REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting
5.6.2008 - (COM(2007)0525 – C6‑0431/2007 – 2007/0192(CNS)) - *
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting
(COM(2007)0525 – C6‑0431/2007 – 2007/0192(CNS))
(Consultation procedure)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM (2007)0525),
– having regard to Article 123(4) of the EC Treaty, in particular the third sentence, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6‑0431/2007),
– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6‑0230/2008),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;
3. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;
4. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(2) It is important to ensure that circulating euro notes and coins are authentic. Procedures are now available which enable credit institutions and other related institutions to check authenticity of the euro notes and coins they receive before they put them back into circulation. In order to comply with the obligation to check authenticity and to implement those procedures, these institutions need time to adapt their internal functioning. |
(2) It is important to ensure that circulating euro notes and coins are authentic. Procedures are now available which enable credit institutions and other related institutions to check the authenticity and fitness for circulation of the euro notes and coins they receive before they put them back into circulation. In order to comply with the obligation to check authenticity and fitness for circulation, and to implement those procedures, these institutions need time to adapt their internal functioning. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
The established standards should concern both the fitness of circulation and the authenticity checks of euro notes and coins. This should be made clear in the proposed Regulation. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(2a) Small and medium-sized traders lack sufficient resources to carry out checks in accordance with the procedures laid down by the European Central Bank (ECB) and by the Commission. They should be required to act with due diligence by withdrawing from circulation any euro notes and coins received by them which they know or have sufficient reason to believe to be counterfeit. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
A distinction must be made between the obligations incumbent upon small and medium-sized traders and those incumbent upon credit and other, similar institutions. Whilst such institutions may be required to check the authenticity of euro notes and coins in accordance with the procedures laid down by the ECB and the Commission, small and medium-sized traders lack the necessary resources to do so, for which reason they should be required only to act with ‘due diligence’. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(2a) In order to ensure that credit institutions and other related institutions are able to comply with the obligation to check euro notes and coins for authenticity and fitness for circulation, technical procedures and standards for such checking should be defined. Article 106(1) of the EC Treaty assigns competence to define such standards for euro notes to the ECB. With regard to euro coins, related competences have been conferred on the Commission pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
The ECB has already adopted a framework for the detection of counterfeit notes, in order to meet its responsibilities under Article 106(1) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB, namely, to ensure the integrity and preservation of euro banknotes in circulation. Similarly, in the field of euro coins, the Commission has already adopted Commission Recommendation of May 2005 concerning the authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(3) Appropriate adjustment of equipment is a prerequisite for checking the authenticity of euro notes and coins. In order to adjust the equipment used for the checks for authenticity it is essential that the necessary quantities of counterfeit notes and coins are available at the places where testing is conducted. It is, therefore, important to permit the transport of counterfeits amongst competent national authorities as well as institutions and bodies of the European Union. |
(3) Appropriate adjustment of equipment is a prerequisite for checking the authenticity of euro notes and coins. In order to adjust the equipment used for the checks for authenticity it is essential that the necessary quantities of counterfeit notes and coins are available at the places where testing is conducted. It is, therefore, necessary to permit the delivery and transport of counterfeits amongst competent national authorities as well as institutions and bodies of the European Union. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
The Regulation should be amended in order to take into account the need for examples of false euro notes and coins (of whatever origin) to be delivered and for the transport thereof to be authorised. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(3a) The authenticity of euros must be guaranteed throughout the European Union, including in those Member States which do not belong to the euro area and those in which euros are used as a transaction currency. | ||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
Member States which do not belong to the euro area must guarantee the authenticity of the euro when it is used on their territory as a transaction currency. The ECB and Commission authentification methods will not be fully applicable to those Member States, for which reason the application of methods such as the training of cashiers to detect false euros and the use of equipment which is capable of detecting false currency must be proposed. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point -1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 2 - point d a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
The various institutions engaged in the sorting and distribution of cash must be distinguished for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the obligation to check the authenticity of euro notes and coins in accordance with the procedures laid down by the ECB and the Commission. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point -1 b (new) Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 2 – point d b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
For the purposes of this Regulation, small and medium-sized traders must be distinguished from credit institutions and other bodies involved in the handling of cash, particularly where the obligations incumbent on the two categories are concerned. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 - point 1 - point b Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 4 - paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
For the purpose of calibrating and adjusting euro-note authentification equipment, false examples must be supplied to the competent national authorities. This means authorising the transport and delivery of a sample of the false examples seized, even when the latter constitute evidence in criminal proceedings against counterfeiters and other criminals - although this must be done without destroying the requisite balance between legal/procedural principles and technical requirements relating to detection. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 - point 2 - point a Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 5 - title | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
(Does not affect English version.) | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 - point 2 - point b Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 5 - paragraph 2 - subparagraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
For the purpose of calibrating and adjusting euro-coin authentification equipment, false examples must be supplied to the competent national authorities. This means authorising the transport and delivery of a sample of the false examples seized, even when the latter constitute evidence in criminal proceedings against counterfeiters and other criminals - although this must be done without destroying the requisite balance between legal/procedural principles and technical requirements relating to detection. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 3 – point a Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 6 – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
The obligations incumbent upon credit institutions and other institutions engaged in the sorting and distribution of euro notes and coins must be distinguished from the obligations incumbent upon institutions which can only be required to act with due diligence - this being the case with small and medium-sized traders, who could not afford the expense of acquiring testing machines. Furthermore, a verification procedure must be established in the Member States which, although they do not belong to the euro area, nonetheless accept euros as a transaction currency. | |||||||||||||||||||
Cash transporters will not be required to verify the authenticity of the money they transport unless they have direct access thereto, in order to avoid a procedural complication of their activity at Community level. Cash-transport procedures often involve the transfer of cash between national banks and the branches of individual banks in sealed boxes which the transporters are unable to open. It should be made clear that, in order to fulfil its mandate concerning the issuance of banknotes, the ECB needs to ensure the integrity and preservation of euro banknotes in circulation and, accordingly, the public's trust in euro banknotes. The mere possibility of issuing a recommendation to the Commission would seriously undermine the independence of the ECB in this regard. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 6 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||
A deadline must be set within which all the Member States will be required to comply with the provisions of this Regulation. The deadline initially proposed by the Commission leaves the Member States little scope for adopting in good time the verification procedures laid down by the ECB and the Commission itself. | |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 - point 3 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 7 - paragraph 2 - indent 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Protection of the euro has a dual dimension: political and financial. The financial dimension is obvious but the political one perhaps plays a more significant role. As one of the symbols of European identity, the euro needs to be protected.
The measures required in order to protect euro notes and coins against counterfeiting are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001.
In that Regulation it is proposed that credit institutions and other establishments involved in the sorting and distribution to the public of cash should withdraw from circulation any euro notes or coins which they know or have sufficient reason to believe to be counterfeit, although no reference is made to the prior and necessary task of detection and identification. In other words the Regulation imposes an implicit obligation (namely, to act with ‘due diligence’) but not a direct obligation to carry out checks. The lack of reference to identification tasks is attributable to the fact that, at the time, there was no agreement on what were the most effective methods for the large-scale identification of false notes and coins.
Now that the Commission and the European Central Bank have laid down the definitive procedures for the detection of false euro notes and coins, establishments involved in the distribution of cash to the public have the tools they need in order to perform the task of authentifying the notes and coins which they put into circulation - the reason which justifies the amendment made to Regulation 1338/2001. Amongst other things that amendment should enable the necessary distinction to be made between the various types of establishment which place our common currency into circulation. On the one hand there are the major credit, financial, economic, commercial and cash-transport organisations to which the direct obligation to carry out authentification would apply. In the particular case of large shopping complexes the requirement to carry out authentification would prevent most complexes from distributing via their automatic cash dispensers notes and coins which have not been checked and may as a consequence be false. On the other hand there would be small traders who for obvious reasons would be required only to proceed with ‘due diligence’ - i.e. to withdraw any euro notes and coins which they know or have sufficient reason to believe to be counterfeit. Hence a definition of the establishments which will be obliged to check the authenticity of the euro note and coins which they deliver to the public will have to drawn up.
Procedures for the detection and authentification of notes and coins are carried out by means of equipment which has to be calibrated and adjusted through the use of both false and genuine examples of euros. If control centres are to be supplied with examples of false euros, it must be possible for those examples to be transported between the competent national authorities and between EU bodies and institutions.
For the purpose of calibrating authentification and detection equipment, an adequate number of examples of false euros (even when these constitute evidence in criminal procedures) must be delivered to the competent national authorities, provided that the quantity of notes and coins seized so permits. This is a complex proposal owing to the fact that under most of the Member States’ laws on criminal prosecution, all the evidence relating to criminal proceedings must be available for the entire duration of those proceedings. Hence a mechanism must be devised which will enable the judicial authorities to supply an adequate number of false euro notes and coins to the verification authorities without destroying the balance between the observance of basic legal/procedural principles and the technical requirements relating to the detection of counterfeit currency.
A matter of particular importance is the question of guaranteeing the authenticity of the euro throughout the EU, particularly in the Member States which do not belong to the euro area but which accept the single currency for transaction purposes. Much thought should be given to the ECB’s reference to the timescales within which the Member States must enforce the authentification requirement. From the ECB’s point of view the timescales should be laid down in accordance with the procedures specified by the Commission and the ECB itself, since those two institutions are responsible for the classification rules relating both to suitability checks and to the checks on currency authenticity. However, the ECB proposal would be applicable only in the euro area countries and not in the other Member States in which the euro is not the official currency. In the case of Member States which have not adopted the single currency, authenticity checks could be carried out (I) through the use by establishments of tested equipment capable of detecting counterfeits when notes and coins are being selected and (II) by providing suitable training for cashiers. For this reason and in order to ensure that control mechanisms are effective, it is particularly important that the Regulation should contain a specific date with effect from which authentification procedures will be applied outside the euro area. The best thing would be to set a longer deadline that the one initially proposed by the Commission (i.e. 31 December 2009), so as to satisfy all the parties involved and to enable all the Member States (whether they belong to the euro area or not) to adopt the mechanisms needed for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of the euro within their territory.
Lastly, the various language versions of the proposal for a Council Regulation will have to be revised, since - at least in the Spanish version - the proposed amendment to the title of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 1338/2001 involves changing the original title ‘Obligation to transmit counterfeit coins for identification’ to ‘Obligation to transmit counterfeit notes’, when in fact the title should be changed to ‘Obligation to transmit counterfeit coins’.
OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (8.5.2008)
for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting
(COM(2007)0525 – C6‑0431/2007 – 2007/0192(CNS))
Draftsman: Manuel António dos Santos
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Background
In 2007, the total number of counterfeit banknotes withdrawn from circulation was 561,000, while the number of counterfeit coins removed from circulation was 211,100. These numbers are marginal compared to the total number of genuine euro banknotes and coins in circulation (11.4 billion and 75 billion respectively). The overwhelming majority (96%) of counterfeit banknotes recovered in the second half of 2007 were found in euro area countries (approximately 3.5% in EU Member States outside the euro area, around 0.5% in other parts of the world).
Current Legal Framework
In order to strengthen the legal protection of euro banknotes and coins in time for their introduction on 1 January 2002, two Regulations were introduced: Regulation 1338/2001, based on Article 123(4) of the EC Treaty, has effect in those Member States which have adopted the euro as their single currency. A parallel regulation (1339/2001), based on Article 308 of the EC Treaty, extends the provisions of the regulation 1338/2001 to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as a single currency.
Regulation 1338/2001 aims to ensure a high level of protection against counterfeiting and falsification. It covers the processing of technical and statistical information relating to counterfeit notes and coins (methods and technical features of the manufacturing process, amounts seized etc.), the processing of operational and strategic data, and co-operation and mutual assistance between the EU Member States, bodies and institutions, third countries and international organisations (Europol in particular).
Under the terms of the regulation, credit institutions, and any other institution engaged in the sorting and distribution to the public of notes and coins, shall be obliged to withdraw from circulation all euro notes and coins received by them which they know or have sufficient reason to believe to be counterfeit. They shall immediately hand them over to the competent national authorities. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the establishments which fail to discharge their obligations shall be subject to effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions.
Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (COM(2007)525)
The proposal to amend Regulation 1338/2001 comprises
- a specific permission to transport counterfeit euro notes (Article 4) and coins (Article 5) for the purpose of adjustment of the equipment used for authenticity checks, as this is presently not authorised at EU level;
- a deletion of the obligation of the European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC) to communicate data to the Commission, as the ETSC, which had been carrying out its task on a temporary basis at the French Mint, is now permanently established within the Commission's Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) (Article 5);
- an explicit obligation for credit and other relevant institutions to check the authenticity of euro notes and coins which they have received and put back into circulation, in line with procedures defined by the ECB for notes and the Commission for coins (Article 6). Such an obligation had been already included in the initial Commission proposal for Regulation 1338/2001, but was finally not adopted mainly due to the lack of agreed uniform and effective methods for the detection of counterfeits. The provisions that impose the proposed obligations shall be adopted by 31 December 2009 at the latest, in order to allow the credit and other relevant institutions to adapt their internal proceedings and upgrade their equipment.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
(2) It is important to ensure that circulating euro notes and coins are authentic. Procedures are now available which enable credit institutions and other related institutions to check authenticity of the euro notes and coins they receive before they put them back into circulation. In order to comply with the obligation to check authenticity and to implement those procedures, these institutions need time to adapt their internal functioning. |
(2) It is important to ensure that circulating euro notes and coins are authentic. Procedures are now available which enable credit institutions and other related institutions to check the authenticity and fitness for circulation of the euro notes and coins they receive before they put them back into circulation. In order to comply with the obligation to check authenticity and fitness for circulation, and to implement those procedures, these institutions need time to adapt their internal functioning. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The established standards should concern both the fitness of circulation and the authenticity checks of euro notes and coins. This should be made clear in the proposed Regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(2a) In order to ensure that credit institutions and other related institutions are able to comply with the obligation to check euro notes and coins for authenticity and fitness for circulation, technical procedures and standards for such checking should be defined. Article 106(1) of the Treaty assigns competence to define such standards for euro notes to the European Central Bank. With regard to euro coins, related competences have been conferred on the Commission pursuant to Article 211 of the Treaty. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The ECB has already adopted a framework for the detection of counterfeit notes, in order to meet its responsibilities under Article 106(1) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB, namely, to ensure the integrity and preservation of euro banknotes in circulation. Similarly, in the field of euro coins, the Commission has already adopted Commission Recommendation of May 2005 concerning the authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point a Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 6 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||
It should be made clear that, in order to fulfil its mandate concerning the issuance of banknotes, the ECB needs to ensure the integrity and preservation of euro banknotes in circulation and, accordingly, the public's trust in euro banknotes. The mere possibility of issuing a recommendation to the Commission would seriously undermine the independence of the ECB in this regard. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – paragraph 3– point b Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 Article 6 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The proposed deadline of 2009 would not provide enough flexibility for implementation, in particular given the migration costs and costs for manufacturing and obtaining the new detectors. This deadline should be deleted and the procedures laid down by the ECB and the Commission should define the deadlines, in order to allow correct and thorough implementation of the proposed Regulation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The procedures referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 shall have effect in the participating Member States as stipulated in the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) thereof. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||
When extending Article 6(1) of the amended Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 to non Euro area Member States, it should be made clear that the ECB is in charge of deciding upon the implementation of its procedures in relation to Euro banknotes. The ECB decided in July 2006 that these procedures will become effective in newly participating Member States once they adopt the Euro. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Protection of the euro against counterfeiting |
|||||||
|
References |
COM(2007)0525 – C6-0431/2007 – 2007/0192(CNS) |
|||||||
|
Committee responsible |
LIBE |
|||||||
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
ECON 29.11.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
|
Drafts(wo)man Date appointed |
Manuel António dos Santos 23.10.2007 |
|
|
|||||
|
Discussed in committee |
8.4.2008 |
6.5.2008 |
|
|
||||
|
Date adopted |
6.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
35 0 0 |
||||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, Manuel António dos Santos, Jonathan Evans, Elisa Ferreira, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Robert Goebbels, Donata Gottardi, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Wolf Klinz, Christoph Konrad, Guntars Krasts, Kurt Joachim Lauk, Andrea Losco, Astrid Lulling, Florencio Luque Aguilar, Gay Mitchell, John Purvis, Alexander Radwan, Bernhard Rapkay, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Ivo Strejček, Ieke van den Burg |
|||||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Valdis Dombrovskis, Harald Ettl, Ján Hudacký, Alain Lipietz, Diamanto Manolakou, Gianni Pittella, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Andreas Schwab |
|||||||
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Protection of the euro against counterfeiting |
|||||||
|
References |
COM(2007)0525 – C6-0431/2007 – 2007/0192(CNS) |
|||||||
|
Date of consulting Parliament |
22.11.2007 |
|||||||
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
LIBE 29.11.2007 |
|||||||
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
ECON 29.11.2007 |
|
|
|
||||
|
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra 5.11.2007 |
|
|
|||||
|
Discussed in committee |
27.3.2008 |
6.5.2008 |
29.5.2008 |
|
||||
|
Date adopted |
29.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
26 0 1 |
||||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Alexander Alvaro, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Michael Cashman, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Carlos Coelho, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Claudio Fava, Armando França, Urszula Gacek, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Roselyne Lefrançois, Claude Moraes, Martine Roure, Manfred Weber |
|||||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Sophia in ‘t Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Bill Newton Dunn, Nicolae Vlad Popa |
|||||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Manolis Mavrommatis |
|||||||