REPORT on the nomination of Augustyn Bronisław Kubik as a Member of the Court of Auditors
17.3.2010 - (C7‑0021/2010 – 2010/0809(NLE))
Committee on Budgetary Control
Rapporteur: Inés Ayala Sender
PR_NLE_art108
PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION
on the nomination of Augustyn Bronisław Kubik as a Member of the Court of Auditors
(C7‑0021/2010 – 2010/0809(NLE))
(Consultation)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7‑0021/2010),
– having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,
– having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0041/2010),
A. whereas Augustyn Bronisław Kubik fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,
1. Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Augustyn Bronisław Kubik as a Member of the Court of Auditors;
2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITAE OF Augustyn Bronisław Kubik
Personal details:
Name: Augustyn Bronisław Kubik
Education:
1972-1976 Secondary school
1976-1980 Industry Faculty of the Academy of Economics in Katowice, in the field of socio‑economics
1985-1986 Faculty of Workers of the Technical College of Mining Engineering in Rybnik, specialising in the underground exploitation of deposits
2001-2002 Postgraduate studies on tax law in the European Union at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
Professional experience:
01.08.1980-27.12.1984 "Rydułtowy" Hard Coal Mine in Rydułtowy as reporter, supervisor and inspector for business audit
28.12.1984-21.09.1986 Rybnicko-Jastrzębskie Gwarectwo Węglowe (Coal Mining Consortium) in Jastrzębie Zdrój
Senior inspector for business audit
22.09.1986-31.03.1991 "Borynia" Hard Coal Mine in Jastrzębie Zdrój
Chief accountant
01.04.1991-24.11.2002 Treasury in Katowice
Director
25.11.2002-29.12.2006 Ministry of Finance
Chief internal audit inspector
30.12.2006-28.02.2007 Ministry of Finance
General adviser
01.03.2007-14.02.2008 Supreme Chamber of Control (NIK)
Adviser to President
15.02.2008-present Ministry of Regional Development
Undersecretary of State
Skills:
– Knowledge of French, obtained DELF Certificate levels I and II awarded by the National Ministry of Education of the Republic of France
– Good knowledge of English
– Basic knowledge of German
– Basic knowledge of Russian
2007 Studies in the examination of financial reports on budgetary units
2007 Launch of audit application in the NIK
2008 NIK audit examination, obtained the title of certified internal auditor
2008 Studies in the "art of presentation"
2008 Extended vetting proceedings, obtained clearance at Classified and Secret EU levels.
Interests: sport: swimming in summer and skiing in winter.
ANNEX 2: ANSWERS BY Augustyn Bronisław Kubik TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Please highlight the main aspects of your professional experience in public finance, management or management auditing.
I have been involved in finance throughout my professional career, specifically: financial controls, management, administration and finance as well as internal audits of organisations within the public finance sector, external audits and the certification of expenditure from EU funds for the European Commission.
As the internal auditor and then chief accountant of a mine I was responsible for internal audits and the management of the mine’s finances as well as the management of financial controls and employees in the Finance Department.
As Director of the Tax Office in Katowice I was responsible for the supervision and management of staff involved in tax administration in the Silesia region. This included supervision of tax inspections and other functions carried out by the tax authorities, as well as internal audits and supervision of the finances of the entire tax administration in the region.
As Chief Internal Audit Inspector I was responsible for implementing, coordinating and improving the internal audit and financial control system for the whole of the public finance sector.
As advisor to the President of the Supreme Chamber of Control (NIK) I was responsible for analysing and checking audit documents submitted by the NIK’s audit departments.
In my present position I am responsible for supervising the Certifying Authority Department, the Economy and Finance Department and the Legal Office. This involves analysing, implementing and improving the process of certifying expenditure for the European Commission, controlling the certification process, cooperating with other audit institutions, supervising budget implementation and providing accounting and bookkeeping services for monies from structural funds and from the Cohesion Fund, for monitoring legislative processes relating to EU and national law.
While carrying out these functions I have taken many theoretical and practical courses and workshops such as:
· courses on internal audits and business accounting – resulting in my being inscribed in the register of auditors;
· courses on taxation and activities within the Commission for tax advisers – resulting in my being inscribed in the register of tax advisers;
· postgraduate studies in EU tax law – resulting in my passing the examination and receiving a diploma;
· courses on internal auditing – resulting in my being inscribed in the list of internal auditors in the Polish public finance sector and being awarded the CIA (Certified Internal Auditor) certificate;
· audit application for the Supreme Chamber of Control – resulting in my passing the examination and being appointed as adviser to the President of the NIK.
2. What are the three most important decisions to which you have been party in your professional life?
a) As director of the Tax Office in Katowice (Silesian Region):
In 1999 a change took place in the organisation of administration in Poland. A total of 16 large regions were created from 49 voivodships. As a result, 16 Tax Offices (one for each region) were created from the former 49 Tax Offices (one for each voivodship). The Silesian Region took over three voivodships: Katowice, Bielsko-Biała and Częstochowa. On the basis of an administrative Decision issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, I became responsible for creating a single tax administration in the Silesian Region. This administration authority was and remains the second largest in Poland. At that time it included 35 Tax Offices from the three former voivodships. These offices had different procedures because there had been different experiences in the different voivodships. As the Director of the new Tax Office I decided to standardise specific functions in all the Tax Offices, such as:
· tax registration;
· tax collection;
· tax inspection;
· collection of monies due.
This process required appropriate standards to be drawn up, tested and implemented in the Tax Offices.
As a result a uniform solution was implemented and the efficiency of the offices in the Silesian Region was improved.
b) As General Inspector of Internal Audits at the Ministry of Finance:
After two years of implementing and coordinating internal audits of all public finances in Poland I decided to introduce a new statutory definition for internal audits. The previous definition described internal audits as the totality of functions thanks to which the unit’s head gains an objective and independent assessment of the unit’s financial management. For this reason, heads of unit often understood this definition in a restricted manner and saw the internal audit as relating only to the financial situation or even restricted it further to bookkeeping issues. However, the purpose of internal audits is to improve the functioning of the whole organisation by systematically evaluating and then improving the effectiveness of risk management, audits and management procedures.
For this reason, I proposed the following new definition of an internal audit:
An internal audit is an independent investigation into a unit’s management and audit systems, including financial control procedures, as a result of which the unit’s head gains an objective and independent assessment of the adequacy, efficiency and effectiveness of these systems as well as advisory functions aimed at improving the functioning of the unit.
As a result there was an improvement in the understanding of the nature of internal audits and an extension of their scope.
c) As Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Regional Development, acting as the Certification Body:
After taking up the post I decided to carry out a procedural review, including a review of the audit guidelines within the Certification Body. During its certification process, the Certification Body assesses the functioning of the management and control systems of a given operational programme, largely on the basis of the results of all the audits carried out by management authorities and audit institutions. In circumstances where it is necessary to obtain additional assurances concerning compliance with certification conditions, the Certification Body should carry out controls using its own resources. Our internal certification procedures had no precise clauses regarding audit functions. As a result there was a risk that different institutions’ auditing competencies would overlap. For this reason I proposed introducing clear guidelines based on a concept similar to the single audit which, in accordance with European Commission guidelines contained in the document Guidance Note on the concept of reliance on the work of other auditors, would involve good coordination between the Audit Institution and other bodies that carry out audits at the stage where controls are being planned and carried out. For this reason I also proposed that an Audit Committee be created in the Act on guidelines for managing a growth policy. The task of this committee is:
· to exchange information and experience between audit institutions, managing bodies, certification bodies and state audit institutions as regards audits carried out;
· to submit opinions regarding audit plans for institutions that manage operational programmes;
· to put forward proposals for increasing the effectiveness of audits;
· to analyse audit reports in the area of structural funds and the Cohesion Fund that are submitted to the European Commission.
As a result:
· a standardisation of audit functions took place within the Certification Body;
· the risk of audit competencies overlapping was reduced;
· there was an improvement in the use of resources and the effectiveness of audits.
3. The Treaty stipulates that the Members of the Court of Auditors shall be "completely independent" in the performance of their duties. How would you apply this obligation to your prospective duties?
Article 286 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides guidelines for the independence of Members of the Court of Auditors, stipulating that:
- The Members of the Court of Auditors shall be chosen from among persons who belong or have belonged in their respective States to external audit bodies or who are especially qualified for this office. Their independence must be beyond doubt.
- In the performance of these duties, the Members of the Court of Auditors shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. The Members of the Court of Auditors shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties.
- The Members of the Court of Auditors may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
In addition, Article 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Members states that Members of the Court shall act in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties as well as the legislation arising on the basis of these provisions. Their relationship with authorities and interest groups must comply with the principle of maintaining independence.
Knowing and understanding the above regulations, I can assure you that my professional experience so far, i.e. the work I have done in institutions involved in internal and external audits and in certification, also required unquestioning independence.
Just as I have done in the past, I would undertake to respect the guidelines on independence listed above, which are required by the Treaty of Lisbon and the Code of Conduct for Court Members. This includes not referring to and not accepting instructions from any government or organisation.
Independence understood in this way would allow me to fulfil the position of member of the Court of Auditors, working in accordance with my own experience, my own assessment of the facts and in a manner unaffected by external influences or conflicts of interest.
4. Have you received a discharge for the management duties you carried out previously, if such a procedure applies?
In my career to date there has been no discharge procedure for functions carried out.
I would, however, like to emphasise that on each occasion my activities were concluded with reports. For example:
· As chief accountant I prepared balance sheets that were subject to auditing and approval.
· As Director of the Tax Office I submitted reports to the Minister of Finance.
· As Chief Internal Audit Inspector I submitted reports to the Council of Ministers.
· As adviser to the President of the Supreme Chamber of Control I helped prepare opinions on reports on NIK activities.
· As Under Secretary of State, acting as the Certification Body, I submit reports to the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.
All my reports have been accepted.
5. Do you have any business or financial holdings or any other commitments, which might conflict, with your prospective duties? Are you prepared to disclose all your financial interests and other commitments to the President of the Court and make them public? In case you are involved in any current legal proceedings, would you please give details?
I do not have any business or financial holdings or any other commitments which might conflict with my function as a Court Member.
In addition, in accordance with Polish procedures, I disclose all my assets annually and allow them to be made public. Furthermore, I am prepared to disclose all my assets and other commitments to the President of the Court and to make them public in accordance with the procedure described in the Code of Conduct for Court Members.
I can also declare that I am not involved in any current legal proceedings.
6. Are you prepared to step down from any elected office or give up any active function with responsibilities in a political party after your appointment as Court Member?
I am a civil servant and therefore, in accordance with Polish regulations, I am not allowed to participate in political parties. For this reason I do not play an active part in any political party and have never done so.
In addition I am prepared to step down from my present position if I become a Member of the Court of Auditors.
7. How would you deal with a major irregularity or even fraud and/or corruption case involving actors in the Member State of your origin?
Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Court of Auditors shall examine whether all revenue has been received and all expenditure incurred in a lawful and regular manner and whether the financial management has been sound. In doing so, it shall report in particular on any cases of irregularity.
In addition, in accordance with Decision No 97-2004 of the Court of Auditors, if, during audits, there is any suspicion or discovery of evidence of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity, the Member responsible for the audit shall, without delay, inform the authorities at the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
In the circumstances described in the question I would apply the above guidelines irrespective of the place in which it is detected or the country of the persons affected by the suspicion or discovery of fraud, corruption or other illegal activity.
In addition, in my work to date I have applied guidelines that also required me to inform the appropriate services in cases of suspicion or discovery of fraud or corruption.
8. What should be the main features of a sound financial management culture in any public service?
The main features of a sound financial management culture were set out in the Financial Regulations, which describe the principle of proper financial management by referring to the principles of economy, effectiveness and efficiency, as well as an assessment of the results achieved.
- The principle of economy means using resources at the right time, in the right quantities and the right quality, at the best price.
- The principle of effectiveness means aiming to achieve the optimum relationship between resources used and results obtained.
- The principle of efficiency means achieving specific, set objectives and the desired results.
Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union clearly states that the Court of Auditors shall examine whether all revenue has been received and all expenditure incurred in a lawful and regular manner and whether the financial management has been sound.
In addition, the mission of the Court of Auditors, as an EU institution established on the basis of the Treaty in order to audit EU finances, is to improve the Union’s financial management and one of the aspects of this is to increase accountability as regards this management.
During my professional career, in my work as Chief Internal Audit Inspector, as an employee of the Supreme Chamber of Control and as a representative of a Certification Body, I applied and continue to apply the principles of economical, effective and efficient financial management, as these principles are written into:
· the definition of internal audit, where reference is made to the need to evaluate financial management from the point of view, among other criteria, of economy, appropriateness and effectiveness;
· regulations on the Supreme Chamber of Control, where it is stated that audits should be carried out from the point of view of economy, appropriateness, honesty and legality;
· guidelines on expenditure from EU funds and their certification, where reference is made to the duty to comply with the principles of proper financial management.
In the light of the above I believe that all public institutions should apply these guidelines.
In addition, in order to ensure proper financial management there should be compliance with guidelines and characteristics based on generally accepted standards.
In my opinion, management control standards presented in five groups, which encompass the characteristics of a financial management culture, should be applied:
1. The internal environment, which includes compliance with ethical values, professional competence, organisational structure and delegation of rights.
2. Risk management, including a statement of the mission, objectives and responsibilities and an evaluation of how they are implemented.
3. Control mechanisms, including control system documentation and supervision of the implementation of tasks in order to ensure economic, effective and efficient realisation of those tasks as well as continuity of activities.
4. Information and communications, including both internal and external information flows.
5. Monitoring and assessment, including an internal and an external audit.
9. According to the Treaty, the Court shall assist Parliament in exercising its powers of control over the implementation of the budget. How would you describe your duties with regard to reporting to the European Parliament and its Committee on Budgetary Control, in particular?
Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Court of Auditors shall examine the accounts of all revenue and expenditure of the Union and of all bodies, offices or agencies set up by the Union. It shall provide the European Parliament and the Council with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and shall assist them in exercising their powers of control over the implementation of the budget.
My professional career to date has always required the submission of reports. This is something that I have already mentioned in my answer to question 4.
My future functions as regards the submission of reports will be based on my experience so far and shall comply with the reporting system at the Court of Auditors, which includes:
· annual reports presenting the results of financial audits in the form of declarations on the overall budget and the European Development Fund;
· special annual reports presenting the results of financial audits of EU agencies and bodies;
· special reports presenting the results of selected audits of the implementation of tasks and compliance audits;
· providing opinions on new and amended legislation with a financial impact.
The Court’s reports are of great importance as regards proper financial management and the effective functioning of the European Union. For this reason their quality should be such as to allow the European Commission to take the appropriate operational steps and to allow the European Parliament to make use of them in the procedure of granting a discharge in the case of budget implementation.
In the light of the above, I believe there is a need for me to present reports and opinions that comply with the auditing system which is in force and which, in order to be of value to the European Parliament in carrying out its audit functions, should include the following features:
· Objectivity – balanced and free from distortion,
· Clarity – logical and easy to understand,
· Conciseness – without unnecessary information,
· Constructiveness – helping the management of the audited unit to improve its activities,
· Punctuality – submitted at the right time and without delay,
· Honesty – based on the appropriate audit findings,
· Completeness – containing all the information that is considered to be important.
There should also be a possibility to discuss and clarify any information contained in the reports, since the Court’s findings are used by the Commission, Parliament and the Council as well as the Member States.
For this reason I shall be available to the European Parliament and, in particular, to the Committee on Budgetary Control, to carry out my functions properly as regards the submission of appropriate reports.
10. What do you think is the added value of performance audit and how should the findings be incorporated in the management?
Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Court of Auditors shall examine whether the financial management has been sound, which includes, among other guidelines, the principles of economy, effectiveness and efficiency.
Generally speaking, the added value of performance audit is the outcome in the form of improvements made after the acceptance of suggestions put forward as well as recommendations that are implemented.
However, the added value of the audit carried out by the Court of Auditors is the outcome in the form of improvements to the management of the European Union as well as increased accountability in relation to the management of EU funds.
One of the types of audit carried out by the Court of Auditors is an evaluation of how responsibilities are carried out, which provides an answer to the question of whether financial management is proper, i.e. whether the minimum funds are being spent (economy), whether the appropriate results are being achieved with the use of specific resources (effectiveness) and whether the objectives set are being achieved (efficiency).
It should be emphasised here that EU citizens and their representatives in the European Parliament require not only assurances that their taxes have been used in the manner agreed, but also objective evidence that citizens’ needs have been met efficiently, to the greatest possible extent and at the lowest cost. They also need pointers concerning future improvements to this efficiency.
Thus the aim of the Court of Auditors and the added value of the evaluation of how responsibilities are carried out is to provide objective and independent information, as well as recommendations, on the degree to which audited bodies are using EU resources in their activities in a manner that complies with the principles of economy, effectiveness and efficiency.
However, by presenting its recommendations, the Court of Auditors also provides an indication as to how this activity can be improved and thus achieve added value for the future in the following ways:
· Financial savings, particularly in terms of avoiding waste,
· Better working methods,
· Achieving agreed objectives more effectively.
In the light of the above, the evaluation of how responsibilities are carried out should provide, first of all, documented conclusions on the current situation as well as realistic recommendations on possibilities for improvement in the functioning of European institutions and the way in which they carry out their responsibilities. In this way, the Court should bring about improvements in efficiency as well as better use of and increased protection for taxpayers’ money.
For this reason too the results of assessments of how responsibilities are carried out in the European Court of Auditors and the Supreme Chambers of Control of the Member States should, on the one hand, provide important information for EU citizens concerning the accountability of persons carrying out public duties and, on the other hand, should provide an objective basis for making adjustments to policies or programmes that are being evaluated at every step of their implementation: from the creation of assumptions to implementation in the Member States and the functioning of EU institutions.
It is also important that conclusions and recommendations be directed to the appropriate recipients:
· To the bodies being audited, in order to implement and provide information about activities undertaken and their effects,
· To those responsible for supervising the body in question, so that they can make use of the conclusions and recommendations in their operational activities and decisions,
· To Parliament, so that it can make use of them in its assessment activities,
· To other interested parties, for information purposes, to enable good practice to be applied and risk analysis results to be taken into account.
However, in order to facilitate the acceptance and implementation of audit conclusions and recommendations and, in effect, to obtain the anticipated added value, the conclusions and recommendations should be:
· expressed clearly and concisely, in a manner that is comprehensible to the recipient;
· constructive – showing how improvements can be introduced;
· addressed at the right time to the right body – addressed to the body or authority that is capable of implementing them;
· accurate – based on the facts uncovered;
· reliable – based on evidence collected.
In addition, the body being audited should, in accordance with the contradiction procedure, take an active part in the process of formulating findings in the audit documents through the possibility of submitting comments on findings contained in the inspection protocol and through assessments, comments and conclusions contained in post audit comments.
In addition, particularly in circumstances where irregularities are uncovered, the body being audited should provide information as to how the conclusions and recommendations will be used or the reasons for not implementing such recommendations.
11. How could the cooperation improve between the Court of Auditors, the National Audit Institutions and the European Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) concerning the audit of the EU budget?
It can be seen from Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that cooperation between the Court of Auditors, National Audit Institutions and the European Parliament is very important, since the Court of Auditors audits all of the income and expenditure of the EU and of the bodies and organisational units created by the EU. For this reason, audits in the Member States are carried out together with national audit institutions. The Court works together with the national audit institutions of the Member States on the basis of mutual trust, while maintaining its independence.
One of the values of the Court of Auditors, which arises from its mission and vision, is its professionalism with regard to cooperation. This encompasses an involvement in the growth of controls carried out by the public authorities in the European Union and throughout the world. Similarly, the Court’s audit strategy encourages cooperation with the Supreme Audit Institutions in the European Union and growth of contacts with the European Parliament and the Council.
In my opinion, cooperation between the Court of Auditors, the national audit institutions and the European Parliament is essential, since no single audit institution has the resources to carry out controls of all transactions. This cooperation should take place in such a way as to allow each institution to maintain its independence and should encourage the realisation of joint practical initiatives aimed at developing audit methods, international audit standards and practices.
In this regard, the Contact Committee plays and should continue to play an important role. It consists of representatives of the heads of the Supreme Audit Institutions of the Member States and the Court of Auditors. Its purpose is the exchange of knowledge and experience as regards controls of EU funds, the initiation and coordination of audit functions in EU matters, the preparation of opinions on new auditing issues in the European Union and the exchange of information with institutions outside the committee.
In addition, the partnership evaluation role should be highlighted and emphasised. This aims at strengthening and developing audit methods, procedures and organisation, as well as providing a forum for the exchange of results and increasing the efficiency of audit functions.
A good direction for improving cooperation is the implementation and development of the concept of the single audit, which involves using the work of other auditors, while at the same time maintaining compliance with commonly accepted standards and the availability of audit results within the timeframe required. For this reason it is important to support the work of the Contact Committee’s working group, which is responsible for developing common audit standards as well as comparable audit criteria adapted for the specific characteristics of the European Union. This will allow the Court of Auditors to depend to a greater extent on the work of national audit institutions and will, as a result, provide the European Parliament with a greater quantity of useful information.
It is also important, in circumstances where large sums of EU funds are being allocated to Member States and are being managed and audited by those Member States, to carry out joint audits or for audits to be carried out on the basis of unified framework audit programmes. Information from such audits can be very useful for the European Parliament, which can make use of the conclusions submitted.
In addition, national parliaments should be urged to engage to a greater extent in the use of EU funds in their countries and also to encourage national audit institutions to carry out audits in this area. The European Parliament and its Committee on Budgetary Control could continue working in this area, for example, by organising an exchange of experiences between the appropriate parliamentary committees and by encouraging the spread of good practice.
Cooperation understood in this way would have a positive effect on the one hand in improving the administration of EU funds and on the other hand would make it possible to identify and resolve practical and technical problems relating to cooperation.
In the light of the above it would seem that it would be possible to strengthen and improve cooperation by the following actions, among others:
· Using all the experience gained from the activities of the Contact Committee to date,
· Applying common international audit standards,
· Agreeing audit programmes, including an assessment of the internal audit system,
· Developing common guidelines for assessing the quality of work carried out by national audit institutions in order to strengthen the possibility of using their results,
· Encouraging national parliaments to promote controls on the use of EU funds,
· Discussing the results of the audits carried out by the Court of Auditors as well as national audit institutions at meetings of the Committee on Budgetary Control,
· Ensuring work is done on time so that it is possible to benefit from findings.
12. Would you withdraw your candidacy if Parliament's opinion on your appointment as Member of the Court were unfavourable?
I would hope that the European Parliament will issue a favourable opinion on my appointment, but of course I should take into consideration the possibility of the opinion being unfavourable.
Earlier, I wrote about the need for good cooperation between the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors. It would no doubt be the case that a failure to withdraw the candidacy of a Member who had received an unfavourable opinion would make such cooperation more difficult.
In the light of the above, if the opinion were unfavourable, the correct course of action would be to approach the Government of the Republic of Poland to reconsider my candidacy or to suggest another person.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
16.3.2010 |
|
|
|
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
22 0 2 |
||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Marta Andreasen, Jean-Pierre Audy, Inés Ayala Sender, Zigmantas Balčytis, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Andrea Cozzolino, Luigi de Magistris, Tamás Deutsch, Martin Ehrenhauser, Jens Geier, Ingeborg Gräßle, Ville Itälä, Cătălin Sorin Ivan, Elisabeth Köstinger, Bogusław Liberadzki, Monica Luisa Macovei, Jan Olbrycht, Georgios Stavrakakis, Søren Bo Søndergaard |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Christofer Fjellner, Edit Herczog, Monika Hohlmeier, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Markus Pieper |
|||||