BETA


2011/2035(INI) EC 5th cohesion report and strategy for the post-2013 cohesion policy

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI PIEPER Markus (icon: PPE PPE) STAVRAKAKIS Georgios (icon: S&D S&D), PAKARINEN Riikka (icon: ALDE ALDE), SCHROEDTER Elisabeth (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), VLASÁK Oldřich (icon: ECR ECR), HOARAU Elie (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion CONT VAUGHAN Derek (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion EMPL LOPE FONTAGNÉ Verónica (icon: PPE PPE) Filiz HYUSMENOVA (icon: ALDE ALDE), Gabriele ZIMMER (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion FEMM CYMAŃSKI Tadeusz (icon: ECR ECR) Anna ZÁBORSKÁ (icon: PPE PPE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 52

Events

2011/11/15
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/07/05
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/07/05
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 506 votes to 48, with 101 abstentions a resolution on the fifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy. The resolution follows on from the Communication of the Commission of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy’.

1) Cohesion policy added value and investment priorities : Parliament calls for cohesion and structural policy programmes to place more emphasis on European added value. It deems such added value to be achieved where:

a) EU projects bring about a sustainable improvement in the economic, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of disadvantaged, less-developed regions, and where that improvement would not have been achievable without the European stimulus;

b) projects supported at national, regional and local level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of European integration, economic growth, research, environmental protection, culture, resource management, sport, demographic change, sustainability of energy supply, social cohesion or cross-border development and this would not have been achieved without the European stimulus.

Members make the following observations:

the achievement of European objectives in accordance with a decentralised approach and the principle of multi-level governance and shared management is one of the major advantages of cohesion policy ; transparency should be introduced (particularly regarding the list of beneficiaries) as a guiding cross-sectoral principle in the cohesion programming and decision-making processes in the next funding period; major imbalances still exist – and among/in some Member States are actually growing, inter alia as a result of the economic and financial crisis and cohesion policy must therefore continue to concentrate on reducing disparities and implementing harmonious and sustainable development for all regions of the Union , regardless of the Member State in which they are located; Member States and the Commission must retain special forms of preference in respect of the particularly disadvantaged types of region referred to in the TFEU (outermost regions, northernmost regions with a very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions); targeting Structural Fund resources in a broad territorial approach must also serve to compensate for structural weaknesses in the stronger regions; macro-regional strategies afford a major opportunity to harness forms of supranational potential, improve cooperation between the different levels of governance and take a joint approach towards shared challenges such as environmental protection or the use of resources and development capacities; urban areas and regions – including capital cities and their regions – play a key role in achieving the economic, environmental and social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; the dynamic process launched during the previous programming period for Integrated Urban Programmes in addressing problems of areas with disadvantaged communities should be supported; structural and cohesion funding should also take into account the educational, cultural and socio-political challenges of the Europe 2020 strategy, while remaining in line with the overarching EU objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion. Members call for further place-based local development approaches that could serve as models to be introduced, while retaining existing national and regional competences; cohesion policy should make a greater contribution to the rapid development of environmental technology and renewables ; the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in the cohesion of European regions and development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea and designated E-roads must be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions and outermost regions; the fundamental principles of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBAE) must be considered one of the bases of cohesion policy, and t these principles should be applied by Member States and regions in the definition of their operational programmes.

2) System of objectives and framework for programme planning: Parliament takes the view that the Europe 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the three objectives system (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation). It stresses that the ESF is the most important instrument for the implementation of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy and that the fund can contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the central priorities of that strategy, namely employment, transition to a sustainable economy, a lower number of school drop-outs, fighting against poverty, discrimination and social exclusion.

Parliament takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with a per capita GDP below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (per capita GNI below 90% of the EU average). It considers that the competent national and regional authorities should be given scope for the use – at the appropriate decision-making level, for each objective and in a manner reflecting geographical concentrations – of additional indicators, to be agreed in the development and investment partnership contracts, with which to assess the social, economic, environmental, demographic and geographical challenges which they face.

Cohesion policy must continue to target as a priority those regions that lag furthest behind . The neediest regions should be granted an appropriate share of the funding available under Objective 1 (Convergence).

Parliament calls on the Commission to present a proposal for the duration of the next programming period that will ensure the provision of adjustable, robust and proportionate transitional assistance for regions no longer coming under the Convergence Objective , in order to address their specific situation, and for regions with per capita GDPbetween 75% and 90% of the EU average , in the form of an intermediate category, in order to avoid unequal treatment of regions in spite of their similar situations.

Parliament calls for a strengthening of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment) through its horizontal nature to achieve results on a limited number of EU priorities, such as support for SMEs, green innovations, local economies, education and training, infrastructure, sustainable mobility, renewable energies and energy supply, resource efficiency and social inclusion.

Furthermore, efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter-regional and trans-national), and Parliament calls for the relevant share of structural funds to be increased to 7%.

With a view to increasing synergies, the resolution calls for greater integration of sectoral policies (transport, energy, research, environment, education) under the cohesion and structural policies, so as to achieve greater effectiveness and better coordination between the Structural Funds, the CIP and the Framework Programmes for Research and Development. It suggests that multi-fund programming could contribute to a more integrated approach.

It also calls for a common strategic framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the framework programmes, the EAFRD and the EFF, for the post-2013 funding period. The Common Strategic Framework should be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure.

3) Incentives, conditionality, result-orientation, co-financing and financing options : the resolution calls for funding under the development and investment partnerships to be made subject to certain specific commitments predetermined in a dialogue between the Commission and Member States. Those predetermined conditions must require Member States to undertake reforms in order to ensure that funds are used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy.

Members reject, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform . All conditions should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership. Any new conditionality must not result in extra administration burdens for the actors involved.

The resolution calls for the effectiveness and transparency of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and asks for the ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators, directly linked to the purpose of the funding, which measure, in particular, success in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and integration into high-quality employment. Parliament emphasises that the provision of grants must always be retained as an option and that it must be the responsibility of those involved on the ground to use the funding mix best suited to regional needs.

4) Budget, financial processes, reducing red tape, budgetary discipline and financial control : Parliament takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth regarding cohesion policy and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020) . It calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions so that the EU can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters).

Parliament calls for the adoption of s tricter rules on the monitoring of irregularities in the use of the Structural Funds in respect of Member States. It also calls for the Commission to have, from the start of the next programming period, greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures . Members consider, in this connection, that there is an urgent need for simplification and clarification of the administration of support programmes, in particular in the area of financial implementation and financial control.

5) Neighbourhood and enlargement policies : the resolution emphasises the importance of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) for cohesion policy with regard to cross-border cooperation with states outside the EU. It calls on the Commission to look into the feasibility of establishing better synergies between ERDF initiatives, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the European Development Fund (EDF).

Parliament reiterates its call for the Committee on Regional Development to be involved in and share responsibility for determining the form that these instruments will take in future.

Documents
2011/07/05
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/06/23
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/06/06
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/06/06
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/05/26
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Regional Development adopted an own-initiative report by Markus PIEPER (EPP, DE) on the Commission’s fifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy.

The report follows the Communication of the Commission of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy’.

(1) Cohesion policy added value and investment priorities : Members call for cohesion and structural policy programmes to place more emphasis on European added value. deems such added value to be achieved where:

a) EU projects bring about a sustainable improvement in the economic, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of disadvantaged, less-developed regions, and where that improvement would not have been achievable without the European stimulus;

b) projects supported at national, regional and local level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of European integration, economic growth, research, environmental protection, culture, resource management, sport, demographic change, sustainability of energy supply, social cohesion or cross-border development and this would not have been achieved without the European stimulus.

The committee makes the following comments:

the achievement of European objectives in accordance with a decentralised approach and the principle of multi-level governance and shared management is one of the major advantages of cohesion policy ; transparency should be introduced (particularly regarding the list of beneficiaries) as a guiding cross-sectoral principle in the cohesion programming and decision-making processes in the next funding period; major imbalances still exist – and among/in some Member States are actually growing, inter alia as a result of the economic and financial crisis and cohesion policy must therefore continue to concentrate on reducing disparities and implementing harmonious and sustainable development for all regions of the Union , regardless of the Member State in which they are located; Member States and the Commission must retain special forms of preference in respect of the particularly disadvantaged types of region referred to in the TFEU (outermost regions, northernmost regions with a very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions); targeting Structural Fund resources in a broad territorial approach must also serve to compensate for structural weaknesses in the stronger regions; macro-regional strategies afford a major opportunity to harness forms of supranational potential, improve cooperation between the different levels of governance and take a joint approach towards shared challenges such as environmental protection or the use of resources and development capacities; urban areas and regions – including capital cities and their regions – play a key role in achieving the economic, environmental and social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; the dynamic process launched during the previous programming period for Integrated Urban Programmes in addressing problems of areas with disadvantaged communities should be supported; given the dynamic influence of towns and cities on economic development in the regions and in stimulating the economy in surrounding rural areas, Member States should guarantee the resources needed to implement the urban and sub-urban projects required ; structural and cohesion funding should also take into account the educational, cultural and socio-political challenges of the Europe 2020 strategy, while remaining in line with the overarching EU objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion. Members call for further place-based local development approaches that could serve as models to be introduced, while retaining existing national and regional competences; cohesion policy should make a greater contribution to the rapid development of environmental technology and renewables ; the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in the cohesion of European regions and development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea and designated E-roads must be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions and outermost regions ; the fundamental principles of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBAE) must be considered one of the bases of cohesion policy, and t these principles should be applied by Member States and regions in the definition of their operational programmes.

(2) System of objectives and framework for programme planning: Members take the view that the Europe 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the three objectives system (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation). They stress that the ESF is the most important instrument for the implementation of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy and that the fund can contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the central priorities of that strategy, namely employment, transition to a sustainable economy, a lower number of school drop-outs, fighting against poverty, discrimination and social exclusion.

The committee takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with a per capita GDP below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (per capita GNI below 90% of the EU average). Cohesion policy must continue to target as a priority those regions that lag furthest behind. The neediest regions should be granted an appropriate share of the funding available under Objective 1 (Convergence).

Members call on the Commission to present a proposal for the duration of the next programming period that will ensure the provision of adjustable, robust and proportionate transitional assistance for regions no longer coming under the Convergence Objective , in order to address their specific situation, and for regions with per capita GDP between 75% and 90% of the EU average , in the form of an intermediate category, in order to avoid unequal treatment of regions in spite of their similar situations.

Members call for a strengthening of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment) through its horizontal nature to achieve results on a limited number of EU priorities, such as support for SMEs, green innovations, local economies, education and training, infrastructure, sustainable mobility, renewable energies and energy supply, resource efficiency and social inclusion.

Furthermore, efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter-regional and trans-national), and the committee calls for the relevant share of structural funds to be increased to 7%.

With a view to increasing synergies, the report asks for greater integration of sectoral policies (transport, energy, research, environment, education) under the cohesion and structural policies, so as to achieve greater effectiveness and better coordination between the Structural Funds, the CIP and the Framework Programmes for Research and Development. It suggests that multi-fund programming could contribute to a more integrated approach.

It also calls for a common strategic framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the framework programmes, the EAFRD and the EFF, for the post-2013 funding period. The Common Strategic Framework should be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure.

(3) Incentives, conditionality, result-orientation, co-financing and financing options : the report calls for funding under the development and investment partnerships to be made subject to certain specific commitments predetermined in a dialogue between the Commission and Member States. Those predetermined conditions must require Member States to undertake reforms in order to ensure that funds are used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy. Members want it to be made possible for the actors involved in the management of operational programmes to influence conditionalities. They consider it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness.

They reject, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform . All conditions should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership. Any new conditionality must not result in extra administration burdens for the actors involved.

The report calls for the effectiveness and transparency of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and asks for the ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators, directly linked to the purpose of the funding, which measure, in particular, success in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and integration into high-quality employment.

(4) Budget, financial processes, reducing red tape, budgetary discipline and financial control : Members take the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth regarding cohesion policy and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020). They call, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions so that the EU can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters).

The report calls for the adoption of stricter rules on the monitoring of irregularities in the use of the Structural Funds in respect of Member States that have a high level of irregularities in connection with the use of monies from the Structural Funds. It also calls for the Commission to have, from the start of the next programming period, greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures. Members consider, in this connection, that there is an urgent need for simplification and clarification of the administration of support programmes, in particular in the area of financial implementation and financial control.

(5) Neighbourhood and enlargement policies : the report emphasises the importance of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) for cohesion policy with regard to cross-border cooperation with states outside the EU. It calls on the Commission to look into the feasibility of establishing better synergies between ERDF initiatives, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the European Development Fund (EDF).

2011/05/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/05/11
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/04/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2011/04/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2011/04/12
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/03/23
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2011/03/03
   EP - VAUGHAN Derek (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2011/02/21
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Council held a policy debate and adopted conclusions on a Commission report, presented in November 2010, on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU.

The Council conclusions highlight the following points:

(1) the need for continued pursuit of the objective of reduced disparities between the development levels of the various regions of the EU and underline the contribution cohesion policy has made towards the EU's competitiveness and growth objectives;

(2) that cohesion policy should focus on a limited number of priorities , in line with the Europe 2020 strategy , while maintaining sufficient flexibility to allow for regional needs.

The conclusions call for further discussions on the following Commission suggestions:

the creation of a " development and investment partnership contract ", which outlines an investment and development strategy addressing the priorities established under the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth; a list of priorities on which EU and national resources should focus; conditionalities and incentive mechanisms linked to cohesion policy.

Comments made during the Council debate will provide input to the Commission in its preparation of a legislative package for structural funds after 2013, which is due to be published before the summer.

The Council also adopted without discussion conclusions on a special report by the European Court of Auditors concerning the effectiveness of structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption, set out in document 6490/11 .

Documents
2011/02/21
   CSL - Council Meeting
2011/02/17
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2011/02/17
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2011/01/26
   EP - CYMAŃSKI Tadeusz (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in FEMM
2010/12/16
   EP - LOPE FONTAGNÉ Verónica (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in EMPL
2010/10/28
   EP - PIEPER Markus (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Votes

A7-0222/2011 - Markus Pieper - § 34/1

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 586, -: 34, 0: 14
DE IT FR ES PL RO EL BE PT HU BG CZ GB FI SK NL LT AT DK IE LV SI SE EE CY MT LU
Total
93
64
58
42
38
28
19
20
20
20
16
17
57
13
13
20
12
13
13
8
8
7
14
6
6
5
3
icon: PPE PPE
230

Czechia PPE

2

Netherlands PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

3
3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
158

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
80

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2
3

Ireland ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
30

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

5

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
22

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

4
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

4

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
47

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

A7-0222/2011 - Markus Pieper - § 34/2

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 416, -: 203, 0: 22
FR ES PL RO EL PT DE AT IE SK LT EE CY MT HU LU BE SI LV CZ FI IT NL DK SE BG GB
Total
56
44
40
30
21
21
93
14
9
12
12
6
6
4
17
6
21
7
8
18
13
63
22
13
13
15
56
icon: S&D S&D
157

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Sweden S&D

For (1)

4
icon: PPE PPE
236

Ireland PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

Against (1)

3

Slovenia PPE

Against (1)

3

Czechia PPE

Against (1)

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
50

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
30

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

5

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
23

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

2

Belgium NI

2

Netherlands NI

3

Bulgaria NI

2

United Kingdom NI

4
icon: EFD EFD
19

Greece EFD

2

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1
icon: ECR ECR
47

Lithuania ECR

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
78

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

3

A7-0222/2011 - Markus Pieper - § 34/3

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 369, -: 249, 0: 25
FR PL EL PT AT SK IE LT EE CY MT ES HU RO SI LU BE DE LV CZ FI NL DK IT BG SE GB
Total
59
39
21
19
16
13
8
11
6
6
5
43
18
29
7
5
21
91
8
19
13
22
12
65
15
14
57
icon: S&D S&D
157

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

Abstain (1)

3

Hungary S&D

Against (1)

4

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Sweden S&D

For (1)

4
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
28

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

4

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
23

Spain NI

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

1

Romania NI

1

Belgium NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2

United Kingdom NI

4
icon: EFD EFD
18

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE PPE
239

Ireland PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Malta PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

For (1)

Against (2)

3

Luxembourg PPE

Against (1)

3

Czechia PPE

Against (1)

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
48

Lithuania ECR

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
80

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Spain ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3
4

A7-0222/2011 - Markus Pieper - § 35

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 575, -: 77, 0: 1
DE IT FR ES PL RO HU BE EL BG AT SE SK PT LT NL FI IE DK LV LU SI EE MT CY GB CZ
Total
94
67
60
43
39
30
20
20
21
15
14
15
13
21
12
23
11
9
11
8
6
6
6
5
6
58
19
icon: PPE PPE
239
3

Finland PPE

2

Ireland PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2
2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
160

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
81

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2
3

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: EFD EFD
21

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

4
icon: NI NI
22

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2
icon: ECR ECR
49

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

5

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

A7-0222/2011 - Markus Pieper - Considérant L

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 601, -: 57, 0: 6
DE IT FR ES PL RO EL PT HU BG BE AT SK NL LT FI IE DK LV SE LU EE SI CY MT CZ GB
Total
96
67
61
44
40
29
21
21
20
16
21
16
13
23
11
13
9
13
8
15
6
6
6
6
5
19
58
icon: PPE PPE
243

Ireland PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3
2

Malta PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
163

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
80

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2
3

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
52

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
30

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
21

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
25

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2

Belgium NI

2
icon: ECR ECR
49

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

A7-0222/2011 - Markus Pieper - Considérant M

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 597, -: 46, 0: 7
DE IT FR ES PL RO EL PT BE CZ HU BG SK AT FI DK IE GB LT LV SE SI NL LU CY MT EE
Total
94
67
58
43
40
29
20
19
19
19
20
15
13
15
13
13
9
58
10
8
15
7
22
6
6
5
6
icon: PPE PPE
240

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

2
3

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3
2

Malta PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
159

Finland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
80

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
20

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
49

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
23

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Bulgaria NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

4

A7-0222/2011 - Markus Pieper - Résolution

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 506, 0: 101, -: 48
DE IT FR PL ES RO HU EL CZ BG SK BE PT LT AT NL IE DK FI SE SI EE MT LV LU CY GB
Total
94
67
60
40
43
30
20
21
19
16
13
21
20
11
16
23
9
13
13
15
6
5
5
8
5
5
56
icon: PPE PPE
242

Czechia PPE

2

Ireland PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Latvia PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Luxembourg PPE

Abstain (1)

3
2
icon: S&D S&D
162