BETA


2015/2092(INI) New CFP: structure for technical measures and multiannual plans

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead PECH MATO Gabriel (icon: PPE PPE) RODUST Ulrike (icon: S&D S&D), VAN DALEN Peter (icon: ECR ECR), BILBAO BARANDICA Izaskun (icon: ALDE ALDE), FERREIRA João (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), AFFRONTE Marco (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2015/12/15
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2015/12/15
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 571 votes to 6 with 65 abstentions, a legislative resolution on a new CFP: structure for technical measures and multiannual plans.

Weakness and complexity of current rules : the resolution notes that since 2009, legislative proposals regarding technical measures and multiannual plans have made little headway. This is partly on account of tensions arising between the European institutions concerning their respective decision-making powers under Article 43 TFEU with regard to Commission proposals in the case of the multinational plans and partly because of difficulties in bringing legislation on technical measures into line with the Lisbon Treaty.

The complexity and diversity of technical measures as well as the fact that they are spread across many different regulations, have contributed to making implementation difficult for fishermen, which risks making fishermen mistrustful. Furthermore, the multiannual plans adopted between 2002 and 2009 were not all equally effective. New multiannual plans will be adopted under the new rules of the CFP.

Simplify technical measures : Parliament considered that, in order to ensure the implementation of the CFP objectives, future technical measures should be simplified in a clearly structured legal framework and based on solid scientific data reviewed by peers. It recommended:

compiling a comprehensive list summarising all technical measures currently in force, in order to obtain a better overview of possible simplifications and deletions in relation to future technical measures; reviewing technical measures in a bid to implement the objectives of the CFP, improve selectivity, minimise discards and the impact of fishing on the environment, simplify current rules, and increase the scientific base ; adapting technical measures to the specific needs of each fishery and each region, thus helping to improve compliance by the industry concerned.

The simplification and regionalisation of technical measures should always be consistent with the real purpose of the technical measures regulation, which is the minimisation of unwanted catches and impacts on the marine environment .

Furthermore, in order to facilitate the implementation of the CFP rules and to make CFP rules more acceptable to the fisheries sector, Parliament felt that fishermen must be more involved in decision-making , in particular within the Advisory Councils. Innovation and research will need to be promoted, in particular as regards the landing of discards, in order to increase selectivity and modernise fishing and monitoring techniques.

A clear framework for technical measures : Parliament felt it necessary to maintain the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins, or for technical measures not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future. Whilst the judicious use of delegated acts can meet this need for flexibility and responsiveness, Parliament retained the right to object to any delegated acts . Members felt that Parliament should give particularly close scrutiny to delegated acts regarding discard plans and reserve the right to object to any if it deems it necessary.

Members recommended that a clear, general European framework for technical measures should be defined, setting out a limited number of major cross-cutting principles; all rules not applicable to the vast majority of European waters should not be included in this general framework but should instead come under regionalisation.

Furthermore, Parliament suggested that technical measures:

assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio-economic implications for EU fleets and for the local communities; include specific provisions on the use of certain fishing gear in order to protect vulnerable habitats and marine species; ensure that destructive and non-selective fishing gear is not used , and that the general use of explosive and poisonous substances should be prohibited.

Members believed that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical measures for each of the three main basins , taking account of the specific nature of each, where Union decisions may have a significant impact on the recovery of fish stocks and the protection of ecosystems and on the sustainable management of shared fish stocks.

Landing obligation : notwithstanding the landing obligation, in force since 1 January 2015 and to be progressively applied to all fish stocks by 2019, Parliament felt that provisions regarding technical measures must be sufficiently flexible to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and to provide more opportunities for the fisheries sector to put innovations regarding selective fishing methods into practice.

In order to adapt the technical measures so as to allow them to implement and facilitate more selective fishing, Members recommended the following three measures : (i) substantially modifying, or even revoking, the rules governing the composition of catches; (ii) affording greater flexibility as regards mesh sizes, (iii) making it possible to hold several types of gear on board.

Multiannual plans : stressing the vital role that multiannual plans play in the conservation of fisheries resources under the CFP, Parliament insisted that:

the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans with regard to institutional competences under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and on the basis of the relevant case law; multiannual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management, be based on best and most recent scientific and socio-economic findings recognised by peers, and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; progress must be made on future multiannual plans for restoring and maintaining stocks at levels above those that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, including an advance timetable , a conservation safeguard trigger, a mechanism for adapting to changes in scientific thinking and a review clause;

Lastly, Parliament reaffirmed the need to increase the involvement of stakeholders through the Advisory Councils in the formulation and implementation of multiannual plans and in all decisions concerning regionalisation.

Documents
2015/12/15
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2015/12/14
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2015/11/16
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Fisheries adopted the own-initiative report by Gabriel MATO (EPP, ES) on a new CFP: structure for technical measures and multiannual plans.

Since 2009, legislative proposals regarding technical measures and multiannual plans have made little headway. This is partly on account of tensions arising between the European institutions concerning their respective decision-making powers under Article 43 TFEU with regard to Commission proposals in the case of the multinational plans and partly because of difficulties in bringing legislation on technical measures into line with the Lisbon Treaty.

The complexity and diversity of technical measures as well as the fact that they are spread across many different regulations, have contributed to making implementation difficult for fishermen, which risks making fishermen mistrustful. Furthermore, the multiannual plans adopted between 2002 and 2009 were not all equally effective. New multiannual plans will be adopted under the new rules of the CFP.

Simplify technical measures : the committee considered that, in order to ensure the implementation of the CFP objectives, future technical measures should be simplified in a clearly structured legal framework and based on solid scientific data reviewed by peers. It recommended:

compiling a comprehensive list summarising all technical measures currently in force, in order to obtain a better overview of possible simplifications and deletions in relation to future technical measures; reviewing technical measures in a bid to implement the objectives of the CFP, improve selectivity, minimise discards and the impact of fishing on the environment, simplify current rules, and increase the scientific base ; adapting technical measures to the specific needs of each fishery and each region, thus helping to improve compliance by the industry concerned.

However, Members felt it necessary to maintain the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of rules common to all sea basins, or for technical measures not likely to be amended within the foreseeable future.

They recommended that a clear, general European framework for technical measures should be defined, setting out a limited number of major cross-cutting principles; all rules not applicable to the vast majority of European waters should not be included in this general framework but should instead come under regionalisation.

Furthermore, the committee suggested that technical measures:

assess the suitability, effectiveness and socio-economic implications for EU fleets and for the local communities; include specific provisions on the use of certain fishing gear in order to protect vulnerable habitats and marine species; ensure that destructive and non-selective fishing gear is not used, and that the general use of explosive and poisonous substances should be prohibited.

Members believed that there is an urgent need to establish a coherent set of technical measures for each of the three main basins , taking account of the specific nature of each, where Union decisions may have a significant impact on the recovery of fish stocks and the protection of ecosystems and on the sustainable management of shared fish stocks.

Landing obligation : notwithstanding the landing obligation, in force since 1 January 2015 and to be progressively applied to all fish stocks by 2019, Members felt that provisions regarding technical measures must be sufficiently flexible to adapt in real time to progress in the fisheries and to provide more opportunities for the fisheries sector to put innovations regarding selective fishing methods into practice.

In order to adapt the technical measures so as to allow them to implement and facilitate more selective fishing, Members recommended the following three measures : (i) substantially modifying, or even revoking, the rules governing the composition of catches; (ii) affording greater flexibility as regards mesh sizes, (iii) making it possible to hold several types of gear on board.

Multiannual plans: stressing the vital role that multiannual plans play in the conservation of fisheries resources under the CFP, the report insisted that:

the co-legislators must continue to seek agreement on multiannual plans with regard to institutional competences under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and on the basis of the relevant case law; multiannual plans should form a robust and lasting framework for fisheries management , be based on best and most recent scientific and socio-economic findings recognised by peers, and be adapted to the evolution of stocks, as well as providing flexibility for annual Council decisions on fishing opportunities; progress must be made on future multiannual plans for restoring and maintaining stocks at levels above those that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, including an advance timetable, a conservation safeguard trigger, a mechanism for adapting to changes in scientific thinking and a review clause;

Lastly, the committee reaffirmed the need to increase the involvement of stakeholders through the Advisory Councils in the formulation and implementation of multiannual plans and in all decisions concerning regionalisation.

Documents
2015/11/10
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2015/10/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2015/09/18
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2015/05/06
   EP - MATO Gabriel (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in PECH
2015/04/30
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0328/2015 - Gabriel Mato - § 19/1

2015/12/15 Outcome: +: 613, 0: 55, -: 20
DE FR IT GB PL ES RO BE HU NL PT SE CZ BG DK FI SK EL HR AT LT LV SI IE LU EE CY MT
Total
85
68
66
63
49
45
31
21
20
25
20
19
19
14
13
12
12
20
11
17
10
8
8
10
5
5
6
5
icon: PPE PPE
200

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
180

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

3
icon: ECR ECR
68

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1
2

Slovakia ECR

2

Greece ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
66

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Bulgaria ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Croatia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
35

France EFDD

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Italy GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
4

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
12

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

France NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

1

Poland NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
34

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Poland ENF

2

Romania ENF

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Austria ENF

3

A8-0328/2015 - Gabriel Mato - § 19/2

2015/12/15 Outcome: -: 326, +: 303, 0: 60
ES HR IT BG CZ IE SI EL PT EE PL LT LV HU CY LU AT SK BE FI SE MT RO DK NL FR DE GB
Total
45
11
66
14
18
10
8
20
20
5
49
10
8
20
6
5
17
13
21
12
18
5
31
13
25
68
85
65
icon: PPE PPE
200

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
66

Croatia ALDE

2

Bulgaria ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Latvia ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Romania ALDE

3

Denmark ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
36

Poland EFDD

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

France EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
12

Poland NI

1
3

France NI

Against (1)

1

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Italy GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2
4

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

4

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
34
2
3

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Romania ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

6
icon: ECR ECR
69

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Greece ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2
icon: S&D S&D
179

Croatia S&D

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Czechia S&D

4

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

2

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Slovakia S&D

For (1)

4

Finland S&D

2

Malta S&D

3
3

Netherlands S&D

3

A8-0328/2015 - Gabriel Mato - § 21/2

2015/12/15 Outcome: -: 360, +: 304, 0: 24
IT ES EL PT LT RO EE CZ FI CY SE DK MT IE BE LU BG GB HR SI AT SK LV HU NL DE FR PL
Total
66
45
20
20
10
31
5
19
12
6
19
13
5
10
21
5
14
65
11
8
15
13
7
20
25
85
68
49
icon: S&D S&D
180

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

3

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Bulgaria S&D

Abstain (1)

4

Croatia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

Against (1)

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Romania ALDE

Abstain (1)

3

Estonia ALDE

3

Denmark ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ALDE

2

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45
3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
37

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

France EFDD

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
12

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

France NI

Against (1)

1

Poland NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
32

Romania ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Austria ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Poland ENF

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

6

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2
icon: ECR ECR
69

Italy ECR

2

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Finland ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2
icon: PPE PPE
200

Lithuania PPE

1

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Finland PPE

3

Cyprus PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

Against (2)

2

A8-0328/2015 - Gabriel Mato - Résolution

2015/12/15 Outcome: +: 571, 0: 65, -: 6
DE FR IT PL GB ES RO BE HU PT SE CZ NL AT BG EL HR FI DK SK LT SI LV IE MT EE LU CY
Total
75
63
64
47
61
41
28
21
18
19
19
18
24
15
12
19
11
12
12
11
9
8
7
10
5
4
3
5
icon: PPE PPE
187

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
167

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ALDE

2

Croatia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
65

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Greece ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1
2

Slovakia ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
37

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
37

France EFDD

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
31
2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Romania ENF

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Austria ENF

2
icon: NI NI
11

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

France NI

For (1)

1

Poland NI

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
42

Germany GUE/NGL

For (1)

5

Italy GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
4

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
AmendmentsDossier
248 2015/2092(INI)
2015/10/20 PECH 248 amendments...
source: 569.779

History

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

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Fisheries
committee
PECH
rapporteur
name: MATO Gabriel date: 2015-05-06T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Fisheries
committee
PECH
date
2015-05-06T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MATO Gabriel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0328&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0328_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0447
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0447_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2015-04-30T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike group: ECR name: VAN DALEN Peter group: ALDE name: BILBAO BARANDICA Izaskun group: GUE/NGL name: FERREIRA João group: EFD name: AFFRONTE Marco responsible: True committee: PECH date: 2015-05-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Fisheries rapporteur: group: EPP name: MATO Gabriel
  • date: 2015-11-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: RODUST Ulrike group: ECR name: VAN DALEN Peter group: ALDE name: BILBAO BARANDICA Izaskun group: GUE/NGL name: FERREIRA João group: EFD name: AFFRONTE Marco responsible: True committee: PECH date: 2015-05-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Fisheries rapporteur: group: EPP name: MATO Gabriel
  • date: 2015-11-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0328&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0328/2015 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2015-12-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20151214&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0447 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0447/2015 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries commissioner: VELLA Karmenu
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Fisheries
committee
PECH
date
2015-05-06T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MATO Gabriel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows