REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (recast)

19.11.2008 - (COM(2008)0419 – C6‑0258/2008 – 2008/0141(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
Rapporteur: Philip Bushill-Matthews
(Recast – Rule 80a of the Rules of Procedure)

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (recast)

(COM(2008)0419 – C6‑0258/2008 – 2008/0141(COD))

(Codecision procedure – recast)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0419),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 137 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0258/2008),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts[1],

–   having regard to the letter of 9 October 2008 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in accordance with Rule 80a(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6‑0454/2008),

A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance,

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and incorporating the technical amendments approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs, and as amended below;

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

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

Amendment  1 Proposal for a directive Recital 16
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(16) The transnational character of a matter should be determined by taking account of both the scope of its potential effects, and the level of management and representation that it involves. For this purpose, matters which concern the entire undertaking or group or at least two Member States are considered to be transnational.	(16) The transnational character of a matter should be determined by taking account of both the scope of its potential effects, and the level of management and representation that it involves. For this purpose, matters which concern the entire undertaking or group or at least two Member States, or which exceed the powers of the decision-making bodies in a single Member State in which employees who will be affected are employed, are considered to be transnational.
Justification
Following the judgements in the Vilvoorde, British Airways and Marks & Spencer cases, the definition of transnationality needs to be adapted accordingly. This means that cases where the decision of closure or restructuring is taken in one Member State but affects the workers in an other need to be considered transnational and the European Work Council needs to be informed and consulted in accordance with the Directive.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a directive Recital 35 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(35a) Member States should ensure that measures taken in the event of a failure to comply with this Directive are adequate, proportionate and dissuasive.
Justification
It is important to underline that, as this is the case for all European legislation, Member States need to introduce measures that stimulate compliance with the Directive.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a directive Recital 39
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(39) Where the structure of the undertaking or group of undertakings changes significantly, for example, due to a merger, acquisition or division, the existing European Works Council(s) must be adapted. This adaptation must be carried out as a priority pursuant to the clauses of the applicable agreement, if such clauses permit the required adaptation to be carried out. If this is not the case and a request establishing the need is made, negotiations, in which the members of the existing European Works Council(s) must be involved, will commence on a new agreement. In order to permit the information and consultation of employees during the often decisive period when the structure is changed, the existing European Works Council(s) must be able to continue to operate, possibly with adaptations, until a new agreement is concluded. Once a new agreement is signed, the previously established councils must be dissolved, and the agreements instituting them must be terminated, regardless of their provisions on validity or termination.	(39) Where the structure of the undertaking or group of undertakings changes significantly, for example, due to a merger, acquisition or division, or a substantial change of the dominant influence, the existing European Works Council(s) must be adapted. This adaptation must be carried out as a priority pursuant to the clauses of the applicable agreement, if such clauses permit the required adaptation to be carried out. If this is not the case and a request establishing the need is made, negotiations, in which the members of the existing European Works Council(s) must be involved, will commence on a new agreement. In order to permit the information and consultation of employees during the often decisive period when the structure is changed, the existing European Works Council(s) must be able to continue to operate, possibly with adaptations, until a new agreement is concluded. Once a new agreement is signed, the previously established councils must be dissolved, and the agreements instituting them must be terminated, regardless of their provisions on validity or termination.
Justification
Recent evolutions in financial markets operations show that the change of the dominant influence in company due to a leveraged buy-out or financial acquisition can have a similar effect as a merger and therefore the European Works Council needs to be adapted accordingly.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. Matters shall be considered to be transnational where they concern the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings as a whole, or at least two undertakings or establishments of the undertaking or group situated in two different Member States.	4. Matters shall be considered to be transnational where they concern the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings as a whole, or at least two undertakings or establishments of the undertaking or group situated in two different Member States, or where they exceed the powers of the decision-making bodies in a single Member State in which employees who will be affected are employed.
Justification
Following the judgements in the Vilvoorde, British Airways and Marks & Spencer cases, the definition of transnationality needs to be adapted accordingly. This means that cases where the decision of closure or restructuring is taken in one Member State but affects the workers in an other need to be considered transnational and the European Work Council needs to be informed and consulted in accordance with the Directive.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point f
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(f) ‘information’ means transmission of data by the employer to the employees' representatives in order to enable them to acquaint themselves with the subject matter and to examine it; information shall be given at such time, in such fashion and with such content as are appropriate to enable employees' representatives, in particular, to conduct an appropriate study and, where necessary, prepare for consultation;	(f) ‘information’ means transmission of data by the employer to the employees' representatives in order to enable them to acquaint themselves with the subject matter and to examine it; information shall be given at such time, in such fashion and with such content as are appropriate to enable employees' representatives to undertake an in-depth assessment of the possible impact and, where appropriate, prepare consultations with the competent body of the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings in question;
Amendment  6 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point g
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(g) ‘consultation’ means the establishment of dialogue and exchange of views between employees' representatives and central management or any more appropriate level of management, at such time, in such fashion and with such content enables employees' representatives to express an opinion on the basis of the information provided and within a reasonable time to the competent body of the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings;	(g) ‘consultation’ means the establishment of dialogue and exchange of views between employees' representatives and central management or any more appropriate level of management, at such time, in such fashion and with such content as enables employees' representatives to express an opinion, on the basis of the information provided, about the proposed measures to which the consultation relates, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the management and within a reasonable time, which may be taken into account within the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings;
Amendment  7 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) The members of the special negotiating body shall be elected or appointed in proportion to the number of employees in each Member State by the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings, by allocating in respect of each Member State in which at least 50 employees are employed one seat per portion of employees employed in that Member State amounting to 10%, or a fraction thereof, of the number of employees employed in all the Member States taken together;	(b) The members of the special negotiating body shall be elected or appointed in proportion to the number of employees in each Member State by the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings, by allocating in respect of each Member State one seat per portion of employees employed in that Member State amounting to 10%, or a fraction thereof, of the number of employees employed in all the Member States taken together;
Justification
The introduction by the Commission of the 50 worker threshold in setting up Special Negotiating Bodies is discriminatory against smaller Member States which will find it difficult to reach this threshold. The number of 50 employees as a threshold is random, and above all no indicator for the output of the particular undertaking.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
For the purpose of the negotiations, the special negotiating body may request assistance with its work from experts of its choice, for example representatives of appropriate Community-level trade union organisations. Such experts may be present at negotiation meetings in an advisory capacity at the request of the special negotiating body, where appropriate to promote coherence and consistency at Community level.	For the purpose of the negotiations, the special negotiating body may request assistance with its work from experts of its choice, who may include representatives of the competent recognised Community-level trade union organisations. Such experts and trade union representatives may be present at negotiation meetings in an advisory capacity at the request of the special negotiating body.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. The information provided to, and the consultation of, the European Works Council shall relate to the matters referred to in point 1(a) of Annex I.
Justification
For the internal logic of the Directive, it should be self-evident that the content of the agreements negotiated by the Special Negotiating Bodies includes at least the items listed in paragraph 1 of the annex.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Without prejudice to the competence of other bodies or organisations in this respect, the members of the European Works Council shall collectively represent the interests of the employees of the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings and shall have the means required to apply the rights stemming from this Directive.	1. Without prejudice to the competence of other bodies or organisations in this respect, the members of the European Works Council shall have the means required to apply the rights stemming from this Directive and to collectively represent the interests of the employees of the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings.
Amendment  11 Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. In so far as this is necessary for the exercise of their representative duties in an international environment, the members of the special negotiating body and of the European Works Council shall be have access to training without loss of wages.	4. In so far as this is necessary for the exercise of their representative duties in an international environment, the members of the special negotiating body and of the European Works Council shall be provided with training without loss of wages.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Where no such arrangements have been defined by agreement, the Member States shall ensure that the processes of informing and consulting the European Works Council and the national bodies start in parallel in cases where decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or contractual relations are envisaged.	3. Where no such arrangements have been defined by agreement, the Member States shall ensure that the processes of informing and consulting are conducted in the European Works Council as well as in the national bodies in cases where decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or contractual relations are envisaged.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the obligations arising from this Directive shall not apply to Community-scale undertakings or Community-scale groups of undertakings in which there was already an agreement on 22 September 1996, covering the entire workforce, providing for the transnational information and consultation of employees, in so far as such agreements are still in force. When these agreements expire, the parties to those agreements may decide jointly to renew them. Where this is not the case, the provisions of this Directive shall apply.	1. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the obligations arising from this Directive shall not apply to Community-scale undertakings or Community-scale groups of undertakings in which there was already an agreement on 22 September 1996, or in which an agreement is signed or an existing agreement is revised during the two years following the adoption of this Directive, or in undertakings in which such agreements exist and which are due to negotiate under paragraph 3, covering the entire workforce, providing for the transnational information and consultation of employees. When these agreements expire, the parties to those agreements may decide jointly to renew them. Where this is not the case, the provisions of this Directive shall apply.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a directive Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
When the new European Works Council established following the procedure referred to in the first subparagraph takes up its activities, the previously existing European Works Council(s) shall be dissolved and the agreement(s) instituting them shall be terminated.	deleted
Amendment  15 Proposal for a directive Article 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Five years after the date specified in Article 15 of this Directive, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of this Directive, making appropriate proposals where necessary.	Three years after the date specified in Article 15 of this Directive, the Commission shall present a full revision of this Directive to the European Parliament and the Council.
Justification
In the working documents and the preparations of this recast several areas for improvement have been defined by the Commission. Based on meetings with stakeholders it is clear that the functioning of the EWCs could improve if facilities are adapted and enlarged. A full revision is therefore needed. The recast procedure is acceptable for the EP if it leads to a modification of the Directive in line with recent jurisprudence.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a directive Annex I – point 1 – point a – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
The information of the European Works Council shall relate in particular to the structure, economic and financial situation, probable development and production and sales of the Community-scale undertaking or group of undertakings. The information and consultation of the European Works Council shall relate in particular to the situation and probable trend of employment, investments, and substantial changes concerning organisation, introduction of new working methods or production processes, transfers of production, mergers, cut-backs or closures of undertakings, establishments or important parts thereof, and collective redundancies.	The information and consultation of the European Works Council shall relate in particular to the structure, economic and financial situation, probable development and production and sales of the Community-scale undertaking or group of undertakings, the situation and probable trend of employment, investments, and substantial changes concerning organisation, introduction of new working methods or production processes, transfers of production, mergers, cut-backs or closures of undertakings, establishments or important parts thereof, and collective redundancies.
Justification
European Works Councils need to have a say in the economic and financial future of their company rather than just being passively informed about it. The distinction between information and consultation in this part of the annex is artificial.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a directive Annex I – point 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) The members of the European Works Council shall be elected or appointed in proportion to the number of employees in each Member State by the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings, by allocating in respect of each Member State in which at least 50 employees are employed one seat per portion of employees employed in that Member State amounting to 10%, or a fraction thereof, of the number of employees employed in all the Member States taken together;	(c) The members of the European Works Council shall be elected or appointed in proportion to the number of employees in each Member State by the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings, by allocating in respect of each Member State one seat per portion of employees employed in that Member State amounting to 10%, or a fraction thereof, of the number of employees employed in all the Member States taken together;
Justification
The introduction by the Commission of the 50 worker threshold in setting up Special Negotiating Bodies is discriminatory against smaller Member States which will find it difficult to reach this threshold. The number of 50 employees as a threshold is random, and above all, no indicator for the output of the particular undertaking.

• [1]  OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The issue of review of the European Works Council Directive has been a contentious issue for some time, with industry as well as trade unions. Considerable differences of opinion within the Parliament have also been expressed in the past, and indeed these were expected to intensify as a result of further proposals from the Commission. However, following a surprise agreement between the Social Partners during the 2008 summer vacation the ground has significantly shifted.

A. Practical Implications

1) The Commission has proposed a "recasting" of the Directive rather than a "Review". My understanding is that this will confine the comments from Parliament to the specific articles which the Commission has proposed to recast. It should make our work easier and quicker.

2) On that basis, the French Presidency has asked me as Rapporteur to try to fast-track my report so that can be signed off during their term of office. I have said that I am very happy in principle to do this, assuming that colleagues may be generally supportive of the approach accepted by the Social Partners and subsequently welcomed in Council.

3) However, before this can be confirmed, not only does our Committee need to establish its overall position but there is an earlier hurdle to surmount. The legal services need to pronounce exactly what a "recasting" does and does not allow, and whether it is considered the correct approach in this instance. Until they have officially ruled, we cannot technically issue a Report, and therefore equally are not in any position to propose amendments either.

4) Working Documents are of course permitted. The fact that this working document may contain pages that bear a close resemblance to a Report is - of course - just coincidence.

5) Meanwhile the Council is planning to discuss the Social Partner agreement in the coming weeks - no later than October 3rd. If, as is expected, they endorse the agreement with enthusiasm and also support an early agreement by Parliament, that is also something we should take on board.

B. The Approach of your Rapporteur

1) While I personally welcome the existence and development of Works Councils, at local, national and European level as appropriate, I remain unconvinced that further and more prescriptive legislation is helpful to the cause. However, I am also very aware that while this legislative dossier has languished on the sidelines for a long time, there is sudden and substantial agreement at Social Partner level. I regard this as a significant and positive step which we should not ignore.

2) I believe that while all MEPs are clearly free to make their own observations on what to do next, in my view Parliament should seize the opportunity to sign off this dossier and facilitate what the major stakeholders want. To try to re-calibrate the agreement, however well-intentioned, would run the risk of unpicking it altogether. The result would again be stalemate with further progress blocked. I propose to colleagues that we agree it is time to move on, and it is time to deliver.

3) The overall approach that Shadow Rapporteurs might consider is that further proposals about which they may feel strongly - particularly in articles which fall outside the scope of the "re-cast" - might be proposed "off balance-sheet" as it were. This was the solution for example regarding Corporate Social Responsibility: in this case in the absence of legislation the Rapporteur proposed a Multi-Stakeholder Forum in order to explore best practice and inspire others to follow. The results have been very positive: real tools have been developed, real ideas have flowed, and more and more companies are choosing to embed CSR into their businesses in ways which they consider are right for them. Individual companies have taken ownership of CSR because they have helped to shape it in ways that they have chosen themselves.

4) If colleagues consider that a similar idea may have merit on this dossier, it would be useful to have an early indication of what it might cover. We could then try to get the Social Partners onside before the official Report goes to plenary, so that any outcomes could be presented in the plenary debate. What I would be looking for is an early commitment from these key Stakeholders that they are committed to the concept of information and consultation, they wish to seek ways of enhancing it to the mutual benefit of all stakeholders, and that they will actively encourage more pan-European companies to sign up.

5) I personally have certain amendments that I would wish to table to the main Report, but I am prepared not to table any amendments at all if that is the only way to achieve a fast-track decision. This is not to dictate to colleagues what they can or cannot do - it is simply a copy of the initiative by the PES to fast-track an agreement on the Temporary Agency Workers dossier. Any amendments would naturally require full discussions and potential compromises: these would not only risk unpicking the deal on the table but would roll over the dossier into the Czech and perhaps Swedish Presidencies so the outcome might be doubly uncertain. My recommendation is that we should aim to bank the real progress made by the stakeholders, and that Parliament should aim to deliver rather than delay.

ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

CHAIRMAN

Ref.: D(2007)59835

Mr Jan ANDERSSON

Chairman

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

ASP 14G306

BRUSSELS

Subject:     Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (recast)

                  (COM(2008)0419 – C6‑0258/2008 – 2008/0141(COD))

Dear Chair,

The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I am honoured to chair, has examined the proposal referred to above, pursuant to Rule 80a on Recasting, as introduced into the Parliament's Rules of Procedure by its Decision of 10 May 2007.

Paragraph 3 of that Rule reads as follows:

"If the committee responsible for legal affairs considers that the proposal does not entail any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal, it shall inform the committee responsible.

In such a case, over and above the conditions laid down in Rules 150 and 151, amendments shall be admissible within the committee responsible only if they concern those parts of the proposal which contain changes.

However, amendments to the parts which have remained unchanged may be admitted by way of exception and on a case-by-case basis by the chairman of the above committee if he considers that this is necessary for pressing reasons relating to the internal logic of the text or because the amendments are inextricably linked to other admissible amendments. Such reasons must be stated in a written justification to the amendments".

Following the opinion of the Legal Service, whose representatives participated in the meetings of the Consultative Working Party examining the recast proposal, and in keeping with the recommendations of the draftsperson, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that the proposal in question does not include any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those changes, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

In conclusion, the Committee on Legal Affairs, by 23 votes in favour

[1], recommends your Committee, as the committee responsible, to proceed to examine the above proposal in accordance with Rule 80a.

Yours faithfully,

Giuseppe GARGANI

Encl.. Opinion of the Consultative Working Party

• [1]  The following Members were present: Giuseppe Gargani (Chairman), Bert Doorn, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Hans-Peter Mayer, Hartmut Nassauer, Rainer Wieland, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka, Neena Gill, Katalin Lévai, Manuel Medina Ortega, Aloyzas Sakalas, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Diana Wallis, Monica Frassoni, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Kurt Lechner, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Georgios Papastamkos,József Szájer, Michel Rocard,

ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION

	CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES

Brussels,

OPINION

FOR   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

    THE COUNCIL

  THE COMMISSION

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees

COM(2008) 419 final of 2.7.2008 - 2008/0141 (COD)

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular point 9 thereof, the Consultative Group consisting of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission held a meeting on 16 July 2008 at which it examined, inter alia, the above proposal presented by the Commission.

On examining the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to recast Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of the European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups for the purposes of informing and consulting employees[1], the Working Party established, by common consent, that additions were to be made to the text of the correlation table in Annex III of the proposal to recast.

Thus the Working Party was able to establish from the examination, by common consent, that the proposal did not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such.

The Working Party was also able to establish, in regard to the codification of the unchanged provisions of the previous act with the substantive amendments, that the proposal was indeed a straightforward codification without substantive changes to the acts to which it related.

C. PENNERA                                  J.-C. PIRIS                           M. PETITE     

Legal adviser        Legal adviser      Director-General

• [1]  The Working Party had German, English and French versions of the proposal and worked from the French version, the original version of the working document.

PROCEDURE

Title	European Works Council (recast version)
References	COM(2008)0419 – C6-0258/2008 – 2008/0141(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	2.7.2008
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	EMPL 10.7.2008
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	JURI 10.7.2008
Not delivering opinions        Date of decision	JURI 25.6.2008
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Philip Bushill-Matthews 28.5.2008
Discussed in committee	6.10.2008		17.11.2008
Date adopted	17.11.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	36 1 10
Members present for the final vote	Jan Andersson, Iles Braghetto, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Alejandro Cercas, Ole Christensen, Luigi Cocilovo, Jean Louis Cottigny, Jan Cremers, Proinsias De Rossa, Harlem Désir, Harald Ettl, Richard Falbr, Ilda Figueiredo, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Roger Helmer, Stephen Hughes, Karin Jöns, Ona Juknevičienė, Sajjad Karim, Bernard Lehideux, Mary Lou McDonald, Elisabeth Morin, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar, Csaba Őry, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Elisabeth Schroedter, José Albino Silva Peneda, Jean Spautz, Gabriele Stauner, Ewa Tomaszewska
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Martin Callanan, Françoise Castex, Petru Filip, Marian Harkin, Sepp Kusstatscher, Lasse Lehtinen, Roberto Musacchio, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Csaba Sógor, Patrizia Toia, Glenis Willmott
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Giles Chichester, Jill Evans, Erik Meijer, Zbigniew Zaleski