Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
Proċedura : 2008/2277(DEC)
Ċiklu ta' ħajja waqt sessjoni
Ċikli relatati mad-dokumenti :

Testi mressqa :


Dibattiti :

PV 22/04/2009 - 11
CRE 22/04/2009 - 11

Votazzjonijiet :

PV 23/04/2009 - 6.14
Spjegazzjoni tal-votazzjoni

Testi adottati :


Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti
Il-Ħamis, 23 ta' April 2009 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

9. Spegazzjonijiet tal-vot
Vidjow tat-taħditiet

  El Presidente. − Señorías, les propongo una cosa: que como bastantes de ustedes tienen pedidas varias explicaciones de voto, cuando le dé la palabra a uno, que haga todas las explicaciones seguidas en una sola intervención.


Explicaciones de voto orales


- Informe: Paulo Casaca (A6-0184/2009)


  Jim Allister (NI). - Mr President, every day more and more of my constituents find it nigh impossible to make ends meet. Then I pick up a report like this and I discover that EUR 1.6 billion of European taxpayers’ money has been spent on this edifice that is the European Parliament, then I discover that EUR 9.3 million has been lavished upon the political parties in the European Parliament, and then I look and see a reaffirmation of a commitment to a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, but not a single mention of the most outrageous emission of all – that which flows from the unnecessary travel to this place, 12 times a year. This report is appalling in what it exposes as regards the conduct of this Parliament.


  Richard Corbett (PSE). - Mr President, let me put Mr Allister’s comments into context: the European Parliament costs each citizen GBP 1.74 – I say ‘pounds’ for the benefit of Mr Allister – per year. By comparison, the House of Commons costs each of its citizens GBP 5.75 per year; the House of Lords GBP l.77 for each citizen of the United Kingdom. In other words, this Parliament is far cheaper to operate per citizen.

However, that does not mean we must rest on our laurels. Of course we should be vigilant, and of course we should cut costs. The point made by Mr Allister about the 12 part-sessions a year costing so much money in Strasbourg is, of course, a correct observation. But this decision does not lie in the hands of the European Parliament: it lies in the hands of the Member States, who, unfortunately – in Edinburgh, under the chairmanship of John Major – made it a legal obligation for the European Parliament to come here 12 times a year. I would call on the Member States to reconsider that decision.


- Informe: Søren Bo Søndergaard (A6-0150/2009)


  Richard Corbett (PSE). - Mr President, this is on the question of the discharge to the Council. It raises again this gentlemen’s agreement, which dates from before direct elections, that Parliament and the Council, as two branches of the legislative authority, each retain fully the responsibility for their own internal budget without each other looking at each other’s budget internally or criticising it.

I think the time has come for us to re-examine this gentlemen’s agreement, not least because the budget of the Council now includes not only its administrative budget as an institution, as a co-legislature with us, but also contains a budget which potentially will get bigger in the future for executive functions in the field of common foreign and security policy.

The gentlemen’s agreement was never intended to apply to executive functions. It was never intended to shield that from parliamentary scrutiny, and I think it is high time that we enter into talks with the Council to reconsider that agreement.


- Informe: Paulo Casaca (A6-0184/2009)


  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE). - Monsieur le Président, je me suis abstenue sur la décharge 2007 concernant le budget du Parlement européen à cause de certains paragraphes de ce rapport qui s'inspirent de désinformations et de contre-vérités diffusées dans les médias, notamment ici, en ce qui concerne le Fonds de pension volontaire des membres.

M. Cohn-Bendit peut dormir sur ses deux oreilles car, en tant que contribuable, il ne sera pas sollicité pour garantir les droits des membres de ce Fonds déjà pensionnés, de leurs veuves, de leurs orphelins, ni ceux des membres qui cesseront leurs activités d'ici le 14 juillet.

S'il considère que les parlementaires membres du Fonds de pension volontaire ne devraient pas participer au vote sur la décharge, il ferait mieux de balayer devant sa porte. D'ailleurs, il participe allègrement au vote des crédits de notre budget qui servent à financer ses indemnités, alors qu'on vient d'apprendre, transparence oblige, que, par exemple, il a mis les pieds une seule fois en cinq ans dans une réunion d'une commission dont il est membre. Son assiduité légendaire au travail législatif de cette maison – il ne suffit pas de brailler à tort et à travers et de faire des conférences de presse – devrait l'inciter à plus de discrétion, mais en tant que croulant de 68, on ne peut certainement pas attendre mieux de lui.

En plus, Monsieur le Président, ce ne sont pas les déclarations, ici, même si elles émanent de présidents de groupes, qui changeront quoi que ce soit aux responsabilités juridiques de ce Parlement inscrites dans le marbre.


− Informe: Christofer Fjellner (A6-0148/2009)


  Daniel Hannan (NI). - Mr President, we have just voted through the funding for a vast array of Euro-agencies and quangos – the Medicines Agency, the External Borders Agency, the Aviation Safety Agency, and so on – and it seems to me that these are objectionable on three grounds. There is the Euro-sceptic argument against them, there is the legal argument against them and there is the democratic argument.

The Euro-sceptic argument I do not expect will have much traction in this House. It is the very obvious point that these things do not need to be done at Brussels level. The legal argument again I do not expect to have much traction: it is that a lot of these agencies, although they would have been given legal force by the Lisbon Treaty or European Constitution, have no proper legal base at the moment. But the democratic argument I think might have some echo of authenticity even with federalist colleagues and it is this. When a parliament like this contracts out the day-to-day administration of its policies to organisations that we barely visit, that we almost never see – we get the odd committee visit maybe once a year – and we expect them to be carrying out the policy with our signing the cheques obligingly every year, we have diminished our democracy.

Hayek said that the devolution of power to external agencies, while a regular feature, is nonetheless the first step by which a democracy surrenders its powers. Colleagues here, federalist or Euro-sceptic, should all be aware of the danger.


- Informe: Mathieu Grosch (A6-0215/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Mul on tõesti palju selgitusi, ma ei ole seda kunagi varem teinud, aga pidasin oluliseks seda täna teha. Nimelt tahan esimesena rääkida härra Groschi raporti osas, mille poolt ma hääletasin ja toetasin ka transpordikomisjoni ettepanekuid, sest leian et bussiteenuseid käsitleva senise kahe määruse asemel ühe ümbersõnastatud ja kaasajaga kohastatud määruse vastuvõtmine on igati õigustatud. See samm aitab kaasa selgusele ja vähendab bürokraatiat.


− Informe: Silvia-Adriana Ticău (A6-0210/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Järgmisena Silvia-Adriana Ţicău raport, mida ma samuti toetasin, sest ka see võimaldab tagada autoveo valdkonnas rakendatava uue määruse veelgi ühtlasema kohaldamise. Leian, et arvestades antud valdkonna rahvusvahelisust, tuleks meil plaanida ka antud registrite puhul üleeuroopaliste päringute tegemise võimaldamist, et sellel teel paremini kaitsta kliente ebaausa konkurentsi eest.


− Informe: Mathieu Grosch (A6-0211/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Härra Groschi raport leidis ka minu poolt toetamist, sest ka see on pühendatud transpordile ja aitab parandada autoveo siseturu tõhusust, õiguskindlust, vähendada halduskulusid ning võimaldab ausamat konkurentsi. Leian, et Euroopa ühtse turu integreerimise raames tuleks jõuda lähiaastatel ka liikmesriikide siseturule juurdepääsu piirangute kaotamiseni.


- Informe: Silvia Adriana Ticău (A6-0254/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Teine proua Ţicău raport, mis käsitleb ehitiste energiatõhusust, leidis minu poolt toetamist, sest aitab igati kaasa Euroopa energiavarustuse ja energia nõudluse väljakutsete realiseerimisele. See tähendab ta aitab säästa 20% energiatarbimisest suurendatud energiatõhususe abil. Investeeringud energiatõhususse aitavad täna turgutada ka Euroopa majandust, sest nad loovad pea sama palju töökohti, võib-olla isegi enam, kui investeeringud traditsioonilistesse infrastruktuuridesse. Suurenev energiatõhusus on kõige tulusam viis Euroopa Liidule, et saavutada CO2 heidete vähendamise eesmärk, luua töökohti ja vähendada Euroopa Liidu kasvavat sõltuvust välistest energiatarnijatest.


- Informe: Ulrich Stockmann (A6-0217/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Härra Gauzèsi – ma ei tea, kas ma hääldan nime õieti – raport puudutab reitinguagentuure ja ka see raport leidis toetamist, sest puudused ja vead reitingute ja nende järelvalve osas on omalt poolt aidanud kaasa ülemaailmse finantskriisi tekkele. Kuna reitinguagentuuride arv on väga väike, nende tegevuspiirkond on ülemaailmne ja nende peakorterid asuvad sageli väljaspool ühendust, siis see tekitab minu jaoks paraku küsimuse, et kui tõhus saab olla üks Euroopa õigusakt. Olen nõus, et antud probleemi lahendamiseks tuleb tõhustada koostööd ühenduse ja kolmandate riikide vahel ja vaid sedasi on võimalik ühtlustatud regulatiivse aluse saavutamine.


− Informe: Michel Teychenné (A6-0209/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Raport, mis puudutab meritsi ja siseveeteedel reisijate õigusi – reguleerimine sellel alal on igati tervitatav, sest see samm aitab suurendada ka nende transpordivahenditega reisivate eurooplaste õigusi ning tagab eri transpordiliikide kasutamisel meie tarbijatele võrdsete õiguste tagamise.


− Informe: Gabriele Albertini (A6-0250/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Härra Albertini raport bussireisijate õiguste kohta leidis toetamist minu poolt, sest bussireisijate õigusi kaitsvad meetmed aitavad lõpuks kaotada Euroopa Liidus seni valitsenud ebavõrdsuse ning see tagab kõigi reisijate võrdse kohtlemise, nii nagu see toimib täna juba lennu- ja raudteetranspordi kasutajatele. Kuna antud õigusakt puudutab nii vedajaid kui ka reisijaid ning vedajatele nähakse ette palju uusi kohustusi, siis on mõistlik, et teatud nõuete osas tuleks anda teenuse pakkujatele parema tulemuse saavutamiseks veidi pikem jõustamisaeg.


− Informe: Anne E. Jensen (A6-0226/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Proua Jenseni raport intelligentsete transpordisüsteemide kohta – nende rakendamine on tõestanud oma mõjusust, muutes transpordi tõhusamaks, ohutumaks ja turvalisemaks, aidates samal ajal kaasa ka poliitilise eesmärgi saavutamisele, milleks on muuta transport puhtamaks. Sellest kõigest lähtuvalt hääletasin ma raporti poolt.


− Informe: Ulrich Stockmann (A6-0217/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Härra Ulrich Stockmanni raport Marco Polo II programmi kohta on toetamist väärt, sest selle raames on võimalik vähendada maanteeummikuid, parandada transpordisüsteemi keskkonnakaitse meetmeid ja edendada transpordiliikide ühitamist. Kuid mulle teeb muret, et iga aastaga jääb finantsabi taotlusi ja seega kavandatavaid projekte, mida saaks selle programmi raames rahastada, järjest vähemaks.


− Informe: Petr Duchoň (A6-0220/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Härra Duchon´i raport leidis toetust, sest raudteetranspordil on Euroopa transpordi raamistikus vägagi oluline roll ka täna, seda vaatamata kaubavedude pidevale vähenemisele. Toetasin raportit ka sellepärast, et nõustusin raportööriga, et kõnealune õigusakt tuleb koostada nii, et seeläbi muutuks raudteevõrgustik tulevikus kõigile kasutajatele tõhusaks.


− Informe: John Bowis (A6-0233/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Arutasime ka täna hommikul ja hääletasime äsja ka tervishoiupaketist teatud raporteid. Toetasin patsiendi õiguste kaitset piiriüleses tervishoius, sest olen seda meelt, et liiga kaua on Euroopa Parlamenti valitud saadikud olnud rahul sellega, et juristid teevad selles osas õigust – õiguse peaksid tegema poliitikud ehk siis Euroopa valijate poolt valitud parlamendisaadikud. Viimane aeg on selle direktiiviga tegeleda ja ta vastu võtta.


− Informe: Antonios Trakatellis (A6-0231/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Trakatellise raport haruldaste haiguste valdkonnast on justkui jätk patsiendi õigustele, mida ma toetasin, kuid ei toetanud selles raportis ettepanekut number 15, sest see ettepanek kuulub eelmisesse sajandisse ja poliitika ei tohi mõjutada geneetilisi uurimusi.


− Informe: Gilles Savary (A6-0199/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Raport, mis käsitleb linnaliiklust ja selle tegevuskava oli toetamist väärt, sest linnatransport mängib ju väga olulist osa ühenduse kauba- ja reisijateveos. Sellest tulenevalt on igati õigustatud eraldi linnatranspordi strateegia koostamine.


− Informe: Anne Jensen (A6-0227/2009)


  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - Ja viimasena tahaksin nimetada proua Anne Jenseni raportit intelligentsete transpordisüsteemide tegevuskava kohta, kuna see tegevuskava keskendub geograafilisele järjepidevusele.


− Informe: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A6-0191/2009)


  Daniel Hannan (NI). - Today we mark the anniversary of the greatest of all Englishmen and perhaps the greatest dramatist and writer mankind has produced. It is a characteristic of Shakespeare’s work that, whatever experiences we carry to them, they always illuminate our experiences more than our experiences illuminate the plays. I can do no better today than to quote John of Gaunt’s dying speech from Richard II, which not only beautifully describes our budgetary problems in Britain but also our situation here in Europe.

First, on the budget:

‘This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land [...]

Is now leased out – I die pronouncing it – like to a tenement or pelting farm.’

But then listen to his description of the Lisbon Treaty or European Constitution:

‘England, bound in with the triumphant sea,

Whose rocky shore beats back the watery siege

Of envious Neptune, is now bound in with shame,

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.

That England that was wont to conquer others

Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.’

If there is a better description than that, I have yet to hear it.


  El Presidente. − No le conocía estas cualidades de rapsoda. Lo ha hecho usted muy bien.


- Informe: Silvia-Adriana Ticău (A6-0254/2009)


  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). - Mr President, when we vote on issues in the European Parliament we should always be sure that we take the moral lead.

It is quite right for us to be talking about energy efficiency. Frankly, I have no problem with that at European level, national level or local level. I think more of it can be done at local government level, but it is good to share best practice and ideas at the European and national level.

However, in taking that lead, we have to show moral leadership. How can we talk about the energy efficiency of buildings when we continue to operate out of two Parliament Chambers, one here in Strasbourg and one in Brussels? What about the CO2 emissions of the Parliament in Strasbourg, when we are talking about tens of thousands of tons of CO2 emissions every year? It is time to stop the hypocrisy, to show leadership and to close down the Strasbourg Parliament.


- Informe: John Bowis (A6-0233/2009)


  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). - Mr President, let me start by paying tribute to my colleague, John Bowis, and I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery. Thank goodness that he was able to take advantage of a health-care system from another country. He, a British citizen, was able to take advantage of the excellent health-care service in Belgium.

These are a few steps in the right direction for citizens right across the EU to be able to make a decision on where to go for health-care services. If patients are given information about the recovery rates for different diseases in a number of different countries, and they are given the choice, then they are able to choose in which country they would recover best. To take advantage of those health-care services is a positive step in the right direction.

I have often criticised some of the initiatives that we discuss in this place, but I think this is a positive move. We look forward to offering choice and greater service to patients right across the European Union.


- Informe: Brian Crowley (A6-0070/2009)


  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). - Mám dále vysvětlení hlasování ke zprávě Crowley – Doba ochrany autorského práva. Hlasovala jsem proti zprávě, která je nedomyšlená, ale má ovlivňovat na 45 let dopředu ceny hudby pro koncové spotřebitele. Chci pomoci běžným umělcům a na to je potřeba legislativa v oblasti regulace smluvních podmínek a kolektivních správců a nastavení systému sociálního zabezpečení, důchodového pojištění či změny licenčních tarifů. Dopadové studie upozorňují, že jen 2 % příjmů se rozdělí mezi běžné umělce, zbytek získají nahrávací společnosti a největší umělci. Následná redistribuce poškodí mladé nadějné umělce a spotřebitele a daňoví poplatníci navíc zaplatí stovky milionů eur navíc. Návrh komplikuje život knihovnám, archivům, uměleckým školám a nezávislým filmařům. Není jasný dopad u audiovizuálních umělců. Všechny právní autority před návrhem varují, a proto jsem byla proti.


− Informe: Anne E. Jensen (A6-0226/2009)


  Brigitte Fouré (PPE-DE). - Monsieur le Président, sur le rapport Jensen, j'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport, c'est-à-dire le rapport sur la proposition de directive sur le déploiement de systèmes de transport intelligents. L'objectif de cette directive est de garantir l'interopérabilité des technologies de l'information et de la communication dans les transports.

L'innovation dans le domaine des transports doit être encouragée, en particulier lorsqu'elle peut améliorer la sécurité des véhicules. Or, l'innovation perd de son utilité si nous ne garantissons pas qu'elle puisse être appliquée sur l'ensemble de l'espace européen.

Cette directive devrait permettre de contribuer à la réduction du nombre de morts sur les routes européennes, en réduisant à la fois le risque de collision et la gravité des accidents. Je rappelle que l'Union européenne s'est fixé comme objectif de diviser par deux le nombre de morts sur les routes d'ici à 2010 par rapport au niveau de 2000.

À ce titre, je regrette que la directive sur la coopération transfrontière en matière de sécurité routière, que nous avons votée il y a déjà plusieurs mois, n'ait toujours pas été adoptée par les ministres des transports de l'Union européenne car elle permettrait, là encore, de sauver des vies en facilitant l'exécution des sanctions à l'encontre des automobilistes qui commettent une infraction dans un autre État membre que celui où leur véhicule est immatriculé.


- Informe: Petr Duchoň (A6-0220/2009)


  Brigitte Fouré (PPE-DE). - En ce qui concerne maintenant le rapport de M. Duchoň sur les corridors de fret ferroviaire, je voudrais dire que le Parlement européen vient d'adopter ce rapport relatif au réseau ferroviaire européen pour un fret compétitif. J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport, qui devrait permettre d'augmenter et d'améliorer le transport des marchandises par la voie ferrée.

Une action européenne dans ce domaine était nécessaire. Le fonctionnement actuel du transport de fret ferroviaire n'est en effet pas satisfaisant, offrant trop peu de garanties, en termes de fiabilité des horaires, aux entreprises souhaitant utiliser la voie ferrée pour transporter leurs marchandises.

Or, il nous faut rendre le fret ferroviaire plus attractif pour les entreprises car, si une partie du transport de marchandises passe de la route à la voie ferrée, c'est autant d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre évitées et autant de camions en moins dans les bouchons sur les routes et autoroutes.

J'espère donc maintenant que les ministres des transports des États membres suivront la voie ouverte par le Parlement européen vers un réseau de fret ferroviaire européen plus performant.


- Informe: Antonios Trakatellis (A6-0231/2009)


  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe gegen den Bericht Trakatellis gestimmt wegen des skandalösen Änderungsantrags 15, der die Heilung von Krankheiten mit der Tötung von ungeborenen Menschen verwechselt und nach Eugenik riecht. Wir müssen uns darüber im Klaren sein: Der Mensch hat von der Verschmelzung von Ei und Samen bis zum natürlichen Tod ein Lebensrecht, und dieses Lebensrecht wird hier radikal in Frage gestellt. Ein ungeborener Mensch soll kein Lebensrecht mehr haben, bloß weil er krank ist. Das ist genau das Gegenteil von Medizin, es ist Tötung.

Deshalb ist der Bericht Trakatellis inakzeptabel und der Änderungsantrag ein Skandal, der dieses Haus belastet, das sich ansonsten immer wieder große Verdienste um die Bioethik und den Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens erworben hat.


  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE-DE). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe in der Abstimmung über die Entlastung zum ersten Mal, seit ich Mitglied des Hauses bin, gegen die Entlastung für die Kommission gestimmt und möchte meine Gründe darlegen: Mir geht es im Wesentlichen um die Art und Weise, wie die Europäische Kommission die Beitritte der beiden neuen Länder Rumänien und Bulgarien gehandhabt hat.

Wir haben es in Rumänien und Bulgarien mit einer Vielzahl von Problemen zu tun, mit einem großen Korruptionsanteil, mit viel Geld, mit viel europäischem Geld, das verschwunden ist. Die Europäische Kommission hat erst im Jahr 2008 angefangen, diese Gelder einzufrieren. Wir haben 2007 viel Geld verloren und haben es jetzt mit kaum vorhandenen Kontrollsystemen zu tun bzw. mit Kontrollsystemen, die nur lückenhaft funktionieren. In Rumänien haben wir es mit einer hohen Korruptionsrate zu tun und mit Problemen bei der Justiz. All dieses ist dem Vorbeitrittsprozess anzulasten.

Mir geht es darum, ein Zeichen zu setzen, der Europäischen Kommission zu sagen, dass sie bei künftigen Beitritten anders vorgehen muss, und ihr auch zu sagen, dass sie, wenn man sie in anderen Ländern schon beobachtet hat, durchaus mit mehr Erfolg unterwegs sein könnte, wenn sie dies möchte.

Ich möchte die Kommission auffordern, den beiden Ländern beim Aufbau von Finanzkontrollsystemen, die diesen Namen verdienen, zu helfen und die systemischen Schwächen in diesen beiden Ländern zu beseitigen zu helfen. Sonst haben wir hier ein Dauerproblem und ein Dauersorgenkind für ganz Europa am Hals.


Explicaciones de voto por escrito


- Informe: Paulo Casaca (A6-0184/2009)


  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE), schriftlich. Das Europäische Parlament hat heute über den Bericht von P. Casaca zur Entlastung zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans des Europäischen Parlaments für das Haushaltsjahr 2007 abgestimmt. Der Bericht hat sich auch mit dem Pensionsfonds des Europäischen Parlaments beschäftigt.

Bei dem Pensionsfonds des Europäischen Parlaments handelt es sich um ein Altersvorsorgesystem mit freiwilliger Mitgliedschaft. Der Pensionsfonds ist nun in Zahlungsschwierigkeiten geraten und es ist ein Defizit entstanden.

Die FDP im Europäischen Parlament spricht sich gegen den Ausgleich des Defizits aus Steuermitteln aus. Es ist unverantwortlich, dass der europäische Steuerzahler für diese Verluste gerade stehen soll. Derartige Pläne gilt es zu verhindern. Die FDP im Europäischen Parlament stimmt gegen die Entlastung des Haushaltsplans des Europäischen Parlaments. Die Möglichkeiten für einen Ausgleich des Defizits durch Steuerzahlergelder werden nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen.


  Richard James Ashworth (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives have been unable to approve discharge of the 2007 European budget, section I, European Parliament. We are insistent that the parliamentary budget must deliver value for money for the European taxpayer and we are, therefore, supportive of most of the rapporteur's report. In particular, we note with approval the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Parliament's budget, as recorded by the Court of Auditors' report 2007. We also support the rapporteur's remarks regarding the Members' voluntary pension fund. However, in line with our traditional approach, we will continue to vote against granting discharge until we see real progress towards the achievement of an unqualified statement of assurance from the European Court of Auditors.


  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Today, the Green Group voted in favour of the Casaca report on EP discharge 2007.

We want to stress that with the adoption of this report in plenary, the presidium of this House should take up its responsibility and act immediately on the text adopted as far as the voluntary pension fund is concerned, and that clear decisions should be taken to the effect that under no circumstances will the voluntary pension fund be bailed out with extra money from Parliament’s budget, either directly or indirectly, and that the list of participants in the fund will be made public without further delay.

It should be made clear that, in so far as Parliament has to guarantee the pension rights of its Members, it should also have full control of the fund and its investment policies. We expect these decisions to be taken before the end of April 2009.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I abstained as I am a member of the Pension Fund.


  Jens Holm and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We have voted against the Casaca report on the 2007 Discharge of the European Parliament for of three reasons. Firstly, we oppose the situation whereby the MEPs’ voluntary pension fund is being funded by taxpayers’ money. Secondly, we oppose the situation whereby taxpayers’ money can be given to a private pension fund where the list of participants and beneficiaries is kept secret and is not published.

Thirdly, we completely oppose using even more taxpayers’ money to cover the pension fund’s current deficit as a result of speculative investments. We do support paragraphs 105 and 109 of the Casaca report, which remedy some objections we have concerning the voluntary pension fund of the MEPs, but because the Casaca report does not change the existing situation, we have voted against giving the discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Parliament’s budget for the financial year 2007.


  Kartika Tamara Liotard and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We voted against the Casaca report on the 2007 Discharge of the European Parliament for three reasons. Firstly, we are against the situation that the MEPs voluntary pension fund is being funded by taxpayers’ money. Secondly, we are against the situation that taxpayers’ money can be given to a private pension fund where the list of participants and beneficiaries is kept secret and is not published.

Thirdly, we are completely against using even more taxpayers’ money to cover the pension fund’s current deficit as a result of speculative investments. We support paragraphs 105 and 109 of the Casaca report, which remedy some objections we have concerning the voluntary pension fund for MEPs, but because the Casaca report does not change the existing situation, we have voted against giving discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Parliament’s budget for the financial year 2007.


  Toine Manders (ALDE), schriftelijk. − Helaas moest ik het begin van de stemming missen, maar ik deel volledig de strekking van de verslagen over de kwijting en van het verslag-Casaca in het bijzonder. Het zou onverantwoord zijn als we, zeker in deze tijden, met belastinggeld tekorten in het pensioenfonds zouden aanvullen. Een eventueel tekort in het fonds is een kwestie van het fonds en zijn leden, en niet van de Europese belastingbetaler.

Parlementariërs hebben een voorbeeldfunctie en moeten voorzichtig omgaan met gemeenschapsgeld. Dat geldt voor hun inkomsten, pensioenen en vergoedingen. Daarom ben ik blij dat het Parlement vandaag zijn goedkeuring aan het verslag heeft gehecht.


  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), skriftlig. − Jag vägrar att bevilja ansvarsfrihet för en institution som öser mer än en miljard euro på en extra pensionsförsäkring som till två tredjedelar är finansierad genom offentliga pengar. Ledamöter av Europaparlamentet som är anslutna till denna extra pensionsfond måste acceptera en sänkning av dessa lyxpensioner, precis som låginkomsttagare har tvingats att acceptera en sänkning av sina pensioner. Ansvarfriheten gäller 2007, men vi kan inte vänta ett år med att kritisera ett beslut från 2008 om extra utbetalningar till pensionsfonden.


  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), skriftlig. − Jag avstod från att rösta, eftersom jag den 21 april 2009 lämnade den frivilliga pensionsfonden och därför inte ville påverka röstresultatet.


  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. − We, as MEPs, are meant to represent and serve the people of Europe. All of our constituents are suffering from the consequences of the economic crisis, especially in the loss and diminishment of their pensions. In my own constituency of Munster, Ireland, many workers face a very uncertain old age because the pensions that they have paid into have lost a great deal of value, or in some cases they have lost their pensions completely with the closure of their companies.

In voting on this report, I am happy to declare that I have an interest, as Parliament’s rules demand. As a Member I pay into a pension fund. However, I do not see this as a conflict of interest.

To me it seems unreasonable for MEPs to expect immunity, and we should equally bear the burden of the economic crisis. As an MEP I uphold the citizens’ interests before my own.


  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I voted against the Casaca report on the 2007 Discharge of the European Parliament for three reasons. Firstly, I am against the situation that the MEPs’ voluntary pension fund is being funded by taxpayers’ money. Secondly, I am against the situation that taxpayers’ money can be given to a private pension fund where the list of participants and beneficiaries is kept secret and is not published.

Thirdly, I am completely against using even more taxpayers’ money to cover the pension fund’s current deficit as a result of the speculative investments. I do support paragraphs 105 and 109 of the Casaca report, which remedy some objections I have concerning the voluntary pension fund of the MEPs, but, because the Casaca report does not change the existing situation, I voted against giving the discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Parliament’s budget for the financial year 2007.


- Recomendacíon para la segunda lectura: Silvia-Adriana Ticău (A6-0210/2009)


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Com esta proposta clarificam-se as regras para se ser transportador rodoviário.

As novas regras são apresentadas com o objectivo de aumentar a segurança e a excelência deste negócio, bem como de assegurar critérios comuns de gestão financeira destas empresas.

A obrigatoriedade de ter um gestor formado responsável pela gestão do tráfego da companhia, bem como de demonstrar a sua saúde financeira, são sinais desta nova forma de encarar a actividade.

Outros elementos importantes deste texto são os pontos relativos à protecção dos dados pessoais, à criação de um registo, com uma secção pública e outra confidencial, e ainda ao termo das chamadas empresas de caixa postal.

As condições necessárias ao acesso à profissão, designadamente a reputação, a saúde financeira e a capacidade profissional, correspondem a uma clarificação deste negócio, que esperamos lhe permita prosperar de forma mais transparente, assegurando aos clientes uma melhor protecção e segurança.


- Recomendacíon para la segunda lectura: Mathieu Grosch (A6-0211/2009)


  Dirk Sterckx (ALDE), in writing. − I oppose the compromise reached between the rapporteur and the Council on the rules for access to the international road haulage market. We believe that creating new frontiers and new restrictions on cabotage in the transport sector is not the solution to the problems the road transport sector is facing as a result of the economic crisis. Moreover, from an environmental point of view, we cannot accept restrictions such as the requirement that the goods carried in the course of an incoming international carriage have to have been fully delivered before a cabotage operation can be carried out. This is entirely at odds with the reality of road transport and stands in the way of efficient organisation of freight transport. This will lead to more empty trucks.

However, I strongly support a very strict approach concerning access to the occupation of road transport operator. If we have strict rules concerning access to the profession we do not need to fear for an open European transport market.


- Informe: Silvia-Adriana Ticău (A6-0254/2009)


  Martin Callanan (PPE-DE), in writing. − I accept the need to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, and I am persuaded that the EU can play a positive role in this respect. In fact, I think this report does not attach enough importance to the energy efficiency of buildings in the wider context of addressing environmental concerns such as climate change.

Making buildings more energy efficient is relatively simple, relatively low cost and relatively beneficial. Making buildings more energy efficient would also have a massive positive impact on carbon emissions in the EU. However, the European Commission has consistently sidelined energy efficiency as a flagship policy in favour of hammering the motor industry. I am convinced that making car manufacturers the scapegoats for climate change is a deeply flawed and counterproductive policy.

Sadly, in my constituency of north-east England, Nissan has recently announced job losses and a scaling back of production. It would be naïve to ignore the role of EU regulation in the current crisis afflicting the car industry. This crisis could largely have been averted with a more balanced EU environmental policy that attached appropriate importance to the energy efficiency of buildings.


  Călin Cătălin Chiriţă (PPE-DE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului doamnei Ţicău, deoarece consider că îmbunătăţirea performanţei energetice a clădirilor este esenţială pentru protecţia mediului, dar şi pentru reducerea pierderilor de energie suportate de cetăţeni.

În acelaşi timp,cetăţenii europeni nu trebuie să suporte singuri toate costurile modernizării energetice a clădirilor. UE şi statele membre trebuie să asigure mijloace financiare necesare în acest scop, precum: crearea, până în 2014, a unui Fond pentru Eficienţa Energetică, finanţat din bugetul comunitar, Banca Europeană de Investiţii (BEI) şi statele membre, în vederea promovării investiţiilor publice şi private în proiecte care să sporească eficienţa energetică a clădirilor; reduceri ale Taxei pe Valoare Adăugată (TVA) pentru bunuri şi servicii legate de eficienţa energetică şi energii regenerabile; extinderea criteriilor de eligibilitate pentru a finanţa din Fondul European de Dezvoltare Regionala (FEDER) modernizarea energetică a clădirilor, nu doar a locuinţelor; proiecte de cheltuieli publice directe; subvenţii şi garanţii pentru împrumuturi; ajutoare sociale.


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Os preços e a fiabilidade do abastecimento de energia são factores críticos para a competitividade da EU, sendo que o aumento da eficiência energética é uma das formas mais rentáveis para a União Europeia atingir as suas metas de emissões de CO2, criar empregos, reduzir os encargos das empresas, resolver os impactos sociais dos aumentos dos preços da energia e reduzir a crescente dependência relativamente a energia proveniente do exterior.

O desempenho energético de edifícios representa, actualmente, cerca de 40% do consumo de energia e, com a reformulação da directiva, será possível melhorar a actual situação. Todos os actores pertinentes devem ser informados dos benefícios da melhoria do desempenho energético e devem ter acesso a informações relevantes sobre o modo de proceder. É importante, por isso, que os instrumentos financeiros, que apoiam a melhoria da eficiência energética dos edifícios, estejam acessíveis às autoridades locais e regionais.


  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − I welcome the initiative to ensure the effectiveness of energy performance of buildings. Clearly there is a balance to be had between the necessity of action to prohibit CO2 emissions where we can, and economic costs. The idea of energy certification of such buildings is one of the key issues which can help drive consumption in an informed way.


- Informe: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A6-0191/2009)


  Jens Holm, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Erik Meijer and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We are completely in favour of more stringent rules regarding financial activities and credit rating agencies. However, we chose to vote against the report by Mr Gauzès today. This is because the report is insufficient and does not put enough emphasis on the right issues. There is a strong need for public credit rating agencies which do not work for profit, since this is the only way to avoid conflicts of interests in the rating process. This question was not raised in the report in a satisfactory manner.


  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Je me rallie sans hésitation au rapport de Jean-Paul Gauzès qui a encore démontré ses qualités de négociateur. Il est heureux qu'un compromis ait pu être trouvé rapidement sur ce texte.

En se dotant d'un cadre réglementaire sur les agences de notation, l'Europe est en avance et montre le chemin, alors que les États-Unis n'ont pas encore réagi concrètement sur ce terrain. Une partie de la crédibilité et de la confiance dans les marchés de capitaux dépend des notations élaborées et diffusées par ces agences.

Le cadre réglementaire que nous établissons aujourd'hui devrait pouvoir améliorer les conditions de préparation de ces notations, dès lors qu'elles sont utilisées dans un cadre prudentiel pour des activités réglementées.

Mais il était important que le compromis ne se traduise pas par des solutions visant simplement à interdire toute référence à des notations dans quelque contexte que ce soit, dès lors que celles-ci n'auraient pas été établies dans le cadre de ce règlement. Outre le caractère en partie attentatoire à des libertés importantes, comme celles d'expression et de commerce, une telle approche aurait vraisemblablement favorisé les marchés non européens, au détriment de ceux domiciliés en Europe, ainsi que les opérations financières privées et confidentielles, au détriment de celles qui sont publiques et soumises à des règles de transparence. La solution retenue trouve donc ma pleine approbation.


  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. − Situationen i världsekonomin är alltjämt turbulent, och så sent som i går kunde IMF meddela att den finansiella krisen mycket väl kan komma att förvärras ytterligare framöver. Det borde knappast förvåna någon att detta är regleringsiverns och kontrollhysterins högtidsstund.

Att redan innan utredningarna är genomförda och analyserna färdigskrivna börja skissera på långtgående kontrollsystem för finansmarknadens funktion är emellertid ett förfärligt misstag. Flera viktiga aktörer, däribland Sveriges Riksbank, anser att kommissionen inte på ett trovärdigt sätt har lyckats bevisa ett marknadsmisslyckande som motiverar ytterligare reglering av kreditvärderingsinstituten.

Detta bekymrar uppenbarligen inte EU. Istället är lagstiftarna i Bryssel inställda på att turbulensen på världens finansmarknader ska ge EU anledning att flytta fram sina positioner. Om det finns något system i världen idag som i ordets rätta bemärkelse är globalt så är det finansmarknaderna. Ytterligare kontroll av exempelvis kreditvärderingsinstituten bör därför, om och när så bedöms nödvändigt, initieras och planeras på global nivå. Eftersom man i denna kammare söker lösningar inom ramen för EU-samarbetet, har jag valt att rösta nej till betänkandet.


  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I am completely in favour of more stringent rules regarding financial activities and credit rating agencies.

I did however choose to vote against the report by Mr Gauzès today. This is because the report is insufficient and does not put enough emphasis on the right issues. There is a strong need for public credit rating agencies which do not work for profit, since this is the only way to avoid conflicts of interests in the rating process. This question was not raised in the report in a satisfactory manner. This is only one example of the failings of this report.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. Wenn wir nun Grauzonen auf den Finanzmärkten schließen und strengere Vorschriften vorgeben, ist dies längst überfällig. Allerdings bekämpfen wir damit nur die Symptome, nicht aber die Ursachen. Die Deregulierung der letzten Jahre ließ neue, dank ihrer Komplexität undurchschaubare Kapitalmarktprodukte aus dem Boden sprießen. In diesem Sinne habe ich für die striktere Finanzaufsicht gestimmt, wenngleich das alleine bei weitem nicht ausreichen wird.

Will man künftig den Aufbau derartiger Kartenhäuser vermeiden, kann man nur die riskanten Finanzprodukte selbst verbieten. Eine eigene Aufsichtsbehörde jedoch würde wohl nur mehr Bürokratie schaffen, aber nicht für mehr wirtschaftliche Vernunft und ein Ende der Casino-Mentalität sorgen.


  John Purvis (PPE-DE), in writing. − While the credit rating agencies have to accept some degree of blame for the failures in the securitisation of sub-prime mortgages which led to the financial crisis, it is with some regret that the UK Conservative delegation has voted to accept the plans to regulate the CRAs drawn up in the Gauzès report. CRAs should not be seen as a scapegoat, given that equally at fault were the banking and regulatory culture that relegated risk strategies to the back rooms.

We hope that the EU, the United States and the CRAs can work together to create a system that operates properly. For this to happen, a heavy-handed regulatory approach needs to give way to one that accepts the element of risk in all investments and which allows a degree of acceptance of ratings undertaken outside the scope of what we have today voted. Above all, it needs to be flexible enough to adapt to new circumstances and to let the market breathe.


  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), skriftlig. − På grund av mina speciella kontakter med kreditvärderingsbranschen deltog jag inte i denna omröstning.


  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − The G20 recommendations to the Working Group on Financial Services clearly call for greater transparency and regulation of credit rating agencies. This report, which was a response from the European Parliament to the G20, is the right balance. However, there is some question that remains on the level of competence that CESR will have to demonstrate if they are to play a central role in such regulation.


- Informe: Gabriele Albertini (A6-0250/2009)


  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), per iscritto. − Grazie Presidente. Il mio voto è favorevole.

I regolamenti11/12 CE del 1998 hanno portato alla creazione del mercato unico del trasporto internazionale con autobus. Tale liberalizzazione ha contribuito ad incrementare il costante aumento dei volumi di traffico relativi al settore che, dalla metà degli anni novanta ad oggi, ha avuto un'espansione in continua crescita.

Tuttavia però questa tendenza positiva non è andata di pari passo con la tutela ed il rispetto dei diritti dei viaggiatori: numerosi sono gli inconvenienti segnalati dai viaggiatori come cancellazioni, prenotazioni in eccesso, bagagli smarriti e ritardi.

Al contrario di viaggiatori che scelgono altri mezzi di trasporto gli utenti che usufruiscono dell'autobus, non sono ancora tutelati a causa di un vuoto legislativo comunitario.

Guardo quindi con favore alla proposta della commissione per i trasporti e il turismo che, tramite il documento che ci apprestiamo a votare, cerca di definirne i diritti. In particolare la proposta risulta particolarmente interessante perché introduce la responsabilità del vettore in caso di decesso o lesioni, risarcimenti e assistenza in caso di cancellazioni e ritardi, il riconoscimento dei diritti delle persone a mobilità ridotta o diversamente abili e l'istituzione di organi responsabili atti al controllo di tale regolamento e al recepimento di reclami.

Un passo importante verso la parità dei diritti di tutti i viaggiatori.


  Brian Crowley (UEN), in writing. − The European Union has created a successful internal market with unprecedented movement of capital, services and people. However, creating this freedom of movement is not enough in itself. We must protect the citizens of EU countries as they travel throughout the Union, and we must ensure equity of access to our transport services.

We have seen the success of EU policies for passenger access and compensation rights in the air transport sector, and I warmly welcome the fact that the EU has come forward with similar proposals for other transport sectors. However, it is important that we respect at all times the specific nature of each different transport sector. While the same principles of rights and fair access and equivalent rights should hold for all forms of transport, we must take into account the characteristics of each one. Otherwise we will fail both the passenger and the operator.

I am happy that in this passenger rights package, covering sea, inland waterway and coach and bus transport, the European Parliament has produced legislation that is fair and balanced and that will prove to be extremely effective in protecting and promoting the rights of passengers in the EU.


  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. − Conservatives welcome the overall aim of improving passenger rights, access for the disabled and creating a level playing field for international bus users, and for this reason voted in favour of the report. However we would have liked to see an exemption to regional services as the UK has liberalised markets that have moved beyond public service contracts to open competition. In addition, the proposal does not appear to recognise the local nature of bus services operating in border areas. Conservatives also have concerns about the proportionality of certain aspects of the proposed regulation, particular the liability provisions. Unlike the rail and aviation sectors, the bus and coach industry consists of a significant number of small and medium enterprises with limited resources.


  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI), par écrit. – Les passagers de bus et d'autocars doivent bénéficier de droits semblables à ceux des passagers aériens ou ferroviaires. Telle est la philosophie contenue dans ce rapport.

En effet, et par principe, tous les passagers doivent être égaux en droit.

Toutefois, de nombreuses réserves sont à formuler.

Elles tiennent à la nature même de ce secteur dominé par des micro-entreprises et des PME. Nous ne pouvons nous satisfaire de mesures telles que proposées en plénière qui, sous prétexte d'une protection accrue des droits des passagers, ne font qu'introduire des contraintes ingérables pour les conducteurs de bus ou autocars et des augmentations de tarifs inévitables pour les passagers eux-mêmes.

Pourquoi exiger d'un conducteur, dont le métier est de conduire en toute sécurité, qu'il suive une formation spécifique afin de fournir une assistance aux personnes à mobilité réduite ou handicapées ?

Pourquoi ne pas exempter clairement du champ d'application de ce nouveau règlement européen les services de transport réguliers urbains, suburbains et régionaux, eux-mêmes couverts par des contrats de service public ?

Pourquoi vouloir instaurer des droits à indemnisation à hauteur de 200% du prix du billet en cas de refus d'embarquement dû à une surréservation ?

En France, la Fédération nationale des transporteurs de voyageurs avait proposé des solutions pragmatiques à tous ces problèmes. Certaines ont été entendues. Pas toutes. Dommage.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. O relatório do colega Albertini pretende contribuir para criar as condições de um quadro mais claro quanto à utilização e exploração do transporte por autocarro. Ao resolver questões ligadas aos direitos das pessoas com mobilidade reduzida, bem como ao estabelecer regras mais claras em caso de morte ou acidente dos passageiros ou ainda em caso de perda ou deterioração das bagagens, este relatório vai no sentido de uma maior segurança, tanto para os passageiros como para as empresas. Apontam-se também soluções para os casos das indemnizações e assistência em caso de anulação, de atraso ou de interrupção da viagem.

Criam-se assim as condições para uma melhor informação aos passageiros, antes, durante e após a viagem, e clarificam-se os seus direitos, bem como as responsabilidades dos operadores, com o objectivo de os tornar mais competitivos e mais seguros.


- Informe: Brian Crowley (A6-0070/2009)


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o Relatório Brian Crowley sobre o prazo de protecção dos direitos de autor e dos direitos conexos porque promove os artistas europeus e a música europeia.

A proposta do Parlamento Europeu introduz maiores benefícios para os artistas, que ficam protegidos ao longo da vida, à semelhança do que acontece nos EUA e de acordo com os princípios europeus de valorização da criatividade e da cultura.

Penso que o alargamento do prazo de protecção de 50 para 70 anos vai promover o investimento na inovação musical e resultar numa maior escolha para o consumidor, permitindo à Europa continuar a concorrer de forma competitiva com os maiores mercados mundiais de música.


  Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE), por escrito. Os responsáveis portugueses do sector consideram ser esta uma questão de enorme importância para a Indústria da Música Europeia e Portuguesa. E esclarecem que a proposta da Comissão para a extensão do prazo de protecção dos Artistas e Produtores Fonográficos sobre as obras gravadas colmata uma necessidade, para que a Europa possa continuar a concorrer de forma competitiva com os maiores mercados mundiais de música.

O apoio dos criadores e intérpretes é patente quando quase 40 000 Artistas e Músicos assinaram uma petição para que a União Europeia encurte a diferença relativamente a outros países que já prevêem um prazo de protecção maior.

Espera-se que a extensão do prazo de protecção venha a promover o reinvestimento numa variedade muito grande de música nova que resulte numa maior escolha para o consumidor. De salientar ainda que a Indústria Fonográfica tem um enorme contributo em termos de emprego e rendimento fiscal e é um grande exportador de Propriedade Intelectual.

Por estas razões, invocadas pelos referidos responsáveis, dei o meu voto favorável ao Texto de Compromisso hoje votado. Esta aprovação vai possibilitar um consenso entre o Conselho e o Parlamento e vai facilitar a adopção da Directiva pelo Conselho.


  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE), in writing. − I voted for Amendment 79 to turn the proposal on extending the term of sound copyrights beyond 50 years back to the committee.

In my opinion the Commission’s draft needs to be better prepared, and therefore Parliament should take more time in order to make its decision. In its present version the Commission’s draft seems to provide an objective ground to establish artificial monopolies in cultural works.

I fully agree that many artists benefit too little from their work. However, the solution is not to indulge the production companies more, but to really shift benefits from them to artists and performers.


  Arlene McCarthy (PSE), in writing. − It is not fair that composers of songs or the designer who does the artwork for the CD get protection of their rights for their life plus 70 years, while the performer currently only has 50 years from publication. The term has not kept up with life expectancy, meaning that musicians lose the benefit for their work just as they retire and most need the income. Talented musicians are being short-changed by the current system. 38 000 performers asked for our support to redress this discrimination. This is about the equalisation of rights for ordinary working musicians.

I regret that there have been many false claims about this legislation. At a time of economic downturn we need to support our creative industries and artists who contribute to our GDP, jobs, growth and global exports. This law will do much to help poor musicians who deserve to be treated equally. I hope the Council and Commission can accept the Parliament vote to bring in this law before the end of this parliamentary term.


  Ieke van den Burg (PSE), schriftelijk. − De PvdA (PSE-Fractie) steunt het geamendeerde voorstel, omdat het een aanzienlijk aantal positieve elementen bevat voor artiesten, zoals de bescherming van de integriteit van de artiest en het fonds voor sessiemuzikanten. Wij hebben voor de amendementen gestemd waarmee wordt getracht de uit de verlengingstermijn voortvloeiende inkomsten voor 100% aan de artiesten te geven. Het aangenomen compromis is een stap in de goede richting, maar zeker nog niet optimaal.

De PvdA maakt zich dan ook ernstige zorgen over de positie van kleinere artiesten die, in ruil voor het opnemen van een plaat, de uit de opname voortvloeiende inkomsten die het voorschot overschrijden, moeten afstaan. Wij hopen daarom dat de Europese Commissie op korte termijn met voorstellen zal komen die de positie van de artiesten ten opzichte van platenmaatschappijen structureel verbeteren, ook met betrekking tot contracten die betrekking hebben op de eerste 50 jaar van de naburige rechten.


  Thomas Wise (NI), in writing. − Although I strongly support the idea of copyright extension, this proposal has become unfit for purpose. The EU has shown its inability to address the problem in a logical and efficient way, and so I have voted to reject it.


- Informe: Ulrich Stockmann (A6-0217/2009)


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. O estabelecimento do segundo programa Marco Polo é uma medida de relevo, já que permite garantir a necessária assistência financeira às medidas destinadas a favorecer o aumento e melhoria do desempenho ambiental do sistema de transporte de mercadorias.

A proposta vem no seguimento da avaliação da eficácia do próprio programa Marco Polo, a qual concluiu que, até agora, somente 64% do objectivo de mudança modal foi atingido – bem longe dos objectivos estimados.

Espera-se que o novo Marco Polo disponha de melhores condições financeiras para prosseguir os objectivos que lhe estão assinalados, os quais passam também a incluir projectos relativos às auto-estradas do mar e ainda projectos relativos a medidas para evitar o congestionamento do tráfego.

Considero que este programa, que procura estimular e apoiar os projectos de mudança do transporte por frete rodoviário para o mar, o ferroviário e para as vias interiores navegáveis, deve dispor de todas as condições para ajudar a que haja menos congestão, menos poluição e um transporte eficaz e ambientalmente mais sustentável.


- Informe: Petr Duchoň (A6-0220/2009)


  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE), schriftlich. Der Bericht des Verkehrsausschusses trägt den wirklichen Interessen des gesamten Schienenverkehrs für eine bessere Nutzung der vorhandenen Kapazität nicht ausreichend Rechnung.

Die Infrastrukturbetreiber sollen verpflichtet werden, Kapazitätsreserven für Gelegenheitsverkehre im jährlichen Netzfahrplan vorzuhalten. Durch diese Vorabverpflichtung wird den Infrastrukturbetreibern keine Flexibilität bei der zeitnahen Entscheidung über eine solche Maßnahme eingeräumt. Der ursprüngliche Kommissionsvorschlag wurde sogar noch verschärft, da die Kapazitätsreserve eine ausreichende Qualität für Trassen des internationalen erleichterten Güterverkehrs garantieren muss.

Der Umfang der kurzfristigen Trassenanmeldungen von Eisenbahnunternehmen, die tatsächlich in Anspruch genommen werden, ist planerisch nicht annähernd abzuschätzen. Diese Kapazitäten werden dem Fahrplanerstellungsprozess vorab entzogen, mit der Folge, dass spätere, andere Trassenanfragen nicht befriedigt werden können. Werden die ohnehin knappen Netzkapazitäten nicht von den Güterverkehrsunternehmen genutzt, werden sie zum Nachteil aller Nutzer endgültig vernichtet. Diese Regelung würde genau das Gegenteil des eigentlichen Ziels – bessere Nutzung der vorhandenen Kapazitäten - erreichen.

Um die negativen Auswirkungen auf den Personenverkehr und den kurzfristig angefragten Güterverkehr zu begrenzen ist eine Regelung notwendig, die den Infrastrukturbetreibern die Entscheidung überlässt, ob eine solche Maßnahme unter Berücksichtung der Belange des Schienenpersonenverkehrs geeignet ist bzw. auf welche Weise den Bedürfnissen des Schienengüterverkehrs besser Rechnung getragen werden kann.


  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), schriftelijk. − Steeds meer grensoverschrijdend goederenvervoer over de lange afstand is verschoven van het spoor naar de weg. Belangrijke redenen hiervoor zijn dat steeds meer autosnelwegruimte is aangelegd, dat rechtstreekse spooraansluitingen naar bedrijven zijn opgeheven en dat het wegvervoer naar verhouding steeds goedkoper is geworden. Die oorzaken worden meestal vergeten. Alle aandacht gaat uit naar twee andere redenen. De ene is dat de coördinatie tussen spoorwegbedrijven in de verschillende lidstaten tekortschiet, waardoor goederenwagons nodeloos lang moeten wachten voordat ze worden gekoppeld achter een locomotief die ze verder brengt. Daarvoor bestaat nu al een oplossing in de vorm van shuttle-treinen met een vaste dienstregeling.

Het andere kritiekpunt is dat dit vervoer traag is omdat het moet wachten op passagierstreinen die voorrang krijgen. Het verslag-Duchoň was erop gericht die voorrang voor het passagiersvervoer af te schaffen. Op drukke trajecten kan dit betekenen dat de EU de verplichting oplegt om vaste uurdienstregelingen te doorbreken door een aantal treinen te laten uitvallen. De kiezers zullen snel weten dat ze deze verslechtering aan Europa te danken hebben. In plaats van een beperking van het passagiersvervoer is er een oplossing voor de knelpunten en capaciteitstekorten op het spoor nodig. Het is goed dat de tekst hierover is afgezwakt.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. Derzeit konzentriert sich der Güterverkehr weitgehend auf den Transportweg Straße, die Anteile der Verkehrsträger Schiene, Wasser und Luft sind rückläufig. In Zeiten immer enger werdender Margen und extremen Konkurrenzdrucks ergeben Überholmanöver der LKW, gepaart mit Übermüdung der Fahrer und Überladung, einen tödlichen Gefahrencocktail. Neben dem Unfallrisiko ist der tendenziell kollabierende Güterverkehr auch hinsichtlich Staus, Lärm und Umweltverschmutzung untragbar.

Es ist höchste Zeit, dass die Verlagerung auf die Schiene endlich klappt. Dafür werden wir aber bessere technische Lösungen sowie Logistikkonzepte zur Abstimmung und organisatorische Vernetzung benötigen. Mit dem vorliegenden Bericht wird ein Schritt in diese Richtung gegangen, weshalb ich auch dafür gestimmt habe.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. A criação de um verdadeiro mercado interno ferroviário é da maior importância para os objectivos da política europeia de transportes sustentados. Ou seja, para o futuro da Europa e dos seus transportes. E ainda para que este sector faça parte integrante das medidas que contribuirão para que a Estratégia de Lisboa seja um sucesso.

Também o frete ferroviário é um factor muito importante entre as diversas áreas de trabalho dos transportes.

A criação de uma rede ferroviária europeia para o frete com comboios que circulem em boas condições e cruzem facilmente de uma rede nacional para outra vai – espera-se – permitir melhorias na utilização das infra-estruturas e facilitar um frete mais competitivo.

Considero que é fundamental apoiar as medidas que visam melhorar a situação do sector do frete ferroviário, na perspectiva de que o sector venha a ser completamente integrado e inserido em toda a futura rede de transportes europeia.


  Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I congratulate the rapporteur and the European Commission for their courage in trying to prioritise rail freight throughout the EU.

Personally I would have liked a more radical proposal, one that would have put in place a strategy that included priority pathways on certain routes and a recognition from the rest of the railway industry that rail freight is important, needs developing and must be supported.

Two areas are stifling rail freight in Europe. Firstly, the real lack of interoperability, particularly in signalling; and secondly, the Railway industry itself – in particular, passenger operators and infrastructure providers who collude with each other to ensure that rail freight is placed at the bottom of the pile when it comes to pathing and timetabling.

At least this report is a start in ending that comfortable marriage of convenience that exists and giving rail freight operators at least a chance in developing their business.

If we allow the status quo to remain, there will be no rail freight left in twenty years’ time. We must act now to make rail freight viable, attractive and competitive, or we will never be able to get freight off the road.


- Informe: John Bowis (A6-0233/2009)


  Martin Callanan (PPE-DE), in writing. − I applaud the work of my colleague John Bowis on this dossier, which represents a landmark in patients’ rights. Conservatives support patient mobility within the EU and see it as a way of strengthening public healthcare provision.

It is perhaps instructive that this issue first came to prominence because of a case in the UK’s National Health Service. A woman who chose to travel to France for a hip replacement when her local health authority kept her waiting too long was denied reimbursement back home. But she took her case to the European Court of Justice, which established an important principle – that patients have the right to travel to another EU Member State for treatment and then be reimbursed by their national public healthcare provider.

I am no fan of the ECJ, which is a major factor in the EU’s constant accumulation of new powers, but this ruling was immensely significant. I hope many of my constituents who have been badly let down by the Labour government’s mismanagement of the NHS will be able to benefit from the ideas in this report.


  Anne Ferreira (PSE), par écrit. – J'ai voté contre le rapport sur les services de santé transfrontaliers car il ne répond pas à l'objectif de l'UE relatif à un niveau élevé de santé, conformément à l'article 152 du traité, et à la demande des citoyens européens de pouvoir bénéficier de soins de santé de qualité et sûrs, à proximité de chez eux.

Le rapport ne fait pas de l'autorisation préalable la règle pour pouvoir se faire soigner dans un autre État membre de l'UE. L'autorisation préalable permet de contrôler l'équilibre financier des systèmes sociaux, et de garantir au patient des conditions de remboursement et les informations nécessaires avant une intervention hospitalière à l'étranger.

Il n'est pas non plus acceptable que l'amélioration de la qualité des soins de santé se fasse par la mise en concurrence des prestataires de soins ou de poser comme principe la libre circulation des patients: celle-ci dépend avant tout de son état de santé.

Les amendements votés sont trop imprécis, ouvrant la voie au règlement des problèmes par la Cour de Justice de l'UE.

Cette directive ne fait que renforcer les inégalités en matière de santé entre citoyens européens, car seuls ceux pouvant avancer les frais de santé pourront choisir des services de qualité.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. A questão grave é que foi aprovado o relatório sem alterar a base do artigo 95.º, ou seja, a consideração da saúde no mercado interno como mercadoria, o que é inadmissível. Por isso, tinha sido melhor rejeitar a proposta da Comissão, como defendemos. Mas, lamentavelmente, a maioria não aceitou a nossa posição.

Assim, os direitos dos doentes em matéria de cuidados de saúde transfronteiriços não salvaguardam a competência exclusiva dos Estados-Membros quanto à decisão do modo de organização e financiamento dos seus sistemas de cuidados de saúde, o que inclui também a sua competência em matéria de estabelecimento de sistemas de autorização prévia para efeitos de tratamento hospitalar no estrangeiro.

O direito dos cidadãos à saúde, assim como os direitos dos profissionais do sector, não estão garantidos. O que se impunha era o incremento da solidariedade e coordenação entre regimes de segurança social dos diferentes Estados-Membros da União Europeia, nomeadamente com vista à aplicação, ao reforço e a uma mais adequada resposta aos direitos e necessidades dos utentes dos serviços de saúde.

Por tudo isto, votámos contra o relatório.


  Christa Klaß (PPE-DE), schriftlich. Ich habe für die Richtlinie über die Patientenrechte in der grenzüberschreitenden Gesundheitsversorgung gestimmt, da sie für die Patienten mehr Rechtssicherheit bringt. Besonders für die grenznahen Gebiete der Europäischen Union, wie zum Beispiel meine Heimat in der Großregion Deutschland, Belgien, Luxemburg, Frankreich oder für ländliche Regionen mit einer medizinischen Unterversorgung, ist die Förderung der Patientenmobilität ein wichtiger Baustein zur Verbesserung und Effizienzsteigerung in der Gesundheitsversorgung.

Der deutsche Gesundheitsdienstleistungssektor wird von der grenzübergreifenden Patientenmobilität profitieren, wenn Patienten aus anderen EU-Staaten unsere qualitativ hochwertigen medizinischen Leistungen, zum Beispiel in der Rehabilitation, verstärkt nutzen werden. Die mitgliedstaatliche Souveränität muss aber gewahrt bleiben. Für die Bereitstellung der medizinischen Versorgung und für die Organisation ihrer Gesundheitssysteme sind die Mitgliedstaaten selbst verantwortlich. Entsprechend dem Subsidiaritätsprinzip sollen durch die Richtlinie nur die Bereiche geregelt werden, die die grenzübergreifende Mobilität der Patienten betreffen. Unsere hohen Qualitäts- und Sicherheitsstandards in Deutschland müssen dabei aufrechterhalten bleiben. Ethische Standards, die die Mitgliedstaaten aus guten Gründen einhalten, wie zum Beispiel bei der künstlichen Befruchtung, der DNA-Analyse oder der Sterbehilfe, dürfen nicht in Frage gestellt werden.


  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Je me réjouis des objectifs de ce rapport qui visent à faciliter les soins de santé du patient dans un État membre autre que le sien et à clarifier les procédures de remboursement après le traitement qui font actuellement défaut dans la législation européenne. Des soins sûrs, efficaces et de qualité devraient donc devenir accessibles à tous les citoyens européens à l'aide de mécanismes de coopération entre États membres.

Pourtant, j'insiste sur le fait que ce sont les États membres qui sont exclusivement compétents pour l'organisation et le financement des systèmes de santé. L'autorisation préalable pour un traitement hospitalier est l'instrument indispensable à l'exercice de cette capacité de pilotage. Il va de soi que l'exercice de ce droit doit respecter les principes de proportionnalité, de nécessité et de non-discrimination.

En ce qui concerne la base légale, je plaide en faveur d'une double base légale afin de garantir le respect des compétences nationales. En effet, la proposition de la Commission comprenait de nombreuses tentatives d'empiètement sur ce domaine par la porte arrière.

Le texte final devrait aboutir à un juste équilibre entre les droits des patients et les compétences nationales des États membres dans le secteur de la santé.


  Linda McAvan (PSE), in writing. − On behalf of the British Labour delegation in the European Parliament I welcome many of the positive aspects of the Parliament’s report on the proposal for a directive on cross-border healthcare. In particular, we support the amendments which make it clear that national governments will remain fully responsible for organising their national healthcare systems and setting out the rules of treatment.

However, we remain concerned that the rules as drafted are not clear enough. Patients travelling to another EU country for treatment must know whether they will be reimbursed and have all the necessary information on the type and quality of healthcare in the host country. The Labour delegation therefore calls for the directive to make it clear that Member States can establish a system of prior authorisation. We also support a dual legal base of Articles 152 and 95 to make sure health issues, rather than internal market concerns, are the priority. The Labour delegation abstained on the final vote to indicate that these two concerns need to be addressed at second reading.


  Arlene McCarthy (PSE), in writing. − I abstained on this report because it does not give enough of a guarantee on the protection of the integrity and funding of Britain's National Health Service, nor will it provide certainty or clarity for the minority of patients who can afford to travel to take up healthcare in another EU Member State.

The Tory MEPs in the European Parliament have one objective in mind with their proposal to reintroduce their discredited health voucher system by the European back door; under their proposals the wealthy few would get vouchers to take NHS money out of the UK for private treatment in the rest of Europe. People paying their taxes expect to see their money invested in the NHS to pay for healthcare at home, not being diverted to other EU health systems. It is no surprise that, only recently, Tory MEP Dan Hannan advocated a privatised approach to healthcare.

In a recent debate on cross-border health payments between Britain and Ireland, the Tory shadow health minister Andrew Lansley said that NHS resources are always precious and attacked the payment of GBP 180 million of NHS money to Ireland. However, the Tories have failed to back our proposal for a clear prior authorisation system, which is crucial to protect precious NHS resources and NHS services.


  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Καταψήφισα την έκθεση Bowis και την πρόταση της Επιτροπής διότι από την ίδια τη νομική της βάση αποδεικνύεται ότι τα οικονομικά συμφέροντα και η ανεξέλεγκτη αγορά υπερισχύουν των δικαιωμάτων των ασθενών για καλύτερη και πληρέστερη περίθαλψη. Αυτή η πρόταση ακυρώνει τις προβλέψεις για κοινωνική Ευρώπη και αλληλεγγύη και θα οδηγήσει σε καταστάσεις στις οποίες μόνο οι ευκατάστατοι θα έχουν πρόσβαση στην πολυδιαφημισμένη διασυνοριακή υγειονομική περίθαλψη.

Θα οδηγήσει σε αποδόμηση των εθνικών συστημάτων υγειονομικής περίθαλψης και θα εξωθήσει τους ασθενείς στην αναζήτηση περίθαλψης στο εξωτερικό. Η υγειονομική περίθαλψη είναι και θα πρέπει να παραμείνει αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών. Η αντιμετώπιση της περίθαλψης ως αγοραίου προϊόντος αντί για δημόσιο αγαθό είναι απαράδεκτη. Επιπλέον, το σχέδιο oδηγίας προτείνει ένα σύστημα αποζημίωσης για τα κόστη της διασυνοριακής περίθαλψης, το οποίο είναι περιττό, καθώς η αποζημίωση για κόστη περίθαλψης έχει θεσμοθετηθεί από το 1971 με τον Κανονισμό για τη συνεργασία στα κοινωνικά συστήματα ασφάλισης.


  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. − I abstained on this report because I desperately want people to receive the treatment they urgently need. However, the issue of pre-authorisation is of concern to me. Prior authorisation in this directive negates patients’ rights. It is the reason patients went to the courts in the first place, and those court judgments are the reason we are here today voting on cross-border health. By including pre-authorisation in this directive, we are back where we started. Death by geography will remain the rule and patients will face the same obstacles as they do now when seeking authorisation to travel for treatment.

I also deeply regret that this report fails to retain a legal basis that puts the health of patients first. Instead it has been a wasted opportunity where the health of patients is used as a commodity for profit.


  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − The key amendments on prior authorisation failed. These amendments were essential to the preservation of the NHS in Scotland and the UK as a whole. We lost the vote on the dual legal base, which would have allowed public health to be included rather than the legal base solely being the single market. Due to the loss of both these key areas and the fact that this is first reading, I had no option but to abstain.


  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), schriftelijk. − Patiëntenmobiliteit is een feit maar de nodige rechtszekerheid voor de patiënten en de zorgverzekeraars is er nog niet. Daarom is het voorstel van de Commissie voor een richtlijn een goede zaak. Ik waardeer dan ook de inspanningen van collega Bowis om in dit aartsmoeilijke dossier tot een compromis te komen. Dankzij zijn inspanningen werden substantiële verbeteringen in het Commissievoorstel aangebracht. Toch heb ik het eindverslag niet kunnen steunen, omdat twee punten die verband houden met de bevoegdheid van de lidstaten om hun gezondheidszorgstelsel te organiseren en te financieren, niet werden opgenomen.

Wij hebben ervoor gepleit om een wettelijke basis in te bouwen die lidstaten toestaat om aan buitenlandse patiënten de werkelijke kostprijs te berekenen en ze te laten meebetalen voor de zorg die ze in ons land ontvangen. Voorts zijn we er steeds voorstander van geweest dat lidstaten, in bepaalde omstandigheden, patiënten kunnen weigeren, bijvoorbeeld bij dreigende wachtlijsten. Vooral voor België, een klein land met een relatief grote instroom van buitenlandse patiënten, is dit van belang.

De tekst zoals die vandaag in de plenaire vergadering is aangenomen, biedt hiervoor onvoldoende garanties. Om deze redenen heb ik me bij de eindstemming onthouden.


  Γεώργιος Τούσσας (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Η αντιλαϊκή πολιτική της Ε.Ε. και των αστικών κυβερνήσεων επιδεινώνουν τις δημόσιες υπηρεσίες Υγείας με αποτέλεσμα την ταλαιπωρία των ασθενών, αναμονές, έλλειψη διάφορων υπηρεσιών, χαράτσια, μη κάλυψη ανασφάλιστων και μεταναστών, κλπ.

Η δραστική μείωση των κοινωνικών παροχών, η εμπορευματοποίηση και η παραπέρα ιδιωτικοποίηση των συστημάτων υγείας, η επίθεση στα ασφαλιστικά δικαιώματα, διευκολύνουν τους μεγάλους επιχειρηματικούς ομίλους να αποκομίζουν τεράστια κέρδη από τον χρυσοφόρο τομέα της Υγείας.

Η οδηγία για την "μετακίνηση των ασθενών" προωθεί την ενιαία αγορά Υγείας, την εφαρμογή των ελευθεριών της συνθήκης του Μάαστριχτ. Την μετακίνηση των ασθενών αλλά και των επαγγελματιών υγείας προκειμένου να κατοχυρωθεί η εμπορευματοποίηση της Υγείας.

Η επιστροφή μέρους των εξόδων νοσηλείας στο εξωτερικό είναι η παγίδα για την απόσπαση λαϊκής συναίνεσης στην εμπορευματοποίηση και δημιουργία ασθενών πολλών ταχυτήτων, στην ταξική διάκριση, στο δικαίωμα στη ζωή.

Η διασφάλιση των δικαιωμάτων των ασθενών απαιτεί την λειτουργία ενός αποκλειστικά δημόσιου και δωρεάν συστήματος υγείας, που καλύπτει το σύνολο των αναγκών υγείας (εξειδικευμένες και μη), όλου του πληθυσμού (ανεξάρτητα από οικονομική και ασφαλιστική κατάσταση). Μόνο ένα τέτοιο σύστημα, που μπορεί να αναπτυχθεί στα πλαίσια μίας λαϊκής οικονομίας, από τη Λαϊκή εξουσία, μπορεί να εξασφαλίσει ποσοτική επάρκεια και ποιοτική αναβάθμιση των υπηρεσιών, αποτελεσματική προστασία της υγείας και της ζωής των εργαζομένων.


- Informe: Amalia Sartori (A6-0239/2009)


  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), per iscritto. − Il mio voto è favorevole.

Studi di settore hanno dimostrato ampliamente come in Europa ogni anno si ammalino per infezioni contratte all'interno degli ospedali, il 10-12% degli utenti che si rivolgono alle aziende ospedaliere al fine di poter metter fine alla loro condizione fisica disagiata. Queste percentuali, se tradotte in cifre, fanno ancora più paura: si calcola che all'interno del territorio dell'Unione europea il numero dei pazienti che ha contratto infezione di carattere nosocomiale sia all'incirca di 5 milioni di persone.

Ricollegandomi all'intervento della mia esimia collega, on. Amalia Sartori, è possibile migliorare la sicurezza e l'efficienza sanitaria delineando un programma che tenga soprattutto conto di questi punti fondamentali: 1) rafforzamento della presenza di infermieri altamente specializzati nel controllo delle infezioni; 2) attuazione di programmi di formazione del personale di tipo sanitario e anche paramedico, ponendo l'attenzione soprattutto in merito alle infezioni nosocomiali e alla resistenza agli antibiotici dei virus che le hanno causate; 3) dare adito alle nuove scoperte che provengono dal campo della ricerca inerenti a tali patologie.


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente a proposta sobre a segurança dos doentes. Embora a qualidade dos cuidados de saúde na Europa tenha melhorado substancialmente devido à evolução da ciência médica, os actos médicos podem, em alguns casos, causar danos à saúde dos doentes. Erros médicos ou infecções geradas no tratamento são algumas das causas com efeitos indesejáveis, que poderiam ser evitados.

Neste relatório são propostas importantes: melhoria da recolha de informação a nível local e regional; melhor informação prestada aos doentes; reforço da presença de enfermeiros especializados no controlo de infecções; promoção da educação e formação de pessoal de saúde; mais atenção às infecções hospitalares. Medidas que apoio na totalidade.


- Informe: Antonios Trakatellis (A6-0231/2009)


  Liam Aylward (UEN), in writing. − I welcome the proposed initiative to improve healthcare for people suffering from rare diseases. Due to the particular nature of diseases such as rare cancers, auto-immune diseases, toxic and infectious diseases, there is not enough expertise and resources available for them, yet nevertheless they affect 36 million EU citizens.

Strengthening cooperation between specialists and research centres across Europe and information and service exchanges is a natural way for the European Union to assist its citizens. It is a direct way of providing benefits to you. This proposal urges Member States to set up new centres and training courses to maximise the potential of scientific resources on rare diseases and pool together existing research centres and disease information networks. I support these measures and encourage more Member State cooperation, which will allow greater mobility for patients and experts to serve you, the citizen.


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o relatório sobre doenças raras, uma vez que considero necessária uma acção concertada no domínio das doenças raras, a nível europeu e a nível nacional. Embora a incidência de cada doença rara seja muito baixa, há sempre milhões de Europeus afectados porque há muitas doenças raras.

Penso que é da maior importância o apoio de organizações independentes, o acesso a informação sobre doenças raras, a criação de centros especializados nos diferentes Estados-Membros, a criação de cursos de formação nos centros existentes e a mobilização de peritos e profissionais. É necessária a criação de recursos adequados para actuação imediata na área das doenças raras.


  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I will be voting for the report by Mr Trakatellis. I recognise the fact that there are many rare diseases that are orphaned from research as medical institutes engage in a form of triage, ignoring the plight of those suffering from unusual diseases that offer little in the way of profits compared to those potentially available from common diseases.

This is particular true of rare genetic diseases that are hereditary. I believe we should encourage research in these areas by underpinning an element of the research costs. In doing this I declare an interest in that one of these diseases is to be found within my family.


  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE), schriftlich. Wenn im Änderungsantrag 15 explizit die Ausmerzung seltener Erbkrankheiten durch genetische Beratung der als Überträger der Krankheit fungierenden Eltern, sowie die Auswahl gesunder Embryonen durch die Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID) gefordert wird, widerspricht dies nicht nur geltendem Recht in Deutschland. Vor dem besonderen Hintergrund der deutschen Geschichte erscheint es prinzipiell als untragbar und unerträglich, Ausmerzung und Selektion von möglicherweise Behinderten, seien sie auch noch ungeboren, einzufordern oder anzuraten.

In erschreckender Weise offenbaren diese Vorschläge und Formulierungen eine völlig mangelnde Achtung vor dem Wert jedes menschlichen Leben, gleichgültig ob es sich um kranke oder gesunde Menschen handelt. Mit dem empfohlenen Ergänzungsantrag tritt an die Stelle der Förderung der therapeutischen Behandlung seltener Krankheiten das Ziel der Verhinderung der Geburt kranker Menschen.

Dies ist nicht mit dem Geist und Inhalt europäischer wie internationaler Deklarationen der Menschenrechte vereinbar. Das eigentliche Ziel überzeugender europäischer Politik müsste es sein, gerade von Krankheit betroffenen oder bedrohten Menschen zu helfen und nicht diese nach Qualitätskriterien frühzeitig zu selektieren.

Der Bericht bzw. einzelne Änderungsanträge, insbesondere Änderungsantrag 15, entsprechen nicht meiner christlichen Grundwertehaltung. Deswegen habe ich gegen den Bericht gestimmt.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. − There are many issues in this resolution which I support. However, I could not support the overall report because of the inclusion of issues which I believe to be, and indeed are, matters of subsidiarity – that is, the competence of the Member State – and therefore not issues about which the European Parliament should adopt a view. The subject of eugenic practices is one such subject which, through the adoption of Amendment 15, was included in this resolution. I did not support Amendment 15. This subject is a matter for subsidiarity, and not for the European Union, which does not, and should not legislate on eugenic practices. So I could not support the overall report.


- Informe: Jean-Pierre Audy (A6-0168/2009)


  Richard James Ashworth (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives have been unable to approve discharge of the 2007 European budget, section III, European Commission. We are insistent that the parliamentary budget must deliver value for money for the European taxpayer and we are, therefore, supportive of the rapporteur's report. In particular, we support the rapporteur's criticism of the Commission's failure to ensure that Bulgaria and Romania achieve adequate standards of financial control. However, we must point out that for fourteen consecutive years the European Court of Auditors has been unable to give an unqualified statement of assurance for the general European accounts. The European Commission bears ultimate responsibility for the accounts and therefore, in line with our traditional approach, we will continue to vote against granting discharge until we see real progress towards the achievement of an unqualified statement of assurance from the European Court of Auditors.


  Călin Cătălin Chiriţă (PPE-DE), în scris. − Alături de delegaţia României la PPE-DE am votat împotriva Raportului Jean-Pierre Audy privind descărcarea de gestiune pentru execuţia bugetului general al Uniunii Europene aferent exerciţiului financiar 2007 deoarece amendamentul 13 nu a fost acceptat. Raportul CCE pentru exerciţiul 2007 vizează încă exclusiv proiectele din 2000-2006, deoarece 2007 a constituit în cea mai mare parte o fază pregătitoare pentru punerea în aplicare a programelor 2007-2013. Prin urmare, efectul noilor norme prevăzute pentru perioada de programare 2007-2013, care sunt mai simple şi mai stricte decât cele în vigoare până în 2006, nu poate fi evaluat deocamdată.

Subliniez necesitatea simplificării procedurilor de implementare a fondurilor structurale, în special a sistemelor de gestionare şi control. Complexitatea sistemului este una din cauzele neregulilor din partea statelor membre. Accentuez nevoia măsurilor de simplificare propuse de Comisie în revizuirea reglementărilor aplicabile fondurilor structurale pentru perioada 2007-2013 ca răspuns la actuala criză financiară. Astfel de proceduri de simplificare sunt esenţiale pentru reducerea sarcinilor administrative la nivel naţional, regional şi local. Este important să se asigure că astfel de proceduri de simplificare contribuie, pe viitor, la reducerea ratei de erori.


  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Jules Maaten, Toine Manders en Jan Mulder (ALDE), schriftelijk. − De VVD heeft tegen de kwijting aan de Europese Commissie gestemd. De VVD is van mening dat de Commissie te weinig vooruitgang heeft geboekt met het stimuleren van de invoering van de nationale verklaring in de lidstaten. Tot dusverre doen nog maar vier landen dat, waaronder Nederland. Daarnaast is de VVD van mening dat de Europese lidstaten nog steeds te veel fouten maken met de besteding van Europese gelden, zoals is gebleken uit de controles van de Europese Rekenkamer. De Rekenkamer gaf onder andere een afkeurende verklaring ten aanzien van plattelandsbeleid, cohesie- en structuurbeleid. De VVD vindt dat de controlesystemen op deze terreinen verbeterd moeten worden. De vooruitgang in de laatste vijf jaar was te gering.


  Румяна Желева (PPE-DE), в писмена форма. − Г-н председател, гласувах за освобождаването от отговорност на Комисията във връзка с изпълнението на бюджета на ЕС за 2007г.

Същевременно трябва да отбележа, че гласувах против текстове в този доклад, които бяха насочени към това да се въведе изготвянето на тримесечни доклади относно управлението на средствата от структурните фондове и Кохезионния фонд специално в случая на България и Румъния. Гласувах против, защото съм убедена, че в случаите, когато изискваме повече контрол, е добре да правим това едновременно и в еднаква степен за всички държави-членки, а не само за една или две от тях. Същевременно споделям тревогата на парламента и на докладчика, който посочва, че замразените или отнети от ЕК средства за България възлизат на почти 1 милиард евро.

Както констатира докладът, тези загуби и блокирания на средства се наложиха основно поради нередности по отношение на търговете и допустимостта на разходите, разпореждането с дълготрайни активи, липсата на административен капацитет и др. В заключение, бих искала да

споделя с вас тревогата си, че българските граждани са лишени от инструментите на европейската солидарност и те плащат незаслужено за грешките на своите управляващи.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. − I voted to support the 2007 discharge for the European Commission, but I did so with some reservations.

Five years ago President Barroso promised a clean bill of health before the end of his term, in terms of budgetary control and formal Statements of Assurance. Despite some progress, there are still gaps in this process.

Thus far, 22 countries have submitted an Annual Summary, meeting the basic minimum requirements of financial regulation, but not all are satisfactory. Only 8 countries have stepped up to the mark in providing a more formal analysis or Statement of Assurance, and sadly Ireland is not one of them. We need to make sure that when it comes to the discharge of the 2008 budget, significantly more progress is made.


  Alexandru Nazare (PPE-DE), în scris. − Grupul PD-L (PPE) a votat împotriva raportului privind descărcarea de gestiune pentru execuţia bugetului general al Uniunii Europene aferent exerciţiului financiar 2007, care face referire la gestionarea fondurilor europene de către România şi Bulgaria.

Raportul privind descărcarea de gestiune, care se referă la nereguli în accesarea fondurilor PHARE anterioare anului 2007, a menţinut prevederea referitoare la elaborarea unui raport special privind gestionarea fondurilor comunitare în România şi măsurile înregistrate în combaterea corupţiei. În consecinţă, grupul PD-L din Parlamentul European a votat împotrivă.

Acest raport special nu se justifică atât timp cât există deja mecanismul de cooperare şi verificare, aprobat la Consiliul European din decembrie 2006. Elaborarea unui raport suplimentar diminuează credibilitatea mecanismului de cooperare şi verificare aflat deja în funcţiune. De altfel, şi reacţia Comisiei Europene, prin purtătorul său de cuvânt Mark Gray, confirmă inutilitatea unui astfel de demers atâta timp cât există mecanisme testate pentru a depista eventuale nereguli în gestionarea fondurilor comunitare.


- Informe: Søren Bo Søndergaard (A6-0153/2009)


  Philip Claeys (NI), schriftelijk. − Ik heb tegen de kwijting gestemd omdat het Comité van de Regio's in zijn huidige gedaante door niemand serieus kan worden genomen. Onder meer door de onduidelijke definiëring van de term regio's is het Comité van de Regio's een uiterst heterogeen geheel waarin naast Europese naties ook bijvoorbeeld stedelijke agglomeraties vertegenwoordigd zijn. Zeer merkwaardig is ook het feit dat de regio's zich er sinds enige tijd gegroepeerd hebben tot politieke fracties zonder dat ze daarvoor enig democratisch mandaat van de kiezers gekregen hebben.


- Informe: Christofer Fjellner (A6-0176/2009)


  Martin Callanan (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives are opposed to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I dispute the notion that the EU can bestow and regulate fundamental rights. I am also especially opposed to the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it has been adopted by the EU despite the fact that neither of the vehicles intended for the Charter’s implementation – the EU Constitution and the Lisbon treaty – has been ratified.

Setting up an agency to oversee the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money and an exercise in vanity. In fact, the same could be said for many of the EU’s agencies, which duplicate work done at national level and unashamedly promote the EU’s federalist agenda. Many people in my constituency see the huge sums wasted on this and other agencies as a kick in the teeth, especially at a time of economic crisis when they are giving up increasing amounts of their money in tax to fund the EU’s profligacy.


  Philip Claeys (NI), schriftelijk. − Ik heb tegen de kwijting gestemd, aangezien het Europees Bureau voor de grondrechten een overbodige instelling is, die zich bovendien vijandig opstelt tegenover het recht op vrije meningsuiting.


- Propuesta de resolución (B6-0191/2009)


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente a proposta de resolução sobre os desafios da desflorestação e da degradação florestal, uma vez que considero que a desflorestação causa danos ambientais muito graves que dificilmente são corrigidos, como, por exemplo, o desequilíbrio dos recursos hídricos, a desertificação, impacto no clima e o desaparecimento de biodiversidade.

É preciso garantir uma maior coerência entre a conservação de florestas e as políticas de gestão sustentável, assim como das políticas internas e externas da União Europeia, sendo por isso necessária uma avaliação do impacto nas florestas das políticas da União Europeia em matéria de energia (especialmente bio-combustíveis), da agricultura e do comércio.

Penso também que é da maior importância o apoio financeiro aos países em desenvolvimento para se pôr termo à desflorestação tropical. A redução da desflorestação desempenhará um papel muito importante na mitigação e adaptação às alterações climáticas.


- Informe: Gilles Savary (A6-0199/2009)


  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), per iscritto. − Il mio voto è favorevole.

Gestire i trasporti in base alle domande e alle esigenze dei cittadini è uno dei punti fondamentali di discussione della politica dell'Unione Europea. Già attraverso il programma CIVITAS (promulgato nel 2002), atto a promuovere la diffusione su grande scala del trasporto urbano, e il Libro Bianco: "La politica europea dei trasporti fino al 2010: il momento delle scelte." (promulgato nel 2001), il quale proponeva la creazione di un sistema di mobilità urbana più ottimale, la Commissione ha suggerito un vero e proprio piano d'azione per migliorare in maniera del tutto ottimale la qualità dei trasporti europei, elaborando un circuito di divincolazione progressiva dell'aumento della domanda di mobilità dalla crescita economica, così da controllare in maniera pressoché efficace l'inquinamento ambientale, pur avendo a cuore la salvaguardia del sistema produttivo dell'Europa. La Commissione, perciò, preso atto della situazione, si impegna a garantire a tutti i cittadini comunitari una rete di trasporti che sia al contempo efficiente ed estremamente sicura.

Cinque sono i punti sui quali bisognerà concentrare la nostra attenzione: 1) tutela dei diritti e dei doveri dei passeggeri; 2) rafforzamento della sicurezza stradale; 3) incentivazione della sicurezza; 4) limitazione dei trasporti stradali al fine di porre freno alla congestione dei trasporti via terra.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. O actual rápido crescimento das cidades, juntamente com a concentração das populações europeias em centros urbanos, são dados que este relatório do Parlamento Europeu procura analisar, tentando contribuir para o muito que há a fazer neste âmbito.

Tendo em mente o respeito pelos princípios da subsidiariedade e da proporcionalidade, apresentaram-se propostas que considero serem importantes.

Os pontos mais relevantes desta tomada de posição do Parlamento são a chamada de atenção para a dispersão de medidas que poderão vir a sofrer de uma incoerência, não só enquanto corpo legislativo, mas, sobretudo, no campo da execução.

Subscrevo a necessidade de uma abordagem coerente, que tenha em conta o estímulo da optimização dos vários modos de transporte nos centros urbanos através de uma melhor programação. Por outro lado, apoio a continuação da investigação e da inovação neste campo específico e a colaboração da Comissão com os Estados-Membros, contribuindo no que é necessário para a troca de informações sobre as boas práticas a decorrer nos vários países. Finalmente, quero sublinhar a importância da indústria europeia no desenvolvimento das tecnologias que poderão vir a melhorar a gestão, a segurança e a eficiência energética dos transportes urbanos para as cidades europeias.


- Informe: Anne E. Jensen (A6-0227/2009)


  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), per iscritto. − Grazie Presidente voto a favore della relazione Jensen che fornisce un quadro politico completo e definisce le azioni necessarie per una diffusione coordinata dei sistemi di trasporto intelligenti (STI) a livello comunitario.

La congestione stradale, l'aumento delle emissioni di CO2 e i decessi causati dagli incidenti stradali sono solo alcune delle sfide principali che il trasporto comunitario deve affrontare e ritengo che gli STI siano uno strumento fondamentale per rendere i trasporti più efficienti, sicuri, puliti ed ecocompatibili, contribuendo allo sviluppo di una mobilità sostenibile per i cittadini e l'economia.

Sono d'accordo nel ritenere che gli STI possano migliorare le condizioni di vita dei cittadini europei e che contribuiscano al miglioramento della sicurezza stradale, nonché alla riduzione delle emissioni di sostanze climalteranti e nocive per la salute dell'uomo. Sostengo fermamente che i sistemi di trasporto intelligenti aumentino l'efficienza del traffico con la conseguente riduzione dello stesso.

Nonostante siano state sviluppate o introdotte diverse applicazioni per differenti modi di trasporto (su rotaia, marittimo e aereo) non è presente alcun quadro normativo coerente a livello comunitario per il trasporto stradale.

Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza