Written explanations of vote - 8th parliamentary term Ivo VAJGL

. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context. In the European Union, cross-border regions make up approximately 40% of the Union’s territory, while harbouring almost a third of its 512 million citizens. At the same time, border regions in Europe generally perform less well economically, have higher unemployment rates and have relatively underdeveloped infrastructure compared to regions that are more centrally located in the Member States.
It has been estimated that if 20% of existing border obstacles were to be removed, border regions would gain 2% in GDP, amounting to approximately EUR 91 billion per year in GDP. In their past, many border regions in Europe have been stages of war and conflict between countries. For those reasons, the Lisbon Treaty in Article 174 not only lists economic and social cohesion as its explicit objectives, but also territorial cohesion (with particular attention to cross-border regions). The proposed European cross-border mechanism (ECBM) aims to resolve cross-border obstacles of a legal or administrative nature.

I voted in favour of the Report on the draft Council implementing decision approving the conclusion by Eurojust of the Agreement on Cooperation between Eurojust and Georgia. The Eurojust-Georgia Cooperation Agreement follows the model of similar agreements concluded by Eurojust in the past (for example, Eurojust-FYROM, Eurojust-US, Eurojust-Norway, Eurojust-Switzerland, and most recently Eurojust-Albania).
The purpose of such agreements is to foster cooperation as regards combating serious crime, especially organised crime and terrorism. They provide, inter alia, for liaison officers, contact points and exchange of information. Such cooperation agreements are based on Article 26a(2) of the Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime.
Such cooperation will also aid Georgian authorities to ensure continuous fulfilment of their obligations, and their serious commitment, to preventing and fighting organised crime.

I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU. The fundamental aim of the proposal is to introduce a joint clinical assessment of health technologies at EU level. EU citizens value their health highly, as Eurobarometer surveys have repeatedly shown. As the TFEU recognises, improvements to citizens’ health must be a political priority for the EU in all its actions, but particularly in areas which have a specific bearing on health. The right to health is a fundamental right. It is important to the integrity of the individual and to personal development, but also as a key factor in social cohesion and productivity. The welfare system, which is one of the defining features of the EU, where healthcare systems play a crucial role in society, makes it possible to achieve high standards of health in the EU. The proposal may also help to further cooperation in emerging fields, such as precision medicine, disinvestment in obsolete technology and the preparation of clinical practice guidelines.

I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union. All the G7 countries and EU partner countries already have an investment screening mechanism, which they have already reinforced several times. Thirteen out of twenty-eight Member States have already introduced this mechanism into their system; in its text the Commission proposes filling this legislative void at European level to establish a foreign direct investment screening framework. The proposed mechanism does not replace the decision-making power of the Member States with regard to investments in their territory. It aims above all to create a mechanism for the exchange of information at European level. The European Union’s strength in other areas lies in the quality of the information collected. Contacts between Member States and investors will be more regular and create trust owing to this transparency.

I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (recast). The Commission proposal aims to overcome the shortcomings of current legislation governing the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS), establishing the necessary conditions for guaranteeing the interoperability of electronic road toll systems, and to facilitate the cross-border exchange of information on violations caused by unpaid tolls in EU Member States. The current legislation in force, including Directive 2004/52/EC on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and Commission Decision 2009/750/EC on the definition of the European Electronic Toll Service and its technical elements, was drawn up with the aim of improving the functioning of the market through the introduction of a service based on an on-board device capable of communicating with the infrastructure of the countries crossed by the user, thus facilitating the creation of an interoperable electronic toll system at Union level.

I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State. The single market for goods is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. Achieving a deeper and fairer Single Market is one of the key political priorities of the European Union together with the implementation of the Single Market Strategy. The free movement of goods is the most developed fundamental freedom, generating 25% of EU GDP and 75% of intra-EU trade. However, the single market for goods is still not completed. If there are no common rules on the Single Market, such as for products that do not fall under harmonised EU product safety rules or only fall partially under such rules, the principle of mutual recognition should apply. The principle of mutual recognition requires that goods lawfully marketed in one Member State should not be prohibited in another Member State, unless the latter has justified reasons for banning or restricting the sale. The new mutual recognition regulation should clarify and simplify the procedures to be followed by businesses and national authorities.

I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 as regards certain charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charges. Cross-border payments in euro from non-euro area Member States account for a very large part of all cross-border payments from non-euro area Member States. The charges for these specific cross-border payments remain high. Restrictions and excessive costs for cross-border payments prevent the completion of the Single Market. They perpetuate the existence of two categories of payment service users in the Union: on the one hand payment service users, the vast majority of which benefit from the single euro payments area (SEPA), and on the other hand payment service users that pay high costs for their cross-border payments in euro. In order to facilitate the functioning of the Single Market, the Commission considers it necessary to ensure that charges for cross-border payments in euro within the Union are aligned with charges for domestic payments made in the official currency of a Member State.

I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services. Buses and coaches are one of the most accessible and most important modes of transport in the EU. They connect rural and urban areas of the Member States, often being the only means of public transportation available in certain regions. It is therefore vital that passengers receive the best service possible. Fair and healthy competition is the best way to achieve that. Public service contracts (PSCs) serve a specific and invaluable purpose. Proper protection of such contracts is necessary to ensure that opening up the bus and coach market does not result in fewer services for the relevant regions and only allow new entrants in the market to cherry pick the most profitable routes.

I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on adapting Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency [as amended by Directive 2018/XXX/EU] and Regulation (EU) 2018/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council [Governance of the Energy Union], by reason of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The present proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council adapting Directive 2012/27/EU [as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/2002] on energy efficiency and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 [Governance of the Energy Union] is necessitated by the upcoming withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Owing to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, it is necessary to technically adapt the projected energy consumption figures for the European Union in 2030 to reflect the Union of 27 Member States (EU 27). The new Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union requires Member States in their contribution setting process for the Union 2030 targets for energy efficiency to take into account the Union’s 2030 energy consumption.

I voted in favour of the Motion for a resolution to wind up the debate on the statement by the Commission pursuant to Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure on the right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (2019/2569(RSP)). The EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities; whereas these values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. Freedom of association should be protected and a vibrant civil society and pluralistic media play a vital role in promoting an open and pluralistic society and public participation in the democratic process, and in strengthening the accountability of governments. Member States should respect the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression.

I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution further to Questions for Oral Answer B8 0007/2019 and B8 0008/2019 pursuant to Rule 128(5) of the Rules of Procedure on the rights of intersex people (2018/2878(RSP)). Intersex individuals are born with physical sex characteristics that do not fit medical or social norms for female or male bodies, and these variations in sex characteristics may manifest themselves in primary characteristics. Intersex people are exposed to multiple instances of violence and discrimination in the European Union and these human rights violations remain widely unknown to the general public and policymakers. There is a need to provide adequate counselling and support to intersex children and intersex individuals with disabilities, as well as to their parents or guardians, and fully inform them of the consequences of sex-normalising treatments. The Member States should support organisations that work to break the stigma against intersex people.

I voted in favour of the motion for the resolution further to Question for Oral Answer B8 0014/2019 pursuant to Rule 128(5) of the Rules of Procedure on the future of the LGBTI List of Actions (2019-2024) (2019/2573(RSP)). LGBTI people continue to suffer discrimination and violence in the European Union; whereas not all EU Member States provide legal protection for LGBTI people against discrimination. The List of Actions to advance LGBTI equality published by the Commission in 2015 is a non-binding, non-comprehensive strategy. Although the guidelines adopted by the European Council to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons have been binding for the EU and its Member States in their external action since 2013, the EU’s lack of an internal complementing commitment poses a threat to internal and external cohesion.

I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution to wind up the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy pursuant to Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure on the future of the INF Treaty and the impact on the EU (2019/2574(RSP)). The end of the INF Treaty threatens one of Europe’s most vital security interests. The INF Treaty has made a vital contribution to European security for over 30 years and allowing it to collapse would have serious and negative impacts, including a return to destabilising nuclear arms races, the undermining of European security and institutions that are vital for peace and stability, and an erosion of the international rules-based legal institutions and norms in this field. The Union should act as a proactive and credible security provider by launching initiatives aimed at reviving multilateral and rules-based nuclear disarmament and arms control.

I voted in favour of the motion for the resolution to wind up the debate on the statement by the Commission pursuant to Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure on NAIADES II - An action programme to support inland waterway transport (2018/2882(RSP)). Inland waterways link up important EU ports, cities, industrial centres and main agricultural areas, therefore making a considerable contribution to the EU goals of decarbonisation, sustainable growth and territorial cohesion. A modal shift from road to inland shipping is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement of 2015 (COP21), and whereas inland waterway transport has sufficient capacity to absorb much higher volumes of freight and passengers in order to relieve the congested European road transport system. Commission should update and renew the NAIADES programme by 2020 to ensure that the potential of inland waterway transport as a safe, sustainable and effective mode of transport in the multimodal transport system can be fully exploited through a long-term EU strategy aimed at achieving a successful modal shift.

I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of Council Regulation No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU. Every year millions of animals are transported across Member States and to third countries over long distances to be bred or slaughtered. Transport is stressful for animals as it exposes them to a range of challenges for several hours, which may include reduced space allowances, temperature changes, limitations to food and water and vehicle motion. Hazards during transportation include a range of issues such as quality of driving, presence of adequate equipment and unexpected changes in road or weather conditions, and it is therefore possible that animals which have been certified fit for transport at the place of departure fall ill or are injured during transportation. Nevertheless, it has been established that checks on the animals before and after the journey are far more prevalent than checks during transport. Most checks are at the slaughterhouses and concern mostly short distance transports.

I voted in favour of the report on strengthening the competitiveness of the internal market by developing the EU Customs Union and its governance. A fully functional Customs Union is essential to guarantee the credibility and strength of the EU and its negotiating position for the conclusion of new trade agreements. An efficient EU Customs Union helps to facilitate legal trade and to reduce administrative burdens for legitimate traders. Deploring the fact that the implementation of the new IT systems for the Customs Union has suffered a series of delays, resulting in the request by the Commission to Parliament and the Council for an extension of the transitional period beyond the deadline of 2020 laid down in the UCC, the Commission and the Council must, as a matter of the utmost priority, ensure that the customs code is implemented and customs procedures digitised within the new deadline.

I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of the legal provisions and the Joint Statement ensuring parliamentary scrutiny over decentralised agencies. There is no definition of decentralised agencies in the Treaties. On its webpage dedicated to agencies and other EU bodies the Commission describes EU agencies as ‘distinct bodies from the EU institutions – separate legal entities set up to perform specific tasks under EU law’ and distinguishes between decentralised agencies, agencies under the Common Security and Defence Policy, executive agencies, Euratom agencies and bodies and other organisations. According to the Commission ‘decentralised agencies contribute to the implementation of EU policies. The fact that there is no explicit legal basis for the creation of agencies or general definition or description of agencies and their competences and tasks may be due to a lack of unitary view on the EU executive, or to the variety of functions that agencies have been called upon to perform. However agencies do not function in a legal vacuum. They have been deliberately created by the EU legislator in line with the principle of conferral of powers, on the basis of different provisions of the Treaties.

. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Fisheries Control Agency (codification). A codification of Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 establishing a European Fisheries Control Agency and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy is necessary. The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) will have the objective of organising the operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the Member States and assisting Member States to cooperate so as to comply with common fisheries policy rules in order to ensure its effective and uniform application. The Agency’s mission will also be to coordinate the controls and inspections of fisheries by EU countries, the deployment of national means of control and inspection pooled by EU countries, and operations to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The Agency will coordinate operational cooperation between Member States in accordance with joint deployment plans which organise the use of the available means of control and inspection of the Member States concerned so as to give effect to control and inspection programmes.

. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on computerising the movement and surveillance of excise goods (recast). This proposal accompanies the proposal for a Council directive laying down the general arrangement for excise duty as regards the automation of the procedure for movements of excise goods which have been released for consumption in the territory of one Member State and that are moved to the territory of another Member State in order to be delivered for commercial purposes in that other Member State.
Decision No 1152/2003/EC is the founding decision for the computerised system (Excise Movement and Control System – EMCS). The objective of the proposal is to extend the Excise Movement and Control System to intra—EU movements of excise goods that are released for consumption, in order to simplify the procedure and allow for proper monitoring of such movements, and to provide a base for the governance of further automation of processes defined by European Union excise legislation, where such automation is considered beneficial.

. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to the third party effects of assignments of claims. Conflict-of-laws rules governing the third-party (or proprietary) effects of assignments of claims do not currently exist at Union level. These conflict-of-laws rules are laid down at Member State level, but they are inconsistent and often unclear. In cross-border assignments of claims, the inconsistency of national conflict-of-laws rules leads to legal uncertainty as to which law applies to the third-party effects of the assignments. Rules relating to the law applicable to third-party effects of assignments of claims were included in the Commission proposal that later became Regulation (EC) No 593/208 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), but they did not end up in the final text.