Procedure : 2007/2191(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0212/2008

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 16/06/2008 - 26
CRE 16/06/2008 - 26

Votes :

PV 17/06/2008 - 7.26
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :


PDF 162kWORD 115k
PE 404.519v02-00 A6-0212/2008

on the impact of cohesion policy on the integration of vulnerable communities and groups


Committee on Regional Development

Rapporteur: Gábor Harangozó



on the impact of cohesion policy on the integration of vulnerable communities and groups


The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 87(3), 137 and 158 of the EC Treaty,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund(1),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 5 July 2005 entitled Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013 (COM(2005)0299),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 9 February 2005 on the Social Agenda (COM(2005)0033)

–  having regard to Council Decision 2006/702/EC of 6 October 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion(2),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 17 May 2005 entitled Third progress report on cohesion: Towards a new partnership for growth, jobs and cohesion (COM(2005)0192),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 12 July 2006 entitled 'The Growth and Jobs Strategy and the Reform of European Cohesion Policy: Fourth progress report on cohesion' (COM(2006)0281),

–  having regard to the Territorial Agenda of the EU, the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, and the First Action Programme for the implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union,

–  having regard to the preparation by the Commission of the Green paper on Territorial Cohesion,

–  having regard to the report by the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON) entitled Territorial Futures – Spatial scenarios for Europe and that of the European Parliament entitled Regional Disparities and Cohesion: what Strategies for the Future?

– having regard to Articles 3, 13 and 141 of the EC Treaty, which require the Member States to ensure equal opportunities for all citizens,

–  having regard to its resolution of 31 January 2008 on a European strategy on the Roma(3),

–  having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0212/2008),

A. whereas one of the Community's goals, as laid down in Article 158 of the EC Treaty, is to promote harmonious economic and social development across the whole of the Community and reduce socio-economic disparities between individual regions,

B.  Whereas disparities may arise within as well as between regions,

C.  whereas addressing social, economic and territorial disparities between the more prosperous and the poorest regions remains the underlying objective of cohesion policy and whereas its scope should therefore not be reduced to supporting other strategies' objectives, which could hamper economic, social and territorial cohesion,

D.  whereas, cohesion policy has, up to now, made an effective contribution in helping the poorest regions to reduce the gap in terms of socio-economic development,

E.  whereas entire countries still face considerable challenges to their development and convergence is unlikely to occur within the current framework 2007-2013,

F.  whereas in some Member States economic growth is concentrated around national and regional capital cities and large urban centres, leaving other areas with uneven socio-economic development and aggravating the vulnerability of social communities and groups within these areas,

G. whereas the Lisbon Treaty lists territorial cohesion as one of the EU's objectives and provides for shared competence between the Union and the Member States in this area,

H. whereas the concept of "vulnerable community" is very broad and there are no clear criteria for defining it,

I.   whereas many territories still suffer the ill effects of remoteness and of their geographical disadvantages and lack the necessary infrastructure for real development opportunities for catching up with the average level of development in the EU,

J.   whereas improving transport infrastructure and access to transport will help to make isolated regions more accessible, while also alleviating the exclusion of communities and groups living in these remote areas, and whereas improving services of general interest, particularly education, will improve the lives of vulnerable groups and communities,

K. whereas the poorest countries and regions lack the necessary financial resources to provide their own contribution to the Community funding for which they are eligible and, moreover, most often lack the administrative capacity and human resources to make good use of the funding granted,

L.  whereas, due to its strong territorial impact, it is necessary to better coordinate rural development policy with regional policy in order to foster synergies and complementarities between these policies and to consider the advantages and disadvantages of reintegrating these policies,

M.  whereas there is a lack of available and comparable micro-regional statistical data for the regions of the EU where vulnerable communities and groups live,

N.  whereas poverty and exclusion have a strong territorial character,

O.  whereas most of the least favoured micro-regional territories are facing complex multi-dimensional problems relating to their peripheral location, reduced accessibility, lack of basic infrastructure, socio-economic under-development, tendency to de-industrialisation, low levels of education and training, lack of administrative capacity, high levels of unemployment, deteriorating housing and living conditions, difficult access to services of general interest, lack of conditions for technological development and progress and large populations of segregated minorities and vulnerable groups,

P.  whereas cohesion policy requires a budget commensurate with its objectives and efficient instruments enabling regions to overcome development disparities and to cope with territorial challenges including demographic change, urban concentration, migratory movements, globalisation, climate change and energy supply;

1.  Stresses that the territorial concentration of vulnerable communities and groups and the social exclusion affecting the most underdeveloped regions is an increasing challenge to cohesion in the EU; emphasises, moreover, that this phenomenon is not only inter-regional in underdeveloped areas but also intra-regional, to a significant extent, in both developing and developed areas, and requires particular attention because such vulnerable communities and groups tend to lose visibility within a more general, favourable picture;

2.  Calls on the Member States to determine the criteria defining vulnerable communities and groups in order to better identify the problems they face and to facilitate targeted and systematic measures;

3. Considers that the territorial dimension of social exclusion should be dealt with in the context of territorial cohesion policy;

4.  Emphasises in this connection that individual actions alone are not sufficient to overcome the territorial problems of social exclusion and recommends therefore that the Member States apply a holistic territorial development strategy, carrying out an equalizing policy, putting the cross-sector integrated approach into practice and focusing on the potential of all EU territories;

5.  Points to the need to address through an integrated approach the shortcomings in terms of equal opportunities and the potential concentration of social conflicts in underdeveloped areas;

6.  Notes, in this regard, that vulnerable groups may exist in all regions, even the more prosperous ones, and that an integrated approach should take such groups into account;

7.  Points out that impoverishment and exclusion are not unique to urban areas but also affect rural areas, even though they may assume specific forms in those areas, particularly on account of the fact that, in rural areas, social exclusion is compounded by territorial exclusion and since the exclusion of those areas from economic development means that all the social groups living there are affected;

8.  Stresses the importance, in the framework of an integrated approach, to make the development of a healthy environment at Community, Member State and regional levels a priority in order to achieve the aims of cohesion policy, such as fighting poverty, the sound health of citizens and a better quality of life in all regions, which are crucial to long-term development and social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU;

9.  Emphasises the importance of involving regional and local authorities as well as the economic and social partners and relevant NGOs in the planning and implementation of integrated development strategies and the importance of supporting bottom-up initiatives;

10. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to allocate resources between developed cities and isolated territories, including rural areas, in a way that is adapted to their specific needs and to establish tailor-made long-term programmes for specific vulnerable communities and groups, with the participation of local authorities, relevant social and economic partners and representatives of the relevant population groups in the decision-making process and in the implementation of such programmes in order to best address their needs and bring about genuine solutions to overcome exclusion and its consequences ;

11. Calls for the continuance of income-generating activities in rural areas, for which purpose particular attention should be devoted to family farming and to small and medium-sized farmers, with the CAP being revised in order to make it fairer, as well as to non-agricultural entrepreneurial activities which supply goods and services that are essential to maintaining the population and welcoming new arrivals;

12. Stresses the importance of agricultural and non-agricultural economic activities (such as processing and direct marketing of agricultural products, tourism, services, small and medium-sized industries) in rural areas in providing employment, preventing poverty and stemming the rural exodus; calls, therefore, for improved facilities for further vocational training in rural areas to support the development of businesses;

13. Urges the Commission and the Member States to make greater use of the synergies and complementarities of the various financial instruments available, such as the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Integration Fund, the programme of Community action on public health and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, in order to increase their added value;

14. Calls on the Commission to present, in the framework of the forthcoming Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, an objective for and a clear definition of territorial cohesion, the criteria determining it, its instruments and the means available for achieving territorial targets;

15. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to produce comparable micro-regional statistical data , with special regard to social indicators, such as the Human Development Index established by the United Nations, in order to address with appropriate measures the situation in the areas where the most vulnerable communities and groups live and the problems they face;

16. Calls on the Commission in this connection to carefully examine the extent to which new quantifiable development indicators in addition to GDP per capita, such as social indicators, should also be used in order to identify the most vulnerable communities and groups and their location, reveal disparities between and within regions, evaluate implementation and policy efficiency and be used as guidance for development planning;

17. Urges the Commission to examine, in the framework of the Green Paper on territorial cohesion, whether the NUTS 4 level would be appropriate for pursing a differentiated policy to achieve the objective of territorial cohesion;

18. Emphasises the need to address the demographic trends of further urban concentration and rural exodus and their territorial impact; calls therefore on the Member States to draw up strategies to revitalise vulnerable areas by developing infrastructure, fostering real development opportunities in accordance with their specific potentials, maintaining services of general interest through enhanced local administrative capacities and the decentralisation of the public sector, offering appropriate training and employment opportunities, improving housing and living conditions and increasing the attractiveness of those areas to investors; considers that, at the same time, towns need support for their efforts to remedy urban difficulties;

19. Considers that, although rural exodus acted in the past as a safety valve for farmers excluded from their original activity, this is no longer the case, since unemployment is now seriously affecting the unskilled and thus the industrial units established in rural areas are among the first victims of restructuring and relocation operations, which have the effect of reducing the scope for the multiple activities upon which small farmers in difficulty used to be able to rely in order to supplement their income from farming, thus driving them even more rapidly into penury;

20. Stresses that not only structural policies should be retained after 2013, but that the budgetary review should be used as an opportunity to ensure that the necessary resources are made available in order to guarantee economic, social and territorial cohesion among regions and countries in the EU in the future;

21. Recommends that political measures taken to tackle social exclusion and make vulnerable communities and groups more active should include the element of voluntariness;

22. Calls on the Commission to present a specific proposal addressing in a realistic and specific manner the problems faced by vulnerable communities and groups, including social exclusion;

23. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.


OJ L 239, 1.9.2006, p. 248.


OJ L 291, 21.10.2006, p. 11.


Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0035.



Cohesion policy is one of the most important priorities of the European Union. With a financial envelop amounting 1/3 of the EU budget, this policy based more than any other policy on the principle of solidarity is intended to reduce economic, social and territorial disparities between the Member States and their 268 regions.

Nevertheless, those disparities still remain important. We have to bear in mind that one region in four has a GDP per inhabitant under 75% of the average of the European Union and that there are also important imbalances appearing within regions.

Several European analyses, the results of the ESPON 2006 programme, the Cohesion Reports and the strategic initiatives draw attention to the fact that social exclusion is concentrated spatially in the most underdeveloped areas.

The aim of the report is to draw the attention to the spatial inter-linkage system of segregation, vulnerable groups and to underline the importance of the identification and territorial approach-based treatment of these processes. Therefore, the issue of vulnerable communities and groups should be addressed in the context of the territorial cohesion.

The document intends to highlight that in order to cope with territorial exclusion it is necessary to identify and recognize that the main problems are rooted in micro-territorial development.

However, there is hardly any information on European level to be found in territorial analyses prepared so far and in the current European system of statistics.

Shift from poverty to exclusion

Vulnerable groups are facing multi-dimensional problems through which poverty deepens and it takes up the form of exclusion and increasing segregation. Prolonged inactivity and long-term unemployment reduces the capacity of those affected to overcome their social exclusion and economic difficulties.

Exclusion has a strong spatial character

Exclusion from the flow of economic and social development mostly appears spatially and is inter-related with territorial exclusion; therefore the access of the vulnerable groups to work and services is lower.

The living prospects of social groups are determined by their geographical location: regions, micro-regions concerned and most generally by their living environment. The spatial determination of the risk of being excluded is therefore very strong.

The phenomenon appears on micro-regional level

It is important to highlight that these social and economic crises areas are mostly emerging in peripheral intra-regional areas or in micro-regions lagging behind and in most of the cases they can not be grasped at NUTS 2 level.

Therefore, the emergence of spatially determined vulnerable communities should be examined - relying on EU terminology - not on NUTS 2 levels, but on LAU1 and LAU 2 levels.

Segregation also in rural areas

Segregation processes are clearly more visible in the cities than in the surrounding less densely inhabited areas. The situation in the rural areas affected by segregation is however even worse. In urban areas the segregation processes are inter-related with the flow of suburbanization which results in the decline of traditional city centres and desindustrialized peripheries. Meanwhile, beside urban ghettos, in rural areas lagging behind, social tensions are much more concentrated in lagging behind rural areas. Rural population suffers from a very disadvantaged situation in the new member states where the economic transition has strengthened the intra-regional disparities.

The problem is hidden: Missing instruments

The phenomenon of territorial exclusion here is neither sufficiently covered by European statistics, nor by policy instruments.

Those groups of society affected also by territorial exclusion are hidden for the spatial analysis, action planning and decision-makers as well.

These processes happen at lower territorial levels; this is why the present observatory means at NUTS 2 level, such as data collection by EUROSTAT or the systematic analyses of the ESPON programme are not capable of identifying them on a European scale. There are no generally applied, suitable territorial indicators.

As the results of our analysis presented in this report, the current system of statistics is not capable of producing an analysis of intra-regional disparities within NUTS 2 regions that would be comparable EU-wide. Indicators measuring disparities of the territorial statistical units are not able to show the real intra-regional disparities at all. The territorial characteristics which bring about local, regional and social disadvantages - especially segregation - have not been introduced uniformly on European level yet.

Intra-regional social and geographical peripheries

Regarding territorial disparities, the European cohesion policy focusing on NUTS 2 regions neglects several problems which arise within the regions. The intra-regional disparities are in many cases of more importance than those between the regions.

The outstanding social and economic indicators of the large and middle-sized cities -being the regional economic drivers - often take our minds off the problems present in segregated urban districts. Serious gaps are indeed created between the dynamic urban areas and those areas excluded from the social and economic development processes.

Integrated approach is needed to tackle the problem on territorial level

Based on the analysis above, the horizontal approaches are not sufficient to solve the problems of vulnerable groups. In order to tackle the situation of these vulnerable groups a territorial approach is needed, which would address to the complexity of the problems locally, in the concerned areas. There is a genuine need for a micro-regional based approach focusing on intra-regional disparities and on the most sensitive areas.

If not, the polarization processes can deepen - especially if the economic and social interventions will be concentrated around the dynamic centres - and the excluded areas will further decline. When tackling this problem, greater emphasis should be laid on spatial planning and the integrated spatial development.

2. Intra-regional territorial exclusion

The lack of equal opportunities, the concentration of social conflicts, with special regard to segregation resulting in the concentration of the vulnerable groups, can occur in several situations. It is a well-known urban problem, but on the basis of the experience gained by new member states it appears mostly on a territorial basis.

The most underdeveloped areas are at a risk of territorial exclusion

There is both spatial and social distance between the vulnerable group and the majority of the society. The causes of exclusion root mostly the location of the excluded group. Location can mean serious disadvantages according to the following factors:

· Location features:

           o Accessibility of workplaces

           o Distance of city centres

           o The poor transport infrastructure or its relative high expenditure

           o Low income

· Internal features of the area

           o Lack of presence of successfully operating entrepreneurships

           o Low employment rate

           o Low income

           o Low rate of qualification

           o Human resources (in terms of health, qualification, well-being)

           o The state of the built environment

           o Tensions between the different social groups, racism and       segregation

           o Lack or low quality of public services

Territorial exclusion is not generally the typical problem of the underdeveloped areas, and not only the rural areas, but it is specially the feature of the peripheries, micro-regions being in deep crisis. Territorial exclusion has the following generic types, often resulting in a whole range of different territorial features present at the same time:

- Peripheral location;

- Concentration of excluded social groups - "social periphery";

- Concentration of social conflicts as a result of economic and structural transformation.

Larger territorial units hide the problems of excluded territories

One of the problems of the lack of visibility of underdeveloped and lagging behind areas lies in the territorial aggregation. If the statistics show the data of bigger territorial units, the differences within the territorial units disappear. The available basis unit of measurement of the EU cohesion policy (NUTS 2) makes the social and economic factors of these territorial units of the different countries comparable. For the division of the resources of cohesion policy between regions and countries it is this approach that should be further applied.

However, from the point of view of the interpretation of territorial cohesion, there are several spatial processes under way which do not appear through the socio-economic indicators identified on NUTS 2 level, and therefore remain hidden.

The territorial concentration of vulnerable groups on the regions’ peripheries

Beside the needs of the cities and their wider surrounding rural areas, it is the lack of infrastructure which is the main reason for the serious development gaps within the regions, especially in Eastern Central Europe.

Due to the local territorial organisation of the labour market, the lack of transport or information connections; the rural inhabitants with their lower mobility can not access the advantages offered by more developed cities. Consequently, the attraction impact of the cities is not crowned with success, and due to the poverty and the insufficient availability of infrastructure the potential of rural areas is less and less recognized.

In the new member states, where the tensions coming from the immigration concentrated in cities are less present, social segregation and the equal opportunities shortcomings appear mostly in these rural areas. It is at least a challenge of similar scale.

Territorial exclusion is beyond the social problems

Moreover, while poverty is basically a result of insufficient income, territorial exclusion goes beyond this, since those living in segregated settlements and areas lose consequently a lot more opportunities: learning opportunities, access to infrastructure and services.

The ethnic differences - concentration of immigrants in urban ghettos and enhanced segregation of the Roma population in the new member states - make the problems of lagging behind areas even more serious, since their integration is even more challenging.

Finally, most vulnerable groups are likely while being excluded from the positive spill-over of socio-economic development to be as well excluded from decision-making processes.

Limited territorial data collection and processing in the European research

The social problems are not visible enough through the European statistics. In order to get comparable territorial units, we need to select the different territorial levels and data from the different countries in such a way that the variation of size of territorial units will be as small as possible.

Beyond territorial aggregation problems, there are only limited social indicators at our disposal in territorial breakdown and therefore the European spatial research focus less on the social problems. There are some case studies which show the phenomena of segregation and territorial exclusion, but no Europe-wide analysis having higher level validity has been prepared yet. The indicators which can be applied territorially are as follows:

           - Activity rate

           - Employment rate

           - Long-term unemployment rate

           - Higher education rate

           - Human development index (HDI)

           - Risk of poverty

           - Life expectancy

           - Proportion of those having maximum primary school qualification

The way how poverty and social exclusion risks are tackled varies country by country. The systems of the member states differ not only in their available resources but also in the mechanisms of allocation. Besides national differences if we really want to solve the problems of lagging behind and segregated territories, we need to admit that the problems of poverty and social exclusion are territorial issues that need to be addressed through a spatial approach with sufficient resources concretely targeting the most disadvantaged areas. These resources should help to unlock the potentials of competitiveness of lagging behind and segregated territories taking into account their challenges and opportunities and make them able to catch up in order to create a territorially and socially more cohesive EU.


for the Committee on Regional Development

on the impact of cohesion policies on the integration of vulnerable communities and groups


Draftsman: Ilda Figueiredo


The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.  Points out that impoverishment and exclusion are not unique to urban areas but also affect rural areas, even though they may assume specific forms in those areas, particularly on account of the fact that, in rural areas, social exclusion is compounded by territorial exclusion and since the exclusion of those areas from economic development means that all the social categories living there are affected;

2.  Points out that, although women play a central role in the rural economy, they are almost entirely invisible within decision-making bodies, hence action should be taken at all levels in order to ensure that women are better represented within cooperatives, trade unions and local political bodies; specific action should also be taken to support women in rural areas, in order to safeguard their rights and combat poverty;

3.  Points out that, although seasonal workers have always been one of the most vulnerable groups in rural areas, seasonal work is these days largely in the hands of migrant workers; hence, considers that such workers should have the benefit of employment contracts and working conditions similar to those of resident workers;

4.  Considers that, although rural exodus acted in the past as a safety valve for farmers excluded from their original activity, this is no longer the case these days, since unemployment is seriously affecting the unskilled; hence the industrial units established in rural areas are amongst the first victims of restructuring and relocation operations, which have the effect of reducing the scope for the multiple activity upon which small farmers in difficulty used to be able to rely in order to supplement their income from farming; this has the effect of driving them even more rapidly into penury;

5.  Calls for income-generating activities to continue in rural areas, for which purpose particular attention should be devoted to family farming and to small and medium-sized farmers, with the CAP being revised in order to make it fairer, as well as to non-agricultural entrepreneurial activities which supply goods and services that are essential to maintaining the population and welcoming new arrivals;

6.  Points out that farming is very often the last remaining activity in rural areas, hence stresses the importance of the continuing provision of high-quality public services in rural areas (including in mountain and extremely remote areas) in order to combat isolation and to provide universal access to education, healthcare, transport and communications, culture and a decent life for farmers and their families; considers that incentives must therefore be introduced to encourage young farmers to set up farms, but that in addition to the viability of their farms there should be a particular focus on favouring equal access to public services (post offices, schools, public transport, health services, etc.) and the preservation of services for the public (day-care facilities for young children, facilities for the elderly, subsidised housing and housing available for rent, etc.) and of social forums that make it possible to break isolation (shops, cafés, cultural centres, etc.);

7.  Believes that the production of energy from renewable sources, such as agricultural biogas and wood-chip fuel from forestry, in local energy-generating plants has the potential to revitalise the economies of rural and peripheral areas and to support a sustainable energy policy, provided that the positive carbon balance of the process is guaranteed, and a negative impact on international security of food supply and the agro-ecosystem can be avoided; calls for more Structural and Cohesion Funds to be invested in developing technologies for such energy production;

8.  Stresses the importance of agricultural and non-agricultural economic activities (such as processing and direct marketing of agricultural products, tourism, services, small and medium-sized industries) in rural areas for employment and the prevention of poverty and rural exodus; calls, therefore, for improved facilities for further vocational training in rural areas to support the development of businesses;

9.  Considers that particular attention should be devoted to the new Member States, since although those countries experienced net migration to the countryside during the period of transition to a market economy, that trend could go into reverse in the future, thus aggravating the problems of impoverishment not only in the countryside but also in urban areas;

10. Points out that low population density in rural areas and hence those areas' lack of electoral weight also have implications in terms of political choice; observes that job-seekers are being encouraged to specialise, which is difficult to reconcile with the multiple activity required in rural areas on account of the precarious nature of employment; points out that more extensive support should be provided for young farmers in order to combat rural depopulation;

11. Points out that attention must be paid to linkage and complementarity between funds mobilised for the development of rural areas, whether stemming from regional policy or the CAP;

12. Stresses the importance of protecting traditional forms of agriculture, such as crofting, which underpin the cohesion of rural communities in peripheral regions;

13. Stresses the need to boost support for farmers' associations, cooperatives, wine cooperatives and other local institutions in the field of crafts and other activities in addition to farming so as to facilitate the marketing of products, the creation of local markets and closer links between producers and consumers.


Date adopted





Result of final vote







Members present for the final vote

Vincenzo Aita, Peter Baco, Bernadette Bourzai, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giovanna Corda, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Lily Jacobs, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Véronique Mathieu, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, James Nicholson, Neil Parish, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Janusz Wojciechowski, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Liam Aylward, Esther De Lange, Ilda Figueiredo, Gábor Harangozó, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Astrid Lulling, Kyösti Virrankoski


Date adopted





Result of final vote







Members present for the final vote

Emmanouil Angelakas, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Rolf Berend, Jana Bobošíková, Victor Boştinaru, Wolfgang Bulfon, Bairbre de Brún, Gerardo Galeote, Iratxe García Pérez, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Zita Gurmai, Gábor Harangozó, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Tunne Kelam, Evgeni Kirilov, Constanze Angela Krehl, Florencio Luque Aguilar, Sérgio Marques, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Jan Olbrycht, Markus Pieper, Pierre Pribetich, Wojciech Roszkowski, Elisabeth Schroedter, Grażyna Staniszewska, Catherine Stihler, Margie Sudre, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Oldřich Vlasák, Vladimír Železný

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Bernadette Bourzai, Jan Březina, Den Dover, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Fernando Fernández Martín, Francesco Ferrari, Louis Grech, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Zita Pleštinská, Samuli Pohjamo, Christa Prets, Jürgen Schröder, Richard Seeber, Bart Staes, László Surján, Manfred Weber

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Manuel Medina Ortega, Nicolae Vlad Popa, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi

Legal notice - Privacy policy