BETA


2007/0045(CNS) Common agricultural policy CAP: financing

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AGRI CHATZIMARKAKIS Jorgo (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion BUDG BÖGE Reimer (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion CONT MULDER Jan (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
EC Treaty (after Amsterdam) EC 037-p2

Events

2007/12/07
   Final act published in Official Journal
Details

PURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

LEGISLATIVE ACT : Council Regulation (EC) No 1437/2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy

CONTENT : The Council adopted by a qualified majority a Regulation amending Regulation (EC)No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy. The Regulation aims to supplement or clarify certain aspects of current procedures.

The requirement on the publication of information on beneficiaries of Community funds, as inserted into the Financial Regulation by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006, provides that the necessary details shall be laid down in the relevant sector-specific rules. In order to implement this obligation, Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 had to be modified. Furthermore, this Regulation addresses a number of problems regarding the effective application of the Regulation 1290/205.

The main points are as follows:

Publication of information on beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD funding : the principles included contain the following:

–as regards EAGF expenditure, a split between direct payments and other funding;

–as regards EAFRD expenditure, one single amount of total public funding;

–ex-post annual publication per budget year;

–publication to cover EAFRD expenditure effected as of 1 January 2007 and EAGF expenditure effected as of 16 October 2007;

–Member States will be responsible for publication at national level and also responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data published. The details should be laid down in implementing rules to be adopted by the Commission.

Reduction and suspension of monthly and intermediate payments to Member States: a new mechanism is introduced under which the Commission is empowered, but not obliged, to reduce or suspend payments. This mechanism could be triggered only if all below mentioned conditions are met:

-the Commission has already imposed two financial corrections in respect of the same measure and for the same reason;

-one or more of the key components of the control system in question do not exist or are not effective due to the gravity or persistence of the deficiencies found;

-the projection of the Commission is such that the Member State has failed to implement Commission's recommendation to remedy the situation and cannot or will not remedy the deficiencies in question in the immediate future.

The suspension or reduction would follow a "warning letter" sent to the Member State. The decision would be valid for a period to be determined by the Commission covering payments after the decision, without the need to repeat the procedure each month.

Modification of Article 31(5) of the Regulation (exceptions to the 24-month rule): Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 requires Member States to carry out ex-post controls on certain CAP expenditure. A literal interpretation of the 24-month-rule laid down in Article 31(4) of the Regulation prevents the Commission from imposing financial corrections on the Member States in case they do not comply with their control obligations under the above-mentioned Regulation due to the lack of time left after controls made by the Member State. In order to deal with this problem, the limitation in time will not apply for infringements of the Member States’ control obligations under Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89, provided that the Commission acts upon the Member States’ report within a period of 12 months after receipt of that report.

Technical adaptations : lastly, the Council has made some smaller technical adaptations in order to resolve problems that have been identified concerning mainly the coherence between the financial management of the EAFRD and the financial management of the Structural Funds and the financing of intervention measures if no sum per unit is determined

ENTRY INTO FORCE : 14/12/2007.

APPLICATION: point (3) and Article 1(5) (regarding suspension and reduction of intermediate payments in specific cases) shall apply as from 1 July 2008.

Article 1(6) (regarding modification of Article 31(5) of the Regulation) shall apply with respect to the Member States’ reports received by the Commission after 1 January 2008, excluding any expenditure effected by Member States before the financial year 2006.

2007/11/26
   EP/CSL - Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
2007/11/26
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2007/11/26
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/11/21
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2007/10/22
   CSL - Council Meeting
2007/10/11
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2007/10/11
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Jorgo CHATZIMARKAKIS (ADLE, DE), and approved the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, subject to some amendments.

The main amendments were as follows;

Accreditation of paying agencies : Member States should be obliged to inform the Commission of any accreditation given to a paying agency, including an assessment of their fulfilment of the conditions. This will enable the Commission to monitor the accreditation of paying agencies by the Member States and it will stimulate Member States to improve their accreditation procedures. They must also inform the Commission of any major changes in the structures or the functioning of the accredited paying agency which might affect fulfilment of the conditions by the paying agencies. The Commission must monitor the accreditation of paying agencies by the Member States. Where an accredited paying agency does not meet one or more of the conditions laid down, the Commission must order the accrediting Member State to withdraw the accreditation unless the paying agency makes the necessary changes within a period to be determined by the Commission according to the severity of the problem.

Certification bodies : Parliament specified that the certification body shall be a public or private legal entity designated by the Member State with a view to certifying the truthfulness, completeness and accuracy of the accounts of the accredited paying agency, taking account of management and control system. Where a certification body cannot perform its tasks, the Member State must withdraw the designation unless the certification body makes the necessary changes within a period to be determined according to the severity of the problem.

Protection of the Community’s financial interests : in order to ensure effective control of Community funds, each Member State shall, at the appropriate national level, prior to receiving Community funding, issue a statement, based on available audits and declarations, declaring that the financial control structures required by Community law are in place and functioning.

Reduction and suspension of monthly payments : one amendment aims to ensure that Member States with several paying agencies do not face a higher risk of preventive penalties being imposed than Member States with only one. In addition, the percentage by which the monthly payments may be reduced or suspended shall be equal to the percentage decided by the Commission. This percentage will be reduced if in the meantime the Member State has gone some way towards remedying the shortcomings identified by the Commission in its latest decision. The Commission may decide to increase this percentage annually if the shortcomings have persisted for four years or longer.

Duration of infringement : in addition to the nature and gravity of the infringement, its duration must also be taken into account in the Commission's assessment of the amounts to be excluded from financing in the event of non-conformity. The Commission will draw up an annual report which summarises the amounts excluded from Community financing, following infringements by Member States of their obligations, as well as the amounts which could not be excluded due to failure to notify Member States in time.

Irregularities: Parliament felt that the general rule of equal burden-sharing in case of non- recovery, i.e. 50% for the EC budget and 50% for the budget of the Member State concerned, is counterproductive. An amendment stipulates that if recovery has not taken place within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years where recovery action is taken in the national courts, the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned. A transitional period of 5 years shall be allowed. Where, in the context of the recovery procedure, the absence of any irregularity is recorded by an administrative or legal instrument of a definitive nature, the Member State concerned shall declare as expenditure to the EAGF the financial burden borne by it. However, if, for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time-limits specified, and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State , extend the time-limits by a maximum of 50 % of the initial time-limits.

Report on publication : within two years following the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission will submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report setting out the experience gained from the publication of information concerning the beneficiaries of agricultural payments. This report will include a review of what the data were used for, by whom they were used and an assessment of the advantages or otherwise of the publication of those data from the point of view of openness, transparency and public understanding of the common agricultural policy. In addition, the Commission must indicate whether the centralised publication of information at Commission level would be advisable or, as appropriate, why it would not;

Evaluation report : in 2008-2009 the Commission shall draw up an evaluation report, possibly accompanied by legislative proposals. In 2011 the Commission shall draw up an evaluation report, possibly accompanied by legislative proposals, considering, in particular, the objective distribution of agricultural and rural development funds, on the basis of objective criteria rather than taking as its starting point historical expenditure and compromises in the Council.

Confidentiality and transparency : Member States must ensure annual ex-post publication, via the Internet, of the beneficiaries of the EAGF and the EAFRD and the amounts received per beneficiary under each of these Funds. When accessing the proposed Internet site, users shall be required to sign on or register. In the interests of transparency on both sides, any beneficiary of EU payments whose details have been published shall have access to a report on visitors to pages relating to it. Data on payments from the EARDF should at least be subdivided in such a way as to make clear which axis they relate to, since these payments differ substantially depending on the axis concerned. There should be further minimum criteria for published information to increase comparability between Member States.

The publication must contain at least :

- for the EAGF, the amount subdivided in direct payments within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and other expenditure. In addition, intervention expenditure shall be subdivided by area;

- for the EAFRD, the total amount of public funding per beneficiary subdivided by axes pursuant to Title IV, Chapter I, of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005;

- the beneficiaries' names and – subject to binding data protection provisions – the municipalities in which they have their places of residence or registered offices, and the amounts of the annual payments;

- if, in the case of agricultural holdings in the legal form of a sole proprietorship, the names of farmers are published then, in the case of other legal forms of business, the names of the investors and of the management, e.g. the board of a public limited company and the directors of a private limited company, shall also be given.

In keeping with the data protection requirements, Member States may further subdivide the information. In particular, they may also publish information concerning payments from the EAFRD on a project-related basis. Member States shall not be required to publish details of additional payments from purely national funds (top-ups), but publication of this information will be encouraged.

Information shall be published annually on a date to be specified by the Member State which should be notified to the Commission and to the recipients.

The Commission shall set up an Internet platform linked to the Member States' Internet platforms. If Member States have information published by several paying agencies, those agencies shall also be linked to one another. Member States and the Commission shall be free to carry out general assessments of and to explain published data. Data concerning individuals shall be assessed only with the consent of the specific persons concerned.

Lastly, Members stated that if, as a result of the absence of key components of control systems, the annual publications by the Member States after 30 June 2009 contain major errors which seriously compromise the desired degree of transparency concerning expenditure practice, within two years following the entry into force of the Regulation, payments for the Funds concerned and for the paying agency concerned shall be reduced by a flat rate of 2% for every year in which the major errors are not remedied.

Documents
2007/10/10
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2007/09/17
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2007/09/17
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
2007/09/12
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted a report drafted by Jorgo CHATZIMARKAKIS (ADLE, DE), and approved the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, subject to some amendments.

The main amendments were as follows;

Accreditation of paying agencies : Member States should be obliged to inform the Commission of any accreditation given to a paying agency, including an assessment of their fulfilment of the conditions. This will enable the Commission to monitor the accreditation of paying agencies by the Member States and it will stimulate Member States to improve their accreditation procedures. They must also inform the Commission of any major changes in the structures or the functioning of the accredited paying agency which might affect fulfilment of the conditions by the paying agencies. The Commission must monitor the accreditation of paying agencies by the Member States. Where an accredited paying agency does not meet one or more of the conditions laid down, the Commission must order the accrediting Member State to withdraw the accreditation unless the paying agency makes the necessary changes within a period to be determined by the Commission according to the severity of the problem.

Member States should be obliged to inform the Commission of the designation of certification bodies, including an assessment of their ability to perform the desired tasks.

Protection of the Community’s financial interests : in order to ensure effective control of Community funds, each Member State shall, at the appropriate national level, prior to receiving Community funding, issue a statement, based on available audits and declarations, declaring that the financial control structures required by Community law are in place and functioning.

Reduction and suspension of monthly payments : one amendment aims to ensure that Member States with several paying agencies do not face a higher risk of preventive penalties being imposed than Member States with only one. In addition, the percentage by which the monthly payments may be reduced or suspended shall be equal to the percentage decided by the Commission. This percentage will be reduced if in the meantime the Member State has gone some way towards remedying the shortcomings identified by the Commission in its latest decision. The Commission may decide to increase this percentage annually if the shortcomings have persisted for four years or longer.

Duration of infringement : in addition to the nature and gravity of the infringement, its duration must also be taken into account in the Commission's assessment of the amounts to be excluded from financing in the event of non-conformity. The Commission will draw up an annual report which summarises the amounts excluded from Community financing, following infringements by

Member States of their obligations, as well as the amounts which could not be excluded due to failure to notify Member States in time.

Irregularities: the Committee felt that the general rule of equal burden-sharing in case of non- recovery, i.e. 50% for the EC budget and 50% for the budget of the Member State concerned, is counterproductive. An amendment stipulates that if recovery has not taken place within four years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within eight years where recovery action is taken in the national courts, the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned. A transitional period of 5 years shall be allowed. Where, in the context of the recovery procedure, the absence of any irregularity is recorded by an administrative or legal instrument of a definitive nature, the Member State concerned shall declare as expenditure to the EAGF the financial burden borne by it. However, if, for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time-limits specified, and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State , extend the time-limits by a maximum of 50 % of the initial time-limits.

Report on publication : within two years following the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission shall submit a report setting out the experience gained from the publication of information concerning the beneficiaries of agricultural payments. This report will include a review of what the data was used for, by whom it was used and an assessment of the advantages or otherwise of the publication of this data from the point of view of openness, transparency and public understanding of the common agricultural policy. In addition, the Commission shall indicate whether the centralised publication of information at Commission level would be advisable, or, as appropriate, why this is not the case.

Evaluation report : in 2008-2009, the Commission shall draw up an evaluation report, possibly accompanied by legislative proposals. In 2011, the Commission shall draw up an evaluation report, possibly accompanied by legislative proposals, considering, in particular, the objective distribution of agricultural and rural development funds, on the basis of objective criteria rather than taking as its starting point historical expenditure and compromises in the Council.

Confidentiality and transparency : Member States must ensure annual ex-post publication, via the Internet, of the beneficiaries of the EAGF and the EAFRD and the amounts received per beneficiary under each of these Funds. When accessing the proposed Internet site, users shall be required to sign on or register. In the interests of transparency on both sides, any beneficiary of EU payments whose details have been published shall have access to a report on visitors to pages relating to it. Data on payments from the EARDF should at least be subdivided in such a way as to make clear which axis they relate to, since these payments differ substantially depending on the axis concerned. There should be further minimum criteria for published information to increase comparability between Member States.

The publication must contain at least :

for the EAGF, the amount subdivided in direct payments within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and other expenditure. In addition, intervention expenditure shall be subdivided by area; for the EAFRD, the total amount of public funding per beneficiary subdivided by axes pursuant to Title IV, Chapter I, of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005; the beneficiaries' names and – subject to binding data protection provisions – the municipalities in which they have their places of residence or registered offices, and the amounts of the annual payments; if, in the case of agricultural holdings in the legal form of a sole proprietorship, the names of farmers are published then, in the case of other legal forms of business, the names of the investors and of the management, e.g. the board of a public limited company and the directors of a private limited company, shall also be given.

In keeping with the data protection requirements, Member States may further subdivide the information. In particular, they may also publish information concerning payments from the EAFRD on a project-related basis. Member States shall not be required to publish details of additional payments from purely national funds (top-ups), but publication of this information will be encouraged.

Information shall be published annually on a date to be specified by the Member State which should be notified to the Commission and to the recipients.

The Commission shall set up an Internet platform linked to the Member States' Internet platforms. If Member States have information published by several paying agencies, those agencies shall also be linked to one another. Member States and the Commission shall be free to carry out general assessments of and to explain published data. Data concerning individuals shall be assessed only with the consent of the specific persons concerned.

Lastly, Members stated that if, as a result of the absence of key components of control systems, the annual publications by the Member States after 30 June 2009 contain major errors which seriously compromise the desired degree of transparency concerning expenditure practice, within two years following the entry into force of the Regulation, payments for the Funds concerned and for the paying agency concerned shall be reduced by a flat rate of 2% for every year in which the major errors are not remedied.

2007/09/11
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2007/07/19
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2007/06/01
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2007/05/03
   EP - MULDER Jan (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2007/04/26
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2007/04/12
   EP - CHATZIMARKAKIS Jorgo (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2007/04/10
   EDPS - Document attached to the procedure
Details

Opinion of the European Data Protection Officer on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

The EDPS has been following, with a matter of interest, development leading to the adoption of this proposal and welcomes the Commission’s decision to mention the EDPS in its preamble to the proposal. To recall, the EDPS issued an Opinion on 12 December 2006 regarding proposals to amend the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities and its implementing rules. In this opinion, the EDPS supported the inclusion of the transparency principle in the legislation, with due respect to Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) 45/2001 but advised that a proactive approach to the rights of the data subjects should be respected, given that personal data will be disclosed. This approach could consist of informing the data subjects beforehand, at the time the personal data has been collected, that such data will be made public, and of ensuring that the data subject’s right of access and right to object, are respected. This principle should also apply to the ex post publication of beneficiaries.

In the more general context of developing a proactive approach on transparency and the provisions of the Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules, the EDPS draws the Council’s attention to a proposed change in the text on informing data subjects about the processing of their personal data. Given the enormous number of possible data subjects, some institutions and bodies involved in this process may find it impossible to fulfil this obligation. An alternative, therefore, would be to exempt auditing institutions and bodies from informing those data subjects, who are already in possession of this information. The EDPS reminds the Council that the European Parliament has taken this suggestion into account by introducing an Article 43a in its legislative resolution adopted in February 2007 (see CNS/2006/0900 ).

Based on the above reasoning, the EDPS would find it most appropriate to include this amendments relating to beneficiaries in the current proposal.

2007/04/10
   EP - BÖGE Reimer (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2007/03/20
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

PROPSED ACT: Council Regulation.

CONTENT: The requirement on the publication of information on beneficiaries of Community funds, as inserted into the Financial Regulation by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006, provides that the necessary details shall be laid down in the relevant sector-specific rules. In order to implement this obligation, it is necessary to modify Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy. Furthermore, this proposal addresses a number of outstanding problems regarding the effective application of the Regulation.

The following points are included in the proposal:

Publication of information on beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD funding: the principles included contain the following:

– as regards EAGF expenditure, a split between direct payments and other funding;

– as regards EAFRD expenditure, one single amount of total public funding;

– ex-post annual publication per budget year;

– publication to cover EAFRD expenditure effected as of 1 January 2007 and EAGF expenditure effected as of 16 October 2007;

– publication by Member States at national level.

The details should be laid down in implementing rules to be adopted by the Commission.

Annex VI to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) requires Member States' managing authorities, starting from 2008, to publish at least annually the list of beneficiaries receiving support from the rural development programmes, the names of the operations and the amount of public contributions allocated to these operations. However, the starting date for the publication of these data is now superseded by

Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1995/2006, which requires ex-post publication of beneficiaries of this Fund as from 1 January 2007.

Reduction and suspension of monthly and intermediate payments to Member States: the present mechanism under Articles 17 and 27 is not well tailored to deal with the situation where key components of a national control system do not exist or are not effective over a long period of time and where no remedy is available in the immediate future. It is therefore proposed to introduce a new mechanism under which the Commission would be empowered, but not obliged, to reduce or suspend payments. This mechanism could be triggered only if all below mentioned conditions are met:

- the Commission has already imposed two financial corrections in respect of the same measure and for the same reason;

- one or more of the key components of the control system in question do not exist or are not effective due to the gravity or persistence of the deficiencies found;

- the projection of the Commission is such that the Member State has failed to implement Commission's recommendation to remedy the situation and cannot or will not remedy the deficiencies in question in the immediate future.

The suspension or reduction would follow a "warning letter" sent to the Member State. The decision would be valid for a period to be determined by the Commission covering payments after the decision, without the need to repeat the procedure each month.

Modification of Article 31(5) of the Regulation (exceptions to the 24-month rule): Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 requires Member States to carry out ex-post controls on certain CAP expenditure. A literal interpretation of the 24-month-rule laid down in Article 31(4) of the Regulation prevents the Commission from imposing financial corrections on the Member States in case they do not comply with their control obligations under the above-mentioned Regulation due to the lack of time left after controls made by the Member State. It is therefore proposed to amend Article 31(5) of the Regulation in order to allow for a reasonable period of time for the Commission to audit whether Member States have complied with their control obligations under Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 and, if necessary, impose financial corrections.

Commissions implementing powers under Article 42: it is proposed to adapt this Article in order to enable the Commission adopting detailed rules for all provisions laid down in the Regulation. Additionally, with a new Article on transparency in the Regulation it is advisable to refer directly in the Article on implementing powers to the transparency provision in order to authorise the Commission to adopt detailed rules of application.

Technical adaptations: lastly, the Commission suggests resolving a number of smaller technical problems that have been identified concerning mainly the coherence between the financial management of the EAFRD and the financial management of the Structural Funds and the financing of intervention measures if no sum per unit is determined.

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport Chatzimarkakis A6-0321/2007 - am. 4/1

2007/10/11 Outcome: +: 419, -: 17, 0: 12
DE GB PL IT FR ES RO BE EL HU NL AT BG PT FI IE SK LT SE SI CY LU EE LV DK MT CZ
Total
58
53
38
35
35
25
21
16
16
15
16
14
11
11
9
8
7
6
13
4
4
4
3
3
6
2
15
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
180

Bulgaria PPE-DE

2

Portugal PPE-DE

1

Finland PPE-DE

2

Ireland PPE-DE

4

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
112

Netherlands PSE

For (1)

1

Finland PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Sweden PSE

2

Estonia PSE

For (1)

1

Denmark PSE

2

Malta PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
56

Spain ALDE

1

Belgium ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

1

Netherlands ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

France GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
20

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Italy Verts/ALE

2

France Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: UEN UEN
21

Ireland UEN

2

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: ITS ITS
10

Italy ITS

For (1)

1

Belgium ITS

2
icon: NI NI
8

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Italy NI

For (1)

1

Austria NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
16

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Rapport Chatzimarkakis A6-0321/2007 - am. 4/2

2007/10/11 Outcome: +: 281, -: 187, 0: 9
DE PL IT RO GB IE HU SK NL SI EL LT FI BE EE LV FR BG CY MT LU AT ES DK PT SE CZ
Total
63
40
41
23
53
9
18
7
16
4
15
6
10
17
3
3
38
10
4
2
2
15
28
6
15
13
16
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
187

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Finland PPE-DE

2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Bulgaria PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Malta PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

1

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
57

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Netherlands ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

1

Spain ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
24

Ireland UEN

2

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: ITS ITS
11

Italy ITS

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
8
2

Italy NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

1

Austria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
16

Poland IND/DEM

Against (1)

3

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
20

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

France Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
27

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
127

Netherlands PSE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Finland PSE

3

Estonia PSE

Against (1)

1

Malta PSE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PSE

2

Sweden PSE

2

Czechia PSE

2

Rapport Chatzimarkakis A6-0321/2007 - am. 20

2007/10/11 Outcome: +: 301, -: 183, 0: 11
PL DE IT GB RO HU SK IE SI NL BG LT LU CZ LV BE EL ?? FR FI CY EE MT AT SE DK PT ES
Total
40
67
43
54
22
17
8
10
4
17
11
7
5
17
5
18
16
1
38
10
4
4
2
16
12
6
14
27
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
189

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Bulgaria PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Finland PPE-DE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Malta PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Portugal PPE-DE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

Hungary ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Netherlands ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Spain ALDE

1
icon: UEN UEN
27

Ireland UEN

2

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: ITS ITS
10

Italy ITS

For (1)

1

France ITS

3
icon: NI NI
8
2

Italy NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

1

Austria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
16

Poland IND/DEM

Against (1)

3

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
21

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

France Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3
icon: PSE PSE
134

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

PSE

1

Finland PSE

3

Estonia PSE

2

Malta PSE

Against (1)

1

Sweden PSE

2

Denmark PSE

2

Rapport Chatzimarkakis A6-0321/2007 - am. 21/1

2007/10/11 Outcome: +: 464, -: 38, 0: 10
DE GB PL FR IT ES RO BE HU AT NL BG IE EL CZ FI SK LT PT LU LV SI EE MT SE ?? CY DK
Total
68
57
41
41
45
30
23
18
18
16
17
11
11
16
17
10
8
7
14
5
5
4
4
2
13
1
4
6
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
194

Bulgaria PPE-DE

2

Finland PPE-DE

2

Portugal PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
141

Netherlands PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

2

Malta PSE

For (1)

1

Sweden PSE

2

PSE

1

Denmark PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Spain ALDE

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Netherlands ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
27

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
21

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

France Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ITS ITS
11

Italy ITS

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
8

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Italy NI

For (1)

1

Austria NI

1

Slovakia NI

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
16

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Rapport Chatzimarkakis A6-0321/2007 - am. 21/2

2007/10/11 Outcome: +: 305, -: 197, 0: 11
PL IT DE GB RO IE SK HU CZ LV SI NL LT LU BE BG FI EL CY EE MT FR ?? AT DK ES SE PT
Total
39
47
67
56
23
11
8
19
19
5
4
17
7
5
18
11
9
15
4
4
2
42
1
16
6
29
13
16
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
197

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Bulgaria PPE-DE

2

Finland PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Malta PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Netherlands ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

3

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Spain ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
28

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: ITS ITS
12

Italy ITS

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
8
2

Italy NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

1

Austria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
14

Poland IND/DEM

Against (1)

3

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
20

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

France Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3
icon: PSE PSE
141

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Netherlands PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Finland PSE

3

Estonia PSE

2

Malta PSE

Against (1)

1

PSE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PSE

2

Sweden PSE

2

Rapport Chatzimarkakis A6-0321/2007 - am. 23/1

2007/10/11 Outcome: +: 504, -: 24, 0: 12
DE GB IT PL FR ES RO HU PT NL EL AT BG BE FI IE SK LT DK LV LU SE SI CY EE CZ MT ??
Total
69
61
49
42
43
30
24
20
17
17
16
16
13
18
12
11
8
7
8
6
5
13
4
4
4
20
2
1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
207

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Malta PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
147

Netherlands PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Sweden PSE

2

Estonia PSE

2

Czechia PSE

2

Malta PSE

For (1)

1

PSE

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
67

Spain ALDE

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Netherlands ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

France GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: UEN UEN
30

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
22

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
8

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Italy NI

For (1)

1

Austria NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
16

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2
icon: ITS ITS
12

Italy ITS

Against (1)

1

Belgium ITS

Abstain (1)

3

Rapport Chatzimarkakis A6-0321/2007 - am. 23/2

2007/10/11 Outcome: +: 309, -: 227, 0: 12
DE PL IT GB SK RO IE HU NL LT SI LV BG FI LU EL ES CY EE MT ?? DK AT BE PT FR SE CZ
Total
72
42
50
61
8
24
10
21
18
6
4
6
13
11
5
16
31
4
4
2
1
10
16
18
17
45
13
20
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
211

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Malta PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
72

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Spain ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
28

Ireland UEN

2

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
8
2

Italy NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia NI

1

Austria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
16

Poland IND/DEM

3

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2
icon: ITS ITS
12

Italy ITS

Against (1)

1

Belgium ITS

Abstain (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
22

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

France Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
148

Ireland PSE