BETA


2008/2055(INI) Mid-term review of the 2007-2013 financial framework

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead BUDG BÖGE Reimer (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion AFET GAHLER Michael (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion DEVE BERMAN Thijs (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion CONT BÖSCH Herbert (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion ITRE RÜBIG Paul (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion REGI JELEVA Rumiana (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion AGRI DE LANGE Esther (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052, RoP 052-p4

Events

2009/10/08
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2009/03/25
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2009/03/25
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 604 votes to 48, with 40 abstentions, a resolution on the Mid-Term Review of the 2007-2013 Financial Framework.

In its resolution, the European Parliament notes that it has intensively contributed to the setting-up of the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management while, in parallel, allowing the continuity of Community legislation through the launching of a huge number of multiannual programmes. In this context, the Parliament believes that most of the recommendations of the Parliament's report are still valid because they were based on a bottom-up approach that linked tasks and promises with the necessary budgetary means. That is why the plenary is of the opinion that some broad principles and orientations based on past experience should be transmitted to the incoming Parliament (June 2009).

Moreover, the Parliament considers that the current context and a number of uncertainties linked to the ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon on the one hand, and, on the other, the end of the current parliamentary term, the outcome of the European elections and the setting-up of the new Commission, will not permit detailed positions aiming at an ambitious review to be taken in the coming months. It stresses, though, that an ambitious review of the budget should be an urgent priority for the new Parliament and Commission.

In this context, the Parliament is of the opinion that a realistic mid-term review should develop in three steps:

resolving deficits and leftovers in the context of the annual budgetary procedures, if possible through more flexibility and, if necessary, using part of the margin left below the own resources ceiling ; preparation of a possible adjustment and prolongation of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) until 2015/2016 in order to allow for a smooth transition for a system of an MFF of five years' duration which gives to each Parliament and each Commission, during each of their respective terms of office, the political responsibility for each MFF; moreover, possible adjustments and prolongation of the current programmes as provided for by legislation (2010-2011) in line with the possible prolongation of the MFF; preparation of the next MFF starting in 2016/2017 (this phase will be the responsibility of the Parliament elected in 2014).

The Parliament is aware that, since the final agreement on the IIA was reached, a need for additional financing for EU political priorities has arisen (Galileo, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and the food facility). It recalls that the Council itself has been unable to implement the European Council’s agreement seeking to allocate EUR 5 billion from the EU budget to the economic recovery and support programme. It was therefore essential to adapt the financial framework in light of the additional needs.

(1) General principles : the Parliament recalls that:

the own-resources ceiling represents 1.31% of EU GNI in commitments and 1.24% of EU GNI in payments; every year significant margins are left below the ceiling set up by the financial framework, notably in payments (EUR 8.3 billion in 2007, EUR 13 billion in 2008 and EUR 7.8 billion in 2009); huge margins exist between the MFF ceiling and the ceiling of the EU own resources (EUR 36.6 billion in 2010, EUR 44.2 billion in 2011, EUR 45 billion in 2012 and EUR 50.6 billion in 2013).

In the light of these observations, the Parliament confirms its position of March 2007 in which it stressed that "the political link between the reform of revenue and a review of expenditure is inevitable and perfectly reasonable". The two processes should be run in parallel with the aim of merging them in a global and integrated reform for a new system of EU financing and spending at the latest for the MFF starting in 2016/2017. The Parliament therefore calls for consideration of a system whereby benefits and burdens between the Member States come to a generally more adequate level.

EU resources must not be affected by the current world economic crisis : the Parliament believes that the general magnitude of EU resources must not be affected by the current world economic crisis, even if the Member States' GNI will cease to follow an ever increasing curve. EU spending should therefore concentrate on policies with a clear European added value, based on solidarity between European peoples. It also stresses that sound financial management (by the Member States and the Commission) matching political priorities and financial needs should remain a priority for the coming years; Optimising spending : according to the Parliament, it is essential that EU spending be re-evaluated and optimised in order to achieve the highest value added and most effective EU action. More flexibility within and across budgetary headings is therefore an absolute necessity, not only to face the new challenges of the EU but also to facilitate the decision-making process within the Institutions. The Parliament criticises the irrational behaviour of the Council which repeatedly opposes the use of the possibility to revise the financial framework in the event of unforeseen circumstances, as clearly provided for in the IIA; Better implementation of the budget : the Parliament reiterates its will to see a concrete and rapid improvement of the Member States' and the Commission's implementation of EU policies and of the cohesion policy in particular. It is ready to take political and administrative measures, should the current situation remain unchanged and suggests that simplification of procedures should be a priority; Reform of the financing system : the Parliament regrets the slow progress of the debate on reforming the EU budget financing system, which has become even more urgent as a result of the economic crisis. It regrets, in particular, that the opportunity of establishing a system for auctioning greenhouse gas emission rights was not seized so as to launch a fundamental political debate on allocation of the new public resources created by EU decisions .

(2) Specific observations : the Parliament is determined to find appropriate financing for the new or additional policies which might follow from the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (such as energy and space policies, research under heading 1a; judicial cooperation under heading 3a; youth, sport, information and communication policy, public health under heading 3b; humanitarian aid, European External Action Service under heading 4). Once again, it recalls that headings 1a, 3 and 4 are already under-financed in the current MFF. In this context, additional policies should not change the balance between the main categories of the current MFF nor jeopardise the existing priorities. It also stresses that, should some Member States continue to insist on a "1% approach", there will be no budgetary way to finance new priorities which should not be acceptable for the Council and not at all acceptable for Parliament .

Providing the means to fulfil ambitions : the Parliament believes that providing the Union with the means to fulfil its political ambition (in the areas of energy security and the fight against climate change) should be part of a short-term review. It is therefore ready to examine the possibility of the creation of a specific fund for that purpose . In the long-term, the Parliament calls for the creation of a new category bundling all budget-relevant policies in the fight against climate change. According to the plenary, the current context of economic slowdown should not be used as a pretext to delay investments in green technologies; 3 % of EU GNI by the year 2010 : other innovations have been proposed, such as pursuing the target of an increase of Research and Innovation expenditure to 3% of EU GNI by the year 2010;

Resolving the problem of the under-financing of certain headings : the Parliament recalls that heading 4 "The EU as a global partner" remains chronically under-financed. It calls on the Commission to make proposals for: financing with a long-term perspective to help reach the Millennium Development Goals; commitments resulting from an international climate change agreement independent of development aid; preventing conflicts and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms; a credible neighbourhood policy; and for CFSP/ESDP (subject to adequate discharge procedures), in order to avoid recurrent and endless negotiations with the Council during the annual budgetary procedures. The plenary highlights that new needs should be financed with additional resources.

Documents
2009/03/25
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2009/03/24
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2009/02/26
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2009/02/26
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2009/02/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2009/02/24
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Budgets adopted the report drawn up by Reimer BÖGE (EPP-ED, DE) on the Mid-Term Review of the 2007-2013 Financial Framework, noting that the current context and a number of uncertainties linked to the ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon on the one hand, and, on the other, the end of the current parliamentary term, the outcome of the European elections and the setting-up of the new Commission in the current economic context, will not allow for detailed positions to be taken aimed at reviewing the budget in the coming months. The committee stresses, though, that an ambitious review of the budget should be an urgent priority for the new Parliament and Commission.

In this context, MEPs are of the opinion that a realistic mid-term review should develop in three steps:

resolving deficits and leftovers in the context of the annual budgetary procedures, if possible through more flexibility and, if necessary, using part of the margin left below the own resources ceiling ; preparation of a possible adjustment and prolongation of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) until 2015/2016 in order to allow for a smooth transition for a system of an MFF of five years' duration which gives to each Parliament and each Commission, during each of their respective terms of office, the political responsibility for each MFF; moreover, possible adjustments and prolongation of the current programmes as provided for by legislation (2010-2011) in line with the possible prolongation of the MFF; preparation of the next MFF starting in 2016/2017 (this phase will be the responsibility of the Parliament elected in 2014).

Overall, MEPs consider that the general framework established by the Interinstitutional Agreement on Budgetary Discipline (IIA of 17 May 2006) remains valid. However, there is still space for improvement such as fulfilling the Statement of Assurance (DAS), simplification of rules and improvement of the use of funds.

MEPs are aware that, since the final agreement on the IIA was reached, a need for additional financing for EU political priorities has arisen (Galileo, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and the food facility). MEPs also note that the Council itself has been unable to implement the European Council’s agreement seeking to allocate EUR 5 billion from the EU budget to the economic recovery and support programme. It was therefore essential to adapt the financial framework in light of the additional needs.

(1) General principles : MEPs recall that:

the own-resources ceiling represents 1.31% of EU GNI in commitments and 1.24% of EU GNI in payments; every year significant margins are left below the ceiling set up by the financial framework, notably in payments (EUR 8.3 billion in 2007, EUR 13 billion in 2008 and EUR 7.8 billion in 2009); huge margins exist between the MFF ceiling and the ceiling of the EU own resources (EUR 36.6 billion in 2010, EUR 44.2 billion in 2011, EUR 45 billion in 2012 and EUR 50.6 billion in 2013).

In the light of these observations, MEPs confirm their position of March 2007 in which they stressed that "the political link between the reform of revenue and a review of expenditure is inevitable and perfectly reasonable". The two processes should be run in parallel with the aim of merging them in a global and integrated reform for a new system of EU financing and spending at the latest for the MFF starting in 2016/2017. MEPs therefore call for consideration of a system whereby benefits and burdens between the Member States come to a generally more adequate level.

EU resources must not be affected by the current world economic crisis : MEPs believe that the general magnitude of EU resources must not be affected by the current world economic crisis, even if the Member States' GNI will cease to follow an ever increasing curve. EU spending should therefore concentrate on policies with a clear European added value, based on solidarity between European peoples. MEPs also stress that sound financial management (by the Member States and the Commission) matching political priorities and financial needs should remain a priority for the coming years. Optimising spending : according to MEPs, it is essential that EU spending be re-evaluated and optimised in order to achieve the highest value added and most effective EU action. More flexibility within and across budgetary headings is therefore an absolute necessity, not only to face the new challenges of the EU but also to facilitate the decision-making process within the Institutions. MEPs criticise the irrational behaviour of the Council which repeatedly opposes the use of the possibility to revise the financial framework in the event of unforeseen circumstances, as clearly provided for in the IIA. Better implementation of the budget : MEPs reiterate their will to see a concrete and rapid improvement of the Member States' and the Commission's implementation of EU policies and of the cohesion policy in particular. They are ready to take political and administrative measures, should the current situation remain unchanged and suggest that simplification of procedures should be a priority. Reform of the financing system : MEPs regret the slow progress of the debate on reforming the EU budget financing system, which has become even more urgent as a result of the economic crisis. They regret, in particular, that the opportunity of establishing a system for auctioning greenhouse gas emission rights was not seized so as to launch a fundamental political debate on allocation of the new public resources created by EU decisions .

(2) Specific observations : MEPs are determined to find appropriate financing for the new or additional policies which might follow from the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (such as energy and space policies, research under heading 1a; judicial cooperation under heading 3a; youth, sport, information and communication policy, public health under heading 3b; humanitarian aid, European External Action Service under heading 4). Once again, MEPs recall that headings 1a, 3 and 4 are already under-financed in the current MFF. In this context, additional policies should not change the balance between the main categories of the current MFF nor jeopardise the existing priorities.

Providing the means to fulfil ambitions : MEPs believe that providing the Union with the means to fulfil its political ambition (in the areas of energy security and the fight against climate change) should be part of a short-term review. They are therefore ready to examine the possibility of the creation of a specific fund for that purpose . In the long-term, MEPs call for the creation of a new category bundling all budget-relevant policies in the fight against climate change. 3% of EU GNI by the year 2010 : other innovations have been proposed, such as pursuing the target of an increase of Research and Innovation expenditure to 3% of EU GNI by the year 2010. With regard to the under-financing of heading 4, MEPs call for proposals for: financing to help reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); commitments resulting from an international climate change agreement; preventing conflicts and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms; a credible neighbourhood policy; and CFSP/ESDP, in order to avoid recurrent and endless negotiations with the Council during the annual budgetary procedures. Lastly, MEPs reiterate their will to integrate the European Development Fund into the general budget.

2009/02/18
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2009/02/18
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2009/02/11
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2009/02/02
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2009/01/27
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2009/01/21
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/10/09
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/05/28
   EP - JELEVA Rumiana (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2008/05/14
   EP - RÜBIG Paul (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE
2008/04/22
   EP - GAHLER Michael (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
2008/03/31
   EP - DE LANGE Esther (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2008/03/13
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2008/02/27
   EP - BERMAN Thijs (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE
2008/02/26
   EP - BÖSCH Herbert (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2008/01/23
   EP - BÖGE Reimer (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG

Documents

Votes

Rapport BÖGE A6-0110/2009 - am 7

2009/03/25 Outcome: -: 546, +: 124, 0: 17
DK CY SE ?? LU MT CZ EE NL LV AT SI IE SK FI LT BG BE EL HU PT GB RO ES PL DE IT FR
Total
14
2
16
1
5
4
23
5
25
8
15
7
11
12
14
11
17
22
21
21
22
71
29
46
44
87
67
67
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

5

Romania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Italy Verts/ALE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

France GUE/NGL

2
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

Denmark IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

France IND/DEM

2
icon: NI NI
27

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Austria NI

Against (1)

2

Slovakia NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

3

Belgium NI

2

Poland NI

1
3
icon: UEN UEN
36

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Ireland UEN

3

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
85

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

4

Cyprus ALDE

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Austria ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Hungary ALDE

2

Spain ALDE

2
icon: PSE PSE
192

Luxembourg PSE

Against (1)

1

Malta PSE

2

Czechia PSE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Estonia PSE

3

Netherlands PSE

5

Slovenia PSE

Against (1)

1

Ireland PSE

Against (1)

1

Slovakia PSE

Abstain (1)

3

Finland PSE

3

Lithuania PSE

2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
252

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

2

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

4

Ireland PPE-DE

4

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Rapport BÖGE A6-0110/2009 - par 17

2009/03/25 Outcome: +: 579, -: 92, 0: 6
DE GB ES FR PL IT RO HU NL BE BG PT AT FI SK EL DK LT SI SE LU EE MT IE ?? LV CY CZ
Total
86
71
45
64
44
65
28
21
25
22
17
20
15
14
12
20
13
12
7
16
6
5
4
11
1
8
2
23
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
253

Denmark PPE-DE

1
2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
183

Lithuania PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
85
2

Austria ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
40

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Romania Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: UEN UEN
36

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2

Ireland UEN

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
18

France IND/DEM

2

Poland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
27

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

7

Poland NI

1

Italy NI

Against (1)

3

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

Against (1)

2

Slovakia NI

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

France GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Rapport BÖGE A6-0110/2009 - par 19

2009/03/25 Outcome: +: 573, -: 77, 0: 32
DE IT ES FR PL GB RO HU BE NL PT BG SK LT FI EL AT DK LV SI IE LU EE MT SE ?? CY CZ
Total
85
67
45
66
44
71
28
20
21
25
22
17
14
12
14
20
15
14
8
7
11
6
5
4
16
1
2
22
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
251
2

Denmark PPE-DE

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
188

Lithuania PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Czechia PSE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
84
2

Austria ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
38

Lithuania UEN

2

Denmark UEN

Abstain (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
39

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Romania Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
29

Italy NI

Against (1)

3

Poland NI

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

7

Belgium NI

2

Bulgaria NI

3

Austria NI

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

2

Poland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Greece IND/DEM

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
34

France GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Rapport BÖGE A6-0110/2009 - am 2

2009/03/25 Outcome: +: 342, -: 329, 0: 15
FR PL IT ES LT DK BG BE EE LV FI NL PT SI CY LU AT MT GB ?? RO HU SK IE EL SE DE CZ
Total
66
44
66
46
11
14
17
22
5
8
14
25
22
7
2
6
15
4
70
1
29
22
14
11
20
16
87
22
icon: PSE PSE
189

Lithuania PSE

2

Estonia PSE

3

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Sweden PSE

Abstain (1)

5

Czechia PSE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
85

Estonia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

1
2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

Against (2)

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Romania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
37

Lithuania UEN

1

Denmark UEN

Against (1)

1

Ireland UEN

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

2

Poland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

3

Denmark IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Greece IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
29

Poland NI

1
3

Bulgaria NI

3

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
34

France GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
252

Lithuania PPE-DE

2

Denmark PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

For (1)

4

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

Against (2)

2

PPE-DE

Against (1)

1

Ireland PPE-DE

4

Rapport BÖGE A6-0110/2009 - par 21

2009/03/25 Outcome: +: 618, -: 62, 0: 12
DE IT FR ES GB RO NL HU PT BE BG EL FI AT SK DK LT IE PL LV SI LU EE MT CZ SE CY ??
Total
88
66
66
47
71
28
25
22
22
22
17
21
14
15
14
14
12
11
45
8
7
6
5
4
23
16
2
1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
254

Denmark PPE-DE

1
2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
192

Lithuania PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
85
2

Austria ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

2

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Romania Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

France GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
37

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

Against (1)

2
icon: NI NI
29

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

2

Poland NI

1

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Greece IND/DEM

1

Denmark IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Rapport BÖGE A6-0110/2009 - par 22

2009/03/25 Outcome: +: 591, -: 81, 0: 8
DE IT FR ES RO NL HU PT BE BG DK SE FI SK AT EL LT PL LV GB SI EE LU IE CZ MT CY ??
Total
86
65
66
47
27
25
22
20
22
17
14
16
14
14
15
20
12
44
8
70
6
5
5
11
23
3
2
1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
250

Denmark PPE-DE

1
2

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2

PPE-DE

For (1)

1
icon: PSE PSE
188

Lithuania PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Ireland PSE

1

Czechia PSE

2

Malta PSE

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
85
2

Sweden ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
40

Italy Verts/ALE

1

Romania Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

France GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
36

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2

Ireland UEN

3
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

2

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Greece IND/DEM

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

Ireland IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
29

Italy NI

Against (1)

3

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

1

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1

Rapport BÖGE A6-0110/2009 - am 6

2009/03/25 Outcome: +: 403, -: 262, 0: 17
GB FR IT ES BE FI DK NL LT SE PT BG LV EE MT IE CY AT SI LU ?? RO SK HU CZ DE EL PL
Total
68
67
65
47
22
14
14
24
12
16
21
17
8
4
4
11
2
15
7
5
1
28
14
22
22
87