BETA


2006/0086(COD) Environment: strategy for the protection and sustainable use of soil

Progress: Procedure lapsed or withdrawn

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ENVI WEISGERBER Anja (icon: PPE PPE), GUTIÉRREZ-CORTINES Cristina (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion ITRE CALABUIG RULL Joan (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion AGRI PARISH Neil (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion JURI GERINGER DE OEDENBERG Lidia Joanna (icon: PSE PSE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 192-p1

Events

2014/05/21
   EC - Proposal withdrawn by Commission
Details

As announced in Official Journal C 153 of 21 May 2014, the Commission decided to withdraw this proposal, which had become obsolete.

2012/03/13
   EP - WEISGERBER Anja (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI
2010/03/15
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Presidency briefed the Council on progress concerning the draft directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil, as set out in its report.

Whilst Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading in November 2007; the Council has not yet reached political agreement on this dossier . Several delegations regretted this fact and expressed the need for an EU-level instrument so as to fill a gap in EU environmental legislation and put soil on par with water or air in terms of protection. Others reiterated their opposition to the proposal as well as their concerns in relation to subsidiarity, the administrative burden and cost-effectiveness. A number of ministers called for a fresh approach in order to take discussions at European level on soil protection forward .

To date, soil has not been subject to a specific protection policy at EU level. The draft directive would establish a common strategy for the protection of soil, based on the principles of:

integration of soil concerns into other sectoral policies; prevention of threats to soil and mitigation of their effects; preservation of soil functions through the identification of priority areas and establishment of actions programmes; identification and remediation of contaminated sites; awareness raising, reporting and exchange of information.

Documents
2010/03/15
   CSL - Council Meeting
2009/06/25
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Presidency briefed the Council on progress concerning the draft Directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil, as set out in its report.

While the European Parliament delivered its opinion in first reading in November 2007, the Council has not yet reached political agreement on this dossier. Several delegations regretted this fact and expressed the need for a Community instrument, whereas others reiterated their opposition to such common measures as well as their concerns in relation to administrative burden and cost-effectiveness.

The following contains an outline of the major outstanding issues addressed in the latest Presidency text by means of a number of compromise proposals.

Scope and definitions; current/ approved future use of degraded soils : a number of delegations are of the opinion that, in some cases, re-establishing the appropriate level of functionality of a soil can be achieved through changing the land use. Other delegations, and the Commission, are concerned that such a provision could be misused by the owner of a contaminated site to circumvent remediation.

Integration (Article 3): a majority of delegations are of the opinion that integrating soil protection aspects into policies which may significantly exacerbate soil degradation processes as set out in this Article would be essential for a successful soil protection strategy. However, a number of delegations remain concerned about the scope of Article 3 and the potential difficulty of transposing and implementing it. They are also apprehensive about possible overlap with other pieces of Community legislation, notably the Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Identification of priority areas : some Member States would prefer to manage possible soil degradation processes without having to define specific areas, and wish to ensure that the assessment would not be required to go down to the individual plot level. They are furthermore doubtful that establishing relevant levels of risk acceptability, including in numerical terms, would be practicable. Finally, there is a concern that some degradation processes may occur across the whole of a Member State's territory in a patchy way, making it impracticable to define specific areas.

Identification and inventory of contaminated sites : this Article, dealing with soil contamination, covers some of the most intensively debated provisions of the Directive. Several delegations have expressed concerns regarding the identification procedure for contaminated sites, finding it too cumbersome and costly, as well as the timeline for the finalisation of the inventory of contaminated sites. The Article now contains a much streamlined identification procedure, leaving significant flexibility to Member States. A number of other delegations and the Commission, however, oppose the degree of flexibility as provided for in the text and prefer greater harmonisation in order to achieve a level playing field across the EU.

Soil status report : some delegations remain concerned about cost implications for economic actors, with potential negative impacts on economic development and in particular the housing market.

In the current Presidency text, requirements concerning the establishment, content and use of soil status reports have been relaxed and leave more flexibility to Member States in order to respond to these concerns.

Implementation and adaptation to technical progress : this Article on comitology poses problems for some delegations which would prefer a platform for the exchange of information and best practices, without further provisions that could in their view lead to harmonised risk assessment methodologies in some degree.

Documents
2009/06/25
   CSL - Council Meeting
2008/10/20
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2008/10/20
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/12/20
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

In spite of various attempts by the Presidency to present compromise proposals in order to meet delegations' concerns, it was not possible, at this stage, to attain the qualified majority needed to reach political agreement on a draft directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil.

The German, French, Dutch, Austrian and UK delegations could not accept the text tabled.

Documents
2007/12/20
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/12/18
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2007/11/14
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2007/11/14
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Cristina GUTTIÉREZ-CORTINES (EPP-DE, ES) and amended the proposal for a directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC. The resolution was adopted by 496 votes in favour to 161 against with 22 abstentions.

The main amendments were as follows:

Objectives : the objective of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection and sustainable use of soil, based on the need to prevent soil degradation, in particular due to climate change, to mitigate its consequences and to restore or remediate degraded soils, taking into account the location specific conditions, and recognising that the soil is, like water, a shared resource for mankind, an ecosystem, a non-renewable resource and a platform for the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions. These include the following: a) a basis for life and biodiversity; (b) storing, acting as a buffer, filtering, and transforming nutrients, substances and water, and preserving ground- and surface water resources; c) basis for biomass production in agriculture and forestry; (d) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities, including for towns and cities, infrastructure, recreation and other forms of public and economic use; (e) repository of raw materials; (f) acting as carbon pool; (g) archive of geological, cultural , geomorphologic and archaeological heritage. To that end, it lays down measures for the prevention and control of avoidable serious soil degradation, caused by a wide range of human activities, with due account also being taken of natural causes, which undermine the capacity of a soil to perform those functions. It lays down measures that improve the soil characteristics and functions, where appropriate.

Scope : the Directive shall apply to soil forming the top layer of the earth's crust, including the liquid and gaseous components, provided that it performs the functions referred to above. It will not apply to areas of land in respect of which, prior to [date of entry into force of the Directive], by agreement with the competent authorities, remediation decisions have been taken or remediation has already been completed, so that the areas of land in question pose no significant danger to human health or the environment.

Definitions : Parliament amended some definitions, such as "dangerous substances" and inserted new ones, including acidification', compaction', 'valuable soils', 'priority areas which would need special protection', 'contaminated site', 'remediation', and 'loss of organic substance'.

National or regional inventories : Member States must establish national or regional inventories of contaminated sites. The inventory will be made public and updated at least every seven years on the basis of information delivered to them or generated on their behalf, in particular to include new contaminated sites that have been identified and to exclude sites which have undergone remediation and no longer pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. Member States will, where appropriate, give special attention to the distinction between anthropogenic pollution and geogenic contamination. Geogenically contaminated soils will be evaluated in terms of their risks to human health and the environment. They must designate one or more competent authorities to be responsible for the identification of both potentially contaminated sites and contaminated sites and for the management of the related inventory. Within six years from transposition date, they must have identified the location of at least the sites where certain soil affecting activities are taking place or have taken place in the past, such as Seveso and mining installations or landfills of waste. These activities are described in the text. Where a site is to be sold and where changes in the land use of a site occur on which an activity referred to in the text is taking place or has taken place, the owner or the prospective buyer must fulfil certain obligations. The investigation and assessment necessary to decide whether a site is a risk to human health or the environment should always be completed before construction of any new development begins.

Remediation strategies : Member States must, within seven years from [transposition date], ensure that a remediation strategy or strategies are drawn up and made public at the administrative level they consider appropriate, including at least general remediation targets, a prioritisation, a timetable for implementation of remediation measures for the contaminated sites and the funding mechanism. Member States will notify the Commission of the remediation strategy or strategies. If the means required for remediation are not technically available, or represent a disproportionate cost with respect to expected environmental benefits, sites may be conditioned in such a way that they do not pose any significant risk to the environment or human health, including by restricting access to them or allowing natural recovery. If Member States choose either of these options, they shall monitor the risk to human health and the environment.

Priority areas : within two years from transposition date the Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, produce guidelines, based on best practice, for the definition and identification of priority areas. Within five years from transposition date, Member States shall identify the priority areas, which in their estimation require special protection against one or more of a prescribed list of soil degradation processes. This list includes subsidence, soil biodiversity loss, desertification, acidification and adverse effects of climate change on the soil. In identifying the areas, Member States shall take into account the effects of those soil degradation processes in exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions and desertification, the loss of human life and well-being and the damage to cultural heritage. Member States shall take into account present land use practices which aim already at combating these degradation processes. For the purposes of preserving soil functions, Member States shall, in respect of the priority areas identified in accordance with the Directive, ensure that, at what they deem the most appropriate geographical and administrative level, risk reduction targets are formulated to combat the degradation processes and that the necessary measures are taken, including integrated territorial care strategies or programmes of measures, and where possible restoration targets, where there are legitimate grounds for suspicion that one or more of the soil degradation processes has occurred or is likely to occur in the near future, a timetable for the implementation of those measures and an estimate of the allocation of private or public means for the funding of those measures. However, Member States which already have specific national legislation in place to protect their soils shall be exempted from this, on the condition that their legislation secures at least an equivalent level of protection.

Agricultural use of soil : each Member State, in accordance with its climate, soil characteristics and agriculture, as well as its best agricultural practices, may decide upon its own agricultural policy in relation to the soil. No later than two years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall present a proposal for a biowaste directive setting quality standards for the use of biowaste as a soil improver. In addition, the Commission must promote the use of certain products that contribute most to maintaining and increasing the organic material of soils and to the prevention of desertification. Member States shall also promote the use of green fertilisers and compost that enhance the fertility and biological activity of soil.

Within five years from transposition date, Member States must develop voluntary codes of good practice as regards soil protection for those activities which may reasonably be expected to hamper significantly the soil functions referred to in the text. These codes of good practice may build on existing national or Community codes and may contain the elements provided for in Annex -I.

Within three years from transposition date, the Commission shall facilitate the distribution and exchange of information on the legislation or codes of good practice already existing in the Member States as regards the protection of soil functions, including the cultural heritage, natural parks and geologically valuable zones.

Soil sealing : Members States will also have to take measures to limit soil sealing and minimise its effects to the extent which is necessary, in particular where a proposed development project involves soil sealing, and where a list of other conditions is applicable.

Cooperation between Member States : where a Member State is aware that any of its priority areas or contaminated sites are likely to have significant negative effects on human health or the environment in another Member State, or where a Member State likely to be significantly affected so requests, the Member State in whose territory the priority areas or the contaminated sites are located shall inform the other Member State and consult it on the measures to be taken to prevent or reduce such negative effects.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Annex has been substantially amended.

Documents
2007/11/12
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2007/10/24
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2007/10/24
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2007/10/09
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

By adopting the report by Cristina GUTTIÉREZ-CORTINES (EPP-DE, ES), the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety amended – at 1st reading of the codecision procedure – the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC.

The report aims to include common objectives for soil protection by allowing Member States, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle , to define their own measures and to set up their own strategies and identification systems, based on their own methodologies.

MEPs underlined that the aim of this Directive is to ensure the protection of soil based on common objectives and respecting the existing national and Community legislation, in order to use the soil in a sustainable manner so that both current and future generations can satisfy their ecological, economic and social needs.

The committee has made some major changes to the Commission’s draft proposal as follows:

- t he common objectives of the directive have been better clarified: the objective of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection and sustainable use of soil, based on the need to prevent soil degradation, in particular due to climate change, to mitigate its consequences and to restore or remediate degraded soils;

- these objectives must take into account the location specific conditions, and recognise that the soil is, like water, a shared resource for mankind, an ecosystem, a non-renewable resource and a platform for the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions;

- the Directive lays down measures for the prevention and control of avoidable serious soil degradation, caused by a wide range of human activities, with due account also being taken of natural causes, which undermine the capacity of a soil to perform those functions. It lays down measures that improve the soil characteristics and functions, where appropriate;

- this Directive shall apply to soil forming the top layer of the earth’s crust, including the liquid and gaseous components; it shall not apply to areas of land in respect of which, prior to [date of entry into force of the Directive];

- the term "risk areas" has been replaced by " priority areas ". Moreover, a distinction has been made between "polluted" sites (the contamination is caused by man) and "geogenically contaminated soils" (the contamination is caused by geogenic sources, such as parent material and volcanic material);

- the term “ contaminated site ” means a site where there is a confirmed presence on or in the soil, caused by human activities, of dangerous substances of such a level that Member States consider the soil poses a significant risk to human health or the environment, taking the current and approved future use of the site into account;

- MEPs call on the Member States to establish national or regional inventories of contaminated sites which shall be made public and updated at least every 5 years , in particular to include new contaminated sites that have been identified and to exclude sites which have undergone remediation and no longer pose a significant risk to human health or the environment;

- the committee introduces the concept of “ valuable soils ” which means soils meriting protection due to their specific characteristics, structures, outstanding ecological, cultural and/or historical value or due to their use. Member States may promote measures and policies to increase awareness and scientific knowledge about these soils and to protect, preserve and improve their characteristics and functions where possible;

- the committee has also enhanced the role of exchange of information and coordination : in this context, it asks the Member States to develop voluntary codes of good practice as regards soil protection within five years from its transposition date. A thorough exchange of information is needed to promote the best practices for risk assessment, identification, information of the public and remediation;

- concerning agricultural use of soil , the committee proposes that each Member State, in accordance with its climate, soil characteristics and agriculture, as well as its best agricultural practices, may decide upon its own agricultural policy in relation to the soil. It also requests Member States to support agricultural practices which favour the filtering and water retention capacity of the soil, with a view to preventing compaction and erosion and that they promote and exploit research in particular as regards the functions of the different crops in relation to climate change and carbon capture with the aim of integrating this scientifically-based knowledge in the development of soil policy;

- MEPs call on the Member States to, within 7 years from the transposition date, ensure that a remediation strategy or strategies are drawn up at the administrative level they consider appropriate, including at least a procedure for setting remediation targets, a procedure for prioritisation, a timetable for implementation of remediation measures for contaminated sites;

- MEPs have deleted the article concerning the soil status report, where a site is to be sold on which a potentially polluting activity is taking place, or for which the official records, such as national registers, show that it has taken place, Member States shall ensure that the owner of that site or the prospective buyer makes a soil status report available to the competent authority and to the other party in the transaction;

- within 5 years from the transposition date, Member States shall identify the areas in their territory, the priority areas, which in their estimation require special protection against one or more of the following soil degradation processes: organic matter decline; an increase in bulk density and a decrease in soil porosity (compaction); salinisation; landslides; subsidence; desertification; adverse effects of climate change on the soil; soil biodiversity loss; acidification.

2007/09/20
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2007/09/18
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2007/09/18
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2007/09/13
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2007/07/24
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2007/06/28
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2007/06/28
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/06/07
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2007/06/05
   EP - PARISH Neil (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2007/04/25
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
Documents
2007/02/13
   CofR - Committee of the Regions: opinion
Documents
2006/10/26
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2006/10/24
   EP - GERINGER DE OEDENBERG Lidia Joanna (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2006/10/04
   EP - CALABUIG RULL Joan (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2006/09/22
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to establish a framework for the protection of soil and to amend Directive 2004/35/EC.

PROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council.

CONTENT: the purpose of this proposed Directive is to establish a common framework for the protection of soil. Soil is essentially a non renewable source. Available information indicates that there has been significant increase in soil degradation and evidence exists showing that this degradation process will continue.

Current Community provisions lay scattered across various sectoral acts including water, waste, chemical, industrial, pesticides and nature protection legislation. Provisions can also be found in the reformed Common Agricultural Policy. Their different objectives and scopes, however, means that the overall approach to soil protection at an EU level is fragmented. Hence the need for a framework Directive on the protection of soil across the EU. Of the various options available to the Commission, the Commission has opted for a framework Directive, which is flexible, ambitious in scope and not overly prescriptive in content. Member States will be free to define their own level of intervention allowing for a more efficient use of their national administrative capabilities.

The proposed legislation aims to protect soil and to preserve the capacity of soil to perform its environmental, economic, social and cultural functions. It is based on the precautionary principle and the principle of preventive actions; that environmental damage should be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

In essence, the Directive proposes the following provisions:

- The establishment of a common framework to protect soil. It is based on the principle of preserving soil functions, preventing soil degradation; mitigating the effects of soil degradation; restoring degraded soil and integrating soil issues into other sectoral policies.

- Allowing soil to continue with the vital role of: biomass production (agriculture and forestry); storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water; acting as a biodiversity pool; acting as a physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities; acting as a source of raw material; acting as a carbon pool and helping to archive the Community’s archeologically heritage.

- In cases where other sectoral policies are likely to exacerbate or reduce soil degradation, Member State will be obliged to identify, describe and assess the impacts of such policies on the soil. This applies for example, to urban spatial planning, transport, energy, agriculture, rural development and forestry.

- In cases where a land user uses their soil in a way which can hamper soil functions, obliging them to take preventative precautions to minimise any adverse effects.

- Expecting Member States to take measures that limit sealing (the permanent covering of the soil surface with an impermeable material).

- Expecting Member States to identify the areas most at risk from soil erosion, organic matter decline, salinisation, compaction and landslides. The identification of risks will be carried out on common elements. Further, Member Sates will be asked to adopt risk reduction targets and programmes.

- Introducing measures which limit the leakage of dangerous substance into the soil.

- Setting up of an inventory of contaminated sites.

- Introducing a mechanism for funding the remediation of orphan sites.

- Requiring a soil status report.

- Establishing a national strategy to help remedy contaminated sites.

- Creating a definition of “contaminated sites”.

- Setting up a list of activities that could, potentially, pollute sites.

- Obliging sellers and buyers to provide a soil status report for any transaction of land where a potentially contaminating activity has taken, or is taking place.

Action at a Community level is needed, argues the Commission, because soil degradation in one Member State or region can have trans-boundary consequences. For example, dams can become blocked and infrastructure damaged downstream by sediments massively eroded in another country further upstream. Differences in national soil protection measures can, in some cases, impose different obligations on economic operators thus creating a distortion of competition. Lastly, soil protection measures contribute to food safety and agricultural productivity. Having common principles to define facilitates research agendas at both a national and a Community level.

The proposal will have no impact on the Community budget.

2005/11/29
   EP - GUTIÉRREZ-CORTINES Cristina (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport Gutiérrez-Cortines A6-04110/2007 - am. 112

2007/11/14 Outcome: -: 395, +: 225, 0: 11
GB NL DE IE CZ SK HU LU DK BG ?? SI FI SE AT EE LV MT CY RO LT BE PT EL PL FR ES IT
Total
66
20
84
10
18
10
18
6
3
17
1
4
13
15
17
5
7
5
4
23
12
21
18
22
49
63
44
56
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
236

Ireland PPE-DE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

5

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

For (1)

Against (1)

2
3

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

2
icon: NI NI
29

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

Abstain (1)

1

Austria NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2
2

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
17

Netherlands IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Poland IND/DEM

3

France IND/DEM

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
30

Ireland UEN

3

Latvia UEN

For (1)

3

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
33

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

For (1)

5

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
80

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Spain ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
173

Netherlands PSE

Against (1)

4

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Slovakia PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

PSE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

Against (1)

1

Finland PSE

3

Estonia PSE

2

Malta PSE

Against (2)

3

Lithuania PSE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Gutiérrez-Cortines A6-04110/2007 - am. 36,1

2007/11/14 Outcome: +: 535, -: 119, 0: 23
IT FR ES GB EL PT BE RO BG CZ PL LT IE DE LV NL HU EE SE SI AT MT FI CY LU DK SK ??
Total
64
67
46
70
23
21
21
25
17
18
50
13
11
90
8
21
21
6
15
5
18
5
14
4
6
4
13
1
icon: PSE PSE
187

Czechia PSE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Estonia PSE

3

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PSE

For (1)

1

PSE

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
241
2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1
4

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2
4

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

Against (1)

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
91

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1
2

Estonia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
34

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: UEN UEN
36

Lithuania UEN

2

Ireland UEN

3
icon: NI NI
31

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

3

Belgium NI

3

Bulgaria NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
2

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia NI

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Rapport Gutiérrez-Cortines A6-04110/2007 - am. 36,2

2007/11/14 Outcome: +: 537, -: 121, 0: 23
IT FR GB ES EL PT BE RO PL BG CZ SE LT LV SI EE NL DE AT SK MT FI CY LU HU DK ?? IE
Total
66
66
71
47
23
19
21
25
51
17
20
16
13
8
6
6
21
89
18
13
5
14
4
6
20
4
1
11
icon: PSE PSE
186

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Denmark PSE

For (1)

1

PSE

1

Ireland PSE

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
246
2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE-DE

2
4

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

Against (1)

3

Ireland PPE-DE

Against (1)

5
icon: ALDE ALDE
91

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
2

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
37

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

France GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: UEN UEN
37

Lithuania UEN

2

Ireland UEN

3
icon: NI NI
33

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

3

Belgium NI

3
2

Bulgaria NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia NI

Abstain (2)

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Rapport Gutiérrez-Cortines A6-04110/2007 - am. 36,3

2007/11/14 Outcome: +: 542, -: 115, 0: 24
IT FR ES GB EL PL PT BE RO CZ BG SE LV LT DE SI FI EE AT NL IE MT CY LU HU DK SK ??
Total
64
67
48
71
23
51
21
21
25
20
17
16
8
12
89
6
14
6
18
20
11
5
4
6
21
4
12
1
icon: PSE PSE
188

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Ireland PSE

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Denmark PSE

For (1)

1

PSE

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
244

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE-DE

Against (1)

5

Malta PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

Against (1)

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
89

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
2

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: UEN UEN
37

Lithuania UEN

2

Ireland UEN

3
icon: NI NI
33

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

3

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

3
2

Belgium NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

3

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia NI

Abstain (2)

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Rapport Gutiérrez-Cortines A6-04110/2007 - am. 37

2007/11/14 Outcome: +: 524, -: 139, 0: 23
FR ES GB IT EL RO PT HU BE BG CZ FI LT DE EE NL AT SK MT SE SI CY LU DK ?? LV IE PL
Total
68
48
71
67
23
25
21
21
21
17
20
14
13
90
6
21
18
13
5
16
6
4
6
4
1
8
10
49
icon: PSE PSE
189

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Estonia PSE

3

Slovakia PSE

Against (1)

3

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Denmark PSE

For (1)

1

PSE

1

Ireland PSE

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
245
2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

Against (1)

3

Latvia PPE-DE

Against (1)

3

Ireland PPE-DE

Against (1)

5
icon: ALDE ALDE
92
2

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
34

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
33

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

3

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium NI

3

Bulgaria NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia NI

Abstain (2)

3
2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
18

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

1

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Poland IND/DEM

3
icon: UEN UEN
37

Lithuania UEN

2

Latvia UEN

3

Ireland UEN

3

Rapport Gutiérrez-Cortines A6-04110/2007 - am. 118

2007/11/14 Outcome: -: 422, +: 233, 0: 22
GB DE NL IE HU SE SK DK ?? FI AT SI LU LT BG EE CY CZ LV MT BE RO PT EL ES IT PL FR
Total
70
89
20
11
21
16
13
4
1
14
18
6
6
13
17
5
4
17
8
5
21
25
21
23
48
66
48
67
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
242

Ireland PPE-DE

Abstain (1)

5
4

Slovenia PPE-DE

Against (1)

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

Against (1)

2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

For (1)

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2
icon: NI NI
33

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

3

Austria NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Czechia NI

1

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

3
2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

Netherlands IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

France IND/DEM

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
34

Ireland UEN

3

Lithuania UEN

2

Latvia UEN

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

For (1)

5

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
91

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1
2