls, and preventing or ending existing violations of women’s rights;

                           (p)

                           consider it essential that the EED grant multi-party support to associations in transition countries, given their role as key players in democracy and so that they can contribute to achieving national consensus;

                           (q)

                           give the EED the power to award grants directly to the intended beneficiaries, in a non-discriminatory manner and in consultation with the EU delegations on the ground, and, possibly, through political foundations and NGOs with a proven track record of successful work in the field of democracy support; particularly at the beginning, ensure that re-granting operates as an effective mechanism to enable the EED to work with partners on the ground who have the requisite knowledge and local infrastructure and enjoy the trust of local people; note that re-granting, provided it respects political plurality at EU level and operates through core grantees, would reduce both the administrative burden on the EED and the potential risks;

                           (r)

                           ensure that the EU can exercise political influence in accordance with its budgetary contribution; establish a light, transparent and politically representative governance structure, providing a balanced and cost-effective mix between representatives of the Member States and EU institutions, including Parliament, and independent experts and practitioners; strike a clear balance between the autonomy and independence of the EED and its accountability to its funders, and ensure the highest possible degree of financial probity in its accounts, taking special care to ensure that funds are not lost to corruption and that no funds are paid out to any person or entity with any links whatsoever to criminal or terrorist organisations;

                           (s)

                           structure the EED as an administratively light, flexible and efficient Brussels-based structure, with straightforward grant award mechanisms; applicants should not be required to undergo cumbersome tendering procedures; cofinancing by beneficiaries should not be a prerequisite for funding; the award of grants should be conditional on compliance with strict and clear criteria, and the list of beneficiaries should be made public unless it jeopardises their security; appropriate safeguards should be implemented to avoid fraud and misuse of funds;

                           (t)

                           build into the EED appropriate channels for structured cooperation and coordination with the Brussels- and field-based actors; provide for close coordination and consultation between the future Executive Committee and the EED staff and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Commission and Parliament on the strategies, objectives and initiatives of the respective EU instruments, as well as a structured dialogue with the EU delegations and Member State embassies on the ground;

                           (u)

                           ensure that the EED has robust links and consults regularly with beneficiary groups, but without having regional offices, relying instead on the EU delegations and on local organisations or independent experts and practitioners who have been thoroughly vetted to ensure that they have no links whatsoever to criminal or terrorist organisations;

                           (v)

                           ensure that an adequate monitoring system to assess the effectiveness of the funding provided is put in place;

                           (w)

                           consider, however, that priority should be given to establishing the EED as an external financing instrument of the EU within the Union’s institutional framework, so as to ensure that Parliament can duly exercise its legislative and budgetary powers in relation to the EU’s contribution and programming activities;

                           (x)

                           guarantee that the EU's contribution to the EED budget is delivered in full conformity with the principles of good financial practice and is administered by staff trained in the application of the Financial Regulation in relation to the EU budget, and that Parliament can exercise full budgetary and legislative control, including the possible monitoring and scrutinising by the budgetary authority of how this funding is used;

                           (y)

                           guarantee that Parliament can exercise broad political oversight over the EED’s activities and programming and ensure that the implementation of its measures is thoroughly monitored and evaluated by an independent third party, inter alia by ensuring that Parliament is kept informed of the EED’s annual reports; allow Parliament sufficient space to enable it to contribute during the programming phase, set priorities and strategic lines of action, and share its creative power and transitional experiences from Member States in support of democratisation processes beyond Europe's borders;

                           (z)

                           ensure that Parliament is involved and consulted throughout the process of activation and implementation of the EED, through, inter alia, a politically balanced selection of MEPs on its Board of Governors and Executive Committee; review the composition of the Board of Governors to ensure that Member States are represented through the Council, and increase the participation of Parliament in the governing board of this instrument, so as to guarantee proper influence in line with Parliament's responsibility as one of the arms of the EU's budgetary authority; enable Parliament to provide input into defining the political and strategic guidelines, priorities, expected results and overall financial allocations underpinning the endowment's activities in a meaningful and systematic manner;

                           (aa)

                           keep under review the EED's impact, performance, and added value vis-à-vis the EU instruments and the sustainability of funded actions; draw appropriate conclusions and, if necessary, adjust its size, structure, funding mechanism and executive accountability accordingly; ensure that the results of such assessments are forwarded to Parliament;

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission and the Member States.

      (1)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0334.

      (2)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0576.

      (3)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0153.

      (4)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0154.

      (5)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0489.

      (6)  OJ C 131 E, 5.6.2003, p. 147.

      (7)  OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 1.