BETA


2005/2030(INI) Defence procurement. Green Paper

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead IMCO WUERMELING Joachim (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion AFET BEER Angelika (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion ITRE HÖKMARK Gunnar (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2005/12/15
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2005/12/06
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2005/12/06
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

The purpose of this Communication from the Commission is to report on the contributions by stakeholders to the consultation launched by the Green Paper on defence procurement . The Commission also presents the actions it intends to take as a follow-up to the Green Paper.

During the six-months consultation period, a series of bilateral meetings, seminars and working group meetings were held which allowed the Commission to explain its initiative and to gain a clearer idea of stakeholders’ interests and concerns. At the end of the consultation, the Commission had received 40 contributions from 16 Member States, institutions and industry.

The vast majority of stakeholders shared the Commission’s assessment of the Green Paper. They acknowledged the widespread misinterpretation of Article 296 and considered the existing PP Directive often ill-suited for defence procurement, despite the recent adaptations. Almost all stakeholders supported a Community initiative in the field of defence procurement and ruled out the “no action” option.

As for the instruments presented as possible solutions, stakeholders expressed a variety of opinions. Even if it is very difficult to draw a general conclusion or a single general trend, it does appear that a majority of stakeholders are in favour of an interpretative communication, and not against a directive. There is some disagreement about the timing of the latter. Preferences for an interpretative communication or a directive, also as far as timing is concerned, do not follow the traditional dividing lines between big and small, producing and non-producing Member States. The same is true for industry, with differences being seen between European and national associations and between defence industry associations and non-defence industry association. The European Parliament expressed clear support for a comprehensive approach combining an interpretative communication and a new directive adapted to the specificities of defence (combined with the development of an intergovernmental code of conduct).

The Commission’s assessment is that t he whole consultation process shows that the current legislative framework on defence procurement is not functioning properly. The appropriate initiatives therefore have to be taken, in order to improve a situation which is almost unanimously regarded as unsatisfactory.

-On one hand, the dividing line between defence acquisitions concerning essential security interests according to Article 296 and defence acquisitions which do not concern essential security interests is not clear, or at least is not perceived in the same way by all Member States. As a consequence, the application of the derogation remains problematic. The Commission will therefore adopt in 2006 an “Interpretative Communication on the application of Article 296 of the Treaty in the field of defence procurement.” This Communication will recall the principles governing the use of the derogation, in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice, and will clarify the criteria on the basis of which Member States have to decide when the conditions for the application of the derogation are met and when they are not. While providing additional legal certainty and guidance for Member States, an Interpretative Communication will not alter the current legal framework. It will simply clarify the existing one, with the objective of making its implementation more uniform. As the Interpretative Communication will also concern issues related to free movement of goods, it could have further consequences e.g. on intra-EU transfers for defence goods. This will be duly taken into account in the drafting of such Communication.

-On the other hand, a simple clarification may be insufficient. The consultation also confirmed that the current PP Directive, even in its revised version, may be ill-suited to many defence contracts, since it does not take into account some special features of those contracts. The Commission therefore considers that a directive coordinating national procedures for the procurement of defence goods (arms, munitions and war material) and services, would be the appropriate instrument to improve the situation described. This directive could take into account all the specific needs of defence procurement, and offer new, more flexible rules for defence procurement, to be followed in cases where the derogation in Article 296 does not apply.

The Commission will also follow with great interest the development of the Code of Conduct under preparation by the EDA. This code, voluntary and non-binding would aim at increasing transparency and competition also in a different segment of the market, since it would apply in cases where the conditions for the application of Articles 296 are met. This kind of intergovernmental initiative would usefully complement the initiatives taken at Community level.

2005/11/17
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2005/11/17
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on own-initiative report by Joachim WUERMELING (EPP-ED, DE) on the Green Paper on defence procurement. (Please see the document dated 05/10/2005.) The report commanded a majority of 392 members against 77, with 7 members abstaining. Parliament began by pointing out that the hermetic segregation of armaments markets is also the cause of a lack of standardisation and has led to a lack of interoperability between systems in Europe and made cooperation in international operations more difficult. The fact that 25 different sets of rules on procurement are in force constitutes an obstacle to implementation of the European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP). Relevant armaments purchasers are solely the governments of the 25 Member States, six of which account for 90% of armaments purchases and in some cases even hold stakes in the armaments industry.

Consequently, Parliament called on the Member States and the industry to abandon the reservations which for decades have stood in the way of a European defence market and to set in train a new phase of cooperation based on an innovative strategy. It agreed with the Commission that current policies of juste retour and off-setting in the field of military procurement lead to large-scale distortions of competition and artificial divisions of labour between industrial partners, and greatly hinder the efficiency of public procurement. Pressure should be placed on national defence procurement agencies to alter the general practice of taking advantage of the derogation contained in Article 296 and to take measures to ensure that defence procurement is covered to a larger extent by Community legislation rather than by national legislation. Parliament believed that the Commission should both adopt an interpretative Communication reflecting its determination to stop the misuse of Article 296 and start to develop, in parallel, a new directive, tailored to the specific features of defence, for the purposes of the procurement of arms, ammunition and war material subject to Article 296.

Parliament regarded a restrictive interpretation of national security interests as appropriate, given that Member States are already mutually dependent in areas such as monetary affairs and energy. It questioned to what extent any meaningful distinction at all can still be drawn between national and common European security interests.

With regard to a new directive, both mandatory and optional instruments could be considered in connection with procurement procedures. The emphasis should be placed on creating greater transparency and fairness in the award of contracts. Parliament pointed out that, in addition to the actual acquisition of equipment, other aspects will need to be taken into account, such as research and development, offsetting agreements, maintenance, repair, retrofitting and training. There must be intensive consultation with stakeholders in drawing up a directive, and stresses the need for a business impact study and a foreign-relations impact study.

Member States are urged to cooperate actively with the Commission on a new directive and to instruct the European Defence Agency (EDA) to develop, as an initial step, a code of conduct for defence procurement within the meaning of Article 296. This code should apply to contracts covered by Article 296 with the aim of introducing more competition and transparency to the sector.

Parliament went on to offer suggestions on the content of the code of conduct. It should, for example, define preconditions for the exercise of the derogation under Article 296 and ensure the required transparency of reasons for exemption and non-publication of information.

Parliament also urged the Commission to work closely with the EDA so as to establish in parallel a comprehensive action plan with accompanying measures in related areas, such as security of supply, transfer and exports, which are necessary for the creation of a level playing field for fair competition within the EU and to ensure the provision of reliable statistical information about the market.

Parliament moved on to state that it recognised that defence procurement problems in the EU are partly linked to the absence of a genuine 'two-way street' with the United States. It questioned whether European defence procurement agencies should be recommended to make more European purchases in order to reinforce strategically the European defence industry in certain sectors. New EU defence procurement legislation should not be used as an instrument enabling US corporate interests unilaterally to infiltrate European defence procurement markets. At the same time it is indispensable that all Member States observe the Common Military List of the European Union (equipment covered by the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports) adopted by the Council on 25 April 2005 . Parliament called on the Commission, together with the EDA, to put forward long-term proposals indicating how closer links between EU procurement markets and those in the United States and also in countries such as Ukraine and, in specific sectors, Russia, could lead to both greater choice and more efficient specialisation.

The opening up of the market is a precondition for strengthening a financially viable EU armaments industry, for developing capabilities. The inevitable concentration of the armaments industry should be subject to greater monitoring and control by the Directorate General for Competition of the Commission as regards the application of Community competition law, so that the advantages of mass production are not jeopardised by sectoral monopolies and the resulting market power of undertakings.

Documents
2005/11/17
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2005/11/16
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2005/10/10
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2005/10/10
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2005/10/05
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The committee adopted the report drawn up by Joachim WUERMELING ( EPP-ED , DE ) in response to the Commission Green Paper on defence procurement. The committee pointed out that the fragmented nature of the armaments market in Europe was "one of the causes of weakness in terms of Europe 's military capabilities". It had resulted in a lack of standardisation and hence in a lack of interoperability between systems in Europe , making cooperation in international operations more difficult. The report called for the EU to push for further overall harmonisation and standardisation in the field and emphasised that increased efficiency of the arms industry should serve to protect European soldiers in action and benefit European citizens.

The committee agreed with the Commission that pressure should be placed on national defence procurement agencies to alter the practice of general derogation under Article 296 of the EC Treaty (on grounds of national security) in the area of arms production. Defence procurement should be covered to a larger extent by EC legislation rather than by national legislation. MEPs called on the Commission to adopt "an Interpretative Communication reflecting its determination to stop the misuse of Article 296" and to start to develop a new directive on defence procurement.

The report echoed the Commission's view that current policies of "juste retour " and off-setting in the field of military procurement were hindering efficiency and leading to "large-scale distortions of competition and artificial divisions of labour between industrial partners". It concluded that the inevitable concentration of the armaments industry should be subject to greater monitoring and control by the Commission with regard to competition law.

MEPs urged Member States to cooperate actively with the Commission on the new directive and to instruct the European Defence Agency to devise an Article 296 code of conduct for defence procurement, in order to introduce more competition and greater transparency and fairness in the awarding of contracts. The Commission was also urged to tackle a host of other obstacles to enhanced competition within the arms industry, such as the restrictions on cross-border trade in armaments within the EU, the exertion of political influence on award decisions and the lack of research cooperation.

2005/09/09
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/08/31
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/08/31
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/03/17
   EP - HÖKMARK Gunnar (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2005/03/10
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2005/03/10
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2005/02/09
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
2004/12/08
   EP - BEER Angelika (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
2004/11/30
   EP - WUERMELING Joachim (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2004/09/23
   EC - Non-legislative basic document
Details

This Green Paper is one of the measures announced by the European Commission in its Communication “Towards a European Union defence equipment policy”, adopted on 11 March 2003. Through these measures, the Commission intends to contribute to the gradual creation of a European defence equipment market (EDEM) which is more transparent and open between Member States and which, whilst respecting the sector’s specific nature, would increase economic efficiency.

Moving towards a truly European market is crucial for strengthening the competitiveness of European industry, improving the allocation of defence resources and supporting the development of the Union 's military capabilities under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

The establishment of the European Defence Agency with its responsibilities in the field of defence capabilities, research, acquisition and armaments, makes the development of such a market even more important.

Creating an EDEM would require a set of complementary initiatives, including the establishment of an appropriate regulatory framework for the procurement of defence equipment. The opening up of defence markets, which are currently fragmented along national lines, would increase the commercial opportunities for European companies in the sector, including SMEs, and contribute to their growth and increase their competitiveness.

The purpose of this Green Paper is to develop the debate on these issues, bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity. For this purpose the Commission set up two working parties consisting of representatives of the Member States and European industry to contribute to the preparatory stages of the Green Paper.

In the first part, the Green Paper identifies the reasons for specific action by giving a summary of the current state of defence procurement markets, their numerous special characteristics and the existing regulatory framework.

In the second part, on the basis of this analysis, it considers possible lines of action following the identification of a number of obstacles limiting the access of European industries to Member States’ defence markets and hence restricting their growth opportunities.

The Commission therefore proposes pursuing the debate on the case or Community action in the field of defence procurement. So far the Commission has identified two possible instruments, one limited to clarifying the existing legal framework and the other aimed at establishing specific rules in the field of defence, taking into account the sector’s specific characteristics.

These instruments would not prejudice any complementary measures taken by the Member States in the appropriate fora. Indeed, they could not provide exhaustive answers to all the specific aspects of defence markets. This is the case in particular for security of supply, a concept bound to change with the growing convergence of national security interests in the context of European foreign, security and defence policy. The gradual development of a common approach in this field could facilitate application of Community instruments. Equally, these instruments would constitute a useful tool for the success of cooperation between Member States.

This Green Paper marked the start of an official consultation process lasting four months from its date of publication (i.e. 23/01/2005 deadline for contributions from interested parties).

2004/09/22
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

This Green Paper is one of the measures announced by the European Commission in its Communication “Towards a European Union defence equipment policy”, adopted on 11 March 2003. Through these measures, the Commission intends to contribute to the gradual creation of a European defence equipment market (EDEM) which is more transparent and open between Member States and which, whilst respecting the sector’s specific nature, would increase economic efficiency.

Moving towards a truly European market is crucial for strengthening the competitiveness of European industry, improving the allocation of defence resources and supporting the development of the Union 's military capabilities under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

The establishment of the European Defence Agency with its responsibilities in the field of defence capabilities, research, acquisition and armaments, makes the development of such a market even more important.

Creating an EDEM would require a set of complementary initiatives, including the establishment of an appropriate regulatory framework for the procurement of defence equipment. The opening up of defence markets, which are currently fragmented along national lines, would increase the commercial opportunities for European companies in the sector, including SMEs, and contribute to their growth and increase their competitiveness.

The purpose of this Green Paper is to develop the debate on these issues, bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity. For this purpose the Commission set up two working parties consisting of representatives of the Member States and European industry to contribute to the preparatory stages of the Green Paper.

In the first part, the Green Paper identifies the reasons for specific action by giving a summary of the current state of defence procurement markets, their numerous special characteristics and the existing regulatory framework.

In the second part, on the basis of this analysis, it considers possible lines of action following the identification of a number of obstacles limiting the access of European industries to Member States’ defence markets and hence restricting their growth opportunities.

The Commission therefore proposes pursuing the debate on the case or Community action in the field of defence procurement. So far the Commission has identified two possible instruments, one limited to clarifying the existing legal framework and the other aimed at establishing specific rules in the field of defence, taking into account the sector’s specific characteristics.

These instruments would not prejudice any complementary measures taken by the Member States in the appropriate fora. Indeed, they could not provide exhaustive answers to all the specific aspects of defence markets. This is the case in particular for security of supply, a concept bound to change with the growing convergence of national security interests in the context of European foreign, security and defence policy. The gradual development of a common approach in this field could facilitate application of Community instruments. Equally, these instruments would constitute a useful tool for the success of cooperation between Member States.

This Green Paper marked the start of an official consultation process lasting four months from its date of publication (i.e. 23/01/2005 deadline for contributions from interested parties).

Documents

Votes

Rapport Wuermeling A6-0288/2005 - am. 5 #

2005/11/17 Outcome: +: 368, -: 95, 0: 8
DE FR ES IT GB BE HU AT PT NL EL SK DK SE FI PL EE LV LU SI LT MT IE CY CZ
Total
68
44
28
41
42
22
15
12
16
18
14
12
10
16
9
39
5
8
4
4
7
3
13
2
19
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
183

Austria PPE-DE

3

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
120

Slovakia PSE

2

Finland PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Malta PSE

1

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
52

Hungary ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

Abstain (1)

3
2

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
29

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
21

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

3

Austria NI

1

Slovakia NI

3
icon: UEN UEN
18

Italy UEN

2

Latvia UEN

For (1)

Against (1)

4

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

Italy IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom IND/DEM

Against (2)

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

3

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

Rapport Wuermeling A6-0288/2005 - résolution #

2005/11/17 Outcome: +: 392, -: 77, 0: 7
DE FR ES IT PL BE HU NL GB SK PT AT IE EL LV DK FI LT SE SI EE LU MT CY CZ
Total
68
47
29
40
38
22
15
20
41
12
15
12
13
14
8
10
10
7
16
5
5
5
3
2
19
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
183

Austria PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

2

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
123

Slovakia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Finland PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Malta PSE

1

Czechia PSE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
53
2

Hungary ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
31

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
17

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: NI NI
21

Belgium NI

3

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

Abstain (1)

3

Austria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

Italy IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom IND/DEM

Against (2)

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

3

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/associated
Old
True
New
 
docs/0
date
2004-09-23T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Non-legislative basic document
body
EC
docs/1
date
2005-06-30T00:00:00
docs
title: PE357.956
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/2/docs/0/url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AD-357801_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AD-357910_EN.html
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1572/COM_SEC(2005)1572_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1572/COM_SEC(2005)1572_EN.pdf
docs/8/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=4308&j=0&l=en
events/0
date
2004-09-22T00:00:00
type
Non-legislative basic document published
body
EC
docs
summary
events/0
date
2004-09-23T00:00:00
type
Non-legislative basic document published
body
EC
docs
summary
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:0129)(documentyear:2005)(documentlanguage:EN)
New
https://dmsearch.eesc.europa.eu/search/public?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:0129)(documentyear:2005)(documentlanguage:EN)
docs/2/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.801
docs/3/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.910&secondRef=02
docs/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0288_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0288_EN.html
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1572/COM_SEC(2005)1572_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1572/COM_SEC(2005)1572_EN.pdf
docs/8/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=4308&j=0&l=en
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/3/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/4
date
2005-10-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0288_EN.html title: A6-0288/2005
events/4
date
2005-10-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0288_EN.html title: A6-0288/2005
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20051116&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20051116&type=CRE
events/7
date
2005-11-17T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0440_EN.html title: T6-0440/2005
summary
events/7
date
2005-11-17T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0440_EN.html title: T6-0440/2005
summary
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: WUERMELING Joachim date: 2004-11-30T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2004-11-30T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WUERMELING Joachim group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
rapporteur
name: BEER Angelika date: 2004-12-08T00:00:00 group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2004-12-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BEER Angelika group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
rapporteur
name: HÖKMARK Gunnar date: 2005-03-17T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2005-03-17T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: HÖKMARK Gunnar group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.801&secondRef=02
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.801
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.910
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.910&secondRef=02
docs/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-288&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0288_EN.html
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1572/COM_SEC(2005)1572_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1572/COM_SEC(2005)1572_EN.pdf
docs/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0626/COM_COM(2005)0626_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0626/COM_COM(2005)0626_EN.pdf
docs/8/body
EC
events/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2004/0608/COM_COM(2004)0608_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2004/0608/COM_COM(2004)0608_EN.pdf
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-288&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0288_EN.html
events/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-440
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0440_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2004-09-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2004/0608/COM_COM(2004)0608_EN.pdf title: COM(2004)0608 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52004DC0608:EN body: EC commission: type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2005-03-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2004-12-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: BEER Angelika body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2004-11-30T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: WUERMELING Joachim body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2005-03-17T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HÖKMARK Gunnar
  • date: 2005-10-05T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2004-12-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: BEER Angelika body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2004-11-30T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: WUERMELING Joachim body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2005-03-17T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HÖKMARK Gunnar type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2005-10-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-288&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0288/2005 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2005-11-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20051116&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2005-11-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4308&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-440 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0440/2005 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2004-11-30T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WUERMELING Joachim group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
AFET
date
2004-12-08T00:00:00
committee_full
Foreign Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: Verts/ALE name: BEER Angelika
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2004-12-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BEER Angelika group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
IMCO
date
2004-11-30T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: WUERMELING Joachim
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
date
2005-03-17T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: HÖKMARK Gunnar group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ITRE
date
2005-03-17T00:00:00
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: HÖKMARK Gunnar
docs
  • date: 2005-02-09T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:0129)(documentyear:2005)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES0129/2005 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:221:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 221 08.09.2005, p. 0052-0055 type: Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report body: ESC
  • date: 2005-06-30T00:00:00 docs: title: PE357.956 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2005-08-31T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.801&secondRef=02 title: PE357.801 committee: AFET type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2005-08-31T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.910 title: PE357.910 committee: ITRE type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2005-09-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/amendments/2005/362610/IMCO_AM(2005)362610_EN.pdf title: PE362.610 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2005-10-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-288&language=EN title: A6-0288/2005 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2005-12-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1572/COM_SEC(2005)1572_EN.pdf title: SEC(2005)1572 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=1572 title: EUR-Lex type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2005-12-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0626/COM_COM(2005)0626_EN.pdf title: COM(2005)0626 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=626 title: EUR-Lex summary: The purpose of this Communication from the Commission is to report on the contributions by stakeholders to the consultation launched by the Green Paper on defence procurement . The Commission also presents the actions it intends to take as a follow-up to the Green Paper. During the six-months consultation period, a series of bilateral meetings, seminars and working group meetings were held which allowed the Commission to explain its initiative and to gain a clearer idea of stakeholders’ interests and concerns. At the end of the consultation, the Commission had received 40 contributions from 16 Member States, institutions and industry. The vast majority of stakeholders shared the Commission’s assessment of the Green Paper. They acknowledged the widespread misinterpretation of Article 296 and considered the existing PP Directive often ill-suited for defence procurement, despite the recent adaptations. Almost all stakeholders supported a Community initiative in the field of defence procurement and ruled out the “no action” option. As for the instruments presented as possible solutions, stakeholders expressed a variety of opinions. Even if it is very difficult to draw a general conclusion or a single general trend, it does appear that a majority of stakeholders are in favour of an interpretative communication, and not against a directive. There is some disagreement about the timing of the latter. Preferences for an interpretative communication or a directive, also as far as timing is concerned, do not follow the traditional dividing lines between big and small, producing and non-producing Member States. The same is true for industry, with differences being seen between European and national associations and between defence industry associations and non-defence industry association. The European Parliament expressed clear support for a comprehensive approach combining an interpretative communication and a new directive adapted to the specificities of defence (combined with the development of an intergovernmental code of conduct). The Commission’s assessment is that t he whole consultation process shows that the current legislative framework on defence procurement is not functioning properly. The appropriate initiatives therefore have to be taken, in order to improve a situation which is almost unanimously regarded as unsatisfactory. -On one hand, the dividing line between defence acquisitions concerning essential security interests according to Article 296 and defence acquisitions which do not concern essential security interests is not clear, or at least is not perceived in the same way by all Member States. As a consequence, the application of the derogation remains problematic. The Commission will therefore adopt in 2006 an “Interpretative Communication on the application of Article 296 of the Treaty in the field of defence procurement.” This Communication will recall the principles governing the use of the derogation, in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice, and will clarify the criteria on the basis of which Member States have to decide when the conditions for the application of the derogation are met and when they are not. While providing additional legal certainty and guidance for Member States, an Interpretative Communication will not alter the current legal framework. It will simply clarify the existing one, with the objective of making its implementation more uniform. As the Interpretative Communication will also concern issues related to free movement of goods, it could have further consequences e.g. on intra-EU transfers for defence goods. This will be duly taken into account in the drafting of such Communication. -On the other hand, a simple clarification may be insufficient. The consultation also confirmed that the current PP Directive, even in its revised version, may be ill-suited to many defence contracts, since it does not take into account some special features of those contracts. The Commission therefore considers that a directive coordinating national procedures for the procurement of defence goods (arms, munitions and war material) and services, would be the appropriate instrument to improve the situation described. This directive could take into account all the specific needs of defence procurement, and offer new, more flexible rules for defence procurement, to be followed in cases where the derogation in Article 296 does not apply. The Commission will also follow with great interest the development of the Code of Conduct under preparation by the EDA. This code, voluntary and non-binding would aim at increasing transparency and competition also in a different segment of the market, since it would apply in cases where the conditions for the application of Articles 296 are met. This kind of intergovernmental initiative would usefully complement the initiatives taken at Community level. type: Follow-up document body: EC
  • date: 2005-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=4308&j=0&l=en title: SP(2005)5015 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2004-09-23T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2004/0608/COM_COM(2004)0608_EN.pdf title: COM(2004)0608 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2004&nu_doc=608 title: EUR-Lex summary: This Green Paper is one of the measures announced by the European Commission in its Communication “Towards a European Union defence equipment policy”, adopted on 11 March 2003. Through these measures, the Commission intends to contribute to the gradual creation of a European defence equipment market (EDEM) which is more transparent and open between Member States and which, whilst respecting the sector’s specific nature, would increase economic efficiency. Moving towards a truly European market is crucial for strengthening the competitiveness of European industry, improving the allocation of defence resources and supporting the development of the Union 's military capabilities under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The establishment of the European Defence Agency with its responsibilities in the field of defence capabilities, research, acquisition and armaments, makes the development of such a market even more important. Creating an EDEM would require a set of complementary initiatives, including the establishment of an appropriate regulatory framework for the procurement of defence equipment. The opening up of defence markets, which are currently fragmented along national lines, would increase the commercial opportunities for European companies in the sector, including SMEs, and contribute to their growth and increase their competitiveness. The purpose of this Green Paper is to develop the debate on these issues, bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity. For this purpose the Commission set up two working parties consisting of representatives of the Member States and European industry to contribute to the preparatory stages of the Green Paper. In the first part, the Green Paper identifies the reasons for specific action by giving a summary of the current state of defence procurement markets, their numerous special characteristics and the existing regulatory framework. In the second part, on the basis of this analysis, it considers possible lines of action following the identification of a number of obstacles limiting the access of European industries to Member States’ defence markets and hence restricting their growth opportunities. The Commission therefore proposes pursuing the debate on the case or Community action in the field of defence procurement. So far the Commission has identified two possible instruments, one limited to clarifying the existing legal framework and the other aimed at establishing specific rules in the field of defence, taking into account the sector’s specific characteristics. These instruments would not prejudice any complementary measures taken by the Member States in the appropriate fora. Indeed, they could not provide exhaustive answers to all the specific aspects of defence markets. This is the case in particular for security of supply, a concept bound to change with the growing convergence of national security interests in the context of European foreign, security and defence policy. The gradual development of a common approach in this field could facilitate application of Community instruments. Equally, these instruments would constitute a useful tool for the success of cooperation between Member States. This Green Paper marked the start of an official consultation process lasting four months from its date of publication (i.e. 23/01/2005 deadline for contributions from interested parties).
  • date: 2005-03-10T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2005-03-10T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2005-10-05T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The committee adopted the report drawn up by Joachim WUERMELING ( EPP-ED , DE ) in response to the Commission Green Paper on defence procurement. The committee pointed out that the fragmented nature of the armaments market in Europe was "one of the causes of weakness in terms of Europe 's military capabilities". It had resulted in a lack of standardisation and hence in a lack of interoperability between systems in Europe , making cooperation in international operations more difficult. The report called for the EU to push for further overall harmonisation and standardisation in the field and emphasised that increased efficiency of the arms industry should serve to protect European soldiers in action and benefit European citizens. The committee agreed with the Commission that pressure should be placed on national defence procurement agencies to alter the practice of general derogation under Article 296 of the EC Treaty (on grounds of national security) in the area of arms production. Defence procurement should be covered to a larger extent by EC legislation rather than by national legislation. MEPs called on the Commission to adopt "an Interpretative Communication reflecting its determination to stop the misuse of Article 296" and to start to develop a new directive on defence procurement. The report echoed the Commission's view that current policies of "juste retour " and off-setting in the field of military procurement were hindering efficiency and leading to "large-scale distortions of competition and artificial divisions of labour between industrial partners". It concluded that the inevitable concentration of the armaments industry should be subject to greater monitoring and control by the Commission with regard to competition law. MEPs urged Member States to cooperate actively with the Commission on the new directive and to instruct the European Defence Agency to devise an Article 296 code of conduct for defence procurement, in order to introduce more competition and greater transparency and fairness in the awarding of contracts. The Commission was also urged to tackle a host of other obstacles to enhanced competition within the arms industry, such as the restrictions on cross-border trade in armaments within the EU, the exertion of political influence on award decisions and the lack of research cooperation.
  • date: 2005-10-10T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-288&language=EN title: A6-0288/2005
  • date: 2005-11-16T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20051116&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2005-11-17T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4308&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2005-11-17T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-440 title: T6-0440/2005 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on own-initiative report by Joachim WUERMELING (EPP-ED, DE) on the Green Paper on defence procurement. (Please see the document dated 05/10/2005.) The report commanded a majority of 392 members against 77, with 7 members abstaining. Parliament began by pointing out that the hermetic segregation of armaments markets is also the cause of a lack of standardisation and has led to a lack of interoperability between systems in Europe and made cooperation in international operations more difficult. The fact that 25 different sets of rules on procurement are in force constitutes an obstacle to implementation of the European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP). Relevant armaments purchasers are solely the governments of the 25 Member States, six of which account for 90% of armaments purchases and in some cases even hold stakes in the armaments industry. Consequently, Parliament called on the Member States and the industry to abandon the reservations which for decades have stood in the way of a European defence market and to set in train a new phase of cooperation based on an innovative strategy. It agreed with the Commission that current policies of juste retour and off-setting in the field of military procurement lead to large-scale distortions of competition and artificial divisions of labour between industrial partners, and greatly hinder the efficiency of public procurement. Pressure should be placed on national defence procurement agencies to alter the general practice of taking advantage of the derogation contained in Article 296 and to take measures to ensure that defence procurement is covered to a larger extent by Community legislation rather than by national legislation. Parliament believed that the Commission should both adopt an interpretative Communication reflecting its determination to stop the misuse of Article 296 and start to develop, in parallel, a new directive, tailored to the specific features of defence, for the purposes of the procurement of arms, ammunition and war material subject to Article 296. Parliament regarded a restrictive interpretation of national security interests as appropriate, given that Member States are already mutually dependent in areas such as monetary affairs and energy. It questioned to what extent any meaningful distinction at all can still be drawn between national and common European security interests. With regard to a new directive, both mandatory and optional instruments could be considered in connection with procurement procedures. The emphasis should be placed on creating greater transparency and fairness in the award of contracts. Parliament pointed out that, in addition to the actual acquisition of equipment, other aspects will need to be taken into account, such as research and development, offsetting agreements, maintenance, repair, retrofitting and training. There must be intensive consultation with stakeholders in drawing up a directive, and stresses the need for a business impact study and a foreign-relations impact study. Member States are urged to cooperate actively with the Commission on a new directive and to instruct the European Defence Agency (EDA) to develop, as an initial step, a code of conduct for defence procurement within the meaning of Article 296. This code should apply to contracts covered by Article 296 with the aim of introducing more competition and transparency to the sector. Parliament went on to offer suggestions on the content of the code of conduct. It should, for example, define preconditions for the exercise of the derogation under Article 296 and ensure the required transparency of reasons for exemption and non-publication of information. Parliament also urged the Commission to work closely with the EDA so as to establish in parallel a comprehensive action plan with accompanying measures in related areas, such as security of supply, transfer and exports, which are necessary for the creation of a level playing field for fair competition within the EU and to ensure the provision of reliable statistical information about the market. Parliament moved on to state that it recognised that defence procurement problems in the EU are partly linked to the absence of a genuine 'two-way street' with the United States. It questioned whether European defence procurement agencies should be recommended to make more European purchases in order to reinforce strategically the European defence industry in certain sectors. New EU defence procurement legislation should not be used as an instrument enabling US corporate interests unilaterally to infiltrate European defence procurement markets. At the same time it is indispensable that all Member States observe the Common Military List of the European Union (equipment covered by the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports) adopted by the Council on 25 April 2005 . Parliament called on the Commission, together with the EDA, to put forward long-term proposals indicating how closer links between EU procurement markets and those in the United States and also in countries such as Ukraine and, in specific sectors, Russia, could lead to both greater choice and more efficient specialisation. The opening up of the market is a precondition for strengthening a financially viable EU armaments industry, for developing capabilities. The inevitable concentration of the armaments industry should be subject to greater monitoring and control by the Directorate General for Competition of the Commission as regards the application of Community competition law, so that the advantages of mass production are not jeopardised by sectoral monopolies and the resulting market power of undertakings.
  • date: 2005-11-17T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
    procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
    Old
    IMCO/6/24073
    New
    • IMCO/6/24073
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure EP 052
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    procedure/subject
    Old
    • 2.10.02 Public procurement
    • 3.40.09 Defence and arms industry
    • 3.40.14 Industrial competitiveness
    New
    2.10.02
    Public procurement
    3.40.09
    Defence and arms industry
    3.40.14
    Industrial competitiveness
    activities
    • date: 2004-09-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2004/0608/COM_COM(2004)0608_EN.pdf title: COM(2004)0608 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52004DC0608:EN body: EC commission: type: Non-legislative basic document published
    • date: 2005-03-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2004-12-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: BEER Angelika body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2004-11-30T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: WUERMELING Joachim body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2005-03-17T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HÖKMARK Gunnar
    • date: 2005-10-05T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2004-12-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: BEER Angelika body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2004-11-30T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: WUERMELING Joachim body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2005-03-17T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HÖKMARK Gunnar type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
    • date: 2005-10-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-288&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0288/2005 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    • date: 2005-11-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20051116&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2005-11-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4308&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-440 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0440/2005 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
    committees
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: AFET date: 2004-12-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: BEER Angelika
    • body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2004-11-30T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: WUERMELING Joachim
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: ITRE date: 2005-03-17T00:00:00 committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: HÖKMARK Gunnar
    links
    other
      procedure
      dossier_of_the_committee
      IMCO/6/24073
      reference
      2005/2030(INI)
      title
      Defence procurement. Green Paper
      legal_basis
      Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
      stage_reached
      Procedure completed
      subtype
      Initiative
      type
      INI - Own-initiative procedure
      subject