REPORT on the trade and economic relations with Korea
23.11.2007 - (2007/2186(INI))
Committee on International Trade
Rapporteur: David Martin
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the trade and economic relations with Korea
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand[1],
– having regard to the study 'Economic Impact of a Potential Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and South Korea' by Copenhagen Economics & Prof. J. F. Francois,
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World. A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),
– having regard to its resolutions of 13 October 2005 on 'Prospects for trade relations between the EU and China[2] and of 28 September 2006 on 'The European Union's economic and trade relations with India'[3],
– having regard to the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises and the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy,
– having regard to the OECD Employment Statistics 2007,
– having regard to the Declaration on the Advancement of South-North Korean Relations, Peace and Prosperity adopted on 4 October 2007,
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6‑0463/2007),
A. whereas the rule-based multilateral trading system, established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), continues to represent the most suitable framework for regulating and promoting fair and equitable trade by developing appropriate rules and ensuring compliance with those rules,
B. whereas the EU should continue to give priority to the achievement of a balanced outcome of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), which would assist developing countries to play a full part in the international trading system,
C. whereas bilateral and inter-regional trade agreements can nevertheless complement the WTO rule book by covering issues such as social and environmental standards where it is currently difficult to find multilateral agreement,
D. whereas the agreement with Korea can also address questions of investment and trade in services, but should do so in a way which ensures that market opening does not compromise either European or Korean rules on the protection of public services and cultural diversity, nor undermine public services in the EU’s partner countries to such agreements, or the policy space needed to unilaterally enact sustainable social, economic and environmental policies in the EU as well as in Korea,
E. whereas Korea is one of the world’s leading economies with an income per head that is equivalent to a middle-ranking EU Member State,
F. whereas poverty remains an unresolved and deepening problem in Korea which, according to OECD statistics, ranks among the three OECD members with both the biggest income gap and the greatest widening of the income gap; whereas Korea ranks last among OECD countries with less than 5 percent of tax income spending on social safety, compared to an OECD average of 43 percent,
G. whereas Korea is the EU’s fourth largest trading partner outside Europe and the EU was the largest foreign investor in Korea in 2006,
H. whereas Korea has signed Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the United States and a number of other leading trading partners and has further agreements under negotiation,
I. whereas market access is being increasingly hampered by various types of non-tariff barrier (NTB), including a failure to adopt international norms and standards, that are partially responsible for the structural EU deficit in bilateral trade relations,
J. whereas studies show that an EU-Korea agreement could produce substantial economic gains for both parties, but that, in any of the scenarios considered, Korea would receive two thirds of the benefits,
General issues
1. Considers that a successful outcome of the DDA remains the EU's trade priority and would be concerned if bilateral negotiations with Korea or other partners were to distract from the achievement of this objective;
2. Believes that bilateral negotiations with major trading partners or regions can usefully supplement the multilateral rule book provided they produce ambitious, high quality agreements that go well beyond tariff reductions;
3. Considers that the size and rapid growth of the Korean economy makes it a suitable candidate for such an agreement but draws attention to the significant problems – including substantial NTBs – that will need to be addressed in order to reach a satisfactory agreement;
4. Believes that an agreement limited to tariff reductions would merely produce short term benefits and therefore demands the dismantling of NTBs as well as the opening of the services sector in Korea;
5. Considers that any FTA with Korea should take account of the four so-called Singapore Issues (foreign investment, competition, transparency in public procurement and trade facilitation);
6. Concludes that the mutually beneficial content of the agreement is far more important than a rapid timetable and would therefore be concerned if artificial deadlines were to lead to an agreement that was not wide ranging, ambitious and well balanced;
Sustainable development
7. Considers that environmentally friendly products should have their tariffs reduced more quickly and more sharply than other goods; calls on the Commission and the Korean negotiators to produce a clear definition of such products; strongly recommends that, in such a definition, the goods' environmental conditions of production are duly taken into account;
8. Regrets that a Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) has not been produced at an earlier stage given the planned negotiating timetable; considers it of utmost importance that the results of the SIA be published well ahead of the signing of an agreement and that sufficient time be allowed for full public consultation so that the SIA's results can influence the outcome of the negotiations; calls on the Commission to consult the Parliament, the Council and civil society if the SIA study suggests mitigation requirements and to negotiate the final FTA accordingly;
9. Believes that the Commission’s level of ambition with regard to increasing market access should be balanced by an equally ambitious approach to sustainable development; also insists that there must be no exceptions to the rule that access to the internal European market is conditional on compliance with environmental protection standards;
10. Welcomes the introduction of stronger social and environmental clauses in the recently concluded US-Korea FTA as the result of pressure from the US Congress;
11. Considers that EU negotiators must see this as a base from which further progress can be made, particularly with regard to the ratification and enforcement of core International Labour Organization standards, Korea’s involvement in a post-2012 regime for combating climate change and recognition of existing EU environmental standards and legislation;
12. Calls for any trade agreement with Korea to incorporate binding social and environmental clauses;
13. Calls on the Member States and the Commission, during the bilateral negotiations with Korea, to support and promote the OECD guiding principles on corporate social responsibility (CSR), both for Korean enterprises operating in Europe and European enterprises established in Korea;
14. Considers an ambitious Sustainable Development chapter to be an essential part of any agreement but recalls that the ultimate objective is the enforcement of agreed standards; takes the view that this requires the chapter to be subject to the standard dispute settlement mechanism;
15. Believes that a Trade and Sustainable Development Forum, made up of representatives from workers’ and employers’ organisations and from NGOs, could play a valuable role in ensuring that greater market opening is accompanied by rising environmental and social standards;
16. Proposes that a mechanism be established whereby recognised EU or Korean workers’ and employers’ organisations should be able to submit requests for action which would be treated within a specified time period and could result in ongoing follow-up and review provisions, in order to maintain pressure against violations of workers' rights;
Sectoral issues
17. Calls for the conclusion of an FTA with Korea that covers trade in goods and services, makes scientific and technical cooperation and intellectual property an essential element of bilateral agreements, promotes cooperation on energy efficiency, is against climate change and includes provisions on other external aspects of energy policy, nuclear and renewable energy sources and the Galileo programme;
18. Considers that Korea’s divergence from international norms and labelling requirements constitute major NTBs which present particular problems for the automotive, pharmaceutical, cosmetics and electronics industries; calls on the Korean government to provide satisfactory explanations for such divergences or, otherwise, to commit during the FTA negotiations to remove them;
19. Supports the Commission’s objective of assisting EU exporters of pharmaceutical products and medical devices by ensuring greater transparency in the Korean healthcare system but insists that the Agreement should not create any legal or practical obstacles to Korean firms using the flexibilities set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the declaration on the TRIPs agreement and public health, adopted on 14 November 2001 in Doha, to promote access to medicines in developing countries;
20. Emphasises that a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) should be incorporated in the EU-Korea FTA to further eliminate trade obstacles caused by unnecessary duplicate procedures performed by Korea which pose obstacles for EU companies within various industries wanting to sell their products to Korea;
21. Regrets that Korea’s failure to follow international norms leads to animals being subject to unnecessary, duplicative tests; considers that the Agreement should seek to ensure that scientifically validated alternatives to animal testing that have been approved by one party should be presumed acceptable to the other party;
22. Is concerned that the EU-Korea FTA could have a severe negative impact on the European automotive industry; requests therefore that the Commission considers a strategy of phasing out EU import tariffs with safeguards; recommends that this phasing-out shall be connected with the lifting of major NTBs on the Korean side;
23. Notes, with regard to the automotive industry, that Korea has signed and ratified the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Agreement on Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be fitted and/or be used on Wheeled Vehicles, and has thus committed itself to implementing the standard regulations; calls on the Commission to insist on their rapid implementation; at the same time calls on the Commission to insist that EU automobiles complying with UNECE standards can be imported into Korea without testing or homologation; opposes provisions exempting Korean vehicles from anti-pollution emission standards;
24. Considers that, in the light of the EU's problematic experiences with the Korean shipbuilding industry, special attention should be given to this sector in the negotiations;
25. Considers that during the negotiations the Commission should also take into account the concerns of both the Korean and European agricultural sectors, particularly as regards the possible adverse effects of the FTA on the sensitive products concerned;
26. Regards the tariff peak and excessive labelling requirements faced by the distilled spirits industry to be a priority for the negotiations; calls for measures to be taken immediately to combat the NTBs affecting fruit and vegetables and the excessively high tariffs applied to canned fruit; considers the achievement of a satisfactory outcome with respect to Geographical Indicators to be of utmost importance;
27. Is concerned about the difficulties foreign firms have in accessing the Korean market for services including banking, insurance and legal advice;
28. Attaches high priority to the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the introduction of adequate penalties for counterfeiting and piracy; considers that special mechanisms of quick and efficient dispute settlement, in the context of existing WTO rules, should be included so that these and other unfair trade competitive practices can be dealt with adequately; states that the current negotiation with Korea on the IPR protection should not undermine legitimate policy goals such as access to medicines by going beyond the TRIPs Agreement obligations, but that it should instead encourage the use of TRIPs' flexibilities;
29. Urges South Korea to introduce public performance rights for producers of sound recordings in line with the Rome Convention, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) of 1996 and the Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property[4].;
30. Calls on South Korea to fully comply with the WIPO Internet Treaties including: full legal back-up for technological protection measures used by copyright owners, including a prohibition against the act of circumvention; provide sound recording producers with exclusive rights over all forms of Internet dissemination; establish an effective notice and takedown procedure; recognition of protection for temporary copies and narrowing the private copying exception in the digital realm;
31. Urges South Korea to strengthen the fight against Internet piracy by: improving incentives for cooperation by network providers in the fight against piracy; encouraging the Copyright Protection Centre to enforce consistently against online piracy of works of foreign right holders; investigating and prosecuting entities involved with illegal Internet sites, servers, storage services and file sharing services;
32. Emphasises that any FTA with Korea should ensure the following:
· an improvement and simplification of Community rules on origin,
· broader harmonisation of existing international norms and standards instead of the introduction of new standards,
· more stringent disclosure requirements and the promotion of best practices in regulation,
· the transparency of national support mechanisms and the dismantling of existing NTBs;
North Korea and Kaesong
33. Recognises that the inclusion of goods from the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) raises serious legal and technical problems, and therefore considers that this would be fundamentally unacceptable so long as North Korea fails to uphold basic human rights standards and the principles inherent in the rule of law;
34. Recommends that the Commission seriously examines the extent to which trade relations between North and South Korea affect a FTA with the EU;
35. Emphasises that any agreement should include an undertaking not to lower labour standards in order to attract foreign investment in any part of the territory of the parties including export processing zones;
Other issues
36. Believes that, in order to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to multilateral negotiations, Korea should be ready to offer duty-free, quota-free access to Least Developed Countries (LDCs), following the example of the EU’s Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme and in full respect of equivalent labour and environmental standards;
Parliament’s role
37. Considers that the legitimacy and public acceptability of an agreement requires that Parliament be closely involved in each stage of the negotiations and be given the chance to express its view on the acceptability of the negotiated text; expects the Commission and the Council to seek to present the agreement in a form that would require the assent of the Parliament under Article 300(3) second paragraph of the EC Treaty;
0
0 0
38. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the government and parliament of the Republic of Korea.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Multilateralism and regionalism
The FTA with Korea forms part of the Commission’s Global Europe strategy and, together with similar negotiations involving India and the countries of South East Asia (ASEAN), represents a significant change from the previous policy of not starting new FTA negotiations until the multilateral Doha Development Agenda (DDA) was concluded. This change can in part be attributed to uncertainty about the prospects for a successful conclusion of the DDA but also reflects a worldwide trend towards increasing numbers of bilateral and inter regional trade agreements.
Were Korea to conclude FTAs with other major trading partners but not with the EU, European firms would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to producers which enjoyed duty-free access, which in turn could have negative consequences for employment in the EU. At the same time, bilateral trade agreements can offer the scope to go further current WTO rules, including by tackling issues for which there is not the necessary multilateral consensus.
This report therefore supports the concept of an FTA with Korea whilst emphasising that such an agreement must be a high quality one and that the level of ambition should not be sacrificed to achieve a quick deal. The search for an agreement should not be at the expense of efforts to conclude the DDA, which remains the priority and offers the greatest hope of a balanced outcome enhancing the rules-based multilateral trading system. In addition, the search for a WTO+ agreement with Korea should mean going beyond WTO rules not only in terms of market access but also for social and environmental standards. In these latter areas, the agreement offers the possibility of setting a new standard that will provide a model for other agreements that are under negotiation.
Importance of Korea
By GDP, Korea has the world’s 11th largest economy, having grown from being one of the world’s poorest countries in the 1950s to one of the richest with per capita GDP now comparable to that of Spain. There has been a shift to the services sector which accounts for some 70% of GDP and strong concentration on the IT sector. Korea is said to have a higher proportion of the population with high speed internet access than any other major economy.
Korea is the EU’s fourth largest trade partner outside Europe with trade in goods increasing by over 35% since 2001. Last year the EU was the largest foreign investor in Korea. Korea has signed FTAs with EFTA, Singapore and ASEAN and an agreement with the United States (“KorUS”) was signed on 30 June 2007. Negotiations are also underway with Canada and India.
Korean average tariffs are nearly double the EU level for agricultural products and one and a half times those for manufactured goods. Estimates of protection for Korean services are even higher while European firms complain of substantial non-tariff barriers including labelling requirements, standards which diverge from international norms and higher capital requirements for branches of foreign banks. It is important that any agreement addresses these issues at the same time as phasing out tariffs.
We should recognise that Free Trade remains a controversial topic for Korean society as can be seen by demonstrations against the agreement with the US and the presence of Korean demonstrators in Brussels during the third negotiating round in September.
Sustainable Development
As noted, Korea is a rich industrialised country. However the situation with regard to trade union rights and environmental protection is not what might be expected from an OECD Member. It has failed to ratify 4 of the 8 core ILO conventions and has no binding obligations under the Kyoto protocol. Under pressure from the Democratic Party, the social and environmental clauses in KorUS have been strengthened.
Given the high priority the EU attaches to high social and environmental standards, the Commission should see this agreement as a starting point for the sustainable development chapter of the EU-Korea. In trade negotiations, the Commission seeks to ensure that tariff offers received by the EU match those which a country has granted to other trading partners. It should be equally vigilant to ensure that social and environmental standards follow an upward path as protection against a race to the bottom arising from increased liberalisation.
A study by Copenhagen Economics suggested that Korea would receive two thirds of the benefits from an EU-Korea FTA on all scenarios. In view of this it seems reasonable for EU to look for substantial progress on its priority areas so that the final deal offers a reasonable balance of advantages to both sides.
To this end, the agreement should commit the parties to ratify the core ILO standards and commit themselves to their effective implementation and to other basic decent work components. Measures to promote gender equality in employment should form part of this agenda as there is room for substantial progress by both sides. There should also be an undertaking not to lower labour standards in order to attract foreign investment which must cover the entire territory of the parties including export processing zones.
Effective implementation would be assisted by a mechanism whereby recognised EU or Korean workers’ and employers’ organisations should be able to submit such requests for action which would be treated within a specified time period. Complaints about social problems should be subject to consideration by genuinely independent and well-qualified experts. Their recommendations should result in ongoing follow-up and review provisions, in order to maintain pressure against violations of workers' rights.
Korea does not have any binding greenhouse gas commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. It is difficult to see how poorer countries such as China and India can be expected to make their contribution to combating global warming if richer ones do not play their part. Negotiations for the post 2012 regime will provide a clear opportunity to extend the coverage of the agreement with a view to sharing reduction targets in an equitable way that does not distort competition.
While it is important that the agreement have a clear, ambitious social development chapter, what ultimately matters is effective enforcement of the agreed standards. This could be promoted by establishing a Trade and Sustainable Development Forum made up of an appropriate balance of workers’ organisations, employers’ organisations and NGOs. This forum should be complemented by regular reporting on progress to implement commitments on sustainable development together with ongoing independent sustainability impact assessments (SIAs).
Effective enforcement also requires that the Sustainable Development chapter is subject to the same dispute settlement treatment as other components of the agreement. The US Administration and Congress having agreed that “all of our FTA environmental obligations will be enforced on the same basis as the commercial provisions of our agreements – same remedies, procedures, and sanctions”, it is hard to see why Europe should settle for less.
A good outcome on the social and environmental elements of an EU-Korea FTA would not only be valuable in itself but, if the ambitious negotiating timetable can be met, would also provide an important model for future agreements with other countries or regions.
Sectoral Issues
Korea’s standards policies often diverge from international norms. With regards to foreign cars, Korea has signed and ratified the UNECE Agreement and has thus committed itself to implementing the standard regulations. The FTA should clearly state that Korea recognises UNECE standards as such thereby allowing European cars that live up to these standards to be given real access to the Korean market.
Divergence from international norms also presents particular problems for the pharmaceutical industry, where Korea does not recognise the authorisation of drugs that have been tested and certified abroad. These national norms not only create obstacles to European exports but also risk subjecting animals to tests which are unnecessary as they duplicate those already undertaken. Whilst addressing such NTBs, an agreement should avoid any clauses that could make it more difficult for developing countries to have access to medicines in line with the WTO agreements.
Cosmetics and electronic products also face problems with labelling and standards while distilled spirits are subject to a tariff peak of around 20% and excessive labelling requirements. Strong provisions on the protection of Geographical Indicators will be required.
There is also scope for significant advances in the services market, particularly for sectors such as legal services where the Korean market is the only one in the region to be completely closed after the recent opening of the Chinese and Japanese markets. With regard to financial services, where foreign firms face significant barriers, the experience of the Royal Bank of Scotland, who is planning to open branches in Korea, will provide an important test of the readiness of Korea to welcome financial firms from other countries. Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights is also a priority.
North Korea and Kaesong
The KIC is located in North Korea, six miles north of the demilitarized zone. Construction began in June 2003 and is scheduled to be completed in 2012. The South Korean government sees the KIC as offering the possibility of improving inter-Korean relations by creating a place of reconciliation, cooperation, and unification. It is therefore keen that goods produced in this zone can be covered by the FTA.
In general the Parliament supports the view that improved trade relations can make a significant contribution to conflict resolution and promote better understanding between people. However extending an FTA to cover goods produced in a country that is not a party to that agreement raises complex legal and technical issues. Politically it would only be acceptable if it was clear that the inclusion of KIC would not undermine social standards in the parties to the agreement and that core labour standards were being promoted for Kaesong workers. It is unclear whether effective monitoring would be possible.
Other issues
Measures to simplify, standardise and modernise customs procedures and other formalities could make a substantial contribution to ensuring an agreement that prevents EU-Korea trade being impeded by unnecessary barriers. However care should be taken to ensure that “Trade Facilitation” is not used as cover to undermine consumer or environmental protection.
To show the parties’ ongoing commitment to the DDA and to avoid LDCs suffering negative impacts from the potential FTA, Korea should be encouraged to introduce duty-free quota-free access for LDCs along the lines of the EU’s EBA scheme.
EP role
Although the existing Framework Agreement on Trade and Cooperation is a mixed agreement and has a political annex attached, there is no Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of the type that normally provides an appropriate political and legal background for an EU bilateral trade agreement. In these circumstances, care must be taken to ensure that, either within the trade agreement currently being negotiated or by means of a separate agreement, the EU and Korea make the standard human rights commitments and that the FTA could be suspended were these commitments to be breached. Equally, in order to ensure legitimacy and democratic control, the European Parliament would expect the other institutions to seek to present the agreement in a form that would require the assent of the Parliament under Article 300(3) second paragraph.
Naturally this control can only be effective if the Parliament is kept informed and has an opportunity to comment throughout the course of the negotiations, rather than being faced with a yes/no choice at the end. The Commission has shown a welcome readiness to provide information to the Parliament’s responsible Committee including in camera briefings and documents which are subject to restricted circulation. It is important that this continues throughout the negotiations and that the maximum possible information is made publicly available so that European citizens can be aware of the negotiations that are taking place on their behalf.
OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (15.11.2007)
for the Committee on International Trade
on economic and trade relations with Korea
(2007/2186(INI))
Draftsman: Werner Langen
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
General suggestions
1. Recalls the multilateral regulatory system and underlines that free trade agreements negotiated and concluded by the European Union should be accompanied by adequate mechanisms compatible with the WTO agenda;
2. Considers that any free trade agreement with Korea must be in line with the progress made in the WTO Doha Development Round of negotiations and should take account of the four so-called Singapore Issues (foreign investment, competition, transparency in public procurement and trade facilitation);
Regarding individual economic sectors
3. Calls for the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Korea that covers trade in goods and services, makes scientific and technical cooperation and intellectual property an essential element of bilateral agreements, promotes cooperation on energy efficiency, is against climate change and includes provisions on other external aspects of energy policy, nuclear and renewable energy sources and the Galileo programme;
4. Emphasises that any free trade agreement with Korea should ensure the following:
· no concentration on 'sensitive' products in specific sectors that are exempt from the rules on competition (e.g. agriculture),
· an improvement and simplification of Community rules on origin,
· broader harmonisation of existing international norms and standards instead of the introduction of new standards,
· more stringent disclosure requirements and the promotion of best practices in regulation,
· the transparency of national support mechanisms and the dismantling of existing non-tariff barriers,
· compliance with international technical regulations and labelling requirements and Korea's ceasing to use non-tariff barriers, in particular in the automotive, pharmaceutical, cosmetics and electronics industries;
5. Proposes that the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) should form the basis of a free trade agreement with Korea, as agreements on services formed the basis of free trade agreements with the USA and of the strict social and environmental clauses contained therein;
6. Considers that, in the light of the EU's problematic experiences with the Korean shipbuilding industry's dumping prices, effective and immediately enforceable sanction mechanisms should be applied in the event of infringement;
7. Points to the particular problem of the inclusion of goods from the (North Korean) Kaesong Industrial Complex and considers that this would only be acceptable if basic Community rules on origin as well as core labour standards were applied in respect of the manufacture of these goods.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
12.11.20007 |
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
28 3 0 |
|
|
Members present for the final vote |
Jan Březina, Renato Brunetta, Gianni De Michelis, Den Dover, Adam Gierek, Norbert Glante, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Atanas Paparizov, Miloslav Ransdorf, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Nikolaos Vakalis |
||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Pilar Ayuso, Ivo Belet, Danutė Budreikaitė, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Edit Herczog, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Vittorio Prodi, Esko Seppänen |
||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) |
Eva Lichtenberger |
||
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
20.11.2007 |
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
16 5 5 |
|
|
Members present for the final vote |
Graham Booth, Carlos Carnero González, Daniel Caspary, Françoise Castex, Christofer Fjellner, Eduard Raul Hellvig, Jacky Henin, Caroline Lucas, Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva, Erika Mann, Helmuth Markov, David Martin, Georgios Papastamkos, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Tokia Saïfi, Peter Šťastný, Robert Sturdy, Gianluca Susta, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Zbigniew Zaleski |
||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Danutė Budreikaitė, Małgorzata Handzlik, Jan Tadeusz Masiel, Carl Schlyter, |
||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) |
Paul Rübig |
||