Procedure : 2012/0236(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0146/2013

Texts tabled :

A7-0146/2013

Debates :

Votes :

PV 11/06/2013 - 10.11

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2013)0244

REPORT     ***I
PDF 234kWORD 247k
26 April 2013
PE 502.051v03-00 A7-0146/2013

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks

(COM(2012)0498 – C7-0290/2012 – 2012/0236(COD))

Committee on Fisheries

Rapporteur: Diane Dodds

ERRATA/ADDENDA
AMENDMENTS
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks

(COM(2012)0498 – C7-0290/2012 – 2012/0236(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0498),

–   having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0290/2012),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 December 2012(1),

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A7-0146/2013),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Member States have used different methodologies to calculate effort during the reference years and to calculate reported effort consumption within the plan. This has allowed a higher level of deployed effort than intended by the plan, which should therefore be rectified.

(2) Member States have used different methodologies to calculate effort during the reference years and to calculate reported effort consumption within the plan. This has allowed a higher level of deployed effort than intended by the plan, which should therefore be rectified by standardising the methodologies used by the Member States to calculate effort.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3 a) Maintaining fishing mortality rates at a sustainable level, based on scientific advice, should allow fish stocks to recover. Member States should give priority to the development and promotion of measures and incentives that aim to avoid unwanted catches. Financial support should be provided for the use of selective gear measures.

Justification

Other measures than automatic reduction of TAC and fishing effort are useful in order to obtain the targets set in this plan.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) Given the high levels of cod discards that have been observed during the period of implementation of the plan, it is necessary that Member States take appropriate action to minimise discards, inter alia by allocating their fishing opportunities amongst vessels in such a way as to match quotas to expected catches to the greatest degree possible.

(8) Given the high levels of cod discards that have been observed during the period of implementation of the plan, it is necessary that Member States take appropriate action to minimise and, where possible, eliminate discards, inter alia by allocating their fishing opportunities amongst vessels in such a way as to match quotas to expected catches to the greatest degree possible.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 4 – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the fishing effort deployed by a group of vessels shall be calculated as the sum of the products of capacity-values in kW for each vessel and the number of days each vessel has been present within an area set out in Annex I. A day present within an area shall be any continuous period of 24 hours or part thereof during which a vessel is present within the area and absent from port.

1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the fishing effort deployed by a group of vessels shall be calculated as the sum of the products of capacity-values in kW for each vessel and the number of days each vessel has been present within an area set out in Annex I. A day present within an area shall be any continuous period of 24 hours or part thereof during which a vessel either is present within the area and absent from port or, as the case may be, has its fishing gear deployed within the area.

Justification

This amendment will allow development of alternative methods of accounting for time at sea (i.e. soak time for gill netters, etc.) that may better incentivise cod avoidance behaviour.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) 1342/2008

Article 4 – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When calculating a day present within an area Member States shall use the same method used to establish the effort baseline referred to in Article 12(2)(a).

2. Member States shall calculate days present within an area in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community fisheries control system.

Justification

Reference to Article 26 of the control regulation allows the effort monitoring method laid down in that regulation to be maintained. The method does not need to be changed in the modified cod plan.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 1a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 8 – paragraph 5a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1a) In Article 8, the following paragraph 5a is inserted:

 

'5a. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, the Council may decide on an alternative TAC level when scientific advice indicates that that level would be more appropriate to meet the objectives of the plan.'.

Justification

This amendment would enable the Council to set a different TAC in instances where the stringent following of the Management Plan would move recovery away from the objectives of the plan, i.e., for North Sea cod in 2013 a 20% cut was advised following strict adherence to the plan, despite ICES having noted a gradual improvement in stock and recognising in subsequent advise that this will only serve to increase discards, not reduce mortality.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 9

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Article 9 is replaced by the following:

(2) Article 9 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 9

‘Article 9

Special procedure for setting TACs

Special procedure for setting TACs

1. Where there is insufficient information to set the TACs in accordance with Article 7, the TACs for cod stocks in the Kattegat, the west of Scotland and the Irish Sea shall be set at a level indicated by scientific advice. However, if the level indicated by scientific advice is more than 20 % greater than the TACs in the previous year, they shall be set at a level 20% greater than the TACs in the previous year, or if the level indicated by scientific advice is more than 25 % less than the TACs in the previous year they shall be set at a level 25 % less than the TACs in the previous year.

1. Where there is insufficient information to set the TACs in accordance with Article 7, the TACs for cod stocks in the Kattegat, the west of Scotland and the Irish Sea shall be set at a level indicated by scientific advice. However, if the level indicated by scientific advice is more than 20 % greater than the TACs in the previous year, they shall be set at a level 20% greater than the TACs in the previous year, or if the level indicated by scientific advice is more than 20 % less than the TACs in the previous year they shall be set at a level 20 % less than the TACs in the previous year.

2. Where there is insufficient information to set the TACs in accordance with paragraph 1, the TACs for cod stocks in the Kattegat, the west of Scotland and the Irish Sea shall be set at a level corresponding to:

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where scientific advice indicates that there should be no directed fisheries and that

(a) a 25 % reduction compared to the TAC in the previous year,

(i) by-catch should be minimised or reduced to the level advised by STECF or ICES, and/or

or, if scientific advice so recommends,

(ii) the catches of cod should be reduced to the level advised by STECF or ICES,

(b) a reduction not exceeding 25 %, compared to the TAC in the previous year, together with other appropriate measures.

the Council shall decide not to apply annual adjustments to the total allowable catch in the subsequent year on condition that the TAC set is for by-catch only.

3. Where there is insufficient information to set the TACs in accordance with Article 8, the TACs for the cod stock in the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the eastern Channel shall be set by applying mutatis mutandis paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, unless consultations with Norway result in agreement on a different level of the TAC.’

3. Where there is insufficient information to set the TACs in accordance with Article 8, the TACs for the cod stock in the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the eastern Channel shall be set by applying mutatis mutandis paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, unless consultations with Norway result in agreement on a different level of the TAC.’

Justification

This amendment should help to avoid automatic reductions in the absence of reliable scientific information. The current provision was intended to apply in exceptional circumstances but has become a norm over time, which means that TACs for the areas covered by this Article have been reduced significantly and further automatic cuts would lead to the effective closure of the cod fisheries, increasing discards as a result. STEFC concluded that for the purposes of attaining the objectives of the cod plan it is more appropriate in some cases (i.e., in by-catch fisheries) to allow more flexibility to reflect the scientific advice on a case by case basis.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EC) 1342/2008

Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. In order to obtain sustainable fishing mortality rates, based on scientific advice, a gradual elimination of discards shall be implemented. Selective gears and other measures for this purpose shall be introduced by Member States with financial support from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Member States shall consult the relevant Regional Advisory Council as well as ICES and/or STEFC and relevant stakeholders on the measures to be adopted.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 11a – paragraph 1– introductory phrase

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Fishing effort deployed by a vessel during a trip may be excluded by the Member States when counting the deployed effort against the maximum allowable fishing effort if:

1. Fishing effort deployed by a vessel during a trip may be excluded by the Member States for so long as one of the following conditions is met:

Justification

Partial exemption from effort would be appropriate in a mixed fisheries context where vessels often have quota to catch cod.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 11a – paragraph 1 – point c

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c. during that trip the fishing vessel concerned has only one regulated gear on board and that gear is listed in accordance with paragraph 2.

c. during that trip the fishing vessel concerned uses one type of regulated gear on board and that gear is listed in accordance with paragraph 2; if the vessel carries other gear on board during the fishing trip, it shall be stowed in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

Justification

The wording is unclear and in its current form it precludes vessels having other gear on board which might be necessary during a trip to a different area or to fish other species. It should be remembered that in the event of gear failure, vessels have reserve gear stowed in the hold. Other gear needed for fishing other species or in other areas is generally kept in the hold. It should therefore be specified that one type of regulated gear may be used on board a vessel at any given moment.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 11a – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Based on the information provided by Member States pursuant to paragraph 3, and in accordance with scientific advice, the Council shall establish a list of areas outside cod-distribution and a list of gears the technical attributes of which result in cod catches of less than 1,5 % of the total catches measured by weight.

2. Based on the information provided by Member States pursuant to paragraph 3, and in accordance with scientific advice, the Council shall establish a list of areas outside cod-distribution and a list of gears the technical attributes of which result in cod catches of less than 1,5 % of the total catches measured by weight. Once a gear or area, submitted by a Member State, is approved, it shall be possible for other Member States to use it.

Justification

Once STEFC approve a gear or area as described in paragraph 1 it should become available for use by all Members States. This would significantly speed up the current approval process where each Member State has to seek approval for the same gear to be used.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 11b – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Requests for the adjustment of the baseline referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted by Member States to the Commission by [within one year from adoption of this amendment - will be filled with concrete date].

2. Requests for the adjustment of the baseline referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted by Member States to the Commission by the 31 December of each year.

Justification

In order to ensure the continued innovation of gear selectivity the baseline should be altered annually.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 11c – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When paragraph 1 is applied, Member States shall adjust the maximum allowable fishing effort set pursuant to Article 12(1) for the effort group concerned by deducting an amount of effort equivalent to the amount of effort deployed by the participating vessel in the year before its exclusion from the fishing effort regime.

2. When paragraph 1 is applied, Member States shall adjust the maximum allowable fishing effort set pursuant to Article 12(1) for the effort group concerned, in accordance with the detailed rules that have been adopted under Article 32 of this Regulation.

Justification

New Article 11c provided in the Commission proposal is to be welcomed as effort control is unnecessary in relation to vessels that participate in fully documented fisheries as all cod catches are counted against quota and fish mortality is fixed. However, instead should be recommended the reduction of effort baselines achieved in compliance with the arrangement now set out in Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation 237/2010, that is to say that 2004-06 (or 2005-07) baseline should be reduced by the amount that the participating vessels contributed during that period.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 11c – paragraph 4

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Transfers of cod quota to and from the vessels excluded from the fishing-effort regime in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be prohibited.

deleted

Justification

The risk related to discarding of cod by vessels no participating in trials of fully documented fisheries is only a theoretical one. There is no evidence that discards by the non-FDF fleet have increased. Indeed it is the case that discards of North Sea fleet have declined during the period of implementation of the Cod Recovery Plan. The hypothesis advanced by the STECF is therefore not supported by presently available scientific evidence. Proposals should not be made in the absence of such evidence.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No1342/2008

Article 11 d – title

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Transitional measures on exclusions

Measures on exclusions previously obtained.

Justification

The exclusions obtained must not simply be transitional; they should cover the period of validity of the regulation.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No1342/2008

Article 11 d – introduction

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Exclusions from the fishing effort regime that were already in force prior to [__ - will be filled with concrete date] shall continue to apply for as long as the conditions under which those exclusions were granted remain fulfilled. Member States shall provide annually to the Commission any relevant information enabling it to establish that those conditions remain fulfilled.

Exclusions from the fishing effort regime that were already in force prior to …* shall continue to apply for as long as the conditions under which those exclusions were granted remain fulfilled. Member States shall provide annually to the Commission any relevant information enabling it to establish that those conditions remain fulfilled.

 

______________

 

* OJ: please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Justification

The date to be applied should be the date on which this regulation enters into force.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 5(a)

Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Article 12 – paragraph 4

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) Paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

(a) Paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4. For aggregated effort groups where the percentage cumulative catch calculated according to paragraph 3(d) is equal to or exceeds 20 %, annual adjustments shall apply. The maximum allowable fishing effort of the groups concerned shall be calculated as follows:

‘4. For aggregated effort groups where the percentage cumulative catch calculated according to paragraph 3(d) is equal to or exceeds 20 %, annual adjustments shall apply. The maximum allowable fishing effort of the groups concerned shall be calculated as follows:

(a) where Articles 7 or 8 apply, by applying to the baseline the same percentage adjustment as that set out in those Articles for fishing mortality;

(a) where Articles 7 or 8 apply, by applying to the baseline the same percentage adjustment as that set out in those Articles for fishing mortality;

(b) where Article 9(1) applies, by applying the same percentage adjustment in fishing effort as the adjustment of the TAC compared with the previous year;

(b) where Article 9 applies, by applying the same percentage adjustment in fishing effort as the adjustment of the TAC compared with the previous year;

(c) where Article 9(2) applies, by applying a reduction not exceeding 25 %, compared to the maximum allowable fishing-effort for the effort groups concerned in the previous year, together with other appropriate measures.

 

Justification

This amendment is necessary in order to ensure consistency following the above suggested changes to Article 9.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 5 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No1342/2008

Article 12 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(5a) The following Article is inserted:

 

'Article 12 a

 

In order to obtain sustainable fishing mortality rates, based on scientific advice, a gradual elimination of discards shall be implemented. Selective gears and other measures for this purpose shall be introduced by Member States with financial support from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Member States shall consult the relevant Regional Advisory Council as well as ICES and/or STEFC and relevant stakeholders on the measures to be adopted.'

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 7

Regulation (EC) No1342/2008

Article 14 – paragraph 5

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where the scientific data indicate that more than 10 % of the total cod catches for a particular effort group consist of discards, or where the quota allocation does not correspond to the expected catches and is likely to result in cod discards, the Member State concerned shall take immediate measures to minimise cod discards.

5. Where the scientific data indicate that, for a particular gear, large volumes of cod are discarded throughout the management period, the Member State concerned shall take immediate measures to minimise cod discards.

Justification

The figure of 10% is not representative of the real contribution a particular gear makes to the fishing mortality of cod. With the TAC set at '0' in West Scotland, there could be significant discard rates for a low catch rate.

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 7 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No1342/2008

Article 16 – paragraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(7 a) In Article 16(3), the words "in 2009" are deleted where they first appear.

Justification

This amendment provides Member States with flexibility to accommodate geographical developments in fisheries that do not target cod. This amendment is line with the Commission’s stated objective in its explanatory memorandum of introducing greater flexibility into the plan.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 7 b (new)

Regulation (EC) No1342/2008

Article 17 – paragraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(7b) In Article 17, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:

 

'Where the cpue of the donor gear group is lower than the cpue of the receiving gear group, the Member State shall apply a correction factor to the amount of effort in the receiving gear group so that the latter's higher cpue is compensated for. The Member States shall not perform this adjustment where they can demonstrate that the transfer is made with the aim of avoiding cod catches or limiting discards in compliance with European regulations on the use of fishing gear.'

Justification

The aim of the existing measure is to ensure that the constant effort of the different types of gear is maintained. This is outdated and runs counter to the current objectives, which aim to encourage selectivity. By opting for a larger mesh size, for example, and thereby changing gear group, a vessel could see the volume of its effort reduced. The possibility for such vessels to transfer their fishing effort without being discouraged from doing so and penalised should be introduced.

(1)

OJ C 44, 15.2.2013, p. 125.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Decisions made by EU Fisheries Ministers on 18 December 2012 have the potential to make alignment of the Long Term Cod Plan the most controversial in this series of initiatives, as this is a matter that falls under the ordinary legislative procedure. As Parliament, and the Commission, have taken the Council to court over this decision, it would be superfluous to here further develop the arguments.

Regulation 1342/2008 establishing the Long Term Cod Plan was published on 18 December that year. The plan represented what was a dramatic step in efforts to rebuild cod stocks in northern waters of the EU. After 3 years of implementation it was reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), which published their evaluation of multi-annual plans for cod in Irish Sea, Kattegat, North Sea, and West of Scotland following their July 2011 plenary meeting in Copenhagen. While accepting that after only 3 years of the plan’s implementation it was premature to conclude on the plan’s medium term impact, STECF did conclude:“...that the (current) plan is not delivering reduced F (fishing mortality) and additionally in many areas does not have stakeholders’ support. A plan which stakeholders support is more likely to succeed because the stakeholders’ actions are needed to contribute to its success. Support of the plan also should also, in theory, lead to their acceptance of responsibility to fulfil their obligations”.

In deciding our course of action on amending the cod plan we must consider the views of the science, which as quoted from earlier is of the opinion that the existing plan has not delivered what was intended. Stakeholders would agree with this. The amendments to the Commission’s proposal seek to deliver the goal of rebuilding cod stocks, while at the same time securing buy-in from stakeholders.

It is noted that the development of a new Long Term Plan for Cod stocks is regarded by many as a stop gap and the aim is to replace this plan with mixed-fisheries or multi-species plans, as the science for such plans develops. The adequacy of this science differs between areas and the timetable for moving to multi-species plans in all the areas covered by the Cod Plan remains vague. Therefore, an urgent need to progress and improve the existing plan remains.

A recent meeting between ICES and stakeholders recorded that after 70 years of increasing or stable fishing effort, the last 5-6 years has seen a decline. This is already contributing to an improved outlook for some cod stocks. While ICES states that overall mortality on cod stocks is reducing, there is an urgent need to reinforce this trend, whilst decoupling cod from those fisheries where cod is a minimal or non-existent catch.

The purpose of the amendments tabled to the Commission’s proposal published on 12 September 2012 is to further reinforce the improvements already proposed by the Commission. Amendments 3 and 10 relate to Articles 9 and 12 of the Regulation.

The proposed amendments seek to reinforce and extend co-operation between fisheries scientists and the industry. We have already witnessed successful projects in several fisheries where cod are a factor. These seek to reduce cod catches and reduce discards, while retaining sustainable catches of target species. This represents a win/win for all concerned.

In particular reference is made to Amendment 6. It is logical that where one Member State has through the STECF process identified an area or gear the attributes of which result in cod catches of less than 1.5 percent then the option of this area or gear should be extended to other Member States involved in the same fishery, thus simplifying the process for all involved.

In respect of measuring cod by-catches as a percentage, the Rapporteur is aware of the sentiment that states such an approach is flawed. Unfortunately, no alternative has been presented by the scientific community, which would secure the goal of incentivising minimal cod by-catches in mixed-fisheries situations.

Related to this is the interpretation of the existing Regulation by some Member States. In discussions with the Commission they advise that flexibility exists within the Regulation that permits vessels to deploy gears approved by STECF for an exemption from effort controls when this gear is deployed for either one day or a management period extending up to 12 months. This flexibility is important in encouraging vessels to deploy such gears. There are cases where this flexibility has not be recognised or utilised. It is important to make such intentions explicit.

Dealing with Amendments 8 and 9 in respect of Fully Documented Fisheries. Where such projects have been trialled they have been successful. Therefore the option to pursue such initiatives and variations of them should be encouraged.

This report has been work in progress and again seeks to further improve upon this Regulation and in doing so secure and attain the goal the Regulation aspires to.


PROCEDURE

Title

Establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks

References

COM(2012)0498 – C7-0290/2012 – 2012/0236(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

12.9.2012

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

PECH

22.10.2012

 

 

 

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

ENVI

22.10.2012

 

 

 

Not delivering opinions

       Date of decision

ENVI

11.10.2012

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Diane Dodds

9.10.2012

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

6.11.2012

28.11.2012

19.2.2013

 

Date adopted

23.4.2013

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

19

3

1

Members present for the final vote

John Stuart Agnew, Antonello Antinoro, Kriton Arsenis, Chris Davies, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo, Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, Ian Hudghton, Werner Kuhn, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Isabella Lövin, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Crescenzio Rivellini, Ulrike Rodust, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Struan Stevenson, Isabelle Thomas, Nils Torvalds, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Ole Christensen, Jean Louis Cottigny, Diane Dodds, Barbara Matera, Gesine Meissner, Mario Pirillo, Nikolaos Salavrakos

Date tabled

26.4.2013

Last updated: 30 May 2013Legal notice