BETA


2015/2037(INI) Impact of developments in European defence markets on the security and defence capabilities in Europe

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AFET GOMES Ana (icon: S&D S&D) KYRTSOS Georgios (icon: PPE PPE), VAN ORDEN Geoffrey (icon: ECR ECR), MAURA BARANDIARÁN Fernando (icon: ALDE ALDE), LÖSING Sabine (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), BÜTIKOFER Reinhard (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion ITRE
Committee Opinion IMCO GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó (icon: PPE PPE) Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO (icon: S&D S&D)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2015/09/24
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2015/05/21
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2015/05/21
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 386 votes to 175 with 84 abstentions, a resolution on the impact of developments in European defence markets on the security and defence capabilities in Europe.

Concerned by the widespread and largely uncoordinated cuts to the defence budget in most Member States, Members emphasised that the cutting of defence budgets was weakening the defence potential of Member States and the EU , and left a question mark over the levels of preparedness to ensure national and European security.

These uncoordinated cuts, coupled with structural problems and unfair and untransparent practices, put the Union at risk by relinquishing strategic assets and capabilities and by forfeiting the opportunities that the coordination of defence policies and the pooling and sharing of defence assets could bring as regards the fulfilment of the EU’s prosperity and peace.

The resolution stated that the current security threats were common to the EU as a whole and should be addressed in a united and coordinated fashion , pooling and sharing civilian and military resources. It was essential to make progress on the establishment of a European defence equipment market and on the development of a competitive European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), capable of generating synergies through increased cross-border coordination and providing the necessary capabilities for the Common Security and Defence Policy.

Warning of the risks of external dependencies in the European defence sector, Parliament considered that special attention should be paid to the impact of certain projects on the autonomy and independence of the EU, such as cooperation with Russia in sensitive areas like satellite launching, with Soyuz rockets, and strategic airlift. The European Council was asked to: (i) take concrete measures towards overcoming the fragmentation of the European defence market ; (ii) provide specific guidelines for defence policies and the European defence market, in order to increase its transparency and competitiveness.

Need for further cooperation: stressing that a combined annual defence spending of 190 billion EUR was an enormous amount of tax payer’s money , Members were of the view that the current budgetary constraints in EU Member States should represent an opportunity for more and better cooperation in the field of defence equipment acquisitions , to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money and ensure adequate military capabilities across the EU and a sustainable security of supply system.

The resolution recalled the need for greater convergence between national defence planning processes and welcomed, in this context, the adoption by the Council of the Policy Framework for Systematic and Long-Term Defence Cooperation. However, Members regretted, however, its non-binding nature and the fact that it had not introduced a clear and structured process.

They demanded that cooperation and pooling and sharing initiatives be given priority and that incentives be created to this end. The Commission was asked to put forward a proposal clarifying how non-market distorting tax incentives could serve these objectives.

VAT exemption should be generalised to all European Defence Agency’s collaborative activities.

Furthermore, the Commission and Member States should assist companies, particularly SMEs, in adequately seizing European funding opportunities for defence‑related projects, especially under Horizon 2020 , COSME programme and the European Structural and Investment Funds.

Need for a common approach on reducing external dependencies : European defence companies were increasingly compensating for their reduced turnover in Europe through extra-EU exports . Members expressed concern at the potential drawbacks of this approach , such as the transfer of sensitive technologies and intellectual property rights to their future competitors and moving production outside the EU, thus compromising Europe’s security of supply. They considered that exposing the EU to the risk of the EDTIB being dependent on customers in third powers with different strategic interests constituted a serious strategic mistake. They urged Member States to comply with the principles of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports , which defined a common understanding for the control of exports of military technology and equipment serving the coordination of national export control systems.

Using internal market rules to their full potential : Parliament stressed that a single defence market would ensure full transparency and prevent duplication of effort , which gave rise to market distortions. Furthermore, advances in dual-use research were of key importance in guaranteeing our independence and ensuring security of supply, in particular of critical items. Consequently, internal market rules should be used to their full potential through strengthened cross-border cooperation to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of the European defence and security sector, which led to duplication of defence equipment programmes and a lack of transparency regarding the relations between national defence administrations and the defence industry.

Member States were asked to remove national rules that did not comply with Directives 2009/43/EC and 2009/81/EC and that were hindering the internal market for defence procurement, and to correctly implement and enforce Directive 2009/81/EC, concerning procurement in the fields of defence and sensitive security, and Directive 2009/43/EC, concerning the transfer of defence-related products.

The Commission was asked in its implementation reports to Parliament and the Council on Directives 2009/81/EC and 2009/43/EC in 2016 to evaluate thoroughly whether, and to what extent, their provisions had been enforced correctly, and whether their objectives had been achieved, and to come up with legislative proposals accordingly, if the findings of the report point in this direction.

Documents
2015/05/21
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2015/05/19
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2015/05/12
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Ana GOMES (S&D, PT) on the impact of developments in European defence markets on the security and defence capabilities in Europe.

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, exercising its prerogatives as an associated committee under Article 54 of the Parliament’s internal Rules of Procedure0, was also consulted for an opinion on the report.

Concerned by the widespread and largely uncoordinated cuts to the defence budget in most Member States, Members emphasised that the cutting of defence budgets was weakening the defence potential of Member States and the EU , and left a question mark over the levels of preparedness to ensure national and European security. The report stated that the current security threats were common to the EU as a whole and should be addressed in a united and coordinated fashion , pooling and sharing civilian and military resources. It was essential to make progress on the establishment of a European defence equipment market and on the development of a competitive European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), capable of generating synergies through increased cross-border coordination and providing the necessary capabilities for the Common Security and Defence Policy.

Need for further cooperation : Members were of the view that the current budgetary constraints in EU Member States should represent an opportunity for more and better cooperation in the field of defence equipment acquisitions , to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money and ensure adequate military capabilities across the EU and a sustainable security of supply system.

The report recalled the need for greater convergence between national defence planning processes and welcomed, in this context, the adoption by the Council of the Policy Framework for Systematic and Long-Term Defence Cooperation. However, Members regretted, however, its non-binding nature and the fact that it had not introduced a clear and structured process.

They demanded that cooperation and pooling and sharing initiatives be given priority and that incentives be created to this end. The Commission was asked to put forward a proposal clarifying how non-market distorting tax incentives could serve these objectives.

Need for a common approach on reducing external dependencies : European defence companies were increasingly compensating for their reduced turnover in Europe through extra-EU exports . Members expressed concern at the potential drawbacks of this approach , such as the transfer of sensitive technologies and intellectual property rights to their future competitors and moving production outside the EU, thus compromising Europe’s security of supply. They considered that exposing the EU to the risk of the EDTIB being dependent on customers in third powers with different strategic interests constituted a serious strategic mistake. They urged Member States to comply with the principles of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports , which defined a common understanding for the control of exports of military technology and equipment serving the coordination of national export control systems.

Using internal market rules to their full potential : the report stressed that a single defence market would ensure full transparency and prevent duplication of effort , which gave rise to market distortions. Furthermore, advances in dual-use research were of key importance in guaranteeing our independence and ensuring security of supply, in particular of critical items. Consequently, internal market rules should be used to their full potential through strengthened cross-border cooperation to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of the European defence and security sector, which led to duplication of defence equipment programmes and a lack of transparency regarding the relations between national defence administrations and the defence industry.

Member States were asked to remove national rules that did not comply with Directives 2009/43/EC and 2009/81/EC and that were hindering the internal market for defence procurement, and to correctly implement and enforce Directive 2009/81/EC, concerning procurement in the fields of defence and sensitive security, and Directive 2009/43/EC, concerning the transfer of defence-related products.

The Commission was asked to take specific steps to ensure that the Directives were properly applied and to check and monitor national transposition procedures to make sure that they did not result in market distortions.

Documents
2015/05/04
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2015/04/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2015/04/01
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2015/03/05
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2015/02/12
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2015/02/12
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2015/01/21
   EP - GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2014/09/22
   EP - GOMES Ana (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in AFET

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0159/2015 - Ana Gomes - § 1/2

2015/05/21 Outcome: +: 435, -: 185, 0: 16
DE PL RO ES BG SK IT GB CZ PT HU BE DK NL HR FR FI AT LT SI MT EE LU CY LV SE IE EL
Total
78
40
25
39
14
13
57
63
21
18
18
19
11
22
10
68
10
18
10
7
5
5
5
5
6
19
9
20
icon: PPE PPE
179

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

2
2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2
3
icon: S&D S&D
160
3

Czechia S&D

Against (1)

4

Netherlands S&D

For (2)

2

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Austria S&D

For (1)

5

Lithuania S&D

1

Malta S&D

3

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

1

Latvia S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Croatia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
61

Bulgaria ECR

1

Czechia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1
2

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
47

Germany NI

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Netherlands NI

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
39

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
43

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
5

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Italy GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
4

A8-0159/2015 - Ana Gomes - § 13/2

2015/05/21 Outcome: +: 367, -: 251, 0: 22
RO DE ES IT BG BE PT HU CZ SK FR LT HR AT SI MT LU EE FI DK CY LV NL IE PL EL SE GB
Total
24
79
39
58
14
20
18
18
21
13
68
10
9
18
7
5
6
5
10
12
6
6
23
9
39
20
19
63
icon: PPE PPE
178
2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
3
icon: S&D S&D
163
3

Czechia S&D

Abstain (1)

4

Lithuania S&D

1

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Cyprus S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
63

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: NI NI
47

Germany NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Netherlands NI

3

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
39

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
43

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2
5

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2
4

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Italy GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
4

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
61

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Slovakia ECR

Abstain (1)

3

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

A8-0159/2015 - Ana Gomes - § 14

2015/05/21 Outcome: +: 414, -: 168, 0: 58
FR PL RO ES HU IT BG BE PT SK CZ NL HR LT FI DE DK SI MT LU EE LV IE CY AT EL GB SE
Total
70
40
25
39
18
58
14
20
18
13
21
22
10
10
10
78
12
7
5
6
5
5
9
5
18
20
62
19
icon: PPE PPE
178
2

Finland PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE

2
3

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
163
3

Czechia S&D

Against (1)

4

Netherlands S&D

2

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

1

Malta S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
63

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: NI NI
46

Hungary NI

2

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Netherlands NI

3

Germany NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
61

Bulgaria ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
39

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
44

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Italy GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
4

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

A8-0159/2015 - Ana Gomes - Résolution

2015/05/21 Outcome: +: 386, -: 175, 0: 84
IT RO DE ES FR BE HU BG NL PT HR AT SK LT CZ SI LU EE MT DK FI CY LV PL IE SE EL GB
Total
59
25
80
39
70
20
18
14
23
18
10
17
13
10
21
7
6
5
5
12
10
6
6
40
9
18
20
63
icon: PPE PPE
180
2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

2
3
icon: S&D S&D
166
3

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

1

Czechia S&D

Against (1)

4

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Cyprus S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Ireland S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden S&D

5
icon: ALDE ALDE
63

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
43

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

France Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

6

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

4

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

For (1)

Abstain (2)

5
icon: EFDD EFDD
39

Lithuania EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2
icon: NI NI
47

Germany NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Netherlands NI

3

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Italy GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
4

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
61

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

Abstain (1)

3

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Finland ECR

2

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
206 2015/2037(INI)
2015/04/01 AFET 206 amendments...
source: 551.866

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
rapporteur
name: GOMES Ana date: 2014-09-22T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2014-09-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GOMES Ana group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó date: 2015-01-21T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2015-01-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
docs/3/body
EC
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0159&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0159_EN.html
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0215
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0215_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2015-02-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: KYRTSOS Georgios group: ECR name: VAN ORDEN Geoffrey group: ALDE name: MAURA BARANDIARÁN Fernando group: GUE/NGL name: LÖSING Sabine group: Verts/ALE name: BÜTIKOFER Reinhard responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2014-09-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: GOMES Ana body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2015-01-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: EPP name: GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE
  • date: 2015-05-04T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: KYRTSOS Georgios group: ECR name: VAN ORDEN Geoffrey group: ALDE name: MAURA BARANDIARÁN Fernando group: GUE/NGL name: LÖSING Sabine group: Verts/ALE name: BÜTIKOFER Reinhard responsible: True committee: AFET date: 2014-09-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Foreign Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: GOMES Ana body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2015-01-21T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: EPP name: GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE
  • date: 2015-05-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0159&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0159/2015 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2015-05-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150519&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-05-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=25734&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0215 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0215/2015 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
date
2014-09-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GOMES Ana group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
AFET
date
2014-09-22T00:00:00
committee_full
Foreign Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: S&D name: GOMES Ana
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
IMCO
date
2015-01-21T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: EPP name: GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2015-01-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GÁLL-PELCZ Ildikó group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
docs
  • date: 2015-03-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE551.756 title: PE551.756 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2015-04-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE551.866 title: PE551.866 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2015-04-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE549.296&secondRef=03 title: PE549.296 committee: IMCO type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2015-09-24T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=25734&j=0&l=en title: SP(2015)470 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2015-02-12T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2015-02-12T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2015-05-04T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2015-05-12T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0159&language=EN title: A8-0159/2015 summary: The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Ana GOMES (S&D, PT) on the impact of developments in European defence markets on the security and defence capabilities in Europe. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, exercising its prerogatives as an associated committee under Article 54 of the Parliament’s internal Rules of Procedure0, was also consulted for an opinion on the report. Concerned by the widespread and largely uncoordinated cuts to the defence budget in most Member States, Members emphasised that the cutting of defence budgets was weakening the defence potential of Member States and the EU , and left a question mark over the levels of preparedness to ensure national and European security. The report stated that the current security threats were common to the EU as a whole and should be addressed in a united and coordinated fashion , pooling and sharing civilian and military resources. It was essential to make progress on the establishment of a European defence equipment market and on the development of a competitive European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), capable of generating synergies through increased cross-border coordination and providing the necessary capabilities for the Common Security and Defence Policy. Need for further cooperation : Members were of the view that the current budgetary constraints in EU Member States should represent an opportunity for more and better cooperation in the field of defence equipment acquisitions , to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money and ensure adequate military capabilities across the EU and a sustainable security of supply system. The report recalled the need for greater convergence between national defence planning processes and welcomed, in this context, the adoption by the Council of the Policy Framework for Systematic and Long-Term Defence Cooperation. However, Members regretted, however, its non-binding nature and the fact that it had not introduced a clear and structured process. They demanded that cooperation and pooling and sharing initiatives be given priority and that incentives be created to this end. The Commission was asked to put forward a proposal clarifying how non-market distorting tax incentives could serve these objectives. Need for a common approach on reducing external dependencies : European defence companies were increasingly compensating for their reduced turnover in Europe through extra-EU exports . Members expressed concern at the potential drawbacks of this approach , such as the transfer of sensitive technologies and intellectual property rights to their future competitors and moving production outside the EU, thus compromising Europe’s security of supply. They considered that exposing the EU to the risk of the EDTIB being dependent on customers in third powers with different strategic interests constituted a serious strategic mistake. They urged Member States to comply with the principles of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports , which defined a common understanding for the control of exports of military technology and equipment serving the coordination of national export control systems. Using internal market rules to their full potential : the report stressed that a single defence market would ensure full transparency and prevent duplication of effort , which gave rise to market distortions. Furthermore, advances in dual-use research were of key importance in guaranteeing our independence and ensuring security of supply, in particular of critical items. Consequently, internal market rules should be used to their full potential through strengthened cross-border cooperation to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of the European defence and security sector, which led to duplication of defence equipment programmes and a lack of transparency regarding the relations between national defence administrations and the defence industry. Member States were asked to remove national rules that did not comply with Directives 2009/43/EC and 2009/81/EC and that were hindering the internal market for defence procurement, and to correctly implement and enforce Directive 2009/81/EC, concerning procurement in the fields of defence and sensitive security, and Directive 2009/43/EC, concerning the transfer of defence-related products. The Commission was asked to take specific steps to ensure that the Directives were properly applied and to check and monitor national transposition procedures to make sure that they did not result in market distortions.
  • date: 2015-05-19T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150519&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-05-21T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=25734&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2015-05-21T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0215 title: T8-0215/2015 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 386 votes to 175 with 84 abstentions, a resolution on the impact of developments in European defence markets on the security and defence capabilities in Europe. Concerned by the widespread and largely uncoordinated cuts to the defence budget in most Member States, Members emphasised that the cutting of defence budgets was weakening the defence potential of Member States and the EU , and left a question mark over the levels of preparedness to ensure national and European security. These uncoordinated cuts, coupled with structural problems and unfair and untransparent practices, put the Union at risk by relinquishing strategic assets and capabilities and by forfeiting the opportunities that the coordination of defence policies and the pooling and sharing of defence assets could bring as regards the fulfilment of the EU’s prosperity and peace. The resolution stated that the current security threats were common to the EU as a whole and should be addressed in a united and coordinated fashion , pooling and sharing civilian and military resources. It was essential to make progress on the establishment of a European defence equipment market and on the development of a competitive European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), capable of generating synergies through increased cross-border coordination and providing the necessary capabilities for the Common Security and Defence Policy. Warning of the risks of external dependencies in the European defence sector, Parliament considered that special attention should be paid to the impact of certain projects on the autonomy and independence of the EU, such as cooperation with Russia in sensitive areas like satellite launching, with Soyuz rockets, and strategic airlift. The European Council was asked to: (i) take concrete measures towards overcoming the fragmentation of the European defence market ; (ii) provide specific guidelines for defence policies and the European defence market, in order to increase its transparency and competitiveness. Need for further cooperation: stressing that a combined annual defence spending of 190 billion EUR was an enormous amount of tax payer’s money , Members were of the view that the current budgetary constraints in EU Member States should represent an opportunity for more and better cooperation in the field of defence equipment acquisitions , to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money and ensure adequate military capabilities across the EU and a sustainable security of supply system. The resolution recalled the need for greater convergence between national defence planning processes and welcomed, in this context, the adoption by the Council of the Policy Framework for Systematic and Long-Term Defence Cooperation. However, Members regretted, however, its non-binding nature and the fact that it had not introduced a clear and structured process. They demanded that cooperation and pooling and sharing initiatives be given priority and that incentives be created to this end. The Commission was asked to put forward a proposal clarifying how non-market distorting tax incentives could serve these objectives. VAT exemption should be generalised to all European Defence Agency’s collaborative activities. Furthermore, the Commission and Member States should assist companies, particularly SMEs, in adequately seizing European funding opportunities for defence‑related projects, especially under Horizon 2020 , COSME programme and the European Structural and Investment Funds. Need for a common approach on reducing external dependencies : European defence companies were increasingly compensating for their reduced turnover in Europe through extra-EU exports . Members expressed concern at the potential drawbacks of this approach , such as the transfer of sensitive technologies and intellectual property rights to their future competitors and moving production outside the EU, thus compromising Europe’s security of supply. They considered that exposing the EU to the risk of the EDTIB being dependent on customers in third powers with different strategic interests constituted a serious strategic mistake. They urged Member States to comply with the principles of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports , which defined a common understanding for the control of exports of military technology and equipment serving the coordination of national export control systems. Using internal market rules to their full potential : Parliament stressed that a single defence market would ensure full transparency and prevent duplication of effort , which gave rise to market distortions. Furthermore, advances in dual-use research were of key importance in guaranteeing our independence and ensuring security of supply, in particular of critical items. Consequently, internal market rules should be used to their full potential through strengthened cross-border cooperation to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of the European defence and security sector, which led to duplication of defence equipment programmes and a lack of transparency regarding the relations between national defence administrations and the defence industry. Member States were asked to remove national rules that did not comply with Directives 2009/43/EC and 2009/81/EC and that were hindering the internal market for defence procurement, and to correctly implement and enforce Directive 2009/81/EC, concerning procurement in the fields of defence and sensitive security, and Directive 2009/43/EC, concerning the transfer of defence-related products. The Commission was asked in its implementation reports to Parliament and the Council on Directives 2009/81/EC and 2009/43/EC in 2016 to evaluate thoroughly whether, and to what extent, their provisions had been enforced correctly, and whether their objectives had been achieved, and to come up with legislative proposals accordingly, if the findings of the report point in this direction.
  • date: 2015-05-21T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
    procedure/Modified legal basis
    Old
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
    New
    Rules of Procedure EP 159
    procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
    Old
    AFET/8/02746
    New
    • AFET/8/02746
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure EP 54
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    procedure/subject
    Old
    • 3.40.09 Defence and arms industry
    • 6.10.02 Common security and defence policy; WEU, NATO
    New
    3.40.09
    Defence and arms industry
    6.10.02
    Common security and defence policy (CSDP); WEU, NATO
    activities/2/docs/0/text
    • The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Ana GOMES (S&D, PT) on the impact of developments in European defence markets on the security and defence capabilities in Europe.

      The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, exercising its prerogatives as an associated committee under Article 54 of the Parliament’s internal Rules of Procedure0, was also consulted for an opinion on the report.

      Concerned by the widespread and largely uncoordinated cuts to the defence budget in most Member States, Members emphasised that the cutting of defence budgets was weakening the defence potential of Member States and the EU, and left a question mark over the levels of preparedness to ensure national and European security. The report stated that the current security threats were common to the EU as a whole and should be addressed in a united and coordinated fashion, pooling and sharing civilian and military resources. It was essential to make progress on the establishment of a European defence equipment market and on the development of a competitive European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), capable of generating synergies through increased cross-border coordination and providing the necessary capabilities for the Common Security and Defence Policy.

      Need for further cooperation: Members were of the view that the current budgetary constraints in EU Member States should represent an opportunity for more and better cooperation in the field of defence equipment acquisitions, to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money and ensure adequate military capabilities across the EU and a sustainable security of supply system.

      The report recalled the need for greater convergence between national defence planning processes and welcomed, in this context, the adoption by the Council of the Policy Framework for Systematic and Long-Term Defence Cooperation. However, Members regretted, however, its non-binding nature and the fact that it had not introduced a clear and structured process.

      They demanded that cooperation and pooling and sharing initiatives be given priority and that incentives be created to this end. The Commission was asked to put forward a proposal clarifying how non-market distorting tax incentives could serve these objectives.

      Need for a common approach on reducing external dependencies: European defence companies were increasingly compensating for their reduced turnover in Europe through extra-EU exports. Members expressed concern at the potential drawbacks of this approach, such as the transfer of sensitive technologies and intellectual property rights to their future competitors and moving production outside the EU, thus compromising Europe’s security of supply. They considered that exposing the EU to the risk of the EDTIB being dependent on customers in third powers with different strategic interests constituted a serious strategic mistake. They urged Member States to comply with the principles of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports, which defined a common understanding for the control of exports of military technology and equipment serving the coordination of national export control systems.

      Using internal market rules to their full potential: the report stressed that a single defence market would ensure full transparency and prevent duplication of effort, which gave rise to market distortions. Furthermore, advances in dual-use research were of key importance in guaranteeing our independence and ensuring security of supply, in particular of critical items. Consequently, internal market rules should be used to their full potential through strengthened cross-border cooperation to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of the European defence and security sector, which led to duplication of defence equipment programmes and a lack of transparency regarding the relations between national defence administrations and the defence industry.

      Member States were asked to remove national rules that did not comply with Directives 2009/43/EC and 2009/81/EC and that were hindering the internal market for defence procurement, and to correctly implement and enforce Directive 2009/81/EC, concerning procurement in the fields of defence and sensitive security, and Directive 2009/43/EC, concerning the transfer of defence-related products.

      The Commission was asked to take specific steps to ensure that the Directives were properly applied and to check and monitor national transposition procedures to make sure that they did not result in market distortions.

    activities/4/docs/0
    url
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=25734&l=en
    type
    Results of vote in Parliament
    title
    Results of vote in Parliament
    activities/4/docs/1/text
    • The European Parliament adopted by 386 votes to 175 with 84 abstentions, a resolution on the impact of developments in European defence markets on the security and defence capabilities in Europe.

      Concerned by the widespread and largely uncoordinated cuts to the defence budget in most Member States, Members emphasised that the cutting of defence budgets was weakening the defence potential of Member States and the EU, and left a question mark over the levels of preparedness to ensure national and European security.

      These uncoordinated cuts, coupled with structural problems and unfair and untransparent practices, put the Union at risk by relinquishing strategic assets and capabilities and by forfeiting the opportunities that the coordination of defence policies and the pooling and sharing of defence assets could bring as regards the fulfilment of the EU’s prosperity and peace.

      The resolution stated that the current security threats were common to the EU as a whole and should be addressed in a united and coordinated fashion, pooling and sharing civilian and military resources. It was essential to make progress on the establishment of a European defence equipment market and on the development of a competitive European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), capable of generating synergies through increased cross-border coordination and providing the necessary capabilities for the Common Security and Defence Policy.

      Warning of the risks of external dependencies in the European defence sector, Parliament considered that special attention should be paid to the impact of certain projects on the autonomy and independence of the EU, such as cooperation with Russia in sensitive areas like satellite launching, with Soyuz rockets, and strategic airlift. The European Council was asked to: (i) take concrete measures towards overcoming the fragmentation of the European defence market; (ii) provide specific guidelines for defence policies and the European defence market, in order to increase its transparency and competitiveness.

      Need for further cooperation: stressing that a combined annual defence spending of 190 billion EUR was an enormous amount of tax payer’s money, Members were of the view that the current budgetary constraints in EU Member States should represent an opportunity for more and better cooperation in the field of defence equipment acquisitions, to ensure better value for taxpayers’ money and ensure adequate military capabilities across the EU and a sustainable security of supply system.

      The resolution recalled the need for greater convergence between national defence planning processes and welcomed, in this context, the adoption by the Council of the Policy Framework for Systematic and Long-Term Defence Cooperation. However, Members regretted, however, its non-binding nature and the fact that it had not introduced a clear and structured process.

      They demanded that cooperation and pooling and sharing initiatives be given priority and that incentives be created to this end. The Commission was asked to put forward a proposal clarifying how non-market distorting tax incentives could serve these objectives.

      VAT exemption should be generalised to all European Defence Agency’s collaborative activities.

      Furthermore, the Commission and Member States should assist companies, particularly SMEs, in adequately seizing European funding opportunities for defence‑related projects, especially under Horizon 2020, COSME programme and the European Structural and Investment Funds.

      Need for a common approach on reducing external dependencies: European defence companies were increasingly compensating for their reduced turnover in Europe through extra-EU exports. Members expressed concern at the potential drawbacks of this approach, such as the transfer of sensitive technologies and intellectual property rights to their future competitors and moving production outside the EU, thus compromising Europe’s security of supply. They considered that exposing the EU to the risk of the EDTIB being dependent on customers in third powers with different strategic interests constituted a serious strategic mistake. They urged Member States to comply with the principles of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports, which defined a common understanding for the control of exports of military technology and equipment serving the coordination of national export control systems.

      Using internal market rules to their full potential: Parliament stressed that a single defence market would ensure full transparency and prevent duplication of effort, which gave rise to market distortions. Furthermore, advances in dual-use research were of key importance in guaranteeing our independence and ensuring security of supply, in particular of critical items. Consequently, internal market rules should be used to their full potential through strengthened cross-border cooperation to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of the European defence and security sector, which led to duplication of defence equipment programmes and a lack of transparency regarding the relations between national defence administrations and the defence industry.

      Member States were asked to remove national rules that did not comply with Directives 2009/43/EC and 2009/81/EC and that were hindering the internal market for defence procurement, and to correctly implement and enforce Directive 2009/81/EC, concerning procurement in the fields of defence and sensitive security, and Directive 2009/43/EC, concerning the transfer of defence-related products.

      The Commission was asked in its implementation reports to Parliament and the Council on Directives 2009/81/EC and 2009/43/EC in 2016 to evaluate thoroughly whether, and to what extent, their provisions had been enforced correctly, and whether their objectives had been achieved, and to come up with legislative proposals accordingly, if the findings of the report point in this direction.

    activities/4/type
    Old
    Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    New
    Results of vote in Parliament
    activities/4/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0215 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0215/2015
    activities/4/type
    Old
    Vote in plenary scheduled
    New
    Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    procedure/stage_reached
    Old
    Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage