27.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/1

27.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/2

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2007 (1) on the establishment of a European common aviation area,

—

having regard to Directive 2009/12/EC of 11 March 2009 on airport charges,

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2011 on international air agreements under the Treaty of Lisbon (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 July 2013 on the EU’s External Aviation Policy — Addressing future challenges (3),

—

having regard to its position adopted at first reading on 12 March 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the Single European Sky (recast) (4),

—

having regard to its position adopted at first reading on 12 March 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 October 2015 on allocation by the World Radiocommunication Conference, to be held in Geneva from 2 to 27 November 2015 (WRC-15), of the necessary radio spectrum band to support the future development of a satellite-based technology to enable global flight tracking systems (6),

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in particular Articles 90, 100(2) and 218 thereof,

—

having regard to the Commission’s upcoming legislative ‘Aviation Package’,

—

having regard to Rules 123(2) and 123(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas in 2012 the air transport economy in Europe directly supported 2,6 million jobs and contributed more than 2,4 % of EU GDP;

B.

whereas in 2014 the number of passengers travelling by air in the EU amounted to 849,4 million, an increase of 4,4 % compared with 2013 and of 16,9 % compared with 2009;

C.

whereas more than 20 000 job cuts have been implemented and scheduled by European airlines since 2012;

D.

whereas EU airlines are operating in a fast-changing, increasingly competitive environment on both internal and external markets;

E.

whereas the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the EU and its Member States must improve various legal and financial regulations, such as the intra-EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), extended passenger rights, levies and national taxes, noise reduction at airports and restricting operating hours;

F.

whereas air transport plays a role in climate change, accounting for some 13 % of EU CO2 transport emissions, as well as other emissions such as NOx;

G.

whereas the Commission intends to deliver an Aviation Package by the end of 2015 which seeks to identify and address the challenges facing the EU aviation sector;

1.

Considers that the Aviation Package should provide a much-needed boost for a more sustainable and competitive European aviation industry, strengthen European airlines, airports and the aeronautic industry, ensure a level playing field in the global market, and set out a long-term strategy for Europe’s aviation sector;

2.

Calls on the Commission to take into account and include the fundamental points of Parliament’s positions at first reading on Single European Sky 2+ (SES2+) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and from its resolution of 2 July 2013 on the EU’s External Aviation Policy when drafting the Aviation Package;

3.

Emphasises that the aeronautics industry is a major contributor to EU growth and jobs and is closely linked to competitiveness in the EU aviation sector (e.g. positive export balance, cleaner technologies for European aircraft, SESAR deployment, SES, maintenance chain), generating a turnover of around EUR 100 billion per year and sustaining some 500 000 direct jobs; asks therefore for proactive policies aimed at supporting and developing the aeronautics industry;

4.

Underlines the fact that innovation is a prerequisite for a competitive European aviation industry; recommends, therefore, that the Commission take into account and support innovation in the fields of air traffic management (automated air traffic control (ATC), free routing), remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs), alternative fuel solutions, aircraft and engine design (greater efficiency, less noise), airport security (touchless solutions, one-stop security) digitalisation, and multimodal solutions (computerised ground handling services); further recommends that it support global environmental solutions, such as a global market-based measure to reduce CO2 emissions from international aviation, and align regional schemes, such as the aviation emissions trading system (ETS), with the goal of merging them into a global scheme, airport greening and new business models (such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA)’s New Distribution Capability (NDC), self-connection or integrated ticketing);

5.

Calls on the Commission to start, within its competences, to remove EU and national burdens from European airlines in order to strengthen competitiveness in the European air transport sector;

6.

Highlights the loss of competitiveness of EU airlines and airports vis-à-vis subsidised third-country carriers and airports; requests, in this context, a proactive policy to ensure a level playing field on ownership, and strongly encourages Member States to improve their national infrastructure to allow their airlines to compete on more favourable terms;

7.

Deplores the fact that Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 on protection against unfair pricing practices in the air transport sector has proved to be inadequate and ineffective in terms of scope; asks the Commission to issue an analysis of the causes of its non-implementation by November 2015 at the latest; calls on the Commission to revise Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 in order to safeguard fair competition in EU external aviation relations and reinforce the competitive position of the EU aviation industry, prevent unfair competition more effectively, ensure reciprocity and eliminate unfair practices, including subsidies and state aid awarded to airlines from certain third countries that distort the market; stresses that the aim should be to improve the political strategy at European level in order to quickly resolve this conflict, based mainly on the application of a transparent ‘fair competition’ clause; calls also on the Commission to address the concept of ‘effective control’ of airlines;

8.

Notes that European airports are facing significant competitive pressures — from both airlines and competing airports; urges the Commission therefore to take these developments into consideration in implementing the Airport Charges Directive and to provide benefits to all stakeholders and passengers;

9.

Calls for greater efforts to be made within the Council to approve the slots regulation proposal in order to improve the performance of airports and allow for the smooth functioning of air transport in Europe, in the context of traffic being expected to double by 2030;

10.

Highlights the importance of small and regional airports within the Union for regional connectivity; calls on the Commission, together with the Member States, to present a long-term EU strategic plan to address the challenges and opportunities for regional airports within the EU context, including state-aid rules for transport infrastructure, as their role in ensuring cohesion among EU regions should be promoted and become one of the pillars of the EU’s growth and jobs strategy;

11.

Emphasises that the negotiation of comprehensive aviation agreements with the EU’s major trading partners should be a strategic goal and that such negotiations should be launched or accelerated; urges the Commission to seek comprehensive mandates from the Member States as soon as possible, giving priority to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, in order to ensure a level playing field for European airlines and airports, ensure reciprocity and include an effective fair competition clause; insists that, in order to make these comprehensive aviation agreements effective in practice, a safeguard clause must be included that defines an offence and the legal consequences of its violation;

12.

Notes that the air transport sector is not regulated on a worldwide basis as it is not a WTO subject; stresses the importance of globally agreed rules within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in order to reduce aviation emissions and the climate impact; recognises that the ICAO is committed to the development of a global market-based mechanism;

13.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to accelerate the implementation of the Single European Sky through the adoption of the SES2+ package, as the existing fragmentation of European airspace is a major burden on European air carriers;

14.

Expects that the Aviation Package will address and ensure the full integration of airports in the European transport network; recalls the need for the Aviation Package to be consistent with current and future legislation on passenger rights, while urging the Council to come forward with its position, as both passengers and air carriers are longing for clarity on the rules;

15.

Underlines the fact that certain working conditions in the aviation sector may impact flight safety; recommends that DG MOVE and DG EMPL work together and that the Aviation Package includes social provisions and provides the necessary safeguards, as discussed during the high-level conference ‘A social agenda for transport’ held on 4 June 2015 by the Commission;

16.

Requests the enhancement and harmonisation of the safety chain by attracting and retaining a skilled, highly trained workforce;

17.

Stresses that the aviation industry is recognised as a growing sector that has attracted and provided highly skilled and motivated professionals, and that in order to continue this trend, current EU regulatory provisions on employment and working conditions, standards and practices, including collective bargaining practices, should be maintained;

18.

Recommends pinning down the concept of ‘principal place of business’ so that the operating licence is granted by a state if the volume of air transport therein is substantial and also, in the context of the coordination of social security systems and labour law, alignment of the definition of ‘Home Base’ as per Regulation (EU) No 83/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 465/2012; highlights the need to shorten the transitional period and clarify the situation of aircrew that have multiple home bases;

19.

Notes the challenges in implementing the Directive on Temporary Agency Work (2008/104/EC) and recommends that the Commission study its current application in the sector and decide on this basis how to tackle those challenges;

20.

Is concerned about the increase in socially problematic business practices such as ‘flags of convenience’ and the use of atypical forms of employment such as bogus self-employment, pay-to-fly schemes and zero-hours contracts, which may have potential safety implications, takes the view that social standards need be upheld in all aviation activities;

21.

Calls for the full implementation of the SESAR programme, which requires close cooperation among, and a financial commitment from, the Commission, air navigation service providers, air carriers and airports; calls therefore for a total system approach in all aviation domains covering all phases of the flight, starting on the ground, with a stronger role for the EASA within the SES-SESAR environment of a EU-EASA system governing safety, security, environment and performance; calls on the Commission to ensure the completion of the original Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget, which was affected by the establishment of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI);

22.

Welcomes the intention to increase the EASA’s responsibilities and therefore expects the amended Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 to ensure the establishment of a comprehensive Safety Management System and to entrust the EASA with the safety aspects of EU security measures and of commercial space transport and remotely piloted aircraft; calls on the Commission to grant the EASA the status of single aviation authority in Europe, in accordance with the wide range of responsibilities to be assigned by the legislator;

23.

Calls on the Commission to maintain a strong representation across all eight seats representing the EU Member States in the ICAO Council, to strengthen, as soon as possible, the EASA’s role on the international scene and to ensure its official recognition within the ICAO, in order to establish a single EU voice that will ensure a higher level of safety for EU citizens worldwide, while safeguarding the competitiveness and exports of the EU aviation industry;

24.

Calls on the Commission to lift the regulatory barriers to satellite-based air traffic surveillance in order to enable life-saving services for EU citizens, and asks the International Telecommunication Union to make the necessary spectrum allocation, as the ICAO has identified satellite ADS-B as the one technology that can assist flight tracking, also for air traffic management (ATM) purposes, outside of the most densely populated areas, where other forms of terrestrial ATM surveillance technologies are limited; stresses that when implementing ADS-B the needs of all airspace users must be considered and inter-operability between alternative technologies must be ensured in order to avoid safety and security breaches; emphasises that it could help governments, air navigation service providers (ANSPs) and airlines in Europe and around the world to increase air traffic management efficiency and capacity, thus reducing aviation emissions, and significantly enhance aviation safety, all while providing European airspace with another layer of surveillance that could augment the current one;

25.

Calls on the Commission to take measures with a view to improving medical assessment of pilots and the security, entry and exit procedures relating to cockpit doors, following the risk assessment in the EASA Task Force Report;

26.

Calls for a ‘risk-based security’ approach for passenger and freight transport instead of the current reaction-based measures, and for a fair and balanced approach to the sensitive issue of aviation security which meets the needs and expectations of Member States on the one hand and limits passenger dissatisfaction at airports on the other, and which strengthens the Aviation Security Service (AVSEC) and Stakeholder Advisory Group on Aviation Security (SAGAS) system; urges the Commission, therefore, in light of successful experiences in other regions, to undertake a feasibility study on the implementation of a pre-check and ‘Global Entry’ system in Europe;

27.

Calls on the budgetary authorities to maintain a competitive budget for the EASA, taking into account those new responsibilities, in order to have flexible and effective tools available for EU manufacturers and airlines to compete worldwide, while noting that the industry provides 70 % of the EASA’s budget;

28.

Notes that a number of aviation legislative files are pending in the Council, and therefore asks the Commission to seek a solution for unblocking the current situation;

29.

Calls on the Commission to address the aforementioned issues in its Aviation Legislative Package to be delivered by the end of 2015;

30.

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

27.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/7

—

having regard to the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (‘the Electoral Act’) annexed to the Council decision of 20 September 1976 as amended (1), in particular Article 14 thereof,

—

having regard to the Treaties and in particular to Articles 9, 10, 14 and 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to Articles 22, 223(1) and 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and to Article 2 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national parliaments in the European Union,

—

having regard to Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union,

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on the European Parliament’s electoral procedure, and in particular its resolution of 15 July 1998 on a draft electoral procedure incorporating common principles for the election of Members of the European Parliament (2), its resolution of 22 November 2012 on the elections to the European Parliament in 2014 (3) and its resolution of 4 July 2013 on improving the practical arrangements for the holding of the European elections in 2014 (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2013 on the composition of the European Parliament with a view to the 2014 elections (5),

—

having regard to Commission Recommendation 2013/142/EU of 12 March 2013 on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament (6),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 8 May 2015 entitled ‘Report on the 2014 European Parliament elections’ (COM(2015)0206),

—

having regard to the European Added Value Assessment on the Reform of the Electoral Law of the European Union (7),

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement of 20 October 2010 on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (8),

—

having regard to Council Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (9),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations (10), and in particular Articles 13, 21 and 31 thereof,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), and in particular Articles 11, 23 and 39 thereof,

—

having regard to Rules 45 and 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A8-0286/2015),

A.

whereas Article 223 TFEU gives the European Parliament the right to initiate the reform of its own electoral procedure, with the aim of drawing up a uniform procedure which applies throughout the Union or a procedure that is based on principles common to all the Member States, and to give its consent thereto;

B.

whereas the reform of the European Parliament's electoral procedure should aim to enhance the democratic and transnational dimension of the European elections and the democratic legitimacy of the Union decision-making process, reinforce the concept of citizenship of the Union, improve the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, make the work of the European Parliament more legitimate, strengthen the principles of electoral equality and equal opportunities, enhance the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and bring Members of the European Parliament closer to their voters, in particular the youngest amongst them;

C.

whereas the reform of the electoral procedure must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and should not seek to impose uniformity for its own sake;

D.

whereas the possibility of developing a uniform electoral procedure based on direct universal suffrage has been enshrined in the Treaties since 1957;

E.

whereas the steadily decreasing turnout in European elections, in particular among the youngest voters, and voters’ lack of interest in European issues is posing a threat to the future of Europe, and whereas there is therefore a need for ideas that will help to revive European democracy;

F.

whereas a genuine harmonisation of the procedure for elections to the European Parliament in all the Member States could better promote the right of all Union citizens to participate, on an equal basis, in the democratic life of the Union, while strengthening the political dimension of European integration;

G.

whereas the European Parliament's competencies have been gradually increasing since the first direct elections in 1979, and whereas the European Parliament now has equal status as co-legislator with the Council in most of the Union's policy areas, most notably as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

H.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon changed the mandate of Members of the European Parliament, making them direct representatives of the Union's citizens (11) instead of ‘representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community’ (12);

I.

whereas the only reform of the Electoral Act itself took place in 2002 as a result of the adoption of Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom (13), which requires the Member States to conduct the elections on the basis of proportional representation using a list system or a single transferable vote system and which abolished the dual mandate for Members of the European Parliament; whereas, furthermore, Member States were expressly granted the right to establish constituencies at national level and to introduce a national threshold not exceeding 5 % of the votes cast;

J.

whereas a comprehensive agreement on a truly uniform electoral procedure has not yet been achieved, though some convergence of electoral systems has taken place gradually, inter alia as a result of the adoption of secondary legislation, such as Council Directive 93/109/EC;

K.

whereas the concept of citizenship of the Union, formally introduced into the constitutional order by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993, includes the right of Union citizens to participate in European and municipal elections in their Member States, and in their State of residence under the same conditions as nationals of that State (14); whereas the Charter, to which the Treaty of Lisbon gave binding legal force, has reinforced that right;

L.

whereas despite these reforms, European elections are still governed for the most part by national laws, electoral campaigning remains national, and European political parties cannot sufficiently fulfil their constitutional mandate and ‘contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union’ as required by Article 10(4) TEU;

M.

whereas European political parties are best placed to ‘contribute to forming European political awareness’ and should therefore play a stronger role in the campaigns for Parliament elections in order to improve their visibility and to show the link between a vote for a particular national party and the impact it has on the size of a European political group in the European Parliament;

N.

whereas the procedure for nominating candidates for elections to the European Parliament varies considerably from Member State to Member State and from party to party, in particular as regards transparency and democratic standards, while open, transparent and democratic procedures for the selection of candidates are essential for building trust in the political system;

O.

whereas the deadlines for finalising electoral lists ahead of European elections vary greatly among Member States, currently ranging from 17 days to 83 days, and this puts candidates and voters across the Union in an unequal position when it comes to the time they have to campaign or to reflect on their voting choice;

P.

whereas the deadlines for finalising the electoral roll ahead of European elections vary greatly among Member States and may render the exchange of information between Member States on voters (which is aimed at the avoidance of double voting) difficult, if not impossible;

Q.

whereas the establishment of a joint constituency in which lists are headed by each political family’s candidate for the post of President of the Commission would greatly strengthen European democracy and legitimise further the election of the President of the Commission;

R.

whereas the existing European electoral rules allow for a non-obligatory threshold of up to 5 % of votes cast to be set for European elections, and whereas 15 Member States have availed themselves of this opportunity and have introduced a threshold of between 3 % and 5 %; whereas in smaller Member States, and in Member States that have subdivided their electoral area into constituencies, the de facto threshold nevertheless lies above 3 %, even though no legal thresholds exist; whereas introducing obligatory thresholds is recognised by constitutional tradition as a legitimate means of guaranteeing that parliaments are able to function;

S.

whereas, although Article 10(2) of the Electoral Act expressly prohibits the early publication of the results of elections, such results have been made public in the past; whereas a harmonised time for the close of polling in all Member States would contribute strongly to the common European character of the European elections and would reduce the possibility of their outcome being influenced if election results in some Member States are made public before the close of polling in all Member States;

T.

whereas first official projections of the electoral results should be announced simultaneously in all Member States on the last day of the election period at 21:00 hours CET;

U.

whereas establishing a common European voting day would better reflect common participation by citizens across the Union, reinforce participatory democracy and help create a more coherent pan-European election,

V.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty established a new constitutional order by granting the European Parliament the right to elect the President of the European Commission (15) instead of merely giving its consent; whereas the 2014 European elections set an important precedent in this respect and have shown that nominating lead candidates increases the interest of citizens in European elections;

W.

whereas the nomination of lead candidates for the office of President of the European Commission provides a link between votes cast at national level and the European context and enables Union citizens to make informed choices between alternative political programmes; whereas the designation of lead candidates by open and transparent procedures reinforces democratic legitimacy and strengthens accountability;

X.

whereas the procedure for the nomination and selection of lead candidates for that office is a strong expression of European democracy; whereas, furthermore, it should be an integral part of the election campaigns;

Y.

whereas the deadline for the nomination of candidates by European political parties should be codified in the Electoral Act and whereas the lead candidates for the office of President of the Commission should be candidates in the elections to the European Parliament;

Z.

whereas not all Member States afford their citizens the possibility of voting from abroad, and among those that do, the conditions for deprivation of the right to vote vary greatly; whereas granting all Union citizens residing outside the Union the right to participate in elections would contribute to electoral equality; whereas, however, Member States need to coordinate their administrative systems better in order to prevent voters from voting twice in two different Member States;

AA.

whereas at least 13 Member States do not have in place adequate internal rules precluding citizens of the Union who have dual nationality of Member States from voting twice, in breach of Article 9 of the Electoral Act;

AB.

whereas an electoral authority, acting as a network of Member States' single contact authorities, should be set up at Union level, as it would facilitate access to information on the rules governing the European elections as well as streamlining the process and enhancing the European character of those elections; whereas, therefore, the Commission is called upon to explore the practical arrangements necessary to establish such an authority at Union level;

AC.

whereas the minimum age for eligibility to stand as a candidate across the 28 Member States varies between 18 and 25, and the minimum age for eligibility to vote ranges from 16 to 18, due to the divergent constitutional and electoral traditions in the Member States; whereas harmonisation of the voting age, and of the minimum age for candidates, would be highly desirable as a means of providing Union citizens with real voting equality, and would enable discrimination to be avoided in the most fundamental area of citizenship, namely the right to participate in the democratic process;

AD.

whereas the official establishment and consolidation of political parties at Union level are fostering the development of European political awareness and giving expression to the wishes of Union citizens, and whereas this has also facilitated the process of gradually bringing electoral systems closer together;

AE.

whereas postal, electronic and internet voting could make the conduct of European elections more efficient and more appealing for voters, provided that the highest possible standards of data protection are ensured;

AF.

whereas in most Member States, members of the executive can seek election to the national parliament without having to discontinue their institutional activity;

AG.

whereas despite continuous progress since 1979 in terms of balance between women and men in the distribution of seats, there remain considerable divergences in this regard between Member States, with 10 of them having a level lower than 33 % accounted for by the less represented gender; whereas the current composition of the European Parliament, comprising as it does only 36,62 % women, falls short of the values and objectives of gender equality championed in the Charter;

AH.

whereas equality between women and men must be achieved, as one of the founding values of the Union, while only very few Member States have incorporated this principle in their national electoral laws; whereas gender quotas in political decision-making and zipped lists have proved to be highly effective tools in addressing discrimination and gender power imbalances and improving democratic representation on political decision-making bodies;

AI.

whereas the principle of degressive proportionality enshrined in the TEU has contributed significantly to the common ownership of the European project between all Member States,

1.

Decides to reform its electoral procedure in good time before the 2019 elections, with the aim of enhancing the democratic and transnational dimension of the European elections and the democratic legitimacy of the EU decision-making process, reinforcing the concept of citizenship of the Union and electoral equality, promoting the principle of representative democracy and the direct representation of Union citizens in the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 10 TFEU, improving the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, making the work of the European Parliament more legitimate and efficient, enhancing the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, fostering common ownership among citizens from all Member States, enhancing the balanced composition of the European Parliament, and providing for the greatest possible degree of electoral equality and participation for Union citizens;

2.

Proposes that the visibility of European political parties be enhanced by placing their names and logos on the ballot papers, and recommends that the same should also appear on television and radio campaign broadcasts, posters and other material used in European election campaigns, especially the manifestos of national parties, since those measures would render European elections more transparent and improve the democratic manner in which they are conducted, as citizens will be able to link their vote clearly with the impact it has on the political influence of European political parties and their ability to form political groups in the European Parliament;

3.

Considers at the same time, in the light of the Union’s commitment to subsidiarity, that regional political parties competing in European elections should follow the same practice and that regional authorities should be encouraged to use officially recognised regional languages in that context;

4.

Encourages Member States to facilitate the participation of European political parties, as well as their lead candidates, in electoral campaigns, particularly on television and in other media;

5.

Determines to set a common minimum deadline of 12 weeks before election day for the establishment of electoral lists, in order to enhance electoral equality by providing candidates and voters across the Union with the same period in which to prepare and reflect ahead of the vote; encourages Member States to reflect upon ways to ensure greater convergence between rules governing electoral campaigns regarding European elections;

6.

Deems it essential that political parties at all levels adopt democratic and transparent procedures for the selection of candidates; recommends that national parties hold a democratic vote to select their candidates for European elections;

7.

Suggests the introduction of an obligatory threshold, ranging between 3 % and 5 %, for the allocation of seats in single-constituency Member States and constituencies in which the list system is used and which comprise more than 26 seats; considers this measure to be important for safeguarding the functioning of the European Parliament, since it will avoid further fragmentation;

8.

Proposes, despite the fact that Member States are free to determine the day(s) of the elections within the electoral period, that elections in all Member States end by 21:00 hours CET on the Sunday of the European elections, as this would ensure the correct application of Article 10(2) of the Electoral Act and thus reduce the possibility of the outcome of the elections being influenced if the election results in some Member States are made public before the close of polling in all Member States; advocates that the ban on early announcement of the election results should remain in force in all Member States;

9.

Determines to set a common deadline for the nomination of lead candidates by European political parties 12 weeks in advance of European elections, so as to enable their electoral programmes to be presented, political debates between the candidates to be organised and Union-wide electoral campaigns to be mounted; considers that the process of nomination of lead candidates constitutes an important aspect of electoral campaigns due to the implicit link between the results of European elections and the selection of the Commission President as enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon;

10.

Determines to set a common deadline of eight weeks for finalisation of the electoral roll and six weeks for information concerning Union citizens with dual nationality and Union citizens living in another Member State to be exchanged with the national single authority in charge of the electoral roll;

11.

Suggests that the integrity of elections should be bolstered by limiting campaign expenditure to a reasonable amount that allows adequate presentation of political parties, candidates and their election programmes;

12.

Proposes that all Union citizens, including those living or working in a third country, be granted the right to cast their vote in elections to the European Parliament; considers that this would finally give all Union citizens the same right to vote in European elections under the same conditions, irrespective of their place of residence or citizenship;

13.

Calls on Member States, however, to coordinate their administrative systems better in order to prevent voters from voting twice in two different Member States;

14.

Encourages Member States to allow postal, electronic and internet voting in order to increase the participation of, and to make voting easier for, all citizens, and especially for people with reduced mobility and for people living or working in a Member State of which they are not a citizen or in a third country, provided that necessary measures are taken to prevent any possible fraud in the use of voting by those means;

15.

As a future step, recommends to Member States that they should consider ways to harmonise the minimum age of voters at 16, in order to further enhance electoral equality among Union citizens;

16.

Calls for a review of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, with a view to adapting the rules on Commissioners seeking election to the European Parliament, in order not to impede the institutional efficiency of the Commission in times of elections, while avoiding the misuse of institutional resources;

17.

Determines to give Parliament the right to fix the electoral period for elections to the European Parliament after consulting the Council;

18.

Encourages Member States to adopt adequate legal frameworks that ensure the highest standards of informative, fair and objective media coverage during the election campaigns, particularly from public service broadcasters; considers this crucial in order to allow Union citizens to make an informed choice about competing political programmes; recognises the significance of self-regulatory instruments such as codes of conduct in achieving this goal;

19.

Calls for the standards intended to ensure free and unfettered competition between political parties to be tightened up and, in particular, for media pluralism and the neutrality of all levels of public administration with regard to the electoral process to be enhanced;

20.

Highlights the importance of an increased presence of women in political decision-making and a better representation of women in European elections; consequently, calls on Member States and the institutions of the Union to take all necessary measures to promote the principle of equality between men and women throughout the whole electoral process; emphasises in this connection the importance of gender-balanced electoral lists;

21.

Encourages Member States to take measures to promote adequate representation of ethnic, linguistic and other minorities in European elections;

22.

Deems it to be desirable to establish an European Electoral Authority that could be tasked with centralising information on the elections for the European Parliament, overseeing the conduct of elections and facilitating the exchange of information between Member States;

23.

Determines that the office of Member of the European Parliament should also be incompatible with that of member of a regional parliament or assembly vested with legislative powers;

24.

Recalls that, despite recommendations by the Commission, Member States have repeatedly failed to agree on a common voting day; encourages Member States to work towards finding an agreement on this issue;

25.

Submits to the Council the annexed proposal for amendment of the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (16);

26.

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

27.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/19

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in New York on 20 November 1989,

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted in New York on 13 December 2006,

—

having regard to Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the revised European Social Charter,

—

having regard to the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and the Employment Equality Framework Directive (2000/78/EC),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 20 February 2013 entitled ‘Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage’ (2013/112/EU),

—

having regard to the Commission report entitled ‘Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012’,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 15 February 2011 entitled ‘An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child’ (COM(2011)0060),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 16 December 2010 entitled ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion’ (COM(2010)0758),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 4 July 2006 entitled ‘Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child’ (COM(2006)0367),

—

having regard to the Eurofound report ‘Third European Quality of Life Survey — Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the crisis’,

—

having regard to the Eurofound (2013) report ‘Third European Quality of Life Survey — Quality of life in Europe: Social inequalities’,

—

having regard to its resolution of 27 November 2014 on the 25th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2013 on the impact of the crisis on access to care for vulnerable groups (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 June 2013 on the Commission communication ‘Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion — including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020’ (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2011 on the European Platform against poverty and social exclusion (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on the face of female poverty in the European Union (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on reducing health inequalities in the EU (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2010 on the role of minimum income in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 October 2008 on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2008: Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child (9),

—

having regard to the Save the Children (2014) report ‘Child poverty and social exclusion in Europe’,

—

having regard to the UNICEF Office of Research (2014) report ‘Children of the Recession: The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries’,

—

having regard to the EAPN and Eurochild (2013) report ‘Towards children’s well-being in Europe — explainer on child poverty in the EU’,

—

having regard to the Eurochild assessment report (2014) entitled ‘The 2014 National Reform Programmes (NRP) and National Social Reports (NSR) from a child poverty and well-being perspective’,

—

having regard to the report from the 11th Eurochild conference, which took place from 26 to 28 November 2014 in Bucharest,

—

having regard to the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012) report ‘Measuring child poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’,

—

having regard to the DRIVERS Final Scientific Report: Social Inequalities in early childhood health and development: a European-wide systematic review, London, September 2014,

—

having regard to EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2013,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 30 September 2009 entitled ‘Work and poverty: towards the necessary holistic approach’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 July 2010 on ‘Child poverty and children’s well-being’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 10 December 2013 on ‘European minimum income and poverty indicators’,

—

having regard to the synthesis report entitled ‘Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage — A study of national policies’ by the European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion (10),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0310/2015),

A.

whereas greater political visibility should be given to fighting child poverty at the highest EU political level if the EU is to meet the Europe 2020 strategy target of reducing the number of people affected by poverty by at least 20 million by 2020;

B.

whereas, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), all children should be guaranteed the right to education, health care services, housing, protection, participation in decisions that affect them, leisure and free time, a balanced diet and the receipt of care in a family environment;

C.

whereas the majority of Member States so far have given little attention to using EU structural funds to fight the alarming and still growing rates of poverty among children in Europe and promote their social inclusion and general well-being;

D.

whereas social inequalities, contribute significantly to increased child poverty, and whereas children are at greatest risk of poverty in 19 Member States;

E.

whereas according to Eurostat the main factors affecting child poverty are wealth-redistribution policies, the effectiveness of government intervention through income support, the provision of enabling services, labour policy (11) and the labour market situation of parents, which is linked to their level of education and the composition of the household in which the children live; whereas increasing employment is an effective instrument for fighting poverty;

F.

whereas one fifth of the EU’s total population is under 18; whereas, despite the commitments made, over one in four children now lives at risk of poverty or social exclusion across the EU;

G.

whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for the implementation of the Social Investment Package, and endorses the Commission recommendation entitled ‘Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage’, which puts forward a comprehensive policy framework for tackling child poverty and promoting child well-being, based on three pillars, namely access to adequate resources in the framework of the European Social Fund, access to quality and inclusive services, and children’s participation in society and decision-making, and which recognises children as rights holders; considers it regrettable, however, that the EU has not taken coherent steps to implement this through the European Semester;

H.

whereas, although the children of parents with very low work intensity are 56,7 % more likely to be at risk of poverty or social exclusion, families with high work intensity remain at risk of child poverty today (in Romania, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Latvia, Slovakia, Poland and Luxembourg);

I.

whereas child poverty stems from the poverty of families, whereas low-income and large families are therefore more at risk of poverty, while income redistribution has a major impact on reducing cycles of social inequality, and whereas deteriorating national wage policies and social protection systems are increasing the risk of poverty and social exclusion, which contributes to growing child poverty, as seen in the Member States with the lowest rates of child poverty, which are also those with the lowest levels of general poverty and inequality;

J.

whereas between 2008 and 2012 the number of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Europe (EU27+Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) rose by almost one million, increasing by half a million between 2011 and 2012 alone (12); whereas according to Eurostat data, in 2013, 26,5 million children in the EU28 were at risk of falling into poverty or social exclusion; whereas in the EU27 the risk of poverty or social exclusion increased between 2008 and 2012 from 26,5 % to 28 %; whereas in 2013, in the Member States of the EU28, 28 % of the total population under 18 was at risk of poverty or social exclusion and, in the vast majority of countries, the risk of poverty and social exclusion is greater for children than for adults;

K.

whereas women are at greater risk of poverty than men and whereas tackling women’s poverty is not only important in its own right but also of vital importance in efforts to reduce child poverty;

L.

whereas there is growing inequality between countries within the EU; whereas it is alarming that the percentage of children who suffer from malnutrition is rising, causing the resurgence of diseases that had disappeared in the EU (e.g. rachitis); whereas it is symptomatic that, according to UNICEF (13), in countries such as Estonia, Greece and Italy, the percentage of children who cannot afford to eat meat, chicken or fish two days running has doubled in dramatic fashion since 2008;

M.

whereas in its concluding observations on the latest periodic reports of some countries the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern about the rise in the poverty rate and/or the at-risk-of-poverty rate among children due to economic crisis, which affects their enjoyment of many of the rights enshrined in the UNCRC, in particular the rights to health, education and social protection, and encouraged authorities to ensure that budgetary lines for children are protected, and whereas the financial and economic crisis has led to a deterioration in living and working conditions and to the emergence of a new group, also referred to as ‘new to need’;

N.

whereas a favourable entrepreneurial environment stimulates the growth of employment in Member States and broadens employment opportunities for parents, who can then serve as welcome role models, especially in communities adversely affected by multi-generational poverty and exclusion;

O.

whereas single-parent families, especially families headed by single mothers, are at greater risk of poverty or social exclusion (49,8 % compared to 25,2 %), although there are large differences between countries, according to EU-SILC (14), which is related to the feminisation of poverty, women’s overrepresentation in precarious work and as involuntary part-time workers, the disproportionate time spent by women in unpaid work, interruptions in women’s careers to care for children or other family members, and the pay gap between men and women;

P.

whereas child poverty can be alleviated by improving opportunities in the labour market, especially those of women, through better development of childcare;

Q.

whereas children and their parents, foster parents and caregivers must be protected from discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or other status, and whereas children from vulnerable population groups are more at risk of marginalisation, poverty and social exclusion, as confirmed by the latest reports by the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless, which highlight an increase in women, young people and families with children (especially migrant families) taken into homeless shelters; whereas large single-income families are more at risk of poverty and social exclusion, owing to deteriorating national wage policies and social protection systems as a consequence of the financial and economic crisis;

R.

whereas the effects of poverty and social exclusion on children can last a lifetime and result in intergenerational worklessness and poverty; whereas the educational gap between children from different socio-economic backgrounds has increased (in 11 countries, the provision of early childhood education and care to children between the ages of 0 and 3 reaches no more than 15 % coverage);

S.

whereas early childhood education and care have a decisive impact on the cognitive development of children, given that they develop essential capacities in the first five years and whereas access to high-quality education lays the foundations for later success in life in terms of education, well-being, employability, and social integration, and has a significant impact on self-esteem, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds; whereas the educational gap between children from different socioeconomic backgrounds has increased; whereas working parents who do not have access to a nursery school are often forced to leave children in the care of another child, or to resort to paid and uncertified informal care networks, which jeopardises their children’s safety and well-being; whereas pre-school education may play a significant role in compensating for the low socio-economic status of children under threat of poverty and constitutes a factor facilitating parents’ return to the labour market (15); whereas inclusive education addresses and responds to the diversity of needs of all learners through increased participation in learning, cultures and community values, and thus represents a powerful tool for combating child poverty and social exclusion;

T.

whereas local and regional authorities are at the forefront of work to tackle child poverty and exploitation and therefore have a crucial responsibility in preventing marginalisation and social exclusion, and whereas they should be provided with sufficient means by national authorities to meet these objectives, whenever appropriate;

U.

whereas spending on education, especially as regards school materials and transportation, is essentially borne by households in most countries; whereas this expenditure is one of many contributing factors in school dropouts; whereas there remain financial, administrative and other practical barriers to education for children from marginalised groups;

V.

whereas the socioeconomic environment in which children live affects the quality of time spent at school and the quality of time during school holidays, and whereas a poor level of stimulation during free time has the unwelcome effect of increasing the differences between children, especially in their education;

W.

whereas, in 2012, the average school-dropout rate was 13 % for the EU and over 20 % in some countries (Portugal, Spain and Malta) (16);

X.

whereas, even in countries where the right to health is enshrined in law, there are children who do not have access to adequate healthcare and some children that have extremely limited access to services beyond emergency care, such as those of a general practitioner or dentist, particularly because of a lack of available public services; whereas children born into poverty are at greater risk of suffering chronic illnesses and having more health problems, which leads to the perpetuation of inequality;

Y.

whereas the financial problems of families contribute to increased mental health problems in parents and to instances of family breakdown, which has undeniable repercussions on the psychological and social well-being of children;

Z.

whereas the environment in which a child lives, including the pre-birth period, has a decisive influence on the development of the cognitive system, on communication and language, and on social and emotional skills, which will have an impact on health, well-being, participation in communities and learning capacities (17);

AA.

whereas all children have the right to be protected from abuse, violence and neglect and whereas research has concluded that financial pressure within families, cuts in public services and an increase in poverty can lead to greater violence against children;

AB.

whereas child poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon that requires a multi-dimensional response; whereas employment is one important factor, but does not always guarantee a route out of poverty for the family of the children concerned;

AC.

whereas child poverty has a high economic cost for societies, particularly as regards increased spending on social support;

AD.

whereas families living at risk of poverty are more likely to live in unsanitary and unsafe areas, and whereas 17 % of children in the EU28 still live in such conditions, with 15 countries above average; whereas the increasing number of evictions due to the inability to pay housing costs has pushed children into increasingly unstable housing conditions, which in turn has negative impacts on the child’s development and life chances;

AE.

whereas, according to the 2012 Eurostat Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), energy poverty is a problem that affects all Member States; whereas one of the consequences of energy price increases is that many children live in homes without heating, and whereas this increases the number of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease;

AF.

whereas families with children with health problems, and likewise parents who have health problems, more often face the risk of poverty, family breakdown and difficulty in establishing themselves on the job market;

AG.

whereas the upcoming Sustainable Development Goals post-2015 agenda and its universality provide an opportunity to increase investments in children and their rights;

AH.

whereas migrant children are over-represented in the group at risk of poverty and there is more discrimination against them because of language barriers, and whereas the situation is worse for illegal immigrant children; whereas, with the intensification of migratory flows, there are currently a growing number of cases in which the children of immigrants remain in the country of their birth under the care of other family members or third parties, and whereas this has a negative influence on the children’s development, particularly at the emotional level;

AI.

whereas a strong policy focus on child poverty in recent years within the EU and supportive political statements by EU Heads of State have not led to significant reductions in the levels of child poverty;

AJ.

whereas stronger financial backing should be given to food-aid programmes aimed at disadvantaged families, since a growing number of children only have access to food at school; whereas these programmes are important, but cannot be seen as a long-term solution;

AK.

whereas environmental issues such as pollution, traffic, contaminated land and unsafe drinking water often disproportionately affect children living in poverty;

1.

Recommends that Member States make a real commitment to developing policies to fight child poverty that focus on correcting child poverty factors and increase the effectiveness, quantity, amounts and scope of the social support specifically directed at children, but also at parents who are unemployed and the phenomenon of the working poor (such as unemployment benefits and adequate minimum income) and to promote labour laws that guarantee social rights, including a statutory adequate minimum wage in accordance with national practices and collective agreements, which will provide greater security to families and fight precarious employment, while promoting work with adequate social rights;

2.

Calls for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of this support, in order to adapt policies for combating poverty, exclusion and dropping out of school to existing social equality requirements; urges the Member States to develop and apply diverse evidence-gathering processes appropriate to each stage of intervention;

3.

Recommends that the Commission establish with Member States a roadmap for the implementation of the three-pillar approach taken in the Commission recommendation ‘Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage’ in terms of access to resources, services and children’s participation; considers that, in order to achieve better results with the three-pillar approach, it could be useful to develop precise and specific indicators of the level of child poverty and the areas more affected by this phenomenon; calls on the Member States to effectively integrate relevant aspects of the Social Investment Package and the aforementioned Commission recommendation into their annual National Reform Programmes and National Social Reports in a comprehensive way and calls on the Commission to set a Europe 2020 sub-target on reducing child poverty and social exclusion, to make the reduction of child poverty and social exclusion visible and explicit at all stages of the European Semester; stresses that the reduction of child poverty by investing in children should be proposed as a core priority for the 2016 Annual Growth Survey, and as a key means of progressing on the poverty target; calls on the Commission to ensure annual monitoring and reporting by Member States on the implementation of the Commission recommendation through the roadmap and to use the European Social Fund to implement the Commission recommendation and conduct an assessment of the effects on poverty of reforms proposed within National Reform Programmes;

4.

Calls on the Member States to also address, in their efforts to combat child poverty, the position of women taking care of children and family members with special needs and disabilities;

5.

Recommends that the Member States, when using European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) resources and developing social policies, should devote greater attention to protecting families (especially single-parent families) with children with health problems against poverty;

6.

Reiterates the importance of preventive public policies investing in sensible child welfare policies that support the development of empowered individuals, capable of integrating in society and into the labour market, rather than focusing on the consequences of their social exclusion and poverty;

7.

Considers that. without neglecting the need to support children who are poor, have dropped out of school or are socially excluded, policies supporting children and young people should be strongly marked by prevention, including long-term strategies for combating social inequality;

8.

Recommends that the Member States implement or enhance universal welfare benefits targeting children, such as the provision of subsidised or free meals for children, especially for disadvantaged and poor children, in order to ensure their healthy development; calls on the Member States to adopt active employment measures as part of comprehensive strategies and policies to support parents’ access to good-quality employment and adequate income, and access to high-quality public services (particularly childcare, education, health, housing, and leisure activities) facilitating the alignment of professional life with family life, and to strengthen the participation of children and their families in the development, implementation and monitoring of these policies; stresses that universal solutions should be coupled with targeted measures to support the most vulnerable and marginalised groups of children and adolescents; regrets the growing tendency of Member State governments to move away from universal support policies towards more means-tested support, as evidence shows that universal support policies offer better protection against child poverty (18);

9.

Encourages the Member States and the Commission to agree on EU standards or establish an agreed methodology for determining the cost of raising a child and for defining adequate resources to prevent and combat child poverty;

10.

Calls on the Commission to refrain from recommending reformulations and cuts in the public services of Member States, from promoting flexible labour relations and the privatisation of public services, which have led unequivocally to the weakening of the social rights of children;

11.

Asks the Commission to emphasise the need for investment in free, public education by pinpointing specific education methods for the most vulnerable social groups, such as immigrants or people with disabilities of various kinds; considers that education can be a key priority in ensuring that children acquire the skills which will enable them to access skilled, well-paid jobs, enabling them to build their own way out of poverty;

12.

Recalls that tackling child poverty requires the adoption of a life-cycle approach, including breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty risks, that reflects the different needs of early childhood, primary childhood and adolescence, applying a whole-child oriented approach by measuring the number of deprivations each child experiences simultaneously, thereby identifying those most deprived, and measuring not only monetary poverty but also multidimensional deprivations;

13.

Recommends that all children have access to good quality services at this crucial stage in their development; considers that health, education, parenting and family support, housing and protection are key services which are most often delivered by local and regional authorities;

14.

Urges the Member States to adopt, implement and monitor plans for alleviating multi-dimensional child poverty, putting the focus on the intrinsic rights of children and setting targets for reducing child poverty and social exclusion, with an explicit focus on and prioritisation of those children living at the highest risk of poverty; recalls the importance of the Member States providing for at least pre-crisis levels of real-term expenditure on social protection, health, education and social housing for the benefit of the most disadvantaged children;

15.

Urges the Member States to implement plans to alleviate the sense of social exclusion felt by children with learning difficulties and to establish more efficient education modules which support their learning methods;

16.

Calls on the Member States to recognise that child poverty and social exclusion are key barriers to overcome if they are to achieve their Europe 2020 targets in relation to employment rates, investment in research, development, energy and sustainable development;

17.

Urges the Member States to devote greater attention to the creation and availability of a suitable out-of-school environment in which children can spend their time in a meaningful and stimulating way outside school hours and during school holidays, and to devote greater attention to the availability of basic healthcare for children in deprived areas and in remote and inaccessible regions;

18.

Calls on the Member States to avoid ghettoisation of children experiencing poverty and social exclusion, by introducing minimum standards for children’s housing, taking into account the best interests of the child, and by guaranteeing households an appropriate home that meets their needs and ensures their well-being, privacy and quality of life, thereby contributing to the achievement of social justice and cohesion and the combating of social exclusion and poverty;

19.

Calls for the Commission and Parliament to take the opportunity provided by the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework to make better use of the European Social Fund, the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived and the Programme for Employment and Social Innovation and to check whether children are a priority in the programming and implementation of regional and cohesion policies, with particular regard to the obligation to gradually eliminate large residential institutions (enforceable since 2014), in order to reinforce adoptive and foster-parent status so that orphans and disadvantaged children can actually grow up in a family or a family-type environment; also urges the Commission to create indicators to analyse child poverty;

20.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to consider whether food-based strategies, such as dietary diversification and food fortification, as well as nutrition education, public health and food safety measures, and finally supplementation, need to be addressed for particular groups of the population in order to prevent the negative effects of malnutrition or undernutrition on the health of children;

21.

Recommends that Member States‘national budgets contain visible, transparent, participatory and accountable provisions for appropriations and costs to combat child poverty and to fulfil their duty to protect children, including through an increase in public spending with a view to attaining such objectives; calls on the Member States to make maximum use of the European Structural and Investment Funds, in particular the European Social Fund, in order to implement all three pillars of the Investing in Children recommendation’;

22.

Recommends that the Commission develop guidelines to support the participation of children in the policy-making process, putting in place mechanisms which promote and ensure children’s participation in decision making that affects their lives, and which enable and encourage children to express informed views, ensuring that those views are given due weight and are reflected in the main decisions affecting them;

23.

Recommends that the Commission and the Member States set targets for reducing child poverty and social exclusion;

24.

Urges the Member States to put in place, where necessary, cooperation agreements with entities and institutions that promote the education, cultural or sports training, and integration of children, and that combat child poverty; recommends, however, that the Member States ensure the supervision, quality, sustainability and relevance of this support, and of its actual results;

25.

Calls on the Member States to implement specific legislation to protect and increase maternity and paternity rights, including through the implementation of efficient instruments to ensure a balance between work and family, and to safeguard the return to work for women after pregnancy and maternity leave, and support for single-parent families; stresses, furthermore, that reinforcing legislation on paternity leave gives an important boost to combating gender and pay discrimination at work; urges the Member States to ensure that unequal treatment and harassment of employees cannot be justified by employers by reference to pregnancy, the rearing of children or family-related matters;

26.

Recommends that the Member States develop proactive, universal and integrated social policies that prevent poverty and the removal of children from their family environment; calls on the Member States to ensure that the institutionalisation of children and young people is used only as a last resort, under exceptional circumstances, and to use the EU structural funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments to support the transition from institutional to family and community-based services;

27.

Recommends that the Member States move away from institutional care in favour of stable foster care systems which better prepare children and young people for an independent life, continued learning or work;

28.

Recommends that the Member States develop and implement integrated child protection systems to protect children against violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect in such a way as to ensure that all duty-bearers and system components work together across sectors and agencies sharing responsibilities to form a protective and empowering environment for all children;

29.

Urges the Member States to conduct policies that facilitate the creation and maintenance of decent workplaces and develop systems for training, improving qualifications and amenities such as teleworking or flexitime facilitating parents’ entry or return to the labour market following a break in their professional career;

30.

Calls on EU institutions, EU agencies, Member State authorities and other stakeholders to develop clear roles, responsibilities, regular dialogue and procedures when children are in need of protection in cross-border situations;

31.

Recommends that the Member States guarantee all children access to free, inclusive and quality public education at all ages, including early childhood education and care, and formal and non-formal education, promoting their emotional, social, cognitive and physical development, establish appropriate teacher-student ratios and promote social mix in education, in order to safeguard the safety and well-being of children, ensure that all children can benefit from inclusive high-quality education and thus maximise the education systems’ impact on equal opportunities and breaking the cycle of poverty;

32.

Urges the Member States to increase the quality of educational services offered, by applying an individual approach and promoting cooperation among teachers, social workers and parents in order to prevent children and young persons from putting a stop to their education;

33.

Calls on the Member States to pay particular attention to developing affordable and accessible early childhood education and care (ECEC), regarding it as a social investment aimed at addressing inequality and challenges faced, in particular, by children from disadvantaged families, and also to raise parents’ awareness of the benefits of active participation in ECEC programmes;

34.

Calls on the Member States to promote inclusive schooling, which should involve not just increasing the number of special education teachers, but also integrating children with special educational needs into normal classes;

35.

Urges the Member States to provide universal and equal access to crèches and pre-schools for children from all social groups;

36.

Calls on the Member States to promote full school engagement of all children by providing free and basic school materials, nutritious school meals and the necessary school transportation for children in poverty or at risk of poverty, to increase the effectiveness of present public investments in the sector and combat the intergenerational transmission of poverty more effectively;

37.

Urges the Member States to guarantee universal, public, free and quality health care with regard to prevention, immunisation programmes and primary care, access to diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation, and to provide speech and psychological therapies for children, guaranteeing women the right to sexual and reproductive health by ensuring health care for babies, maternity care and home visits in the pre- and post-natal care period, particularly in the case of premature birth, access to family doctors, nurses, dentists, family counselling services and mental health specialists for all children and their families; calls on the Member States and the Commission to integrate these aspects into national and EU public health strategies;

38.

Recommends that the Member States provide the necessary support to ensure the right to culture, sport and leisure, access to open space and a healthy environment for all children, with a focus on ensuring equal access and quality for children in poverty, children in remote areas, children with disabilities, children belonging to national or ethnic, religious, linguistic and migrant minorities, children moving within the EU regardless of their nationality and children left behind; recalls the right to play, as laid down in the UNCRC;

39.

Emphasises the need for enhanced protection of children experiencing poverty and social exclusion from domestic violence;

40.

Calls on the Member States, particularly those where social inequalities are greater, to strengthen social rights and access to services and social protection, that the state must guarantee, increasing the number of employees and professionals in social security services working with and for children and their families, and increasing medical, psychological and social care, directing it at those most in need, in particular at children, in line with an early intervention approach;

41.

Recommends that the Member States put in place mechanisms that promote and ensure children’s participation in decision making that affects their lives and enable and encourage children to express informed views, ensuring that those views are given due weight and are reflected in the main decisions affecting them;

42.

Recognises the role of civil society, including children’s rights and anti-poverty organisations, in ensuring EU policy coherence, and calls for strengthened civil dialogue on preventing and tackling child poverty in the Member States;

43.

Urges the Commission to make the early school leaving rate and tackling child poverty an explicit priority;

44.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to participate actively in combating the trafficking of children for any form of exploitation, including work, forced marriage, illegal adoption, illegal activities and sexual exploitation;

45.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the functioning of European and transnational networks to combat child and youth poverty and exclusion; warns that integrating the outermost regions and the most disadvantaged regions into these networks and institutions should be particularly supported;

46.

Considers the right to free and universal education, health and social security systems as basic conditions for combating poverty, in particular among children; bearing in mind this objective, calls on the Commission and the Member States, in view of the weakening of public services, to introduce a child guarantee so that every child in poverty can have access to free healthcare, free education, free childcare, decent housing and adequate nutrition, as part of a European integrated plan to combat child poverty including both the Child Guarantee and programmes offering support and opportunities for the parents to come out of social exclusion situations and to integrate the labour market;

47.

Calls on the Member States to support, through their municipalities, local centres for supporting children and their families, particularly in the communities and/or areas most affected by the issue of child poverty, which provide not just for legal aid and/or advice, parental advice and school support, but also for education and guidance on a healthy lifestyle and on safe internet use, among other things;

48.

Recommends that the Commission and the Member States develop statistical methods that integrate multidimensional indicators, disaggregated by age, gender and particular disadvantaged groups, in measuring poverty, social exclusion, inequalities, discrimination and child well-being (parents’ income, access to high-quality public services, participation in social and cultural activities, access to adequate formal and informal education services, exposure to physical risk, safety, a stable family environment, and the level of life satisfaction), in order to inform evidence-based policy development and take into account the limitations of relative poverty measurements and the work of the UNDP, UNICEF, the OECD and the Indicators Sub-Group of the Social Protection Committee, going beyond the AROPE (at risk of poverty and/or exclusion) indicators; invites the Commission and the Member States to develop responses based on a comprehensive approach and to make full use of data collected under initiatives such as the Multi-Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (MODA) developed by UNICEF; stresses that further indicators should be developed to improve the assessment of the quality of services, outcomes and access to services, e.g. in relation to the socio-economic status and background of parents (migrant or minority), gender, disability and geographical aspects;

49.

Invites the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to draw up opinions on investing in children;

50.

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

27.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/31

—

having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 151, 153, 162 and 174 to 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,

—

having regard to European conventions protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, notably the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Social Charter and the related recommendations of the European Committee of Social Rights, and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Council of Europe,

—

having regard to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

—

having regard to the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries,

—

having regard to the EU anti-discrimination directives, Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol No 12 to that convention,

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention of 5 January 2011 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) (hereinafter ‘the CPR’),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 437/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund as regards the eligibility of housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme for the period 2014 to 2020 (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (6),

—

having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 240/2014 of 7 January 2014 on the European code of conduct on partnership in the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2014 on the European Commission’s 7th and 8th progress reports on the EU Cohesion Policy and the Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2013 on the progress made in the implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategies (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 June 2013 on social housing in the European Union (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the contribution of the cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU2020 objectives (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2009 on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU (13),

—

having regard to the Commission’s sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion of 23 July 2014 entitled ‘Investment for jobs and growth: promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union’,

—

having regard to the Commission’s Thematic Guidance Fiche of 27 February 2014 on Roma and Marginalised Communities (Thematic objective 9 — Social Inclusion and Poverty),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 April 2014 entitled ‘Report on the implementation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies’ (COM(2014)0209),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 21 May 2012 entitled ‘National Roma integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework’ (COM(2012)0226),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 8 December 2010 entitled ‘European Union Strategy for Danube Region’ (COM(2010)0715),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 12 December 2010 entitled ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion’ (COM(2010)0758),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 — A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to Council recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (14),

—

having regard to the Commission’s ‘Guidance Note on the use of European Structural and Investment Funds in tackling educational and spatial segregation (Draft)’ of 1 July 2015,

—

having regard to the question for written answer to the Commission of 24 February 2015 on funding for marginalised communities (E-002782/2015),

—

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Roma integration strategies’ (15),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0314/2015),

A.

whereas cohesion policy is aimed at enhancing economic, social and territorial cohesion, reducing social disparities, including the reduction and eradication of poverty and exclusion, which calls for the prevention of segregation and for the promotion of equal access and opportunities for all citizens, including the most marginalised communities as well as groups and individuals of all ages facing poverty and social exclusion and lacking access to education, employment, housing and healthcare systems;

B.

whereas cohesion policy, as defined in the 1986 Single European Act, is about reducing disparities between the various regions, and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions; whereas the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union adds another facet to cohesion, referring to ‘economic, social and territorial cohesion’;

C.

whereas the objective of social cohesion calls for a European role in policies for the inclusion of marginalised communities, and requires Member States to use their competences in this area to take supportive action and action also under transnational cooperation as well as national programmes;

D.

whereas funding opportunities for marginalised communities were introduced into the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in 2010; whereas the legislative framework for cohesion policy 2014-2020 offers a strategic approach;

E.

whereas Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 stipulates that the ESF benefits people, including disadvantaged groups such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, ethnic minorities, marginalised communities and people of all ages facing poverty and social exclusion;

F.

whereas at least 23,1 % of the Cohesion Policy budget will be allocated to investments under the ESF during the 2014-2020 programming period; whereas the ERDF and the ESF play a specific and significant role, with at least 20 % of the ESF earmarked in each Member State for the specific objective of promoting social inclusion and combating poverty and all forms of discrimination, thus representing a crucial tool in the promotion of greater inclusion of marginalised communities;

G.

whereas Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 lays down a number of preconditions related to non-discrimination, gender and disability that need to be complied with (16);

H.

whereas the sixth report of the Commission on economic, social and territorial cohesion has shown that the economic crisis has increased poverty and social exclusion;

I.

whereas the economic crisis and resulting budget cuts and austerity measures have led to numerous problems, often resulting in severe budgetary problems for municipalities, leading to a lack of options when dealing with marginalised groups and seeking to improve their inclusion and prevent segregation, as such policies are chiefly, and sometimes solely, dependent on European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding;

J.

whereas the consequences of the economic crisis and the cutbacks in public services have exacerbated the situation of women within marginalised communities;

K.

whereas women in marginalised communities suffer more intense multiple discrimination, and have a much lower employment rate, than do men in those communities and than do other women;

L.

whereas a large number of public and private actors at different levels and sectors, including civil society representatives, are involved and often play an important role in implementing inclusion policies, thus requiring a coherent and well-coordinated approach;

M.

whereas there is no definition of marginalised community at present at European Union level; whereas understanding the report begins by understanding marginalisation based on an analysis of specific attributes and characteristics of marginalised groups, which takes into account their specific situation and needs, such as living and working conditions, limited access to education and health care systems and employment, early school leaving, accompanied by structural and systemic exclusion and aims at ensuring their effective socio-economic inclusion;

N.

whereas the Commission has not provided a definition of marginalised communities, leaving Member States the responsibility of deciding on a definition on the basis of their national indicators; notes, however, that marginalisation can be established by looking at a set of relevant indicators such as social exclusion, high long-term unemployment, a low level of education, (extremely) poor housing conditions, a high level of discrimination, and excessive exposure to health risks and/or lack of access to healthcare, i.e. those populations considered to be most vulnerable and most in need of help;

O.

whereas marginalisation is a social phenomenon in which individuals or communities are socially excluded and systematically blocked from participating in, or denied access to, social and political processes that are essential to their social integration; whereas ‘marginalised communities’ refers to diverse groups and individuals, such as minorities, Roma, people with disabilities, people living below the poverty line or at risk of poverty, migrants, refugees and socially excluded groups in society; whereas racism, patriarchy, homophobia, economic disadvantages and other discriminatory factors contribute to creating layers of inequality and a dynamic of disempowerment for women within marginalised communities;

P.

whereas common characteristics shared by marginalised communities include communities of places, such as marginalised communities living in rural areas and disadvantaged neighbourhoods; communities of interests, such as refugees and asylum seekers, and ethnic and linguistic minorities; and people with disabilities, elderly people, homeless as well as indigenous peoples; whereas different types of marginalised communities share common difficulties and all suffer from multiple forms of stigmatisation and discrimination;

Q.

whereas there are a large number of marginalised groups in Europe; whereas among them the Roma people, a term which is understood differently across Europe, is Europe’s largest ethnic minority and one of the most marginalised communities;

R.

whereas cohesion policy should address marginalised communities in their diversity, taking into account specific needs; whereas the inclusion of marginalised communities in funding requires that efforts be made at all levels, involving a long-term, integrated and coherent approach, permanent solutions, empowerment, building on experience and capacity building, including for women and girls within marginalised communities, transition from institutional to community-based care, in order to end segregation and reach normalisation;

S.

whereas European cohesion policy strategies for empowering women in marginalised communities must take into account the situation of aging women, women with disabilities, women carers and women with mental health problems;

T.

whereas arts and culture-based projects promoting intercultural exchanges, empowerment of participants, development of creative and social skills and active participation in the life of the local community are among the most effective tools for addressing social inclusion and integration;

U.

whereas education, both formal and informal, is instrumental in overcoming marginalisation and multiple discrimination, in terms of creating dialogue, openness and understanding between communities, and in terms of empowering marginalised communities; whereas a gender perspective in education, and its role in empowering women and girls in marginalised communities, must not be forgotten;

1.

Recalls the urgent need to tackle the issue of marginalised communities; underlines the important role of cohesion policy in supporting their economic, social and territorial inclusion;

2.

Recalls that marginalised communities were introduced as a focus of cohesion policy measures because of the growing concern about, and commitment to combat, social exclusion, including concern about the situation of Roma and the longstanding demand to improve their living conditions;

3.

Calls on the Commission to issue guidance on the definition of marginalised communities, specifying a set of attributes and characteristics of marginalised groups, taking into account the specific situation, challenges and needs of each potential target group with the aim of promoting their socio-economic inclusion, and involving representatives of those communities; emphasises that such guidance would further increase the effectiveness of cohesion policy in strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion throughout the European Union;

4.

Welcomes the fact that the legislative framework for cohesion policy 2014-2020 introduced new elements which consolidate the initial approach by extending funding opportunities and inserting mechanisms to ensure that support for marginalised communities complies with European values and objectives and takes into account the need to involve those groups in the whole process;

5.

Calls on the Commission to provide detailed information about the take-up of funding opportunities for marginalised communities; asks for an analysis that allows appropriate conclusions to be drawn and obstacles that prevent further take-up or the best possible results to be identified;

6.

Calls on the Commission to monitor the effective use of the European Code of Conduct with regard to the partnership principle and the involvement of civil society; recalls that the horizontal principles in the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) — which embody fundamental rights such as the promotion of equal opportunities, the prevention of discrimination and the promotion of sustainable development — must be applied when preparing and implementing programmes under the ESIF; recalls that all Member States' actions, which are funded under the EU cohesion policy, should respect fundamental rights principles and must never contribute to segregation in any way;

7.

Emphasises that equal opportunities and non-discrimination are embodied in the ESIF funding rules for the purpose of eradicating the systemic causes of inequality, whether economic, social or based on gender, as well as concerning the access to culture and education; highlights that understanding, and raising awareness about, systemic xenophobia and racism should be a focal point when analysing the roots of exclusion;

8.

Recalls that equality between women and men constitutes a principle that applies horizontally to cohesion policy; deplores the multiple discrimination suffered in particular by women, migrants and persons with disabilities within marginalised communities;

9.

Highlights that the implementation of the cohesion policy must tackle the crucial challenge of poverty and exclusion of young people and children, adults and people with disabilities, including the transition from institutional to community-based care and services; urges the Member States concerned to take appropriate action and measures to develop and implement strategies towards this end, applying the integrated approach;

10.

Points out that, in developing policies addressed to specific target audiences following the principle of ‘explicit but not exclusive targeting’, care must be taken not to exclude other groups in similar socio-economic circumstances, so as to avoid triggering defensive reactions; emphasises that this principle is only a first step in recognising the need to pay attention to some of the most vulnerable and marginalised communities and individuals;

11.

Stresses that accountable, transparent and democratic structures should be in place to fight corruption and the fraudulent use of funds to ensure the inclusion of marginalised communities;

12.

Regards access to public services as one of the major goals when addressing inclusion of marginalised groups; calls on the Member States to improve the provision of tailored health-information material and the development of disease-prevention strategies and community-health initiatives in marginalised communities; calls for the creation of specialised structures, such as clearing points advising on issues related to access to healthcare, labour market and education; demands that action be taken to effect a shift in public administrations from a demand-driven approach to a welcoming service approach;

13.

Calls for better coordination and stronger links between national strategies for marginalised communities, including National Roma Inclusion Strategies, National Poverty Reduction Strategies, strategies for the inclusion of other marginalised or less favoured communities, and gender equality strategies with cohesion policy;

14.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to regard children as a priority when implementing the EU Framework for National Roma Strategies, and reiterates the importance of promoting equal access to housing, healthcare, education and dignified living conditions for children;

15.

Calls on Member States and local authorities to encourage the use of ESF funding to support informal learning and lifelong learning projects, as well as culture-based projects, in order to reach the objectives of investing in new skills for innovation and combating unemployment, poverty and social exclusion;

16.

Recalls — bearing in mind the growing regional disparities, the demographic challenges and the situation faced by the growing number of young people who have left or are currently planning to leave their country of origin — that in the 2014-2020 budgetary cycle less funding is available for cohesion policy; believes that cohesion policy still has the potential to add value to the work already under way in Member States, and that — by focusing on improving employment opportunities, participation in society and investment in skills, particularly in those regions that need it most — cohesion policy will result in, among other benefits, greater social inclusion and poverty reduction by allowing appropriate flexibility to enable the Member States to implement individualised support in line with local needs and ensure that funding is used in those areas in which unemployment is highest and where funding is most needed;

17.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the Member States comply with these principles during the implementation of operational programmes; invites the Commission to include its analysis in its reporting, including on National Roma Integration Strategies;

18.

Stresses that budget cuts for public services in some Member States during the crisis have led to heightened unemployment, a lack of social security, a difficult housing situation and health problems; calls on the Member States to use ESF support more efficiently in order to improve the quality of, and equal access to, public services for marginalised communities, and to combat any form of discrimination;

19.

Calls for a human-rights perspective to be taken into account when designing actions supported by cohesion funds, and stresses that cultural, economic and social rights should be integrated into policies aimed at recognising women from marginalised communities as active citizens in their own right, and that racism, both open and invisible, should explicitly be addressed in every action and policy design;

20.

Stresses that the partnership principle must lead to involvement at all levels, and needs to be applied by Member States on an obligatory basis and not merely pro forma; stresses the importance of implementing the code of conduct on partnership in ensuring equal participation and representation of partners, whereby specific attention should be paid to including marginalised communities so that their specific situation, and any potential challenges that they face in contributing substantially to the partnership, may be taken into account; is concerned about the poor compliance with the obligatory involvement of partners in accordance with the respective principles laid down in the CPR and the European code of conduct on partnership; urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure the involvement of partners, including those most concerned, and to implement a system of incentives and exchange of best practices, including specific support to those managing authorities and beneficiaries that have had particularly good results in this area;

21.

Regrets that the Commission has accepted partnership agreements that do not include marginalised communities to a sufficient degree; asks the Commission to take measures to facilitate the inclusion of marginalised communities in the preparation, implementation and assessment of projects, as a tool for empowering the concerned communities; suggests that recommendations be presented in the context of the European Semester as a suitable way of promoting action to be taken by Member States;

22.

Calls on the Member States to act on, and on the Commission to follow up closely, the country-specific recommendations issued on the social inclusion of marginalised communities;

23.

Welcomes the fact that some Member States, including those receiving recommendations, choose the socio-economic integration of marginalised communities as an investment priority in their operational programmes; warns, however, that this must also be mainstreamed in policy areas such as education and employment;

24.

Calls on the Member States to make full use of the funds; emphasises the need for a special focus on funding measures that go beyond targeted action under the thematic objective for social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination, favouring an integrated and systematic approach;

25.

Considers multi-level governance and coordination to play an important role; emphasises that the involvement of local authorities and local stakeholders is essential if the target group is to be reached, and that it requires the highest territorial proximity possible;

26.

Points to the importance of an integrated approach; is of the opinion that funds should be used in a more integrated way, including by means of multi-fund programmes, Community-Led Local Development, Integrated Territorial Investment and cross-financing, as referred to in Article 98.2 of the CPR, and that synergies should be achieved with other EU and national funding instruments; calls on the administrations and authorities concerned to strive for active cooperation at all levels, including across borders;

27.

Notes that cross-financing is currently used in a limited way, to some extent caused by complex rules described in Article 98(2) of the CPR; is of the opinion that increasing the flexibility of rules for cross-financing, particularly in reference to marginalised communities, could increase the effectiveness of the projects and bring an important added value to their impact; calls, therefore, on the Commission to conduct an analysis of the application and level of use of cross-financing;

28.

Notes that marginalised communities often live in less favourable parts of cities; emphasises the importance of a genuine implementation of urban renewal and regeneration programmes for deprived neighbourhoods that combine integrated and place-based approaches and partnerships, tackle both economic, social and territorial challenges, and improve the urban environment, and that also focus on increasing connectivity with a view to giving these communities better access; considers that the future EU Urban Agenda should address, in an adequate way, the key challenges and needs related to marginalised communities in urban areas in order to prevent the establishment of ghetto areas and successfully fight segregation, poverty and social exclusion;

29.

Draws attention to the specific needs that marginalised communities living in rural, mountainous and isolated areas face, including challenges related to connectivity, mobility and access to services, but also in terms of cultural and social opportunities; highlights the importance of connecting the regions in a better way; notes also that people in cross-border areas are often subject to marginalisation owing to their geographical situation and that this should be taken into consideration in a better way when cohesion policy is formulated, notably as regards the European territorial cooperation goal;

30.

Underlines the need to build up the capacity of the stakeholders, including public services, administrations and civil-society bodies, with a view of empowering communities, notably by allowing them to take greater part in policy making; calls for targeted technical assistance and funding to be used also to this end;

31.

Calls on the Commission to offer the technical support needed to improve the administrative capacity of bodies involved in the administration of the Structural Funds, and calls on the Member States to provide advice and administrative assistance, e.g. by organising training and by helping with aid applications and explanations, so as to make it easier for marginalised communities such as Roma to obtain information concerning European and national funding programmes in support of entrepreneurship and employment and to submit the relevant applications;

32.

Stresses that the social partners must have access to technical assistance not only in order to strengthen their capacity, but also to ensure their coordination and representation in the ad hoc committees that define and implement the operational programmes;

33.

Points out that, in partnership with representatives of marginalised communities, the Commission, after giving guidance on the definition of marginalised communities, should set up an ad hoc expert group for advice, and promote appropriate training for administrative staff, in order to provide specific knowledge of the difficulties facing marginalised communities, and to combat discriminatory practices, with a view to fostering inclusion through constructive and effective dialogue, and to implementing and monitoring EU-funded projects related to marginalised communities in an integrated and effective way, thereby maximising their impact;

34.

Considers it essential to include equality bodies, women's organisations and women from marginalised communities in the decision-making process on the allocation, use, implementation and monitoring of the funds, at all levels — from local and regional through Member State to EU level — and considers that the monitoring and evaluation of the programmes implemented should be regarded as a key process in enhancing the participation of women from marginalised communities;

35.

Notes the approach that all strategic and operational policy arrangements, including sufficient administrative or institutional capacity, are to be in place before investments are made; encourages the Commission to monitor thoroughly the fulfilment of these conditions, and to ensure that complementary actions are taken by the Member States concerned, in particular in the field of promoting inclusion and combating poverty and discrimination;

36.

Points out that EU-funded projects must have a long-term perspective in order to be effective, and that the funds must support investment in the actual needs of the beneficiaries, with mechanisms to ensure that target groups are reached and to address exclusion and marginalisation; calls for qualitative evaluation and monitoring mechanisms; calls on the Commission to put in place proactive and participatory mechanisms for monitoring and observing Members States' actions in the planning and evaluation processes for funds used for marginalised communities;

37.

Highlights that housing exclusion, homelessness, education exclusion and unemployment are often key elements of marginalisation; emphasises, therefore, the importance of integrated housing, educational and employment interventions, in favour of marginalised communities;

38.

Recalls — bearing in mind that the recent economic and financial crisis has been felt particularly hard by those marginalised groups that face the greatest risk of losing their jobs during times of turbulence on the labour market — that education and employment are the best ways out of poverty, and that integrating marginalised communities into society and the labour market should therefore be a priority; notes with concern that members of marginalised communities are frequently excluded from society and suffer discrimination, and consequently face barriers to accessing high-quality education, employment, healthcare, transportation, information and services in general, which poses a complex problem that needs to be addressed properly through the complementary use and effective combination of ESIF and national resources; emphasises, accordingly, the need to make special efforts as regards existing EU programmes, such as the Youth Employment Initiative, Erasmus+ and Creative Europe, with a view of reaching out to members of marginalised communities, accompanied by regular monitoring of the success of that outreach, in order to break the cycle of poverty and marginalisation and to boost people’s professional skills and qualifications;

39.

Calls for the funds to be used to improve living conditions and to facilitate access for women in marginalised communities to high-quality, stable education, housing, health care, employment, childcare, social services, victim support services and legal systems;

40.

Underlines that representatives of marginalised communities need to be actively involved, and enabled to participate as full members, in monitoring arrangements; points out that considerable experience could have been gathered at local, regional, national and transnational level; underlines the need to disseminate and capitalise on best practices; calls on the Commission and Member States to analyse all existing best practices, including innovative ones related to the inclusion of marginalised groups and individuals into society, and to initiate networking activities, including among social, youth and community workers as well as among academics and researchers; stresses the need for a network platform at EU level facilitating the exchange of best practices and joint problem solving that could serve as well as an e-learning facility for capacity building;

41.

Invites the Commission to address cohesion policy and marginalised communities in its annual structured dialogue with civil society and organisations representing partners, while making sure that representatives of marginalised communities participate and facilitating a debate based on quantitative and qualitative analysis;

42.

Points out that awareness of structural and systemic inclusion is not only called for on the part of society as a whole but is especially essential for the work of decision-makers and stakeholders at all administrative levels and other public bodies involved; calls on all public stakeholders and training institutes to carry out a thorough analysis of the causes of discrimination and marginalisation, and to raise awareness of the fact that xenophobia and racism, and all types of marginalisation leading to systemic exclusion, including anti-Gypsyism, must be eliminated; calls on the Commission rigorously to enforce and monitor EU legislation on discrimination; calls on public employment services (PES) to provide high-quality, needs-based tailored services;

43.

Highlights the need for a dual approach to helping and integrating marginalised groups, which should be done directly in conjunction with those affected through the provision of education, including education facilities, training, vocational guidance and job opportunities, and in conjunction with the local community and authorities in order to improve and/or change public perceptions by raising awareness of the effects of prejudice, improving public services and adapting social systems;

44.

Stresses that education is a fundamental right enshrined in the Treaty on European Union; emphasises that ensuring equal access to high-quality education for all members of society is key to breaking the cycle of social exclusion; takes the view that formal, non-formal and informal education, characterised by education in diversity, is a first step towards the genuine political, economic and social inclusion of marginalised communities; underlines the need to implement programmes, projects and support activities for marginalised communities in order to provide for preschool education, to underpin the need for formal education, while also offering opportunities for other forms of education as well as lifelong learning, particularly in vocational skills and in ICT, and to improve access to the media, also with a view of empowering women and girls in marginalised communities;

45.

Calls on the Member States, and on regional and local authorities, to encourage the use of ERDF to support SMEs and social enterprises that involve and benefit marginalised communities; points to the need to support activities for marginalised communities in order to provide aid to, and create the conditions for, micro-scale entrepreneurship, thereby preserving different ways of doing business;

46.

Points out that many sectors will undergo a significant transformation in the near future, in part because of the wider use of online tools and solutions; points out that this will put both low- and medium-skilled workers under pressure, which will have a particular impact on members of marginalised communities, as at present it is they who usually find work in these sectors; highlights the importance of accessible and affordable training and services for all in the field of new technologies and sectors, with special regard to opportunities in the digital sector and the green economy, especially for the most disadvantaged groups; notes the importance of micro- and small businesses in helping to sustain jobs in rural areas, and calls, therefore, for increased emphasis on ensuring access to finance for these businesses;

47.

Points to the importance of empowering women within marginalised communities by encouraging women entrepreneurs and women’s participation in those communities;

48.

Highlights the important role that social entrepreneurship, cooperatives, mutual associations and alternative business can play in empowering women in marginalised communities; recommends that cohesion funds, particularly the ESF, support investments in this field that have a strong gender perspective;

49.

Invites the Commission to analyse the limitations of the current allocation key for determining support from cohesion policy funds based on GDP, making better use of available indicators — such as Eurostat EU-SILC data on income and living conditions — capable of identifying pockets of poverty and social fragility on the Union’s territory, in order to target EU support for marginalised communities in a better way;

50.

Stresses that in the EU political debate, marginalised communities are often exploited tendentiously for political ends, and that a detailed analysis of structural exclusion is required, both in partnership agreements and in the operational programmes concerned; calls on the Commission to provide coherent, consistent and clear guidance on the development, implementation and management of the EU-funded projects related to marginalised communities, including in-depth analyses, best practise examples and policy recommendations, to ensure that marginalised communities are included in EU funds also in view of the forthcoming programming period;

51.

Calls for a gender perspective and an intersectional analysis to be incorporated into all EU-funded integration and social inclusion initiatives, programmes, actions and funding arrangements, so that the specific needs of women in marginalised communities can be addressed — and the variety of voices and perspectives of women in different structural positions and roles can be captured — in a better way; believes that gender impact assessments and gender budgeting are useful in evaluating the impact on women of funding priorities, the allocation of financial resources and the specifications for funding programmes; emphasises the need for gender-disaggregated data to be collected systematically and analysed regularly;

52.

Invites the Member States to offer an award for exemplary dedication to the integration and inclusion of marginalised groups in implementing EU funds; suggests that such an award for outstanding work could be presented to municipalities or regions in the Member States;

53.

Invites the Member States to enable and encourage networking among municipalities and cities dealing with the integration of marginalised groups; suggests that the Covenant of Mayors on Climate Change could serve as an example for such a network;

54.

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

27.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/42

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on the EU and the UN, in particular its recommendation to the Council of 2 April 2014 on the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly (1) and its resolution of 11 May 2011 on the EU as a global actor: its role in multilateral organisations (2),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 22 June 2015 on the EU priorities for the 70th UN General Assembly,

—

having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

—

having regard to the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on the participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations (3), which grants the EU the right to intervene in the UN General Assembly, to present proposals and amendments orally which will be put to a vote at the request of a Member State, and to exercise the right to reply,

—

having regard to the first-ever statement, made on 14 February 2014, by the President of the Security Council on the role the EU has played in maintaining international peace and security (4),

—

having regard to the declaration of the Durban World Conference of 2001 against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,

—

having regard to the study published in March 2015 by the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for External Policies, ‘Reforming the United Nations: State of Play, Ways Forward’,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Development, the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Culture and Education and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A8-0308/2015),

A.

whereas the future of the European Union is linked with global peace, security, development and human rights; whereas the challenges the EU faces need global solutions, and global issues need European action;

B.

whereas the principles and goals of the EU’s external policy are enshrined in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, and are closely interlinked with those of the UN; whereas Article 21 TEU expressly calls for respect for the principles of the UN Charter and international law;

C.

whereas the EU has a unique potential to mobilise resources across the full range of diplomatic, security, defence, economic, development and humanitarian instruments, in full compliance with the provisions of the UN charter; whereas using these instruments on the basis of a comprehensive approach allows the EU a unique flexibility in terms of effectively addressing the most challenging security goals;

D.

whereas the EU actively participates, under UN auspices, in the promotion of peace, security and progress, through its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP);

E.

whereas the EU safeguards its values, fundamental interests, security, independence and integrity and acts in order to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, and with the aims of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe adopted in 1990; whereas the EU is part of the collective UN security system, also as one of the regional arrangements foreseen under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter;

F.

whereas the EU fosters the sustainable economic, social and environmental progress of developing countries, with the primary aims of eradicating poverty, promoting long-term peace and stability and combating social inequalities, and provides humanitarian assistance to populations, countries and regions that are confronted with all types of crises, whether natural or human-made;

G.

whereas the EU is a leading actor in different interrelated policy areas: trade, development, humanitarian relief, the environment and human rights;

H.

whereas the EU works for environmental sustainability by promoting international measures and actions to preserve and improve the quality of the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources;

I.

whereas the EU also plays a leading role in environmental policies, notably in the fight against climate change, not only by being in the vanguard and setting itself ambitious targets, but also by unfailingly exercising advocacy in global negotiations for binding agreements and concrete and measurable actions;

J.

whereas the EU strengthens the foundation of social sustainability and good governance by consolidating, supporting and promoting democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law;

K.

whereas, in accordance with its treaties, the EU promotes an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good global governance, and is committed to an effective multilateralism having the UN at its core; whereas this commitment is rooted in the conviction that, if it is to respond successfully to global crises, challenges and threats, the international community needs an efficient multilateral system founded on universal rights and values;

L.

whereas the main emphasis of the EU’s external policy has been on bilateral relations and on cooperation and partnerships with countries, groups of countries and other regional and international organisations all over the world; whereas special attention has been paid over the last decades to the geopolitical goals and concerns in the EU’s Eastern and Southern neighbourhoods; whereas the EU also maintains special relationships with, and, in its actions, devotes particular attention to, the challenges in African countries;

M.

whereas in a context of growing global interdependence the EU must strengthen its role both in bilateral relationships and in multilateral forums;

N.

whereas the EU has been involved in, and plays an important role in, international negotiations and mediation, in particular in the cases of the E3/EU3+3 and Iran negotiations and the Middle East Peace Process;

O.

whereas, as the largest trading bloc in the world, the EU plays a strong role in bilateral and multilateral trade arrangements, and has developed active trade policy measures for promoting economic growth, poverty reduction and protection of the environment and of natural resources;

P.

whereas the EU and its Member States are the largest financial contributor to the UN general budget, as well as to its humanitarian assistance, Official Development Assistance (ODA) and peacekeeping operations; whereas EU development policies are of great importance owing to their active promotion of poverty reduction and of economic, social and environmental sustainability, thus strengthening peace and security; whereas the EU is party to more than 50 UN multilateral agreements and conventions, as the only non-state participant;

Q.

whereas the EU is one of the most dedicated defenders and promoters of human rights, fundamental freedoms, cultural values and diversity, democracy and the rule of law; whereas provisions relating to those principles are included in all its bilateral partnerships and have a central position in its multilateral policy; whereas the EU has always been a very strong supporter of international justice;

R.

whereas the EU plays an important role in supporting UN operations in areas of mutual concern, in particular in the protection of civilians and especially of women and children affected by armed conflict;

S.

whereas equality between women and men is a basic value of the EU that is recognised in its Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights; whereas the EU has assumed the responsibility of integrating gender equality in all its activities and policy areas, including in external and development cooperation policies;

T.

whereas humankind has common values and interests; whereas there should be fair sharing of the burden and the benefits when solving common problems and promoting common goals and values;

U.

whereas the UN system is the main global forum for improving global governance, and as such represents the best forum in which to promote the EU’s values and interests;

V.

whereas the main goal after World War II was maintaining peace and security; whereas the promotion of economic and social development and human rights had a central place in the Charter; whereas environmental concerns have emerged on the agenda of the UN since the early 1970’s; whereas in 1987 the Brundtland report ‘Our Common Future’ defined the concept of sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; whereas at the Rio Conference (UNCED) in 1992 development and environmental policies were merged into a combination of effective poverty reduction and promotion of sustainable development all over the world;

W.

whereas the UN system covers all areas of cooperation, with the Security Council at its core being primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security, assisted by subsidiary and advisory bodies;

X.

whereas the UN system is made up of 19 specialised agencies, among them the FAO, the IFAD, the ILO, the IMF, UNESCO, UNIDO, the WHO and the World Bank Group, together with 11 funds and programmes, among them UNCTAD, UNDP, UNEP, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UN Women and the WFP (5), as well as 9 functional commissions, 5 regional commissions and a number of other similar bodies; whereas organisations like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are also linked to the UN system;

Y.

whereas most of the above agencies, funds, programmes, commissions and committees work under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council and of the General Assembly, to which some of them report;

Z.

whereas the EU and its Member States have a crucial role in promoting the principles and goals of the UN and solving the common problems of humanity; whereas, on the other hand, Europe needs global partners for solving its own problems in areas such as security, the protection of the environment, human rights, migration, safeguard of the right to asylum, and financial instability;

AA.

whereas the EU has a special responsibility for peacekeeping, development and human rights where its neighbourhood is concerned;

AB.

whereas it is crucial that actions undertaken in the framework of the UN respect international law; whereas crimes perpetrated under a UN mandate are extremely harmful to the organisation’s credibility and should not enjoy impunity;

AC.

whereas countries are divided into geographical areas, which often leads to countries voting as a bloc; whereas states which are members of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) are often systematic violators of human rights themselves, thereby undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the UNHRC as a whole;

AD.

whereas the profits from looting and smuggling activities related to cultural and religious sites and objects in Iraq and Syria on the part of ISIS/Da’esh are being used to help fund ISIS/Da’esh terrorist activities; whereas UNESCO and its Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property have a central role to play in ensuring emergency protection of the Syrian and Iraqi cultural heritage;

AE.

whereas the EU and the UN engage in close cooperation in the most delicate crisis scenarios, in particular in the Middle East and North Africa; whereas their effort must be further enhanced with a view to finding peaceful political solutions to such crises;

AF.

whereas the discussion and decision on the renewal of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) are scheduled for 2015 at the UN General Assembly; whereas Parliament has called on the Assembly to renew the IGF’s mandate and to strengthen both its resources and the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance;

1.

Recalls that the EU and its Member States share the values and principles of the UN Charter as stated in Article 21(1) TEU and have a crucial role in promoting those principles as well as the goals of the UN, through the external action of the Union; considers that the EU needs global partners if it is to succeed in achieving its foreign policy goals, notably in the fields of peace and security, terrorism, organised crime, regional conflicts, state failures and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

2.

Considers the security environment of the EU to be increasingly unstable and volatile owing to the large number of longstanding or newly emerging security challenges; regards the conflict in eastern Ukraine, the conflicts in Syria and Iraq and the rise of the ISIS terrorist organisation, the Libyan crisis and the terrorist threat in Africa (in particular in the Sahel, Libya and the Horn of Africa) as serious global threats requiring global responses; considers that the EU cannot deal with those threats on its own but needs the support of international partners;

3.

Welcomes the fact that the EU and its Member States play an active part and contribute to the work of the UN system in different ways and formats, which should be more visible;

4.

Welcomes as well the EU’s major contribution to development and humanitarian relief around the world; recalls that the EU and its Member States are, taken together, the world’s biggest contributor to development and humanitarian aid;

5.

Recalls that the EU has become a real international actor and accordingly has ‘enhanced observer’ status at the UN, with the right to speak at UN General Assembly meetings in debates among representatives of major groups and before individual states, the right to submit proposals and amendments, the right of reply, and the right to raise points of order and circulate documents;

6.

Recalls, in addition, that within the UN the EU is represented by a multiplicity of actors: the President of the European Council, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European Commission and the EU delegations, as well as by its 28 Member States, two of which (France and the United Kingdom) are permanent veto-holding members of the UN Security Council (UNSC); insists on the fact that according to the Treaty the EU Member States are obliged to coordinate their action in all international forums;

7.

Is of the conviction that, in order to better achieve its foreign policy goals as enshrined in the Treaty, the EU should strive to strengthen global governance inside the UN system and to increase its own and its Member States’ influence within that system; recalls the EU’s commitment to actively support a comprehensive reform of the UN system in order to strengthen its legitimacy, its regional representation, and its transparency, accountability and effectiveness in responding to the complex, multi-faceted challenges of today; stresses in particular the importance of revitalising the work of the General Assembly;

8.

Emphasises that, within the General Assembly, the EU should play an enhanced role that implies sufficient visibility and policy leverage, enabling it to better execute its international obligations, in line with the above mentioned General Assembly resolution of 3 May 2011;

9.

Reiterates its support for the role of parliaments and regional assemblies in the UN system;

10.

Calls on the Security Council members to review and revise, in close cooperation with the General Assembly, the opaque process of selection of the UN Secretary-General, and to ensure equitable opportunities as between men and women candidates for this post; calls on all UN bodies, and notably the Security Council, to dedicate sufficient attention to gender mainstreaming within the UN, and on EU Member States to be in the forefront of this effort by encouraging and promoting women candidates; expresses its wish that a woman be elected as the next UN Secretary-General; calls on the EU to support UN Women in taking into account discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression;

11.

Stresses the EU’s current priorities, set for the 70th UN General Assembly session, which reiterate the Union’s long-standing demand that the UN should streamline its structures, budget and working methods, without shying away from difficult topics such as the reform of the Security Council;

12.

Stresses that the General Assembly, which represents the governments of all member countries, must have ways and means to give direction to the UN system and coordinate all its activities;

13.

Is convinced that the Security Council must be reformed in order to better reflect the new world reality and to more effectively meet present and future security challenges; encourages countries having the right of veto on the UN Security Council to refrain from exercising their veto in situations of genocide and crimes against humanity;

14.

Recalls, considering the contribution of the EU to peace and security architecture in the world and the Lisbon Treaty’s objective of enhancing the European foreign policy, the long-term goal of the EU having a seat on an enlarged Security Council, and reiterates its call for a Europe-wide debate on its reform; reiterates its call on the Vice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) to seek common EU positions on issues within the remit of the Security Council, and to improve the existing cooperation mechanisms aimed at ensuring that EU Member States sitting on the Security Council defend common EU positions in that forum; recalls that, according to Article 34 TEU, EU members of the UNSC shall keep other Member States and the High Representative informed, and defend the positions and interests of the EU; further recalls that where the EU has a defined position on a UNSC agenda item, those states shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position;

15.

Recalls that Chapter VIII of the UN Charter furthers an enhanced role for regional and sub-regional organisations within the UN, and calls on the EU and the OSCE to aim for their and other regional organisations’ greater involvement in global governance;

16.

Considers that, through further cooperation with the UN, the EU should take greater advantage of partnerships with the UN’s specialised agencies, funds, programmes, commissions and committees; calls for a strengthening of EU coordination on the boards of these bodies to ensure that the EU speaks with a single voice;

17.

Stresses that, besides these necessary reforms to be carried out within the UN, a better achievement of the EU’s foreign policy goals, including the promotion of fundamental values, presupposes a more effective coordination of the various dimensions of all of its external policy, both bilateral and multilateral; reiterates its call for stronger visibility of EU action and assistance in all multilateral forums and on the ground;

18.

Calls on the EU to more effectively coordinate its work in the field of humanitarian aid, e.g. through ECHO, with the respective UN agencies, in order to create optimal efficiency with limited resources and avoid unnecessary overlap;

19.

Calls on the relevant EU and UN institutions to fully respect and implement the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement (FAFA); asks the Commission to report to Parliament on the implementation of FAFA and the related guidelines, and to identify areas needing improvement and make relevant proposals in this regard;

20.

Stresses the importance of EU-UNDP cooperation on aid effectiveness; underlines the commitment of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation and encourages all states, as well as private sector actors, to commit to it;

21.

Believes that the European Court of Human Rights has contributed very successfully to the progress Europe has made in terms of respect for human rights and can serve as an example for other regions;

22.

Calls for the improvement of preventive and early warning tools and enhanced UN mediation capabilities, with coherent and achievable mandates for peace-building and peace-keeping operations that include a human rights component and clear exit strategies; encourages EU Member States to provide more substantial support to peace-building and peace-keeping operations, and calls on the EU to strengthen its mediation efforts in conflict resolution; bearing in mind the recent atrocities and human rights violations perpetrated by some extremist and terrorist groups, as well as ongoing sexual violence in conflict, including rape as a weapon of war; urges the Security Council, in line with the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine, to define an ambitious set of tools and means in order to ensure effective prevention of these atrocities and uphold the rule of law and of international humanitarian law, and to prompt UN Member States to combat human trafficking and clamp down on recruitment to and funding for terrorist groups by preventing and suppressing the recruiting, organising, transporting, and equipping of terrorist fighters and the financing of their travel and activities;

23.

Calls for the EU to support a strengthening of the coherence, synergies and complementarities between the reviews of peace operations, the UN peacebuilding architecture and UNSC Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security; stresses the importance of women’s equal and full participation as active agents in conflict prevention and resolution, peace negotiations, peace-building, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and post-conflict reconstruction; welcomes, in this context, the fact that the Commission has reviewed its humanitarian aid policy, which now states that international humanitarian law and/or human rights law may justify providing safe abortions to female war rape victims;

24.

Encourages the EU to promote a broad definition of the human security concept, linking it more closely to human rights, gender equality and human development;

25.

Is of the conviction that the EU must demonstrate strong and committed support to the International Criminal Court, notably by strengthening and expanding its relationship with the UN, especially the Security Council, and by ensuring speedy ratification by the EU Member States of the Kampala amendments to the Rome Statute which define the crime of aggression; recalls that primary responsibility for bringing offenders to justice lies with states themselves, and supports ICC jurisdiction where national authorities are unable or unwilling to genuinely prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community;

26.

Supports the reinforcement of EU-UN operational cooperation in crisis management, also by the EU working together with the UN on both the sharing of analyses (in order to come to a joint analysis) and the planning of peace and security operations (in order to facilitate the operational aspects);

27.

Considers that more should be done to ensure that UN member states honour their promises to provide humanitarian aid by publishing regular overviews of compliance with obligations;

28.

Welcomes the EU’s commitment to greater responsibility and transparency in the arms trade, and supports the promotion of the universalisation and full implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty as well as the implementation of the outcome of the First Conference of States; requests the EU to continue to promote the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and thus the essential foundation for nuclear disarmament, in accordance with that treaty’s own Article VI; further requests the EU to actively take steps towards global disarmament;

29.

Underlines the importance of the EU continuing to actively promote equality and non-discrimination; welcomes the first-ever UN Security Council meeting on LGBTI rights, held on 24 August 2015, which condemned the attacks on and killings of LGBTI people in the Middle East by ISIS; encourages the Security Council to take further account of violations of LGBTI rights;

30.

Recalls the EU’s position on zero tolerance for the death penalty; underlines the importance of the EU continuing to advance the moratorium on the death penalty;

31.

Is of the conviction that the economic, social, environmental and development dimensions of the UN system must be substantially strengthened by ensuring that the UN bodies take a more political approach and improving cooperation between them, and by securing a more effective and transparent use of available resources; believes that this must be achieved in the first instance by means of a structural and functional reform of the principal organ responsible for this task under the UN Charter, namely the Economic and Social Council; calls on the EU institutions and Member States to consider the possibility of strengthening their role in the Economic and Social Council by developing it into a Sustainable Development Council;

32.

Welcomes the creation of the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on sustainable development, which has the role of providing political leadership, guidance and recommendations on development policy related to the three pillars (social, economic and environmental) of sustainable development; is convinced that the HLPF must become the main decision-making body for all development policy, thus ensuring coordinated and efficient assessment of needs and adoption of necessary roadmaps, decisions and binding measures related to the post-2015 sustainable development framework; insists on the need to effectively implement the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the UN summit in September 2015;

33.

Is of the conviction, in light of the recurring humanitarian crises linked to refugees and migrants which are causing much human suffering, and considering that the sustainable development of the countries of origin could ultimately provide a solution to the humanitarian crisis, that the work of all agencies related to this concern should be coordinated;

34.

Takes the view that the challenges presented by the humanitarian crisis linked to refugees are issues which need to be managed in a comprehensive fashion, in a spirit of solidarity within the EU and in close cooperation with the UN and its agencies;

35.

Calls on the EU and the UN to step up their joint efforts with a view to reaching an ambitious and legally binding agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris 2015, and to ensuring that the swift implementation of COP21 will follow;

36.

Takes the view that the work of the World Bank Group, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation could also be coordinated as parts of the UN system, while maintaining their present decision-making structures, in order to ensure that their respective decisions are taken and actions carried out in an accountable, efficient, coherent and non-redundant fashion;

37.

Supports the goal of establishing, at multilateral level, an investment protection regime, with a new system whereby the jurisdiction of national courts is respected, and calls on the Commission to incorporate this objective into its negotiating agenda for the drafting of agreements on investment; is of the opinion that, should a permanent international court for the settlement of investment disputes be created, it could be located within the UN system, and should be based on the rights and obligations of those subject to the court, with an emphasis on the OECD principles for multinational enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; considers that the UN system provides useful templates for such a system, in particular for questions of financing;

38.

Considers it necessary to bring about the conclusion of the WTO Doha Development round, and believes that the UN can use its unique position to ensure that those talks are a success for developing countries; believes that in this regard the UN could work alongside the WTO, as well as providing advice and guidance for developing countries in terms of promoting a strategy for trade and investment, with the EU as a key player;

39.

Is aware of the need to strengthen and implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; urges the EU to contribute to a successful outcome of the work of the Intergovernmental Working Group on transnational corporations and human rights;

40.

Believes that the UN should enhance all human wellbeing-related matters; is of the view that these include cultural sustainability and the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions, through the integration of education, tourism, cultural diplomacy, protection of heritage, the creative sector and scientific research in the policy-making approach;

41.

Recommends ensuring cooperation between the EU and the UN for education in emergency programmes in the event of humanitarian crises, armed conflicts and natural disasters, by continuing to support programmes such as UNICEF’s Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition, the UNHCR’s quality education programme in refugees camps, and the educational work of UNRWA;

42.

Welcomes the organising into clusters of the work of the Commission appointed in 2014, giving the VP/HR the strengthened responsibility of coordinating the external policy of the EU, in close cooperation with other EU institutions; stresses that policies with a global dimension must be at the heart of the work of this specific cluster;

43.

Calls on the VP/HR to include in her/his annual report on the CFSP a comprehensive section on the promotion of the EU’s global foreign policy goals;

44.

Is of the opinion that Parliament must be in a position to address the global challenges in the same deep and comprehensive way as the Commission, and to organise its work accordingly; encourages all committees of Parliament whose remit covers policies having an external and global dimension to forward their opinions on the relevant section of the report of the VP/HR to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has responsibility for this report;

45.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service, the United Nations General Assembly and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

27.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/51

—

having regard to Articles 4 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

—

having regard to Articles 107, 108, 113, 115, 116, 175 and 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to its decision of 12 February 2015 on setting up a special committee on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, its powers, numerical strength and term of office (1),

—

having regard to the revelations of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) on tax rulings and other harmful practices in Luxembourg, which have become known as ‘LuxLeaks’,

—

having regard to the outcome of the G7, G8 and G20 Summits on international tax issues, in particular the Elmau Summit of 7-8 June 2015, the Brisbane Summit of 15-16 November 2014, the St Petersburg Summit of 5-6 September 2013, the Lough Erne Summit of 17-18 June 2013 and the Pittsburgh Summit of 24-25 September 2009,

—

having regard to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Report ‘Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue’ of 1998,

—

having regard to the OECD Report ‘Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting’ (BEPS) of 2013, the OECD’s action plan on BEPS and its subsequent publications,

—

having regard to the recent European Council conclusions on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (14 March 2013), on taxation (22 May 2013), on the automatic exchange of information (18 December 2014), on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), the automatic exchange of information at global level and harmful tax measures (18 December 2014) and on tax evasion (27 June 2014),

—

having regard to the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) conclusions and its report to the European Council on tax issues of 22 June 2015,

—

having regard to the six-monthly reports from the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) to the Council on the Code of Conduct,

—

having regard to the Administrative Cooperation Directive (2), the Interest and Royalties Directive (3) and the latest Commission legislative proposals to amend them,

—

having regard to Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (4) (the ‘Parent-Subsidiary Directive’), as last amended in 2015,

—

having regard to Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (5),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU (6),

—

having regard to Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums (7),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (8),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 26 February 2007 to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the work of the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum in the field of dispute avoidance and resolution procedures and on Guidelines for Advance Pricing Agreements within the EU (COM(2007)0071),

—

having regard to the Commission notice of 10 December 1998 on the application of the state aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (9),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 17 June 2015 entitled ‘A fair and efficient corporate tax system in the European Union: 5 key areas for action’ (COM(2015)0302),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 March 2015 on tax transparency to fight tax evasion and avoidance (COM(2015)0136),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 6 December 2012 entitled ‘An Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion’ (COM(2012)0722),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 6 December 2012 on aggressive tax planning (C(2012)8806),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 6 December 2012 regarding measures intended to encourage third countries to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters (C(2012)8805),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 27 June 2012 on concrete ways to reinforce the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, including in relation to third countries (COM(2012)0351),

—

having regard to the Commission’s proposal of 2011 for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) (COM(2011)0121), and to Parliament’s position of 19 April 2012 thereon (10),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 25 October 2011 on ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility’ (COM(2011)0681),

—

having regard to the resolution of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 1 December 1997 on a code of conduct for business taxation (11) and to the regular Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) reports to the Council,

—

having regard to the Recommendation of 30 April 2014 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the protection of whistleblowers,

—

having regard to the 1999 Simmons & Simmons report on administrative practices mentioned in paragraph 26 of the 1999 Code of Conduct Group report, the Primarolo report (SN 4901/99) and the update of this report in 2009,

—

having regard to the amendments adopted by Parliament on 8 July 2015 to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement and Directive 2013/34/EU as regards certain elements of the corporate governance statement (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2015 on tax avoidance and tax evasion as challenges for governance, social protection and development in developing countries (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2015 on the Annual Tax Report (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2015 on the Annual Report 2013 on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests — Fight against fraud (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption and money laundering (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 May 2013 on the fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax havens (17),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 April 2012 on the call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion (18),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on Tax and Development — Cooperating with Developing Countries on Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters (19),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 February 2010 on promoting good governance in tax matters (20),

—

having regard to the various parliamentary hearings and consecutive reports on the same topic held in national parliaments and in particular in the UK House of Commons, the US Senate and the French Assemblée nationale,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect (A8-0317/2015),

A.

whereas the LuxLeaks scandal, which erupted on 5 November 2014 thanks to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, with the release of some 28 000 pages of confidential documents setting out more than 500 private tax arrangements between the Luxembourg tax administration and more than 300 multinational corporations (MNCs) between 2002 and 2010, revealed the extent of the use of secret deals featuring complex financial structures designed to obtain drastic tax reductions; whereas in many cases Luxembourg subsidiaries handling hundreds of millions of euros in business maintain little presence and conduct little economic activity in Luxembourg;

B.

whereas issues related to corporate tax base erosion and aggressive tax planning practices have been known and analysed at international level for several decades at least; whereas LuxLeaks brought public and media attention to those issues, disclosing questionable tax practices promoted by accountancy firms in one specific Member State; whereas the Commission’s investigations and the work carried out by Parliament through its special committee have shown that this is not the only case, but that taking tax measures to reduce some large corporations’ overall tax liabilities so as to artificially increase the national tax base at the expense of other countries, some of which are subject to austerity measures, is a practice that is widespread within Europe and beyond;

C.

whereas such behaviours, often resulting in disconnection between where value is created and where profits are taxed, is not limited to tax rulings, but encompasses a wide range of harmful tax practices, which are implemented by national tax administrations within and outside the EU;

D.

whereas subjecting these practices to public scrutiny is part of democratic control; whereas, given their negative impact on society as a whole, they can only persist as long as they remain undisclosed, or are tolerated; whereas investigative journalists, the non-governmental sector and the academic community have been instrumental in exposing cases of tax avoidance and informing the public thereof; whereas, as long as they cannot be prevented, their disclosure should not depend on the courage and ethical sense of individual whistleblowers, but rather be part of more systematic reporting and information-exchange mechanisms;

E.

whereas corporate income tax revenue for the 28 Member States of the Union amounts to an average 2,6 % of GDP in 2012 (21);

F.

whereas, according to the Treaty, direct taxation is mainly a competence of the Member States; whereas, to the extent that the EU has competence in taxation, the exercise of that competence is usually subject to the unanimity requirement within the Council; whereas this has resulted in no significant decisions being taken yet at EU level in the area of corporate taxation, despite recent developments in EU integration in connection with the internal market and other areas covered by the EU Treaties, such as international trade agreements, the single currency, economic and fiscal governance and anti-money-laundering principles and legislation; whereas the Member States must comply with European competition law and ensure that their tax legislation is compatible with the principles of the internal market and does not create distortion of competition; whereas, by giving each Member State a veto right, the unanimity rule within the Council reduces the incentive to move from the status quo towards a more cooperative solution; whereas, unless he procedure laid down in Article 116 TFEU is used, Treaty change would be required to change the unanimity requirement in matters of direct taxation;

G.

whereas the current situation of each Member State having a veto right implies that all Member States have to act decisively and cooperatively in tackling the pan-European problem of tax evasion and avoidance;

H.

whereas, with some laudable exceptions, national political representatives have not been sufficiently forthcoming up until now in addressing the problem of tax avoidance, including tax rulings;

I.

whereas in the European internal market capital flows freely and large companies report their activities on a consolidated basis but tax is collected nationally by tax authorities exchanging very little information among them;

J.

whereas, in a completed internal market, no artificial distortion should affect investment decisions and business location; whereas, however, globalisation, digitalisation and free movement of capital create the conditions for more intense tax competition between Member States, and with third countries, in order to attract investment and businesses; whereas it is important to keep and attract companies in Europe, but this should not take the form of potentially harmful tax schemes which are aimed at fostering investment and attracting additional economic activity in the first place, reacting to similar measures launched in neighbouring countries, or are intended to correct what are regarded as pre-existing imbalances between the Member States in terms of relative wealth, size or peripheral location; whereas, incidentally, in some jurisdictions there seems to be a correlation between attractive corporate tax systems and a high level of national wealth; whereas the optimal design for tax systems depends on numerous factors and therefore differs from one country to another; whereas harmful tax competition between Member States limits the potential of the single market;

K.

whereas, instead of merely concentrating on the promotion of an attractive business climate with, for example, good infrastructure and a high-quality workforce, including through productivity-enhancing expenditure, and of ensuring the stability and predictability of the tax system, countries, in their role as players in the tax competition game, use their national legislation in conjunction with their tax treaty networks to promote themselves as countries to invest in, as hubs through which to channel financial flows or in which to book profits, thereby attracting businesses or letterbox companies at the expense of partner countries and creating unfair practices between them; whereas, taken in isolation, each country has a clear interest in adopting ‘free rider’ behaviour, i.e. in being the first to design and implement specific tax schemes and provisions to attract tax base, and the last to participate in any cooperative and coordinated action to tackle tax avoidance;

L.

whereas tax competition exists between Member States; whereas the principle of sincere cooperation between the Union Member States is outlined in Article 4 TEU; whereas Member States should fully apply the principle of sincere cooperation in matters of tax competition;

M.

whereas some Member States adopt an ambivalent position regarding tax avoidance, complaining on the one hand about their national tax base erosion while at the same time being responsible for the design of the current national and international tax systems which made it possible, and still impeding any development of their tax systems towards a more coordinated solution; whereas, in a framework of full capital mobility within the EU and with the Commission’s stated aim of introducing a Capital Markets Union, the interdependence and mutual effects of national tax systems and revenue should be fully taken into account, bearing in mind the extensive positive and negative cross-border spillovers from individual Member States’ tax decisions, since one country’s tax incentive is another’s base erosion;

N.

whereas we are observing a paradox whereby free competition between Member States in tax matters has resulted in anti-competitive behaviours and distortions of competition;

O.

whereas the introduction of the European single market has proved highly beneficial to national economies, making them more competitive and attractive in a globalised economy, and whereas tax convergence between Member States will ultimately have the same effect;

P.

whereas the legislator and often insufficiently resourced tax administrations cannot anticipate, but only react, sometimes with great delay, to the innovative tax avoidance schemes which are designed and promoted by some tax advisers, in particular from very large accountancy firms, by lawyers and by intermediary companies; whereas, in particular, experience shows that EU bodies which should prevent the introduction of new harmful tax measures (such as the Code of Conduct Group set up by Member States in 1998 or the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties) have proved incapable of countering these undesirable developments, sometimes reacting in an ineffective way or on the basis of too a limited mandate, and that many new and often aggressive tax avoidance measures or agreements, such as patent boxes, have been introduced in the EU; whereas MNCs are relying, in the EU and worldwide, on the expertise of a well-organised and skilled sector of tax advisers, as well as banks and other financial service providers, for the development of their tax avoidance schemes; whereas this sector is at the same time represented in bodies advising governments and public institutions on tax matters, such as, for instance, the EU Platform for Tax Good Governance; whereas there are concerns over the conflicts of interest that might arise from the provision by the same firms of advice to both public authorities and private MNCs;

Q.

whereas all tax planning should take place within the boundaries of the law and the applicable treaties; whereas, consequently, the most appropriate answer to aggressive tax planning is good legislation and international coordination as to desired outcomes;

R.

whereas implementation of legislation is decisive for the achievement of the intended objectives; whereas such implementation is matter for national administrations which have often few incentives to cooperate with each other at European level; whereas this situation adds to and worsens the divergences already arising from differences in legislations across the Union;

S.

whereas the Troika of institutions (European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) overseeing financial and fiscal adjustment programs in Member States such as Portugal and Greece did not attempt to prevent tax amnesties, tax rulings, tax benefits and tax exemption schemes which were and are unfairly discriminatory, favouring tax dodging corporations and individuals, causing high bleeding of State revenues and increasing the burden on already overtaxed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and citizens;

T.

whereas the investigation and prosecution of tax crimes and money laundering, often involving financial operations and legal persons in several jurisdictions, is extremely challenging; whereas Member States’ personnel in charge of investigating and conducting judicial prosecutions against offenders of tax crimes and other financial crimes are often under-trained and under-equipped;

U.

whereas policies of austerity and budget containment in the past few years have significantly reduced the tax administrations’ ability to investigate tax crimes and harmful tax practices; whereas these cuts were particularly harmful in countries under programs of financial assistance led by the Troika, where the increase of state revenues was achieved at the expense of overtaxed SMEs and citizens, while big corporations and wealthy tax dodgers often benefitted from tax amnesties, tax rulings and other tax exemptions and benefit schemes, as was the case in Portugal and Greece;

V.

whereas tax rulings cover a wide range of practices in Member States, ranging from ad-hoc policy to a clearly framed application of the law, in terms of possible scope and topics covered, binding nature, frequency of use, publicity, length and payment of fees; whereas there is no commonly agreed definition of tax rulings at international level except for the Commission’s reference to them as ‘any communication or any other instrument or action with similar effects, by or on behalf of the Member State regarding the interpretation or application of tax laws’;

W.

whereas tax rulings are not intrinsically problematic since they can, as is their original purpose, provide legal certainty for the taxpayer and reduce the financial risk for honest firms in cases where the tax laws or their particular application in certain circumstances are unclear or subject to diverging interpretations, in particular with regard to complex transactions, and thereby avoid future disputes between the taxpayer and the tax authority;

X.

whereas the practice of rulings developed, in the framework of a closer and more cooperative relationship between tax administrations and taxpayers, as a tool to tackle the increasing complexity of the tax treatment of certain transactions in an increasingly complex, global and digitalised economy; whereas — despite Member States’ asserting that rulings are not discretionary, but merely a tool to clarify existing tax legislation, while keeping them secret — its special committee’s work has confirmed that tax rulings can be issued without any legal framework through informal or discretionary arrangements, that support tax-driven structures which rely on tax planning tools typically used by MNCs to reduce their tax contribution; whereas this seems to be an issue particularly — although not exclusively — with rulings related to pricing of intra-company transfers (so-called Advance Pricing Agreements); whereas, in providing legal certainty only to some selected actors, they might create inequality between companies to which they have been granted and companies in the same sector which have no access to them;

Y.

whereas neither the OECD nor the European Commission have called for an end to the practice of tax rulings as such;

Z.

whereas advanced tax rulings are not supposed to affect in any way the tax treatment of any transaction, nor benefit one taxpayer over another, but rather should have, everything being equal, the same effect as the ex post application of the underlying tax provisions; whereas, accordingly, the focus of this report is not strictly limited to tax rulings but includes, in line with the mandate given to its special committee (TAXE), any tax measure similar in nature or in effect, under the generic term of ‘harmful tax practices’, i.e. measures aimed at attracting non-resident firms or transactions at the expense of other tax jurisdictions in which these transactions should normally be taxed and/or measures aimed at privileging only some companies, thus distorting competition;

AA.

whereas harmful tax practices can, to some extent, be connected to one or several of the following undesirable effects: lack of transparency, arbitrary discrimination, distortions of competition and an uneven playing field within and outside the internal market, an impact on the integrity of the single market, and on the fairness, stability and legitimacy of the tax system, more taxation on less mobile economic factors, increased economic inequalities, unfair competition between states, tax base erosion, social dissatisfaction, mistrust and a democratic deficit;

AB.

whereas it should be acknowledged that, while SMEs remain the driving force of the economy and of employment in Europe, multinational companies also play a key role in generating investment, economic growth and jobs; whereas paying their fair share of tax in the countries where the actual economic activity and value creation takes place remains a key contribution by those companies to the welfare and sustainability of European societies;

AC.

whereas its competent special committee, constituted on 26 February 2015, held 14 meetings, during which it heard Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici, the President-in-office of the Council Pierre Gramegna, the Ministers of Finance of France, Michel Sapin, Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, Italy, Pier Carlo Padoan, and Spain, Luis de Guindos, OECD representatives, as well as whistleblowers, investigative journalists, experts, academics, representatives of MNCs, professional associations, trade unions, non-governmental organisations and members of EU national parliaments (see Annex 1); whereas delegations from the TAXE Committee visited Switzerland, to look into specific aspects of the third-country dimension of its mandate, and the following Member States, to conduct fact-finding missions: Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom; whereas meetings with Government representatives of Gibraltar and Bermuda were also organised; whereas all these activities, while yielding diverse and invaluable insights into the tax systems and practices across the EU, did not clarify all pertinent questions, including remaining inconsistencies in the statements made by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker with respect to the long-time secret page of the Krecké report;

AD.

whereas some of the committee’s work was hindered by the fact that a number of the Member States and the Council did not reply in due time (see Annex 2) and, in the end, did not forward all the documents requested or simply made courtesy replies that hardly touched upon the substance of the requests made; whereas out of 17 MNCs invited, only four agreed to appear before the committee in June and July 2015 at the first invitation; whereas a further 11 MNCs agreed to appear before the committee only after the report was voted in the TAXE Committee and after repeated invitations, such that a new extraordinary meeting had to be convened shortly before the vote in plenary (see Annex 3); whereas the Commission did not fully cooperate either and send all room documents and informal meeting notes from the Code of Conduct meetings, only offering, because of some Member States’ intransigence, a limited consultation procedure; whereas the committee’s term of office therefore had to be extended;

AE.

whereas a number of state aid investigations by the Commission, in relation to transfer pricing arrangements, validated by tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect which affect the taxable profit allocated to certain MNC subsidiaries, were still in progress at the time of the adoption of this report;

1.

Recalls that the models of corporate taxation existing in industrialised countries were designed in the first half of the 20th century, a period in which cross-border activity was limited; notes that globalisation and digitalisation of the economy have radically altered the global value chain and the way markets operate and that most large companies now have a transnational structure which necessitates to go beyond national tax rules; stresses that national and international rules in the field of taxation have not kept pace with the evolution of the business environment;

2.

Stresses the need to formulate a balanced and fair tax policy as an integral part of structural reform in the Member States;

3.

Notes that, while compliance with various tax systems has become increasingly complex for firms operating across borders, globalisation and digitalisation have made it easier for them to organise their activities through off-shore financial centres and to create sophisticated structures in order to reduce their global tax contribution; is concerned that, owing to the economic and debt crisis and to budget consolidation, most Member States have significantly reduced their tax administration staff; stresses that national tax administrations should have sufficient resources, including human resources, to operate effectively in the prevention and detection of, and the fight against, aggressive tax planning, tax evasion and tax avoidance, which generate substantial erosion of their tax base, and ensure better and fairer tax collection and the credibility of the tax system; notes that studies have shown that skilled staff in tax administrations bring in significantly more revenue to the state than related expenditures, as the effectiveness of tax administrations has a direct positive impact on tax revenues;

4.

Stresses the difference between, on the one hand, harmful practices of certain tax and national administrations allowing MNCs to shift profits in order to avoid taxation on the territories where profits were generated and, on the other hand, governments’ competition in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) or keeping economic activities within the country in full compliance with the EU legislation;

5.

Stresses that the Treaty, in line with the subsidiarity principle, allows Member States to determine their own corporate tax rates and tax base until stronger tax convergence measures have been agreed in line with the Treaty; stresses also, however, that the over-complex rules of national tax systems, together with the differences between these systems, create loopholes that are used by MNCs for aggressive tax planning purposes, thus leading to base erosion, profit shifting, a race to the bottom and, ultimately, a suboptimal economic outcome; underlines the fact that this kind of tax avoidance is a negative-sum game for all national budgets taken together, as the increases in tax revenues resulting from harmful practices in one Member State (thanks to derogations, specific deductions or loopholes) do not compensate for the reductions in tax revenues in others; points out that only a more coordinated, joint approach by Member States, which should result in a common framework within which Member States set their tax rates, can prevent further base erosion, harmful tax competition and a tax rate race to the bottom;

6.

Recalls that some Member States have formally higher company taxes than others, but, in reality, owing to deductions and loopholes which favour domestic business, rates are substantially lower, making the effective tax rate lower than in Member States with a formally low rate;

7.

Points to the fact that lower company tax in some Member States can provide for a relative higher tax income than what higher tax rates provide for;

8.

Notes that, according to the Commission (22), statutory corporate income tax rates in the EU fell by 12 percentage points, from 35 % to 23 %, between 1995 and 2014; stresses that this decrease in tax rates is accompanied by a broadening of the tax base to mitigate revenue losses and that the relatively stable revenue stemming from corporate taxation in the same timeframe can also be explained by a substantial ‘incorporation’ trend, i.e. a shift from certain legal forms of doing business, such as (sole) proprietorship, to corporation status, which results in a similar shift from a personal to a corporate tax base;

9.

Notes that most Member States spend large amounts on tax incentives meant to give SMEs a competitive advantage but that, according to the Commission (23), these attempts are undermined by the effect of international tax planning in three out of four Member States surveyed in a recent study; notes that such effects put SMEs at a competitive disadvantage despite the large costs associated with tax expenditures to support these and that such results undermine the intention of national policy makers;

10.

Highlights the growing gap between statutory and effective tax rates, in particular for firms operating at global level, which reflects at least in part various derogations and exemptions from the general tax regime, whether intended by the legislator to reach specific objectives or resulting from aggressive tax planning, i.e. from creating purely artificial arrangements for taxation purposes only;

11.

Emphasises that mismatches between tax systems at a global level contribute to significant tax base erosion and tax evasion, but that action at EU level only will not deal with these issues;

12.

Notes the great diversity of the 28 tax systems in the EU, as regards both the definition of the tax base and the level of the tax rate, which is even greater if one takes into account those special jurisdictions with autonomous tax systems that are connected to EU Member States (overseas territories and Crown dependencies); deplores the fact that basic notions and elements, such as the balance between source and residence taxation, permanent establishment and taxable entities, economic substance and anti-abuse rules, the definition of interest and royalties, the treatment of intangibles, the treatment of debt and equity, let alone what can or cannot be deducted from the tax base, are currently not subject to any joint definition or guidelines in the EU, leaving Member States with uncoordinated tax systems; stresses that it is necessary to harmonise these definitions;

13.

Stresses that national preferential regimes and mismatches between the different tax systems within the single market create opportunities for tax avoidance; notes that these undesirable effects are further aggravated by the interaction with a great number of bilateral tax treaties between Member States and third countries, and insufficient anti-abuse provisions therein;

14.

Notes that this uncoordinated tax framework within the EU also suffers from a blatant lack of cooperation between Member States; stresses, in this connection, that Member States do not necessarily take into consideration the impact of their tax measures on other Member States, not only when they design their tax measures but also when they share information on the implementation of such measures, leading to a de facto beggar-thy-neighbour policy in tax matters, which is contrary to the very foundations of the European project; points out that an automatic, systematic and efficient exchange of information between Member States would make it possible to take account of the tax treatment of specific income flows or transactions in other Member States; stresses that this also contributes to creating an unacceptable situation in which the profits generated by MNCs in a Member State are often taxed at very low rates or not at all in the EU;

15.

Believes that fiscal policy and competition policy should be seen as two sides of the same coin in the internal market and calls on the Commission to reassess and enhance available instruments and resources for competition policy and state aid;

16.

Emphasises that convergence between national tax systems in the EU has been very limited despite an unprecedented deepening of the EU integration process over the last 30 years, particularly in connection with the single market and the Economic and Monetary Union; deplores the fact that coordination of national tax systems lags far behind when compared with coordination efforts in other areas at EU level, in particular in the framework of the European Semester, although, apart from the relevance of measures on the expenditure side, a significant part of the policy mix to ensure fiscal consolidation concerns the revenue side; takes the view that this aspect should have been mentioned in the Five Presidents’ report on ‘Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union’ of June 2015;

17.

Stresses that the lack of political will to bring about convergence between national fiscal policies induces Member States to opt for a bilateral approach, whereas a common approach would be more effective; recalls the option of working towards fiscal convergence using enhanced cooperation; welcomes, in this light, the desire of certain Member States to institute a financial transaction tax;