title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/2243 of 22 December 2020 on a coordinated approach to travel and transport in response to the SARS-COV-2 variant observed in the United Kingdom

text:
               28.12.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 436/72

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2020/2243
      of 22 December 2020
      on a coordinated approach to travel and transport in response to the SARS-COV-2 variant observed in the United Kingdom
      THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
      Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  On 13 October 2020, the Council adopted Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 (1) on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

                  (2)

                  The objective of Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 is to ensure increased coordination among Member States in view of the adoption of measures, at national level, that restrict free movement on grounds of public health. That Recommendation provides the necessary framework coordinating the adoption of specific measures to contain the spread of COVID-19, which must be proportionate and non-discriminatory. For example, it provides for which measures could be applied to travellers arriving from a high-risk area and the necessary exceptions from any such measures. Furthermore, it requires the provision of timely and up-to-date information to the general public on newly introduced measures.

                  (3)

                  Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 is addressed to all Member States. During the transition period, provided for in Article 126 of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (2), and pursuant to Article 127 of that Agreement, Union law, including Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 continues to apply to the United Kingdom. During the transition period, UK nationals are to be considered as EU citizens and UK residents are to be considered as Union residents, in particular for the purpose of benefiting from the freedom of movement under Union law and for the purpose of that Recommendation.

                  (4)

                  In 2020 the Commission adopted a number of guidance documents on Green Lanes, including its Communication of 28 October 2020 upgrading the concept of Green Lanes to cover not only road but also rail, waterborne freight and air cargo, to ensure that essential supply chains continue to function and to avoid any disruption of freight and logistics in the EU in the second wave of the pandemic.

                  (5)

                  On 30 June 2020, the Council adopted a Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 (3) on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction. In that Recommendation, the Council adopted a common approach with regard to the temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU as agreed by the Heads of State or Government of the EU on 17 March 2020 and the gradual lifting of such restriction.

                  (6)

                  Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 has two Annexes: Annex I listing the third countries whose residents should not be affected by temporary external borders restriction on non-essential travel to the EU, and Annex II listing specific categories of travellers with an essential function or need.

                  (7)

                  Following the expiry of the transition period provided for in Article 126 of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (4), the United Kingdom shall be considered as a third country for the purpose of Recommendation (EU) 2020/912. Unless a decision is taken to include the United Kingdom on the list of third countries in Annex I to that Recommendation or unless otherwise agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom beforehand, non-essential travel from the United Kingdom to the European Union will not be possible as of 1 January 2021. At the same time, EU citizens residing in the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from the rules and safeguards provided for in point 5(a) of Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 after 1 January 2021.

                  (8)

                  Over the last few weeks, the United Kingdom has faced a rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in South-East England, leading to enhanced epidemiological and virological investigations. Analysis of viral genome sequence data identified a large proportion of cases belonged to a new variant of SARS-CoV-2, defined by multiple spike protein mutations present as well as mutations in other genomic regions. While it is known and expected that viruses constantly change through mutation leading to the emergence of new variants, preliminary analysis in the UK suggests that this variant is significantly more transmissible than previously circulating variants, with an estimated increased transmissibility of up to 70 %. There is no indication at this point of increased disease severity associated with the new variant.

                  (9)

                  This new variant has emerged at a time of the year when there has traditionally been increased family and social contacts. In response to these developments, on 19 December 2020, the government of the United Kingdom announced tougher restrictions for large parts of South East England, including advice that people should not travel into or out of those areas, and that people in those areas should not travel abroad, apart from limited exceptions.

                  (10)

                  A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands. Other countries that have reported such cases include Iceland and Australia. While, it is likely that the variant is already circulating in other EU Member States, further epidemiological and virological research is needed to determine the current spread of this strain within the EU.

                  (11)

                  In light of the risk of further importing this variant, with consequences in terms of higher numbers of cases and hence of hospitalisations, Member States have taken temporary precautionary measures in relation to travel from the United Kingdom, pending a common approach. Where a Member State, in the specific context of the situation between the EU and the UK and in the coming days, requires rapid antigen tests for transport workers, this should not lead to transport disruptions. Within the EU, the Green Lanes approach will remain of fundamental importance.

                  (12)

                  At the meeting of the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) of 21 December 2020, many Member States called for a coordinated approach,

            RECOMMENDS that:

                  1.

                  Until the end of the transition period provided for in Article 126 of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, namely 31 December 2020, Member States should continue applying the principles and mechanisms set out in Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 when adopting measures restricting free movement from the United Kingdom to the European Union.
                  According to point 17 of Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475, Member States should in principle not refuse the entry of persons travelling from other Member States or, during the transition period, the United Kingdom.

                  2.

                  In particular, all Member States should implement points 19 to 21 of Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 concerning the common framework on possible measures for travellers coming from higher-risk areas. Member States should in the light of the precautionary principle discourage all non-essential travel to and from the United Kingdom until further notice. However, in line with Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475, the following groups should be exempted from further temporary restriction, provided that they undergo a RT-PCR test or, alternatively, a rapid antigen test within 72 hours prior to departure, or respect 10 days of quarantine and undergo a RT-PCR test on day 10 with a negative result:

                              (a)

                              Union citizens within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU and third-country nationals who, under agreements between the Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and those third countries, on the other hand, enjoy rights of free movement equivalent to those of Union citizens, travelling to their Member State or country of nationality;

                              (b)

                              Union citizens within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU, third-country nationals who, under agreements between the Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and those third countries, on the other hand, enjoy rights of free movement equivalent to those of Union citizens, and UK nationals, travelling to their Member State or country of residence;

                              (c)

                              third-country nationals who are long-term residents under the Long-term Residence Directive , persons deriving their right to reside from other EU Directives, national law or who hold national long-term visas, travelling to their Member State of residence;

                              (d)

                              the family members of the persons referred to under points (a) to (c).

                  3.

                  Travellers with an essential function or need as defined in point 19 of Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475, with the exception of transport workers, should be required to undergo a RT-PCR test, or, alternatively, a rapid antigen test within 72 hours prior to departure, but should not be required to undergo quarantine while exercising this essential function.

                  4.

                  Transit of passengers, especially for those undertaking essential travel, should be facilitated without quarantine. In case a negative RT-PCR test result is required for transit, travellers should be informed of this requirement before they start their journey or be offered testing during their layover without undue delay.

                  5.

                  Given the need to ensure transport of persons coming under the categories referred to above, the prohibition of transport services, such as flight or train bans, should be discontinued (5).

                  6.

                  Transport staff including truck and train drivers, inland waterways crews and aircrew should be exempted from any travel ban across any border. Similarly, travel and transit of seafarers should be facilitated. Transport staff and seafarers should be exempted from testing and quarantine requirements when they are travelling across a border to and from a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, although they should respect the general protection and distancing measures that are applied locally. Where a Member State, in the specific context of the situation between the EU and the UK and in the coming days, requires rapid antigen tests for transport workers, this should not lead to transport disruptions. Finally, connectivity for essential travel, including the return home of nationals and residents, should be upheld while respecting the relevant precautionary measures.

                  7.

                  Cargo flows also need to continue uninterrupted, in accordance with the Green Lanes and the Air Cargo Communication (6), not least to ensure the timely distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and ancillary supplies, for example.

                  8.

                  Any new measures taken by the Member States in view of the United Kingdom should state explicitly that they expire at the end of the transition period, i.e. on 31 December 2020.

                  9.

                  Member States should ensure timely, up-to-date and comprehensive information to the general public via all available communication channels.

                  10.

                  The public health authorities and laboratories of the Member States should, in full respect of fundamental rights:

                              (a)

                              Increase sequencing efforts and analyse virus isolates in a timely manner to swiftly identify cases of the new variant, in particular, virus isolates from cases involving persons who have recently visited or have a link to countries where the variant is present is relevant;

                              (b)

                              Immediately identify cases involving persons who travelled to or from the UK in the past 14 days in order to test by RT-PCR, isolate, and be subjected to enhanced contact tracing. Virus isolates from such cases should be sequenced in a timely manner to identify cases of the new variant.

                              (c)

                              Immediately identify cases involving persons that are close contacts of a confirmed case of the new variant or with a travel history to the UK in order to test, isolate and follow up their contacts and to stop the spread of the new variant. Virus isolates from such cases should be sequenced in a timely manner to identify cases of the new variant.

                  11.

                  As of 1 January 2021, Member States will apply Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel to the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction (7) with regard to the nationals of the United Kingdom and other third country nationals residing in the United Kingdom who have been benefiting from the right of free movement under Union law until the end of the transition period. This means that only essential travel may take place from the United Kingdom to the Schengen area as long as the United Kingdom is not placed on the list in Annex I of that Recommendation.

                  12.

                  In accordance with point 5 of Recommendation (EU) 2020/912, the following categories of persons should be exempted from the travel restriction, independent of the purpose of travel, under the condition that they undergo a RT-PCR test or, alternatively, a rapid antigen test within 72 hours prior to departure, or respect 10 days of quarantine and undergo a RT-PCR test on day 10 with a negative result:

                              (a)

                              Union citizens within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU and third-country nationals who, under agreements between the Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and those third countries, on the other hand, enjoy rights of free movement equivalent to those of Union citizens, as well as their respective family members;

                              (b)

                              third-country nationals who are long-term residents under the Long-term Residence Directive (8), persons deriving their right to reside from other EU Directives or national law or who hold national long-term visas, as well as their respective family members. This should also cover persons deriving their right to reside in the EU from the Withdrawal Agreement.

                  13.

                  UK nationals who are not legally resident in the EU are not covered by the exemption of point 5(b) of Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 as of 1 January 2021. This means that UK nationals who are not protected by the Withdrawal Agreement and are also not legally resident in the Union nor members of the family of Union citizens cannot rely on point 5(b) of Recommendation (EU) 2020/912. However, such UK nationals may nevertheless be covered by the exception on essential travel (essential function or need) such as set out in Annex II to Recommendation (EU) 2020/912.

                  14.

                  Member States and Schengen Associated Countries should take all measures in a coordinated and coherent manner and inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures they have taken as soon as possible. They should communicate any future measures before their entry into force. Air service restrictions must be notified in accordance with Articles 21 and 21a of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008.

         Done at Brussels, 22 December 2020.

               For the Commission

            Ylva JOHANSSON

               Member of the Commission

         (1)  OJ L 337, 14.10.2020, p. 3.

         (2)  OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 7.

         (3)  Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 of 30 June 2020 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction (OJ L 208 I, 1.7.2020, p. 1).

         (4)  See footnote 2.

         (5)  It is recalled that, in any event, Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3) limits very strictly the possibility for Member States to ban flights, cf. Article 21, as well as Article 21a (applicable until 31 December 2020).

         (6)  Communication from the European Commission – Guidelines: Facilitating Air Cargo Operations during COVID-19 outbreak, C/2020/2010 (OJ C 100 I, 27.3.2020, p. 1).

         (7)  See footnote 3

         (8)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 44).


title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/2245 of 18 December 2020 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (notified under document C(2020) 8750) (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               29.12.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 439/23

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2020/2245
      of 18 December 2020
      on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Code

            (notified under document C(2020) 8750)

      (Text with EEA relevance)
      THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
      Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
      Having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (1) (the Code), and in particular Article 64(1) thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  Directive (EU) 2018/1972 seeks, in addition to the three primary objectives of promoting competition, the internal market and end-user interests, to promote connectivity and access to, and take-up of, very high capacity networks, including fixed, mobile and wireless networks, for the benefit of all citizens and businesses of the Union.

                  (2)

                  The appropriate incentives for investment in new, very high capacity networks, which support innovation in content-rich internet services, will strengthen the international competitiveness of the Union while delivering benefits to its consumers and businesses. It is therefore crucial to promote sustainable investment in the development of very high capacity networks by means of an appropriately adapted and predictable regulatory framework.

                  (3)

                  One of the aims of the new regulatory framework is to progressively reduce ex ante sector-specific rules as competition in the markets develops and, ultimately, to ensure that electronic communications markets are governed only by competition law. In line with this objective, the purpose of this Recommendation is to identify those product and service markets in which ex ante regulation may be justified.

                  (4)

                  The definition of relevant markets may change over time as the characteristics of products and services available on such markets evolve and the possibilities for demand and supply substitution change due to technological, market and regulatory developments. For this reason, this Recommendation should therefore replace the 2014 Recommendation (2).

                  (5)

                  Article 64(1) of the Code requires the Commission to identify markets within the electronic communications sector, the characteristics of which may be such as to justify the imposition of regulatory obligations in accordance with the principles of competition law. Competition law principles are therefore used in this Recommendation to define relevant product markets in the electronic communications sector.

                  (6)

                  The ultimate objective of regulatory intervention is to produce benefits for end-users in terms of price, quality and choice by achieving sustainable competition at retail level. The starting point for the identification of relevant markets in this Recommendation should be the definition of retail markets in a forward-looking perspective over a given time horizon, guided by competition law. Indeed, where retail markets are effectively competitive in the absence of wholesale regulation, national regulatory authorities should conclude that regulation is no longer needed on related wholesale markets.

                  (7)

                  In accordance with Article 67(1) of the Code, imposition of ex ante regulatory obligations may be justified only in markets where the three criteria referred to in Article 67(1)(a), (b), (c) are cumulatively met. This Recommendation includes product and service markets, which the Commission, after observing the overall trends in the Union, found to meet the three criteria. Hence these markets are considered by the Commission to have characteristics which may justify the imposition of regulatory obligations at least in some geographic areas and over a foreseeable period. It should be for the national regulatory authorities to consider in their analyses of these markets whether the further requirements set in Article 67(2) are met.

                  (8)

                  The first criterion relates to the presence of high and non-transitory barriers to entry. It seeks to establish whether, when, and to what extent market entry is likely to occur, and to identify the relevant factors for a successful entry into an electronic communications market. From a static point of view, two types of barriers to entry are particularly relevant for the purpose of this Recommendation: structural barriers and legal or regulatory barriers.

                  (9)

                  Structural barriers to entry derive from different cost or demand conditions that determine asymmetric conditions between incumbents and new entrants, impeding or preventing market entry of the latter. High structural barriers may also be found, for instance, when the market is characterised by absolute cost advantages or substantial economies of scale and/or network effects, capacity constraints and/or high sunk costs. Structural barriers can also exist where the provision of service requires a network component that cannot be technically duplicated or its duplication is not economically feasible.

                  (10)

                  Legal or regulatory barriers may have a direct effect on the conditions of entry and/or the positioning of operators on the relevant market. In regulated sectors, authorisation procedures, territorial restrictions, safety and security standards, and other legal requirements may deter or delay entry. However, the relevance of legal and regulatory barriers in electronic communications markets is decreasing. Legal or regulatory barriers that are likely to be removed within the relevant time horizon of 5 years should not normally constitute a barrier to entry such as to fulfil the first criterion.

                  (11)

                  In innovation-driven markets characterised by ongoing technological progress, such as the electronic communications markets, barriers to entry may progressively become less relevant. In such markets, competitive constraints often come from threats exerted by potential innovative competitors that are not currently in the market. Therefore, the possibilities to overcome barriers to entry within the relevant time horizon should also be taken into consideration when identifying the relevant markets for possible ex ante regulation. This Recommendation identifies markets where barriers to entry are expected to persist for the period of the next 5-10 years.

                  (12)

                  Different barriers to entry should not be considered in isolation but cumulatively. While an entry barrier when regarded individually may not be considered as high, together with other barriers might create effects which cumulatively would prevent or impede entry into the market.

                  (13)

                  The second criterion addresses whether a market structure tends towards effective competition within the relevant time horizon, having regard to the state and prospect of infrastructure-based competition and other sources of competition behind the barriers to entry. An analysis of effective competition implies that the market will become effectively competitive absent ex ante regulation within the period of review, or will do so after that period, provided that clear evidence of positive dynamics in the market is observable already within the period of review. For instance convergence of products, delivered via different network technologies, may give rise to competitive constraints being exercised by operators active in distinct product markets and may lead to the convergence of markets.

                  (14)

                  Even when a market is characterised by high barriers to entry, other structural factors in that market may indicate that the market still tends towards effective competition within the relevant time horizon. In markets where an increased number of networks can be expected on a forward-looking basis, the application of this criterion entails primarily examining the state and likely future development of infrastructure-based competition.

                  (15)

                  In assessing the adequacy of competition and the need for regulatory intervention, national regulatory authorities should also take into account whether wholesale access is available to any interested undertaking on reasonable commercial terms permitting sustainable competitive outcomes for end-users on the retail market. Commercial agreements, including agreements on wholesale access, co-investment agreements and reciprocal access agreements between operators, which have been entered on a lasting basis and are sustainable, have the potential to improve competitive dynamics and may ultimately resolve competition concerns at the related retail market and therefore lead to deregulation of the wholesale markets. Thus, provided that they comply with principles of competition law, they should be taken into consideration when assessing whether a market is expected to become competitive on a forward-looking basis.

                  (16)

                  Technological developments, or the convergence of products and markets, may give rise to competitive constraints being exercised between operators active in distinct product markets. In this respect, over-the-top (OTT) services, which today are generally not considered as direct substitutes to traditional services provided by electronic communication service providers, and which in any case do not provide physical and data connectivity, might nevertheless play a more important role in certain retail markets in the coming years due to further technological developments and their continuous expansion and subsequently exercise indirect constraint on wholesale markets.

                  (17)

                  The decision to define a market as susceptible to ex ante regulation should also depend on an assessment of the sufficiency of competition law to address adequately the market failures identified. This third criterion aims to assess the adequacy of competition law to tackle identified persistent market failure(s), in particular given that ex ante regulatory obligations may effectively prevent competition law infringements. Competition law based interventions are likely to be insufficient where frequent and/or timely intervention is indispensable to redress persistent market failure(s). In such circumstances, ex ante regulation should be considered an appropriate complement to competition law. In general, the application of general competition rules in markets characterised by sustainable and effective infrastructure-based competition should be sufficient.

                  (18)

                  The application of these three cumulative criteria should limit the number of regulated markets within the electronic communications sector and thereby contribute to reducing ex ante sector-specific regulation progressively as competition in those markets develops. Failure to meet any of the three criteria would indicate that a market is not susceptible to ex ante regulation. It is essential that ex ante regulatory obligations are imposed on a wholesale market in order to ensure sustainable competition only where there are one or more undertakings with significant market power and where competition law remedies are not sufficient to address the problem.

                  (19)

                  Newly emerging markets are considered to comprise products or services where, due to their novelty, it is difficult to predict demand conditions or market entry and supply conditions, and consequently difficult to apply the three-criteria test. Such markets should not be subject to inappropriate ex ante regulatory obligations in order to promote innovation, while preventing, at the same time, foreclosure by the leading undertaking (3). Incremental upgrades to existing network infrastructure rarely lead to the creation of new or emerging market. The lack of substitutability of a product has to be established from both demand and supply side perspectives before it can be concluded that it is not part of an already existing market. The emergence of new retail services may give rise to a new derived wholesale market to the extent that such retail services cannot be provided using existing wholesale products.

                  (20)

                  Given the evolution of competition, including infrastructure-based competition, this Recommendation identifies only relevant markets at the wholesale level, as was the case in the 2014 Recommendation. Ex ante regulation imposed at the wholesale level should be considered sufficient to tackle potential competition problems on the related downstream retail market(s).

                  (21)

                  In line with Recital 165 of the Code, national regulatory authorities should at least analyse the markets that are listed in the Recommendation, including those markets that are listed but no longer regulated in the specific national or local context. With respect to the markets listed in the Annex to this Recommendation, national regulatory authorities may still consider it appropriate, based on specific national circumstances, to conduct the three-criteria test. National regulatory authorities may conclude that the three-criteria test is not met in the specific national circumstances. If the three-criteria test is not met for a specific market listed in the Recommendation, national regulatory authorities should not impose regulatory obligations on that market.

                  (22)

                  National regulatory authorities should also analyse markets that are not contained in this Recommendation, but that are regulated within the territory of their jurisdiction on the basis of previous market analyses, or other markets, if they have sufficient grounds to consider that the three criteria test is met. Hence, the national regulatory authorities can also define other relevant product and service markets, not listed in this Recommendation, if they can prove that in their national context, the markets meet the three criteria test.

                  (23)

                  When carrying out a market analysis under Article 67 of the Code, both the national regulatory authorities and the Commission should start the analysis from the retail markets. The assessment of a market should be done with a forward-looking perspective in the absence of regulation based on a finding of significant market power and starting from existing market conditions. The analysis should assess whether the market is prospectively competitive and whether any lack of competition is durable, by taking into account expected or foreseeable market developments. The analysis should take into account the effects of other types of regulation applicable to the relevant retail and related wholesale market(s) throughout the relevant regulatory period.

                  (24)

                  If the retail market concerned is not effectively competitive from a forward-looking perspective in the absence of ex ante regulation, the corresponding wholesale market(s) susceptible to ex ante regulation in line with Article 67 of the Code should be defined and analysed. In addition, when analysing the boundaries and market power within (a) corresponding relevant wholesale market(s) to determine whether it is/they are effectively competitive, direct and indirect competitive constraints should be taken into account, irrespective of whether these constraints result from electronic communications networks, electronic communications services or other types of services or applications that are equivalent from the end-users’ perspective.

                  (25)

                  When defining the relevant wholesale markets which may be susceptible to ex ante regulation, national regulatory authorities should start by analysing the market which is most upstream of the retail market in which competitive problems have been identified. National regulatory authorities should conduct an analysis of the markets that are situated downstream from a regulated upstream input, to determine whether they would be effectively competitive in the presence of regulation upstream, until it reaches the retail market.

                  (26)

                  The most upstream market may, depending on national circumstances, consist of or include more generic cross-market wholesale products such as physical infrastructure access (e.g. duct access) or passive access products. In particular, where civil engineering infrastructure exists and is reusable, effective access to such infrastructure may significantly facilitate the roll-out of very high capacity networks and encourage development of infrastructure-based competition to the benefit of end-users.

                  (27)

                  For these reasons, the Commission has considered the appropriateness of including a separate market for access to physical infrastructure in this Recommendation. However, as there are significant differences in network topologies, availability of ubiquitous ducts and level of demand for access to ducts and poles across the Union, the Commission concluded that a separate market for access to physical infrastructure cannot, at present, be identified at Union level and should therefore not be included in the list of markets susceptible to ex ante regulation.

                  (28)

                  Furthermore, Article 72 of the Code allows national regulatory authorities to impose access to civil engineering as a stand-alone remedy on any relevant wholesale market. Such obligation to provide access to civil engineering may be justified irrespective of whether the physical infrastructure to which access is granted is part of the regulated relevant market and should be considered by national regulatory authorities before other access obligations are imposed downstream, if proportionate and sufficient to promote competition in the benefit of the end-users.

                  (29)

                  As regards wholesale broadband markets, virtual access products may be designed in a way that they display similar or equal product features, regardless of the location of the handover point for access. Therefore, it could be technically possible to provide wholesale broadband access at central or local level with comparable quality of service from both the access seeker and the end-users’ perspectives. In this context both the product features and the willingness of access seekers to migrate between access points or to make use of various handover points within the network architecture need to be analysed as part of the substitutability analysis.

                  (30)

                  Many alternative operators climbed the ladder of investments and developed their own networks to the local access point. Those operators would likely not consider central access products as a substitute for local access as it would leave the investments into their own network infrastructure stranded. At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that the access network is the most difficult part of the network to replicate due to the high sunk deployment costs in relation to the number of customers that can benefit from the deployment.

                  (31)

                  Despite the observed increase of infrastructure-based competition, local access is still characterised by high entry barriers and regulated in the majority of Member States. The wholesale local access market still meets the three-criteria test, given that the access network is the part of the network most difficult to replicate. However, on a forward-looking basis, the barriers to entry into the central access market can no longer be regarded as high and non-transitory at Union level as the market tends towards effective competition due to the presence of alternative platforms, the widespread commercial availability of trunk capacity and the possibility of locally interconnected operators to provide central access. Where access products, provided at various handover points, are identified as being substitutes under specific national circumstances, the market should be found to encompass all such products. Whether such a broad market meets the three criteria test needs to be established on a case by case basis.

                  (32)

                  The increased capabilities of electronic communications networks providing mass-market products may satisfy the connectivity needs even of certain business customers. However, an important segment of the business market, as well as the new demand emerging from digitization of industry and from socioeconomic drivers such as public services e.g. hospitals and schools, will require also dedicated connections. Therefore, certain businesses still require products with characteristics that are distinct from those of mass-market products.

                  (33)

                  With a view to delineating the boundaries of the market for dedicated capacity and other business access products national regulatory authorities should, while ensuring that the relevant wholesale products correspond to the retail market problem identified, take into account several factors such as different product functionalities and intended use, price evolution over time and cross-price elasticity. The distinguishing product characteristics of dedicated capacity are their ability to provide dedicated and uncontended connections and symmetrical speeds and should be assessed, as for products in other markets, by means of a substitutability analysis.

                  (34)

                  The deployment of alternative infrastructures providing a dedicated fibre connectivity for business has increased significantly in particular in more densely populated areas, commercial centres and business districts. However, there may be areas in which, even though the deployment of an alternative infrastructure for mass-market connectivity may be economically viable, it may be less economically viable to duplicate networks providing isolated dedicated connections due to the size of the addressable market. In those less densely populated areas, due to lack of infrastructure-based competition, there is a risk that the demand for dedicated capacity would not be served by competitive offers in the absence of regulation.

                  (35)

                  In both the above wholesale access markets, competitive problems are unlikely to persist uniformly across a given Member State and such markets should be subject to a thorough geographical analysis. Therefore, when defining relevant markets in accordance with Article 64(3) of the Code, national regulatory authorities should identify geographic areas where the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighbouring areas in which the prevailing conditions of competition are appreciably different, having particular regard to the question whether the potential operator having significant market power acts uniformly across its network area or whether it faces appreciably different conditions of competition to a degree that its activities are constrained in some areas but not in others.

                  (36)

                  To date, national regulatory authorities have found most markets to be national because the incumbent’s copper network had a national coverage. However, as the deployment of alternative networks progresses, competitive conditions can vary significantly and sustainably between different areas of the same Member State (for instance between urban and rural areas), thus making necessary the definition of separate geographic markets.

                  (37)

                  For the purpose of the geographic market definition, national regulatory authorities should define a basic geographic unit as a starting point for assessing competitive conditions. Such unit might follow the network topology or administrative boundaries, depending on national circumstances. In all cases, following the Commission’s practice (4), the geographic unit should be (a) of an appropriate size, i.e. small enough to avoid significant variations of competitive conditions within each unit but big enough to avoid a resource-intensive and burdensome micro-analysis that could lead to market fragmentation, (b) able to reflect the network structure of all relevant operators, and (c) have clear and stable boundaries over time. As regards condition (b), national regulatory authorities should rely, where relevant, on the geographical survey of networks conducted in accordance with Article 22 of the Code.

                  (38)

                  Following the principles of competition law, and based on the analysis of the geographic units previously described, national regulatory authorities should then establish a first definition of the scope of the geographic markets by aggregating together units that exhibit similar competitive conditions. National regulatory authorities should assess competitive conditions in a forward-looking manner, by looking at structural and behavioural indicators, taking into account in particular, in line with Article 64(3) of the Code, the importance of infrastructure-based competition. Such indicators can be, inter alia, the networks footprint, the number of competing networks, their respective market shares, trends in market shares, localized or uniform pricing behaviour, characteristics of demands and customer switching and churn. The resulting definition of geographic markets should be checked against an analysis of demand and supply side substitutability. Non-adjacent geographic markets that present similar competitive conditions may be analysed together at this stage.

                  (39)

                  Significant variations of competitive conditions should be taken into account on a forward-looking basis at the stage of market definition. Segmentation of remedies may be used to address less significant or less stable variations in competitive conditions, including by adjusting remedies periodically or punctually, without thereby undermining regulatory predictability.

                  (40)

                  Article 75 of the Code empowers the Commission to adopt a delegated act setting a single maximum Union-wide mobile voice termination rate and a single maximum Union-wide fixed voice termination rate (together referred to as ‘the Union-wide voice termination rates’). The Union-wide voice termination rates will directly apply to any provider of fixed and mobile termination services in the Union. The Union-wide single voice termination rates are based on the efficient costs of providing termination services. The application of the Union-wide voice termination rates will limit the ability of mobile and fixed operators to set excessive termination rates. Thus, the risk of excessive termination rates, which has been the most serious threat to competition on these markets, would disappear. Due to the strict cost orientation applied in setting the Union-wide voice termination rates, as required by the Code, the termination rates should be similar to those expected in case of competitive markets. Therefore, the termination markets would no longer meet the three-criteria test at Union level.

                  (41)

                  Nevertheless, specific circumstances may justify regulation of selected aspects of the termination markets in some Member States. Specific national circumstances may indicate that these markets do not tend towards competition on a forward-looking basis or that competitive problems continue to exist. This may be the case where operators were denied interconnection or have experienced problems with terminating calls from their network in other operators’ networks. National regulatory authorities should address such problems, either by imposing SMP based obligations other than price control, if the three-criteria test is fulfilled, or by using other appropriate regulatory tools, i.e. Article 61(2) of the Code, if the conditions specified there are met.

                  (42)

                  The markets listed in the Annex to this Recommendation no longer include three markets that were listed in 2014 Recommendation as they do not fulfil the three-criteria test, i.e. the markets for wholesale call termination on individual public telephone networks provided at a fixed location (market 1), wholesale voice call termination on individual mobile networks (market 2), and wholesale central access provided at a fixed location for mass-market products (market 3b).

                  (43)

                  The remaining markets of the 2014 Recommendation, namely markets 3a (local wholesale access provided at fixed location) and 4 (wholesale high quality access provided at fixed location), the latter partially redefined, still warrant ex ante regulation as they meet the three-criteria test at Union level. National regulatory authorities should take into account their national circumstances when delineating these markets, in particular as regards their geographic dimension.

                  (44)

                  With a view to ensuring adequate consideration of the impact of regulation imposed on related markets when determining whether a given market warrants ex ante regulation, national regulatory authorities should ensure that related markets are analysed in a consistent manner and, where possible, at the same time or as close as possible to each other in time.

                  (45)

                  When considering whether to amend or maintain existing regulatory obligations, national regulatory authorities should also apply the three-criteria test to those markets listed in the Annexes to Commission Recommendation 2003/311/EC (5), Recommendation 2007/879/EC (6) and Recommendation 2014/710/EU but are no longer listed in the Annex to this Recommendation.

                  (46)

                  The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications was consulted in accordance with Article 64(1) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 and delivered an opinion on 16 October 2020,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

                  1.

                  In defining relevant markets appropriate to national circumstances in accordance with Article 64(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, national regulatory authorities should analyse the product and service markets identified in the Annex.

                  2.

                  When considering that any of the markets listed in the Annex is not susceptible to ex ante regulation in the specific national circumstances, national regulatory authorities should perform the three criteria test and demonstrate, and the Commission will verify, that at least one of the three criteria referred to in Article 67(1) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 is not met.

                  3.

                  When identifying relevant geographic markets within their territory in accordance with Article 64(3) of the Code, national regulatory authorities should carry out a granular analysis of demand and supply-side substitutability, starting from an appropriate geographic unit, and aggregating such units that exhibit similar competitive conditions. The assessment of competitive conditions should be forward-looking and should be based, inter alia, on the number and characteristics of competing networks, distribution of and trends in market shares, prices and behavioural patterns.

                  4.

                  This Recommendation is without prejudice to market definitions, results of market analyses and regulatory obligations adopted by national regulatory authorities in accordance with the regulatory framework in force prior to the date of adoption of this Recommendation.

                  5.

                  This Recommendation is addressed to Member States.

         Done at Brussels, 18 December 2020.

               For the Commission

            Thierry BRETON

               Member of the Commission

         (1)  OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36.

         (2)  Commission Recommendation 2014/710/EU of 9 October 2014 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 295, 11.10.2014, p. 79).

         (3)  See Recital 23 of the Commission guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ C 159, 7.5.2018, p. 1) and Recital 163 of the EECC.

         (4)  In particular, Communication from the Commission C/2018/2374 – Guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ C 159, 7.5.2018, p. 1).

         (5)  Commission Recommendation 2003/311/EC of 11 February 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services (OJ L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 45).https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32003H0311

         (6)  Commission Recommendation 2007/879/EC of 17 December 2007 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 344, 28.12.2007, p. 65).https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32007H0879

         ANNEX
         Market 1: Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location
         Market 2: Wholesale dedicated capacity


               21.1.2021

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 23/146

      P8_TA(2019)0172
      Scope and mandate for EU Special Representatives
      European Parliament recommendation of 13 March 2019 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the scope and mandate for EU Special Representatives (2018/2116(INI))
      (2021/C 23/23)

         The European Parliament,

                  —

                  having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6, 21, 33 and 36 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

                  —

                  having regard to the Council decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the declaration by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR on political accountability (2),

                  —

                  having regard to the Annual Reports from the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy,

                  —

                  having regard to the EU Annual Reports on Human Rights and Democracy in the World,

                  —

                  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy,

                  —

                  having regard to the Guidelines on appointment, mandate and financing of EU Special Representatives of 9 July 2007 and to the Council Note (7510/14) of 11 March 2014;

                  —

                  having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (3),

                  —

                  having regard to the Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy presented by the VP/HR on 28 June 2016, and the subsequent implementation reports,

                  —

                  having regard to the EU Guidelines to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, adopted by the Council in 2013,

                  —

                  having regard to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and all its principles, as a cornerstone document for the European and wider regional security order,

                  —

                  having regard to its resolutions on the Annual Reports from the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy,

                  —

                  having regard its resolutions on the EU Annual Reports on Human Rights and Democracy in the World,

                  —

                  having regard to its recommendation of 15 November 2017 to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the Eastern Partnership, in the run-up to the November 2017 summit (4),

                  —

                  having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2017 on addressing human rights violations in the context of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide (5),

                  —

                  having regard to its resolutions on Ukraine calling for the appointment of an EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Crimea and the Donbas region,

                  —

                  having regard to its recommendation to the Council of 13 June 2012 on the EU Special Representative on Human Rights (6),

                  —

                  having regard to Rule 110 and Rule 113 of its Rules of Procedure,

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0171/2019),

                  A.

                  whereas the EU has the ambition to be a stronger global actor, not only economically but also politically, striving with its actions and policies to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and a rules-based global order;

                  B.

                  whereas the EU Special Representatives (EUSRs) are appointed by the Council on a proposal from the VP/HR, with the mandate of advancing particular goals of a thematic or geographically specific political or security nature; whereas they have proven to be a valuable and flexible instrument for EU diplomacy, as they can personalise and represent the EU in crucial places and situations, with the backing of all Member States; whereas the flexibility of the EUSRs’ mandates means that they are operational instruments which can be deployed quickly when concerns arise in certain countries or on certain themes;

                  C.

                  whereas, thanks to their frequent presence in the field, EUSRs have a privileged position to establish a dialogue with civil society and local actors as well as to conduct research on the ground; whereas this direct experience allows them to contribute constructively to policy and strategy formulation;

                  D.

                  whereas there are currently five regional EUSRs (for the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, Central Asia, the Middle East Peace Process, and the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia), two country-specific EUSRs (Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina), and one thematic EUSR, responsible for human rights;

                  E.

                  whereas currently only two EUSRs are women;

                  F.

                  whereas in the case of EUSRs appointed with mandates for specific countries, the ‘double-hatting’ by which the EUSR is simultaneously the head of the EU Delegation to the country concerned has contributed to the coherence and efficiency of the EU’s external presence; whereas the deployment of further country-specific EUSRs needs to be consistent with the EU’s external action strategies, given the strengthening of the EU Delegations via the Lisbon Treaty, through which they acquired responsibility for coordination of all EU action on the ground, including CFSP policies;

                  G.

                  whereas there are other high-priority areas and conflicts, including in the EU’S immediate neighbourhood, that require special focus, more involvement and EU visibility, such as Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and illegal occupation of Crimea;

                  H.

                  whereas the EUSRs have proved their usefulness, notably in their conducting of high-level political dialogues and their capacity to reach high-level partners in very sensitive political environments;

                  I.

                  whereas the EUSRs are financed out from the CFSP budget, as co-decided by Parliament, and are accountable for budget implementation vis-à-vis the Commission;

                  J.

                  whereas the VP/HR has committed to respond positively to requests by the European Parliament to hear newly appointed EUSRs before they take up their posts and to facilitate regular briefings of Parliament by the EUSRs;

                  K.

                  whereas EUSRs are selected from among individuals who have previously held senior diplomatic or political office in their country or in international organisations; whereas they enjoy a substantial degree of flexibility and discretion as to how their mandate is executed, which can be conducive to reaching set goals, implementing strategies and providing added value to the EU;

                  L.

                  whereas the key role of EUSRs is to contribute to the unity, consistency, coherence and effectiveness of the EU’s external action and representation; whereas they demonstrate the EU's interest in a given country, region or thematic area and strengthen its visibility, and contribute to the implementation of a given EU strategy or policy towards the mandated country, region or thematic issue;

                  1.

                  Recommends the following to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy:

                              a.

                              to present a strategic reflection on the use, role, mandates and contribution of the EUSRs in light of the implementation of the EU Global Strategy;

                              b.

                              to ensure that EUSRs are only appointed if there is a clear added value in using this instrument, i.e. if their tasks cannot be efficiently fulfilled by existing structures within the EEAS, including by EU Delegations, or within the Commission;

                              c.

                              to ensure that EUSRs are primarily used to step up EU efforts in conflict prevention and resolution and implementation of the EU strategies, in particular through mediation and dialogue facilitation, and to advance EU policy objectives in specific thematic fields, all within the remit of external relations and respecting international law;

                              d.

                              to avoid a proliferation of EUSRs and a fragmentation of their mandates which would create overlap with other EU institutions and lead to increased coordination costs;

                              e.

                              to ensure that the mandates and actions of EUSRs when addressing regional security and conflict prevention, mediation and resolution are guided by the principles of international law as outlined in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and other crucial norms of international law, as well as by the peaceful settlement of disputes, as a key element of the European security order and as emphasised in the EU Global Strategy; and to comply with all rules and policies adopted by the EU towards the region or conflict covered within their sphere of responsibility;

                              f.

                              to consider all possible means to strengthen the role of the EUSRs as an effective tool of EU external policy, capable of developing and advancing EU foreign policy initiatives and promoting synergy, notably by ensuring that EUSRs can travel freely within the area covered by their mandate, including conflict zones, for the purpose of effective implementation of their tasks;

                              g.

                              to ensure greater transparency and visibility of the work of the EUSRs, including by public reporting on country visits, work programme and priorities, as well as the creation of individual webpages to allow public scrutiny of their action;

                              h.

                              to reinforce the assets that constitute the added value of the EUSR, namely legitimacy built on the backing of the VP/HR and the Member States, country/regional/thematic responsibilities, political weight, flexibility, and enhancing the EU's presence and visibility in partner countries, thus strengthening the EU's profile as an effective international actor;

            On the mandate

                  i.

                  to permit an adequate length of mandate that creates a perspective enabling the hiring of qualified senior staff and allows implementation of the mandate, as well as confidence-building with partners, establishing networks and influencing processes; to ensure regular review in line with developments in the country/region or subject concerned and also allow for prolongation of the mandate if required by circumstances;

                  j.

                  to contribute to implementation of an EU policy or strategy towards the mandated area and to the formulation or revision of strategies or policies;

                  k.

                  to ensure that conflict prevention and resolution, mediation and dialogue facilitation, as well as fundamental freedoms, human rights, democracy, the rule of law and gender equality, are viewed as horizontal priorities and therefore as cornerstones of the scope of the EUSRs' mandates, and that adequate reporting on action taken in these areas is ensured;

                  l.

                  to require evaluation and monitoring procedures covering results attained, obstacles encountered, indication of key challenges, input to policy formulation, and assessment of the coordination of EUSR activities with other EU actors, in order to favour exchanges of best practices amongst EUSRs as well as to assess performance and consider the renewal and review of mandates;

                  m.

                  to ensure the coherence of the mandate for Central Asia with the 2007 EU Strategy for Central Asia, reviewed in 2015 in order to enhance the Union's effectiveness and visibility in the region;

                  n.

                  to introduce an extensive ‘cooling-off’ period for EUSRs, with a view to ensuring the highest possible level of ethical standards for cases of conflict of interest;

                  o.

                  to ensure that Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs is involved in the drafting of the mandates, new and extended, of the EUSRs;

            On the tools

                  p.

                  to maintain the flexibility and autonomy that EUSRs currently enjoy as a distinctive CFSP instrument with a separate financing source and a privileged relationship with the Council; to strengthen, however, at the same time, the coordination and reporting links with the related EEAS managing directorates (regional, thematic, CSDP and crisis response) and with the related DGs of the Commission; to ensure a swift and transparent nomination and confirmation process;

                  q.

                  to address the shortcomings in maintaining institutional memory and continuity between outgoing and incoming EUSRs by reinforcing logistical and administrative support from the EEAS, including archiving, and by primarily seconding policy advisors from the EEAS and other EU institutions as appropriate to join the EUSR teams;

            On the personal profile

                  r.

                  to appoint as EUSRs persons with extensive diplomatic and political expertise and an appropriate profile, ensuring in particular that they have the political clout needed to establish links and mutual trust with high-level interlocutors; to profit in this regard from the existing pool of persons with political and diplomatic experience across the EU; to respect gender and geographic balance; to make sure that the decision of appointing a specific person is made in a transparent manner and only after confirming the candidate's admissibility, in particular with regard to any potential conflict of interests and to ensuring that the candidate meets the standards of ethical conduct;

                  s.

                  to ensure that the appointment of EUSRs may only be confirmed after a positive evaluation by Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs;

                  t.

                  to provide greater ease of access to information and justification concerning selected candidates;

            On the areas covered

                  u.

                  to focus the mandates of the EUSRs on strengthening regional security and on conflict prevention and resolution, especially through facilitating dialogue and mediation in which EU engagement can bring added value; to ensure that in case of thematic focus, appointment of an EUSR does not duplicate or undermine the role of the Commission and the EEAS;

                  v.

                  taking into account the role of EUSRs as a specific diplomatic tool in EU external action and recognising the importance of the stability of the European Neighbourhood, to encourage EUSRs to develop ever closer relations with the countries affected by protracted conflicts, with the emphasis on the strong need for EUSRs to contribute to the peaceful settlement of conflicts in the neighbourhood of the EU;

                  w.

                  to welcome the appointment of the new EUSR for Human Rights and acknowledge the work of the previous holder of the post, who successfully fulfilled his role of enhancing the effectiveness and visibility of EU human rights policy; notes that the post’s responsibilities have been expanded to include promoting compliance with international humanitarian law and promoting support for international criminal justice;

                  x.

                  to strengthen the capacity and role of the EUSR for Human Rights, taking into account that this position has a worldwide mandate that therefore requires and implies political dialogue with third countries, relevant partners, business, civil society and international and regional organisations, and action in relevant international fora;

                  y.

                  while being mindful of the importance of not significantly increasing the number of EUSRs so as not to detract from their special nature, to phase out the mandates of the existing country-specific EUSRs and, pending the overall division of responsibilities in the next Commission and the EEAS, to consider the appointment of regional EUSRs; to consider appointing thematic EUSRs for the international coordination of the fight against climate change, for international humanitarian law and international justice, and for disarmament and non-proliferation, in the last-named case to take over from the current EU Special Envoy for this area;

                  z.

                  to appoint a new EUSR for Ukraine, focusing in particular on Crimea and Donbas, to be responsible for monitoring the human rights situation in occupied territories, implementation of the Minsk Agreements, de-escalation in the Sea of Azov and pursuing the rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs), as previously called for by Parliament in its resolutions;

            On interaction and cooperation

                  aa.

                  to reinforce the interaction and coordination of EUSRs with the different EU institutions, civil society and the Member States so as to ensure maximum synergy and coherent engagement of all actors; to strengthen the involvement of EUSRs in the EU Conflict Early Warning System; to ensure there are no overlaps with other high- level diplomatic figures such as EU Special Envoys; and to ensure cooperation with other like-minded partners and envoys, including those appointed by the UN, NATO and the US;

                  ab.

                  considering that the European Parliament is co-legislator for the civilian part of the CFSP budget, which is administered by the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), to reinforce Parliament’s oversight of the EUSRs’ activities and to enhance their level of accountability and the transparency of their work, recalling that this goal can be achieved by sharing information on a regular basis about the EUSRs’ implementation of their mandate, their work and achievements and the challenges they face, through regular and at least yearly meetings and exchanges of views between EUSRs and the relevant EP bodies, in particular its Committee on Foreign Affairs and its Subcommittees on Human Rights and on Security and Defence, as well as by systematic sharing with the EP of reports and country strategies sent by EUSRs to the Political and Security Committee (PSC) within the Council and to the EEAS; and, to this end, to insist that these documents be included within the Interinstitutional Agreement in the area of the CFSP;

                  ac.

                  to encourage interaction and facilitate dialogue with civil society and citizens, in the regions covered by EUSRs, as a part of the preventive diplomacy and mediation processes, and also in the interests of the EU’s visibility; to ensure, in particular, that EUSRs exhibit a proactive engagement towards civil society actors, human rights defenders or dissenting voices who may be under threat or targeted by the local authorities;

                  2.

                  Recommends that the next European Parliament should require a commitment from the new VP/HR to come up, within the first six months of his or her mandate, with a strategic reflection on the use of EUSRs, in the context of the implementation of the Global Strategy and along the lines of the principles and recommendations set out above;

                  3.

                  Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the EU Special Representatives.

         (1)  OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 30.

         (2)  OJ C 210, 3.8.2010, p. 1.

         (3)  OJ C 351 E, 2.12.2011, p. 454.

         (4)  OJ C 356, 4.10.2018, p. 130.

         (5)  OJ C 334, 19.9.2018, p. 69.

         (6)  OJ C 332 E, 15.11.2013, p. 114.