The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted an\nown-initiative report drafted by Krzysztof LISEK (EPP, PL) on the impact\nof the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member\nStates.
\nThe report notes with concern the culmination\nof a trend in recent years of cuts in the defence budgets of the\nmajority of EU Member States in the wake of the financial,\neconomic and debt crisis, and the potential negative impact of\nthese measures on their military capabilities.
\nWarning that uncoordinated defence budget cuts\ncould result in the complete loss of certain military capabilities\nin Europe, Members call for an impact assessment of these budget\ncuts for the development of capabilities in support of\nCSDP.
\nThey consider it necessary for European allies\nto increase their share of the defence burden given that\ncontinuing disproportionate reliance on the United States in\ndefence matters. They urge all EU Member\nStates to cooperate more closely and coordinate actions against the\ncommon threats identified in the European Security Strategy (ESS),\nassuming fully their part of responsibility for peace and security\nin Europe, its neighbourhood and the wider world.
\nGiven the above, the report urges the Member\nStates to accept that increased cooperation is the best way forward\nand to develop capabilities in a more cost-efficient way, and this\nwithout adverse effects on their sovereignty in particular\nthrough:
\n(1) Better coordination of defence planning\nwhich includes harmonisation of military\nrequirements and measures to increase interoperability: Members\ncall again for an EU White Paper on security and defence that would\ndevelop and implement the European Security Strategy, better\ndefining the EU's security and defence objectives, interests and\nneeds in relation to the means and resources available, while also\ntaking into account non-traditional aspects of security.
\nIn the light of the Lisbon Treaty, Members suggest\nthat the Member States ask the Agency to examine how to improve\ncoordination of defence planning in Europe. They take the view\nthat, as the next step, the Member States should go through a\nprocess of mutual consultations in order to harmonise their\nmilitary requirements and examine all options for increasing\ncost-efficiency through EU-level, regional, bilateral or other\narrangements.
\nMember States are called upon to conduct systematic\nsecurity and defence reviews in accordance with common criteria and\na harmonised timetable; suggests that this could be developed into\na regular exercise which is linked to budgetary procedures – a\nsort of ‘European semester’ of security and defence\nreviews.
\n(2) Pooling and sharing of\ncapabilities: Members are firmly\nconvinced that pooling and sharing of capabilities is not an option\nany more, but a necessity, in particular in areas such as\nstrategic and tactical transportation, logistical support,\nmaintenance, space capabilities, cyber defence, medical support,\neducation and training.
\nThey strongly encourages initiatives addressing\ncapability gaps in areas such as transport helicopters,\nair-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, unmanned vehicles,\nprotection against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear\nrisks, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), satellite\ncommunication, command and control systems, and intelligence,\nsurveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors and\nplatforms.
\nMembers invite the Member States to make creative\nuse of the different pooling and sharing models that can be\nidentified, such as (i) pooling through joint ownership, (ii)\npooling of nationally owned assets, (iii) pooling of procurement,\nor (iv) role- and task-sharing. The report considers that a\ncivil-military EU Operational Headquarters, for which it has\nrepeatedly called, would not only substantially enhance the\nEU’s capacity to support international peace and security, but\nwould in the long run also generate savings for the national\nbudgets in the logic of pooling and sharing.
\n(3) Supporting defence research\nand technological development: Members deplore the fact that only about\n1% of EU countries’ overall defence spending goes to\nR&T, while more than 50% continues to be spent on\npersonnel, and in particular that for most Member States this is\nwell below 1%. They regret the fact that the potential of economies\nof scale from collaborative projects remains largely unused, with\nabout 85% of R&T expenditure still spent nationally.\nMember States are urged to exclude R&T\nfrom their spending cuts as a matter of priority.
\nThe report highlights the fundamental role of\nthe EDA in coordinating and planning joint defence research\nactivities. It stresses the benefits of research cooperation in\nterms of improved interoperability, and eventually greater\nhomogeneity among the equipment and capabilities of the national\narmed forces, since research is the first phase of any equipment\nprogramme.
\n(4) Building a European defence\ntechnological and industrial base: the committee recalls the need to progress in\nthe consolidation of the European defence technological and\nindustrial base, as, in the face of increasing sophistication of\ntechnologies, growing international competition, and decreasing\ndefence budgets, in no EU Member State can the defence industry any\nlonger be sustainable on a strictly national basis. It considers\nthat a harmonisation of military requirements should lead to\na harmonisation of equipment acquisition among the EU Member\nStates, which is the first prerequisite for creating conditions on\nthe demand side for a successful transnational restructuring of the\ndefence industry in Europe. Members recommend, therefore, greater\nreorientation and synergies, based on more specialisation,\ninteroperability and complementarity. They call on the Member\nStates and the Commission to rapidly develop a comprehensive and\nambitious EU-wide security-of-supply regime based on a system of\nmutual guarantees.
\nThe EDA should be encouraged to further:\ndevelop a common European view on key industrial capabilities that\nhave to be preserved or developed in Europe; analyse dependencies\non non-European technologies and sources of supply for European\nstrategic autonomy and make concrete recommendations for Member\nStates.
\n(5) Establishing a European defence equipment\nmarket: Members States urgently need\nto improve the transparency and openness of their defence markets.\nDirective 2009/81/EC on defence and sensitive security procurement\nstrengthens the single market by reducing the diversity of\nprocurement rules in the defence sector and by opening up national\nmarkets to greater competition. Members recall that the deadline\nfor the transposition of the directive expired on 21 August 2011\nand that the Commission should report in due time on the\ntransposition measures taken by the Member States, and to take all\nnecessary action to ensure timely and consistent transposition\nand correct implementation.
\nThe report reiterates the fundamental importance of\nstandardisation of defence equipment for the establishment of a\nsingle European defence market, as well as for ensuring\ninteroperability and facilitating cooperation on armaments\nprogrammes, pooling and sharing projects, and operations alike.\nMembers encourage the EDA, the Commission and the European\nStandards Organisations (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI), in cooperation with\nthe industry and the NATO Standardisation Agency in particular, to\nspeed up work on reducing divergence in standards in defence and\nsecurity industries, and between civilian and military equipment.\nThey call on the Member States and the Commission to introduce\npan-European certification for security and defence products\nto end the unsustainable situation whereby separate testing is\nrequired in each Member State.
\n(6) Finding new forms of EU-level\nfunding: Members are convinced that,\nespecially in the context of the adoption of the new Multiannual\nFinancial Framework, reflection needs to be undertaken on the\npossibilities for the EU budget to assist the Member States\nin achieving the goals of the Common Security and Defence Policy in\na more cost-efficient way. They take the view that EU funds\nshould be used to foster cooperation in education and training,\nencouraging the creation of networks between the defence industry,\nresearch institutes and academia. They recommend funding of the\nactivities of the European Security and Defence College, focused on\nthe training of civilian and military experts in crisis management\nand CSDP, and promoting a common security culture in the EU, from\nthe Instrument for Stability. Lastly, they urge the Member States\nto increase the budget of the EDA as a matter of priority,\nrecognising the Agency's added value in compensating, through\ncooperation, for cuts decided at national level.
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted an\nown-initiative report drafted by Krzysztof LISEK (EPP, PL) on the impact\nof the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member\nStates.
\nThe report notes with concern the culmination\nof a trend in recent years of cuts in the defence budgets of the\nmajority of EU Member States in the wake of the financial,\neconomic and debt crisis, and the potential negative impact of\nthese measures on their military capabilities.
\nWarning that uncoordinated defence budget cuts\ncould result in the complete loss of certain military capabilities\nin Europe, Members call for an impact assessment of these budget\ncuts for the development of capabilities in support of\nCSDP.
\nThey consider it necessary for European allies\nto increase their share of the defence burden given that\ncontinuing disproportionate reliance on the United States in\ndefence matters. They urge all EU Member\nStates to cooperate more closely and coordinate actions against the\ncommon threats identified in the European Security Strategy (ESS),\nassuming fully their part of responsibility for peace and security\nin Europe, its neighbourhood and the wider world.
\nGiven the above, the report urges the Member\nStates to accept that increased cooperation is the best way forward\nand to develop capabilities in a more cost-efficient way, and this\nwithout adverse effects on their sovereignty in particular\nthrough:
\n(1) Better coordination of defence planning\nwhich includes harmonisation of military\nrequirements and measures to increase interoperability: Members\ncall again for an EU White Paper on security and defence that would\ndevelop and implement the European Security Strategy, better\ndefining the EU's security and defence objectives, interests and\nneeds in relation to the means and resources available, while also\ntaking into account non-traditional aspects of security.
\nIn the light of the Lisbon Treaty, Members suggest\nthat the Member States ask the Agency to examine how to improve\ncoordination of defence planning in Europe. They take the view\nthat, as the next step, the Member States should go through a\nprocess of mutual consultations in order to harmonise their\nmilitary requirements and examine all options for increasing\ncost-efficiency through EU-level, regional, bilateral or other\narrangements.
\nMember States are called upon to conduct systematic\nsecurity and defence reviews in accordance with common criteria and\na harmonised timetable; suggests that this could be developed into\na regular exercise which is linked to budgetary procedures – a\nsort of ‘European semester’ of security and defence\nreviews.
\n(2) Pooling and sharing of\ncapabilities: Members are firmly\nconvinced that pooling and sharing of capabilities is not an option\nany more, but a necessity, in particular in areas such as\nstrategic and tactical transportation, logistical support,\nmaintenance, space capabilities, cyber defence, medical support,\neducation and training.
\nThey strongly encourages initiatives addressing\ncapability gaps in areas such as transport helicopters,\nair-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, unmanned vehicles,\nprotection against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear\nrisks, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), satellite\ncommunication, command and control systems, and intelligence,\nsurveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors and\nplatforms.
\nMembers invite the Member States to make creative\nuse of the different pooling and sharing models that can be\nidentified, such as (i) pooling through joint ownership, (ii)\npooling of nationally owned assets, (iii) pooling of procurement,\nor (iv) role- and task-sharing. The report considers that a\ncivil-military EU Operational Headquarters, for which it has\nrepeatedly called, would not only substantially enhance the\nEU’s capacity to support international peace and security, but\nwould in the long run also generate savings for the national\nbudgets in the logic of pooling and sharing.
\n(3) Supporting defence research\nand technological development: Members deplore the fact that only about\n1% of EU countries’ overall defence spending goes to\nR&T, while more than 50% continues to be spent on\npersonnel, and in particular that for most Member States this is\nwell below 1%. They regret the fact that the potential of economies\nof scale from collaborative projects remains largely unused, with\nabout 85% of R&T expenditure still spent nationally.\nMember States are urged to exclude R&T\nfrom their spending cuts as a matter of priority.
\nThe report highlights the fundamental role of\nthe EDA in coordinating and planning joint defence research\nactivities. It stresses the benefits of research cooperation in\nterms of improved interoperability, and eventually greater\nhomogeneity among the equipment and capabilities of the national\narmed forces, since research is the first phase of any equipment\nprogramme.
\n(4) Building a European defence\ntechnological and industrial base: the committee recalls the need to progress in\nthe consolidation of the European defence technological and\nindustrial base, as, in the face of increasing sophistication of\ntechnologies, growing international competition, and decreasing\ndefence budgets, in no EU Member State can the defence industry any\nlonger be sustainable on a strictly national basis. It considers\nthat a harmonisation of military requirements should lead to\na harmonisation of equipment acquisition among the EU Member\nStates, which is the first prerequisite for creating conditions on\nthe demand side for a successful transnational restructuring of the\ndefence industry in Europe. Members recommend, therefore, greater\nreorientation and synergies, based on more specialisation,\ninteroperability and complementarity. They call on the Member\nStates and the Commission to rapidly develop a comprehensive and\nambitious EU-wide security-of-supply regime based on a system of\nmutual guarantees.
\nThe EDA should be encouraged to further:\ndevelop a common European view on key industrial capabilities that\nhave to be preserved or developed in Europe; analyse dependencies\non non-European technologies and sources of supply for European\nstrategic autonomy and make concrete recommendations for Member\nStates.
\n(5) Establishing a European defence equipment\nmarket: Members States urgently need\nto improve the transparency and openness of their defence markets.\nDirective 2009/81/EC on defence and sensitive security procurement\nstrengthens the single market by reducing the diversity of\nprocurement rules in the defence sector and by opening up national\nmarkets to greater competition. Members recall that the deadline\nfor the transposition of the directive expired on 21 August 2011\nand that the Commission should report in due time on the\ntransposition measures taken by the Member States, and to take all\nnecessary action to ensure timely and consistent transposition\nand correct implementation.
\nThe report reiterates the fundamental importance of\nstandardisation of defence equipment for the establishment of a\nsingle European defence market, as well as for ensuring\ninteroperability and facilitating cooperation on armaments\nprogrammes, pooling and sharing projects, and operations alike.\nMembers encourage the EDA, the Commission and the European\nStandards Organisations (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI), in cooperation with\nthe industry and the NATO Standardisation Agency in particular, to\nspeed up work on reducing divergence in standards in defence and\nsecurity industries, and between civilian and military equipment.\nThey call on the Member States and the Commission to introduce\npan-European certification for security and defence products\nto end the unsustainable situation whereby separate testing is\nrequired in each Member State.
\n(6) Finding new forms of EU-level\nfunding: Members are convinced that,\nespecially in the context of the adoption of the new Multiannual\nFinancial Framework, reflection needs to be undertaken on the\npossibilities for the EU budget to assist the Member States\nin achieving the goals of the Common Security and Defence Policy in\na more cost-efficient way. They take the view that EU funds\nshould be used to foster cooperation in education and training,\nencouraging the creation of networks between the defence industry,\nresearch institutes and academia. They recommend funding of the\nactivities of the European Security and Defence College, focused on\nthe training of civilian and military experts in crisis management\nand CSDP, and promoting a common security culture in the EU, from\nthe Instrument for Stability. Lastly, they urge the Member States\nto increase the budget of the EDA as a matter of priority,\nrecognising the Agency's added value in compensating, through\ncooperation, for cuts decided at national level.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 501 votes to 170,\nwith 26 abstentions, a resolution on the impact of the financial\ncrisis on the defence sector in the EU Member States.
\nParliament notes with concern the culmination\nof a trend in recent years of cuts in the defence budgets of the\nmajority of EU Member States in the wake of the financial,\neconomic and debt crisis, and the potential negative impact of\nthese measures on their military capabilities.
\nWarning that uncoordinated defence budget cuts\ncould result in the complete loss of certain military capabilities\nin Europe, Parliament calls for an impact assessment of\nthese budget cuts for the development of capabilities in support of\nCSDP. It considers it necessary for European allies to increase\ntheir share of the defence burden given that continuing\ndisproportionate reliance on the United States in defence\nmatters given\nthat the US share of all defence spending in the North Atlantic\nAlliance has risen to 75%.
\nParliament reiterates its view that a\nreinforced European defence capability will enhance the\nstrategic autonomy of the EU and provide an important contribution\nto collective security in the context of NATO and other\npartnerships. It also urges all EU Member\nStates to cooperate more closely and coordinate actions against the\ncommon threats identified in the European Security Strategy (ESS),\nassuming fully their part of responsibility for peace and security\nin Europe, its neighbourhood and the wider world.
\nGiven the above, the resolution urges the\nMember States to accept that increased cooperation is the best way\nforward and to develop capabilities in a more cost-efficient way,\nand this without adverse effects on their sovereignty in particular\nthrough:
\n(1) Better coordination of defence\nplanning: Parliament calls again for\nan EU White Paper on security and defence that would develop\nand implement the European Security Strategy, better defining the\nEU's security and defence objectives, interests and needs in\nrelation to the means and resources available, while also taking\ninto account non-traditional aspects of security.
\nIn the light of the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament suggests\nthat the Member States ask the Agency to examine how to improve\ncoordination of defence planning in Europe. Members take the view\nthat, as the next step, the Member States should go through a\nprocess of mutual consultations in order to harmonise their\nmilitary requirements and examine all options for increasing\ncost-efficiency through EU-level, regional, bilateral or other\narrangements.
\nMember States are called upon to conduct systematic\nsecurity and defence reviews in accordance with common criteria and\na harmonised timetable; suggests that this could be developed into\na regular exercise which is linked to budgetary procedures – a\nsort of ‘European semester’ of security and defence\nreviews.
\n(2) Pooling and sharing of\ncapabilities: Members are firmly\nconvinced that pooling and sharing of capabilities is not an option\nany more, but a necessity, in particular in areas such as\nstrategic and tactical transportation, logistical support,\nmaintenance, space capabilities, cyber defence, medical support,\neducation and training.
\nThey strongly encourage initiatives addressing\ncapability gaps in areas such as transport helicopters,\nair-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, unmanned vehicles,\nprotection against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear\nrisks, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), satellite\ncommunication, command and control systems, and intelligence,\nsurveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors and\nplatforms.
\nMembers invite the Member States to make creative\nuse of the different pooling and sharing models that can be\nidentified, such as (i) on ‘joint\nownership’ (the potential of joint ownership for the most\nexpensive equipment, such as for space capabilities, UAVs or\nstrategic transport aircraft); (ii) the ‘pooling of assets\nowned nationally’ (such as transport helicopters, maritime\npatrol aircraft and military sealift assets); (iii) the\n‘pooling of procurement’ (such as in the A400M\nprogramme); (iv) the ‘role and task sharing’ (positive\nexamples exist in initiatives such as the French-Belgian\ncooperation in fighter pilot training, the UK-French agreement on\nthe sharing of aircraft carriers).
\nThe resolution considers that a civil-military EU\nOperational Headquarters would not only substantially enhance\nthe EU’s capacity to support international peace and security,\nbut would in the long run also generate savings for the national\nbudgets in the logic of pooling and sharing.
\n(3) Supporting defence research\nand technological development: Parliament deplores the fact that only\nabout 1% of EU countries’ overall defence spending goes to\nR&T, while more than 50% continues to be spent on\npersonnel, and in particular that for most Member States this is\nwell below 1%. It regrets the fact that the potential of economies\nof scale from collaborative projects remains largely unused, with\nabout 85% of R&T expenditure still spent nationally.\nMember States are urged to exclude R&T\nfrom their spending cuts as a matter of priority.
\nThe resolution highlights the fundamental role\nof the EDA in coordinating and planning joint defence research\nactivities. It stresses the benefits of research cooperation in\nterms of improved interoperability, and eventually greater\nhomogeneity among the equipment and capabilities of the national\narmed forces, since research is the first phase of any equipment\nprogramme.
\nParliament stresses in particular that security\nresearch needs to be maintained as an independent component in the\nnext Horizon 2020 Programme.
\n(4) Building a European defence\ntechnological and industrial base: Parliament recalls the need to progress in\nthe consolidation of the European defence technological and\nindustrial base, as, in the face of increasing sophistication of\ntechnologies, growing international competition, and decreasing\ndefence budgets, in no EU Member State can the defence industry any\nlonger be sustainable on a strictly national basis. Parliament\nstresses that promoting a European defence technological and\nindustrial base can create sustainable jobs for European citizens\nin EU defence industries.
\nMembers consider that a harmonisation of\nmilitary requirements should lead to a harmonisation of\nequipment acquisition among the EU Member States, which is the\nfirst prerequisite for creating conditions on the demand side for a\nsuccessful transnational restructuring of the defence industry in\nEurope. They recommend, therefore, greater reorientation and\nsynergies, based on more specialisation, interoperability and\ncomplementarity. They call on the Member States and the Commission\nto rapidly develop a comprehensive and ambitious EU-wide\nsecurity-of-supply regime based on a system of mutual\nguarantees.
\nThe EDA should be encouraged to further:\ndevelop a common European view on key industrial\ncapabilities that have to be preserved or developed in Europe;\nanalyse dependencies on non-European technologies and sources of\nsupply for European strategic autonomy and make concrete\nrecommendations for Member States.
\n(5) Establishing a European defence equipment\nmarket: Members States urgently need\nto improve the transparency and openness of their defence\nmarkets. Directive 2009/81/EC on defence and sensitive\nsecurity procurement strengthens the single market by reducing the\ndiversity of procurement rules in the defence sector and by opening\nup national markets to greater competition. Members recall that the\ndeadline for the transposition of the directive expired on 21\nAugust 2011 and that the Commission should report in due time on\nthe transposition measures taken by the Member States, and to take\nall necessary action to ensure timely and consistent\ntransposition and correct implementation. Parliament urges the\nMember States to set as a top priority the fight against corruption\nin defence procurement.
\nParliament reiterates the fundamental importance of\nstandardisation of defence equipment for the establishment of a\nsingle European defence market, as well as for ensuring\ninteroperability and facilitating cooperation on armaments\nprogrammes, pooling and sharing projects, and operations alike.\nMembers encourage the EDA, the Commission and the European\nStandards Organisations (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI), in cooperation with\nthe industry and the NATO Standardisation Agency in particular, to\nspeed up work on reducing divergence in standards in defence and\nsecurity industries, and between civilian and military equipment.\nThey call on the Member States and the Commission to introduce\npan-European certification for security and defence products\nto end the unsustainable situation whereby separate testing is\nrequired in each Member State.
\n(6) Finding new forms of EU-level\nfunding: Parliament is convinced\nthat, especially in the context of the adoption of the new\nMultiannual Financial Framework, reflection needs to be undertaken\non the possibilities for the EU budget to assist the Member\nStates in achieving the goals of the Common Security and Defence\nPolicy in a more cost-efficient way. It takes the view that EU\nfunds should be used to foster cooperation in education and\ntraining, encouraging the creation of networks between the defence\nindustry, research institutes and academia. Members recommend\nfunding of the activities of the European Security and Defence\nCollege, focused on the training of civilian and military experts\nin crisis management and CSDP, and promoting a common security\nculture in the EU, from the Instrument for Stability. Lastly, they\nurge the Member States to increase the budget of the EDA as a\nmatter of priority, recognising the Agency's added value in\ncompensating, through cooperation, for cuts decided at national\nlevel.
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted an\nown-initiative report drafted by Krzysztof LISEK (EPP, PL) on the impact\nof the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member\nStates.
\nThe report notes with concern the culmination\nof a trend in recent years of cuts in the defence budgets of the\nmajority of EU Member States in the wake of the financial,\neconomic and debt crisis, and the potential negative impact of\nthese measures on their military capabilities.
\nWarning that uncoordinated defence budget cuts\ncould result in the complete loss of certain military capabilities\nin Europe, Members call for an impact assessment of these budget\ncuts for the development of capabilities in support of\nCSDP.
\nThey consider it necessary for European allies\nto increase their share of the defence burden given that\ncontinuing disproportionate reliance on the United States in\ndefence matters. They urge all EU Member\nStates to cooperate more closely and coordinate actions against the\ncommon threats identified in the European Security Strategy (ESS),\nassuming fully their part of responsibility for peace and security\nin Europe, its neighbourhood and the wider world.
\nGiven the above, the report urges the Member\nStates to accept that increased cooperation is the best way forward\nand to develop capabilities in a more cost-efficient way, and this\nwithout adverse effects on their sovereignty in particular\nthrough:
\n(1) Better coordination of defence planning\nwhich includes harmonisation of military\nrequirements and measures to increase interoperability: Members\ncall again for an EU White Paper on security and defence that would\ndevelop and implement the European Security Strategy, better\ndefining the EU's security and defence objectives, interests and\nneeds in relation to the means and resources available, while also\ntaking into account non-traditional aspects of security.
\nIn the light of the Lisbon Treaty, Members suggest\nthat the Member States ask the Agency to examine how to improve\ncoordination of defence planning in Europe. They take the view\nthat, as the next step, the Member States should go through a\nprocess of mutual consultations in order to harmonise their\nmilitary requirements and examine all options for increasing\ncost-efficiency through EU-level, regional, bilateral or other\narrangements.
\nMember States are called upon to conduct systematic\nsecurity and defence reviews in accordance with common criteria and\na harmonised timetable; suggests that this could be developed into\na regular exercise which is linked to budgetary procedures – a\nsort of ‘European semester’ of security and defence\nreviews.
\n(2) Pooling and sharing of\ncapabilities: Members are firmly\nconvinced that pooling and sharing of capabilities is not an option\nany more, but a necessity, in particular in areas such as\nstrategic and tactical transportation, logistical support,\nmaintenance, space capabilities, cyber defence, medical support,\neducation and training.
\nThey strongly encourages initiatives addressing\ncapability gaps in areas such as transport helicopters,\nair-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, unmanned vehicles,\nprotection against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear\nrisks, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), satellite\ncommunication, command and control systems, and intelligence,\nsurveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors and\nplatforms.
\nMembers invite the Member States to make creative\nuse of the different pooling and sharing models that can be\nidentified, such as (i) pooling through joint ownership, (ii)\npooling of nationally owned assets, (iii) pooling of procurement,\nor (iv) role- and task-sharing. The report considers that a\ncivil-military EU Operational Headquarters, for which it has\nrepeatedly called, would not only substantially enhance the\nEU’s capacity to support international peace and security, but\nwould in the long run also generate savings for the national\nbudgets in the logic of pooling and sharing.
\n(3) Supporting defence research\nand technological development: Members deplore the fact that only about\n1% of EU countries’ overall defence spending goes to\nR&T, while more than 50% continues to be spent on\npersonnel, and in particular that for most Member States this is\nwell below 1%. They regret the fact that the potential of economies\nof scale from collaborative projects remains largely unused, with\nabout 85% of R&T expenditure still spent nationally.\nMember States are urged to exclude R&T\nfrom their spending cuts as a matter of priority.
\nThe report highlights the fundamental role of\nthe EDA in coordinating and planning joint defence research\nactivities. It stresses the benefits of research cooperation in\nterms of improved interoperability, and eventually greater\nhomogeneity among the equipment and capabilities of the national\narmed forces, since research is the first phase of any equipment\nprogramme.
\n(4) Building a European defence\ntechnological and industrial base: the committee recalls the need to progress in\nthe consolidation of the European defence technological and\nindustrial base, as, in the face of increasing sophistication of\ntechnologies, growing international competition, and decreasing\ndefence budgets, in no EU Member State can the defence industry any\nlonger be sustainable on a strictly national basis. It considers\nthat a harmonisation of military requirements should lead to\na harmonisation of equipment acquisition among the EU Member\nStates, which is the first prerequisite for creating conditions on\nthe demand side for a successful transnational restructuring of the\ndefence industry in Europe. Members recommend, therefore, greater\nreorientation and synergies, based on more specialisation,\ninteroperability and complementarity. They call on the Member\nStates and the Commission to rapidly develop a comprehensive and\nambitious EU-wide security-of-supply regime based on a system of\nmutual guarantees.
\nThe EDA should be encouraged to further:\ndevelop a common European view on key industrial capabilities that\nhave to be preserved or developed in Europe; analyse dependencies\non non-European technologies and sources of supply for European\nstrategic autonomy and make concrete recommendations for Member\nStates.
\n(5) Establishing a European defence equipment\nmarket: Members States urgently need\nto improve the transparency and openness of their defence markets.\nDirective 2009/81/EC on defence and sensitive security procurement\nstrengthens the single market by reducing the diversity of\nprocurement rules in the defence sector and by opening up national\nmarkets to greater competition. Members recall that the deadline\nfor the transposition of the directive expired on 21 August 2011\nand that the Commission should report in due time on the\ntransposition measures taken by the Member States, and to take all\nnecessary action to ensure timely and consistent transposition\nand correct implementation.
\nThe report reiterates the fundamental importance of\nstandardisation of defence equipment for the establishment of a\nsingle European defence market, as well as for ensuring\ninteroperability and facilitating cooperation on armaments\nprogrammes, pooling and sharing projects, and operations alike.\nMembers encourage the EDA, the Commission and the European\nStandards Organisations (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI), in cooperation with\nthe industry and the NATO Standardisation Agency in particular, to\nspeed up work on reducing divergence in standards in defence and\nsecurity industries, and between civilian and military equipment.\nThey call on the Member States and the Commission to introduce\npan-European certification for security and defence products\nto end the unsustainable situation whereby separate testing is\nrequired in each Member State.
\n(6) Finding new forms of EU-level\nfunding: Members are convinced that,\nespecially in the context of the adoption of the new Multiannual\nFinancial Framework, reflection needs to be undertaken on the\npossibilities for the EU budget to assist the Member States\nin achieving the goals of the Common Security and Defence Policy in\na more cost-efficient way. They take the view that EU funds\nshould be used to foster cooperation in education and training,\nencouraging the creation of networks between the defence industry,\nresearch institutes and academia. They recommend funding of the\nactivities of the European Security and Defence College, focused on\nthe training of civilian and military experts in crisis management\nand CSDP, and promoting a common security culture in the EU, from\nthe Instrument for Stability. Lastly, they urge the Member States\nto increase the budget of the EDA as a matter of priority,\nrecognising the Agency's added value in compensating, through\ncooperation, for cuts decided at national level.
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted an\nown-initiative report drafted by Krzysztof LISEK (EPP, PL) on the impact\nof the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member\nStates.
\nThe report notes with concern the culmination\nof a trend in recent years of cuts in the defence budgets of the\nmajority of EU Member States in the wake of the financial,\neconomic and debt crisis, and the potential negative impact of\nthese measures on their military capabilities.
\nWarning that uncoordinated defence budget cuts\ncould result in the complete loss of certain military capabilities\nin Europe, Members call for an impact assessment of these budget\ncuts for the development of capabilities in support of\nCSDP.
\nThey consider it necessary for European allies\nto increase their share of the defence burden given that\ncontinuing disproportionate reliance on the United States in\ndefence matters. They urge all EU Member\nStates to cooperate more closely and coordinate actions against the\ncommon threats identified in the European Security Strategy (ESS),\nassuming fully their part of responsibility for peace and security\nin Europe, its neighbourhood and the wider world.
\nGiven the above, the report urges the Member\nStates to accept that increased cooperation is the best way forward\nand to develop capabilities in a more cost-efficient way, and this\nwithout adverse effects on their sovereignty in particular\nthrough:
\n(1) Better coordination of defence planning\nwhich includes harmonisation of military\nrequirements and measures to increase interoperability: Members\ncall again for an EU White Paper on security and defence that would\ndevelop and implement the European Security Strategy, better\ndefining the EU's security and defence objectives, interests and\nneeds in relation to the means and resources available, while also\ntaking into account non-traditional aspects of security.
\nIn the light of the Lisbon Treaty, Members suggest\nthat the Member States ask the Agency to examine how to improve\ncoordination of defence planning in Europe. They take the view\nthat, as the next step, the Member States should go through a\nprocess of mutual consultations in order to harmonise their\nmilitary requirements and examine all options for increasing\ncost-efficiency through EU-level, regional, bilateral or other\narrangements.
\nMember States are called upon to conduct systematic\nsecurity and defence reviews in accordance with common criteria and\na harmonised timetable; suggests that this could be developed into\na regular exercise which is linked to budgetary procedures – a\nsort of ‘European semester’ of security and defence\nreviews.
\n(2) Pooling and sharing of\ncapabilities: Members are firmly\nconvinced that pooling and sharing of capabilities is not an option\nany more, but a necessity, in particular in areas such as\nstrategic and tactical transportation, logistical support,\nmaintenance, space capabilities, cyber defence, medical support,\neducation and training.
\nThey strongly encourages initiatives addressing\ncapability gaps in areas such as transport helicopters,\nair-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, unmanned vehicles,\nprotection against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear\nrisks, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), satellite\ncommunication, command and control systems, and intelligence,\nsurveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors and\nplatforms.
\nMembers invite the Member States to make creative\nuse of the different pooling and sharing models that can be\nidentified, such as (i) pooling through joint ownership, (ii)\npooling of nationally owned assets, (iii) pooling of procurement,\nor (iv) role- and task-sharing. The report considers that a\ncivil-military EU Operational Headquarters, for which it has\nrepeatedly called, would not only substantially enhance the\nEU’s capacity to support international peace and security, but\nwould in the long run also generate savings for the national\nbudgets in the logic of pooling and sharing.
\n(3) Supporting defence research\nand technological development: Members deplore the fact that only about\n1% of EU countries’ overall defence spending goes to\nR&T, while more than 50% continues to be spent on\npersonnel, and in particular that for most Member States this is\nwell below 1%. They regret the fact that the potential of economies\nof scale from collaborative projects remains largely unused, with\nabout 85% of R&T expenditure still spent nationally.\nMember States are urged to exclude R&T\nfrom their spending cuts as a matter of priority.
\nThe report highlights the fundamental role of\nthe EDA in coordinating and planning joint defence research\nactivities. It stresses the benefits of research cooperation in\nterms of improved interoperability, and eventually greater\nhomogeneity among the equipment and capabilities of the national\narmed forces, since research is the first phase of any equipment\nprogramme.
\n(4) Building a European defence\ntechnological and industrial base: the committee recalls the need to progress in\nthe consolidation of the European defence technological and\nindustrial base, as, in the face of increasing sophistication of\ntechnologies, growing international competition, and decreasing\ndefence budgets, in no EU Member State can the defence industry any\nlonger be sustainable on a strictly national basis. It considers\nthat a harmonisation of military requirements should lead to\na harmonisation of equipment acquisition among the EU Member\nStates, which is the first prerequisite for creating conditions on\nthe demand side for a successful transnational restructuring of the\ndefence industry in Europe. Members recommend, therefore, greater\nreorientation and synergies, based on more specialisation,\ninteroperability and complementarity. They call on the Member\nStates and the Commission to rapidly develop a comprehensive and\nambitious EU-wide security-of-supply regime based on a system of\nmutual guarantees.
\nThe EDA should be encouraged to further:\ndevelop a common European view on key industrial capabilities that\nhave to be preserved or developed in Europe; analyse dependencies\non non-European technologies and sources of supply for European\nstrategic autonomy and make concrete recommendations for Member\nStates.
\n(5) Establishing a European defence equipment\nmarket: Members States urgently need\nto improve the transparency and openness of their defence markets.\nDirective 2009/81/EC on defence and sensitive security procurement\nstrengthens the single market by reducing the diversity of\nprocurement rules in the defence sector and by opening up national\nmarkets to greater competition. Members recall that the deadline\nfor the transposition of the directive expired on 21 August 2011\nand that the Commission should report in due time on the\ntransposition measures taken by the Member States, and to take all\nnecessary action to ensure timely and consistent transposition\nand correct implementation.
\nThe report reiterates the fundamental importance of\nstandardisation of defence equipment for the establishment of a\nsingle European defence market, as well as for ensuring\ninteroperability and facilitating cooperation on armaments\nprogrammes, pooling and sharing projects, and operations alike.\nMembers encourage the EDA, the Commission and the European\nStandards Organisations (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI), in cooperation with\nthe industry and the NATO Standardisation Agency in particular, to\nspeed up work on reducing divergence in standards in defence and\nsecurity industries, and between civilian and military equipment.\nThey call on the Member States and the Commission to introduce\npan-European certification for security and defence products\nto end the unsustainable situation whereby separate testing is\nrequired in each Member State.
\n(6) Finding new forms of EU-level\nfunding: Members are convinced that,\nespecially in the context of the adoption of the new Multiannual\nFinancial Framework, reflection needs to be undertaken on the\npossibilities for the EU budget to assist the Member States\nin achieving the goals of the Common Security and Defence Policy in\na more cost-efficient way. They take the view that EU funds\nshould be used to foster cooperation in education and training,\nencouraging the creation of networks between the defence industry,\nresearch institutes and academia. They recommend funding of the\nactivities of the European Security and Defence College, focused on\nthe training of civilian and military experts in crisis management\nand CSDP, and promoting a common security culture in the EU, from\nthe Instrument for Stability. Lastly, they urge the Member States\nto increase the budget of the EDA as a matter of priority,\nrecognising the Agency's added value in compensating, through\ncooperation, for cuts decided at national level.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 501 votes to 170,\nwith 26 abstentions, a resolution on the impact of the financial\ncrisis on the defence sector in the EU Member States.
\nParliament notes with concern the culmination\nof a trend in recent years of cuts in the defence budgets of the\nmajority of EU Member States in the wake of the financial,\neconomic and debt crisis, and the potential negative impact of\nthese measures on their military capabilities.
\nWarning that uncoordinated defence budget cuts\ncould result in the complete loss of certain military capabilities\nin Europe, Parliament calls for an impact assessment of\nthese budget cuts for the development of capabilities in support of\nCSDP. It considers it necessary for European allies to increase\ntheir share of the defence burden given that continuing\ndisproportionate reliance on the United States in defence\nmatters given\nthat the US share of all defence spending in the North Atlantic\nAlliance has risen to 75%.
\nParliament reiterates its view that a\nreinforced European defence capability will enhance the\nstrategic autonomy of the EU and provide an important contribution\nto collective security in the context of NATO and other\npartnerships. It also urges all EU Member\nStates to cooperate more closely and coordinate actions against the\ncommon threats identified in the European Security Strategy (ESS),\nassuming fully their part of responsibility for peace and security\nin Europe, its neighbourhood and the wider world.
\nGiven the above, the resolution urges the\nMember States to accept that increased cooperation is the best way\nforward and to develop capabilities in a more cost-efficient way,\nand this without adverse effects on their sovereignty in particular\nthrough:
\n(1) Better coordination of defence\nplanning: Parliament calls again for\nan EU White Paper on security and defence that would develop\nand implement the European Security Strategy, better defining the\nEU's security and defence objectives, interests and needs in\nrelation to the means and resources available, while also taking\ninto account non-traditional aspects of security.
\nIn the light of the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament suggests\nthat the Member States ask the Agency to examine how to improve\ncoordination of defence planning in Europe. Members take the view\nthat, as the next step, the Member States should go through a\nprocess of mutual consultations in order to harmonise their\nmilitary requirements and examine all options for increasing\ncost-efficiency through EU-level, regional, bilateral or other\narrangements.
\nMember States are called upon to conduct systematic\nsecurity and defence reviews in accordance with common criteria and\na harmonised timetable; suggests that this could be developed into\na regular exercise which is linked to budgetary procedures – a\nsort of ‘European semester’ of security and defence\nreviews.
\n(2) Pooling and sharing of\ncapabilities: Members are firmly\nconvinced that pooling and sharing of capabilities is not an option\nany more, but a necessity, in particular in areas such as\nstrategic and tactical transportation, logistical support,\nmaintenance, space capabilities, cyber defence, medical support,\neducation and training.
\nThey strongly encourage initiatives addressing\ncapability gaps in areas such as transport helicopters,\nair-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, unmanned vehicles,\nprotection against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear\nrisks, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), satellite\ncommunication, command and control systems, and intelligence,\nsurveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors and\nplatforms.
\nMembers invite the Member States to make creative\nuse of the different pooling and sharing models that can be\nidentified, such as (i) on ‘joint\nownership’ (the potential of joint ownership for the most\nexpensive equipment, such as for space capabilities, UAVs or\nstrategic transport aircraft); (ii) the ‘pooling of assets\nowned nationally’ (such as transport helicopters, maritime\npatrol aircraft and military sealift assets); (iii) the\n‘pooling of procurement’ (such as in the A400M\nprogramme); (iv) the ‘role and task sharing’ (positive\nexamples exist in initiatives such as the French-Belgian\ncooperation in fighter pilot training, the UK-French agreement on\nthe sharing of aircraft carriers).
\nThe resolution considers that a civil-military EU\nOperational Headquarters would not only substantially enhance\nthe EU’s capacity to support international peace and security,\nbut would in the long run also generate savings for the national\nbudgets in the logic of pooling and sharing.
\n(3) Supporting defence research\nand technological development: Parliament deplores the fact that only\nabout 1% of EU countries’ overall defence spending goes to\nR&T, while more than 50% continues to be spent on\npersonnel, and in particular that for most Member States this is\nwell below 1%. It regrets the fact that the potential of economies\nof scale from collaborative projects remains largely unused, with\nabout 85% of R&T expenditure still spent nationally.\nMember States are urged to exclude R&T\nfrom their spending cuts as a matter of priority.
\nThe resolution highlights the fundamental role\nof the EDA in coordinating and planning joint defence research\nactivities. It stresses the benefits of research cooperation in\nterms of improved interoperability, and eventually greater\nhomogeneity among the equipment and capabilities of the national\narmed forces, since research is the first phase of any equipment\nprogramme.
\nParliament stresses in particular that security\nresearch needs to be maintained as an independent component in the\nnext Horizon 2020 Programme.
\n(4) Building a European defence\ntechnological and industrial base: Parliament recalls the need to progress in\nthe consolidation of the European defence technological and\nindustrial base, as, in the face of increasing sophistication of\ntechnologies, growing international competition, and decreasing\ndefence budgets, in no EU Member State can the defence industry any\nlonger be sustainable on a strictly national basis. Parliament\nstresses that promoting a European defence technological and\nindustrial base can create sustainable jobs for European citizens\nin EU defence industries.
\nMembers consider that a harmonisation of\nmilitary requirements should lead to a harmonisation of\nequipment acquisition among the EU Member States, which is the\nfirst prerequisite for creating conditions on the demand side for a\nsuccessful transnational restructuring of the defence industry in\nEurope. They recommend, therefore, greater reorientation and\nsynergies, based on more specialisation, interoperability and\ncomplementarity. They call on the Member States and the Commission\nto rapidly develop a comprehensive and ambitious EU-wide\nsecurity-of-supply regime based on a system of mutual\nguarantees.
\nThe EDA should be encouraged to further:\ndevelop a common European view on key industrial\ncapabilities that have to be preserved or developed in Europe;\nanalyse dependencies on non-European technologies and sources of\nsupply for European strategic autonomy and make concrete\nrecommendations for Member States.
\n(5) Establishing a European defence equipment\nmarket: Members States urgently need\nto improve the transparency and openness of their defence\nmarkets. Directive 2009/81/EC on defence and sensitive\nsecurity procurement strengthens the single market by reducing the\ndiversity of procurement rules in the defence sector and by opening\nup national markets to greater competition. Members recall that the\ndeadline for the transposition of the directive expired on 21\nAugust 2011 and that the Commission should report in due time on\nthe transposition measures taken by the Member States, and to take\nall necessary action to ensure timely and consistent\ntransposition and correct implementation. Parliament urges the\nMember States to set as a top priority the fight against corruption\nin defence procurement.
\nParliament reiterates the fundamental importance of\nstandardisation of defence equipment for the establishment of a\nsingle European defence market, as well as for ensuring\ninteroperability and facilitating cooperation on armaments\nprogrammes, pooling and sharing projects, and operations alike.\nMembers encourage the EDA, the Commission and the European\nStandards Organisations (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI), in cooperation with\nthe industry and the NATO Standardisation Agency in particular, to\nspeed up work on reducing divergence in standards in defence and\nsecurity industries, and between civilian and military equipment.\nThey call on the Member States and the Commission to introduce\npan-European certification for security and defence products\nto end the unsustainable situation whereby separate testing is\nrequired in each Member State.
\n(6) Finding new forms of EU-level\nfunding: Parliament is convinced\nthat, especially in the context of the adoption of the new\nMultiannual Financial Framework, reflection needs to be undertaken\non the possibilities for the EU budget to assist the Member\nStates in achieving the goals of the Common Security and Defence\nPolicy in a more cost-efficient way. It takes the view that EU\nfunds should be used to foster cooperation in education and\ntraining, encouraging the creation of networks between the defence\nindustry, research institutes and academia. Members recommend\nfunding of the activities of the European Security and Defence\nCollege, focused on the training of civilian and military experts\nin crisis management and CSDP, and promoting a common security\nculture in the EU, from the Instrument for Stability. Lastly, they\nurge the Member States to increase the budget of the EDA as a\nmatter of priority, recognising the Agency's added value in\ncompensating, through cooperation, for cuts decided at national\nlevel.
\nThe Committee on Foreign\nAffairs adopted the report drafted by Krzysztof LISEK (EPP, PL)\ncontaining the European Parliament's recommendations to the\nCouncil, the Commission and the EEAS on the negotiations of the\nEU-Georgia Association Agreement.
\nMembers recall that the\nnegotiations with Georgia on the Association Agreement are\nprogressing swiftly, but nevertheless negotiations on the Deep and\nComprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) have not yet\nbegun.
\nIt is for this reason that\nMembers address, in the context\nof the ongoing negotiations on the Association Agreement, the\nfollowing recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the\nEEAS:
\nPolitical dialogue and\ncooperation: Members consider that\nthe EU should recognise Georgia as a European state and base the\nEU's commitment and ongoing negotiations with Georgia on a European\nperspective. They welcome Georgia's commitment to shared values and\nthe principles of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and good\ngovernance.
\nThey aim to strengthen the\nEU's support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of\nGeorgia and ensure the applicability of the agreement, once it has\nbeen concluded, to the whole territory of Georgia. To that end,\nGeorgia should actively engage in conflict resolution, inter alia\nthanks to the EUMM, whose mandate has recently been extended until\n15 September 2012.
\nMembers call on the EU to\nrecognise Georgia's regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali\nregion/South Ossetia as occupied territories and call\nfor talks to be intensified with the Russian Federation to ensure\nthat it fulfils unconditionally all the provisions of the\ncease-fire agreement of 12 August 2008 between Russia and Georgia,\nparticularly the provision stating that Russia shall guarantee EUMM\nfull unlimited access to the occupied territories of Abkhazia and\nthe Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia. The EU should also call on\nRussia to reverse its recognition of the separation of the Georgian\nregions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, to end\nthe occupation of those Georgian territories. Members express\nconcern over the terrorist attacks in Georgia since last year and\nurge Georgia and Russia to de-escalate rhetoric about bombings and\nsupport for terrorism in order to create a climate of trust in\nconducting these investigations.
\nJustice, freedom and\nsecurity: Members express concern\nabout the cases of lawyers who were assaulted and severely beaten\nby police officers and urge the Georgian authorities to take\nimmediate and effective steps to investigate the above-mentioned\nfacts, combat impunity and politically motivated prosecutions and\nbring those responsible to justice. They call for the Georgian\nGovernment to enter more extensively into a constructive political\ndialogue with opposition forces and further develop a democratic\nenvironment for freedom of speech. The Georgian Government is\nalso asked to further improve the physical conditions in prisons\nand detention centres.
\nAs regards visas, the\nreport calls on the Parties to assess the implementation of the\nvisa facilitation and readmission agreements and to then consider\nlaunching the EU-Georgia visa dialogue in due course, with the aim\nof visa liberalisation.
\nMembers call on the\nGeorgian authorities to:
\nThe economy and sectoral\ncooperation: Members call for the\nlaunch of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area negotiations as\nsoon as the Key Recommendations made by the Commission and endorsed\nby the EU Member States have been met by Georgia. They encourage\nGeorgia's progress in perfecting its legislation, and calls on the\nEU to provide financial and technical assistance to Georgia\nin order to ensure the continuation of the legislative and\ninstitutional reforms needed.
\nMembers also focus on the\nfollowing issues:
\nMembers also insist on the\nneed to include in the Agreement provisions regarding the\npossibility for Georgia to participate in Community programmes and\nagencies, a fundamental tool for promoting European standards at\nall levels.
\nThey emphasise the need for\nsustainable development, including through the promotion of\nrenewable energy sources and energy efficiency, taking into account\nEU climate change targets. They stress the importance of Georgia in\nimproving EU energy security by promoting priority projects and\npolicy measures for the development of the Southern Corridor\n(NABUCCO, AGRI, Trans-Caspian Pipeline, White Stream,\nEAOTC).
\nOther\nissues: Members present other key\nelements of the Agreement such as:
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 527 votes to 23,\nwith 34 abstentions, a resolution containing the European\nParliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission\nand the EEAS on the negotiations of the EU-Georgia Association\nAgreement.
\nParliament recalls that the active engagement of\nGeorgia and a commitment to shared values and principles, including\ndemocracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human\nrights, are essential to take the process forward and to make the\nnegotiation and subsequent implementation of the association\nagreement a success. It also states that the negotiations with\nGeorgia on the Association Agreement are progressing swiftly, but\nnevertheless negotiations on the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade\nArea (DCFTA) have not yet begun.
\nIt is for this reason that Parliament addresses, in the context\nof the ongoing negotiations on the Association Agreement, the\nfollowing recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the\nEEAS:
\nPolitical dialogue and cooperation: in an amendment adopted in plenary, Parliament recognises Georgia as a European state and\nGeorgian aspirations, including those founded on Article 49 of the\nTreaty on European Union, and base the EU's commitment and ongoing\nnegotiations with Georgia on a European perspective,\nconsidered as a valuable lever for implementation of reforms and a\nnecessary catalyst for public support for these reforms. The\nreforms aim to strengthen the EU’s support for the\nsovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and ensure the\napplicability of the agreement, once it has been concluded, to the\nwhole territory of Georgia. To that end, Georgia should actively\nengage in conflict resolution, inter alia thanks to the EUMM, whose\nmandate has recently been extended until 15 September 2012.\nParliament calls on the EU to recognise Georgia’s regions\nof Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia as\noccupied territories and calls for talks to be intensified\nwith the Russian Federation to ensure that it fulfils\nunconditionally all the provisions of the cease-fire agreement of\n12 August 2008 between Russia and Georgia, particularly the\nprovision stating that Russia shall guarantee EUMM full unlimited\naccess to the occupied territories of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali\nregion/South Ossetia. The EU should also call on Russia to reverse\nits recognition of the separation of the Georgian regions of\nAbkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, to end the\noccupation of those Georgian territories.
\nThe resolution states that Russia continues to occupy\nthe Georgian regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South\nOssetia, in violation of the fundamental norms and principles of\ninternational law. Ethnic cleansing and forcible demographic\nchanges have taken place in the areas under the effective control\nof the occupying force, which bears the responsibility for human\nrights violations in these areas.
\nIn general, Parliament welcomes the unilateral\ncommitment by Georgia not to use force to restore control\nover these two regions and calls upon Russia to reciprocate the\ncommitment to the non-use of force against Georgia. Parliament\nwelcomes the agreement reached between the governments of Russia\nand Georgia on Russia's admission to the World Trade\nOrganization (WTO), in the hope that this agreement treats\nAbkhazia and South Ossetia as integral parts of Georgia. This\nagreement includes an arrangement for monitoring trade between the\ntwo countries.
\nJustice, freedom and security: Parliament calls for the Georgian Government to\nenter more extensively into a constructive political dialogue with\nopposition forces and further develop a democratic environment for\nfreedom of speech. The Georgian Government is also asked to\nfurther improve the physical conditions in prisons and detention\ncentres.
\nAs regards visas, the resolution calls on the Parties\nto assess the implementation of the visa facilitation and\nreadmission agreements and to then consider launching the\nEU-Georgia visa dialogue in due course, with the aim of visa\nliberalisation.
\nParliament calls on the Georgian authorities\nto:
\nThe economy and sectoral cooperation: Parliament calls for the launch of Deep and\nComprehensive Free Trade Area negotiations as soon as the Key\nRecommendations made by the Commission and endorsed by the EU\nMember States have been met by Georgia. It encourages\nGeorgia’s progress in perfecting its legislation, and calls on\nthe EU to provide financial and technical assistance to\nGeorgia in order to ensure the continuation of the legislative\nand institutional reforms needed.
\nThe resolution also focus on the following\nissues:
\nMembers also insist on the need to include in the\nAgreement provisions regarding the possibility for Georgia to\nparticipate in Community programmes and agencies, a fundamental\ntool for promoting European standards at all levels.
\nThey emphasise the need for sustainable\ndevelopment, including through the promotion of renewable\nenergy sources and energy efficiency, taking into account EU\nclimate change targets. They stress the importance of Georgia in\nimproving EU energy security by promoting priority projects and\npolicy measures for the development of the Southern Corridor\n(NABUCCO, AGRI, Trans-Caspian Pipeline, White Stream,\nEAOTC).
\nOther issues: Parliament\npresents other key elements of the Agreement such as:
\nThe Committee on Foreign\nAffairs adopted the report drafted by Krzysztof LISEK (EPP, PL)\ncontaining the European Parliament's recommendations to the\nCouncil, the Commission and the EEAS on the negotiations of the\nEU-Georgia Association Agreement.
\nMembers recall that the\nnegotiations with Georgia on the Association Agreement are\nprogressing swiftly, but nevertheless negotiations on the Deep and\nComprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) have not yet\nbegun.
\nIt is for this reason that\nMembers address, in the context\nof the ongoing negotiations on the Association Agreement, the\nfollowing recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the\nEEAS:
\nPolitical dialogue and\ncooperation: Members consider that\nthe EU should recognise Georgia as a European state and base the\nEU's commitment and ongoing negotiations with Georgia on a European\nperspective. They welcome Georgia's commitment to shared values and\nthe principles of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and good\ngovernance.
\nThey aim to strengthen the\nEU's support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of\nGeorgia and ensure the applicability of the agreement, once it has\nbeen concluded, to the whole territory of Georgia. To that end,\nGeorgia should actively engage in conflict resolution, inter alia\nthanks to the EUMM, whose mandate has recently been extended until\n15 September 2012.
\nMembers call on the EU to\nrecognise Georgia's regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali\nregion/South Ossetia as occupied territories and call\nfor talks to be intensified with the Russian Federation to ensure\nthat it fulfils unconditionally all the provisions of the\ncease-fire agreement of 12 August 2008 between Russia and Georgia,\nparticularly the provision stating that Russia shall guarantee EUMM\nfull unlimited access to the occupied territories of Abkhazia and\nthe Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia. The EU should also call on\nRussia to reverse its recognition of the separation of the Georgian\nregions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, to end\nthe occupation of those Georgian territories. Members express\nconcern over the terrorist attacks in Georgia since last year and\nurge Georgia and Russia to de-escalate rhetoric about bombings and\nsupport for terrorism in order to create a climate of trust in\nconducting these investigations.
\nJustice, freedom and\nsecurity: Members express concern\nabout the cases of lawyers who were assaulted and severely beaten\nby police officers and urge the Georgian authorities to take\nimmediate and effective steps to investigate the above-mentioned\nfacts, combat impunity and politically motivated prosecutions and\nbring those responsible to justice. They call for the Georgian\nGovernment to enter more extensively into a constructive political\ndialogue with opposition forces and further develop a democratic\nenvironment for freedom of speech. The Georgian Government is\nalso asked to further improve the physical conditions in prisons\nand detention centres.
\nAs regards visas, the\nreport calls on the Parties to assess the implementation of the\nvisa facilitation and readmission agreements and to then consider\nlaunching the EU-Georgia visa dialogue in due course, with the aim\nof visa liberalisation.
\nMembers call on the\nGeorgian authorities to:
\nThe economy and sectoral\ncooperation: Members call for the\nlaunch of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area negotiations as\nsoon as the Key Recommendations made by the Commission and endorsed\nby the EU Member States have been met by Georgia. They encourage\nGeorgia's progress in perfecting its legislation, and calls on the\nEU to provide financial and technical assistance to Georgia\nin order to ensure the continuation of the legislative and\ninstitutional reforms needed.
\nMembers also focus on the\nfollowing issues:
\nMembers also insist on the\nneed to include in the Agreement provisions regarding the\npossibility for Georgia to participate in Community programmes and\nagencies, a fundamental tool for promoting European standards at\nall levels.
\nThey emphasise the need for\nsustainable development, including through the promotion of\nrenewable energy sources and energy efficiency, taking into account\nEU climate change targets. They stress the importance of Georgia in\nimproving EU energy security by promoting priority projects and\npolicy measures for the development of the Southern Corridor\n(NABUCCO, AGRI, Trans-Caspian Pipeline, White Stream,\nEAOTC).
\nOther\nissues: Members present other key\nelements of the Agreement such as:
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 527 votes to 23,\nwith 34 abstentions, a resolution containing the European\nParliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission\nand the EEAS on the negotiations of the EU-Georgia Association\nAgreement.
\nParliament recalls that the active engagement of\nGeorgia and a commitment to shared values and principles, including\ndemocracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human\nrights, are essential to take the process forward and to make the\nnegotiation and subsequent implementation of the association\nagreement a success. It also states that the negotiations with\nGeorgia on the Association Agreement are progressing swiftly, but\nnevertheless negotiations on the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade\nArea (DCFTA) have not yet begun.
\nIt is for this reason that Parliament addresses, in the context\nof the ongoing negotiations on the Association Agreement, the\nfollowing recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the\nEEAS:
\nPolitical dialogue and cooperation: in an amendment adopted in plenary, Parliament recognises Georgia as a European state and\nGeorgian aspirations, including those founded on Article 49 of the\nTreaty on European Union, and base the EU's commitment and ongoing\nnegotiations with Georgia on a European perspective,\nconsidered as a valuable lever for implementation of reforms and a\nnecessary catalyst for public support for these reforms. The\nreforms aim to strengthen the EU’s support for the\nsovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and ensure the\napplicability of the agreement, once it has been concluded, to the\nwhole territory of Georgia. To that end, Georgia should actively\nengage in conflict resolution, inter alia thanks to the EUMM, whose\nmandate has recently been extended until 15 September 2012.\nParliament calls on the EU to recognise Georgia’s regions\nof Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia as\noccupied territories and calls for talks to be intensified\nwith the Russian Federation to ensure that it fulfils\nunconditionally all the provisions of the cease-fire agreement of\n12 August 2008 between Russia and Georgia, particularly the\nprovision stating that Russia shall guarantee EUMM full unlimited\naccess to the occupied territories of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali\nregion/South Ossetia. The EU should also call on Russia to reverse\nits recognition of the separation of the Georgian regions of\nAbkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, to end the\noccupation of those Georgian territories.
\nThe resolution states that Russia continues to occupy\nthe Georgian regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South\nOssetia, in violation of the fundamental norms and principles of\ninternational law. Ethnic cleansing and forcible demographic\nchanges have taken place in the areas under the effective control\nof the occupying force, which bears the responsibility for human\nrights violations in these areas.
\nIn general, Parliament welcomes the unilateral\ncommitment by Georgia not to use force to restore control\nover these two regions and calls upon Russia to reciprocate the\ncommitment to the non-use of force against Georgia. Parliament\nwelcomes the agreement reached between the governments of Russia\nand Georgia on Russia's admission to the World Trade\nOrganization (WTO), in the hope that this agreement treats\nAbkhazia and South Ossetia as integral parts of Georgia. This\nagreement includes an arrangement for monitoring trade between the\ntwo countries.
\nJustice, freedom and security: Parliament calls for the Georgian Government to\nenter more extensively into a constructive political dialogue with\nopposition forces and further develop a democratic environment for\nfreedom of speech. The Georgian Government is also asked to\nfurther improve the physical conditions in prisons and detention\ncentres.
\nAs regards visas, the resolution calls on the Parties\nto assess the implementation of the visa facilitation and\nreadmission agreements and to then consider launching the\nEU-Georgia visa dialogue in due course, with the aim of visa\nliberalisation.
\nParliament calls on the Georgian authorities\nto:
\nThe economy and sectoral cooperation: Parliament calls for the launch of Deep and\nComprehensive Free Trade Area negotiations as soon as the Key\nRecommendations made by the Commission and endorsed by the EU\nMember States have been met by Georgia. It encourages\nGeorgia’s progress in perfecting its legislation, and calls on\nthe EU to provide financial and technical assistance to\nGeorgia in order to ensure the continuation of the legislative\nand institutional reforms needed.
\nThe resolution also focus on the following\nissues:
\nMembers also insist on the need to include in the\nAgreement provisions regarding the possibility for Georgia to\nparticipate in Community programmes and agencies, a fundamental\ntool for promoting European standards at all levels.
\nThey emphasise the need for sustainable\ndevelopment, including through the promotion of renewable\nenergy sources and energy efficiency, taking into account EU\nclimate change targets. They stress the importance of Georgia in\nimproving EU energy security by promoting priority projects and\npolicy measures for the development of the Southern Corridor\n(NABUCCO, AGRI, Trans-Caspian Pipeline, White Stream,\nEAOTC).
\nOther issues: Parliament\npresents other key elements of the Agreement such as:
\nPURPOSE: to amend\nRegulation (EC) No 1931/2006 as regards the inclusion of the\nKaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts in the\neligible border area.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the Council and\nthe European Parliament adopted in 2006 a Regulation laying down\nrules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the\nMember States (\"Local Border Traffic Regulation\") which allows\nderogating, for persons living in a border area, from the general\nrules on border checks set out in the Schengen Borders Code. The\nRegulation authorises Member States to conclude bilateral\nagreements with neighbouring non-EU countries, provided these\nagreements fully comply with the parameters set by the\nRegulation.
\nIn February 2011, the\nCommission concluded in a report that the local border traffic\nregime makes life significantly easier for people living near the\nexternal land borders, while at the same time there is little\nevidence that the regime is being abused. It also stated that given\nthe specific position of Kaliningrad (the Kaliningrad region of\nRussia with a population of almost one million inhabitants became\nthe only enclave within the EU as a consequence of the 2004 EU\nenlargement) an amendment of the Local Border Traffic Regulation\nmay be justified.
\nIn order to avoid\nKaliningrad's isolation from its immediate neighbours, there is a\nneed to facilitate travel for its inhabitants.
\nFor the Regulation to have\nreal effect in that region, a specific border area on the Polish\nside should be included in the eligible border area as well, in\norder to facilitate and enhance economic and cultural interchange\nbetween the Kaliningrad oblast on the one hand and major centres in\nthe North of Poland on the other.
\nThis proposal will\ncontribute to further promoting the strategic partnership between\nthe EU and Russia, in line with the priorities set out in the\nRoadmap of the Common Space on Freedom, Security and Justice\nregarding cross-border cooperation and shall be considered in the\ncontext of the overall EU- Russia relationship.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no\nimpact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77 (2)\n(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims to amend Regulation\n(EC) No 1931/2006 so that the following areas shall be considered\nas eligible border area, as defined in the Regulation:
\n1. Kaliningrad\nOblast
\n2. Polish administrative\ndistricts (powiaty) of województwo pomorskie: pucki, m.\nGdynia, m. Sopot, m. Gdańsk, gdański, nowodworski,\nmalborski
\n3. Polish administrative\ndistricts (powiaty) of województwo warmińsko-mazurskie:\nm. Elbląg, elbląski, braniewski, lidzbarski, bartoszycki,\nm. Olsztyn, olsztyński, kętrzyński, mrągowski,\nwęgorzewski, giżycki, gołdapski, olecki.\n'
\nBUDGETARYIMPLICATION: the\nproposed amendment has no implications for the EU\nbudget.
\nThe committee held a\nfirst exchange of views on a proposal to amend the EU rules\non local border traffic (LBT). The proposal aims at facilitating\nborder crossings in the Kaliningrad area through the inclusion\nof the Kaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts\nin the eligible border area. The presidency underlined that the\nproposed amendment was a specific solution responding to a unique\nsituation which did not constitute a precedent.
\nThe Kaliningrad region of\nthe Russian Federation with a population of almost one million\ninhabitants became the only enclave within the EU as a consequence\nof the 2004 EU enlargement.
\nThe original regulation was\nadopted in 2006 to ensure that the borders between EU Member States\nand their non-EU neighbours were not barriers to trade, social and\ncultural interchange or regional cooperation. It enables\nderogations, for persons living in a border area, from the general\nrules on border checks set out in the Schengen Borders Code. The\nRegulation authorises Member States to conclude bilateral\nagreements with neighbouring non-EU countries, provided these\nagreements fully comply with the parameters set by the\nregulation.
\nThe Council adopted a general approach on a\nproposal to amend the EU rules on local border traffic (LBT). This\nwill allow the start of contacts with the European\nParliament.
\nThe Council also adopted a joint declaration of the\nCouncil and the Commission which underlines that the solution\nproposed for the Kaliningrad area does not constitute a precedent\nfor any other regions in relation to the EU local border traffic\nrules. Finally, the Council took note of a declaration of Poland\noutlining the measures Poland is taking to provide for a high level\nof security and transparency.
\nThe proposed amendments aim at facilitating border\ncrossings in the Kaliningrad area through the inclusion of the\nKaliningrad area and specified and limited Polish administrative\ndistricts in the eligible border area. The Kaliningrad region of\nthe Russian Federation with a population of almost one million\ninhabitants became the only enclave within the EU as a consequence\nof the 2004 EU enlargement.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 556 votes to 69,\nwith 12 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\nregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending\nRegulation (EC) No 1931/2006 as regards the inclusion of the\nKaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts in the\neligible border area.
\nParliament adopted its position at first\nreading, under the ordinary legislative procedure, taking over the\nCommission proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to amend\nRegulation (EC) No 1931/2006 as regards the inclusion of the\nKaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts in the\neligible border area.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the Council and\nthe European Parliament adopted in 2006 a Regulation laying down\nrules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the\nMember States (\"Local Border Traffic Regulation\") which allows\nderogating, for persons living in a border area, from the general\nrules on border checks set out in the Schengen Borders Code. The\nRegulation authorises Member States to conclude bilateral\nagreements with neighbouring non-EU countries, provided these\nagreements fully comply with the parameters set by the\nRegulation.
\nIn February 2011, the\nCommission concluded in a report that the local border traffic\nregime makes life significantly easier for people living near the\nexternal land borders, while at the same time there is little\nevidence that the regime is being abused. It also stated that given\nthe specific position of Kaliningrad (the Kaliningrad region of\nRussia with a population of almost one million inhabitants became\nthe only enclave within the EU as a consequence of the 2004 EU\nenlargement) an amendment of the Local Border Traffic Regulation\nmay be justified.
\nIn order to avoid\nKaliningrad's isolation from its immediate neighbours, there is a\nneed to facilitate travel for its inhabitants.
\nFor the Regulation to have\nreal effect in that region, a specific border area on the Polish\nside should be included in the eligible border area as well, in\norder to facilitate and enhance economic and cultural interchange\nbetween the Kaliningrad oblast on the one hand and major centres in\nthe North of Poland on the other.
\nThis proposal will\ncontribute to further promoting the strategic partnership between\nthe EU and Russia, in line with the priorities set out in the\nRoadmap of the Common Space on Freedom, Security and Justice\nregarding cross-border cooperation and shall be considered in the\ncontext of the overall EU- Russia relationship.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no\nimpact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77 (2)\n(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal aims to amend Regulation\n(EC) No 1931/2006 so that the following areas shall be considered\nas eligible border area, as defined in the Regulation:
\n1. Kaliningrad\nOblast
\n2. Polish administrative\ndistricts (powiaty) of województwo pomorskie: pucki, m.\nGdynia, m. Sopot, m. Gdańsk, gdański, nowodworski,\nmalborski
\n3. Polish administrative\ndistricts (powiaty) of województwo warmińsko-mazurskie:\nm. Elbląg, elbląski, braniewski, lidzbarski, bartoszycki,\nm. Olsztyn, olsztyński, kętrzyński, mrągowski,\nwęgorzewski, giżycki, gołdapski, olecki.\n'
\nBUDGETARYIMPLICATION: the\nproposed amendment has no implications for the EU\nbudget.
\nThe committee held a\nfirst exchange of views on a proposal to amend the EU rules\non local border traffic (LBT). The proposal aims at facilitating\nborder crossings in the Kaliningrad area through the inclusion\nof the Kaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts\nin the eligible border area. The presidency underlined that the\nproposed amendment was a specific solution responding to a unique\nsituation which did not constitute a precedent.
\nThe Kaliningrad region of\nthe Russian Federation with a population of almost one million\ninhabitants became the only enclave within the EU as a consequence\nof the 2004 EU enlargement.
\nThe original regulation was\nadopted in 2006 to ensure that the borders between EU Member States\nand their non-EU neighbours were not barriers to trade, social and\ncultural interchange or regional cooperation. It enables\nderogations, for persons living in a border area, from the general\nrules on border checks set out in the Schengen Borders Code. The\nRegulation authorises Member States to conclude bilateral\nagreements with neighbouring non-EU countries, provided these\nagreements fully comply with the parameters set by the\nregulation.
\nThe Council adopted a general approach on a\nproposal to amend the EU rules on local border traffic (LBT). This\nwill allow the start of contacts with the European\nParliament.
\nThe Council also adopted a joint declaration of the\nCouncil and the Commission which underlines that the solution\nproposed for the Kaliningrad area does not constitute a precedent\nfor any other regions in relation to the EU local border traffic\nrules. Finally, the Council took note of a declaration of Poland\noutlining the measures Poland is taking to provide for a high level\nof security and transparency.
\nThe proposed amendments aim at facilitating border\ncrossings in the Kaliningrad area through the inclusion of the\nKaliningrad area and specified and limited Polish administrative\ndistricts in the eligible border area. The Kaliningrad region of\nthe Russian Federation with a population of almost one million\ninhabitants became the only enclave within the EU as a consequence\nof the 2004 EU enlargement.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 556 votes to 69,\nwith 12 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\nregulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending\nRegulation (EC) No 1931/2006 as regards the inclusion of the\nKaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts in the\neligible border area.
\nParliament adopted its position at first\nreading, under the ordinary legislative procedure, taking over the\nCommission proposal.
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the\nown-initiative report by Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, IT) on the\ndevelopment of the common security and defence policy following the\nentry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It emphasises that the new\nprovisions on Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) introduced\nby the Lisbon Treaty provide a firm political statement of the\nUnion's intention to act as a force for stability in the\nworld.
\nSecurity and foreign policy: Members underline that the duty of consistency as\ndefined by the Treaty and recent ECJ case protect both the primacy\nof the Community method and the distinguishing features of the\nCFSP, while encouraging the convergence of different policies and\ninstruments in a comprehensive approach. They note that military\nassets can be also deployed in the event of natural and man-made\ndisasters, as shown in practice by the EU Military Staff\ncoordination of military capabilities in support of civilian-led\nhumanitarian relief operations during the Pakistan floods in 2010.\nThe committee expresses concern, therefore, that, more than one\nyear after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there are not\nyet clear signs of a post-Lisbon EU comprehensive approach enabling\ntraditional procedural and institutional barriers to be overcome,\nwhile preserving the respective legal prerogatives when European\ncitizens' security is at stake.
\nMembers regret the unwillingness of the EU Member\nStates to define a common position on the Libya crisis, on UN\nSecurity Council Resolution 1973 and on the ways to implement it.\nThey express deep concern about the risk of considering ad hoc\ncoalitions of the willing or bilateral cooperation as viable\nsubstitutes for CSDP, as no European State has the capacity to be a\nsignificant security and defence actor in the 21st century world.\nThe committee insists that a common response to the developments in\nLibya is essential to formulate a credible new approach for our\nsouthern neighbourhood policy, and underlines that the elaboration\nof a strategy for the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa is yet\nanother concrete opportunity to demonstrate the ability of the EU\nto act both on security challenges. The European Council is urged\nto carry out its task of identifying the strategic interests and\npolitical objectives of the EU by drawing up a European foreign\npolicy strategy which should be based on real convergence of the\ndifferent dimensions of EU external action and subject to regular\nreview. Members call on the European Council and its President to\nset about this task by engaging in political dialogue with the\nEuropean Parliament and to discuss Parliament's recommendations,\nmaintaining that such a dialogue is required in the light of the\nnew Treaty provisions. They also call on the\nVice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) to interpret her role as\na proactive one and to pursue a constructive dialogue with\nParliament in the framework of the twofold effort to foster a\npolitical consensus among the Member States on the strategic\ndirections and policy options for the CFSP and the CSDP, and to\nexploit the potential for the CFSP-CSDP to act synergistically with\nthe other sectors of EU external action.
\nThe report considers that the EEAS has a key role to\nplay in bringing about an effective comprehensive approach based on\nfull integration of the CSDP, the CFSP and the other dimensions of\nEU external action, notably development cooperation, trade and\nenergy security policies. It regrets the fact that the provisional\norganisation chart of the EEAS does not include all existing\nunits dealing with crisis response planning and programming,\nconflict prevention and peace-building with the CSDP structures in\nline with the Madrid agreement. The committee calls in this\ncontext for the organisation of regular meetings of a crisis\nmanagement board to be composed of the CMPD, the CCPC, the\nEUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace-building, conflict prevention,\nmediation and security policy units, the Chair of the PSC, the\ngeographical desks and other policy departments concerned. The\nCrisis Management Board should provide the EEAS with unified\ncontingency planning in relation to potential theatres and crisis\nscenarios and also coordinate the use of the various financial\ninstruments and deployment of capabilities available to the\nEU.
\nSecurity and defence:\nMembers reaffirm that credible military capabilities are a sine qua\nnon for an autonomous CSDP and that Member States need to provide\nthem. They further stress that those military capabilities can be\napplied for diverse purposes, not least for civilian ones. The\ncommittee regrets the sharp contrast between the EUR 200\nbillion per year spent by the Member States on defence, the lack of\nmeans at the EU's disposal and the painfully protracted force\ngeneration conferences for EU military operations at a time when\nthere are redundant capabilities and personnel. It deplores the\nfact that over more than twelve years the method of the force\ngeneration process has not yielded any de facto improvements\nregarding the quantity and quality of military capabilities\navailable for CSDP missions. Members stress the need to evaluate\nthe improvements of military capabilities on a regular basis,\npointing out that there is an increasing mismatch between\ngrowing demand from abroad and the resources that Member States\nmake available to the Union. They also call on Member States to\ndevelop greater transparency regarding their respective defence\nbudgets. The committee also stresses the following:
\nThe committee calls for an extraordinary European\nCouncil meeting to be given over to European security and defence,\nand renews its call for the drafting of a White Paper on\nEuropean security and defence.
\nMembers recognise the soundness of the\nBattlegroups, but call for the concept and the structure of\nthe Battlegroups, which have so far never been deployed, to be\ncarefully reviewed for an increased degree of flexibility and\nefficiency. They believe that consideration could be given to\nspecialising one of the two Battlegroups in niche capabilities\nand/or capabilities suited to low-intensity conflicts entailing\nmixed civilian-military tasks. The operating costs should be\ncharged to the ATHENA mechanism, which is due to be reviewed\nunder the Polish Presidency;
\nThe report recommends that the ATHENA mechanism be\nreformed with a view to rationalising and increasing the proportion\nof common costs (at present estimated to be about 10%) so as to\nmake for fairer burden-sharing in military operations, in which the\nparticipants in a mission, who already bear a heavy responsibility\nin terms of risks and costs, are obliged in the current situation\nto undertake a further economic responsibility. It calls for the\nestablishment of the start-up fund for preparatory activities in\nthe lead-up to military operations to speed up the disbursement\nof funds, and for this measure to be covered by the ATHENA\nmechanism review proposal.
\nSecurity in partnership:\nMembers maintain that the trend towards multipolarity in the\ninternational system and the establishment of strategic\npartnerships must be encompassed within an active commitment to\npromoting multilateralism. It calls on those Member States\nwhich have seats on the UN Security Council to defend common\npositions and interests of the EU and to ask the HR/VP to ensure EU\nrepresentation in that body and persuade Member States to agree on\na rotation system, which will ensure a permanent member's seat for\nthe EU on the UNSC. Members recall that, in addition to\npartnerships with other international organisations such as the UN,\nNATO and the African Union, cooperation with individual third\ncountries should be enhanced in the context of the CSDP. Experience\nshows that third countries can bring important assets, human\nresources and expertise to CSDP missions, such as in the context of\nEUFOR Chad/CAR, for which Russia provided much-needed helicopters.\nThe involvement of third countries can also enhance the legitimacy\nof CSDP operations and help set up a broader security dialogue with\nimportant partners while remaining committed to promoting respect\nfor human rights and the rule of law.
\nThe European Parliament\nadopted a resolution on the development of the common security and\ndefence policy following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.\nIt emphasises that the new provisions on Common Security and\nDefence Policy (CSDP) introduced by the Lisbon Treaty provide a\nfirm political statement of the Union's intention to act as a\nforce for stability in the world.
\nSecurity and foreign\npolicy: Members underline that the\nduty of consistency as defined by the Treaty and recent ECJ case\nlaw protect both the primacy of the Community method and the\ndistinguishing features of the CFSP, while encouraging the\nconvergence of different policies and instruments in a\ncomprehensive approach. They note that military assets can be also\ndeployed in the event of natural and man-made disasters, as shown\nin practice by the EU Military Staff coordination of military\ncapabilities in support of civilian-led humanitarian relief\noperations during the Pakistan floods in 2010. Parliament\nexpresses concern, therefore, that, more than one year after the\nentry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there are not yet clear\nsigns of a post-Lisbon EU comprehensive approach enabling\ntraditional procedural and institutional barriers to be overcome,\nwhile preserving respective legal prerogatives when European\ncitizens' security is at stake.
\nMembers regret the\nunwillingness of the EU Member States to define a common position\non the Libya crisis, and express deep concern about the risk of\nconsidering ad hoc coalitions of the willing or bilateral\ncooperation as viable substitutes for CSDP, as no European State\nhas the capacity to be a significant security and defence actor in\nthe 21st century world. They reiterate that the mandate given in UN\nSecurity Council Resolution 1973(2011) to protect Libyan civilians\nshould not be exceeded through the disproportionate use of force.\nParliament considers it crucial to work closely with the Interim\nTransitional National Council, the African Union and the Arab\nLeague in order to channel the current military conflict towards\npolitical and diplomatic solutions, including the objective of\nsecuring the resignation of the Gaddafi regime. The elaboration of\na strategy for the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa is yet\nanother concrete opportunity to demonstrate the ability of the EU\nto act both on security and development challenges.
\nParliament goes on to\nappeal to the Council to provide immediate humanitarian support to\nMisrata and other population centres, specifically by naval means.\nIt is profoundly concerned about the increasing number of victims\nof the conflict in Libya and the Gaddafi regime's reported use of\ncluster munitions and other arms against the civilian population.\nMembers deeply regret that the mandate of EUFOR was limited to\nhumanitarian aspects when there was a clear case for the EU to take\nthe lead in maritime surveillance and in humanitarian assistance\nand protection of civilians in Libya. They also regret the decision\nof some Member States to veto a broader mandate for EUFOR Libya\nwhile at the same time conducting such operations on their own, and\nwant a start to be made on planning a potential CSDP operation in\nthe medium to long term in Libya in the areas of security sector\nreform, institution-building and border management.
\nThe European Council is\nurged to carry out its task of identifying the strategic interests\nand political objectives of the EU by drawing up a European\nforeign policy strategy which should be based on real\nconvergence of the different dimensions of EU external action and\nsubject to regular review. Members call on the European Council and\nits President to set about this task by engaging\nin political dialogue with the European\nParliament and to discuss Parliament's recommendations,\nmaintaining that such a dialogue is required in the light of the\nnew Treaty provisions. They also call on the\nVice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) to interpret her role as\na proactive one and to pursue a constructive dialogue with\nParliament in the framework of the twofold effort to foster a\npolitical consensus among the Member States on the strategic\ndirections and policy options for the CFSP and the CSDP, and to\nexploit the potential for the CFSP-CSDP to act synergistically with\nthe other sectors of EU external action.
\nParliament regrets the fact\nthat the provisional organisation chart of the EEAS does not\ninclude all existing units dealing with crisis response planning\nand programming, conflict prevention and peace building with the\nCSDP structures. It calls for the following:
\n(i) the organisation of\nregular meetings of a crisis management board to be composed of the\nCMPD, the CCPC, the EUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace-building,\nconflict prevention, mediation and security policy units, the Chair\nof the PSC, the geographical desks and other policy departments\nconcerned, placed under the authority of the VP/HR and the\nexecutive Secretary-General and with the participation of the\nCommission humanitarian aid, civil protection and internal security\nstructures according to the circumstances. These meetings would be\ncoordinated by the Managing Director for Crisis Response. The VP/HR\nand the Commission are asked to equip the board with an alert and\nemergency system and a large unified operations room, located\nwithin the EEAS, so as to enable surveillance to be carried out 24\nhours a day, 7 days a week, hence avoiding the present operational\noverlapping, which hardly squares with the need for a proper\nsurveillance and rapid reaction system to deal with crises. Regular\ncoordination and exchange should be ensured between this system and\nthe European emergency response centre currently being developed by\nthe Commission;
\n(ii) a permanent working\nstructure involving the above-mentioned actors going beyond acute\ncrisis management in order to develop common approaches, in areas\nsuch as the rule of law and security sector reform;
\n(iii) a midterm review of\nthe current arrangements with a view to establishing truly\nintegrated strategic planning and conceptual development in the\nfield of crisis management and peace building for the\nEEAS.
\nThe Crisis Management Board\nshould provide the EEAS with unified contingency planning\nin relation to potential theatres and crisis scenarios and\nalso coordinate the use of the various financial instruments and\ndeployment of capabilities available to the EU.
\nSecurity and\ndefence: Members reaffirm that\ncredible military capabilities are a sine qua non for an autonomous\nCSDP and that Member States need to provide them. They further\nstress that those military capabilities can be applied for diverse\npurposes, not least for civilian ones. Parliament regrets\nthe sharp contrast between the EUR 200 billion per\nyear spent by the Member States on defence, the lack of means at\nthe EU's disposal and the painfully protracted force generation\nconferences for EU military operations at a time when there are\nredundant capabilities and personnel. It deplores the fact that\nover more than twelve years the method of the force generation\nprocess has not yielded any de facto improvements regarding the\nquantity and quality of military capabilities available for CSDP\nmissions. Members stress the need to evaluate the improvements of\nmilitary capabilities on a regular basis, pointing out that there\nis an increasing mismatch between growing demand from\nabroad and the resources that Member States make available to\nthe Union. They also call on Member States to develop\ngreater transparency regarding their respective defence budgets.\nThe committee also stresses the following:
\nParliament calls for an\nextraordinary European Council meeting to be given over to European\nsecurity and defence, and renews its call for the drafting of\na White Paper on European security and\ndefence.
\nMembers recognise the\nsoundness of the Battlegroups, but calls for the\nconcept and the structure of the Battlegroups, which have so far\nnever been deployed, to be carefully reviewed for an increased\ndegree of flexibility and efficiency. They believe that\nconsideration could be given to:
\n· \nspecialising one of the two Battlegroups in\nniche capabilities and/or capabilities suited to low-intensity\nconflicts entailing mixed civilian-military tasks;
\n· \nthe operating costs should be charged to\nthe ATHENA mechanism, which is due to be reviewed under the\nPolish Presidency;
\nParliament recommends that\nthe ATHENA mechanism be reformed with a view to\nrationalising and increasing the proportion of common\ncosts (at present estimated to be about 10%) so as to make\nfor fairer burden-sharing in military operations, in which the\nparticipants in a mission, who already bear a heavy responsibility\nin terms of risks and costs, are obliged in the current situation\nto undertake a further economic responsibility. It calls for\nthe establishment of the start-up fund for preparatory\nactivities in the lead-up to military operations to speed\nup the disbursement of funds, and for this measure to be covered by\nthe ATHENA mechanism review proposal.
\nSecurity in partnership:\nMembers maintain that the trend towards multi-polarity in the\ninternational system and the establishment of strategic\npartnerships must be encompassed within an active commitment\nto promoting multilateralism. They call on those Member States\nwhich have seats on the UN Security Council to defend common\npositions and interests of the EU and to work towards a reform of\nthe UN whereby the EU as such could have its own permanent seat.\n Parliament recognises that NATO constitutes the foundation of\ncollective defence for those Member States which belong to it and\nreaches beyond its Member States. It looks forward to the proposals\nof the High Representative as tasked by the European Council\nconclusions of September 2010 referring to EU-NATO cooperation in\ncrisis management.
\nMembers recall that, in\naddition to partnerships with other international organisations\nsuch as the UN, NATO and the African Union, cooperation with\nindividual third countries should be enhanced in the context of the\nCSDP. Experience shows that third countries can bring important\nassets, human resources and expertise to CSDP missions, such as in\nthe context of EUFOR Chad/CAR, for which Russia provided\nmuch-needed helicopters. The involvement of third countries can\nalso enhance the legitimacy of CSDP operations and help set up a\nbroader security dialogue with important partners while remaining\ncommitted to promoting respect for human rights and the rule of\nlaw.
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the\nown-initiative report by Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, IT) on the\ndevelopment of the common security and defence policy following the\nentry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It emphasises that the new\nprovisions on Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) introduced\nby the Lisbon Treaty provide a firm political statement of the\nUnion's intention to act as a force for stability in the\nworld.
\nSecurity and foreign policy: Members underline that the duty of consistency as\ndefined by the Treaty and recent ECJ case protect both the primacy\nof the Community method and the distinguishing features of the\nCFSP, while encouraging the convergence of different policies and\ninstruments in a comprehensive approach. They note that military\nassets can be also deployed in the event of natural and man-made\ndisasters, as shown in practice by the EU Military Staff\ncoordination of military capabilities in support of civilian-led\nhumanitarian relief operations during the Pakistan floods in 2010.\nThe committee expresses concern, therefore, that, more than one\nyear after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there are not\nyet clear signs of a post-Lisbon EU comprehensive approach enabling\ntraditional procedural and institutional barriers to be overcome,\nwhile preserving the respective legal prerogatives when European\ncitizens' security is at stake.
\nMembers regret the unwillingness of the EU Member\nStates to define a common position on the Libya crisis, on UN\nSecurity Council Resolution 1973 and on the ways to implement it.\nThey express deep concern about the risk of considering ad hoc\ncoalitions of the willing or bilateral cooperation as viable\nsubstitutes for CSDP, as no European State has the capacity to be a\nsignificant security and defence actor in the 21st century world.\nThe committee insists that a common response to the developments in\nLibya is essential to formulate a credible new approach for our\nsouthern neighbourhood policy, and underlines that the elaboration\nof a strategy for the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa is yet\nanother concrete opportunity to demonstrate the ability of the EU\nto act both on security challenges. The European Council is urged\nto carry out its task of identifying the strategic interests and\npolitical objectives of the EU by drawing up a European foreign\npolicy strategy which should be based on real convergence of the\ndifferent dimensions of EU external action and subject to regular\nreview. Members call on the European Council and its President to\nset about this task by engaging in political dialogue with the\nEuropean Parliament and to discuss Parliament's recommendations,\nmaintaining that such a dialogue is required in the light of the\nnew Treaty provisions. They also call on the\nVice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) to interpret her role as\na proactive one and to pursue a constructive dialogue with\nParliament in the framework of the twofold effort to foster a\npolitical consensus among the Member States on the strategic\ndirections and policy options for the CFSP and the CSDP, and to\nexploit the potential for the CFSP-CSDP to act synergistically with\nthe other sectors of EU external action.
\nThe report considers that the EEAS has a key role to\nplay in bringing about an effective comprehensive approach based on\nfull integration of the CSDP, the CFSP and the other dimensions of\nEU external action, notably development cooperation, trade and\nenergy security policies. It regrets the fact that the provisional\norganisation chart of the EEAS does not include all existing\nunits dealing with crisis response planning and programming,\nconflict prevention and peace-building with the CSDP structures in\nline with the Madrid agreement. The committee calls in this\ncontext for the organisation of regular meetings of a crisis\nmanagement board to be composed of the CMPD, the CCPC, the\nEUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace-building, conflict prevention,\nmediation and security policy units, the Chair of the PSC, the\ngeographical desks and other policy departments concerned. The\nCrisis Management Board should provide the EEAS with unified\ncontingency planning in relation to potential theatres and crisis\nscenarios and also coordinate the use of the various financial\ninstruments and deployment of capabilities available to the\nEU.
\nSecurity and defence:\nMembers reaffirm that credible military capabilities are a sine qua\nnon for an autonomous CSDP and that Member States need to provide\nthem. They further stress that those military capabilities can be\napplied for diverse purposes, not least for civilian ones. The\ncommittee regrets the sharp contrast between the EUR 200\nbillion per year spent by the Member States on defence, the lack of\nmeans at the EU's disposal and the painfully protracted force\ngeneration conferences for EU military operations at a time when\nthere are redundant capabilities and personnel. It deplores the\nfact that over more than twelve years the method of the force\ngeneration process has not yielded any de facto improvements\nregarding the quantity and quality of military capabilities\navailable for CSDP missions. Members stress the need to evaluate\nthe improvements of military capabilities on a regular basis,\npointing out that there is an increasing mismatch between\ngrowing demand from abroad and the resources that Member States\nmake available to the Union. They also call on Member States to\ndevelop greater transparency regarding their respective defence\nbudgets. The committee also stresses the following:
\nThe committee calls for an extraordinary European\nCouncil meeting to be given over to European security and defence,\nand renews its call for the drafting of a White Paper on\nEuropean security and defence.
\nMembers recognise the soundness of the\nBattlegroups, but call for the concept and the structure of\nthe Battlegroups, which have so far never been deployed, to be\ncarefully reviewed for an increased degree of flexibility and\nefficiency. They believe that consideration could be given to\nspecialising one of the two Battlegroups in niche capabilities\nand/or capabilities suited to low-intensity conflicts entailing\nmixed civilian-military tasks. The operating costs should be\ncharged to the ATHENA mechanism, which is due to be reviewed\nunder the Polish Presidency;
\nThe report recommends that the ATHENA mechanism be\nreformed with a view to rationalising and increasing the proportion\nof common costs (at present estimated to be about 10%) so as to\nmake for fairer burden-sharing in military operations, in which the\nparticipants in a mission, who already bear a heavy responsibility\nin terms of risks and costs, are obliged in the current situation\nto undertake a further economic responsibility. It calls for the\nestablishment of the start-up fund for preparatory activities in\nthe lead-up to military operations to speed up the disbursement\nof funds, and for this measure to be covered by the ATHENA\nmechanism review proposal.
\nSecurity in partnership:\nMembers maintain that the trend towards multipolarity in the\ninternational system and the establishment of strategic\npartnerships must be encompassed within an active commitment to\npromoting multilateralism. It calls on those Member States\nwhich have seats on the UN Security Council to defend common\npositions and interests of the EU and to ask the HR/VP to ensure EU\nrepresentation in that body and persuade Member States to agree on\na rotation system, which will ensure a permanent member's seat for\nthe EU on the UNSC. Members recall that, in addition to\npartnerships with other international organisations such as the UN,\nNATO and the African Union, cooperation with individual third\ncountries should be enhanced in the context of the CSDP. Experience\nshows that third countries can bring important assets, human\nresources and expertise to CSDP missions, such as in the context of\nEUFOR Chad/CAR, for which Russia provided much-needed helicopters.\nThe involvement of third countries can also enhance the legitimacy\nof CSDP operations and help set up a broader security dialogue with\nimportant partners while remaining committed to promoting respect\nfor human rights and the rule of law.
\nThe European Parliament\nadopted a resolution on the development of the common security and\ndefence policy following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.\nIt emphasises that the new provisions on Common Security and\nDefence Policy (CSDP) introduced by the Lisbon Treaty provide a\nfirm political statement of the Union's intention to act as a\nforce for stability in the world.
\nSecurity and foreign\npolicy: Members underline that the\nduty of consistency as defined by the Treaty and recent ECJ case\nlaw protect both the primacy of the Community method and the\ndistinguishing features of the CFSP, while encouraging the\nconvergence of different policies and instruments in a\ncomprehensive approach. They note that military assets can be also\ndeployed in the event of natural and man-made disasters, as shown\nin practice by the EU Military Staff coordination of military\ncapabilities in support of civilian-led humanitarian relief\noperations during the Pakistan floods in 2010. Parliament\nexpresses concern, therefore, that, more than one year after the\nentry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there are not yet clear\nsigns of a post-Lisbon EU comprehensive approach enabling\ntraditional procedural and institutional barriers to be overcome,\nwhile preserving respective legal prerogatives when European\ncitizens' security is at stake.
\nMembers regret the\nunwillingness of the EU Member States to define a common position\non the Libya crisis, and express deep concern about the risk of\nconsidering ad hoc coalitions of the willing or bilateral\ncooperation as viable substitutes for CSDP, as no European State\nhas the capacity to be a significant security and defence actor in\nthe 21st century world. They reiterate that the mandate given in UN\nSecurity Council Resolution 1973(2011) to protect Libyan civilians\nshould not be exceeded through the disproportionate use of force.\nParliament considers it crucial to work closely with the Interim\nTransitional National Council, the African Union and the Arab\nLeague in order to channel the current military conflict towards\npolitical and diplomatic solutions, including the objective of\nsecuring the resignation of the Gaddafi regime. The elaboration of\na strategy for the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa is yet\nanother concrete opportunity to demonstrate the ability of the EU\nto act both on security and development challenges.
\nParliament goes on to\nappeal to the Council to provide immediate humanitarian support to\nMisrata and other population centres, specifically by naval means.\nIt is profoundly concerned about the increasing number of victims\nof the conflict in Libya and the Gaddafi regime's reported use of\ncluster munitions and other arms against the civilian population.\nMembers deeply regret that the mandate of EUFOR was limited to\nhumanitarian aspects when there was a clear case for the EU to take\nthe lead in maritime surveillance and in humanitarian assistance\nand protection of civilians in Libya. They also regret the decision\nof some Member States to veto a broader mandate for EUFOR Libya\nwhile at the same time conducting such operations on their own, and\nwant a start to be made on planning a potential CSDP operation in\nthe medium to long term in Libya in the areas of security sector\nreform, institution-building and border management.
\nThe European Council is\nurged to carry out its task of identifying the strategic interests\nand political objectives of the EU by drawing up a European\nforeign policy strategy which should be based on real\nconvergence of the different dimensions of EU external action and\nsubject to regular review. Members call on the European Council and\nits President to set about this task by engaging\nin political dialogue with the European\nParliament and to discuss Parliament's recommendations,\nmaintaining that such a dialogue is required in the light of the\nnew Treaty provisions. They also call on the\nVice-President/High Representative (VP/HR) to interpret her role as\na proactive one and to pursue a constructive dialogue with\nParliament in the framework of the twofold effort to foster a\npolitical consensus among the Member States on the strategic\ndirections and policy options for the CFSP and the CSDP, and to\nexploit the potential for the CFSP-CSDP to act synergistically with\nthe other sectors of EU external action.
\nParliament regrets the fact\nthat the provisional organisation chart of the EEAS does not\ninclude all existing units dealing with crisis response planning\nand programming, conflict prevention and peace building with the\nCSDP structures. It calls for the following:
\n(i) the organisation of\nregular meetings of a crisis management board to be composed of the\nCMPD, the CCPC, the EUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace-building,\nconflict prevention, mediation and security policy units, the Chair\nof the PSC, the geographical desks and other policy departments\nconcerned, placed under the authority of the VP/HR and the\nexecutive Secretary-General and with the participation of the\nCommission humanitarian aid, civil protection and internal security\nstructures according to the circumstances. These meetings would be\ncoordinated by the Managing Director for Crisis Response. The VP/HR\nand the Commission are asked to equip the board with an alert and\nemergency system and a large unified operations room, located\nwithin the EEAS, so as to enable surveillance to be carried out 24\nhours a day, 7 days a week, hence avoiding the present operational\noverlapping, which hardly squares with the need for a proper\nsurveillance and rapid reaction system to deal with crises. Regular\ncoordination and exchange should be ensured between this system and\nthe European emergency response centre currently being developed by\nthe Commission;
\n(ii) a permanent working\nstructure involving the above-mentioned actors going beyond acute\ncrisis management in order to develop common approaches, in areas\nsuch as the rule of law and security sector reform;
\n(iii) a midterm review of\nthe current arrangements with a view to establishing truly\nintegrated strategic planning and conceptual development in the\nfield of crisis management and peace building for the\nEEAS.
\nThe Crisis Management Board\nshould provide the EEAS with unified contingency planning\nin relation to potential theatres and crisis scenarios and\nalso coordinate the use of the various financial instruments and\ndeployment of capabilities available to the EU.
\nSecurity and\ndefence: Members reaffirm that\ncredible military capabilities are a sine qua non for an autonomous\nCSDP and that Member States need to provide them. They further\nstress that those military capabilities can be applied for diverse\npurposes, not least for civilian ones. Parliament regrets\nthe sharp contrast between the EUR 200 billion per\nyear spent by the Member States on defence, the lack of means at\nthe EU's disposal and the painfully protracted force generation\nconferences for EU military operations at a time when there are\nredundant capabilities and personnel. It deplores the fact that\nover more than twelve years the method of the force generation\nprocess has not yielded any de facto improvements regarding the\nquantity and quality of military capabilities available for CSDP\nmissions. Members stress the need to evaluate the improvements of\nmilitary capabilities on a regular basis, pointing out that there\nis an increasing mismatch between growing demand from\nabroad and the resources that Member States make available to\nthe Union. They also call on Member States to develop\ngreater transparency regarding their respective defence budgets.\nThe committee also stresses the following:
\nParliament calls for an\nextraordinary European Council meeting to be given over to European\nsecurity and defence, and renews its call for the drafting of\na White Paper on European security and\ndefence.
\nMembers recognise the\nsoundness of the Battlegroups, but calls for the\nconcept and the structure of the Battlegroups, which have so far\nnever been deployed, to be carefully reviewed for an increased\ndegree of flexibility and efficiency. They believe that\nconsideration could be given to:
\n· \nspecialising one of the two Battlegroups in\nniche capabilities and/or capabilities suited to low-intensity\nconflicts entailing mixed civilian-military tasks;
\n· \nthe operating costs should be charged to\nthe ATHENA mechanism, which is due to be reviewed under the\nPolish Presidency;
\nParliament recommends that\nthe ATHENA mechanism be reformed with a view to\nrationalising and increasing the proportion of common\ncosts (at present estimated to be about 10%) so as to make\nfor fairer burden-sharing in military operations, in which the\nparticipants in a mission, who already bear a heavy responsibility\nin terms of risks and costs, are obliged in the current situation\nto undertake a further economic responsibility. It calls for\nthe establishment of the start-up fund for preparatory\nactivities in the lead-up to military operations to speed\nup the disbursement of funds, and for this measure to be covered by\nthe ATHENA mechanism review proposal.
\nSecurity in partnership:\nMembers maintain that the trend towards multi-polarity in the\ninternational system and the establishment of strategic\npartnerships must be encompassed within an active commitment\nto promoting multilateralism. They call on those Member States\nwhich have seats on the UN Security Council to defend common\npositions and interests of the EU and to work towards a reform of\nthe UN whereby the EU as such could have its own permanent seat.\n Parliament recognises that NATO constitutes the foundation of\ncollective defence for those Member States which belong to it and\nreaches beyond its Member States. It looks forward to the proposals\nof the High Representative as tasked by the European Council\nconclusions of September 2010 referring to EU-NATO cooperation in\ncrisis management.
\nMembers recall that, in\naddition to partnerships with other international organisations\nsuch as the UN, NATO and the African Union, cooperation with\nindividual third countries should be enhanced in the context of the\nCSDP. Experience shows that third countries can bring important\nassets, human resources and expertise to CSDP missions, such as in\nthe context of EUFOR Chad/CAR, for which Russia provided\nmuch-needed helicopters. The involvement of third countries can\nalso enhance the legitimacy of CSDP operations and help set up a\nbroader security dialogue with important partners while remaining\ncommitted to promoting respect for human rights and the rule of\nlaw.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude an Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing\nwithout authorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the August 2008 conflict in\nGeorgia, the Extraordinary European Council held in Brussels on 1\nSeptember 2008 decided \"to step up relations with Georgia,\nincluding visa facilitation measures\". According to the December\n2005 COREPER common approach for the development of the EU policy\non visa facilitation in principle, a visa facilitation agreement\nwould not be concluded if no readmission agreement were in\nplace.
\nOn 27 November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs\nCouncil formally authorised the Commission to negotiate a\nreadmission agreement between the European Community and Georgia.\nIn February 2009 the Commission transmitted a draft text to the\nGeorgian authorities and the first round of formal negotiations\ncould be held in Brussels on 2 April 2009.
\nTwo further formal rounds of negotiations took place,\nthe last one in Brussels on 24-25 August 2009.
\nFollowing a consultation and approval process on both\nsides as well as further clarification of a few additional points,\nthe agreed text was initialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by\nthe Chief Negotiators of both Parties.
\nMember States have been regularly informed and\nconsulted at all (informal and formal) stages of the readmission\nnegotiations.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft Readmission Agreement is acceptable to the\nUnion.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nCONTENT: the proposal\nconstitutes the legal instrument for the conclusion of the\nreadmission agreement. The Council will decide by qualified\nmajority.
\nThe proposed decision concerning the\nconclusion sets out the necessary internal arrangements for\nthe practical application of the Agreement. In particular,\nit specifies that the Commission, assisted by experts from Member\nStates, represents the Union within the Joint Readmission Committee\nset up by Article 18 of the Agreement. Under Article 18(5), the\nreadmission committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure. As in\nthe case for the other readmission agreements so far concluded by\nthe Union, the Union position in this regard shall be established\nby the Commission in consultation with a special committee\ndesignated by the Council. As regards other decisions to be taken\nby the Joint Committee, the Union position shall be established in\naccordance with the applicable provisions of the Treaty.
\nThe final content of the Agreement can\nbe summarised as follows:
\nTerritorial measures:\nthe specific situation of Denmark is reflected in the preamble and\nin a joint declaration attached to the Agreement. The close\nassociation of Norway, Iceland and Switzerland to the\nimplementation, application and development of the Schengen Acquis\nis likewise reflected in a joint declaration to the\nAgreement.
\nSince the two agreements on visa\nfacilitation and readmission are linked, both agreements should\nbe concluded and enter into force simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to sign the\nAgreement between the EU and Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the\nAugust 2008 conflict in Georgia, the Extraordinary European Council\nheld in Brussels on 1 September 2008 decided to step up relations\nwith Georgia, including visa facilitation measures. According to\nthe December 2005 COREPER, a visa facilitation agreement would not\nbe concluded if no readmission agreement were in place.\nAccordingly, in November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs Council\nformally authorised the Commission to negotiate a readmission\nagreement between the EC and Georgia. The agreed text was\ninitialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by the Chief Negotiators\nof both Parties. Member States have been regularly informed and\nconsulted at all stages of the readmission negotiations.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft Readmission Agreement is acceptable to the\nUnion.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal constitutes the legal\ninstrument for the signature of the readmission\nagreement.
\nFor details on the final content of the this\nAgreement, please refer to the summary of COM(2010)0200 of 5 May\n2010.
\nSince the two agreements on visa\nfacilitation and readmission are linked, both agreements should\nbe concluded and enter into force simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union's budget.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted the report drafted by Nathalie GRIESBECK (ADLE,\nFR), recommending that the European Parliament consents to the\nconclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia\non the readmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the\nreadmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation was signed by the Commission,\nsubject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on\nthe readmission of persons residing without authorisation is\nhereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthe United Kingdom has notified its wish to participate in the\nadoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand,\nIreland shall not participate in the adoption of this Decision and\nshall not be bound or subject to its application. Denmark takes the\nsame stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the\nreadmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation was signed by the Commission,\nsubject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on\nthe readmission of persons residing without authorisation is\nhereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthe United Kingdom has notified its wish to participate in the\nadoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand,\nIreland shall not participate in the adoption of this Decision and\nshall not be bound or subject to its application. Denmark takes the\nsame stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a legislative\nresolution in which it gives its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission\nof persons residing without authorisation.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude an\nagreement between the EU and Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation.
\nNON-LEGISLATIVE ACT:\nCouncil Decision 2011/118/EU on the Agreement between the European\nUnion and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance\nwith Council Decision 2010/687/EU the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing\nwithout authorisation was signed, on behalf of the EU, on 17 June\n2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date. The Agreement\nshould now be approved.
\nFurthermore, the Agreement\nestablishes a Joint Readmission Committee which may adopt its rules\nof procedure, and there is provision for a simplified procedure for\nthe establishment of the Union position in this case.
\nCONTENT: this Decision\nconcludes the Agreement between the EU and Georgia on the\nreadmission of persons residing without authorisation. The main\nelements of the agreement may be summarised as\nfollows :
\nTerritorial\nmeasures: Ireland and Denmark are not\ntaking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by\nit or subject to its application. On the other hand the United\nKingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and\napplication of the Decision.
\nIt should be noted that\nsince the two agreements on visa\nfacilitation and\nreadmission are linked, both agreements should be concluded and\nenter into force simultaneously.
\nENTRY INTO FORCE: the Decision enters into force on 18\nJanuary 2011. The Agreement enters into force on 1 March\n2011.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude an Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing\nwithout authorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the August 2008 conflict in\nGeorgia, the Extraordinary European Council held in Brussels on 1\nSeptember 2008 decided \"to step up relations with Georgia,\nincluding visa facilitation measures\". According to the December\n2005 COREPER common approach for the development of the EU policy\non visa facilitation in principle, a visa facilitation agreement\nwould not be concluded if no readmission agreement were in\nplace.
\nOn 27 November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs\nCouncil formally authorised the Commission to negotiate a\nreadmission agreement between the European Community and Georgia.\nIn February 2009 the Commission transmitted a draft text to the\nGeorgian authorities and the first round of formal negotiations\ncould be held in Brussels on 2 April 2009.
\nTwo further formal rounds of negotiations took place,\nthe last one in Brussels on 24-25 August 2009.
\nFollowing a consultation and approval process on both\nsides as well as further clarification of a few additional points,\nthe agreed text was initialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by\nthe Chief Negotiators of both Parties.
\nMember States have been regularly informed and\nconsulted at all (informal and formal) stages of the readmission\nnegotiations.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft Readmission Agreement is acceptable to the\nUnion.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion.
\nCONTENT: the proposal\nconstitutes the legal instrument for the conclusion of the\nreadmission agreement. The Council will decide by qualified\nmajority.
\nThe proposed decision concerning the\nconclusion sets out the necessary internal arrangements for\nthe practical application of the Agreement. In particular,\nit specifies that the Commission, assisted by experts from Member\nStates, represents the Union within the Joint Readmission Committee\nset up by Article 18 of the Agreement. Under Article 18(5), the\nreadmission committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure. As in\nthe case for the other readmission agreements so far concluded by\nthe Union, the Union position in this regard shall be established\nby the Commission in consultation with a special committee\ndesignated by the Council. As regards other decisions to be taken\nby the Joint Committee, the Union position shall be established in\naccordance with the applicable provisions of the Treaty.
\nThe final content of the Agreement can\nbe summarised as follows:
\nTerritorial measures:\nthe specific situation of Denmark is reflected in the preamble and\nin a joint declaration attached to the Agreement. The close\nassociation of Norway, Iceland and Switzerland to the\nimplementation, application and development of the Schengen Acquis\nis likewise reflected in a joint declaration to the\nAgreement.
\nSince the two agreements on visa\nfacilitation and readmission are linked, both agreements should\nbe concluded and enter into force simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to sign the\nAgreement between the EU and Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the\nAugust 2008 conflict in Georgia, the Extraordinary European Council\nheld in Brussels on 1 September 2008 decided to step up relations\nwith Georgia, including visa facilitation measures. According to\nthe December 2005 COREPER, a visa facilitation agreement would not\nbe concluded if no readmission agreement were in place.\nAccordingly, in November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs Council\nformally authorised the Commission to negotiate a readmission\nagreement between the EC and Georgia. The agreed text was\ninitialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by the Chief Negotiators\nof both Parties. Member States have been regularly informed and\nconsulted at all stages of the readmission negotiations.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft Readmission Agreement is acceptable to the\nUnion.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal constitutes the legal\ninstrument for the signature of the readmission\nagreement.
\nFor details on the final content of the this\nAgreement, please refer to the summary of COM(2010)0200 of 5 May\n2010.
\nSince the two agreements on visa\nfacilitation and readmission are linked, both agreements should\nbe concluded and enter into force simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union's budget.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted the report drafted by Nathalie GRIESBECK (ADLE,\nFR), recommending that the European Parliament consents to the\nconclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia\non the readmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the\nreadmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation was signed by the Commission,\nsubject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on\nthe readmission of persons residing without authorisation is\nhereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthe United Kingdom has notified its wish to participate in the\nadoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand,\nIreland shall not participate in the adoption of this Decision and\nshall not be bound or subject to its application. Denmark takes the\nsame stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the\nreadmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation was signed by the Commission,\nsubject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(3)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on\nthe readmission of persons residing without authorisation is\nhereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthe United Kingdom has notified its wish to participate in the\nadoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand,\nIreland shall not participate in the adoption of this Decision and\nshall not be bound or subject to its application. Denmark takes the\nsame stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a legislative\nresolution in which it gives its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission\nof persons residing without authorisation.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude an\nagreement between the EU and Georgia on the readmission of persons\nresiding without authorisation.
\nNON-LEGISLATIVE ACT:\nCouncil Decision 2011/118/EU on the Agreement between the European\nUnion and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without\nauthorisation.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance\nwith Council Decision 2010/687/EU the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing\nwithout authorisation was signed, on behalf of the EU, on 17 June\n2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date. The Agreement\nshould now be approved.
\nFurthermore, the Agreement\nestablishes a Joint Readmission Committee which may adopt its rules\nof procedure, and there is provision for a simplified procedure for\nthe establishment of the Union position in this case.
\nCONTENT: this Decision\nconcludes the Agreement between the EU and Georgia on the\nreadmission of persons residing without authorisation. The main\nelements of the agreement may be summarised as\nfollows :
\nTerritorial\nmeasures: Ireland and Denmark are not\ntaking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by\nit or subject to its application. On the other hand the United\nKingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and\napplication of the Decision.
\nIt should be noted that\nsince the two agreements on visa\nfacilitation and\nreadmission are linked, both agreements should be concluded and\nenter into force simultaneously.
\nENTRY INTO FORCE: the Decision enters into force on 18\nJanuary 2011. The Agreement enters into force on 1 March\n2011.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the August 2008 conflict in\nGeorgia, the Extraordinary European Council held in Brussels on 1\nSeptember 2008 decided to step up relations with Georgia, including\nvisa facilitation measures.
\nOn 27 November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs\nCouncil formally authorised the Commission to negotiate a visa\nfacilitation agreement between the European Union and Georgia. In\nFebruary 2009 the Commission informed the Georgian authorities on\nthe basic elements of a visa facilitation agreement and the first\nround of formal negotiations could be held in Brussels on 2 April\n2009. Two further formal rounds of negotiations took place, the\nlast one in Brussels on 24-25 August 2009.
\nFollowing a consultation and approval process on both\nsides as well as further clarification of a few additional points,\nthe agreed text was initialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by\nthe Chief Negotiators of both Parties.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft visa facilitation agreement is acceptable to the Union.\nThe consent from the European Parliament is necessary.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 (6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposed decision concerning the\nconclusion sets out the necessary internal arrangements for\nthe practical application of the Agreement. In particular, it\nspecifies that the Commission, assisted by experts from Member\nStates, represents the Union within the Joint Committee set up by\nArticle 12 of the Agreement. Under Article 12(4), the visa\nfacilitation committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure. As\nregards other decisions to be taken by the Joint Committee, the\nUnion position shall be established in accordance with the\napplicable provisions of the Treaty.
\nThe final content of the Agreement can be\nsummarised as follows:
\nOther measures concern\nthe following:
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthe specific situations of Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland\nare reflected in the preamble and in two joint declarations\nattached to the Agreement. The close association of Norway, Iceland\nSwitzerland and Liechtenstein to the implementation, application\nand development of the Schengen acquis is likewise reflected in a\njoint declaration to the Agreement.
\nSince the two agreements on visa facilitation and readmission\nare linked, both agreements should be concluded and enter into\nforce simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to sign the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the August 2008 conflict in\nGeorgia, the Extraordinary European Council held in Brussels on 1\nSeptember 2008 decided to step up relations with Georgia, including\nvisa facilitation measures.
\nOn 27 November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs\nCouncil formally authorised the Commission to negotiate a visa\nfacilitation agreement between the European Union and Georgia. In\nFebruary 2009 the Commission informed the Georgian authorities on\nthe basic elements of a visa facilitation agreement and the first\nround of formal negotiations could be held in Brussels on 2 April\n2009. Two further formal rounds of negotiations took place, the\nlast one in Brussels on 24-25 August 2009.
\nFollowing a consultation and approval process on both\nsides as well as further clarification of a few additional points,\nthe agreed text was initialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by\nthe Chief Negotiators of both Parties.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft visa facilitation agreement is acceptable to the Union.\nThe consent from the European Parliament is necessary.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal constitutes the legal\ninstrument for the signature of the visa facilitation\nagreement.
\nFor details of the final content of this\nAgreement please refer to the summary of COM(2010)0198 of 5 May\n2010.
\nSince the two agreements on visa facilitation and readmission\nare linked, both agreements should be concluded and enter into\nforce simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted the report drafted by Nathalie GRIESBECK (ADLE,\nFR), recommending that the European Parliament consents to the\nconclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia\non the facilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas was signed\nby the Commission, subject to its conclusion at a later\ndate.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the\nissuance of visas is hereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the\nSchengen acquis in which the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take\npart. The United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the\nadoption of this Decision and shall not be bound or subject to its\napplication. Denmark takes the same stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas was signed\nby the Commission, subject to its conclusion at a later\ndate.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the\nissuance of visas is hereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the\nSchengen acquis in which the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take\npart. The United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the\nadoption of this Decision and shall not be bound or subject to its\napplication. Denmark takes the same stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a legislative\nresolution in which it gives its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement between the European Union and Georgia on the\nfacilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the\nAgreement between the European Union and Georgia on the\nfacilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nNON-LEGISLATIVE ACT:\nCouncil Decision 2011/117/EU on the conclusion of the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the\nissuance of visas.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance\nwith Council Decision 2010/706/EU, the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 17 June 2010,\nsubject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nIt is now appropriate to\nconclude this Agreement and to provide for a simplified procedure\nfor the establishment of the Union position in this\ncase.
\nCONTENT: this Decision\napproves the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on\nthe facilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nThe main elements of the\nAgreement may be summarised as follows:
\nTerritorial\napplication: Ireland and Denmark are\nnot taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound\nby it or subject to its application.
\nIt should be noted that\nsince the two agreements on readmission are linked, both agreements should be concluded and\nenter into force simultaneously.
\nENTRY INTO FORCE: the\nDecision shall enter into force on 18 January 2011. The Agreement\nshall enter into force on 1 March 2011.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the August 2008 conflict in\nGeorgia, the Extraordinary European Council held in Brussels on 1\nSeptember 2008 decided to step up relations with Georgia, including\nvisa facilitation measures.
\nOn 27 November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs\nCouncil formally authorised the Commission to negotiate a visa\nfacilitation agreement between the European Union and Georgia. In\nFebruary 2009 the Commission informed the Georgian authorities on\nthe basic elements of a visa facilitation agreement and the first\nround of formal negotiations could be held in Brussels on 2 April\n2009. Two further formal rounds of negotiations took place, the\nlast one in Brussels on 24-25 August 2009.
\nFollowing a consultation and approval process on both\nsides as well as further clarification of a few additional points,\nthe agreed text was initialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by\nthe Chief Negotiators of both Parties.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft visa facilitation agreement is acceptable to the Union.\nThe consent from the European Parliament is necessary.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 (6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposed decision concerning the\nconclusion sets out the necessary internal arrangements for\nthe practical application of the Agreement. In particular, it\nspecifies that the Commission, assisted by experts from Member\nStates, represents the Union within the Joint Committee set up by\nArticle 12 of the Agreement. Under Article 12(4), the visa\nfacilitation committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure. As\nregards other decisions to be taken by the Joint Committee, the\nUnion position shall be established in accordance with the\napplicable provisions of the Treaty.
\nThe final content of the Agreement can be\nsummarised as follows:
\nOther measures concern\nthe following:
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthe specific situations of Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland\nare reflected in the preamble and in two joint declarations\nattached to the Agreement. The close association of Norway, Iceland\nSwitzerland and Liechtenstein to the implementation, application\nand development of the Schengen acquis is likewise reflected in a\njoint declaration to the Agreement.
\nSince the two agreements on visa facilitation and readmission\nare linked, both agreements should be concluded and enter into\nforce simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to sign the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: following the August 2008 conflict in\nGeorgia, the Extraordinary European Council held in Brussels on 1\nSeptember 2008 decided to step up relations with Georgia, including\nvisa facilitation measures.
\nOn 27 November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs\nCouncil formally authorised the Commission to negotiate a visa\nfacilitation agreement between the European Union and Georgia. In\nFebruary 2009 the Commission informed the Georgian authorities on\nthe basic elements of a visa facilitation agreement and the first\nround of formal negotiations could be held in Brussels on 2 April\n2009. Two further formal rounds of negotiations took place, the\nlast one in Brussels on 24-25 August 2009.
\nFollowing a consultation and approval process on both\nsides as well as further clarification of a few additional points,\nthe agreed text was initialled on 25 November 2009 in Brussels by\nthe Chief Negotiators of both Parties.
\nThe Commission considers that the objectives set by\nthe Council in its negotiating directives were attained and that\nthe draft visa facilitation agreement is acceptable to the Union.\nThe consent from the European Parliament is necessary.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218 (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal constitutes the legal\ninstrument for the signature of the visa facilitation\nagreement.
\nFor details of the final content of this\nAgreement please refer to the summary of COM(2010)0198 of 5 May\n2010.
\nSince the two agreements on visa facilitation and readmission\nare linked, both agreements should be concluded and enter into\nforce simultaneously.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted the report drafted by Nathalie GRIESBECK (ADLE,\nFR), recommending that the European Parliament consents to the\nconclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia\non the facilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas was signed\nby the Commission, subject to its conclusion at a later\ndate.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the\nissuance of visas is hereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the\nSchengen acquis in which the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take\npart. The United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the\nadoption of this Decision and shall not be bound or subject to its\napplication. Denmark takes the same stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Agreement between the European Union\nand Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas was signed\nby the Commission, subject to its conclusion at a later\ndate.
\nIt is now necessary to approve the Agreement on behalf\nof the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2)(a), in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this proposed Decision, the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the\nissuance of visas is hereby approved.
\nThe text of the Agreement is attached to this\nDecision. For details of the content of the Agreement, please refer\nto the summary of the previous initial legislative document (dated\n5 May 2010).
\nThe Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which\nshould adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide\nfor a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Union\nposition in this case.
\nTerritorial provisions:\nthis Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the\nSchengen acquis in which the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take\npart. The United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the\nadoption of this Decision and shall not be bound or subject to its\napplication. Denmark takes the same stance.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this proposal has no\nimplication for the Union's budget.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a legislative\nresolution in which it gives its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement between the European Union and Georgia on the\nfacilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude the\nAgreement between the European Union and Georgia on the\nfacilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nNON-LEGISLATIVE ACT:\nCouncil Decision 2011/117/EU on the conclusion of the Agreement\nbetween the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the\nissuance of visas.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance\nwith Council Decision 2010/706/EU, the Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of\nvisas was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 17 June 2010,\nsubject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nIt is now appropriate to\nconclude this Agreement and to provide for a simplified procedure\nfor the establishment of the Union position in this\ncase.
\nCONTENT: this Decision\napproves the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on\nthe facilitation of the issuance of visas.
\nThe main elements of the\nAgreement may be summarised as follows:
\nTerritorial\napplication: Ireland and Denmark are\nnot taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound\nby it or subject to its application.
\nIt should be noted that\nsince the two agreements on readmission are linked, both agreements should be concluded and\nenter into force simultaneously.
\nENTRY INTO FORCE: the\nDecision shall enter into force on 18 January 2011. The Agreement\nshall enter into force on 1 March 2011.
\n