BETA


2008/2041(INI) Towards a new culture for urban mobility

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead TRAN RACK Reinhard (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion ENVI PALECKIS Justas Vincas (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion ITRE
Committee Opinion IMCO
Committee Opinion REGI OLBRYCHT Jan (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052

Events

2008/09/29
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2008/08/27
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2008/07/09
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2008/07/09
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 558 votes to 100, with 33 abstentions, a resolution on a new culture of urban mobility, in response to the Commission’s Green Paper on the subject.

The own initiative report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Reinhard RACK (EPP-ED, AT) on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

Role of the EU : while recognising the principle that local authorities are free to adopt their own mobility policies, the Parliament considers that the EU should define an overall strategy on urban mobility leading to a more rational use of private cars and promote a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport, to support the EU's commitments on environmental protection and on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. MEPs believe that action must be taken at European level in the following areas and call for:

the development of an integrated European global approach to urban mobility which will serve as a common frame of reference for European, national, regional and local players (municipalities, citizens, businesses and industry); reliable, comparable data on all aspects of urban and suburban mobility to be gathered and effectively disseminated, taking into account demographic changes, economic growth and climate change; an evaluation of the implementation and application by Member States of European legislation affecting urban transport, in particular public passenger transport;

· a list of the local initiatives aiming to tackle some of the problems referred to in the Green Paper (e.g. road charging, green zones, safety on public transport, protection of cyclists etc.);

a "European Platform for Urban Mobility" or any other effective forum that brings together all data, best practices and policy information on urban mobility in a comprehensible way; an evaluation of the external costs of the various modes of transport and an assessment of the possibility of internalising these.

Legislation : the Parliament considers it necessary for the EU to take into account the particular needs of urban transport in the policy areas where it has legislative power (e.g. budget policy, environment policy, social and labour market policy, competition policy, industry policy, regional and cohesion policy, transport and road safety policy, and energy policy).

Standardisation and harmonisation : MEPs call for specific European rules and/or guidance to be adopted, particularly concerning the following: (i) the design and functioning of green zones and road pricing; (ii) technical and organisational requirements for the interoperability of the various modes of passenger and freight transport; (iii) the mobility of people with disabilities, the elderly, people with young children and the least affluent; (iv) an improvement of road safety according to European and national legislation; (v) the accessibility and interoperability of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) technologies for EU-wide applications.

Dissemination and exchange of best practices : the resolution calls for suitable measures to promote the exchange of best practices, particularly concerning: (i) flexible road use concepts; (ii) the adoption of multimodal transport (road, rail, water); (iii) integrated ticketing and billing systems that simplify access to different transport modes; (iv) innovative solutions for efficient goods transport, particularly for local goods distribution in cities; (v) guidelines for an environmentally aware public procurement policy; (vi) improvements in clean public local passenger transport; (vii) the promotion of sustainable mobility chains: walking-cycling-car-sharing-car-pooling-collective taxis-public mobility; (viii) a better organisation of short-distance transport; (ix) the introduction of parking guidance systems; (x) measures to promote virtual mobility, for example e-learning, e-banking, teleshopping and teleconferencing.

Financing : noting that the EU can make an important contribution to financing urban passenger and freight transport measures, for example by using the Structural and Cohesion Funds, MEPs call on the Commission to honour its responsibility in this respect. The Commission is called to draw up specific market economy-oriented instruments to create a balanced and favourable framework for sustainable mobility in urban centres. In the context of the forthcoming review of the EU budget, MEPs call for the financing of projects from EU funds to be more closely linked to conditions and requirements relating to sustainable transport and environmental protection in future. The Commission is called to work, alone or together with the European Investment Bank, for example, on examining the current and future possibilities for financing urban transport.

Individual responsibility : MEPs believe that it is necessary to encourage citizens to critically assess their behaviour as road users and, if possible, actively participate in local urban mobility forums. They call on European, national, regional and local authorities to organise education and information campaigns, targeting the younger generation in particular, to make citizens more aware of their traffic behaviour. Highlighting the growing success of the "Car-free Day", organised in the context of EU Mobility Week, MEPs call on the Commission and Member States to continue to encourage this initiative and work towards its widespread adoption.

Documents
2008/07/09
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2008/07/08
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2008/06/12
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2008/06/12
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2008/05/29
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Transport and Tourism adopted an own initiative report by Reinhard RACK (EPP-ED, AT) on ‘Towards a new culture of urban mobility’, in response to the Commission’s Green Paper on this issue.

The committee believes that the EU should define an overall strategy on urban mobility leading to a reduction in the high use of private cars and promote modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport, to support the EU's commitments on environmental protection and on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

MEPs believe that action must be taken at European level in the following areas and call for:

the development of an integrated European global approach to urban mobility which will serve as a common frame of reference for European, national, regional and local players (municipalities, citizens, businesses and industry); reliable, comparable data on all aspects of urban and suburban mobility to be gathered and effectively disseminated, taking into account future changes in the framework conditions (e.g. demographic changes, economic growth, climate change); a complete list of Community rules currently in force and an evaluation of the implementation and application by Member States of European legislation affecting urban transport, in particular public passenger transport; a list of the local initiatives to tackle some of the problems referred to in the Green Paper (e.g. road charging, green zones, safety on public transport, protection of cyclists etc.); a "European Platform for Urban Mobility" or any other effective forum that brings together all data, best practices and policy information on urban mobility in a comprehensible way.

The Commission is called upon to work with Member States to overcome national barriers to urban schemes without however proposing EU legislation, which could limit the local flexibility that is required to solve mobility problems.

Furthermore, MEPs call for specific European rules and/or guidance for the standardisation and harmonisation of: the design and functioning of green zones and road pricing; the technical and organisational requirements for the interoperability of the various modes of passenger and freight transport, the mobility of people with disabilities, the elderly, people with young children and the least affluent; the improvement of road safety; the accessibility and interoperability of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) technologies for EU-wide applications.

Lastly, they call for suitable measures to promote the exchange of best practices , particularly concerning: flexible road use concepts; the adoption of multimodal transport (road, rail, water); innovative solutions for efficient goods transport, particularly for local goods distribution; guidelines for an environmentally aware public procurement policy; improvements in clean public local passenger transport; the promotion of sustainable mobility chains: walking-cycling-carsharing-carpooling-taxi-collective/public mobility; better organisation of short-distance transport; the introduction of parking guidance systems.

Noting that the EU can make an important contribution to financing urban passenger and freight transport measures (for example by using the Structural and Cohesion Funds), MEPs call on the Commission to honour its responsibility in this respect.

The Commission is called upon to draw up specific market economy-oriented instruments to create a balanced and favourable framework for sustainable mobility in urban centres. In the context of the forthcoming review of the EU budget, MEPs call for the financing of projects from EU funds to be more closely linked to conditions and requirements relating to sustainable transport and environmental protection in future. They consider this to be a suitable instrument for promoting environmentally friendly and widely accessible transport concepts.

2008/04/18
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2008/04/10
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/04/08
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/02/27
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2008/02/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2008/02/05
   EP - PALECKIS Justas Vincas (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI
2007/10/09
   EP - RACK Reinhard (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in TRAN
2007/09/25
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2007/09/25
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE: to launch a debate on a European urban mobility strategy (Green Paper).

BACKGROUND: in the European Union, over 60% of the population lives in urban areas. Just under 85% of the EU's gross domestic product is created in urban areas. Towns and cities are the drivers of the European economy. They attract investment and jobs. They are essential to the smooth functioning of the economy. Although European towns and cities are all different they face similar challenges (increased traffic in town and city centres; air and noise pollution; road traffic accidents) and are trying to find common solutions.

Local authorities cannot face all these issues on their own; there is a need for cooperation and coordination at European level. Therefore, the Commission has decided to present a Green Paper on urban mobility in order to explore if and how it can add value to action already taken at local level.

The consultations exercise organised by the Commission in view of the preparation of the

Green Paper provided information resulting in a set of policy options and 25 open questions about these options. With this Green Paper, the Commission launches a second consultation process until 15 March 2008, with a view to presenting, in early autumn 2008, an Action Plan which will identify a series of concrete actions and initiatives towards better and sustainable urban mobility. For each proposed action, the Action Plan will indicate a time line for implementation and the allocation of responsibilities between the various actors.

CONTENT: urban mobility should make possible the economic development of towns and cities, the quality of life of their inhabitants and the protection of their environment. To this end, European towns and cities face five challenges which need to be met as part of an integrated approach.

(1) Towards free-flowing towns and cities : in order to reduce congestion in towns and cities, alternatives to private car use, such as walking, cycling, collective transport or the use of the motorbike and scooter, should be made attractive and safe. Citizens should be able to optimise their travel through efficient links between the different modes of transport. Authorities should promote co-modality and reallocate space that becomes available after congestion mitigation measures. An adequate parking policy is also necessary to reduce the use of cars in the centre of the cities. Finally, intelligent and adaptive traffic management systems have also proven their efficiency in reducing congestion.

Issues : (1) Should a "labelling'" scheme be envisaged to recognise the efforts of pioneering cities to combat congestion and improve living conditions? (2) What measures could be taken to promote walking and cycling as real alternatives to the car? (3) What could be done to promote a modal shift towards sustainable transport modes in cities?

(2) Towards greener towns and cities : CO2 emissions from new passenger cars sold in the EU decreased by 12.4% between 1995 and 2004, following a voluntary agreement between the European Commission and the industry. To enable the EU to reach its 120g objective by 2012, the Commission, in a Communication of February 2007, outlined a comprehensive new strategy. However, despite these improvements, environmental conditions are still not satisfactory: local authorities are facing serious problems to meet the requirements on air quality, such as the limits of particulates and nitrogen oxides in ambient air. In addition, noise reduction at source could be reduced by tightening EU standards for noise emissions from road and rail vehicles and from tyres. Extension, rehabilitation and upgrading of clean urban public transport, as well as other sustainable urban transport projects, should also continue to be promoted and supported by the EU.

Issues : (1) How could the use of clean and energy efficient technologies in urban transport be further increased? (2) How could joint green procurement be promoted? (3) Should criteria or guidance be set out for the definition of Green Zones and their restriction measures? (4) How could eco-driving be further promoted?

3) Towards smarter urban transport : European towns and cities are confronted with a constant increase in freight and passenger flows. However, there are substantial limits to the development of the infrastructure needed to cope with this increase, as a result of a lack of space and environmental constraints. Against this background, stakeholders have highlighted that Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) applications are currently underexploited for the efficient management of urban mobility, or are developed without due attention to interoperability.

Issues : (1) Should better information services for travellers be developed and promoted? (2) Are further actions needed to ensure standardisation of interfaces and interoperability of ITS applications in towns and cities? Which applications should take priority when action is taken? (3) Regarding ITS, how could the exchange of information and best practices between all involved parties be improved?

4) Towards accessible urban transport : accessibility primarily concerns people with reduced mobility, disabled people, elderly people, families with young children, and young children themselves: they should have easy access to urban transport infrastructure. Accessibility also refers to the quality of access that people and businesses have to the urban mobility system, made up of infrastructure and services.

According to stakeholders, there is insufficient attention to co-modality and a lack of integrated collective transport solutions, such as suburban railway systems, tram-train systems, and well-located Park&Ride facilities at collective transport terminals in the outskirts of towns and cities.

Issues : (1) How can the quality of collective transport in European towns and cities be increased? (2) Should the development of dedicated lanes for collective transport be encouraged? (3) Is there a need to introduce a European Charter on rights and obligations for passengers using collective transport? (4) What measures could be undertaken to better integrate passenger and freight transport in research and in urban mobility planning? (5) How can better coordination between urban and interurban transport and land use planning be achieved?

5) Towards safe and secure urban transport : in 2005, 41 600 people were killed on the roads in the EU. This is far from the joint target of no more than 25 000 fatalities a year by 2010. The European road safety policy covers behavioural, vehicle and infrastructure issues (the safety and security of vehicles and infrastructures must be improved).

Issues : (1) What further actions should be undertaken to help cities and towns meet their road safety and personal security challenges in urban transport? (2) How can operators and citizens be better informed on the potential of advanced infrastructure management and vehicle technologies for safety? (3) Should automatic radar devices adapted to the urban environment be developed and should their use be promoted? (4) Is video surveillance a good tool for safety and security in urban transport?

Finally, regarding financial resources , the Paper poses the following questions, amongst others: how could existing financial instruments such as structural and cohesion funds be better used in a coherent way to support integrated and sustainable urban transport? How could economic instruments, in particular market-based instruments, support clean and energy efficient urban transport? Should towns and cities be encouraged to use urban charging? In the longer term, what added value could targeted European support for financing clean and energy efficient urban transport bring?

2007/07/17
   EP - OLBRYCHT Jan (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Votes

Rapport Rack A6-0252/2008 - am. 6

2008/07/09 Outcome: +: 363, -: 327, 0: 3
FR NL DK BE SE PT BG LT ES FI EE AT IT MT CY EL SI SK LU GB HU LV IE CZ RO DE PL
Total
65
24
13
22
16
21
16
13
51
13
6
16
62
5
6
20
5
13
5
66
23
9
13
21
31
89
49
icon: PSE PSE
197

Lithuania PSE

2

Estonia PSE

3

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
90

Sweden ALDE

3

Estonia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2
2

Latvia ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

France GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
34

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Romania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
13

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3
icon: NI NI
23

Belgium NI

3

Bulgaria NI

For (1)

1

Austria NI

1

Italy NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
2
icon: UEN UEN
42

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
259

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

3

Rapport Rack A6-0252/2008 - am. 7

2008/07/09 Outcome: -: 612, +: 53, 0: 17
LU EE CY LV SI MT AT LT IE BG FI DK SE SK BE EL CZ NL HU PT RO IT ES PL FR GB DE
Total
6
6
5
9
5
5
16
13
11
18
14
13
16
13
20
19
17
26
22
22
31
59
49
49
64
65
89
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
34

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Romania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
12

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Poland IND/DEM

3

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2
3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
26

Austria NI

1

Slovakia NI

3

Belgium NI

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

2
2
icon: UEN UEN
39

Lithuania UEN

2

Ireland UEN

3

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
89

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

3

Hungary ALDE

2
2
icon: PSE PSE
195

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PSE

For (1)

3

Lithuania PSE

2

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Finland PSE

For (1)

3

Slovakia PSE

3

Czechia PSE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
252

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Rack A6-0252/2008 - am. 8

2008/07/09 Outcome: -: 399, +: 269, 0: 6
PT FR SE ES AT BE MT LU EE DK CY BG FI NL EL SI IE SK HU LV CZ LT GB IT DE RO PL
Total
22
65
16
49
14
19
5
6
6
13
6
18
13
24
18
5
13
13
21
9
21
13
62
58
91
30
44
icon: PSE PSE
196

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
31

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

2

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Italy Verts/ALE

1

Romania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

France GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
3

Ireland GUE/NGL

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
13

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4

Poland IND/DEM

3
icon: NI NI
24

Austria NI

1

Slovakia NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

6

Italy NI

2
2
icon: UEN UEN
36

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
86

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

Against (2)

3
2

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
253

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Finland PPE-DE

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Rapport Rack A6-0252/2008 - am. 9/1

2008/07/09 Outcome: -: 405, +: 287, 0: 6
PT FR SE AT ES MT NL IE DK EE EL CY BG BE LU CZ FI LV SI IT SK HU LT DE RO GB PL
Total
22
69
15
16
50
5
26
13
13
6
21
6
18
22
6
20
14
9
5
60
12
22
13
88
31
66
50
icon: PSE PSE
200

Ireland PSE

1

Estonia PSE

3

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
34

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Romania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
36

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

France GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
14

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4

Poland IND/DEM

3
icon: NI NI
26

Austria NI

1

Belgium NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

2

Slovakia NI

Against (2)

2
2
icon: UEN UEN
39

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
92

Sweden ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1
2

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
257
4

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Rapport Rack A6-0252/2008 - am. 4

2008/07/09 Outcome: -: 389, +: 285, 0: 14
PL IE RO LV DE CZ HU SI LU EL SK MT BG CY EE BE LT AT SE PT NL FI DK ES IT GB FR
Total
48
12
31
9
86
20
23
5
6
21
13
5
18
6
6
22
12
16
15
21
25
13
12
50
60
66
67
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
252

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

Against (1)

3

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1
2

Finland PPE-DE

Against (1)

3

Denmark PPE-DE

1
icon: UEN UEN
40

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Abstain (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
13

Poland IND/DEM

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4

France IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

Czechia NI

1

Slovakia NI

3

Belgium NI

3

Austria NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

6
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
34

Romania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

2

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
90

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

3
2
icon: PSE PSE
197

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Slovakia PSE

3

Estonia PSE

3

Lithuania PSE

2

Finland PSE

3

Rapport Rack A6-0252/2008 - am. 5/1

2008/07/09 Outcome: -: 398, +: 277, 0: 9
FR PT AT ES BE SE NL EL MT EE DK CY FI BG LU SI HU CZ IE SK LV LT IT RO DE GB PL
Total
67
22
16
49
21
16
26
21
5
6
12
6
12
18
5
5
22
19
13
13
9
13
61
31
86
63
47
icon: PSE PSE
191

Estonia PSE

3

Czechia PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
36

France GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
33

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Italy Verts/ALE

1

Romania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
14

France IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Greece IND/DEM

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4

Poland IND/DEM

3
icon: NI NI
26

Austria NI

1

Belgium NI

3

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Slovakia NI

3

Italy NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

5
2
icon: UEN UEN
39

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
91

Austria ALDE

1
2

Sweden ALDE

3

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Cyprus ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Hungary ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1