BETA


2008/2031(INI) Evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU's actions and policies in the area of human rights

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AFET FLAUTRE Hélène (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion DEVE WEBER Renate (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion INTA AGNOLETTO Vittorio (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2008/12/17
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2008/10/17
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2008/09/04
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2008/09/04
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 546 votes to 36, with 40 abstentions, a resolution on the evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU's actions and policies in the area of human rights.

The own initiative report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Hélène FLAUTRE (Greens/EFA, FR) on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The resolution deplores the fact that, to date, no evaluation or impact assessment has been carried out in respect of the EU's sanctions policy and that it is therefore extremely difficult to gauge the policy's impact and effectiveness on the ground and thus to draw the necessary conclusions. The Parliament therefore calls on the Council and the Commission to carry out this evaluation work, recalling that the sanctions policy used against South Africa proved effective in helping to end apartheid.

The resolution also notes the lack of overall coherence of sanctions applied, which, as a result, lack credibility. In fact, the EU’s current sanctions policy sometimes results in contradictory measures being taken, or even a policy of “double standards” that seriously damages the image of the EU. Therefore, the disagreements within the EU as regards certain countries (e.g. Cuba) or the reluctance of Member States to antagonise major commercial partners (e.g. Russia) have led the EU to adopt only ‘informal sanctions’.

According to the Parliament, for sanctions to be effective, their introduction must be seen as legitimate by public opinion at European and international levels and in countries in which changes are expected. In this respect, consultation of the European Parliament in the decision-making process is essential to establish the legitimacy of intended sanctions.

Furthermore, the Parliament considers that recourse to sanctions should be envisaged in the case of actions by authorities that seriously undermine security and human rights or where all contractual and/or diplomatic options have been explored or have clearly reached stalemate. Given that any voluntary and irreversible degradation of the environment constitutes a threat to security and a serious violation of human rights, MEPs call on the Council and the Commission to include this type of voluntary damage among the grounds which may lead to the adoption of sanctions.

Towards effective sanctions : according to the Parliament, the argument of the ‘ineffectiveness’ of sanctions cannot be used in favour of lifting them but should be used instead to re-orientate and reassess the sanction itself. The Parliament stresses, in this regard, the indirect impact of ‘symbolic’ measures as an expression of the EU's moral condemnation, although it warns against placing too much emphasis on the idea of sanctions as symbolic measures, as this could result in them becoming totally devalued. The Parliament provides an overview of measures that could be implemented to make sanctions more effective. It suggests measuring the impact of a sanction on the private and professional activities of the members of a target regime, or on the operation thereof, or its ability to bring about a stop to, or to alter, the policies which have led to its adoption. It also considers that the effectiveness of a sanction depends on the European Union’s capacity to maintain it for the full period. They deplore, in this regard, the use of provisions involving the automatic lifting of sanctions (e.g. ‘sunset clauses’) without prior evaluation. In any case, the Parliament opposes the application of generalised, indiscriminate sanctions to any country, since this approach leads to the total isolation of the population, preferring instead targeted sanctions against the regime , coupled with support for civil society in the country concerned.

Sanctions as part of an overall human rights strategy : according to the Parliament, the approach to adopt regarding sanctions should include, in parallel, political dialogue, incentives and conditionality. This could include, as a last resort, the use of coercive measures. The Parliament considers that ‘human rights’ clauses, the system of generalised preferences and development aid should be used as tools of such a comprehensive and integrated policy approach. In terms of ‘human rights’ clauses (which imply that the non-compliance with human rights in a country with which an agreement has been signed may lead to the annulment of this agreement), the Parliament considers that these must not be implemented in isolation by the EU. On the contrary, according to the Parliament the implementation of human rights clauses and possible sanctions must complement each other. Furthermore, the Parliament calls on the Commission and the Member States to include human rights clauses in all agreement (whether sectoral or more general) and not to propose free trade agreements and/or association agreements – even containing human rights clauses – to governments of countries where massive human rights violations are being perpetrated.

Coordinated action by the international community : convinced that coordinated action by the international community has a stronger impact than disparate and uneven actions by States or regional entities, the Parliament calls on the Council, in the absence of UN Security Council sanctions, to cooperate with non-EU sanctioning states to coordinate their actions in order to increase their effectiveness. The Parliament considers in particular that the signing of a free trade agreement with a region in a targeted country should be used as a "carrot" and means of pressure to improve human rights and that such an agreement should, in any case, not include the country to which sanctions are being applied.

Better evaluate situations to target sanctions : the Parliament underlines the need for an in-depth analysis of each specific situation in order to assess the potential impact of different sanctions and to determine which are the most effective. However, such analysis should not be used to delay the adoption of sanctions. That is why it suggests creating a two-step procedure such as that set out in the CFSP which provides scope for an urgent political reaction (through the adoption of a common position) followed by sanctions. Furthermore, the Parliament calls for the systematic inclusion in the legal instruments of clear and specific benchmarks as conditions for the lifting of the sanctions. The Parliament must also be closely involved in all stages of a sanctions process : the decision-making process, the selection of the sanctions, the definition of benchmarks and the evaluation of their implementation. It believes that the arms embargo imposed on China is an illustration of EU consistency, given that this embargo was originally established following the 1989 Tiananmen massacre and the EU has not received to date any explanations about that massacre.

Effectiveness of targeted action : in order to judge the effectiveness of measures taken, the EU needs certain tools. The Parliament therefore deplores the fact that, owing to a lack of evaluation, it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of targeted measures. However, the Parliament recognises that sanctions of general economic scope, such as those that have been applied in the past to Iraq, have had adverse, counter-productive effects on the population. It therefore welcomes the fact that this approach has been abandoned in favour of more targeted, ‘smart’ sanctions, geared to achieving the maximum impact on those whose behaviour it wants to influence. Overall, the Parliament considers that economic sanctions used in isolation from other policy instruments are extremely unlikely to force a targeted regime to make major policy changes. Sanctions should target, first and foremost, leaders of targeted regimes and perpetrators of human rights violations. It therefore supports the use of targeted financial sanctions against key leaders of targeted regimes and their immediate family members. The plenary also calls for a limited application of the "extraordinary exemptions" to the freezing of assets. It calls for the creation of a specific procedure for objections in the event that a Member State wishes to grant an exemption to the freezing of assets. In addition, the Parliament calls for measures to prevent leaders of targeted regimes from accessing financial services within the EU’s jurisdiction. In this context, the Parliament calls for enhanced cooperation with the SWIFT management in Europe, so as to achieve improved results in the freezing of blacklisted accounts and the elimination of money transfers from/to such accounts. With regard to frozen assets, the plenary calls on the Council and the Commission to investigate the possibility of using frozen income of targeted authorities in a constructive manner, for example by allocating them to victims of human rights violations or for development purposes.

At the same time, the Parliament calls for coordinated cooperation between Member States and the Commission regarding the implementation of EU arms embargoes which are applied by each Member State. This includes making the current Code of Conduct on arms exports legally binding . The Parliament includes among effective targeted action, restrictions on admission (travel bans, visa bans) for blacklisted persons or non-state entities, preventing them from attending EU official meetings and also from travelling to the EU for private reasons. However, it regrets the fact that certain Member States have not complied with certain EU visa bans.

The problem of ‘blacklists’ in the fight against terrorism : the plenary highlighted the dangers of establishing blacklists for persons accused of terrorism, which are sometimes drawn up in an unclear manner. It recalls the obligation of Member States to draft sanctions that fully respect fundamental rights and stresses that the current blacklisting procedures at both the EU and the UN levels are deficient from the perspective of legal security and legal remedies. The plenary therefore calls on the Council to draw all the necessary conclusions and to fully apply the judgments of the Court of First Instance as regards EU autonomous sanctions. It also calls on the Council and the Commission to review the existing procedure for blacklisting and delisting, in order to respect blacklisted individuals’ and entities’ substantive human rights, rights to appeal before an independent and impartial body and due process, including the right to be notified and adequately informed of the charges brought against the individual or entity in question. The plenary considers that Article 75 of the revised treaty would be an opportunity to be seized by Parliament in order to remedy the shortcomings in current practice as regards the inclusion of names on a blacklist. It considers that this issue should be included on the agenda for the 2009 legislative programme. The Parliament regrets, however, that none of the judicial bodies is in position to assess the appropriateness of blacklisting, given that the evidence leading to blacklisting is based primarily on information held by the secret services. It is therefore important that Member States guarantee effective parliamentary control over the work of the secret services, while reiterating that the system of anti-terrorist lists, provided that it respects the most recent case-law of the Court of Justice, is an effective instrument of European Union anti-terrorist policy.

Towards a varied sanctions policy : while in favour of sanctions, the Parliament considers that a strategy of openness and a policy of sanctions are not mutually exclusive. It is therefore also necessary to envisage positive measures alongside sanctions. In this respect, the Parliament notes the cycle of sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan from November 2007 to April 2008: while continuing for one year the sanctions imposed for failure to satisfy initial criteria pertaining to investigations into the Andijan massacre, the Council decided to suspend the implementation of the visa ban, leaving the Uzbek regime six months in which to fulfil a set of human rights criteria, and with the looming threat of the automatic re-establishment of the visa ban. This approach produced some positive developments, even though the overall situation is Uzbekistan remains somewhat precarious. In any case, the Parliament urges that sanctions be systematically accompanied by positive measures to support civil society and human rights defenders and call for the thematic programmes and instruments (EIDHR, non-state actors, investing in people) to contribute to achieving this objective.

Recommendations in relation to the EU institutions and Member States : the Parliament calls on the Commission and the Council to undertake a comprehensive and in-depth evaluation of the EU’s sanctions policy and to ensure that development assistance strategies under the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund are consistent with existing sanction regimes. Overall, the Parliament asks that the conditions for general EU budget support be explicitly linked to human rights and call for enhanced cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission in order to ensure more coherent and effective implementation of restrictive measures. Lastly, to give greater legitimacy to the sanctions, the Parliament must be involved at all stages of the procedure for the implementation and supervision of sanctions. In this respect, the Parliament considers that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should be the time to improve the expertise of the relevant EU services working in the field of sanctions and to enhance cooperation between the different services. That is why the Plenary calls on the Commission to set up a network of independent experts to put forward to the Council the most appropriate restrictive measures and to draw up a report on the development of the situation on the basis of the established criteria and objectives and, where necessary, to suggest ways in which implementation of sanctions might be improved. According to the Parliament, the setting-up of such a network would improve transparency and discussions on sanctions in general, and would also strengthen the implementation and ongoing monitoring of sanctions in particular cases.

Documents
2008/09/04
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2008/09/03
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2008/07/15
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2008/07/15
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2008/07/07
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the report by Hélène FLAUTRE (Greens/EFA, FR) on the evaluation of EU sanctions as part of the EU's actions and policies in the area of human rights, noting the urgent need to evaluate the EU’s sanctions policy. In effect, disparities in the legal bases for the implementation of the EU’s sanctions policy are undermining the transparency and overall coherence of European sanctions policy and, as a result, the credibility thereof. In fact, the EU’s current sanctions policy sometimes results in contradictory measures being taken, or even a policy of “double standards” that seriously damages the image of the EU. Therefore, the disagreements within the EU as regards certain countries (e.g. Cuba) or the reluctance of Member States to antagonise major commercial partners (e.g. Russia) have led the EU to adopt only ‘informal sanctions’.

According to MEPs, for sanctions to be effective, their introduction must be seen as legitimate by public opinion at European and international levels and in countries in which changes are expected. In this respect, consultation of the European Parliament in the decision-making process is essential to establish the legitimacy of intended sanctions.

MEPs consider that recourse to sanctions should be envisaged in the case of actions by authorities that seriously undermine security and human rights. Given that any voluntary and irreversible degradation of the environment constitutes a threat to security and a serious violation of human rights, MEPs call on the Council and the Commission to include this type of voluntary damage among the grounds which may lead to the adoption of sanctions.

Towards effective sanctions : according to MEPs, the argument of the ‘ineffectiveness’ of sanctions cannot be used in favour of lifting them but should be used instead to re-orientate and reassess the sanction itself. In this respect, MEPs establish a framework to make sanctions more effective. To make a sanction more effective, it is important to measure the impact of the sanction on the private and professional activities of the individuals targeted as members of a target regime, on the operation of the regime itself or its ability to bring about a stop to, or to alter, the activities or policies which have led to their adoption. MEPs consider that the effectiveness of a sanction depends on the European Union’s capacity to maintain it for the full period. They deplore, in this regard, the use of provisions involving the automatic lifting of sanctions (e.g. ‘sunset clauses’) without prior evaluation. In all circumstances, MEPs oppose the application of generalised, indiscriminate sanctions to any country, since this approach leads to the total isolation of the population, preferring instead targeted sanctions against the regime, coupled with support for civil society in the country concerned.

Sanctions as part of an overall human rights strategy : according to MEPs, the approach to adopt regarding sanctions should include, in parallel, political dialogue, incentives and conditionality. This could include, as a last resort, the use of coercive measures. Human rights and democracy clauses, the system of generalised preferences and development aid should be used as tools of such a comprehensive and integrated policy approach. Therefore, the human rights clauses must not be implemented in isolation. Furthermore, MEPs urge the Commission and the Member States not to propose free trade agreements and/or association agreements – even containing human rights clauses – to governments of countries where massive human rights violations are being perpetrated. They also call on the Commission to devise a specific strategy on human rights and the situation as regards democracy as part of each country strategy paper.

Coordinated action by the international community : convinced that coordinated action by the international community has a stronger impact than disparate and uneven actions by States or regional entities, MEPs stress the need to cooperate with organisations such as the UN or at least with non-EU sanctioning states. MEPs suggest in particular the creation of a common list of individuals subject to asset freezes, travel bans etc., in order to create the largest possible effect at international level and to maximise the effectiveness of EU sanctions and other sanctions. MEPs stress, in this respect, the urgent need to define a common position regarding Burma/Myanmar.

Better evaluate situations to target sanctions : MEPs underline the need for an in-depth analysis of each specific situation in order to assess the potential impact of different sanctions and to determine which are the most effective. However, such analysis should not be used to delay the adoption of sanctions. That is why they suggest creating a two-step procedure such as that set out in the CFSP which provides scope for an urgent political reaction (through the adoption of a common position) followed by sanctions. Furthermore, MEPs call for the systematic inclusion in the legal instruments of clear and specific benchmarks as conditions for the lifting of the sanctions. The Parliament must also be closely involved in all stages of a sanctions process: the decision-making process, the selection of the sanctions, the definition of benchmarks and the evaluation of their implementation. MEPs believe that the arms embargo imposed on China is an illustration of EU consistency, given that this embargo was originally established following the 1989 Tiananmen massacre and the EU has not received to date any explanations about that massacre.

Effectiveness of targeted action : in order to judge the effectiveness of measures taken, the EU needs certain tools. However, MEPs recognise that sanctions of general economic scope, such as those that have been applied in the past to Iraq, have had adverse, counter-productive effects on the population. They therefore welcome the fact that this approach has been abandoned in favour of more targeted, ‘smart’ sanctions, geared to achieving the maximum impact on those whose behaviour it wants to influence. Overall, MEPs consider that economic sanctions used in isolation from other policy instruments are extremely unlikely to force a targeted regime to make major policy changes. Sanctions should target, first and foremost, leaders of targeted regimes and perpetrators of human rights violations. MEPs therefore support the use of targeted financial sanctions against key leaders of targeted regimes and their immediate family members. MEPs also call for a limited application of the ‘extraordinary exemptions’ to the freezing of assets, except for ‘humanitarian exemptions’ to enable the public to access basic medical care. They also call for measures to prevent leaders of targeted regimes from accessing financial services within the EU’s jurisdiction. In this context, MEPs call for enhanced cooperation with the SWIFT management and shareholders in Europe, so as to achieve improved results in the freezing of blacklisted accounts and the elimination of money transfers from/to such accounts. At the same time, MEPs call for coordinated cooperation between Member States and the Commission regarding the implementation of EU arms embargoes which are applied by each Member State . This includes making the current Code of Conduct on arms exports legally binding. MEPs include among effective targeted action, restrictions on admission (travel bans, visa bans) for blacklisted persons or non-state entities, preventing them from attending EU official meetings and also from travelling to the EU for private reasons. However, they regret the fact that certain Member States have not complied with certain EU visa bans.

Targeted sanctions in the fight against terrorism : MEPs support the existing procedure for blacklisting and delisting, including the system of anti-terrorist lists at European level. They regret, however, that none of the judicial bodies is in position to assess the appropriateness of blacklisting, given that the evidence leading to blacklisting is based primarily on information held by the secret services. According to MEPs, fundamental discretion should not be transformed into impunity and it is therefore important that Member States guarantee effective parliamentary control over the work of the secret services. In particular, the European Parliament must be associated with the work done by the Conference of Oversight Committees of the Intelligence Bodies of the Member States.

A varied sanctions policy : while in favour of sanctions, MEPs consider that a strategy of openness and a policy of sanctions are not mutually exclusive. It is therefore also necessary to envisage positive measures alongside sanctions. In this respect, MEPs note the cycle of sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan from November 2007 to April 2008: while continuing for one year the sanctions imposed for failure to satisfy initial criteria pertaining to investigations into the Andijan massacre, the Council decided to suspend the implementation of the visa ban, leaving the Uzbek regime six months in which to fulfil a set of human rights criteria, and with the looming threat of the automatic re-establishment of the visa ban. This approach produced some positive developments, even though the overall situation is Uzbekistan remains somewhat precarious. In any circumstances, MEPs urge that sanctions be systematically accompanied by enhanced positive measures to support civil society and human rights defenders and call for the thematic programmes and instruments (EIDHR, non-state actors, investing in people) to contribute fully to achieving this objective.

Recommendations in relation to the EU institutions and Member States : MEPs call on the Commission and the Council to undertake a comprehensive and in-depth evaluation of the EU’s sanctions policy and to ensure that development assistance strategies under the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund are consistent with existing sanction regimes. Overall, MEPs ask that the conditions for general EU budget support be explicitly linked to human rights and call for enhanced cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission in order to ensure more coherent and effective implementation of restrictive measures. Lastly, to give greater legitimacy to the sanctions, the Parliament must be involved at all stages of the procedure for the implementation and supervision of sanctions.

2008/06/25
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/06/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/06/11
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2008/05/23
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2008/02/25
   EP - AGNOLETTO Vittorio (GUE/NGL) appointed as rapporteur in INTA
2008/02/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2008/01/29
   EP - WEBER Renate (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE
2007/10/03
   EP - FLAUTRE Hélène (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in AFET

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport Flautre A6-0309/2008 - am. 4 #

2008/09/04 Outcome: -: 356, +: 221, 0: 42
PT FR EL SE DK EE LT NL AT BE LU MT CY ES FI SI BG LV CZ IE SK HU RO DE IT GB PL
Total
15
59
17
14
11
6
9
26
13
21
5
3
2
44
11
5
15
8
21
11
14
21
28
84
50
58
48
icon: PSE PSE
179

Estonia PSE

3

Lithuania PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Malta PSE

For (1)

1

Finland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Ireland PSE

1

Slovakia PSE

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
37

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
26

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

France GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Abstain (1)

1

Austria NI

1

Belgium NI

3

Bulgaria NI

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

For (1)

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Italy NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

5
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
9

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

Against (1)

3
icon: UEN UEN
34

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
78

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Denmark ALDE

Abstain (1)

3

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus ALDE

Abstain (1)

1

Spain ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Abstain (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
236

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Belgium PPE-DE

For (1)

5

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Rapport Flautre A6-0309/2008 - am. 5 #

2008/09/04 Outcome: -: 292, +: 257, 0: 56
FR DK BE PT EL NL BG LT FI SE EE SI CY AT LU RO ES MT LV SK HU IT IE DE CZ PL GB
Total
61
11
20
14
17
25
15
9
11
15
4
4
2
14
3
28
44
2
8
14
21
48
11
80
21
47
56
icon: PSE PSE
170

Lithuania PSE

2

Finland PSE

1

Estonia PSE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia PSE

3

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
79

Finland ALDE

Against (1)

4

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

1

Spain ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Abstain (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
35

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
26

France GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
9

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

For (1)

Against (1)

2
icon: NI NI
23

Belgium NI

3

Bulgaria NI

2

Austria NI

1

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

5
icon: UEN UEN
33

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
230

Belgium PPE-DE

Against (1)

5

Portugal PPE-DE

2

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

2

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Rapport Flautre A6-0309/2008 - par. 49 #

2008/09/04 Outcome: +: 565, -: 42, 0: 10
DE FR ES IT PL RO NL HU BE GB PT AT BG EL SK SE IE LT DK LV FI EE CZ SI LU MT CY
Total
84
61
44
48
49
27
26
21
21
58
16
15
14
15
14
15
11
9
11
8
10
6
21
5
4
3
1
icon: PSE PSE
181

Ireland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Finland PSE

1

Estonia PSE

3

Czechia PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Malta PSE

For (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
231

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

2

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
78

Spain ALDE

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
37

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
32

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
27

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
21

France NI

Abstain (1)

3

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2
2

Belgium NI

3

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

5

Austria NI

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Czechia NI

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
10

France IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Rapport Flautre A6-0309/2008 - am. 9 #

2008/09/04 Outcome: +: 548, -: 56, 0: 8
DE FR ES PL IT RO NL HU EL BE BG AT SK PT SE IE FI DK GB LT LV EE SI LU CZ MT CY
Total
80
61
43
49
47
26
26
21
18
19
15
15
14
13
15
11
10
10
60
9
8
6
5
5
21
3
2
icon: PSE PSE
175

Ireland PSE

1

Finland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

2

Estonia PSE

3

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Malta PSE

For (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
231

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
77

Spain ALDE

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
36

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: UEN UEN
35

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

1
icon: NI NI
23
2

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Belgium NI

3

Bulgaria NI

2

Austria NI

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

5

Czechia NI

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
10

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Rapport Flautre A6-0309/2008 - am. 11 #

2008/09/04 Outcome: +: 343, -: 266, 0: 9
FR EL BE SE GB DE DK NL PT FI BG EE LT AT ES CY RO SI LU MT HU SK IT LV IE CZ PL
Total
63
17
17
15
59
83
11
27
14
11
15
6
9
15
43
2
28
5
5
3
20
14
49
8
11
21
47
icon: PSE PSE
182

Finland PSE

1

Estonia PSE

3

Lithuania PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Malta PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
81

Sweden ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Spain ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
36

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Italy Verts/ALE

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

France GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
19

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

4

Bulgaria NI

2

Austria NI

1

Italy NI

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
10

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3
icon: UEN UEN
33

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
232

Belgium PPE-DE

4

Finland PPE-DE

Abstain (1)

4

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Cyprus PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Rapport Flautre A6-0309/2008 - am. 12 #

2008/09/04 Outcome: +: 357, -: 254, 0: 9
FR EL BE DE GB NL DK PT BG PL LT SE LV FI EE AT RO ES CY SI MT IT SK LU HU IE CZ
Total
62
18
21
83
59
27
10
14
15
45
9
15
8
11
6
15
28
44
2
5
3
49
14
4
21
11
21
icon: PSE PSE
181

Lithuania PSE

2

Finland PSE

1

Estonia PSE

3

Malta PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
81

Sweden ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Spain ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
37

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

France GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2
icon: UEN UEN
30

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
23

Belgium NI

3

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

Abstain (2)

5

Bulgaria NI

2
2

Austria NI

1

Italy NI

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
9

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Poland IND/DEM

3

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
234

Belgium PPE-DE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

5

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Finland PPE-DE

Abstain (1)

4

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Rapport Flautre A6-0309/2008 - par. 57 #

2008/09/04 Outcome: +: 520, -: 103, 0: 5
DE FR ES IT RO NL HU EL BE AT SK PT BG DK FI GB EE LT PL SI SE CZ LU IE MT CY LV
Total
84
63
44
51
28
27
19
18
21
15
14
15
15
11
11
59
6
9
49
5
15
21
4
11
3
2
8
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
236

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
180

Germany PSE