REPORT 1. on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland
2. on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen Acquis
17.6.2005 - (13049/2004 – COM(2004)0593 – C6‑0240/2004 – 2004/0200(CNS)) - (13054/2004 – COM(2004)0593 – C6‑0241/2004 – 2004/0199(CNS)) - *
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Timothy Kirkhope
1. DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland
(13049/2004 – COM(2004)0593 – C6‑0240/2004 – 2004/0200(CNS))
(Consultation procedure)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2004)0593)[1],
– having regard to the agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation (13049/2004),
– having regard to Articles 63(1)a and 300(2), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0240/2004),
– having regard to the competences of the mixed committee provided for by the Agreement, which constitutes a "specific institutional framework" within the meaning of Article 300(3), second subparagraph of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which considers Article 300(3), second subparagraph, providing for the application of the assent procedure, to be the appropriate legal basis,
– having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0201/2005),
1. Approves the proposal for a Council decision as amended and approves the conclusion of the agreement;
2. Reserves the right to defend its prerogatives as conferred by the Treaty;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Swiss Confederation.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendments by Parliament |
Amendment 1 Citation 1 | |
|
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 63(1)(a), in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof, |
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 63(1)(a), in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof, |
Amendment 2 Citation 2 | |
|
Having regard the opinion of the European Parliament, |
Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament, |
- [1] Not yet published in OJ.
2. DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis
(13054/2004 – COM(2004)0593 – C6‑0241/2004 – 2004/0199(CNS))
(Consultation procedure)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2004)0593)[1],
– having regard to the agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation (13054/2004),
– having regard to Articles 62, 63(3), 66, 95 and 300(2), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6‑0241/2004),
– having regard to the competences of the mixed committee provided for by the Agreement, which constitutes a "specific institutional framework" within the meaning of Article 300(3), second subparagraph of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which considers Article 300(3), second subparagraph, providing for the application of the assent procedure, to be the appropriate legal basis,
– having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0201/2005),
1. Approves the proposal for a Council decision as amended and approves the conclusion of the agreement;
2. Reserves the right to defend its prerogatives as conferred by the Treaty;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Swiss Confederation.
Amendment 1 Citation 1 | |
|
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 62, 63(3), 66 and 95 in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof, |
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 62, 63(3), 66 and 95 in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof, |
Amendment 2 Citation 2 | |
|
Having regard the opinion of the European Parliament, |
Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament, |
- [1] Not yet published in OJ.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
After the conclusion of the so called “Bilateral Agreements I”, the EU expressed its intention to increase cooperation with Switzerland with regard to the cross-border taxation of savings and the fight against fraud in the area of indirect taxes. In return, Switzerland asked to open negotiations concerning its association with the Schengen/Dublin systems.
On 17 June 2002, the Commission was authorised by the Council[1] to open these negotiations resulting in two separate but linked Agreements: the first one related to the Schengen acquis, the second to the Dublin/Eurodac acquis. The Agreements have been conceived following the general pattern of the Agreements concluded with Norway and Iceland[2] but in accordance with the specific constitutional requirements of Switzerland.
The European Parliament is now consulted with regard to these Agreements.
1. The Schengen acquis Agreement
The purpose of this Agreement is to associate Switzerland with the work of the EU in the area of the Schengen acquis. The adoption of new acts or measures will remain, however, the monopoly of the European institutions. In this way, Switzerland will contribute de facto to the development of legislation on the Schengen acquis, without participating in the decision making de iure.
Switzerland will have to accept and apply the Schengen acquis and its development without any exception or derogation[3]. With regards to the adoption of the future Schengen acquis, if Switzerland's Constitution requires a referendum, then Switzerland would have a two year grace period to accept and implement the new acts or measures.[4] In the meantime, where possible, Switzerland shall implement the act or measure in question on a provisional basis. However, if Switzerland failed to implement the new act or measure on a provisional basis, then, under certain conditions, it may lead to "proportionate, appropriate measures against Switzerland to ensure that Schengen cooperation operates smoothly."[5]
The Agreement also establishes a Mixed Committee composed of representatives of the Swiss Government, all members of the Council of the EU, and of the Commission.
The Mixed Committee is conceived as a forum for discussion on the legal instruments that will develop the Schengen acquis, which will ensure that any concern of Switzerland is duly considered. It also provides for discussion on practical difficulties related to the Schengen acquis and cooperation between the contracting parties and is charged to ensure the effective functioning of the Agreement. The Mixed Committee has the discretionary power to maintain the Agreement even if Switzerland does not implement a development of the Schengen acquis. It also has the power to regulate any situations of conflict which could arise within the Agreement.
The Agreement will be implemented only after the Council, following a Schengen evaluation, decides that Switzerland fulfils all the conditions in order to participate in the cooperation set up by the Schengen mechanism.
2. Agreement on Dublin/Eurodac acquis
In this second Agreement Switzerland will be linked to the Dublin acquis as well as the Eurodac legislation. Switzerland will have to accept, implement and apply the current and future Dublin/Eurodac acquis with no exception, as well as the relevant provisions of the data protection directive.
This Agreement has in the most part adopted the same structure as that of the Agreement on the Schengen acquis. The participation of Switzerland in the Dublin/Eurodac area is restricted to decision-shaping. The adoption process of the future Dublin/Eurodac acquis by Switzerland is subject to the same procedure and conditions. However, the form of the institutional association of Switzerland is different; it will take place within the framework of a Mixed Committee, composed by representatives of the European Community, represented by the Commission, and by Switzerland. As far as the maintenance and termination of the Agreement is concerned, the Mixed Committee has basically the same functions as those set up within the Agreement on the Schengen acquis.
Attached to both Agreements are the Final Acts comprising unilateral and common declarations of the contractual parties with regard to the Agreements, as well as the legislative financial statements which foresee Switzerland's contribution to the financing of the implementation of the Agreements. The Agreements also establish a financial contribution by Switzerland to the development of the Schengen acquis and in particular of SIS II and regarding the Eurodac central unit.
3. The debate in Switzerland
Of the nine dossiers approved by the Swiss Parliament on 17 December 2004, Switzerland’s signature of the Schengen/Dublin Association Agreements was the most controversial issue. Supporters consider that Schengen will strengthen Switzerland’s efforts against international crime and will improve the tourist industry. Opponents believe that without border controls Switzerland will become unsafe and that the country will be transferring sovereignty to a supranational community[6]. Moreover, the Swiss People's Party is arguing that the Agreements are an attempt to push Switzerland closer to EU membership.
A referendum has been proposed against the Schengen/Dublin Agreements by the Swiss People’s Party who presented the government on 31 March 2005 with a petition bearing 86.000 signatures, well over the 50.000 needed for a referendum. The voters will decide on 5 June 2005 whether Switzerland will sign up to the Agreements.
According to a poll conducted by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation in February 2005, 59% of voters support the Schengen/Dublin Agreements. [7] This poll shows that support amongst Swiss citizens has fallen since October 2004 when 69% of those polled said they would vote in favour. The GfS Bern polling and research institute considered that this vote will likely reflect the Swiss people's choice between national sovereignty and security[8].
4. Position of the Rapporteur
4.1. The legal basis of the Proposals
Although a single text was negotiated with Switzerland, the Commission proposes to adopt the Agreement on the Schengen acquis by two separate acts (one in the first pillar and one in the third pillar[9]). The Dublin/Eurodac Agreement, however, is only in the first pillar. For the two first pillar instruments the Commission has chosen the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) TEC as a legal base which provides for the simple consultation of Parliament.
By letter of 27.01.2005 the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs requested, pursuant to rule 35.2 an opinion from the Legal Affairs Committee on the legal basis proposed. On 31.03.2005, the Legal Affairs Committee decided that the Mixed Committees created within the Agreements, due their competencies, could be considered a specific institutional framework in the sense of the second subparagraph of Article 300 (3) TEC. By consequence, the Commission should have indicated the second subparagraph of Article 300 (3) TEC as the legal basis of the proposals (which implies the assent procedure).
4.2. The evaluation of the Proposals
With these Agreements, Switzerland will become the third State after Iceland and Norway which participates in the Schengen and Dublin/Eurodac acquis, but remains outside the EU. In the particular case of Switzerland this association can be justified by its geographical position in the middle of the EU Member States.
These Agreements may result in several positive consequences. Switzerland's participation in the Schengen acquis will eliminate certain obstacles to the free movement of persons for citizens as well as for third-country nationals[10] and will strengthen cooperation in the fields of the Schengen acquis.
Nevertheless, some critical points need to be mentioned:
Firstly, Switzerland's association with the Schengen/Dublin acquis could bring additional complications within a zone already submitted to "variable geometry". In this sense, Switzerland will have to sign and implement Agreements with Norway and Iceland on the one hand and Denmark on the other hand. This could lead to an even more complex situation both in political and legal areas.
Secondly, on the elimination of obstacles to the free movement of persons, it is a fact that Switzerland is not a member of the customs union and it will continue to conduct border checks on goods. This could allow it in certain circumstances also to check individuals. In this context, Switzerland must respect the principle of abolition of border controls on persons.
Thirdly, Switzerland has been granted the possibility to decide in a sovereign way whether or not to accept the new acts or measures, and a two year period has been established in case a referendum is required. In this way, the Agreements took into consideration the specific constitutional requirements of Switzerland. However, it is important to bear in mind that due to the links between the Schengen and the Dublin acquis, their developments must be accepted and applied simultaneously by all the participating States. In order not to undermine this principle, it is important that Switzerland tries to limit this period and act in good faith.
Finally, the Rapporteur considers that the European Parliament should in future be more closely informed about ongoing international negotiations in order to be able to exercise its competencies.
In conclusion, given all the considerations mentioned, the Rapporteur supports the Agreements and recommends giving assent to them.
- [1] 2437th General Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg, 17 June 2002.
- [2] OJ L 176 of 10.7.1999, p.36 and OJ L 93 of 3.4.2001, p.40.
- [3] However, an exception has been granted, concerning the development of the Schengen acquis, if such a development concerns requests for search and seizure in respect of offences in the field of direct taxation if these offences are not punishable under Swiss law with a custodial penalty.
- [4] Norway and Iceland have been granted 6 months and 4 weeks respectively in order to accept and implement the future Schengen and Dublin acquis.
- [5] Article 7.2b)2nd subparagraph of the Agreement
- [6] EU negotiation package in the bag, Swiss Review No.1, p.9, February 2005.
- [7] http://www.swisspolitics.org.
- [8] http://www.swisspolitics.org
- [9] According to Articles 24 and 38 TEU the European Parliament is not consulted on the third pillar instrument.
- [10] Those third-country nationals living in Switzerland, for example, will not need to apply for visas any longer to travel to the other Schengen states.
1. OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS ON THE PROPOSED LEGAL BASIS
Letter of the Committee on Legal Affairs
Subject: Legal basis of the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (13049/2004 - COM(2004)0593 – C6-0240/2004 - 2004/0200(CNS) - )[1].
Dear Mr Chairman,
By letter of 27 January 2005 your predecessor - Mr Jean-Louis Bourlanges - called upon the Committee on Legal Affairs (pursuant to Rule 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure) to consider the validity and the relevance of the legal basis selected for the above Commission proposal. The proposal is based on Article 63(1)(a) in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, which means that Parliament merely has to be consulted.
The committee considered the above matter at its meetings of 3 February and 31 March 2005.
The Agreement in question concerns the criteria and the mechanisms for determining which State is responsible for considering an asylum application submitted in a Member State or in Switzerland. Pursuant to the Agreement, Switzerland is required to accept and apply the Dublin and Eurodac rules and a Mixed Committee [sic] comprising representatives from the two parties (the European Community and Switzerland) is set up and is invested with decision-making powers in certain areas.
The question which arises is that of deciding whether the Mixed Committee should or should not be deemed to constitute ‘a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which Parliament’s assent is required.
It is clear from previous European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings that the selection of the legal basis is not left to the Community legislator's discretion but must be based on objective criteria which may be subject to legal review. These criteria include in particular the purpose and the substance of the legal act[2].
In view of the purpose and the substance of the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the above-mentioned Agreement with Switzerland, the Mixed Committee may be deemed to constitute a ‘specific institutional framework’, since a mixed committee of that type entails the setting up of an organisational structure which has the discretionary power to take decisions which are binding on the parties to the agreement, with particular reference to the re-establishment of the agreement and the settlement of disputes.
Hence the legal basis selected for the proposal for a Council decision in question is not the right one; it should be the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty (which provides for the assent procedure), rather than the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which Parliament is merely consulted.
At its meeting of 31 March 2005 the Committee on Legal Affairs decided unanimously[3] - in the light of the above considerations and on a proposal from the rapporteur on legal bases (Mr Manuel Medina Ortega) - that the legal basis for the proposal for a Council decision in question should be the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty and not the first subparagraph.
Hence the Committee on Foreign Affairs considers that Parliament should ask to be consulted again regarding the conclusion of the above-mentioned Agreement.
Yours faithfully,
Giuseppe Gargani
- [1] Not yet published in the OJ.
- [2] See in particular the ECJ Judgement of 23 February 1999 in Case C-42/97, Parliament/Council, ECR 1999, p. I-869, paragraph 36.
- [3] The following were present for the vote: Andrzej Jan Szejna (acting chairman), Manuel Medina Ortega (draftsman and for Nicola Zingaretti), Alexander Nuno Alvaro (for Antonio Di Pietro), Maria Berger, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Bert Doorn, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Kurt Lechner (for Antonio López-Istúriz White), Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Aloyzas Sakalas and Jaroslav Zvěřina.
2. OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS ON THE PROPOSED LEGAL BASIS
Letter of the Committee on Legal Affairs
Subject: Legal basis of the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen Acquis (13054/2004 - COM(2004)0593 – C6-0241/2004 -2004/0199(CNS) - )[1].
Dear Mr Chairman,
By letter of 27 January 2005 your predecessor - Mr Jean-Louis Bourlanges - called upon the Committee on Legal Affairs (pursuant to Rule 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure) to consider the validity and the relevance of the legal basis selected for the above Commission proposal. The proposal is based on Articles 62, 63(3), 66 and 95 in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, which means that Parliament merely has to be consulted.
The committee considered the above matter at its meetings of 3 February and 31 March 2005.
The agreement in question concerns Switzerland’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. Pursuant to the agreement, Switzerland is required to accept and apply the Schengen acquis, both present and future. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Agreement a Mixed Committee [sic] comprising representatives of the Swiss Government and members of the Council of the European Union and the Commission is set up and is invested with decision-making powers in certain areas.
The question which arises is that of deciding whether the Mixed Committee should or should not be deemed to constitute ‘a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which Parliament’s assent is required.
It is clear from previous European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings that the selection of the legal basis is not left to the Community legislator's discretion but must be based on objective criteria which may be subject to legal review. These criteria include in particular the purpose and the substance of the legal act[2].
In view of the purpose and the substance of the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the above-mentioned Agreement with Switzerland, the Mixed Committee may be deemed to constitute a ‘specific institutional framework’, since a mixed committee of that type entails the setting up of an organisational structure which has the discretionary power to take decisions which are binding on the parties to the agreement, with particular reference to the continuing validity of the agreement and the settlement of disputes.
Hence the legal basis selected for the proposal for a Council decision in question is not the right one; it should be the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty (which provides for the assent procedure), rather than the first paragraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which Parliament is merely consulted.
At its meeting of 31 March 2005 the Committee on Legal Affairs decided unanimously[3] - in the light of the above considerations and on a proposal from the rapporteur on legal bases (Mr Manuel Medina Ortega) - that the legal basis for the proposal for a Council decision in question should be the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty and not the first subparagraph.
Hence the Committee on Foreign Affairs considers that Parliament should ask to be consulted again regarding the conclusion of the abovementioned agreement.
Yours faithfully,
Giuseppe Gargani
- [1] Not yet published in the OJ.
- [2] See in particular ECJ Judgement of 23 February 1999 in case C-42/97, Parliament/Council, ECR 1999, p. I-869, paragraph 36.
- [3] The following were present for the vote: Andrzej Jan Szejna (acting chairman), Manuel Medina Ortega (draftsman and for Nicola Zingaretti), Alexander Nuno Alvaro (for Antonio Di Pietro), Maria Berger, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Bert Doorn, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Kurt Lechner (for Antonio López-Istúriz White), Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Aloyzas Sakalas and Jaroslav Zvěřina.
1. PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland | ||||||
|
References |
13049/2004 – COM(2004)0593 – C6-0240/2004 – 2004/0200(CNS) | ||||||
|
Legal basis |
Article 300(3), first subparagraph, EC | ||||||
|
Basis in Rules of Procedure |
Rules 51, 83(7) and 35 | ||||||
|
Date of consulting Parliament |
3.12.2004 | ||||||
|
Committee responsible |
LIBE | ||||||
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) |
AFET |
|
|
|
| ||
|
Not delivering opinion(s) |
AFET 08.12.2004 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
Enhanced cooperation |
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
Rapporteur(s) |
Timothy Kirkhope |
| |||||
|
Previous rapporteur(s) |
|
| |||||
|
Simplified procedure |
| ||||||
|
Legal basis disputed |
JURI |
/ |
| ||||
|
Financial endowment amended |
|
/ |
| ||||
|
European Economic and Social Committee consulted |
| ||||||
|
Committee of the Regions consulted |
| ||||||
|
Discussed in committee |
18.1.2005 |
26.4.2005 |
13.6.2005 |
|
| ||
|
Date adopted |
13.6.2005 | ||||||
|
Result of final vote |
for: against: abstentions: |
29 0 0 | |||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Edit Bauer, Mihael Brejc, Maria Carlshamre, Michael Cashman, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Carlos Coelho, Kinga Gál, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Adeline Hazan, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Edith Mastenbroek, Inger Segelström, Manfred Weber, Stefano Zappalà, Tatjana Ždanoka | ||||||
|
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Bill Newton Dunn, Siiri Oviir, Herbert Reul, Marie-Line Reynaud, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides | ||||||
|
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
| ||||||
|
Date tabled – A6 |
17.6.2005 |
A6-0201/2005 | |||||
|
Comments |
... | ||||||
2. PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen Acquis. | ||||||
|
References |
13054/2004 – COM(2004)0593 – C6-0241/2004 – 2004/0199(CNS) | ||||||
|
Legal basis |
Article 300(3), first subparagraph, EC | ||||||
|
Basis in Rules of Procedure |
Rules 51, 83(7) and 35 | ||||||
|
Date of consulting Parliament |
3.12.2004 | ||||||
|
Committee responsible |
LIBE | ||||||
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) |
AFET |
|
|
|
| ||
|
Not delivering opinion(s) |
AFET 08.12.2004 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
Enhanced cooperation |
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
Rapporteur(s) |
Timothy Kirkhope |
| |||||
|
Previous rapporteur(s) |
|
| |||||
|
Simplified procedure |
| ||||||
|
Legal basis disputed |
JURI |
/ |
| ||||
|
Financial endowment amended |
|
/ |
| ||||
|
European Economic and Social Committee consulted |
| ||||||
|
Committee of the Regions consulted |
| ||||||
|
Discussed in committee |
18.1.2005 |
26.4.2005 |
13.6.2005 |
|
| ||
|
Date adopted |
13.6.2005 | ||||||
|
Result of final vote |
for: against: abstentions: |
28 0 1 | |||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Edit Bauer, Mihael Brejc, Maria Carlshamre, Michael Cashman, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Carlos Coelho, Kinga Gál, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Adeline Hazan, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Edith Mastenbroek, Inger Segelström, Manfred Weber, Stefano Zappalà, Tatjana Ždanoka | ||||||
|
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Bill Newton Dunn, Siiri Oviir, Herbert Reul, Marie-Line Reynaud, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides | ||||||
|
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
| ||||||
|
Date tabled – A6 |
17.6.2005 |
A6-0201/2005 | |||||
|
Comments |
... | ||||||