Activities of Hélène FLAUTRE related to 2008/2031(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU's actions and policies in the area of human rights (A6-0309/2008, Hélène Flautre) (vote)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU’s actions and policies in the area of human rights PDF (275 KB) DOC (165 KB)
Amendments (18)
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Regrets that, to date, no evaluation or impact assessment has been carried out on EU sanctions policy and that it is therefore extremely difficult to gauge the policy's impact and effectiveness on the ground and thus to draw the necessary conclusions; calls on the Council and the Commission to carry out this evaluation work; 1considers, however, that the sanctions policy used against South Africa proved effective in helping to end apartheid; Or. fr OJ L 26, 31.1.2006, p. 28.
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. AcknowledgesWelcomes the fact that the overall EU sanctions instruments are generally deployed flexibly in accordance with needs on a case-by-case basis, which prevents them from being perceived as a 'European Penal Code' under which certain actions would automatically trigger a certain type of sanction; deplores, however, the fact that the EU has often applied its sanctions policy inconsistently, by treating third countries differently even though their human rights and democratic records are similar, and thus triggering criticism for applying 'double standards';
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that the European Union sanctions against the Palestinian Government formed in February 2006 following elections which the EU recognised as free and democratic have undermined the consistency of Union policy and proved seriously counterproductive by making the political and humanitarian situation considerably worse;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Believes that the effectiveness of a sanction depends on the European Union's capacity to maintain it for the full period and, in this connection, deplores the use of provisions such as 'sunset clauses' involving the automatic lifting of sanctions;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that the implementationappropriate measures implemented within the framework of the human rights clause cannot be regarded as an entirely autonomous or unilateral EU sanction, as it stems directly from the bilateral or multilateral agreement, which establishes a reciprocal undertaking to respect human rights; considers that appropriate measures taken in accordance with this clause exclusively concern the implementation of the relevant agreement in giving either party the lawful basis for suspending or annulling the agreement; considers, therefore, that the implementation of human rights clauses and autonomous or unilateral sanctions necessarily complement each other;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Considers that failure to take appropriate or restrictive measures in the event of a situation marked by persistent human rights violations seriously undermines the Union's human rights strategy, sanctions policy and credibility; in this connection, believes that the persistent violations of international law by Israel call for urgent action on the part of the Union;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. InsistWelcomes, therefore, on the systematic inclusion of human rights clauses and insists on the incorporation of a specific implementation mechanism in all new bilateral agreements signed with third countries; recalls, in this connection, the importance of the recommendations issued with a view to more effective and systematic implementation of the clause, namely the formulation of objectives and reference criteria, regular evaluation, involvement of the European Parliament and civil society at all stages of the clause's implementation;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Takes the view that coordinated action by the international community has a stronger impact than disparate and uneven actions by States or regional entities; welcomes, therefore, the notion expressed in the Basic Principles that UN Security Council sanctions should be preferred to EU sanctions and that the EU sanctions policy should continue to be based on the notion of a preference in favour of the UN regime; takes the view, however, that the priority given to the UN regime should not prevent the EU from adopting autonomous sanctions when action at UN level proves impossible or too lengthy; calls on the member States to do their utmost in this case to internationalise EU sanctions at UN level;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls for a moreUnderlines the need for an in-depth analysis of each specific situation prior to the adoption of sanctions in order to assess the potential impact of different sanctions, and to determine which are the most effective in the light of all other relevant factors and comparable experiences; considers that asuch prior analysis is all the more justified since it is difficult to backtrack once the sanctions process has been initiated without undermining the EU's credibility and the expression of the EU's support for the population of the target third country, given the fact that the country's authorities can instrumentalise the EU decision; takes note in this respect of the current practice, under which the appropriateness, nature and effectiveness of the proposed sanctions are discussed in the Council on the basis of assessment by the Heads of Mission in the country concerned, and calls for the inclusion of an independent expert's report in such assessment;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Stresses, however, that such analysis should not be used to delay the adoption of sanctions; underlines in this respect that the two-step procedure for the imposition of sanctions under the CFSP provides scope for an urgent political reaction, initially through the adoption of a common position to be set out after a more in-depth analysis of the Regulation, detailing the exact nature and scope of the sanctions;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls on the ‘Sanctions’ formation of the Foreign Relations Counsellors Working Party (RELEX/Sanctions) to fulfil their mandate to the full; insists in particular on the need to conduct research prior to the adoption of sanctions and, after their adoption, to provide on a regular basis updated information on developments and to develop best practices with regard to the implementation and enforcement of restrictive measures;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for a limited application of the 'extraordinaryinterpretation of exemptions' to the freezing of assets for the purposes of meeting basic needs or for the payment of professional fees; calls for the creation of specific procedure for objections in the event that a Member State wishes to grant an exemption to the freezing of assets, since the efficiency of the restrictive measure is undermined by the lack of such a procedure given that the Member States are only required to inform the Commission in advance of such an exemption;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Notes with concern that Member States' adherence to EU visa bans has not been opthat, while it is formally legal, the application of an exemption to travel restrictions by a Member State can undermine the ban from a politimcal standpoint; calls on the Member States, therefore, to adopt a concerted approach in applying travel restrictions and the relevant exemption clauses;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls the obligation of EU Member States to draft sanctions in compliance with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, which requires the Union to respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States; stresses that the present blacklisting procedures at both the EU and the UN levels are deficient from the perspective of legal security and legal remedies; urges the Council to draw all the necessary conclusions and fully to apply the final judgments of the ECJCourt of First Instance as regards EU autonomous sanctions;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Urges that sanctions be systematically accompanied, in the context of a multifold strategy, by enhanced positive measures to support civil society, human rights defenders and all kinds of projects promoting human rights and democracy; calls for the thematic programmes and instruments (EIDHR, non-state actors, investing in people), includingor humanitarian aid when justified by emergency situations, to contribute fully to achieving this objective;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 (to become paragraph 58)
Paragraph 59 (to become paragraph 58)
598. Calls on the Commission to set up a groupnetwork of independent experts to put forward to the Council, as and when necessary, the most appropriate restrictive measures, to draw up regular reports on developments on the basis of the established criteria and objectives and, where necessary, to suggest ways in which implementation of sanctions might be improved; considers that the setting-up of such a groupnetwork would improve transparency and discussions on sanctions in general, and would also strengthen the implementation and ongoing monitoring of sanctions in particular cases;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58 (to become paragraph 59)
Paragraph 58 (to become paragraph 59)
589. Considers that the legitimacy of the sanctions policy, which constitutes a key and sensitive element of the CFSP, should be enhanced by involving the European Parliament at all stages of the procedure, in accordance with Article 21 of the TEU, in particular in the drafting and implementation of sanctions in the form of systematic consultation with, and regular reports from, the Commission and the Council and the network of independent experts; considers also that Parliament should be involved in overseeing the attainment of benchmarks by those who are subject to sanctions; instructs its Subcommittee on Human Rights to structure and supervise work in this area as regards any sanction whose objectives and reference criteria relate to human rights;