Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 10 May 2012 - Brussels

13. Explanations of vote

  President. – We shall now proceed to the explanations of vote.

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Philip Bradbourn (A7-0094/2012)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, this document concentrates on the importance of regional airports as potential vehicles of territorial, economic and social cohesion. These infrastructures can, and must, perform this role, especially for citizens living outside major urban areas.

The rule whereby the threshold for an airport to receive State aid was decreased to 200 000 passengers per year is good. Regional aviation can ensure that free movement in Europe is a reality not just for people living in major capital cities, but also for European citizens living outside of these areas, ensuring that these cities and regions enjoy not only the benefits brought about by greater mobility, but also by generating tourism.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my capacity as rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I voted in favour of the own-initiative report on regional airports, and I am sure it will serve as a basis for their further regulation.

This report shows the importance that the European Parliament attributes to these airports in the context of air transport and the important role that they play as a vehicle for territorial, economic and social cohesion within the European Union.

For the first time, the definition of a regional airport has been provided and an attempt has been made to limit the area of reference by sub-dividing regional airports into major and minor airports, also in relation to passenger throughput and the links provided by such airports.

It is certainly to be hoped that the Commission will then follow up with more stringent specifications for their definition. A special passage concerns recognition of the need to guarantee public service obligations for remote regions, islands and the outermost regions, as we are well aware of their handicap in terms of participation in the single market.

Finally, I believe that the definition establishing and specifying the negative view of the irrational proliferation of further regional airports is useful.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, the model presently used for airports in many Member States encourages the concentration of central structures in major airports, thereby creating a radial structure. That is the case with Madrid airport, which sidelines the airports of my region, Galicia. This model therefore encourages centralism.

Small airports should be seen as economic agents that socially and territorially link regions. These airports should be wholly managed as a network that follows a radial but not centralised system; that is polycentric; that enables various air routes to be diversified on the basis of complementarity and interdependence between airports and railways, so that peripheral areas – areas considered socio-economically peripheral – will cease to be peripheral.

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, regional airports are important for improving Europe’s links and allowing its citizens to move around inside the Union, but these structures must be built and operated according to the European Union’s own environmental standards. We cannot allow air traffic, and with it regional airports, to further harm the European environment, our air quality and the well-being of our region.

In northern Italy, for example – I am thinking of the cities of Treviso and Verona – the airport structures have been expanded in recent years without due consideration for the contexts in which these airports operate on a daily basis. More air connections in Europe are fine, but not at the cost of Europe’s environment, air and land.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU because it lays down concrete formulae for optimising the use of these infrastructures, committing to their integration as a key element in European transport planning.

We are especially pleased with the strengthening of these airports’ intermodal connections – essentially rail and road connections – in order to avoid saturation at other more congested airports. Furthermore, the report includes contributions that are very important to us, such as how regional airports are treated in terms of goods transport by air. I believe, moreover, that it prevents ridiculous amounts of waste, such as we saw in Spain at Castellón and Guadalajara airports.

Lastly, it offers concrete solutions to the problems presented by unacceptable behaviour on the part of low-cost airlines such as the ‘one bag’ rule or the controversy over the State aid they receive to operate in some airports. We are also totally in agreement with the treatment of airports in the outermost regions.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, regional airports are essential transport nodes and factors that contribute to growth and territorial cohesion. Frequently, however, they only survive thanks to massive injections of public money. Nowadays, this is increasingly scarce, and therefore it is important that they should have a specific vocation in order to avoid a proliferation that would lead to non-utilisation or under-utilisation of the airport infrastructure.

A typical example of this is the scores of airports in northern Italy located just 20-30 kilometres from one another. At the moment, there is no precise definition for a regional airport, and the Commission should therefore set common criteria for a proper definition.

Finally, I am concerned about the formulation regarding the scope of application and, in particular, the exclusion of airports whose principal catchment area is a capital city. I do not think it is correct as a catchment area is not uniform and can change. Despite these critical points, I voted in favour in order to draw the Commission’s attention to these important airports.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I supported the most important arguments in the report on regional airports in the European Union. For regions such as my own Kujawsko-Pomorskie voivodeship, the development of the airport in Bydgoszcz provides an opportunity for considerably greater mobility for local inhabitants and for many businesses to grow. It is also essential if greater numbers of tourists are to visit the region and visit attractive towns such as Toruń, Grudziądz or Chełmno. It also provides opportunities to regions such as Kujawy, Pałuki or Bory Tucholskie. I am speaking about this because, in this context, I would expect the European Commission to increase significantly the funds available for the development of regional airports. These airports should also receive assistance on a broader scale from their own countries.

  Georges Bach (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I hardly need to emphasise the importance of regional airports. I abstained in the vote on this report because I have a problem with the definition of regional airports. The description given here, namely, to not include ‘airports whose principal catchment area is a capital city’ in the purview of this report, means that numerous smaller airports with relatively low passenger numbers would not be classed as regional airports. These include, for example, Lyon and Dresden, Prague, Dublin, Liège and even Luxembourg. In my opinion, work needs to be done here to find a suitable definition that is more in line with reality.

In my opinion, security is also an aspect that has absolute priority and has not been dealt with adequately.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I support the need to create a functioning transport network in the European Union. This would make a substantial economic contribution and make travelling more flexible and safer. Regional airports and airline services are vital both for ensuring free movement and for developing the economy and local tourism. In light of this, I should emphasise how important it is to overcome the barriers facing the European air transport sector. It is important that all citizens can enjoy greater mobility, a situation which regional aviation can help achieve. I should mention how important it is for regional airports to be integrated into the transport network in order to reduce the congestion from passenger traffic and improve operational efficiency. In Romania, efforts are being channelled towards the efficient use of the existing infrastructure and developing new regional airport projects.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I supported this resolution. I share the concerns that my fellow Members have raised, for example, during this round of explanations of votes, even though I myself voted in favour, as I believe that regional airports are an important issue. It is also an important issue for my own country and for the different regions within Poland, where the development of regional airports could prove to be of critical importance in two respects: first of all, it could make tourism more attractive and increase tourism in these regions, which is a great opportunity for Poland. Secondly, the growth of regional airports also increases investment and economic opportunities in these regions in a wider sense. If it is possible to reach a city or a region by air, this can often prove decisive in terms of how attractive it is, even for investment. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU. I particularly welcome the suggestion that those regional airports which are consistently running at low capacity could be used to relieve the congestion in the main hub airports which are severely congested as well. I feel that this would help to create a more efficient EU aviation area as well as addressing the specific regional aviation issues.

I believe that better integration of regional airports into the transport network nationally and internationally really will bring added value in terms of encouraging other benefits for EU citizens. I also back the report’s claims that the imposing of heavy luggage restrictions, and especially the one bag rule imposed by some airlines and the addition of certain unavoidable charges, threatens revenue from vital retail sales at airports. This is particularly the case for regional airports, which often have to negotiate extremely competitive landing charges in order to attract airlines in the first place.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, in my view, it is very important that when we, as members of the European Union and Members of Parliament, consider European infrastructure, we opt for decentralisation rather than centralisation. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

It is very important to ensure that in remoter areas, connections are maintained and that people can also continue to earn a living. This applies to both businesses and the mobility of people. Environmental factors are also important. When reforms are being carried out and the European Union is undergoing development, it is very important to remember the regional, social and economic aspects. In my opinion, this report takes very good account of them. It is important to ensure that there are also adequate transport links in sparsely populated areas in different parts of Europe. With the growth in air transport, it should also be ensured that air transport is an option at those regional airports, now and in the future.

Report: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0102/2012)

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, I voted against granting discharge to the Commission mainly for one reason, which is the fact that the European Court of Auditors was again unable to issue a statement of assurance.

Another reason is the fact that the Commission still supports what are, in my opinion, highly risky financial engineering instruments, and is even preparing for this in the next multiannual financial framework. In this case, I believe the criticism is well placed, as there are no clear rules here for the use of these financial instruments, and there are not even any rules on transparency.

In my opinion, if we do not know the names of the final beneficiaries and all the details, and we do not have rules on the submission of regular reports on these financial instruments, we should not support them.

I would like to end, however, by saying that I did vote in favour of the following report, in other words, I supported the special report of the European Court of Auditors on the management of the Commission, because I believe that that report and the management of the Commission in general were discussed in detail from these perspectives in the Committee on Budgetary Control, and that both the Committee on Budgetary Control and the rapporteur have taken a very critical position on this matter, which is something I agreed with.

Report: Boguslaw Liberadzki (A7-0120/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against this report because I do not believe in granting any discharge for any part of the budget until the budget as a whole has been signed off by the Court of Auditors. The Parliament is squandering money on propaganda.

The Visitors’ Centre costs EUR 20 million; it is neither on budget nor on time. We have set aside EUR 5 million for the House of European History. Let us make history today by putting a stop to this travesty. We have reduced the budget of the European Parliament by 14%, and yet it still costs us EUR 8 million a year. All this without mentioning the white elephant in the room: we must scrap Strasbourg. We are living in an age of austerity. It is our duty to tighten our belts and lead by example.

Report: Martin Ehrenhauser (A7-0100/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, British citizens donate millions of pounds each year to charities which help those living in developing countries. However, it is also our duty to ensure that official development assistance is spent wisely. The Commission’s own monitoring indicates that more than a quarter of EU projects are either not performing or performing with difficulty. I wrote to the Commission earlier this year to ask how many projects it had cancelled in 2011 due to poor performance. I was shocked to discover that it had not cancelled a single one. The EU needs to be more responsible with taxpayers’ money. Both EU citizens and the people whom we are trying to help deserve better.

Report: Monica Luisa Macovei (A7-0105/2012)

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, I wanted to vote in favour of postponement in this report. I think that postponement is necessary because we encountered certain difficulties with the European Environment Agency. The problem is that the Executive Director has, at the same time, been a trustee of an NGO and has financed projects to the tune of more than EUR 30 000.

I see the same problem with discharge in respect of the European Food Safety Authority. Two members and several other employees are said to have connections with the food industry. I would also refer to management staff meeting expenses, which were three times higher than those of the agency that claimed the second greatest amount in expenses. I was hoping that postponement would mean that we would really be able to straighten things out, and so achieve transparency in European policy making.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0091/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, my group is deeply concerned by the ever-growing size of the EU’s budget and its lack of efficiency and accountability. We are thus reluctant for discharge to be granted for any part of the European Union’s budget until the budget in its entirety is approved by the Court of Auditors.

Given that this report proposes the granting of discharge, I voted against. Though the report calls for follow-ups of past audits to be included in the Court of Auditors’ future work programmes as a means of assessing progress – a proposal that my group backs – I cannot vote in favour of any discharge being granted until the budget as a whole has received a positive statement of assurance from the Court of Auditors.

I thus generally voted in favour of the reports proposing postponement of discharge and against those that proposed the granting of discharge. A few exceptions included the Environment Agency, the Food Safety Authority and the European Medicines Agency, which is located in my London constituency. However, in general, I am extremely sceptical about the whole discharge process for the EU budget.

Report: Monica Luisa Macovei (A7-0132/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, as a member of the Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee, I see no added value in the European Institute of Gender Equality. The institute is an expensive folly with a budget of EUR 7 million. It duplicates the work of Member States, the work of the Commission’s DG Employment and, most shamefully of all, the work of another EU agency, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.

The British Government, when faced with austerity, promised a bonfire of quangos. Winding up advisory bodies and agencies in the UK is set to save that country over GBP 2 billion. The EU needs to light its own quango bonfire – and where better to start than the European Institute of Gender Equality?

Report: Angelika Niebler (A7-0149/2012)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I welcome the new roaming regulations as they will provide tangible benefits to millions of consumers. Mobile phone operators have a tendency to apply the highest regulated tariffs. In Romania, current prices are too high for ordinary citizens to purchase mobiles, and yet we live in an age of mobility. Access to information and communication is a necessity, not a luxury. Last year, there was a 12% drop in the number of roaming calls made by Romanians. As MEPs, we spend most of our time in Belgium or France, but we have phone numbers from our home countries. This is therefore a problem that affects us all, which is why I support, yet again, the regulations on data transfer. This means that I, too, will avoid getting any phone bill surprises when I return home. I should also stress that we need to make even greater efforts to limit the undesirable consequences of inadvertent roaming.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the potential afforded by the new channels of communication is huge. In a world in which everything is digital, information is an asset for every European citizen.

The European Union needs to protect all end users and try to reduce the existing disparities between Member States on the European market to a minimum. I would like to point out that, as the promoter of a single internal market, the European Union must also implement an internal telecommunications market. The significant differences between domestic and roaming prices obviously make these difficult goals to meet.

I agree with Ms Niebler’s proposal. Each home provider must give customers clear and adequate information about the levels of consumption they have reached and agreed. Transparent information about the conclusion of contracts and the charges for data roaming services will be an appropriate means for protecting European consumers and I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, along with the rest of the ECR Group, I voted in favour of this report on roaming on public mobile communications networks. I believe that it is very important that the current gap between roaming and national telecom tariffs should be reduced, and I believe that the suggestions made in this report will make this happen.

Separating the sale of roaming services from the sale of national tariffs will mean that customers will be able to purchase roaming services from a provider other than the one which provides their national tariff. This will encourage more competition in the EU market. Keeping in place the price caps for retail and wholesale will also serve to offer opportunities for new entrants to the roaming market, which again I think is extremely important for our citizens. This is a rare, tangible example of where we can show the public that the EU is really doing something positive for our electorates.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, I was responsible for this regulation on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and I naturally voted in favour of it. These days, we are not accustomed to expecting good news from the European Union, but this regulation that we have voted on is one piece of good news for EU consumers because it will be cheaper for them to use their mobile phones next summer. The regulation is to enter into force at the start of July and will cut price ceilings to at least half their current levels by 2014. It will introduce requirements for structural changes. From the beginning of 2014, consumers will be able to choose, if they so wish, a separate roaming operator, in addition to their home operator.

The regulation will also impose an obligation on telephone operators to inform consumers by text message when they are approaching the price ceilings that they themselves have set, even when they are outside the EU. In this way, we aim to prevent bill shock, something that has been unsettling EU citizens in recent years.

Some telephone operators have already acknowledged this necessity in the past year and have offered their customers cheap roaming packages. When structural changes take effect, there is good reason to hope that prices will come down with the creation of markets, and that new price caps will no longer need to be set in the future.

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Mr President, for consumers across Europe who have been through tough times over the last number of years, today’s vote to cap roaming charges on text, phone and data charges will be a small piece of good news. As a result of our actions today, on 1 July, consumers can expect to see a reduction in their phone bills when they travel in Europe. The extension to include capping of data roaming charges will not only be a boost to holidaymakers but to those travelling on business. I am sure many of us can remember some very nasty experiences with the cost of data roaming and data download while working abroad. So, hopefully, families and businesses across Europe will no longer face the prospect of being ripped off every time they use their phones abroad and return to find astronomical bills waiting on them.

While caps may be effective in the short term, I also welcome the structural measures in the legislation which aim to stimulate better competition in the EU roaming market-place. That will hopefully deliver a well-functioning competitive market-place, which is the right solution to solve this problem in the longer term. By opening up market access to competitors and by decoupling roaming services from national providers, competition will hopefully improve and drive down prices even more. Good news in time for summer holidaymakers.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution. More and more people are using various types of Internet-enabled mobile communication devices. The use of tablets or smartphones is widespread. Problems usually appear when they are used in areas covered by other operators, or, in other words, when travelling abroad. If the European Union is to be an area without internal borders, the very existence of roaming does not appear to have any justification. I am therefore wholeheartedly in favour of actions aimed at practically eliminating this practice over the coming few years.

An interesting solution at present is the proposal to sell separate roaming services, which would enable customers to select an alternative roaming operator. The new table of charges being proposed for the next two years looks attractive, particularly as regards data transmission. A reasonable level of retail and wholesale prices should provide some protection to consumers against unexpectedly high bills for telecommunications services.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the roaming issue is very important and significant. This is one part of our work that European citizens will actually follow, and they will see the practical effects of our work reflected in their telephone bills.

When we speak about mobility in the European Union and actually try to strengthen the European internal market, it is very important that we also get closer to one another in telecommunications as a result of roaming charges. Very many European travellers have been surprised by how large their bills from different countries have been. Consequently, it will be good to find a more standardised system of charges in the common internal market area and thereby get closer to consumers.

This is an excellent reform, and an excellent step in the right direction. Moreover, as we all know, this could still be improved by means of greater cooperation in the field of telecommunications, resulting in genuinely competitive and even lower charges throughout Europe, so that telecommunications are not a barrier to trade and human relations.

Report: Cecilia Wikström (A7-0152/2012)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I support the introduction of a provision for establishing the law applicable to non-contractual obligations in the Rome II Regulation. This means that the basic principle should be supplemented by a foreseeability clause. Both the right to privacy and personality-related rights are of paramount importance in a democratic society. This is why I believe that it is vital to be able to have recourse to the justice system when a person’s freedom is violated. At the same time, I think that cross-border disputes should be settled amicably. This will guarantee a suitable balance between freedom of expression and privacy. I should also mention the importance of the benefits which could be gained from improving access to the justice system, in terms of ensuring the smooth operation of the internal market.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report on the application of Rome II – the rules applied in conflicts of law in cases of non-contractual obligations. The report proposes changes to the regulation which would mean that it would also cover violations of privacy as well as rights regarding legal personality.

The report I have just voted on also takes into account the ECR Group’s concerns, in relation to the initial draft, that the proposals had the potential to impact negatively on press freedom. The report does highlight the fact that the UK is the most attractive jurisdiction in which to bring an action for defamation, as it is regarded as the most claimant-friendly in the world. Although this is currently being investigated by the UK Government, and I think some sense of rebalancing in this area is needed, we are understandably supporting or looking very carefully at the proposal that this type of action should formally come under the remit of Rome II.

Report: Niccolò Rinaldi (A7-0104/2012)

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, although I voted in favour of this report, I would like to point out that I have considerable reservations about paragraph 17 of the general considerations. The appalling situation of the Christians in the countries that experienced the so-called Arab Spring is only mentioned in passing, in that it states that Parliament insists that respect for democratic institutions and fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and protection of religious minorities, be ensured. That is not enough! We must make it clear to these countries that they cannot treat the Christian minorities, which have been living there for hundreds of years, in the way that the Islamic fundamentalists, which are being elected to power and replacing the secular dictators that they overthrew, are currently doing, and that they cannot simply murder and kill these people.

In Tahrir Square, Muslims and Christians stood side-by-side. Now, as a result of elections, majorities are appearing that no longer have anything to do with these protests. The Christians are the losers in this Arab Spring, and we must protect them. This is what this agreement is intended to be used for in the future. The European Union must make it a condition that the Christian minorities there be protected before we conclude an agreement of this kind.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the political consequences of the Arab Spring give us hope for unfettered cooperation and development within the Southern Partnership. Trade has always been one of the strongest pillars of the neighbourhood policy. Unlike various aspects of the common foreign policy, trade guarantees coherent action that brings benefits to Member States. The ‘more for more’ principle is the right way to establish wholly democratic rules for trade and economic policy, without the need to conclude agreements with oligarchs, as was the case in the past.

The governments of partner countries must, however, make a serious commitment to opening markets bilaterally. For this reason, I agree with the proposal to make greater efforts as regards countries that display a readiness to undertake concrete reforms. I am encouraged by the drafts under negotiation for in-depth and comprehensive free trade agreements with Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan. I am also counting on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development increasing investment in the Mediterranean area, and for this reason, I support the report.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because the proposals being tabled will help the European Union provide practical support to the development of democracy in the Southern Mediterranean. Improving economic and trade relations with the countries in the region has an extremely important role to play. However, this action must be carried out in accordance with the ‘more for more’ principle. I, too, call for the EEAS to present as soon as possible the criteria used for carrying out assessments in this area, according to Article 17. I should point out the need to provide suitable support to SMEs. They must become the main beneficiaries of the investment programmes run by the EIB and EBRD. I should mention the constructive role played by the EU-Israel Chamber of Commerce in developing trade relations. I feel that this model must be followed by creating bilateral Chambers of Commerce in other countries in the region as well.

Patenting of essential biological processes (B7-0228/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution on the patenting of essential biological processes. Following several cases of certain smart breeding methods for plants being brought before the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in Munich, I backed the conclusion of this resolution that the use of markers at molecular level should come under the exemption that precludes essentially biological processes for the production of plants. While I believe that the techniques used to create these markers may themselves be patentable, the simple fact of using a marker does not differentiate the process sufficiently from one that is essentially biological.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this resolution because legal clarity is required regarding essential biological processes. Patents provide an important tool not only for protecting intellectual property rights, but also for stimulating research and innovation. At the same time, the legislation in this area stipulates a justified exception for plant varieties and animal breeds. This aspect must be preserved, with the decisions taken by the European Patent Office on the ‘broccoli’ and ‘tomato’ cases playing a useful role to this end. On the other hand, a patent was granted last year for melons obtained by traditional crossing methods. I therefore call on the Commission to present a detailed analysis of the implications of these decisions featuring in its annual report on biotechnology patents. I should stress that a uniform framework must be provided, along with similar legal protection across the whole of the European Union.

Maritime piracy (B7-0226/2012)

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I supported this resolution, as piracy is one of the most serious threats at sea. It is worth noting that sea transport is the primary method of transporting goods across the world.

Piracy along the African coast, however, is somewhat different in character from piracy in the South China Sea, particularly in the straits of Malacca. Its primary cause is a desperate economic situation with no hope of improvement, at least in Somalia, which is where this problem mainly originates. Solutions must be systemic in nature. We cannot, under any circumstances, deal with piracy by convoys or other methods of direct combat. There has to be a truly systemic approach in order to deal with the cause rather than the result, as an approach dealing with just the result will not deliver any results.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I was shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and I voted in favour of the resolution on piracy in the Indian Ocean because it puts forward fair, viable and sustainable solutions to tackle this problem.

Firstly, it maintains the protection of all vessels, including fishing vessels, in this area. Furthermore, it denounces the harmful effects that piracy also has on the local population and supports interventions on the ground to resolve the kidnapping problem at source, neutralising the logistical bases of the kidnappers and preventing it from becoming a simple and viable trade. This is, moreover, a complementary measure to the measures maintained with regard to humanitarian aid and political and social stabilisation in the area by the European Union.

Lastly, I am calling the Member States’ attention to this because the resolution calls on them to ensure that the measures on the protection of fleets comply with the recommendations of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). In terms of value for money, professional military escorts are more efficient than private companies, due to their experience, legal status and integration with the Atalanta operation.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the approval of this resolution is a very important political signal in the fight against maritime piracy.

Paragraph 30 of the resolution I proposed specifies that in the event of disputes between countries following military action aiming to combat piracy attacks in international waters, the national jurisdiction of the flag state shall be applied on the ships concerned as well as on the military staff employed aboard, as provided by international law. This aspect is crucial for avoiding future controversies like the one currently ongoing between Italy and India, and to defend the prerogatives of military personnel deployed in Operation Atalanta and as Vessel Protection Detachments (VPDs) on merchant vessels.

I dedicate the approval of this text to Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, the two Italian sailors unjustly detained for almost three months in prison in India waiting for India to decide to acknowledge Italian jurisdiction and to allow these two soldiers to be judged by the Italian courts. I hope that European diplomacy will renew its support for Italy in this battle of civilisation.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0140/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it advocates fairer trade relationships between European producers and the producers worldwide who do not follow the same rules as those imposed on our own producers. The study behind this report shows that Article 9.5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community – the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation – was inconsistent with Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 18.4 of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 16.4 of the WTO Agreement. According to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), Article 9.5 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation provides that individual exporting producers in non-market economy countries which do not receive market economy treatment pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation will be subject to a countrywide duty rate unless such exporters can demonstrate that they meet the conditions for individual treatment laid out in Article 9.5 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (the DSB finding on Article 9.5 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation).

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the proposal to amend the regulation on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. Certain provisions did indeed run counter to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as Article 16.4 of the WTO Agreement itself. My vote shows my commitment to compliance with WTO standards. However, while the European Union believes that there is unfair competition from certain foreign companies, we are not prepared to accept everything, for our companies depend on this, and therefore suppliers who import from countries which do not respect market economy rules will suffer financial sanctions.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the basis of the report by Portuguese MEP Vital Moreira, I voted for the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the 2009 regulation on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. On 28 July 2011, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body Report in the case ‘European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’. In the reports, it was found, inter alia, that Article 9.5 of the Council Regulation of November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community was inconsistent with WTO rules. This legislative proposal aims to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings. I hope that the Commission and the Committee on International Trade have indeed respected the principle of reciprocity.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the idea of amending Article 9.5 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 because it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. I welcome the fact that the Committee on International Trade applied the simplified procedure so that the EU could respect its agreement with China and so that the article in Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, which is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement, would be eliminated.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted to amend the regulation on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, given that Article 9.5 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation is inconsistent with Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 18.4 of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement and with Article 16.4 of the WTO Agreement. I welcome the amendment since the proposal complies with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and respects the principle of proportionality. The WTO agreements do not contain any legal basis for supporting the provisions of Article 9.5. Exporting producers in non-market economy countries should not be forced to demonstrate that they meet certain criteria in order to be able to receive individual treatment. However, certain special situations need to be taken into account when determining the degree of compatibility with the articles in order to impose a dumping margin and a single anti-dumping duty. This means that, although exporters are separate entities in legal terms, sometimes they must be treated as a single entity.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I did not support Mr Moreira’s report. At a time like the present, when uncontrolled relocations and the economic crisis are causing Western Europe serious difficulties, and all the basic principles of the common trade policy should be overhauled, the fact that the Word Trade Organisation (WTO) has decided to accept a claim from China against an article of the anti-dumping regulation applicable in the European Union, Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, clearly demonstrates that on a global level, there is no desire to protect our production and industry, and that the Commission has still failed to understand that anti-protectionism does not benefit European businesses and consumers, but rather unfair conduct by third countries.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Dumping must be distinguished from simple practices of low-price sales resulting from lower costs or greater productivity. The key criterion in this respect is not, in fact, the relationship between the price of the exported product and that on the market of the country of import, but the relationship between the price of the exported product and its normal value. A product is therefore considered to be dumped if its export price to the European Union is less than the comparable price for a like product established in the ordinary course of trade within the exporting country. The application of any anti-dumping duty presupposes the presence of a second key element: significant material injury to an EU industry, be it injury caused to an industry established in the EU, the threat of injury or substantial retardation of the establishment of such an industry. I do not think that anti-dumping measures can be applied if it is considered not being in the EU’s interest to implement them. With this in mind, all EU interests must be taken into account as a whole, including those of EU industry, users and consumers. All stakeholders will have the opportunity to make their views known.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted for the report on the proposal for a regulation amending a previous regulation on protection against dumped imports from countries not within the European Community. The prior regulation was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement forged under the auspices of the WTO and, as a result, must be amended to ensure compliancy.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report with a view to implementing the Dispute Settlement Body’s (DSB) recommendations in relation to European anti-dumping provisions. I approve of the amendments to the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation proposed by the rapporteur, and I welcome the adoption of this report, as it is possible to meet the deadline for implementing the DSB recommendations. I should like to point out that while the European Union has a duty to respect agreements reached at the WTO, we must ensure that we develop our trade with China while respecting the principle of reciprocity.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the ‘proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community’ because I consider it of the utmost importance that EU legislation on this issue respect the commitments it has made to the World Trade Organisation.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which will allow us to combat unfair competition on the part of certain foreign companies. Suppliers who import from countries which do not respect market economy rules will have to pay higher customs duties at European borders. We must protect our businesses against this distorted competition, which we can no longer tolerate.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which proposes to implement a legislative proposal recommended by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), so as to bring European legislation in line with what has been agreed with the WTO.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the ‘European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’ case, the purpose of this legislative proposal is to implement the recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and set out a reasonable timetable for this to take place, as agreed between the EU and China on 19 January 2012. I consider it in the EU’s interests to resolve this conflict and adapt its legislation to the agreements concluded and in place within the framework of the WTO.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Moreira, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. This draft amendment has emerged following the adoption by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) of the Appellate Body Report in the case ‘European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’, which pointed out inconsistencies between Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Given that the EU and China agreed on the timetable for implementing the DSB’s recommendations and decisions on 19 January 2012, and that the Committee on International Trade has already used the simplified procedure to adopt the draft resolution, I voted for this report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of the proposed amendment to this regulation, which the Committee on International Trade has decided to adopt using the simplified procedure, is to incorporate the decision of 28 July 2011 by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) into EU legislation, specifically, the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. The EU-China dispute resulted from the provision in EU legislation for discriminating against individual exporting producers in ‘non-market economy countries’, which breaches the rules of the WTO itself, specifically, the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. This is significant. Examples of provisions being scrapped include those requiring that, in exporting producers, ‘the majority of the shares belong to private persons’. The purpose of this report is an amendment intended to bring EU legislation in line with the rules of the WTO, which is an organisation whose actions and principles we oppose. However, it remains significant and interesting to note how, in this case, the EU is overtaking the WTO itself in its overwhelming mercantilism and neoliberal fundamentalism.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. In order to promote the development of world trade, the 27 Member States drew up a common trade policy with third countries in an attempt to abolish trade restrictions and excessive tariffs. This trade liberalisation does not imply the non-respect of rights and obligations by commercial partners operating on an international level. I believe it is crucial to apply real reforms and to be seriously committed to tackling problems relating to market distortions in order to ensure consistency between corporate conduct and the rules applying to free international competition.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In July last year, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organisation adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report as modified by the Appellate Body Report in the case ‘European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’. The issue as to whether or not it is contrary to the articles of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement to set a unified dumping margin and a unified anti-dumping duty for certain exports will depend on the specific circumstances. These can include the existence of corporate and structural links between exporters, such as common control, ownership and management, for example, as well as the existence of corporate and structural links between the state and exporters. On 19 January 2012, the EU and China agreed that a reasonable period of time for implementing the DSB recommendations and rulings would be 14 months and two weeks from the date on which the DSB adopted the report. The reasonable period of time will therefore expire on 12 October 2012. In order for the EU to be able to respect the reasonable period of time for implementing the DSB recommendations and rulings that were agreed between the EU and China, I consider it right and proper that the Committee on International Trade has adopted the motion for a resolution in simplified procedure.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs, who worked so diligently in order to reach this satisfactory agreement. I voted in favour of this report and I welcome the adoption of this report by a huge 559 votes in favour. The purpose of this resolution is to implement the recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation agreed by the EU and China on 19 January 2012. On 18 August 2011, the EU notified the DSB that it intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute in a manner that respects its WTO obligations. The Commission is therefore proposing to amend the wording of Article 9.5 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and introduce the wording of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement. On 19 January 2012, the European Union and China agreed that the reasonable period of time for implementing the DSB recommendations and rulings would be 14 months and two weeks from the date the DSB adopted the reports and this period will expire on 12 October 2012.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament adopted by an overwhelming majority the report aimed at clarifying measures to combat imports subject to subsidies by countries not members of the European Union. This provision actually seeks to align EU measures for combating ‘dumping’ with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Indeed, on 19 January 2012, the European Union and China agreed to implement these recommendations within a reasonable period of time, which expires on 12 October 2012.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) In the case ‘European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’ the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organisation found that a Council Regulation on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community was inconsistent with certain articles of the World Trade Organisation Anti-Dumping Agreement. I voted in favour of the report because it guarantees that a reasonable period of time for implementing the DSB recommendations and rulings, which was agreed between the European Union and China, will be respected by the European Union. Only prompt implementation can ensure protection of the domestic internal market against dumped products and thereby counteract a distortion of prices.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the context of a globalised market and in the light of the recent opening up to trade with the countries of the ‘Arab Spring’, paying attention to illegal trade practices such as dumping is more relevant and important than ever in order to protect European businesses. Strengthening the network of safeguards for our businesses does not mean closing in on ourselves because of fears of competition. Instead, it allows an approach to the global market based on clear and legitimate conditions for both European and non-European competitors. I therefore voted for the report, which includes measures to combat dumping, a practice that risks giving some import companies advantages over others, leading to market distortion.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report approving the Commission’s handling of ‘Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Moreira. I am in favour of adopting the Commission’s proposal. I agree, in particular, with the text of the new Article 9.5 because an anti-dumping duty must be ‘imposed in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of a product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury’.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report and its supporting amendment provide no protection from abuse. All it does is maintain and codify discrimination towards those States that do not subscribe to a market economy. They target nations which have an important influence on prices and production as well as companies in which the State is the majority shareholder.

The European protectionism offered here promotes free trade rather than serving the interests of the citizens of Europe and third countries. It does not contain a single word against social and environmental dumping or against the abusive use of devaluation. In my view, that is the crux of the issue. The only matter at issue here is our refusal to give in to the laws of the market economy and free and undistorted competition.

I voted against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) European companies have to meet a series of requirements laid down in European legislation that often put them in situations of unfair competition with other, non-EU countries which practise the various forms of dumping. The adoption of this report means that companies importing from countries that do not respect the rules and do practise the various forms of dumping will be obliged to pay higher prices within Europe. This measure is very important and necessary for protecting our companies against a severe distortion of competition. Industry in my country, Portugal, suffers from this type of unfair competition, specifically with textile imports from Pakistan. I have been highlighting this situation for some time.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this report because it proposes applying customs duties to products from countries with non-market economies.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This draft legislative resolution is aimed at the implementation of WTO recommendations so that EU legislation is in line with agreements with the WTO. I think that we should cooperate in this dimension more efficiently.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The anti-dumping procedure carried out by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) with regard to certain iron or steel fasteners from China brought to light the fact that parts of the European Union’s Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation are apparently inconsistent with WTO law. In the dispute, the European Union intends to implement its WTO obligations, which, due to time constraints in meeting the agreed deadline, are to be implemented by means of a resolution in a simplified procedure. I do not agree with this course of action and have therefore voted against it. See Minutes.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting for this report, I am supporting the clarification that is needed of the measures to combat imports subject to subsidies by countries not members of the European Union. This report recommends aligning EU measures for combating ‘dumping’ with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This provision will allow us to protect our businesses better against unfair competition on the part of certain foreign companies, and that is why I voted for it.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Following China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), there have been numerous complaints against the People’s Republic, the vast majority on account of price dumping. Almost all of the complaints come from competitors who feel they have been placed at serious risk as a result of the low prices. On 28 July 2011, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report as modified by the Appellate Body Report in the case ‘European Communities — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’(1). In the reports, it was found that Article 9.5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation)(2) was inconsistent with Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 18.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 16.4 of the WTO Agreement. On account of these findings relating to the inconsistency of parts of the European Union’s Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation with WTO law, I would like to express my clear opposition to this.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The European Union, as a member of the WTO, respects its commitments to WTO agreements. We regret that European legislation did not conform to them and welcome the modifications. This case is particularly important concerning China, which is a huge trading partner for the EU, but, unfortunately, is not entirely governed on market-economy principles. Current European rules impose strict duties on individual Chinese exporters, who are already disadvantaged in their own country by market regulation. I support amendments incorporated into European legislation on this topic because I consider the efforts that the European Union should make to support non-state economic actors in non-market economies, such as China, to be important.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I consider guaranteeing legal certainty of the utmost importance, so I voted for the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community in order that EU legislation on this issue will respect commitments made to the World Trade Organisation.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The economic crisis currently affecting Europe is so serious that it is necessary to take more decisive action to protect our industry and our small and medium-sized enterprises, especially when they are subject to dumping or other unfair conduct by operators in countries where there is no rule of law and the safeguarding of social and environmental rights is effectively non-existent. The fact that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has decided to accept a claim from China against the already rather unambitious anti-dumping regulation in force in Europe is, instead, a step in the other direction, which makes it harder to safeguard our businesses and our jobs. Therefore, I cannot agree with the content of this regulation, which could further compound the difficulties of our businesses.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report argues for increased controls on and protection against dumped imports from non-EU countries. As regards imports of certain iron or steel fasteners from China, it has taken into account the fact that the Council’s Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation was inconsistent with certain provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement. So as to facilitate EU compliance with the period of time set out for implementing the recommendations and decisions laid down by the WTO and, more specifically, its Dispute Settlement Body, the Committee on International Trade has used the simplified procedure to adopt the draft resolution. I voted for this report for the aforementioned reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. It was necessary to amend Article 9.5 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation with a new text: ‘An anti-dumping duty shall be imposed in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of a product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury, except for imports from those sources from which undertakings under the terms of this regulation have been accepted. The regulation imposing anti-dumping measures shall specify the duty for each supplier or, if that is impracticable, the supplying country concerned. Suppliers which are legally distinct from other suppliers, or which are legally distinct from the State, may nevertheless be considered as a single entity for the purpose of specifying the duty. For the application of this subparagraph, account may be taken of factors such as the existence of structural or corporate links between the suppliers and the State or between suppliers, control or material influence by the State in respect of pricing and output, or the economic structure of the supplying country’.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I want to vote against this measure and I would like to explain the political reasons that led me to make this decision. We need to give a signal to the European Commission so that it will represent us effectively at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Yet another European defeat in a dispute with China at the WTO would today force Parliament to delete an article in our Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. It is wrong not to stand up more strongly to international bodies like the WTO. It is wrong not to defend our industry. It is wrong not to ask China for reciprocal openings for our products and services.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The European Union and China discussed new solutions and strategies in order to tackle the problem of lack of fairness, safety and hygiene of products coming from this Asian country. I firmly believe that it is necessary to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings as soon as possible. Therefore, I supported this report with my vote.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The anti-dumping measures implemented in the European Union are aimed at protecting our internal market against unfair trade practices. At this point, it is worth differentiating between dumping and the normal practice of selling products at low prices, where the low prices are a consequence of low production costs. It is therefore important that the anti-dumping measures used by the European Union should be applied fairly and objectively. Account should also be taken of the fact that tariff and trade wars could, under present circumstances, aggravate the current economic crisis. On the other hand, closing boundaries to external goods would be a mistake since, in the long term, such action leads to the shrinking of national economies. However, it is worth pointing out here that unfair competition also causes economic losses. For this reason, such practices should be monitored carefully and appropriate steps should be taken where justified by circumstances.

Report: Robert Sturdy (A7-0085/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because I believe that, since Russia became a World Trade Organisation (WTO) member last December, the EU has lost the right to apply quotas to imports of steel and such products from Russia. This regulation adopts European Union legislation according to Russia’s WTO accession. The European Commission estimates that this regulation represents approximately EUR 107 million per year in exports and that the EU steel sector will become more competitive due to reduced export duties. As such, implementing this legislation will bring economic opportunities to European producers, which is essential at a time of crisis and particularly in a market that is geographically close to us.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Within the framework of the partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA), the European Community and the government of the Russian Federation concluded an ‘Agreement on trade in certain steel products’ in 2007, and set quotas. However, as you know, Russia recently joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO), after almost 20 years of negotiations. We therefore no longer need to impose steel import quotas, particularly as keeping these quotas in force would constitute a violation of the WTO rules. That is good news for the international community, including the European Union itself. Indeed, the Commission estimates that additional European exports of iron and steel products will be worth approximately EUR 107 million per year.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the proposal to repeal Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007. Given Russia’s accession to the WTO, the regulation and quotas for imports into the EU of steel originating in Russia must be repealed. I am delighted that, with Russia’s accession to the rules-based multilateral trade system of the WTO, the EU can expect to benefit from more liberal access to the Russian market. Any remaining barriers to bilateral trade in steel products that could still apply should be minimal and applicable only within the clear remits of the WTO rules that govern tariffs, trade defence measures, technical standards, specific customs/clearance procedures, etc.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted to repeal the regulation on administering restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation because maintaining volume limits for these imports breaches World Trade Organisation (WTO) regulations, given that the Russian Federation became a member of the WTO in 2011. I think that with Russia now being a member of the WTO, this will give a significant boost to trade between Russia and the European Union, and the situation will evolve in keeping with the existing provisions in bilateral agreements. This will enable the EU to enjoy freer access to the Russian market, thereby increasing the volume and value of exports. Furthermore, the decrease in export duties will increase competitiveness, which consumers will benefit from. I support the need for closer supervision and for lifting the other barriers still in place preventing trade between Russia and the EU.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Sturdy because, since Russia became a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU can no longer set quotas for imports from WTO countries into the European Union, as had been the case with steel originating from Russia. Furthermore, this measure could encourage trade relations between the European Union and Russia, which would be very useful for our country and our businesses, as the Russian market is growing rapidly and is very dynamic.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Bilateral relations between the European Union and the Russian Federation are based on the fundamental values and principles of democracy, human rights, legislation and the market economy, with its legal basis being provided by the partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA). The agreement came into force in 1997 for an initial period of 10 years, and has been automatically extended every year since 2007. This defines the main common objectives and institutional framework for bilateral contracts and calls for activities and dialogue in a number of areas. The provisions of the PCA are supplemented by a number of sectoral and international agreements, as well as by other cooperation mechanisms. Steel processing and textiles are the main sectors covered by bilateral trade agreements. The last steel agreement stipulated that it would be terminated if Russia became a member of the World Trade Organisation, which happened on 16 December 2011. In light of what has been stated, I support the rapporteur’s position on this draft resolution.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted for this agreement repealing the quota set on importations of steel from the Russian Federation as, if left unaltered, it would put Member States at risk of legal actions from Russia as the quota limits would be a violation of WTO rules. Russia acceded to the World Trade Organisation in December, meaning it has liberalised its market, allowing greater exportation and importation globally. The initial item of legislation must be rewritten to avoid a failure on both sides to obey WTO rules.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which repeals Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 on the trade in certain steel products from the Russian Federation. I note that European steel import quotas cannot be maintained after Russia becomes a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). I hope that the liberalisation of bilateral trade in steel products can improve the competitiveness of the European steel industry. I believe that the repeal of this regulation could allow businesses in the European Union to improve their access to the Russian market.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The restrictions on Russian steel imports stopped making sense once the country had joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Lifting these restrictions will also enable increased trade with Russia, not least, exports of European steel and iron to that country. It will be possible to solve potential breaches of the applicable WTO rules by either party through the WTO’s existing conflict-resolution mechanisms. I voted for this motion for a resolution for these reasons.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The approval of this report acknowledges Russia’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2011. The European Union must maintain and develop its trade relationship with that country, and this relationship should be governed by mutual respect for the commitments undertaken within that agreement. This decision should not, however, prevent us from remaining alert to any potential obstacles to future trade, both in Russia and the European Union.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which draws conclusions from Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In line with the rules of that organisation, it aims at totally removing barriers to trade, and henceforth the European Union and Russia will have to adhere scrupulously to this. There will now finally be reciprocity of advantages and restrictions with this economic partner.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it proposes to repeal the restrictions on imports of certain steel products from Russia. The present application of these restrictions no longer makes sense, now that Russia is a World Trade Organisation member.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) involves scrapping the tariff quota on EU steel imports from that country. Retaining it would represent a breach of WTO rules and would leave the EU open to Russian legal challenges. More liberalised access to the Russian market could benefit the EU and should be extended to other areas of trade within the framework of the WTO, which is considered the best way of ensuring that a multilateral trade system is in place.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 1 December 1997, the partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, on the one part, and Russia, on the other part, entered into force, leading to the establishment of the Agreement on trade in certain steel products from the Russian Federation, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007. This report, by Mr Sturdy, concerns a new proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing the aforementioned regulation on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation. Although the Russian Federation’s steel exports to the EU are significant, representing 24% of all imports of steel products, the PCA provided that the agreement would have to be repealed and the quota scrapped if Russia ever joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Therefore, notwithstanding the interest in strengthening EU-Russia trade relations, I agree with the rapporteur that ‘the WTO remains the best guarantor of a rules-based multilateral trading system’, so I voted in favour.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Union and the Russian Federation have in place, since 2007, an agreement on trade in certain steel products, concerning managing certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products originating in Russia. However, Russia becoming a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2011 means that the European Union has lost the right to apply the aforementioned quota.

Keeping this regulation in place, thereby retaining the import quotas for steel products, would constitute a breach of WTO rules and would expose the EU to Russian legal action. The EU therefore has to repeal the agreement currently in force. The rapporteur states that Russia’s entry to the WTO will benefit the EU by providing more liberal access to the Russian market. Even though the report is essentially a technical adaptation, the philosophy and thinking underlying it are subject to WTO rules and the international trade vision that inspires it, with which we disagree.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The partnership and cooperation agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Russia, of the other part, entered into force on 1 December 1997. In October 2007, within the framework of this agreement, the European Union and the Russian Government concluded an ‘Agreement on trade in certain steel products’. The agreement established quotas for imports into the EU of steel originating from the Russian Federation. After Russia’s accession to the rules-based multilateral trade system of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU can expect to benefit from freer access to the Russian market. Any remaining barriers to bilateral trade in steel products that could still apply should be minimal, and applicable only within the clear remits of the WTO rules that govern aspects such as tariffs, applicable trade defence measures, technical standards, specific customs/clearance procedures, etc. In my opinion, it is reasonable to examine and eliminate trade and investment barriers which might persist on both sides following Russia’s accession to the WTO. At the same time, I firmly believe that it would be beneficial to both interested parties for trade relations between the EU and Russia to develop in full accordance with the commonly adopted provisions of the applicable bilateral agreements.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation contains a clause according to which the provisions of the regulation no longer apply from the day of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). As this took place in December 2011, it has clearly become necessary to repeal a regulation which is now obsolete. It should also be mentioned that the European Union does not have the right to apply import quotas to other WTO countries, and that if it did so, it would be subject to sanctions or appeals. Finally, in view of the fact that Russia’s accession to the WTO could also represent an important opportunity for our businesses, I voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation because, on 16 December 2011, the Russian Federation became a member of the WTO and since, the day of Russia’s accession to the WTO, the EU no longer has the right to apply steel import quotas. With Russia’s accession to the rules-based multilateral trade system of the WTO, the EU can expect to benefit from more liberal access to the Russian market. The European Commission estimates that additional exports will be worth approximately EUR 107 million per year in the iron and steel sector. It also foresees that the competitiveness of the EU steel sector will be increased due to the reduction in the export duties on ferrous scrap from 15% today to 5% within five years from the date of accession, and also due to adjusted gas prices for domestic industrial consumers in Russia.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of this report, as certain adjustments need to be made in the area of steel imports into the EU as a result of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation, so that a legal framework is in place and no disadvantages arise for the European economy. In addition, the EU can benefit from liberal access to the Russian market, and the competitiveness of the EU steel sector will be increased due to the reduction in export duties.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) In 2010, Russia was the largest exporter of steel to the EU, with more than 6.5 million tonnes, representing 24% of EU steel imports. With Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 16 December 2011, however, the EU no longer has the right to apply quotas on imports of steel. Following Russia’s accession to the WTO, it is expected that the EU will benefit from freer access to the Russian market. The export of iron and steel products to Russia may grow at an annual rate of about EUR 107 million. The growth in exports of these products from the EU to Russia may also be helped by a reduction in export duties on ferrous scrap from the current 15% to 5%, which should be introduced within five years of Russia’s accession to the WTO. I therefore supported a repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I strongly believe that the WTO remains the best guarantor of a rules-based multilateral trading system and express the hope that both its new member – Russia – and the EU will live up to all their commitments within the WTO. I also wish to see the EU-Russia trade relationship develop in full compliance with jointly agreed provisions of existing bilateral agreements. For these reasons, I voted to give consent to the proposed repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the repeal of the previous regulation as Russia is now a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). I also agree with the rapporteur’s hope that the EU-Russia trade relationship develop in full compliance with jointly agreed provisions of existing bilateral agreements. I voted in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report endorses the abolition of import quotas on Russian steel products in Europe. In doing so, it favours large groups such as Arcelor Mittal, which relocate to Russia and close blast furnaces in France and Belgium. Clearly, no economic or social consideration has been given to this decision.

I am voting against this text, which conflicts with the ecological planning that I promote, and against the relocation of the steel industry that it implies.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With Russia’s accession to the rules-based multilateral trade system of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU could benefit from more liberal access to the Russian market. Additional exports could be worth approximately EUR 107 million per year in the iron and steel sector alone. From now on, any remaining barriers to bilateral trade in steel products that could still apply should be minimal and applicable only within the clear remits of the WTO rules governing aspects such as tariffs, applicable trade defence measures, technical standards, specific customs/clearance procedures, etc. Russia’s accession requires more oversight and the careful removal of any trade and investment barriers that may remain on the Russian side. I strongly believe that the WTO remains the best guarantor of a rules-based multilateral trading system. I also hope that both its new member – Russia – and the EU will live up to all their commitments within the WTO. I would also like to see the EU-Russia trade relationship develop in full compliance with jointly agreed provisions of existing bilateral agreements.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) The EU and the Russian Federation have had an agreement since 2001 on trade in certain steel products, with regard to administering certain restrictions on imports of certain Russian steel products. Given that, in December 2011, Russia became a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU lost the right to apply these restrictions. Keeping this regulation would constitute a violation of the WTO rules, and so the EU proposes to repeal it. The report states that Russia’s accession to the WTO will entail benefits for the EU as it will then have a more liberal access to the Russian market. Furthermore, lifting the restrictions and fully opening up the market will mean an increase in relocations as steel products produced in Russia will be cheaper in Europe. For all of these reasons, I have voted against.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – As Russia became a member of the WTO in December last year, the EU no longer has the right to apply steel import quotas on such products from Russia. This regulation brings EU legislation into line with Russia’s WTO accession. The Commission estimates that this will be worth approximately EUR 107 million per year in exports and that the competitiveness of the EU steel sector will be increased due to the reduction of export duties. I support Russia’s accession to the WTO and hope it will stand by the commitments it has given in that regard.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Following on from the existing partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia, an Agreement on trade in certain steel products from the Russian Federation was concluded in October 2011. This established quotas for imports of steel into the EU. With Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation, the EU no longer had the right to apply these quotas, as the multilateral trade regulations, which govern aspects such as tariffs, applicable trade defence measures, technical standards, specific customs/clearance procedures, and so on, naturally apply. In order to comply with the WTO rules, the EU therefore intends to repeal the EU-Russia Steel Agreement. In this case, I do not consider the WTO rules to be sensible. On account of the expected impact on the European steel industry – for the protection of which, the EU has not put in place any appropriate measures – I have voted against this report as an act of protest.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) On 16 December 2011, the Russian Federation became a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Despite this accession to the WTO, however, the EU’s current import quotas for steel absolutely must remain in place. In order to comply with the WTO rules, however, the EU now intends to repeal the steel agreement between the EU and Russia. I do not consider the WTO rules to be adequate. The remaining barriers to trade and investment must be subjected to further careful monitoring in order to protect the European steel industry, as the EU is yet to take any measures to protect this industry. On the basis of these considerations, I voted against the report.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The EU very much welcomes the fact that the Russian Federation has joined the WTO. It is big step forward which means significant progress in Russia’s move towards a market economy and worldwide trade without barriers. WTO rules forbid protectionism and unfair trade practices (such as dumping, etc.), making the economy more open, liberal and competitive. I voted in favour of this report because Russia’s membership has even greater importance, since this country is finally taking a big and long awaited step towards liberal evolution. Russia’s membership of the WTO carries significant importance for the EU as the Russian Federation is the EU’s largest trading partner in many sectors. The EU respects its WTO free trade commitments and welcomes the removal of existing import quotas for several steel products from the Russian Federation. Since the steel sector is important as regards both EU imports and exports, we envisage bilateral benefits for the EU-Russia trade system, significant growth and increased competitiveness.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) means that the European Union has to adapt to the new market situation – the opening up to the Russian Federation with a consequent reduction in restrictions. More specifically, the text repeals the quotas for steel imports into the European Union, as provided for by the 1997 partnership and cooperation agreement. This opening up is undoubtedly positive and, given that the rules to follow will be those set by the WTO, it will be possible to improve the European Union import-export situation.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution lifting restrictions on steel imports from Russia as they no longer make sense now that Russia has acceded to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Lifting these restrictions will also enable increased trade with Russia, not least, exports of European steel and iron to that country. It will be possible to solve potential breaches of the applicable WTO rules by either party through the WTO’s existing conflict-resolution mechanisms.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Agreement on trade in certain steel products was concluded in 2007, within the framework of the EC-Russian Federation partnership and cooperation agreement concluded in 1997. This agreement was implemented in the EU in the form of a regulation which, in addition to setting a quantitative limit on steel imports, also laid down the condition that the agreement would be repealed if the Russian Federation acceded to the WTO before it expired. Owing to Russia’s accession to the rules-based multilateral trade system of the WTO, retaining the regulation as European legislation and, thereby, retaining the import quotas for steel products, would constitute a breach of WTO rules and would expose the EU to possible Russian legal action. However, the EU can expect to benefit from a more liberal access to the Russian market, which would stimulate competition and result in lower consumer prices. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. With the accession of Russia to the WTO in December 2011, the EU needs to align specific regulations it maintained bilaterally with the prevailing WTO law. One such regulation concerns quantitative limitations on imports of certain steel products, especially flat-rolled sheets, from Russia which have been in existence since 2007 (EC Regulation 1342/2007). Steel imports from Russia account for about 25% of all EU steel imports, half of which are semi-finished products input into the EU steel industry. In turn, half of this half has so far been subject to import quotas (around 1.5 million tonnes of steel). Quantitative restrictions were in place to protect the EU steel industry. The end of quantitative import restrictions will reshuffle the EU’s steel industry landscape somewhat, since Russian flat-rolled sheets are less expensive than sheets made in the EU. However, this will be compensated for by better access to steel scrap from Russia and lower tariffs for EU exports of finished steel products to Russia.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) My vote in favour of this measure is not just a duty. In actual fact, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules require the European Union to remove the rules imposing restrictions on the import of products from other members of the WTO. Since Russia has now become a member of the WTO, unless we had voted to repeal certain rules today, we would have been subject to certain sanctions which would have damaged our production and our businesses.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since Russia became a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 16 December 2011, the EU no longer has the right to apply steel import quotas according to Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007, and therefore preserving these quotas would constitute a violation of the WTO rules and expose the European Union to legal action from the Russian side. I voted for the text, as it is very likely that with the repeal of the European regulation, the European Union can expect to benefit from a more liberal market access to the Russian iron and steel sector. There will still be minor restrictions to bilateral trade, but these should not, in my view, constitute barriers within the remit of the WTO rules. It is estimated that additional EU iron and steel exports could be worth EUR 107 million per year, which would benefit our companies working in the sector.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – There will always exist trade and investment barriers between the Russian Federation and the European Union. The WTO is the best advocate of a rules-based multilateral trading system. The accession of Russia in the WTO can benefit the EU and this is the focus of this report to which I fully agree. Therefore, I voted in favour of it. Its adoption will improve the trade relationship between the Russian Federation and the European Union to reach full compliance.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The Russian Federation is an important trading partner for the European Union. Previous restrictions on imports of certain steel products from Russia were a result of the fact that the Russian Federation was not part of the World Trade Organisation. As you know, the principal task of the World Trade Organisation is liberalisation of international trade in goods and services, as well as supporting trade and resolving any disputes that arise in this area. States that are members of the WTO must adapt their internal laws to the standards set by the Organisation. Russia’s accession to the WTO in late December 2011 has meant that the European Union cannot apply quotas for the abovementioned goods. Trade liberalisation, particularly at this time of economic crisis, could certainly have a positive impact on relations between the EU and Russia and will also help, to some extent and over the long term, to improve the economic situation of both parties.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Since Russia became a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2011, the European Union has lost the right to apply the Agreement on trade in certain steel products, concerning managing certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products originating in Russia. Keeping this regulation in place, thereby retaining the import quotas for steel products, would constitute a breach of WTO rules and would expose the EU to Russian legal action. The EU therefore has to repeal the agreement currently in force. We do not agree with the political principles underlying this report; that is, subjection to WTO rules and the entire international trade philosophy implicit therein.

Recommendation: Zbigniew Ziobro (A7-0087/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because I share the rapporteur’s view that the Council text promotes a positive reform of how the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) is published, increasing legal certainty and providing better public access to European Union legal acts. Nowadays, practically all users consult only the electronic form of EU legal acts. The fact that electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding is unacceptable in itself, and creates uncertainty as to the precise content of the EU legal acts currently available in the EUR-LEX database. Moreover, consulting paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming, costly process, and is carried out by very few users. The reform will thus increase legal certainty and decrease access costs for citizens and businesses. All these reforms should be warmly welcomed in the EU. A European Union that is less bureaucratic, more available and more accessible will only promote economic progress.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this draft regulation. Equating electronic publication of the Official Journal (OJ) to valid publication of the OJ is a welcome reform, giving citizens better access to the legal acts of the EU, increasing legal certainty and reducing access costs for citizens and businesses. Currently, just about everyone only consults the electronic form of EU legal acts, and the fact that electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding is unacceptable and creates uncertainty as to the precise content of the legal acts of the EU currently available in the EUR-LEX database.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution as broadening access to EU legislation is an important aspect of ensuring transparency and communicating with citizens. The upshot of regarding the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version will be greater legal certainty. At the same time, this action will help avoid the hefty costs involved in publishing the paper version of the OJ, which is a welcome saving for the EU budget. Given the current economic climate and the difficulties facing both a number of Member States and ordinary citizens, it is important for European institutions to eliminate unnecessary and avoidable costs, while identifying practical ways to make savings. The electronic publication of the European Union’s OJ is an example which should also be followed by other similar measures and initiatives.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) is published every day in all the official EU languages and contains all EU decisions and draft laws in hard-copy and electronic format. The 2007 judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which stated that legal rights cannot be claimed and obligations cannot be enforced on the basis of the electronic version of the OJ, raises suspicions about the exact content of the EU legal acts currently available in the EUR-LEX database. Consulting the paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming, costly process and is, not least, carried out by very few users. I think that any reforms aimed at increasing legal certainty and reducing access costs for citizens and businesses are welcome, especially during the current economic crisis affecting the EU.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Independent research shows that the digital divide has largely been overcome in all age groups, adding value to education and increasing interaction. We live in a world with over 600 million websites, and much of the interaction with government and public departments is now conducted on the Internet. According to Eurostat, in 2009, at least 65% of European businesses used e-government tools, a percentage that rises to 83% for big companies. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has often indicated the development of e-government as a major requirement for perfecting transparency and simplification processes. Forcing time-consuming and complex consultation of paper documents on a society that now lives with, communicates and gets information digitally, as well as entrusting essential areas of its life – from the financial markets to telemedicine – to the Internet, appears out-of-date and in need of urgent updating, especially given the widespread negative repercussions, for example, on the economy and on business, due to legal uncertainty and the consequent curb on investments, trade and growth. Therefore, I approve the recommendation and I hope that the new Council regulation will soon come into force.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is crucial that the European public have simple and reliable access to European Union legal acts. The electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) enables this type of access and is a crucial instrument for information on the EU. Consulting paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming, costly process, and very few users do it. The situation of electronic versions of legal acts not being legally binding must be overcome since it creates uncertainty as to the precise content of EU legal acts. I voted for this motion for a resolution because it contributes to legal certainty and to reducing the cost of accessing European Union legal acts for citizens and businesses.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) European integration also takes place through recognition of the role played by the European Union institutions. In my view, the actions promoted by these institutions do not enjoy sufficient visibility on a national level. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to make an effort to promote policies of transparency, and to make the official documentation easily accessible to all European citizens. The Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) is already published electronically, and this is the primary reference format. However, the Court of Justice has specified that where there is no legal basis, electronic publication does not have legal value, and therefore the associated rights and obligations cannot be claimed or enforced. Giving the electronic version of the OJ legal value means a significant increase in transparency because it will be immediately accessible to everyone free of charge, and all the information it contains will be reliable and binding. I believe it is right to make official information accessible to as many people as possible, and therefore I voted in favour of the report on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union. I would also like to take the opportunity to underline the importance of implementing the Digital Agenda referred to in the Europe 2020 strategy, in order to promote access to high-speed Internet for all European citizens.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) For the sake of efficiency, administration should move into the digital age. This guarantees a fast, accessible and secure administration for all European citizens. It is also a way of limiting the cost of administrative procedures. By approving the draft regulation, Parliament is allowing the online edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) to be an ‘official and authentic source’. This will make procedures easier for citizens, and that is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) will now be legally binding. This is an important step forward for European democracy, showing proof of our desire to make visible the legislative texts of the EU, which, from now on, will be accessible to a greater number of people. This innovation, which simplifies the work of the EU, also allows for savings to be made by removing paper copies, guaranteeing greater efficiency in the management of financial resources.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this new regulation, which establishes the electronic edition of the Official Journal (OJ) as the only authentic version of the OJ, replacing the paper version. Indeed, this text favours better access on the part of citizens to European law by recognising the major role played today by new information technologies, such as the Internet, for the dissemination of European law. The reduction in the number of paper copies of the OJ that will come about as a result of this will also allow, in time, for savings to be made, and for the environmental impact of the activities of the European institutions to be reduced.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation because I believe the Council text provides for a positive reform of how the Official Journal of the European Union is published that contributes to improving the European public’s access to EU legislation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is intended to make the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. These amendments are merely technical in nature and I believe they are to be welcomed. Making the OJ official and authentic will provide better public access to European Union legal acts, thereby increasing legal certainty and reducing access costs for citizens and businesses, since online consultation of an official and authentic version will always be free.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Data transfer and the circulation of official information over the Internet, as well as environmental awareness of the need to reduce logging intended for the paper industry, have led many businesses and public bodies to reduce their paper communications at the expense of electronic means. However, a number of reservations have been voiced about the legal validity of these notifications, owing to the lack of legislation permitting this. A 2007 judgment by the European Court of Justice states that ‘legal rights cannot be claimed and obligations cannot be enforced on the basis of the electronic version of the [Official Journal of the European Union]’ (OJ). To overcome this problem, on 4 April 2011, the Commission tabled a proposal intended to increase legal certainty by increasing access to EU legislation and allowing anyone to use the OJ as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. I voted for this draft Council regulation on the electronic publication of the OJ since the amendments are technical in nature, increase legal certainty, and enable better public access to EU legal acts.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes that the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) become the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version rather than the printed edition, which will have legal value only in the exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption to the electronic publication. This proposed amendment to a regulation increases legal certainty.

Currently, the majority of users consult only the electronic form of EU legal acts. As the rapporteur mentions, the fact that electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding is problematic in itself, and creates uncertainty as to the precise content of the EU legal acts currently available in the EUR-LEX database. He adds that consulting paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming and costly process, so very few users do it.

Moreover, the proposal has undeniable environmental benefit. Whilst this amendment is positive, it does not change the need to continue improving the whole population’s access to important official documentation, given the difficulties and limitations that still persist in this regard.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Commission presented this proposal in April 2011 with the aim of enhancing legal certainty by broadening access to EU law and enabling everyone to rely on the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. The proposal therefore specifies that electronic publication will equate to valid publication of the OJ, although in exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption of the electronic publication, the printed edition would have legal value. Electronic publication of the OJ was one of the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency between January and July 2011, with reference to the importance of public access to Union legislation. Due to reservations in the Council regarding national parliamentary scrutiny, however, the formal request from the Council for the consent of the European Parliament was not sent until 13 March 2012. The Council text provides for a welcome reform of the way in which the OJ is published, as it provides for increased legal certainty and better access on the part of citizens to European Union legal acts. Currently, almost everyone consults just the electronic form of EU legal acts. The fact that electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding is unacceptable. The consultation of paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming, costly process, and is carried out by very few users. The reform will thus increase legal certainty and reduce access costs for citizens and businesses. In my opinion, the EU should welcome all such reforms.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I believe that this report should be fully supported, in the name of the transparency and closeness to citizens that is so often asked of the European institutions. Making the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union binding as well, giving it true value and allowing it to have legal effect, will ensure quicker and more economical access and help promote the digital internal market. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the report does not neglect the aspects relating to protection of the authenticity, integrity and impossibility of altering the electronic publication of the Official Journal, I voted in favour.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which improves accessibility for citizens to the EU’s bodies and increases legal certainty.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the resolution on the draft Council regulation on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union. As we know, the Commission presented its proposal on 4 April 2011 with the aim of enhancing legal certainty by broadening access to EU law and enabling everyone to rely on the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. The proposal therefore provides that electronic publication will equate to valid publication of the OJ. However, in exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption of the electronic publication only, the printed edition would have legal value.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The introduction of an equivalent legal basis for the legal value of documents published in the electronic Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) is undoubtedly a step towards making the public institutions more accessible to their citizens. Closing this gap gives greater value to the other initiatives undertaken by Parliament in order to make its operations, and those of other European institutions, as transparent as possible for EU citizens. I believe that a common legal basis for the OJ legal documents was necessary in order to fully acknowledge the social and technological changes that are taking place increasingly quickly and requiring prompt responses from the institutions.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Anyone can see from the events I have supported that I wholeheartedly encourage the use of modern technology, especially given the rapid rate at which society is evolving and the constant need that EU citizens are showing to be informed about the decisions adopted by these institutions. The publication of an electronic version of the Official Journal is a timely proposal and reflects public demand. It would be nothing short of a mistake to delay a decision like this. I should emphasise that it is not only having instant access to documents that is important, but also the lack of uncertainty regarding their content. Anyone consulting the electronic version must be certain that the information is authentic and true. In fact, I think that the key aspect of this proposal is to do with giving texts published electronically the same official stamp as the paper version that has appeared until now.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I consider that the Council text provides for a welcome reform of the way in which the OJ is published, as it provides for increased legal certainty and better access for citizens to legal acts of the European Union. Currently, almost everyone consults only the electronic form of legal acts of the EU. The fact that electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding is unacceptable in itself and creates uncertainty as to the precise content of the legal acts of the EU currently available in the EUR-LEX database. Moreover, the consultation of paper versions of the Official Journal is a time-consuming, costly process, and is carried out by very few users. The reform will thus increase legal certainty and decrease access costs for citizens and businesses. All such reforms should be very welcome in the EU.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We welcome this draft Council resolution with the aim of enhancing legal certainty by broadening access to EU law and enabling all citizens to rely on the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. Electronic publication will equate in legal terms to valid publication of the OJ. However, in exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption of the electronic publication only, the printed version would have legal value. We are convinced that this regulation will allow a welcome reform of the way in which the OJ is published, as it provides for increased legal certainty and better access for citizens to European Union legal acts. The reform will also increase legal certainty and reduce access costs for citizens and businesses.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation increases legal certainty by allowing anyone to use the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. Moreover, it improves access to legislation by allowing the public better access to European law and, consequently, to the European Union itself, thereby strengthening European citizenship. It was for these reasons that I voted in favour.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is a fact that almost everyone consults the electronic form of EU legal acts. It is therefore time to get up to date. Publication of the Official Journal of the European Union online will provide for increased legal certainty and make it easier for citizens to access the legal activity of the European Union. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I fully support this new regulation, as it provides for increased legal certainty and better public access to European Union legal acts, stipulating that electronic publication will equate to valid publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. In fact, this text promotes better public access to European legislation, acknowledging the important role played today by new information technologies, including the Internet, in disseminating European law. This innovation also introduces significant savings, as well as reducing the European institutions’ environmental impact.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) With the adoption of the regulation on authenticity of the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union, we are taking another step towards bringing the work of the EU institutions and, in particular, the results of legislative work, closer to EU citizens. The legislative process, whose parliamentary phase we have concluded today, started in 2011 as one of the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency. In today’s accelerated world, money, energy and time can be saved by official texts being accessible in reliable electronic form, and EU documentation is no exception. For the time being, the paper version of the Official Journal of the European Union is the publication format that is official and may be cited by all. That hinders the authorities’ and citizens’ procedures. The content of the electronic version is for information purposes only. The number of citizens interested in the results of legislation keeps on growing, which is why it is important that readers can rely fully on the texts published in the electronic version of the Official Journal. As the Official Journal of the EU has also been available in electronic form since 1998, the number of subscribers to the paper version has decreased considerably. Through the electronic Official Journal becoming authentic, legal security will increase, the work of the EU institutions will become more transparent, and the lives of citizens working with EU law will become simpler, while public administration efficiency will also improve. I voted in favour of the report as its shadow rapporteur from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) This report proposes that the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) should become the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version instead of the printed version, which will have legal value in exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption of the electronic publication only. This change proposed in the report enhances legal certainty, as well as having a significant positive impact on the environment, and that is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The proposal suggests that electronic publication of the EU’s Official Journal is consistent with actual publication of the Official Journal and that the electronic version is considered as the official, updated and full version. In exceptional cases and temporary unforeseen disruptions of the electronic issue, the printed version will have legal force.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Official Journal of the European Union is a printed product that is published daily in all languages of the EU. It comprises two related series (series L ‘legislation’ and series C ‘information and notices’) as well as a supplement (series S ‘public procurement notices’). Series C also includes an exclusively electronic part, the OJ. EC documents that appear in the OJ are only published electronically. I abstained from voting because the report does not make clear what improvement could be achieved by amending the regulation.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Commission’s proposal, which enhances legal certainty and improves citizens’ access to European Union legal acts, has been approved by a large majority. The electronic edition of the Official Journal (OJ) will constitute the valid publication and the official and authentic version of the OJ. The European Union must be transparent and facilitate European citizens’ access to the legislative measures that it adopts because Europe affects its citizens directly.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I gave my approval to the draft regulation, which states that the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union should be granted equal legal force to that possessed by the printed version. Today, the majority of users of the European Union’s Official Journal submit their queries through its electronic environment (EUR-LEX), and it is strange that although we have an online database through which all European Union legislation is available, citation of the Internet version has no basis in law. This means that one must seek information about current legislation in the printed version of the Official Journal, which is a time-consuming, costly and outmoded option. Adopting this resolution as soon as possible will make it easier to navigate EU legislation, and will avoid the unnecessary duplication of searches.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The draft Council regulation on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union is based on free access for citizens to information and the dissemination and publication of European legislation. Easier access to EU law will facilitate understanding and legal certainty for all citizens. Furthermore, texts published electronically will have legal value and be accessible at any time. It is an excellent idea for informing European citizens more quickly and clearly about the work of the institutions.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The democratic deficit in Europe is due, in large part, to the fact that insufficient use is made of the potential provided by new technologies and, hence, e-government. However, there has been a delay in electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union for reasons of legal basis. In order to overcome these obstacles and give the public direct access to European decisions, the European Parliament has proposed that we should apply the flexibility clause (Article 352 TFEU) as an appropriate response to the legal questions raised by the Member States. Of course, as far as the European Parliament is concerned, electronic publication of EU legal instruments, which, for the moment, are available in the EUR-Lex database, is more than welcome and we are convinced that this reform will increase legal certainty and reduce access costs for citizens and companies alike. That is why I voted for this report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Transparency is a key to the success of the European project and to public involvement therein. Indeed, it is crucial that the European public have swift and reliable access to European Union legal acts. The electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) enables this type of access and is a crucial instrument for information on the EU. In order to be able to make progress with this process, it is important to overcome the fact that the electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding. This situation creates uncertainty about the exact content of European Union legal acts. I voted for this motion for a resolution because of the facts that it highlights and because I believe that the purpose of this regulation is to contribute to legal certainty and to reducing the cost of accessing European Union legal acts for citizens and businesses.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mr Ziobro on his work on this new regulation which provides for the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) in order to ensure quicker and cheaper access to official information. While it is true that it is important to establish rules ensuring the authenticity, completeness and inalterability of the electronic publication of the OJ, it is also true that in the age of the Internet and the digital revolution, European citizens cannot be denied unlimited access to the laws in all the official languages.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report essentially concerns the proposal by the Committee on Legal Affairs that electronic publication should equate to valid publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ), with the printed edition having legal value only in the exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption to the electronic publication. It is noteworthy that the background to this proposed change is a 2007 judgment by the European Court of Justice stating that legal rights cannot be claimed and obligations cannot be enforced on the basis of the electronic version of the OJ. This is, therefore, a positive reform of how the OJ is published, as it provides for increased legal certainty and better public access to European Union legal acts because practically all users consult only the electronic version of EU legal acts nowadays. Moreover, consulting paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming, costly process, and is carried out by very few users. The reform will thus increase legal certainty and reduce access costs for citizens and businesses.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Consent should be given to this proposal for a Council regulation in order for it to enter into force as soon as possible. The Council text provides for a welcome reform of the way in which the Official Journal is published, as it provides for increased legal certainty and better access for citizens to legal acts of the EU.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this text because I believe that enhancing legal certainty by broadening access to EU law and enabling all citizens to rely on the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) is a priority. Considering that currently, almost everyone consults just the electronic form of EU legal acts, it is unacceptable that this version should not be legally binding. Moreover, the consultation of paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming, costly process, and is carried out by very few users. Therefore, I believe that the reform could increase legal certainty and reduce access costs for citizens and businesses.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is necessary to enhance legal certainty by broadening access to European Union law, putting everyone in a position to rely on the electronic edition of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. This vote establishes the principle under which electronic publication will equate in legal terms to valid publication of the OJ. However, in exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption of the electronic publication only, the printed version would have legal value. This will provide for increased legal certainty and better access for citizens to EU legal acts. Currently, almost everyone consults just the electronic form of EU legal acts. The fact that electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding is unacceptable in itself, and creates uncertainty, which must be removed.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union was also among the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency last year because of the importance of public access to EU legislation. I consider it unacceptable that the electronic version of the legislation is not legally binding. That creates legal uncertainty regarding the precise content of the EU legislation currently accessible in the EUR-LEX database. It is regrettable that this report has only now gone before the plenum of the European Parliament owing to the debates surrounding the procedure’s legal basis. It is unquestionable that the EU also needs to adapt to the expectations of the digitised world. I voted in favour of the motion concerning electronic publication coming into force within the shortest time possible.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the draft Council regulation on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union. The proposal for a regulation stipulates that electronic publication will equate to publication of the Official Journal (OJ) of the European Union in accordance with legal requirements. In 2011, the Commission adopted the proposal for a regulation with the aim of enhancing legal certainty by broadening access to EU legislation and allowing everyone to rely on the electronic edition of the OJ as the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version. The proposal also deals with the technical conditions under which electronic publication equates to valid publication and establishes the remit of the Publications Office of the European Union (OPOCE) in this area. However, in exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption to the electronic publication, the paper version will have legal value. I think that legal certainty needs to be increased and better access provided for citizens to European Union legal acts. Currently, almost everyone consults just the electronic form of EU legal acts. Consulting the paper versions of the OJ is a time-consuming, costly process and is carried out by very few users.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The ‘implied competence’ theory is not used very often. On the other hand, the EU mainly uses the ordinary legislative procedure. The rapporteur states that there is no legal basis applicable (in the case of publications for the Union) which provides for the use of a specific decision-making procedure. He therefore, suggested the use of the ‘flexibility clause’ as in Article 352 TFEU and therefore this report has to be supported. Its adoption will improve the electronic version of the OJ, as electronic versions of legal acts are not legally binding and will eliminate the paper versions of the OJ.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes amendments, merely technical in nature, to make the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union the official, authentic, up-to-date and complete version rather than the printed edition, which will have legal value only in the exceptional and temporary cases of unforeseen disruption to the electronic publication. This new procedure could be positive in terms of guaranteeing better public access to information; EU legislation, in this case.

Report: Cecilia Wikström (A7-0151/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since the letter of 7 October 2011 from the Romanian authorities declares that ‘given that Mr Tudor has not been detained, arrested or searched, the need does not exist to seek the agreement of the European Parliament. Since the facts of the case are not connected with his votes or with his political opinions expressed in the exercise of his office, and he has not been detained, arrested or searched, it has not been considered necessary to request the waiver of Mr Tudor’s immunity’.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I think, as has been highlighted by my colleagues, that the circumstances surrounding the acts of Corneliu Vadim Tudor ‘do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr Tudor’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament’, and, consequently, I have decided not to defend his immunity. This decision means that legal proceedings can continue.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I do not believe Corneliu Vadim Tudor should be granted the opportunity to seek parliamentary immunity regarding this case. The eviction of the România Mare party and the surrounding circumstances do indeed constitute, respectively, civil and criminal matters which do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr Tudor’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. Mr Tudor’s request relates to criminal proceedings in which he is accused of committing acts of violence and attempting to obstruct the execution of a legal decision in the context of the eviction of his party from its premises in Bucharest. Parliament would be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing immunity in matters such as this, where resultant behaviour cannot be excused.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Cecilia Wikström concerns the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Corneliu Vadim Tudor and was tabled on 14 April 2011, following the proceedings being brought against him by the Public Prosecutor attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. Mr Tudor is ‘charged with contempt of court, behaviour contrary to good morals and breach of the peace’, having threatened a bailiff and some police officers as they sought to implement a court judgment as part of proceedings evicting the România Mare party from its premises in Bucharest. The rapporteur takes the view that the circumstances surrounding the România Mare party’s eviction are exclusively civil and criminal matters and have nothing to do with Mr Tudor’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, meaning that Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union cannot be invoked. In view of this, and taking into account the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs, I am voting for the report recommending the waiver of Mr Tudor’s parliamentary immunity.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The MEP Corneliu Vadim Tudor has requested the defence of his parliamentary immunity in connection with proceedings at the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. His request relates to criminal proceedings in which he is accused of having threatened a bailiff and some police officers, committing acts of violence against them, insulting them and generally attempting to obstruct the execution of a legal decision in the context of the eviction of the România Mare party from its premises in Bucharest on 4 January 2011. In those criminal proceedings, Corneliu Vadim Tudor is charged with contempt of court, behaviour contrary to good morals, and breach of the peace. The eviction of the România Mare party and the circumstances surrounding this actually constitute civil and criminal matters which do not have a direct and obvious connection with Mr Tudor’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. Mr Tudor did not, however, avail himself of the opportunity to explain to the competent committee his request for the defence of his immunity, and I believe it is therefore right that Parliament has decided not to defend his immunity and privileges further.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution in which Parliament decided not to defend the immunity and privileges of Corneliu Vadim Tudor.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Defending the independence of the mandate of Members of this House is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. According to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. However, the facts of the case relate to criminal proceedings, in which he is accused of having threatened a bailiff and some police officers, of committing acts of violence against them, of insulting them, and of generally attempting to obstruct the execution of a legal decision in the context of the eviction of the România Mare party from its premises in Bucharest on 4 January 2011. In those criminal proceedings, Corneliu Vadim Tudor is charged with contempt of court, immoral behaviour and breach of the peace. The eviction of the România Mare party and the circumstances surrounding this do indeed constitute, respectively, civil and criminal matters which do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr Tudor’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, so I voted to waive his parliamentary immunity.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Corneliu Vadim Tudor, a Member of the European Parliament, is accused of threatening a bailiff and some police officers, committing acts of violence against them, insulting them and generally attempting to obstruct the execution of a legal decision in the context of the eviction of the România Mare party from its premises in Bucharest on 4 January 2011. As Mr Tudor did not avail himself of the opportunity to explain to the competent committee his request for the defence of his immunity, Parliament has decided not to defend the immunity and privileges of Corneliu Vadim Tudor. I voted against since I respect people who are ready to oppose the lawlessness of authorities. In general, I am against making immunity a matter of bargaining between Parliament and EU Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Our fellow Member, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, has requested the defence of his parliamentary immunity in connection with the proceedings opened against him by the Public Prosecutor attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. Given that the proceedings in question, the eviction of the România Mare party from its premises, are a matter of civil and criminal law, without a direct, obvious connection with Mr Tudor’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, I followed the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs in voting to waive his parliamentary immunity.

Report: Philip Bradbourn (A7-0094/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which also highlights the need for a public service obligation for any air services of economic and public interest that are not economically viable. In the context of the trans-European transport network, this is extremely important as regards equitable treatment for the outermost regions, which are repeatedly excluded and kept in isolation. However, this report advocates a balanced approach to revising aviation guidelines and warns of the ‘proliferation’ of new regional airports, which could result in an economic burden on regions that have chosen to have one without having sufficient traffic to feed it. Existing regional airports need to integrate better with Europe’s interlinked transport network. Finally, the more rigorous security measures implemented in regional airports should be paid for out of normal taxation. This report sends a strong message to the Commission to review certain issues linked to regional aviation in Europe, so as to make regional airports and the services they provide more attractive to passengers and services.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I totally agree with some of the principles expressed in the report by Mr Bradbourn in helping regional airports, especially those located in remote areas or on islands, to develop and strengthen existing links in order to avoid them becoming the exclusive domain of low-cost airlines. It is right to carry out cost-benefit analyses beforehand in order to draw up a national plan for airports and, if necessary, to construct new ones. Good planning can only bring benefits and responses to social and local needs, hence, to the creation of new jobs and services, improving the quality of life of citizens as well as of businesses and, to an even greater extent, of tourism. Let us not forget that tourism is the European Union’s third largest socio-economic activity, representing 10% of GDP and 12% of jobs. In line, moreover, with the strategy on the future of tourism adopted on 27 September 2011, this report makes a considerable contribution to stimulating competition in the tourism industry and to consolidating Europe’s image and visibility as a tourist destination. Finally, I think it is appropriate that regional airports should also be included in the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines on the same level as ground transport systems, and that they, too, should be eligible for private and public funding.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) European regional airports are too often underestimated. They must be supported and better integrated as a matter of urgency. As Mr Bradbourn highlighted, there is a tendency by the Commission to neglect the opportunities regional airports represent in terms of the integration and prosperity of the EU. You already know my commitment to the development of European regions. These airports can contribute to the revitalisation of local economies, which Europe desperately needs. Through this resolution, I am calling for better integration of small airports in the European central transport network, as they enable regions to become more dynamic and are a source of job creation. Using regional airports more would also take pressure off large airports, reducing their congestion. Furthermore, I have also pointed the finger at airline practices that involve adding charges during the online ticket reservation process, which amounts to tricking consumers while disadvantaging regional airports.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the proposal to stress the importance of regional airports and their contribution to the EU transport network, and thus promote the creation of a strong, competitive and economically viable EU aviation area. The movement of people and goods between regions and the smooth running of the EU’s single market are essential generators of the EU’s economic growth. Airports play an important role in increasing territorial, economic and social cohesion in the Member States by connecting regions. Suitable air transport links would enable the regions to cope with their inherent geographical handicaps and would help develop the local economy and tourism by attracting investors. I welcome the calls for the Commission to guarantee the correct application of European and national legislation on airlines’ social conditions and terms of employment and agree that the scope of any future studies must be extended to regional airports. Encouraging sector representatives to develop multimodal through-ticketing between the rail and air sector is one of the most important recommendations in my opinion.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is through land management that we can strengthen social and territorial cohesion within the EU. I therefore welcome this report, which recalls the key importance that regional aviation plays in the development of European regions. Ensuring a tight network across the EU; that is our ambition. Nevertheless, this report also recalls that we must take care not to encourage the proliferation of regional airports, as this tendency would ultimately run counter to the initial objectives, in economic terms (costs that are too high to bear), environmental terms, or even in terms of geographical logic (not enough traffic). Furthermore, this report is also an opportunity to point out certain abusive practices on the part of low-cost airlines. The restrictions these airlines apply to baggage, for example, should be better regulated, along with the charges added to the initial ticket price. Consumers should enjoy a high-quality service, regardless of the airlines they use. This report is a step in the right direction. It is now up to the Commission to make regional airports key elements in an efficient European transport network covering the whole of the EU.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of Philip Bradbourn’s own-initiative report on regional airports and air services because it managed to strike a good balance between the important role regional aviation plays in regions’ economic development, in terms of boosting competitiveness and promoting territorial cohesion within Europe, and the warning against proliferation of regional airports. However, I strongly disagreed with paragraph 13 of this report in two respects. Commercial and retail activities can have perverse effects by cross-subsidising landing charges. This can leave the busiest airports being able to offer lower landing charges, thus making it more difficult for regional airports to compete. Moreover, restrictions on hand baggage granted by budget carriers are not a breach of competition law and conversely have stimulated competition.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Regional airports are becoming an important factor for economic growth, stimulating development in the cities and regions they serve. They also extend transport routes. Unfortunately, the Union’s policy in this area to date, which has focused mainly on key transport hubs, did not bring benefits to smaller centres. It is, however, in the interest of individual regions to increase the profitability of these centres. The proposals put forward in the resolution to make the European Aviation Area more effective will encourage regional development. For example, regional airports may turn out to be very effective at reducing traffic and congestion at large hubs. Another excellent idea, with clear benefits to passengers, is the proposal to develop multimodal travel by selling joint tickets for air and train travel. In addition, by eliminating some of the burdensome practices of cheap carriers, we can also improve passenger comfort. Regional air travel may turn out to be key for the free movement of citizens and to improve the flow of goods and services. I support the resolution.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I support Mr Bradbourn’s resolution, which asks the Commission to pay greater attention in EU legislation to the situation of ‘regional airports’, whose function is primarily linked to the local area. They need to be included in trans-European transport network planning in order to offer them greater accessibility and ensure the fair distribution of time slots to different air carriers, thus guaranteeing proper competition that will serve the interests both of the airports and of the consumers who use them.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Regional airports make a vital contribution to territorial cohesion and the EU’s social and economic development. I think that they are able to attract new business, while offering numerous opportunities for regional tourism, as well as for specialised cargo transport. Integrating regional airports into the TEN-T will create opportunities for private funding for airport infrastructures and will encourage Member States to invest in integrated ground connections with large airports. With a view to improving the overall quality of services, certain practices adopted by low-cost airlines, such as certain unavoidable charges applied to the basic price of their airline tickets, or the enforcement of extremely harsh rules regarding the number and size of hand luggage items, must be regulated.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report looks at the problems, outlook and developments in the air transport market, which have delicate implications, especially with regard to economic growth and consumer rights. It is appropriate that we should discuss these in depth and intervene with the tools at our disposal, calling on the relevant local bodies to look at the issue themselves. I would like to draw attention to four main issues. The first is territorial cohesion, which involves delicate issues of citizenship rights and problems in the capacity of the local economies in the surrounding areas. Then there are the practices of low-cost airlines, which are only partly linked to the low margins of this sector, and should involve consideration of consumer rights, especially in view of the intervention by the Spanish Government. Then there is the role of regional airports in the local economies, and structural weaknesses that expose them to the pressure of dominant powers. Finally, and above all, there is the need to bring regional airports within the sphere of attention and action of the European legislator, through simplification and alignment of the laws, and incentives to build integrated systems and networks that successfully exploit multimodality. I approve and support the report, which paves the way to a vision more aware of the role that air transport plays in our society.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I abstained from this vote as, while the proposals amount to a sensible defence of regional airports from heavy-handed regulation, little is offered by way of a solution. The EU is prone to gearing legislation towards major air hubs while regional airports struggle to adapt to a litany of regulation from Brussels. In Wales, we have one primary airport serving the country. It is not a major hub and is exactly the sort of airport that is adversely affected by over-bureaucracy that makes it harder for it to compete alongside other larger local airports across the border.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Bradbourn report, which aims to make regional airports more attractive. I am delighted that this text recognises the role of airport infrastructures as generators of growth and regional development. I believe it is important that the Commission takes into account the specific nature of regional airports in legislative proposals relating to the air sector. Two elements, in particular, caught my eye: the need to reduce congestion at major hub airports and the need to encourage the interlinking of areas. This objective goes hand in hand with the rationale behind the Atlantic strategy, for which I am rapporteur.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution because I consider European regional airports to be key elements in creating an efficient and well-functioning EU transport network that facilitates trade and ensures mobility for a greater number of people, and because I believe there is a need to tackle the practice of some low-cost airlines of levying improper charges that could threaten the activity of regional airports.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regional aviation can play a vital role in realising free movement in the EU, providing better connectivity for the public, businesses and the products of the various EU regions, particularly in the case of more remote, harder to access regions, or of the outermost regions. It will therefore contribute significantly to these regions’ territorial cohesion, and to their social and economic development. It is important, particularly at a time of economic crisis, to prevent the proliferation of regional airports, which would meet neither efficiency nor sustainability targets. However, it is also crucial to maintain and strengthen existing ties with regions affected by less favourable geographical conditions, as well as to promote better links between regional airports and neighbouring cities, which could bring clear benefits in alleviating the excessive burden on central airports. It is crucial to adopt the measures needed to facilitate improvements to regional airports’ operational and economic effectiveness, as well as to improve the conditions offered to passengers using such infrastructure and services. A clear and concrete definition of ‘regional airport’ should be set out, and clear and transparent criteria established for obtaining subsidies and public funds.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The free movement of persons within the boundaries of the European Union is one of the four fundamental freedoms guaranteed to European citizens. A comprehensive transport network that is not restricted to the major capitals needs to be set up in order for this right to be effectively guaranteed. Parliament therefore has the responsibility of adjusting the direction taken by the Commission, which is too focused on developing hubs, and shows little interest in the potential of regional airports. The full development of the latter is, in fact, fundamental for guaranteeing the aforementioned freedom of movement, and for promoting economic development in the areas where these airports are built, because their expansion would also alleviate the problems of congestion at hubs, and consequently make the transport system more sustainable from an environmental point of view as well. For the above reasons, I therefore voted in favour of this report on the future of regional airports. Finally, I hope that Malpensa airport will be developed to its full potential and go back to being an international hub, because, as the economic capital of Italy, Milan and its businesses need to be properly linked to other Member States.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) This report has the merit of highlighting in a clear and efficient way the added-value of regional airports as generators of growth. Offering multimodality and interconnections, these airports are the beating heart of regional economic activity. Giving them the importance they deserve in European legislation is what this report aims to do. Parliament, which must vote over the coming weeks on the ‘airport package’, is, from today, sending a strong message to the Commission.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which aims to grant special legal status to regional airports and air services. The European institutions have finally understood the importance of supporting our regional airports, which actively contribute to strengthening local economic fabric and promoting our regions. We cannot legislate without taking into account the specific nature of each airport and the expectations of the citizens. We are also sending a strong message to the Commission by calling for some regional airports to be included in major infrastructure projects that could receive European funding via the European central transport network.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Regional airports and air services are not only essential as transport nodes, helping to facilitate the smooth running of the EU’s single market by moving people and goods between regions, but they are also essential as generators of economic growth in their own right. In this respect, I am delighted with the adoption of this report, which clearly calls for a balance with international airports and for the role of regional airports to be strengthened. On this matter, I would like to highlight some of the text’s strong demands: improving connectivity with other modes of transport; prohibiting the ‘one bag’ rule, which has a negative impact on airports’ commercial activities; improving the development of a network of regional airports, which should offer an alternative in case of congestion in major hubs. Efficiency, accessibility and profitability should be priorities for regional airports, which must not, under any circumstances, become the plaything of local politics.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe regional air services’ promotion of the cities and regions they serve is essential to the smooth running of the single market. The proposed recommendations seek to improve airports’ operational and economic effectiveness, which must be considered key elements in creating an efficient and well-functioning EU transport network.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this report is to find a definition of regional airport, of State aid and support for airlines, of price transparency, and of restrictions applicable to passengers that have a direct impact on competition and commerce in regional aviation, such as the ‘one bag’ rule. I share the rapporteur’s view that European regional airports should be considered key elements in creating an efficient and well-functioning EU transport network that plays a crucial role in the territorial, economic and social cohesion of the Member States and the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) When properly located, and provided with security conditions and a network of connections with other modes of transport, regional airports play a key role in the European Union’s territorial, economic and social cohesion. It is easy to understand that not all cities can have an airport. However, there are regions, especially the outermost regions, or peripheral or island regions, where airports are the only effective means of linking them to the rest of Europe. EU policy in this regard should be to promote the supply of rigorous public services that prioritise security. It should not permit the proliferation of regional airports but should create an interlinked system that makes the market more competitive and promotes regional development, by accelerating the implementation of the European air traffic management system (SESAR), the Clean Sky initiative and the enforcement of Single European Sky legislation. I voted for this report because, in the context of the economic crisis and the budgetary consolidation efforts through which we are living, it appeals to common sense for achieving a balance between the social and territorial needs of a given region, and each airport’s need for competitiveness and financial balance.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report recognises the importance of regional airports and air services for economic development in the regions, particularly – but not exclusively – in the outermost regions. It also acknowledges, to a point, the role of public policy in promoting this development. However, it then advocates market supremacy, reducing Member States’ room for manoeuvre and even jeopardising their intervention and regulation; these are essential to organising these services and linking them to an idea of public interest and development promotion. The fact that it argues for the Single European Sky and, hence, for the sector to be market-facing, is also very enlightening. There are various apologies for free competition – which is above criticism – and for the resulting limitations on state intervention throughout the text. Moreover, even security issues are subjugated to the free competition principle: according to item 37, measures in this regard are limited by this principle. This is a vision with which we cannot agree, for the reasons we gave during the debate. A few comments about the role of low-cost airlines and a handful of positive related proposals do not counter the more negative aspects of this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Regional airports and air services are essential not only as transport nodes, helping to facilitate the smooth running of the EU’s single market by moving people and goods between regions, but also as generators of economic growth. Together, they expand the horizon of traditional trading routes, and provide a significant boost to the cities and regions they serve. I believe it is important to adopt measures that could improve the operational and economic efficiency of regional airports and air services in general, as well as improve the experience of passengers using these facilities and services. It is important that we create an aviation area that is strong, competitive and economically viable. European regional airports and air services need to be considered as key elements in creating an efficient and well-functioning EU transport network that facilitates trade and ensures mobility for a greater number of people. Regional aviation can play a vital role in ensuring that free movement in the EU is a reality not only for people living in major capital cities, but also for EU citizens living outside these areas, ensuring that these cities and regions enjoy not only the benefits brought about by greater mobility, but also by generating tourism. I firmly believe that it is also important to make an effort in this way to provide access to new markets and attract greater inward economic investment.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Regional airports are increasingly taking a backseat in EU legislation, despite the growing difficulties they are facing. The difficulties are caused by their monopolisation by low-cost airlines and the unfair practices employed by the latter, as well as isolation from the remainder of the transport network and infrastructures which force passengers to change means of transport several times before reaching the regional airport. All of this cancels out the original advantage sought by the traveller, inevitably leading many potential passengers to prefer travelling with major airlines via the larger and more functional hubs. Therefore, I believe that this report, which aims to ensure adequate competition between air carriers and better access to such airports, deserves my complete support. For these reasons, I voted in favour.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The competitiveness of the regions in the European Union is in line with regional economic growth. Those regions that have all the capabilities that an airport can provide are more competitive and better able to attract capital. Today, a regional airport is a prerequisite for an investment location. It is vital for modern logistics and is also one of the most effective regional development factors. Serious investors are unlikely to be interested in regions where there is no airport or where the airport does not operate appropriately. The expansion of low-cost carriers was another factor that highlighted the role of smaller airports. Since such carriers focus on keeping their costs low, they prefer using smaller airports provided with appropriate infrastructure, rather than large, crowded airports. They can then use transfer services to transport their passengers to the larger cities in the vicinity. This method has worked in Western Europe and, in my home country, for instance, there is already an example of such cooperation in the town of Debrecen. In conclusion, I believe that European regional airports and flights need to be seen as key factors in creating an effective, smoothly operating EU transport network that will promote trade and provide mobility for a wider public. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the adoption of the Bradbourn report on regional airports. The report underlines the importance of regional airports to business, tourism and economic development. I fully support paragraph 1 of the report, which stresses that existing public service obligations should be maintained into the future.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Air transport is fundamentally important both in terms of transport and as a generator of economic growth. However, the European Commission has a tendency to underestimate the impact that some of its laws have had on regional airports while, at the same time, focusing its attention almost exclusively on major hubs. This tendency is unjustified and affects airports that already have to face obstacles related to the impact of aviation on the environment, congestion, and competition from the major airports. This report presents these problems to the European Commission along with various proposals (shifting part of air traffic to regional airports, adding them to the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), and the creation of a universally accepted definition of regional airport) in order to improve the current situation.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this report, as it calls for special attention and financial support for regional airports, without a single condition with regard to security or even the environment. Before the vote in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance proposed various amendments aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving multimodality (better coordination with rail transport) and developing better cooperation between regional airports that are geographically close to each other but are situated in different (cross-border) countries. These amendments were all rejected, leaving me with no choice but to vote against the report.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when the crisis and the disparities between regions are being accentuated within the European Union, territorial cohesion must be at the heart of EU policies now more than ever. It is this basic principle that I wanted to reaffirm by voting for this report. Indeed, regional airports have a key role to play in the economic development of the most remote regions by attracting companies, in particular, and also by enabling the development of tourism. Furthermore, as we are currently discussing the review of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), it would be appropriate, in this debate, to grant regional airports an important place alongside other major European transport nodes. In my view, this seems essential in order to achieve an optimal network across the EU.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) While I endorse the idea of drawing up a resolution on regional airports, it would have to be coherent and set out approaches to tackling the problems of regional airports. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the motion for a resolution on which we are to vote, and I therefore did not vote in favour.

Regional airports are of major importance for territorial coherence and for the economic and social development of the regions. They have an important role to play as transport hubs and they contribute to economic growth. Measures taken need to be specially adapted to these airports.

Although it is right that a definition of regional airports should be produced, that definition should not – as called for in this resolution – exclude airports whose principal catchment area is a capital city, as this would result in the exclusion of many current regional airports from the scope of the definition.

Furthermore, air freight is particularly important to regional airports. This area received too little attention in this resolution as, with a few exceptions, it concentrates instead on passenger volumes and interests.

Moreover, the aim here, as the resolution points out, is not the proliferation of regional airports per se, but preventing inefficient and, more than anything, unprofitable regional airports. When considering the economic burden, the focus must therefore be on long-term profitability, as regional airports are often not profitable at first but are able to become self-supporting in the long term, and so do represent considerable added value for the entire region.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – (GA) I wholly welcome the work done by Mr Bradbourn in this report. It is very important that we have a strategy for the future of regional airports.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Guaranteeing the future of our regional airports is essential for two obvious reasons: firstly, they are strategic transport nodes that allow us to expand the horizon of traditional trading routes and, secondly, they contribute to regional development and strengthening local economic fabric. That is why I am delighted that Parliament has adopted by a strong majority the report on regional airports and air services, which aims to define the special legal status of regional airports, and to clarify some sensitive issues such as State aid and start-up aid for airlines, the issue of price transparency, the ‘one bag’ rule and any other restrictions that affect competition.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report which rightly stresses the importance of air transport, particularly to outlying areas. A number of the Members of this House are opposed to the report on the basis that greater priority should be given to other forms of transport, such as rail. Whilst this may be a valid argument in some parts of the EU, it ignores the geographical and demographic realities of other parts, such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the resolution on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU because regional airports and air services are not only essential as transport nodes, helping to facilitate the smooth running of the EU’s single market by moving people and goods between regions, but they are also essential as generators of economic growth in their own right. Together, they expand the horizon of traditional trading routes and provide a significant boost to the cities and regions that they serve. These infrastructures and services are important for people living outside major urban areas and to the EU as a whole. When proposing legislation in the field of aviation, there is a tendency by the European Commission to focus attention on major hub airports. This report seeks to redress this balance and bring attention to the manner in which regional airports and air services have often been unintentionally, yet disproportionately, affected by some EU legislation. We also need to look for ways of improving the operational and economic efficiency of regional airports and air services as well as the experience of passengers using these facilities and services.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) I supported the report on airports, but would like to remind everyone that legislative coordination would be required in this case. We have fundamentally impaired operating conditions for regional airports with rules governing air traffic emissions trading, which favour large aircraft and key routes. Furthermore, the emissions trading scheme in question was part of a unilateral climate policy that does not just harm our competitiveness but the environment also, while putting European airlines that have managed their business well at a competitive disadvantage. Now that the weaknesses in the unilateral climate policy have been recognised, it is now unlikely that such legislation will get through this House. Unfortunately, the EU would appear to lack the political humility to withdraw this failed legislation.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) European regional airports and air services need to be considered as key elements in creating an efficient and well-functioning EU transport network that facilitates trade and ensures mobility for a large number of people. Regional aviation can play a vital role in ensuring that free movement in the EU is a reality not only for people living in the big cities, but also for EU citizens living outside these areas. It brings benefits to regions through greater mobility and by generating tourism, as well as by providing access to new markets and attracting investment. I therefore support this initiative and the submitted recommendations, the aim of which is to restore some kind of balance and improve the operational and economic efficiency of regional airports and aviation services.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The development and growth of regional and peripheral airports offers an opportunity to expand local economies and zones which are currently the least developed in Europe. Airports currently under-used or not efficiently used are different and it is to be hoped that there will be specific action to improve their efficiency. Local economies would, in fact, benefit considerably, especially the tourism industry. However, in order to work in this direction, there needs to be market regulation, especially with regard to low-cost companies, limiting their decision-making powers as far as fares and hand luggage weight limits are concerned. With this resolution, we are asking the European Union to continue to increase its support for regional airports and to take a serious look at the economic opportunities they offer to the areas in which they operate.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report. It stresses the importance of regional airports in the context of air transport and their important role in contributing to territorial, economic and social cohesion, both within the Member States and throughout the Union, by connecting regions; points out that existing public service obligations should be maintained, and that any such obligations agreed in the future should be justified by the need to guarantee the accessibility and territorial continuity of regions, such as the outermost regions, peripheral or island regions, and central areas not lying on the main transport routes, given that suitable air transport links would enable them to cope with their inherent geographical handicaps

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With this report, we wish to underline the important role played by regional airports and related air services, as they not only contribute to ensuring that the EU’s single market works effectively by transporting people and goods between the regions, but are also capable of producing economic growth themselves, attracting greater economic investment. Often however, they have been unintentionally, yet disproportionately, affected or excluded by some EU legislation.

We therefore call on the European Commission to pay special attention to regional airports and air services, as they risk being priced out of the market in the face of greater consolidation among major airports, airlines and airline alliances. An uncompetitive and monopolistic market-place would not only be extremely harmful to regional aviation but also to EU citizens who would be faced with less choice and rising prices. We therefore call for greater commitment to developing the new-generation European traffic management system (SESAR) and the Single European Sky, as their completion could lead to huge economic and environmental savings brought about by greater efficiency, as well as allowing some smaller regional airports to benefit from new investments and technology.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Regional air transport plays an important role in the development of the EU’s regions, thanks to the numerous economic and social benefits it brings through developing the economy and tourism, increasing citizens’ mobility and creating jobs.

Regional airports are the open gateways to regions both inside and outside the EU. They improve connectivity and access to the EU’s regions, while helping make them more attractive. At the same time, regional airports can help reduce traffic congestion at crowded airports.

Intermodal transport solutions help improve the transit between airports. The Commission and relevant authorities should make it a priority to give consideration to existing regional airports. Streamlining and developing their operation by improving the necessary infrastructure would also yield short-term benefits in terms of investment costs.

The importance of diversifying regional airports lies in increasing passenger safety. The priority for airport authorities in the EU must be to have alternative airports available in the event of worsening weather conditions or for ensuring safety for take-off and landing.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is important to avoid a proliferation of regional airports. We must avoid the creation of unused or not efficiently used airport infrastructures which would result in an economic burden for the authorities responsible. I agree with the need to strengthen existing links, especially in areas suffering from geographical handicaps. I voted in favour of the report on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report rightly states that the proliferation of regional airports should be avoided. It also calls for the construction or enlargement of any regional airport to be subject to local and regional consultation, as should be the case for Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport, for example. I agree with the report on this point.

However, the text also promotes goods transport by air. It advocates free competition between airports and explains that this should not be restricted, even for security reasons. It even calls for European regulation not to be too restrictive in order to stop companies from relocating. I cannot support such a text. I voted against.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is vital to create an EU aviation area that is strong, competitive and economically viable, thereby facilitating trade, ensuring mobility for a greater number of people and realising freedom of movement within the EU. Regional airports constitute a significant economic contribution to the regions where they are located, through the benefits that result from increasing mobility, from promoting tourism, from accessing new markets and from attracting greater inward economic investment. I welcome the adoption of this report, for which I voted.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report because it calls for putting a stop to the proliferation of regional airports which are unnecessary and inefficient. This practice has been very common, particularly in Spain; public authorities have implemented huge projects in recent years, building regional airports that are now ghost airports, with the increase in the public deficit that this has entailed. Furthermore, the text calls on national authorities to monitor possible abusive commercial practices and the working conditions of airport staff. Indeed, the report calls for guaranteeing the correct application of European and national legislation on airlines’ social conditions and terms of employment, so that staff employed at a regional airport do not become victims of social dumping. For all of these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Regional aviation plays a key role in boosting the regions’ competitiveness and promoting territorial cohesion within Europe, especially as far as the outermost and underdeveloped regions are concerned. There is a need for a public service obligation for air services which are not economically viable. However, a balanced approach to revision of the aviation guidelines is needed. The report warns against a ‘proliferation’ of new regional airports which could result in an economic burden for the regions opting to have one without having sufficient traffic to feed it. It will send a strong impulse to the Commission to revise certain aspects linked to regional aviation in Europe in order to make regional airports and the services they provide more attractive to passengers.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) There is a general tendency in the EU towards centralisation and the neglect of aspects such as infrastructure in rural areas, and this tendency also manifests itself in the field of aviation, for example, in the concentration on airport hubs. Within the EU, there are a multitude of regional airports of various sizes which also vary in the services offered, the markets in their catchment area, and in their air services. To place a disproportionate burden on regional airports and air services through EU legislation is to underestimate the importance of their role as key transport interchanges that make a considerable contribution to smooth transportation within the EU’s internal market and to the advent of a more efficient air space for the EU. I took this into consideration when voting.

  James Nicholson (ECR), in writing. – I wholeheartedly welcome my colleague Mr Bradbourn’s report on regional airports. This has received widespread support in Parliament, which is a testament to the importance of the issue. In regions such as my constituency of Northern Ireland, which could be deemed as being somewhat peripheral, the services provided by regional airports are of vital importance to individuals, businesses and the local economy in general. For me, the crucial point of this report is the call for regional airports to be given some protection and security in relation to their access to larger ‘hub’ airports. This crucial aspect of ‘connectivity’ can be put at risk if airlines decide to reallocate slots to more profitable routes. As another airline has recently decided to pull out of Belfast City Airport – resulting in a further reduction of air services for Northern Ireland – the issues raised in this report are very timely.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Bradbourn report, especially because of the call made to the Commission to simplify the ways in which airports handling fewer than 500 000 passengers per year can access State aid. I also endorse the inclusion of a larger number of regional airports in the TEN-T. This kind of measure can stimulate economic growth in Europe’s regions. At the same time, I think that the provision in Recital A, which excludes the measures being proposed from being applied to regional airports that mainly serve a capital city, is questionable, to say the least. These airports must enjoy similar terms, as any other situation is an act of discrimination.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Europe’s regional airports and the corresponding air services are key to the creation of an efficient and optimally functioning EU transport network. People are travelling more often, and their mobility must be safeguarded. Regional aviation can play a crucial role and it must be ensured that mobility in the EU is not reserved for people in the metropolises, but is also for everyone outside these European capitals in remote, outlying areas and rural communities. These often neglected regions, too, need to be allowed to enjoy the benefits of greater mobility. These benefits result from tourism and better access to new markets and, in turn, from the increased inward flow of economic investment. I take the view that if we were to better integrate our regional airports into the transport network as a whole, we could stimulate the economy to produce further benefits for European citizens. I considered and balanced all of these factors when voting.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report because I consider the development of regional airports and air services to be very important in guaranteeing the free movement of people and the more uniform economic development of different regions. In my home country of Estonia, which has many islands, regional airports are extremely important, especially because, for several small islands, the aeroplane is the only means of transport offering a connection with the mainland during the winter. Regional airports also play an important role in reducing traffic at hub airports. In order to ensure the sustainability and increase the efficiency of small airports, the latter must have reliable connections to larger airports, and investments must be made to improve their infrastructure.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The issue of air transport in EU policy is increasingly a hot topic, because under cohesion and development policy, the EU has to regulate the funding allocated to airports. These are divided into two types, regional airports and hubs. As far as regional airports are concerned, the text for which we voted underlines how European institutions are too focused on the major airports, leaving the funding and safety of most of the so-called regional airports to be managed merely by national governments. The EU should focus more on managing the funding for these national airports, which are fundamental for local, economic and social cohesion.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This own-initiative European Parliament report may not be binding, but it is very important for Greece and I voted in favour of it. Regional airports and air services are valuable to our national tourist product and in providing services to Greek citizens, given the geography of our country. In this report, the European Parliament makes certain recommendations on policy options which, if adopted by the Commission and the Member States, would improve the operational and economic efficiency of regional airports and air services. Some of them, such as defining regional airports and promoting them to important partners of national air networks and completing Single European Sky projects, are important in terms of developing and promoting Greek regional airports. The government formed following the electoral process in Greece should apply this specific report, for the benefit of our regional airports and services.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union has revolutionised air services by enabling low-cost airlines to use secondary airports, thereby making unprecedented mobility in Europe possible. This proposal is based on the same mobility objectives and is intended to legislate on the definition of a regional airport and to prevent abusive practices, such as levying improper charges based on classifying the airport in question differently. These charges could even threaten the activity of regional airports. In fact, European regional airports are key to creating an efficient and well-functioning EU transport network that facilitates trade and ensures mobility for a greater number of people. I voted for this resolution for all these reasons.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Commission should not underestimate the importance of ‘regional airports’, which are distinct from ‘hub airports’ in that their function is mainly tied to the area in which they are located. Unfortunately, these airports are increasingly neglected by EU legislation and have been given secondary importance in recent proposals on the development of the EU transport network. I share Mr Bradbourn’s stance on the monopolisation of many regional airports by individual airlines and their isolation by the transport network. We need to block unfair practices, such as the ‘one bag’ rule imposed by airlines, which cuts passenger spending in airports by up to 70%, with repercussions on the local economies linked to regional airports.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regional airports and air services are not just essential as transport hubs facilitating the smooth running of the EU single market, but they are also key generators of economic growth. As a whole, they expand the horizons of traditional trade routes and contribute to boosting significantly the cities and regions they serve. Aviation is an industry of small margins, so it is vital that we create an EU aviation area that is strong, competitive and economically viable. However, in addition to the economic barriers we face, we are also confronted with obstacles related to aviation’s impact on the environment, congestion and security itself. I believe European regional airports should be considered key elements in creating an efficient and well-functioning EU transport network that facilitates trade and ensures mobility for a greater number of people. They can play a vital role in ensuring that free movement in the EU is a reality. Moreover, they will also play an important role in promoting tourism, in accessing new markets, and in attracting more foreign economic investment.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today’s plenary session saw the vote on the report by Mr Bradbourn on the importance of regional airports, a driving force behind the development of regional tourism and specialised freight transport, which are crucial for the territorial cohesion and economic diversification of the Union, especially in regions where other means of transport are lacking. However, the crisis has badly hurt regional airports, which are now uncompetitive, leading to stronger ties between major airports and airlines, resulting in less choice and higher prices for customers. The inclusion of regional airports in the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines could facilitate access to private funding and encourage Member States to invest in better ground transport networks – especially high-speed trains. In any case, in order to improve the general quality of the services, we need to tackle a number of practices adopted by the major low-cost operators, such as excessive booking charges and hand luggage restrictions that discourage travellers from buying products at the airport.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, which stresses that European policy in terms of air transport does not currently pay enough attention to regional airports. Yet these airports have real growth potential. We must speed up work on the Single European Sky initiative and take better account of the special role of regional airports in our transport networks. They are an important source of social and economic development in the regions – especially in regions where other forms of transport are lacking, they attract new companies and can boost regional tourism. The report also deals with an important point on consumer protection: the issue of certain practices by the main low-cost airlines, namely, abusive reservation charges or hand luggage restrictions, which discourage travellers from buying goods in the airport. By attacking the so-called ‘one bag’ rule – by setting common upper limits for weight restrictions or capping the charges for excess and overweight baggage – we will boost retail sales in regional airports and indeed in the regions themselves.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. In the framework of a Commission communication on airport capacity, linked to the airports package, the British part of the ECR insisted in the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) on producing an own-initiative report on regional airports, i.e. to demand more support from the EU for regional airports. The report does indeed put the focus on more support for regional airports, such as considering them in the TEN-T Regulation, but not applying the EU’s safety and security or environmental rules. It stresses the economic importance of these airports for the regions concerned, repeating the motto of ‘growth and jobs’. We (Greens/EFA) tabled amendments on 2020 targets for CO2 emissions, connecting regional airports as much as possible with rail therefore, with the intention of obtaining a modal shift towards rail. We also proposed more coordination, cooperation between trans-border airports in close proximity to each other and better insight in EU cofunding in their favour. Unfortunately, our formulations were rejected by the TRAN Committee. No amendments being possible for the plenary vote, we were forced to vote against this report during the single vote in plenary (Rule 138).

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think it is essential to strengthen the role of regional airports in facilitating the smooth running of the EU’s single market by moving people and goods between regions and generating economic growth in its own right. I strongly believe that European regional airports and air services need to be considered as key elements in creating an efficient EU transport network that facilitates trade and ensures mobility for a greater number of people. Lastly, I hope that regional aviation can ensure that EU citizens living in these areas can enjoy not only the benefits brought about by greater mobility but also by generating tourism, providing access to new markets, and by attracting greater inward economic investment

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Today, I supported the adoption of the resolution on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU because this is an important motion regionally, sub-nationally, and from the viewpoint of the internal market. Regional airports make a great economic contribution to society, and thus it is important to guarantee access to them, not only by airbridge, but also by land via public transport.

I agree with the rapporteur that the European Union’s regional airports and air services have a central role to play in the creation of an effective and functioning EU transport network, facilitating trade and ensuring the mobility of greater numbers of people. Regional aviation can play an important role in ensuring that free movement within the EU becomes a reality not only for people living in large capital cities, but also for citizens living outside those regions. It is important to note that these cities and regions would not only benefit from the greater opportunities for mobility, but also from the development of tourism, enabling access to new markets and attracting more domestic economic investment.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. –(IT) There is currently no definition for the term ‘regional airport’, but major and minor airports, on the basis of the types of links provided by such airports, passenger volume and links with major cities and major airports. Once the criteria and parameters for defining regional airports have been established with a view to efficient intermodal mobility, they will be able to contribute considerably to better access to the regions, to business, tourism and the development of related services, and to the spread of economic prosperity. This vote brings into focus the way in which regional airports and air services have often been unintentionally, but disproportionately, hurt by EU legislation. We really must improve the operating and economic efficiency of regional airports and air services, as well as improve the experience for passengers who use these facilities and services.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The European Parliament recently voted in favour of an own-initiative report on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU (2011/2196(INI)). I, personally, chose to vote against the report. The report highlighted the many positive aspects of regional airports. However, instead of helping these regional airports, which are often used by low-cost airlines, measures were proposed that will severely limit the competitiveness of these airlines. Through a host of rules regulating hand luggage, charges for voluntary payment by credit card, the option to employ staff through employment agencies, the rug is being pulled from under the feet of many low-cost airlines (paragraphs 42 to 45 of the report).

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU because regional airports contribute to economic development, revitalising industry and generating employment in their regions. Regional airports with high-volume connectivity with third countries and intra-European traffic, and which contribute to multimodal transport in their region, as well as regional airports which can be used to relieve bottlenecks, should be included in the TEN-T planning. We are concerned about the ‘one bag’ rule and other hand luggage restrictions imposed by some airline companies. Such practices end up diminishing the quality of services to passengers, breach competition law, as well as the duty of transparency with regard to the charges applicable to tickets. We call on the Commission to take a balanced approach when revising aviation guidelines in order to provide for a socially and economically viable development of regional air services. Consideration should be given to the development of the infrastructure needed to ensure intermodality, while also making these services accessible to EU citizens and taking into account the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I very much welcome today’s vote on the future of regional airports. As a Catalan with an important ‘regional’ airport like Barcelona and other minor ones such as Lleida, Girona and Reus, I believe that the role of such airports should be recognised fully. However in these times of severe economic crisis, I would like to underscore the importance of cost-benefit analyses when constructing new regional airports in Spain, as public investments should display a certain relationship between the amounts of money spent and the number of passengers using these airports. I strongly believe that regional airports should not be tools to enhance public deficits and should be economically sustainable in the mid-term.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report recognises the importance of regional airports and air services for economic development in the regions, in a number of territories, and in the outermost regions. While it acknowledges the role of public policy in promoting this development, it then advocates market supremacy, reducing Member States’ room for manoeuvre and even jeopardising their intervention and regulation. Throughout the report, there are arguments for the Single European Sky and for the sector to be market-facing; we are profoundly opposed to both approaches.

Report: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0098/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which I believe lists four major priority areas in which the Commission should take new measures: monitoring of the use of financial engineering instruments; improving the reliability of the accountability chain; pre-financing; and sanctioning mechanisms in the area of cohesion policy. Both I and my colleagues in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament consider it necessary to improve checks on auditing mechanisms and to encourage the Member States to take more responsibility in the field of shared management. I also consider it relevant to bring the various mechanisms used by the Court of Auditors in line with those used by the Commission, so as to prevent errors.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget. In Parliament, we voted this week on whether or not to grant discharge to the European institutions and agencies for 2010. We approved the Commission budget for 2010. However, we are calling on the Commission to reduce the error rate, which reached 7.7% in the areas of cohesion, energy and transport.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge to the Commission on the basis of the report by my excellent colleague, Christofer Fjellner, who has accomplished an immense task in difficult conditions. I do not understand why the European Court of Auditors and the 27 national courts of auditors do not work together enough. With regard to the consolidated accounts, it is not normal to present them with negative equity and not include the EU’s ownership over the Members States in terms of staff pensions, the debt for which is, moreover, provisioned as a liability.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. The Commission is responsible for executing the EU budget and managing programmes and it is therefore vitally important in this difficult economic and financial crisis for the Commission to be an example by ensuring good public management. Good public management is an essential factor for maintaining citizens’ confidence in the European Union. The continuing financial and budgetary crisis in Member States also poses a risk to the Union budget, particularly due to financial risks in relation to loans granted to Member States. I welcome the European Parliament’s calls for the Commission to present an Action Plan for the achievement of priority actions such as closely monitoring the use of financial engineering instruments, improving and strengthening accountability, reconsidering the increased use of pre-financing and creating an effective sanctioning mechanism in the area of cohesion policy.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. – (NL) The Fjellner report cannot count on my support. The European Court of Auditors has noted that, for 2010, the number of errors in the policy area which has had the highest error rate for years, namely the Structural Funds, and which we know as cohesion policy, has increased. The European Parliament’s report rightly addresses requests to the European Commission. For example, I am pleased that my amendment which calls for the Emergency Fund to be monitored in respect of the legality, regularity and efficiency of spending, has been adopted. On the other hand, an opportunity that has been missed is that the discharge has not been made conditional on progress in national statements of assurance. These ensure that Member States are more aware of their responsibility to spend the EU funds they manage prudently. That would help reduce the error rate, because a substantial number of the errors could have been prevented or corrected if Member States had been sufficiently alert. It is ironic that ministers of countries with problems have turned down the European Parliament’s invitation to discuss improvements. To put it briefly, the European Commission will only be able to enforce the sensible demands made in the report if discharge is postponed. I regret that the Committee on Budgetary Control did not want to take that step.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Commissioner Algirdas Šemeta, on behalf of the Commission, has just shown goodwill by finally making a commitment to further implement the interinstitutional agreement. What we were calling for, above all, was for the Commission to publish the annual reports forwarded by the Member States with regard to their accounts. There is a regulation that aims to improve public access to the documents of the European institutions. This is a battle, which we are waging in Parliament, for greater transparency and closer cooperation between the institutions. It is therefore good news that the Commission has heard our requests. However, we are remaining vigilant and we will ensure concrete improvements in the distribution of documents, as it has been too long since the interinstitutional agreement should have come into force and since we should have had a real insight into the implementation of the EU budget.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as it is utterly inconceivable that Parliament should grant any discharge for even a part of the budget until the budget as a whole has been signed off by the Court of Auditors, something which has never to date happened without significant tweaking and deception.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the Commission. I note, however, an increase in the error rate for expenses relating to cohesion policy and also for energy and transport. I am completely in agreement with the report with regard to increasing the transparency and efficiency of the budget. I am, moreover, committed to the use of different control mechanisms in order to ensure the sound management of European funds on the part of the Member States.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has approved the Commission’s budgetary expenses for 2010 after having received commitments for greater transparency. More effective management and control systems must be established. In future, national political bodies will be obliged to sign national management declarations making them accountable for the way in which EU funds have been spent in their countries. The financial crisis that is currently shaking Europe also has implications for the EU budget. We cannot tolerate any scandal or mismanagement of funds.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Commission, as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The discharge report draws attention to the fact that in the field of cohesion policy, the estimated error rate in 2010 increased to 7.7%, which is higher than the 2009 value. The discharge report highlights, among other points, the need to place more emphasis in future on more effective control of financial planning tools. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010, and I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it grants the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010. It is extremely important that the EU sets a leading example for good public management, which is necessary in order to retain the AAA rating that is key to honouring its commitment to provide EUR 60 billion in guarantees for the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism.

  Göran Färm (S&D), in writing. – (SV) For the first time since 2006, the annual report from the European Court of Auditors showed an increase in the proportion of errors made in the implementation of the EU budget – from 3.3% (in 2009) to 3.7%. This increase is extremely worrying and must not be allowed to recur.

It is the Commission that is ultimately responsible for the use of EU funds. Nevertheless, the Court of Auditors’ criticism is not directed at the Commission first and foremost, but at the Member States. For around 80% of the EU’s expenditure, management of the funds is shared between the Commission and the Member States, and it is the Member States that are responsible for the payments. It is also within these expenditure areas that the error percentage increased most during 2010. We therefore believe that the Commission should be granted discharge, and that the Member States should instead discuss within the Council measures to deal with these errors.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Despite the favourable opinion of the Court of Auditors, I am bound to mention the disconcerting increase in the error rate for payments made between the budgets implemented in 2009 and 2010. Moreover, it is important to re-emphasise the need for the Commission to table a plan for close monitoring of the use of financial engineering instruments; for improving and strengthening the reliability of the accountability chain; for reconsidering the increased use of pre-financing; and for creating an effective sanctioning mechanism in the area of cohesion policy. This will enable the Commission to accept fully its final and overall responsibility for implementing the budget. Finally, in the context of the economic and financial crisis that the EU is experiencing, it is important that EU budgetary policy gives due consideration to the specific situation in the Member States, particularly when this affects not only EU own resources but also cofinancing and the need for financial assistance provided under the Treaties, the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the European Stability Mechanism.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Fjellner, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission and executive agencies. Pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission executes the budget and works with the Member States to manage programmes, according to the principles of sound financial management. In view of the crisis we are experiencing, I consider it crucial that the EU sets an example of sound management of public funds, which is a prerequisite for retaining the AAA rating that is crucial to meeting commitments relating to the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism. As such, and in light of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the relevant committees, I am voting for this report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report and the annexed resolution includes many points with which we do not agree. The rapporteur raises suspicions about and makes accusations against the Member States, plays down their role in budget execution, disrespects certain fundamental principles of their sovereignty and advocates close ‘policing’ of them by the Commission. The rapporteur highlights that there has been an increased error rate relating to management of EU funds – the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund, energy and transportation – and that this has been caused by the Member States mismanaging such funding. It therefore suggests that the Commission sanctions non-conforming Member States ‘with different tools’. These tools range from interrupting or suspending fund payments to the external authorities that the report advocates. It also stresses that these payments may only be restarted ‘if sufficient appropriate audit evidence gathered on the spot proves that weaknesses were remedied’. At the same time, it does not elaborate – as it could and should have done – on some of the causes motivating a variety of types of non-conformity.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) As we know, by granting discharge, the European Parliament recognises that an institution or agency has executed its budget correctly. Today, it is clear that Europe is faced with a severe budgetary and financial crisis, which can lead to a crisis of confidence in the European Union, and it is vitally important for the European Union to be an example by ensuring good public management, through the Commission, which implements the European Union budget. More than 90% of all errors were identified outside the Commission at Member State authority and final beneficiary level. I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Commission budget, which accounts for more than 80% of all EU expenditure. However, I believe that faced with the situation today, the European Union needs a strong, independent and efficient external auditor more than ever. There are many problematic questions to which EU citizens must receive answers.

  Kent Johansson, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) We consider it unacceptable that not all of the Member States’ annual summaries have been made available as part of the budgetary control process for the Commission’s 2010 budget. This is contrary to the current interinstitutional agreement and it will do nothing to promote an open and transparent EU or to increase confidence in the Union’s institutions among EU citizens. We had therefore originally intended to vote in favour of a postponement of the decision on discharge in respect of the Commission’s 2010 budget.

Shortly before the vote, however, Commissioner Šemeta made his promise that all of these annual summaries will now be made available. We welcome this news, but, at the same time, we would emphasise that this is a decision that ought to have come much earlier in the process. The promised publication has come far too late for us to be able to support the granting of discharge to the Commission. Given this situation, we are therefore choosing to abstain from the vote on this point.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – While, of course, having doubts about some aspects of EU expenditure in 2010, I felt overall able to vote to give discharge to the Commission for the general budget.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In terms of discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission and executive agencies, I would like to reiterate the view expressed in the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, whereby the external action of the Union could become even more efficient and effective if Union delegations’ staff, regardless of their institution of origin, cooperated closely and flexibly. The Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President must not wait to implement all necessary administrative and regulatory measures in order to facilitate and improve cooperation between all Union staff working for the Commission or the European External Action Service (EEAS) within Union delegations.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to assess whether Union funds are being used effectively, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on discharge for the general EU budget.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Commission bears ultimate responsibility for the execution of the EU budget. I think that here are the challenges of the budget execution within the shared management between the Commission and the Member States. The Commission and the Member States should work together to decrease the error rate in cohesion policy and other big spending areas of the EU budget by making their monitoring and control systems more effective.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Despite various shortcomings in the implementation of the budget for 2010, I supported the adoption of this report, which thoroughly examined the many shortcomings and contained corresponding recommendations to improve the situation. I find it regrettable that various payments have been significantly influenced by errors, and that oversight and control systems are only partially effective. It is also unacceptable that there is insufficient information concerning the utilisation of present financial engineering instruments, and this influences all areas of policy. As a member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I think it is important that the Court of Auditors assess the implementation of the budget from a gender perspective, if possible. Unfortunately, these annual accounts do not contain the Court of Auditors’ observations or the Commission’s responses regarding expenditures connected with gender issues. An audit of the budget which includes a gender perspective is a prerequisite for preparing a budget with a gender dimension, and hopefully this will be taken into consideration in the preparation of subsequent annual accounts.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The new Chapter 8 on ‘Getting results from the EU budget’ in the annual report is part of a new model for Europe’s public accounts, which I consider crucial. A policy to that end, combined with reliable data, constitutes the basis for sound management. Europe is facing a serious budgetary and financial crisis, which could cause a crisis of confidence in the EU, and it is crucial that the EU sets an example of sound public management. Therefore, and in line with the European Parliament’s recommendations, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. –(IT) The EU budget discharge procedure offers an important way to ensure that European money is spent with the utmost respect for taxpayers. At times of economic crisis, when all Member States are required to pursue economic austerity, we must ensure that the EU uses its resources carefully and keeps waste and fraud to a minimum. Aside from the report on horizontal issues regarding financial management and controlling the agencies, this morning we also voted on 24 decentralised bodies. Discharge was granted for 21 agencies, but postponed for three of them: the European Medicines Agency in London, partly for refusing to establish a new payment system; the European Food Safety Authority in Parma, due to the need for drastic spending cuts on board meetings, as well as conflicts of interest among staff and members of the management board; and the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, due to conflicts of interest. Our vote is a call for clarity from those agencies not granted discharge, including out of respect for the public money of EU citizens.

Report: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0102/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. Every year, the European Court of Auditors publishes over a dozen of what are known as ‘special reports’, focusing on a wide variety of very specific policy issues. The Court of Auditors uses the performance audit approach when drawing up these reports to analyse the effectiveness of certain policies and programmes. The European Council and Parliament should take the recommendations by the Court of Auditors into account during the discharge procedure.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Any budget with an error rate greater than 2% is considered by the Court of Auditors to be vitiated by material error. I believe, however, that the Commission is not solely responsible, as the Member States have the necessary instruments to detect some of the errors. Systematic sanctioning is not a constructive step; I chose instead to vote in favour of the discharge and to give the Commission the resources to correct the errors.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I welcome all of the Court of Auditors’ special reports, which reveal the positive side of the Commission’s work as well as the problems the Commission faces when executing the EU budget and managing EU programmes. I welcome the conclusions and recommendations presented by the Court of Auditors in these reports and the calls for the Commission and the Member States to fully take these recommendations into account. As the member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats responsible for dealing with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) issue in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would like to draw particular attention to Special Report No 2/2011 of the Court of Auditors entitled ‘Follow-up of Special Report No 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office’. Of particular concern are the observations by the Court of Auditors that average case duration at OLAF is over two years, which indicates that problems remain with OLAF’s management system and the allocation of tasks. A cooperation agreement was signed in 2008 between OLAF and Eurojust, which seeks to combat fraud more effectively, but given the number of cases passed by OLAF to Eurojust (OLAF sent information about five cases in 2008 and only one case in 2009), it is clear that the cooperation between these two offices is not working. I agree that it is essential to improve OLAF’s management structure and reduce the time taken to investigate cases, which would enable us to combat financial crime and fraud more effectively throughout the EU.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report and, hence, in favour of granting discharge on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the Commission discharge, since the analysis carried out by Mr Fjellner has not thrown up any major problems or controversial points.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as it is utterly inconceivable that Parliament should grant any discharge for even a part of the budget until the budget as a whole has been signed off by the Court of Auditors, something which has never to date happened without significant tweaking and deception. I also believe that it is a disgrace that Parliament continues to waste money during a time of strict austerity on projects such as a visitor’s centre, the House of European History, the LUX prize and other such awards designed to promote the EU’s erroneous values which simply function as vehicles to push forward Brussels’ agenda. As such, it is using taxpayers’ money to afford propaganda when hundreds of thousands of citizens in Europe are hostile to the machinations of the European Union in their home countries and suffering terribly as a result of the failed single currency project. It also brings about the subject of holding Parliamentary plenary in Strasbourg, which is not only a profligate waste of money, but goes against the EU’s purported carbon reduction values. The agreement to have Parliament in Strasbourg was to satiate calls from the then French Government, calls which are outdated and smack of preferentialism.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the 2010 special reports of the European Court of Auditors on the European Commission, as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The European Court of Auditors calls on the European Commission to act more effectively with regard to the Member States and to regroup more officials to control state subsidies without delay. It urges the Commission to consider whether it can use the lessons learned from successful management of the financial crisis to simplify work carried out under ‘normal’ circumstances. I support the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors that measures taken within the framework of the supervisory and coordination powers of the Commission need to be reinforced. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it grants the European Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010. The special reports by the Court of Auditors are very important to Parliament in the performance of its role as discharge authority.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the evaluation carried out by the Court of Auditors in these special reports, since they will give us clearer access to information on how funds are spent, as well as on the need to reassess or readapt programmes and projects. All the information provided by the Court of Auditors should be taken into consideration by the EU, particularly the Commission, as the main executive and management body responsible for the EU budget.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Fjellner, concerns analysis of the special reports by the Court of Auditors in the context of the 2010 Commission discharge. The European Court of Auditors has to submit an annual report on the financial year to the European Parliament. The special reports by the Court of Auditors provide Parliament with information on how funds are spent, thereby qualifying it for its role as discharge authority. Following analysis of this report, I agree with the rapporteur that the Commission needs to make changes to procedure, in line with the proposals set out in the reports, whilst informing the European Parliament so as to guarantee legal certainty to all those involved in the reports. As such, and in light of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the relevant committees, I am voting for this report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the 2010 Commission discharge because, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission shall execute the budget and manage programmes and shall do so, pursuant to Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in cooperation with the Member States, on its own responsibility, having regard to the principle of sound financial management. The special reports of the Court of Auditors provide information on issues of concern related to the implementation of funds, which are therefore useful for Parliament in exercising its role of discharge authority. Parliament’s observations on the special reports of the Court of Auditors form an integral part of Parliament’s Decision of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. I find unacceptable the way in which the Commission recourses to budget support within ENPI, treating it as the preferred aid modality in the three countries, without a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of the available tools; stresses in this context that sector budget support is often related to a low visibility and occasional motivation by the governments, and is deeply concerned by the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that the suitability of an area for sector budget support became an important factor for determining assistance in the 2007 annual action programmes; urges the Commission to follow the Court of Auditors’ recommendation to choose sector budget support more selectively by considering all available options in ENPI and to develop a more balanced deployment of the different tools; stresses the need to increase the access of NGOs and the private sector in the beneficiary countries to the assistance provided

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. The Court of Auditors has drafted a number of special reports for the Commission, according to which we can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. I am therefore voting for this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Court of Auditors publishes every year more than a dozen of the so-called ‘special reports’ that focus on very specific policy issues and topics. In producing these reports, the Court uses the performance audit approach to analyse the effectiveness of particular policies and programmes. The Court’s recommendations are taken into account by Parliament during its discharge exercise. More efficient work in this direction is necessary. I voted in favour.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report, as I agree with the special reports of the Court of Auditors regarding the implementation of the budget for the year 2010. I share the view expressed in the Court of Auditors’ recommendation in Special Report No 7/2010 that it is important to implement a reform of the accounts clearance procedure and the discharge procedure, which would help reduce the duration of procedures and establish a clear relationship between sums recovered and the actual illegal payments. As regards Special Report No 14/2010 on the safety of imported meat, I am completely in agreement with the Court of Auditors’ recommendation calling on the Commission to endeavour to eliminate the different treatment of Member States in third countries, which amounts to discrimination.

For instance, the Russian Federation has introduced an import ban on pigs and other animals from European Union Member States, which essentially only affects Estonia and Latvia, because exports of live animals from these countries form the majority of exports of live animals to Russia from the EU. The misinterpretation of food hygiene requirements is a sordid method for achieving other political objectives and should be condemned at the highest levels of the European Union.

In Special Report No 07/2011, I think it is important to establish more clearly targeted rural development programmes in Member States, because the objective should be to actually implement them and not to prepare them simply because they are required by European Union bureaucracy.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The special reports by the Court of Auditors provide information on issues that concern it regarding how funds are spent. These reports are useful, therefore, when Parliament is performing its role as discharge authority. I would highlight the fact that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) make more use of its investigative powers, for example, by carrying out on-the-spot checks and interviews, or by focusing on more serious and complex cases. For this reason in particular, but on the basis of the recommendations tabled by the European Parliament and taking into account the Council recommendation and the aforementioned reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts.

Report: Boguslaw Liberadzki (A7-0120/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which is particularly focused on discharge for 2010, specifically, for the implementation of that year’s budget. Considerable details have been added on finance for Parliament’s prizes over three years. It is important to block the scheme of closing EuroparlTV and return to the rapporteur’s original call for a cost-benefit analysis in the first instance. Finally, it is important to welcome the initiative of examining possible cost reductions in Parliament, as requested in the resolution on the 2013 budget. As the European institution directly representing the European public, Parliament has a duty to economise at a time when Europeans are experiencing severe economic and financial constraints.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We, the MEPs, are asked to vote on the discharge of the other institutions and agencies of the European Union. We must also take charge of our own self-assessment and, on this occasion, we have approved our own accounts. Within our budget, and by way of example, we have EuroparlTV, Parliament’s television channel launched in 2008, which, unfortunately, does not attract enough European citizens. We also have a budget dedicated to welcoming tens of thousands of visitors (283 000 last year). Each MEP can sponsor 110 visitors per year. You can consult my website http://www.sophieauconie.eu" for further information.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Parliament. I welcome the relatively positive evaluations by the Court of Auditors and agree with all the conclusions and recommendations it has presented. It is important for Parliament to take due account of the Court of Auditors’ recommendations, particularly when improving public procurement procedures and reconsidering control mechanisms for public procurement in order to guarantee the most competitive prices for the goods and services that are offered and to use EU taxpayers’ money effectively. Like last year, I agree that Parliament should only have one workplace in the same location as the other Union institutions.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as it is utterly inconceivable that Parliament should grant any discharge for even a part of the budget until the budget as a whole has been signed off by the Court of Auditors, something which has never to date happened without significant tweaking and deception. I also believe that it is a disgrace that Parliament continues to waste money during a time of strict austerity on projects such as a visitor’s centre, the House of European History, the LUX prize and other such awards designed to promote the EU’s erroneous values which simply function as vehicles to push forward Brussels’ agenda. As such, it is using taxpayers’ money to afford propaganda when hundreds of thousands of citizens in Europe are hostile to the machinations of the European Union in their home countries and suffering terribly as a result of the failed single currency project. It also brings about the subject of holding Parliamentary plenary in Strasbourg, which is not only a profligate waste of money but goes against the EU’s purported carbon reduction values. The agreement to have Parliament in Strasbourg was to satiate calls from the then French Government, calls which are outdated and smack of preferentialism.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting Parliament’s discharge for the financial year 2010. I share the opinion of the rapporteur with regard to the need for better allocation of the available funds and the need to avoid useless expenditure. I take note of the difficulties that EuroparlTV has encountered. However, I would like to remind you how important it is to have adequate communication tools to keep citizens informed of Parliament’s activities.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Parliament as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The audits carried out by the Court of Auditors found all payments to be free from material error and the inspection related to the assessment of the oversight and control systems’ compliance with the Financial Regulation did not reveal any deficiencies either. It is to be welcomed that the Internal Audit Service conforms to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing to the highest possible degree. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report attached to the discharge of the European Parliament’s budget highlights the failure of the EuroparlTV project and, in view of the low number of direct users, calls on the Secretary-General to present proposals to the competent committee for the closure of the operation. The report also quantifies the enormous waste related to maintaining Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which cost in excess of EUR 50 million in 2010, while it is estimated that establishing a single seat would deliver savings of approximately EUR 180 million. In addition, the report underlines the fact that Parliament has already expressed its view on this, declaring itself in favour of closing the Strasbourg seat. Wasting public money is never acceptable, but it is even more heinous in times of recession like the present, as Member States are being forced to ask sacrifices of their taxpayers. In the hope that the competent institutions will make an effort to reduce or eliminate these and other sources of waste, I voted in favour of the report on the discharge of the budget of the European Parliament for 2010.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This vote was an opportunity to re-open the debate on the location of the seat of the European Parliament. However, this situation is based on historical references and on legal texts which cannot be called into question by often erroneous attacks on costs or damages relating to the fact that the premises of the European Parliament are widely dispersed. The issue of Strasbourg or Brussels does not arise here since, under the treaties historically establishing our Union, Strasbourg is the rule and Brussels the exception.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it grants the President of the European Parliament discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has increased Parliament’s competences and volume of work, so there is a need to highlight Parliament’s efforts to overcome budgetary challenges by adopting concrete measures to improve the cost-efficiency relationship.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I should like to start by welcoming the conclusion of the Court of Auditors that there are no material errors in the payments and that no material weaknesses were found when assessing the compliance of the oversight and control systems with the Financial Regulation. This report makes an exhaustive analysis of Parliament’s budgetary situation, drawing attention to some important issues that urgently require review with regard to how Parliament operates, to security, and to buildings management. However, I would once again highlight that discharge is not the time to propose or discuss budgetary measures. To the contrary, I think the European Parliament should start reflecting deeply on how it operates and is managed, without giving in to populism, and should ensure the effective, reasonable and parsimonious management of the resources allocated to it.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Liberadzki, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I – European Parliament. The audit that the Court of Auditors conducted on Parliament’s administrative expenditure in 2010 concluded that all the institutions had satisfactorily complied with the oversight and control systems required by the Financial Regulation. Although I believe transparency rules need to be improved so as to be very clear about which singular, collective or public institutions benefit from European Union funding, and given that, on 16 June 2011, the Secretary-General certified that Parliament’s budget was properly implemented and that the principles of sound financial management were respected, I voted for this report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In general, the rapporteur believes there are sufficient guarantees that the European Parliament budget has been implemented in line with the principles of sound financial management. However, the rapporteur makes some specific criticisms and some suggestions, which we support for the most part, notwithstanding some specific disagreements – that we highlighted during the vote – and a different view of some of the issues included in the resolution. Particularly important are the references to potential savings from better rationalisation of missions between the three sites in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg; the delays with and considerable increase in the cost of Parliament’s new visitor centre; the cost and lack of clarity associated with the House of European History; and the costs relating to the travel agency. It is noteworthy that the rapporteur proposes abolishing prizes such as the LUX Prize for cinema and also mentions scrapping the Prize for Journalism, but says nothing about the future of the Sakharov Prize, which is the most expensive and has been increased by EUR 352 348 since 2009.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on the resolution accompanying discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Parliament’s 2010 budget. While I support the general guidelines contained in this resolution, I strongly oppose two clearly anti-Strasbourg amendments (Amendments 6 and 15), which were tabled and incorporated into this resolution. The debate and the attacks on the location of the seat of the European Parliament resurface with increasing regularity, and I am very mindful of this. Although it was long a symbolic issue, today it has become a predominantly legal and political one. I remain firmly committed to this permanent fight to keep the seat of the European Parliament within our beautiful European capital. Moreover, I voted against Amendment 4, which wanted to abolish the LUX Prize. Awarded each year by the European Parliament, the LUX Prize rewards films that go to the heart of European public debate and illustrate the universality of European values, cultural diversity and the process of European integration.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I – European Parliament because the audit of the Court of Auditors stated that, as regards administrative expenditure in 2010, all the institutions satisfactorily operated the oversight and control systems required by the Financial Regulation and 93% of the 58 payments audited were free from material error. On 16 June 2011, the Secretary-General certified his reasonable assurance that Parliament’s budget has been implemented in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and that the control framework put in place provides the necessary guarantees as to the legality and regularity of the underlying operations.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The resolution accompanying discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Parliament’s 2010 budget again contains its fair share of contradictions, errors and crackpot ideas.

Consequently, I am opposed to this text, while I have no problem voting for the discharge, like my colleagues.

I cannot understand why our legal service does not declare some of the amendments and also a number of paragraphs that have nothing to do with the discharge, such as paragraph 96, which is inconsistent with paragraph 95, inadmissible. How is it possible for a committee to scoff at the opinion of the legal service when it points out to it that an amendment is inadmissible?

One of the most ludicrous requests is to seek the opinion of the Court of Auditors on the subsidy scheme for visitors’ groups.

Indeed, the Bureau has, in fact, just changed this scheme. There is no risk of undue payments because these lump sums barely cover expenses.

I also need to correct paragraph 68, which states that 2.3% of staff are Luxembourg nationals, which is relatively high.

This figure is incorrect. There are 117 Luxembourg officials in total out of 5 540 posts…

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170)

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which ‘Notes the reply given by Parliament’s Secretariat to the effect that the annual cost of Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg stood at precisely EUR 51 500 000 in 2010, comprising EUR 33 500 000 in infrastructure costs and EUR 18 000 000 in operating costs for the 12 monthly part-sessions; points out that these official figures are far lower than the estimates previously put forward, which ranged from EUR 169 000 000 to EUR 203 000 000’.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting the European Parliament discharge because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. I congratulate the rapporteur on his work.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of granting the European Parliament discharge in respect of the implementation of Parliament’s budget for the financial year 2010. I supported amendments in favour of greater budget transparency and for the opportunity to make further savings by designating a single seat for Parliament.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on discharge for the general EU budget.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Bogusław Liberadzki focused the discharge report for 2010 as much as possible on the budget implementation for that year (previous rapporteurs have tried to expand the scope of the discharge report far beyond budget implementation for the year in question, to include wider budget issues and call into question projects or initiatives agreed by the Bureau). A very good job, I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The audit by the Court of Auditors concluded, as regards 2010 administrative expenditure, that all the institutions had satisfactorily implemented the oversight and control measures required by the Financial Regulation and that 93% of the 58 audited payments did not contain material errors. Moreover, on 16 June 2011, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament certified that he is sufficiently sure that Parliament’s budget was implemented in line with the principles of sound financial management. Furthermore, the system of checks provides the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. I therefore voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts. In fact, by granting discharge to a particular institution or agency, Parliament is declaring that the spending thereof was in line with EU rules and closing the budget. If the application breached the existing rules, Parliament could either refuse or postpone discharge. That has not happened in this case, in which discharge has been granted to the EU accounts for the financial year 2010, Section I – European Parliament.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) When the EU is demanding budgetary constraint and austerity of the Member States, it is not a credible situation to allow, at the same time, millions of euro to be spent on the travelling circus that is continuing between Brussels and Strasbourg. I have therefore voted in favour of granting discharge in respect of the implementation of Parliament’s budget for 2010 and of the resolution as a whole, but I also voted in favour of the passages that point out the unreasonable nature of the situation. It is also important to point out that, where this travelling circus is concerned, it is not Parliament that is blocking change. The decision rests with the Council and the representatives of the individual Member States there.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of a single seat and of it being, in the future, in Brussels. I abstained on Amendment 6. If it is just a poll, then there is no problem; I am ‘for’ everything being centralised in Brussels. However, is a vote just a poll and does this incredibly important issue have to be raised through an amendment? I cannot vote positively on this issue without being able to vote on the consequences of such a decision. That would be tantamount to buying a pig in a poke. What about the distribution of institutions following the transfer from Strasbourg to Brussels, or the domino effect, which could turn out to be financially painful if bad decisions were made? Neither would I wish it to be a disaster for Belgium, or for anyone for that matter. We need to reflect in advance on the impact on direct or indirect jobs, and not after the fact, when it is too late. Here we are, facing the same scenario. When all the implications for jobs, the implications for Brussels and the real financial implications are planned in the same vote, we will then be able to have a real discussion and, above all, a real vote.

Report: Martin Ehrenhauser (A7-0100/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since I believe the main concern should be for the European Development Funds (EDFs) to come under the European Union budget because, as they are not included, it is not possible to analyse them in exactly the same way as other expenditure. The message should be to call on the European Commission to include the EDFs in the discharge report. The principle of transparency should never be called into question in the European Union, which aims to be a political bloc promoting a very high level of democracy and to set an example to the world.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds in respect of the 2010 budget. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds. In the opinion of the Court of Auditors, the final annual accounts of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth EDFs represent fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the EDFs in 2010, and the revenue and commitments are free from material error. Staffing constraints are a concern. I welcome the fact that the Financial Management Toolkit was disseminated in order to improve knowledge of financial management and eligibility of rules by implementing organisations. As for Special Report No 11/2010 of the Court of Auditors, I agree with the audit and the constructive recommendations contained therein. I believe that General Budget Support (GBS) is a very valuable instrument of aid delivery, which can potentially increase the ownership and responsibility of recipient governments.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. It is necessary for the European Commission to obtain further information regarding the implementation of the EDFs at national and regional level and to ensure better visibility for all Union-funded activities overseas. It gives reason for concern, however, that, in 2010, the oversight and control systems were once again only partially effective when providing payments from the EDFs; still, the discharge report concluded that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting discharge for the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2010. The EDFs are EU financial instruments for development cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP). The main objectives of the Cotonou Agreement with the ACP and the overseas countries and territories are to reduce poverty and to integrate them gradually into the global economy.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Development Funds still constitute the EU’s main instrument for granting development aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Despite Parliament’s repeated requests, they remain outside the Commission budget. They therefore urgently need to be included in the EU budget, so as to increase the democratic control, accountability and transparency of funding. It is noteworthy that the Court of Auditors takes the view that there is still a high frequency of encoding errors which, while not having a material impact on the annual accounts in 2010, could potentially affect the reliability of EuropeAid financial management data. Therefore, the Commission should continue its efforts to improve the system of checks and oversight for EuropeAid, so as to achieve positive results as regards accountability, efficiency and effectiveness.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Ehrenhauser, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) for the financial year 2010. The EDF constitutes the European Union’s main financial instrument for development cooperation with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. I welcome the EDF’s sound financial implementation, particularly as regards gross payments and the commitment rate of almost 50%. However, in light of the report by the Court of Auditors, I am bound to express my concern about how budget support payments were processed in the first half of 2011. As such, and in light of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the relevant committees, I am voting for this report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report criticises the fact that the European Development Fund (EDF), as the EU’s main financial instrument for development cooperation, is not included in the EU budget. The rapporteur calls on the Commission to propose including the EDF in the EU budget during discussions on the upcoming multiannual financial framework; that is not happening with the present Commission proposal, for now. There have been demands for this change for some time. It would provide EU development cooperation and development aid policy with funding that would be more robust and predictable, as well as making it easier for the institutions responsible for approving the budget to scrutinise. However, we do not share the view that the European External Action Service should ‘fully exercise its political role by active participation in developing the political goals of the recipient countries’. We are also unable to accept the paragraphs mentioning that ‘sound and well-functioning trade relations in line with [World Trade Organisation] principles is [sic] key’ to developing countries’ social and economic development, and those calling on the Commission to resolve outstanding conflicts concerning the proposed economic partnership agreements and free trade between Europe and African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2010. In the Court of Auditors’ opinion, there is still a high frequency of encoding errors. It should be noted that the Court of Auditors found that although these errors did not have a material impact on the annual accounts in 2010, they can potentially affect the reliability of EuropeAid financial management data. According to the Court of Auditors, the revenue and commitments are free from material error, but there is great concern about the significant frequency of non-quantifiable errors affecting commitments in terms of compliance with tendering rules and legal deadlines for the signature of contracts. There is particular concern about the increase in badly performing projects in 2010 (12.6% versus 11% in 2009) and the persistently high frequency of errors in commitments under decentralised management.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, in which Parliament reconfirms its position of supporting EDF budgetisation; strongly believes that this is an indispensable step towards strengthening the democratic control, the accountability, and the transparency of funding and towards providing more coherence in Union policy concerning ACP countries; underlines that budgetisation would reduce transaction costs and would simplify reporting and accounting requirements by having only one set of administrative rules and decision-making structures instead of two; expects the Commission to ensure that the budgetisation is not made on the expenses of a loss of predictability of ACP funding.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report granting discharge to the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The biggest concern of the S&D Group is that the European Development Funds do not come under the budget of the European Union and therefore cannot be fully scrutinised in the same way as other expenditure. I think that ‘budgetisation’ of the European Development Funds is necessary.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The reports by the European Court of Auditors on the European Development Funds (EDFs) for the financial year 2010 and the Council recommendation conclude that the final annual accounts of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth EDFs faithfully reflect all significant aspects of the EDFs’ financial situation on 31 December 2010. In view of this, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0095/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, despite the difficulty of working on this issue because the Council has, yet again, refused to provide any information in response to written questions. These focused mainly on transfers between budgets and on the possibility that funds intended for one purpose were used for other ends. The report by the Court of Auditors criticised the Council for diverting interpretation/translation funding into the Residence Palace project and the Council’s response was that it had abandoned this practice. The European Parliament wants the various institutions to be individually specified in the negotiations on the Financial Regulation, so as to avoid such ambiguity in future and to give Parliament a strong mandate for separate discharge for each body. Inevitably, the Council is not prepared to accept this clarification. The European Parliament scrutinises its own budgetary implementation and wants to reach a position whereby there is an equivalent process for all the institutions, so as to prevent Council spending. Parliament’s services have provided the information demanded by the competent committee, thereby enabling it to reach an informed decision on budgetary discharge. We want to be able to reach a conscious decision on discharge for the Council.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation. We asked the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union to answer a few additional questions. Discharge must be based on ‘transparency and mutual responsibility’. The report on the adoption of discharge has been adopted. However, I think discharge could have been granted.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I did not vote for the proposal to postpone discharge to the Council proposed by the report of my Spanish colleague, Inés Ayala Sender. By mistake, I did not vote for discharge in the Committee on Budgetary Control. As last year, my intention was to do so. I note that the European Court of Auditors did not comment on the management of the Council. I am also disappointed that my proposal for a legal study of the power of the European Parliament to grant discharge to the Council was rejected. That would have identified, in particular, the consequences for discharge of the creation of the European Union as a legal entity by the Treaty of Lisbon. I think these debates between the Council, which thinks that, unlike the other EU institutions, it is not responsible for the use of the funds made available to it, and the statement that granting discharge to the Commission equates to granting discharge for the entire EU budget, including the parts of the budget used by the Council, are derisory. All these debates do not reflect well on the Committee on Budgetary Control. I hope things will quickly become clear.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted against granting the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the 2010 budget. I take a negative view of the Council’s refusal to attend any official meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control related to its discharge. Furthermore, the Council has failed to provide in writing all the documents required for discharge, including the full 2010 internal audit and annual activity reports. The financial transparency of the EU institutions is very important for maintaining citizens’ confidence in the European Union. I welcome the European Parliament’s call for the Secretary-General of the Council to provide comprehensive answers to the questions posed in the European Parliament’s report along with the relevant documents as soon as possible, so that the Committee on Budgetary Control can consider granting the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the 2010 budget.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament is the budgetary authority of the EU, on an equal footing with the Council. There are some who still find this truth difficult to accept. By not voting in favour of granting budgetary discharge, we want to push the Council towards greater transparency. Replying to the questionnaire we send out every year and attending public meetings and hearings are gestures embodying the good interinstitutional relations we expect from the Council. Cooperation is not self-evident, whilst the European Parliament shows responsibility by voting each year for budgetary discharge for each EU institution and for each EU agency – an action that is far from being superfluous, as we see each year. It is ultimately up to the Council to enter fully into this relationship of cooperation between two institutions that are on an equal footing in budgetary matters.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Council as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. In its annual report for 2010, the Court of Auditors concluded, based on its audit work, that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for the administrative and other expenses of the institutions and bodies were free from material error. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. However, the Council failed to make a number of documents necessary for the completion of the discharge procedure available to Parliament and the Committee; without these, the financial year 2010 cannot be closed. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to postpone the granting of discharge. I supported the postponement of granting discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget for the financial year 2010. I regret, however, that the Council refused to take part in the official meetings of the Committee on Budgetary Control relating to the Council discharge. I would reiterate the view that European taxpayers have the right to expect that the Union budget should be subject to strict public scrutiny.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the name of transparency and rigour, which the public needs to see, I do not consider the Council exonerated from its responsibility to publicly account for the funds made available to it. I therefore agree with the rapporteur’s decision to postpone the decision on granting the Council discharge for its accounts until it has supplied the information and documents requested by the rapporteur. Lastly, I regret that the Council has yet again failed to cooperate with this House with regard to our scrutiny of its budgetary implementation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Ms Ayala Sender concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council. The mission of the Council of the European Union is to approve EU legislation, coordinate economic policies, ensure cooperation between courts and police forces, sign agreements between the EU and third countries, approve the EU’s annual budget and draw up foreign and defence policies. In addition to its powers, the Council also has obligations, particularly in relation to interinstitutional cooperation with Parliament. This applies, above all, to our scrutiny of its budgetary implementation, and the Council cannot refuse to provide the clarifications requested by Members of this House. Consequently, in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the relevant committees, I am voting in favour of this report, which seeks to postpone granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur proposes that Parliament postpone granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget, in keeping with its power to make use of the two deadlines in the discharge timetable; the purpose, in this case, is to explore the possibility of reaching an agreement with the Presidency-in-Office. The grounds for this postponement are the Council’s lack of transparency and failure to account for its spending, which have led to the dispute that has been dragging on between the two institutions – Parliament and the Council – for a long time. The entire report criticises the Council’s position, as it is refusing to submit documents relating to implementation of its budget, to meet, or to answer Parliament’s questions on that matter. As a result, Parliament has no knowledge of the Council’s accounts, even though it takes part in the discharge procedure. The rapporteur also puts forward a number of questions for the Council to answer on administrative issues (including some on the European External Action Service) and on the Common Foreign and Security Policy/Common Security and Defence Policy tasks, amongst other matters. We voted for this report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document because in its annual report for 2010, the Court of Auditors concluded, based on its audit work, that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for the administrative and other expenses of the institutions and bodies were free from material error. I welcome the provision that an in-depth assessment of oversight and control systems in the Council must be carried out, similar to the assessments carried out in relation to the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor in the course of preparation of the Court of Auditors’ annual report concerning the financial year 2010. European taxpayers have every right to expect that the entirety of the Union budget, including all the funds managed autonomously by its separate institutions and agencies, should be subject to full public scrutiny. It is wrong that, unlike the other Union institutions, the Council does not consider itself responsible for the use of the funds made available to it.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution in which Parliament ‘Postpones its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council’s budget for the financial year 2010’.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the decision on granting the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 because I believe that Parliament has not received the necessary facts from the Council to enable it to perform its role of monitoring that institution correctly.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are achieving their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. In the case of the Council, however, there are some gaps in the Court of Auditors’ report, leading us to postpone the discharge procedure for the 2010 budget.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Parliament scrutinises its own budget implementation and I support the idea of getting to the position where there is an equivalent process for the Council’s spending. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Interinstitutional cooperation between Parliament and the Council is of the utmost importance in overseeing implementation of the EU budget. I therefore endorse the recommendations put forward by Parliament and reiterate the request for the Council to provide answers to the list of questions that Parliament has submitted to it. In view of this, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission and to grant discharge for the accounts for 2010, Section II – Council.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0088/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I applaud the initiative taken by the Court of Justice, which, in late March 2011, submitted to the two branches of the legislative authority a proposal to reform its statute providing, inter alia, for the creation of 12 additional posts for judges at the General Court. This initiative should be implemented in the most cost-efficient manner possible. I hope it will be possible to adopt these structural measures in early 2012, with a view to their implementation as early as possible this year. The next annual activity report should also, in my view, include a comprehensive table of all the human resources that the Court of Justice has at its disposal, showing their category, grade, gender, participation in professional training and nationality. I welcome, however, the in-depth information on staff management already provided by the Court of Justice in its annual activity report and in its response to the additional questions that Parliament asked on this matter.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the Court of Justice. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Court of Justice for 2010. I welcome the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that the payments for administrative and other expenditure were free from material error. I share the Court of Auditors’ concern that the number of new cases (631 in 2010) has increased considerably, although there was no major change in the number of cases completed.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report and, hence, in favour of granting discharge to the Court of Justice, since the report by Ms Ayala Sender has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Court of Justice as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. In its annual report for 2010, the Court of Auditors did not raise any objections in connection with the 2010 financial management of the Court of Justice. Based on its audit work, the Court of Auditors concluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and bodies were free from material error; the most likely error rate for administrative expenditure as a whole was assessed as 0.4%. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Report by Ms Ayala Sender on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section IV – Court of Justice (COM(2011)0473 – C7-0259/2011 – 2011/2204(DEC)); Committee on Budgetary Control. I voted for this report granting the Court of Justice discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010. I support the initiative taken by the Court of Justice in submitting a proposal for reform of its statute, which will lead to a better cost-benefit ratio.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the fact that, based on its audit work, the Court of Auditors concluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and bodies were free from material error, while also stating that ‘The Court has no observation to make on the Court of Justice’.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Ayala Sender, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section IV – Court of Justice. The Court of Justice has the task of ensuring that the legislation adopted by the European Parliament is applied in the same way across all the Member States. Moreover, it resolves not only disputes between national governments and the European institutions, but also conflicts involving companies, private individuals and organisations that feel unfairly treated by a European institution. The Court of Justice’s budgetary implementation was faultless. Therefore, and having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for this report with a view to granting the Registrar of the Court of Justice discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur proposes granting the Court of Justice discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010, which means recognising that this body complied with the European rules in its budgetary implementation and considers its budget closed. The Court of Auditors has drafted its report and found that there are no significant errors. There is, however, one aspect that deserves to be highlighted and which is included in the resolution adopted: it is obvious that the number of new cases brought before the Court of Justice has increased considerably. There were 631 in 2010. The way the EU rides roughshod over national sovereignties finds expression in many fields, including the legal field. The new – or old in the ideology that inspires it – Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union is symptomatic of the attack on the sovereignty of national institutions, including in legal terms, given the unprecedented powers it assigns to the Court of Justice. That may exacerbate the trend mentioned by the rapporteur even further. It is an unacceptable path that we reject and will fight.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because this grants the Registrar of the Court of Justice discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. The budget of the Court of Justice is purely administrative, with 75% spent on people working with the institution and 25% on buildings, furniture, equipment and miscellaneous operating expenditure. The in-depth information on staff management already provided by the Court of Justice in its annual activity report and the response the Court gave to the additional questions Parliament asked on this matter should be welcomed. The progress made is viewed positively.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, in which Parliament ‘Grants the Registrar of the Court of Justice discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010’.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with this function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are achieving their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with rare exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have seen – are using the funds available to them properly and achieving the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Court of Justice.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I think that the European Court of Justice should be granted budget discharge.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2010, the implementation rate for the Court of Justice’s commitment appropriations was 97.9%. In addition to this indicator, I would stress the fact that the recommendations made in previous years in the interest of transparency have been acted on. I would also highlight the development of the ‘e-Curia’ application, enabling procedural documents to be lodged and served electronically, and I hope more Member States can join this scheme. For these reasons, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to grant discharge for the accounts for the financial year 2010, Section IV – Court of Justice.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0091/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of this report, since the draft future Financial Regulation provides that, after consulting the Court of Auditors, agencies can appoint an independent external auditor to check whether their budget implementation complies with the provisions of the Financial Regulation. I also commend the initiative taken by the Court of Auditors, which, in 2011, launched a pilot project with Eurofound (the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions). In this respect, however, it would be preferable, in future, to avert misunderstandings of the kind that has occurred in connection with the current discharge report on the agencies, which arose from the discrepancy between what was predicted by the relevant Court of Auditors’ official at the start of the financial year and what was presented before Parliament as the final result. I would encourage the Court of Auditors to perform an in-depth assessment of oversight and control systems in the Council before the end of 2012, as mentioned in Parliament’s resolution on discharge for 2009 (paragraph 8).

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Court of Auditors. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I welcome the fact that the Court of Auditors has revised the Code of Conduct for its Members, which provides that declarations of Members’ financial interests must be published on the Internet. It is very important that, following reorganisation, the Court of Auditors has reduced the annual cost of security services by EUR 500 000, while ensuring more effective delivery of services and better risk control.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, and I also decided in favour of an amendment calling on the Court of Auditors to draw up a special report on the implementation of the budget of the European Parliament with regard to efficiency, effectiveness and savings, and to point out the areas in which good financial management could be improved even further.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Court of Auditors as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The report found that in order to enhance the efficiency of the Court of Auditors’ activity, as high a percentage of the Court’s officials as possible should be performing audit tasks exclusively. The auditors primarily examined whether financial operations had been properly recorded and disclosed, as well as legally and regularly executed and managed, so as to ensure economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report since it grants the Court of Auditors discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010. However, it also calls for improvements to be made to the summary of the number and type of internal audits carried out, and also for future audits to consider performance indicators and objectives.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the analysis carried out by an external consultant confirming that the financial statements of the European Court of Auditors give a true and fair view of its financial situation, and also that funds were correctly used for their intended purposes.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Ayala Sender, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section V – Court of Auditors. The mission of the Court of Auditors, which was set up in 1975 and has its headquarters in Luxembourg, is to oversee the European Union’s finances or, in other words, to check how public funds are used. The external audit of the Court of Auditors’ financial statements for 2010 found that they ‘give a true and fair view of the financial position of the European Court of Auditors as of 31 December 2010’. While I agree with the rapporteur’s recommendations in that I would like future audits to examine performance indicators and objectives as well, I realise that the Court of Auditors’ budgetary implementation has been faultless. Therefore, and having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for this report with a view to granting the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors discharge in respect of the implementation of the Court’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section V – Court of Auditors, because discharge is granted to the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors for the implementation of the Court of Auditors’ budget for the financial year 2010. I welcome the steps taken by the Court of Auditors to improve its role in line with Parliament’s request, with a view to having a broader and deeper impact so that its opinions and reports are more effective and useful and its systems and procedures more reliable, thereby strengthening the synergies between the two institutions.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I am relieved that Parliament is able to grant discharge to the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors for the implementation of the Court of Auditors’ budget for the financial year 2010.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As the principal body responsible for auditing all the European institutions, the Court of Auditors also has to be audited itself. I would emphasise that the audit carried out by an external body has proved to be highly positive. The internal auditor’s report was also positive, with the majority of its recommendations having been accepted and applied in advance in a number of action plans. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – There were some amendments tabled criticising the European Court of Auditors (ECA) for its failure to carry out certain tasks in respect of the agencies. I do not think that the discharge report for the ECA is the right place to raise these questions. I voted in favour of granting budget discharge to the ECA.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The audit of the Court of Auditors’ financial statements for 2010 was carried out by an external auditor. However, I agree with the rapporteur’s request for the next financial year’s audit to include performance indicators and objectives as well. For these reasons, and particularly in view of the fact that the number of posts dedicated to audit tasks has increased by 6%, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thus granting discharge for the 2010 accounts, Section V – Court of Auditors.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0092/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of this report and am pleased with the results revealed by the mid-term review of the functioning of the administrative cooperation agreement between the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. I believe the establishment of joint services has allowed the two committees to make budget savings and the committees should implement the recommendations relating to staff (greater harmonisation of rules), social and medical services and internal services. I will finish by stressing the need for enhanced compatibility of the priority budget lines of the two committees, which will lead to greater savings and even stronger interinstitutional cooperation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the Economic and Social Committee. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Economic and Social Committee (EESC). I welcome the Court of Auditors’ recommendations that the EESC should limit increases to its budgets in the coming years to an absolute minimum and finance new and extended activities primarily through savings. I welcome the call for a comprehensive spending review of all areas of activity to be undertaken with urgency to ensure that all expenditure is delivering value for money, and for particular attention to be paid to the Court of Auditors’ observations concerning the reimbursement of travel expenses to EESC members and the awarding of contracts based on a restricted procedure.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Economic and Social Committee as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. In its annual report, the Court of Auditors concluded, based on its audit work, that the payments of the Economic and Social Committee as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for the administrative and other expenses of the institutions and bodies were free from material error; the most likely rate of error in the ‘administrative expenses’ section in general was 0.4%. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it grants the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. The EESC should follow Parliament’s lead and devote additional efforts to management so as to keep any increases to its budget in the coming years to an absolute minimum.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The budgetary implementation rate of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in 2010 was 98%, and the Court of Auditors has concluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for the administrative and other expenses of the institutions and bodies were free from material error. The EESC should, however, undertake with urgency a comprehensive spending review of all areas of activity to ensure all expenditure is delivering value for money and to identify savings that will reduce the pressure on the budget in this period of austerity.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Ayala Sender, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is a consultative assembly composed of representatives of employers’ organisations, workers and interest groups – trade unions – the mission of which is to forward its opinions to the Council, the Commission and Parliament. It issues about 170 opinions a year. While I agree with the rapporteur’s recommendations in terms of improving the quality of the summary of the Internal Audit Service’s activities, I welcome the high rate of budgetary implementation and am pleased with the EESC’s decision, taken on 24 April 2012, to carry out an assessment of its work, given that its budgetary implementation has been faultless. Therefore, and having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for this report with a view to granting the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee discharge in respect of the implementation of the Committee’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) With this report, Parliament grants the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010, which means recognising that this committee complied with the European rules in its budgetary implementation and considers its budget closed. The resolution accompanying this act mentions that the implementation rate of the budgetary appropriations in 2009 was 98%, 70% of which was for staff and 30% for operating expenditure, buildings, furniture and equipment. The Court of Auditors has drafted its report and found that there are no significant errors. Moreover, the EESC Bureau has decided to undertake a reform of the system for reimbursing expenses to members, including reimbursement of transport tickets on the basis of real costs only, since it was surprised at the large number of long-distance flights they had taken. The report finds ‘the fact that 12.3% of the interpreting service requested was cancelled’ to be of concern. We abstained on the decision to grant discharge because of the ambiguous points I have mentioned, but we voted for the resolution setting out our concerns and suggestions to improve this committee’s activities and performance.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I abstained from voting because the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is encouraged to limit increases to its budgets in the coming years to an absolute minimum and to finance new and extended activities primarily through savings. It is also stressed that the EESC must undertake with urgency a comprehensive spending review of all areas of activity to ensure all expenditure is delivering value for money in order to identify savings, which will reduce the pressure on the budget in this period of austerity. The high number of flights invoiced by members of the EESC in 2010, and their long/medium distance (average: 2 000km) is surprising. The EESC is therefore asked to provide a detailed list of all flights invoiced in 2010, indicating the departure airport, stops en route, destination, length of flight and cost incurred by the European taxpayer.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which ‘Notes with satisfaction that the EESC Bureau decided, on 6 December 2011, to undertake a reform of the system for reimbursing expenses to members, including reimbursement of transport tickets on the basis of real costs only, which brings the daily allowances and travel allowances into line with those paid by Parliament and provides for allowances to compensate for the time spent by members in performance of their duties and for the related administrative costs, taking into account the fact that EESC members do not receive any form of remuneration or pension from the EU budget’.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with this function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are achieving their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with rare exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have seen – are using the funds available to them properly and achieving the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Economic and Social Committee.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Economic and Social Committee has made good progress in improving its systems of payments to Members for their attendance at sessions in Brussels, and the common services arrangement with the Committee of the Regions offers efficiencies when compared to having two totally separate administrations. I believe that the outstanding investigations will soon be concluded and that these matters will be fully clarified by the time of the next discharge exercise. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2010, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) had a 98% implementation rate for its appropriations. In its annual report, the Court of Auditors concluded, based on its audit work, that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for administrative expenses were free from material error. On the basis of these data and the Council recommendation, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to grant discharge for the 2010 accounts, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) With this report Parliament grants the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee discharge in respect of the implementation of the Committee’s budget for the financial year 2010, which means recognising that this committee complied with the European rules in its budgetary implementation and considers its budget closed. The resolution accompanying this act mentions that the implementation rate of the budgetary appropriations in 2009 was 98%, 70% of which was for staff and 30% for operating expenditure, buildings, furniture and equipment. The Court of Auditors has drafted its report and found that there are no significant errors. Moreover, the EESC Bureau has decided to undertake a reform of the system for reimbursing expenses to members, including reimbursement of transport tickets on the basis of real costs only, since it was surprised at the large number of long-distance flights they had taken. The report finds ‘the fact that 12.3% of the interpreting service requested was cancelled’ to be of concern. We abstained on the decision to grant discharge because of the ambiguous points I have mentioned. However, we voted for the resolution setting out our concerns and suggestions to improve the committee’s activities and performance.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0090/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of this report and am pleased with the results revealed by the mid-term review of the functioning of the administrative cooperation agreement between the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. I believe the establishment of joint services has allowed the two Committees to make budget savings, and the Committees should implement the recommendations relating to staff (greater harmonisation of rules), social and medical services and internal services. I will finish by stressing the need for enhanced compatibility of the priority budget lines of the two committees, which will lead to greater savings and even stronger interinstitutional cooperation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the Committee of the Regions. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) for 2010. I welcome the Court of Auditors’ conclusions that in 2010, the payments for administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and bodies were free from material error. I welcome the European Parliament’s recommendation for the CoR to limit increases to budgets in the coming years to an absolute minimum and finance new or extended activities primarily from savings.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Committee of the Regions as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. In its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors identified errors in relation to the recruitment of a permanent member of staff and a procurement procedure for interpreting services. The Committee of the Regions provided satisfactory explanations to questions regarding the errors identified and took immediate measures to prevent such errors from reoccurring in the future. In the interests of enhanced transparency, it is important for declarations of financial interests of members of all institutions to be made accessible on the Internet, and to be updated regularly. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report granting the Committee of the Regions (CoR) discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. I would highlight the laudable decision by the CoR Bureau to make the declarations of financial interests of the members of all institutions available online, in the interest of transparency.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2010, the Court of Auditors identified errors in relation to the recruitment of a permanent member of staff and a procurement procedure for interpreting services. The Committee of the Regions (CoR) has since provided the Committee on Budgetary Control with explanations for these errors that the rapporteur considers satisfactory. I welcome the excellent performance and high quality that continue to characterise the CoR’s annual activity reports. It is important, however, for the CoR to continue putting its plan to improve internal controls into action in order to implement its budget more efficiently.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Ayala Sender, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VII – Committee of the Regions. The Committee of the Regions (CoR), with its headquarters in Brussels, is a consultative body of the Council, the Commission and Parliament representing the local and regional authorities of the European Union. It must be consulted on issues relating to local and regional administration, such as employment, the environment, education and public health. I welcome the fact that the CoR and the European Economic and Social Committee obtained EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) certification on 27 December 2011, which is proof of how efficiently they perform, and I congratulate the CoR on the improvement plan drawn up in response to its organisational management self-assessment. Having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control, and because I believe the budgetary implementation of the Committee of the Regions contains no errors, I am voting for this report with a view to granting the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions discharge in respect of the implementation of the Committee’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VII – Committee of the Regions, because discharge is granted to the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions in respect of the implementation of the Committee of the Regions’ budget for the financial year 2010.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report and am pleased to note that, in response to the call made in Parliament’s resolution of 10 May 2011 on discharge for the financial year 2009, the CoR has strengthened its budgetary procedure, which now comprises four stages: preparation by the CoR’s administration, assessment of the preliminary draft by the Committee for Financial and Administrative Affairs (CAFA), decision by the CoR Bureau and Plenary Assembly on the draft budget, and a mid-term review of implementation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with this function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are achieving their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with rare exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have seen – are using the funds available to them properly and achieving the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Committee of the Regions.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I am in favour of granting the Committee of the Regions’ budget discharge.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Committee of the Regions has drawn up an improvement plan in response to the organisational management self-assessment, performed according to the Common Assessment Framework (CAF). It aims, inter alia, to look into how the committee’s political mechanisms might benefit from the improved efficiency, including possible reductions in travel expenses that might be achieved with the use of video-conferencing. Because of these and other measures, together with the Council’s favourable recommendation and the reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to grant discharge for the accounts for 2010, Section VII – Committee of the Regions.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – As a democrat, I have always said that more transparency means better democracy. I voted in favour of these amendments and this discharge because they tend in that direction. The Committee of the Regions has a long way to go, so it is our duty to protect it and give it more political power as an institution, strengthening its role as a third chamber to represent the European regions effectively at the heart of Europe. This will, at the same time, improve our policy making by promoting a ‘bottom up’ approach.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0089/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report and welcome the fact that the Ombudsman included key performance indicators in the 2010 action plan, together with a scoreboard, thus enabling performance to be measured using a benchmarking system. I also welcome the progress made over the course of the year. I would stress that the 2010 annual report on the Ombudsman’s activities was recently the subject of an own-initiative report, adopted by Parliament on 27 October 2011. The European Parliament therefore has no additional observations. Parliament is also calling for the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2011 to contain a section on any action taken on Parliament’s discharge resolution, together with a comprehensive table of all the human resources available to the Ombudsman, showing their category, grade and gender, participation in professional training and nationality.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Ombudsman. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Ombudsman for 2010. I welcome the relatively positive evaluations by the Court of Auditors and agree with all the conclusions and recommendations it has presented. It is important for the Ombudsman to pay due regard to the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and draft provisions on the procedures for recruitment of temporary staff, and to try to increase the number and proportion of inquiries that are completed within less than 12 months.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report and, hence, in favour of granting discharge on the budget section regarding the European Ombudsman for the financial year 2010, since the analysis carried out by Ms Ayala Sender has not thrown up any major problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Ombudsman as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. In its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors concluded that it will not raise any objections in connection with the European Ombudsman’s financial year 2010. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Ombudsman for 2010. We should welcome the progress made by the Ombudsman, which included key performance indicators in the 2010 action plan, together with a scoreboard, thus enabling performance to be measured using a benchmarking system.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the findings published by the Court of Auditors in its annual report, which include no observations concerning the European Ombudsman.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Inés Ayala Sender, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section VIII – European Ombudsman. The purpose of the European Ombudsman, whose office is totally independent of any government or entity, is to investigate complaints about European institutions, bodies, services and agencies when they disrespect the law or their guiding principles. In its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors found nothing meriting comment regarding the European Ombudsman. I therefore believe there are no problems with the implementation of the Ombudsman’s budget; the internal audit of 2010 following the 2009 observations must have contributed greatly to this. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for this report, as it grants discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Ombudsman for 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VIII – European Ombudsman, because discharge is granted to the European Ombudsman in respect of the implementation of the Ombudsman’s budget for the financial year 2010 and, in its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors states that it ‘has no observation to make on the European Ombudsman’.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, in which Parliament welcomes the fact that the Ombudsman included key performance indicators in the 2010 action plan, together with a scoreboard, thus enabling performance to be measured using a benchmarking system; welcomes the progress made throughout the year.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Ombudsman.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I am in favour of granting budget discharge to the European Ombudsman.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the 2009 observations, the European Ombudsman underwent an audit that concluded that the management and checks system was effective, provided that certain specific actions were taken. However, in its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors indicated that it had no observations regarding the European Ombudsman. In view of this, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts, Section VIII – European Ombudsman.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010 – European Ombudsman. I welcome the fact that the Ombudsman set key performance indicators in the 2010 action plan, together with a scoreboard, thus enabling performance to be measured using a benchmarking system. The annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2011 must contain a section on any action taken based on Parliament’s discharge resolution, together with a comprehensive table of all the human resources available to the Ombudsman, showing their category, grade and gender, attendance at professional training courses and nationality. I should mention how important it is for the number and proportion of inquiries that are completed within less than a year to continue to increase, as well as the rise in the number and proportion of cases in which admissibility decisions are taken within one month. These measures will help increase European citizens’ confidence in the European Ombudsman. I welcome the audit carried out by the Internal Audit Service in 2010, which took account of the observations made in 2009 and concluded that, subject to implementation of the agreed measures, the management and control system is effective.

Report: Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0093/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I shall start by welcoming the conclusion of the Court of Auditors that the majority of payments for administrative and other expenditure by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) in the year ended 31 December 2010 were free from material error, and that the oversight and control systems for administrative and other expenditure were effective in ensuring payment regularity. It is important not to forget the opinion of the Court of Auditors as regards organising an internal competition, or the EDPS’s response. Competitions by the European Personnel Selection Office should remain standard for staff recruitment and the EDPS is called on to improve its human-resources planning, so as to prevent similar situations in future. The measures taken should be supported by timely monitoring of documents attesting to EDPS staff’s individual circumstances, for the purpose of social benefits.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Data Protection Supervisor. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation. We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Data Protection Supervisor (hereinafter EDPS) for 2010. It is very important that the Court of Auditors found the payments in 2010 to be free from material error. I welcome the calls for the EDPS to base its budget on its true needs and to try to implement the budget better. Given the far-reaching change made to the organisation of the staff in 2010, the EDPS is encouraged to inform the European Parliament of the performance of its new staff.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The existence of a clear and consistent system for protecting personal data is key to ensuring respect for each individual’s fundamental rights throughout the EU, particularly the right to privacy. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) is an independent body entrusted with oversight powers, whose overriding objective is to ensure respect for the right to privacy and data protection by EU institutions and bodies, whenever they process personal data and develop new policy. In practice, the EDPS’s powers can be divided into three main areas: oversight, consultation and cooperation. It is therefore essential that it have sufficient resources to perform its duties in the best way possible. I voted for this report because the Court of Auditors concluded that the majority of payments for administrative and other expenditure by the EDPS in the year ended 31 December 2010 were free from material error, and that the oversight and control systems for administrative and other expenditure were effective in ensuring payment regularity.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Data Protection Supervisor as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors concluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended 31 December 2010 for administrative and other expenditure of the European Data Protection Supervisor had been free from material error and that the oversight and control systems for administrative and other expenditure had been effective in ensuring the regularity of payments. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it grants the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget for the financial year 2010. I believe that granting the EDPS discharge for its budgetary implementation should continue to be based on performance over the course of the year. The EDPS is called on to submit its follow-up to Parliament’s recommendations in its annual activity report.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the findings of the Court of Auditors, whose annual report states that no material errors were found. I support the report’s suggestion that the European Data Protection Supervisor prepare annual budgets that meet its needs – since only 75% of Title 1 was used in 2010 – and that it make efforts to implement its budget better in future.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Owing to the data highways, citizens’ personal and professional data circulate online at a dizzying rate. The purpose of the European Data Protection Supervisor, created in 2001, is to ensure that all European Union bodies respect people’s right to privacy when using their personal data. This report, by Inés Ayala Sender, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). In its 2010 report, the Court of Auditors concluded that payments for the financial year ended 31 December 2010 were error-free. Moreover, the recommendations by the Court of Auditors and the Commission in 2009 had been implemented. A number of improvements were identified following on from these recommendations, specifically as regards staff recruitment. Therefore, and in view of the opinions by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I am voting for this report granting the EDPS discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor, because the European Data Protection Supervisor is granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 and, on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors concluded that the payments for the year ended 31 December 2010 for administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and bodies were free from material error.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, in which Parliament ‘Grants the European Data Protection Supervisor discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010’.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Data Protection Supervisor.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Data Protection Supervisor did a good job and I am in favour of granting him budget discharge.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On the basis of the Council recommendation and the reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts for the European Data Protection Supervisor.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). I welcome the fact that, on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors concludes that the payments as a whole in 2010 for administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and bodies were free from material error, with the most likely error being estimated for ‘administrative expenditure’ as 0.4%. I also welcome the fact that the EDPS corrected the errors observed in connection with the Statement of Assurance for 2009 in 2010 and 2011, and has implemented tools which help improve the management of allowances. Due to the far-reaching changes made to the organisation of staff in 2010, we request information about the results of the new organisational set-up. In light of this, the EDPS must include in his annual activity report information on the action taken to implement Parliament’s recommendations. We call for the annual activity report for 2011 to also include a comprehensive table of all the human resources available to the EDPS, broken down by category, grade, gender, attendance at professional training courses and nationality.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0103/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I welcome the fact that the Court of Auditors has been able to obtain reasonable assurances that all material aspects of the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 for all agencies operating in the area of freedom, security and justice are reliable, and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, I regret that the majority of those agencies have high carryover levels and that some agencies still had a high vacancy rate in 2010.

Within the framework of the revision of Decision 2009/371/JHA, the Commission should consider merging the European Police College with the European Police Office, with a view to improving resource allocation and reducing administrative costs.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge of the budget for 2010 as regards performance, financial management and control of the agencies. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. In 2010, EU contributions to the decentralised agencies amounted to over EUR 620 million and it is therefore very important for these agencies to ensure the effectiveness of their expenditure and transparency with regard to spending. In its conclusions, the Court of Auditors highlights that some agencies have difficulties in spending their budgets in a timely manner and that funds are committed against projects unrelated to the financial year. I welcome the European Parliament’s call for the Commission to implement as soon as possible the Court of Auditors’ recommendation for a zero-based budgeting approach for agencies when drawing up agencies’ budgets, meaning that in future, the budget of each agency would be drawn up without reference to historical amounts, but would be determined by the stand-alone needs of each agency.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the outcome of the vote on this report, as discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union budget reassures taxpayers that the budget is being used wisely. During this time of economic crisis, when austerity is being imposed on Member States, we must be especially careful to ensure that the EU uses its financial resources carefully in order to prevent wastage and fraud as much as possible.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the performance, financial management and control of the agencies as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting 24 European Union agencies discharge in respect of the implementation of their budgets. These agencies perform specific technical, scientific or administrative tasks and are decentralised EU bodies, key to implementing the objectives and results of EU policy. I welcome the fact that the Court of Auditors has been able to obtain reasonable assurances that all material aspects of the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 for all agencies operating in the area of freedom, security and justice are reliable, and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  Göran Färm (S&D), in writing. – (SV) The EU’s expenditure must be managed in a correct and transparent way. It is therefore extremely important for the EU’s agencies and their activities to be scrutinised by the European Court of Auditors and by Parliament in the discharge process. We believe, however, that the rapporteur’s line is far too critical and focuses too much on details rather than the overarching and important issues for implementing the decisions taken at European level. We support the agencies, as they can help us to make our food safer, our environment cleaner and our aeroplanes and flights safer. The rapporteur’s criticism also largely relates to situations that have already been dealt with, as well as circumstances that the agencies do not have any control over themselves. It is important to safeguard the agencies’ independence, but when an agency cannot do more than it is already doing in individual cases, it would be wrong to use these as a reason not to grant discharge. We believe that there is adequate correction and monitoring of potential errors and that the agencies should therefore be granted discharge.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union agencies are very important to its institutional and operational architecture. Therefore, their financial health should be a constant concern for political decision makers, who should not follow established patterns for management and controls, but should seek to improve them wherever possible. Transparency of action and costs, effective management of resources and staff, and provision of accounts should be key and unavoidable elements of this process of constantly demanding improvements, which should be dynamic and effective.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Monica Luisa Macovei concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union agencies for the financial year 2010: performance, financial management and control of European Union agencies. With a view to supporting the Member States and their citizens, the European Union has created specialised and decentralised agencies to respond to the territorial dimension of Europe and to deal with its new technical, scientific and legal competences. The number of EU agencies has increased exponentially, from three in 2000 to 24 in 2011; their costs almost doubled between 2007 and 2010. I welcome the creation of the interinstitutional working group on agencies and the work it has done towards its objective of reviewing agencies’ roles, positions, structures, workings, oversight and management. I agree with the rapporteur that, in the times of crisis we are experiencing, we need to be sure that the cost of the agencies, which is around EUR 1.7 billion per year, is absolutely necessary and justified by improvements to the European public’s quality of life.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report weaves together criticisms of how the funds of some EU agencies are managed, tackling everything from conflicts of interest in some of these agencies to substantial increases in their budgets. One of the key priorities is the European Parliament’s request that the Court of Auditors submit a special report on comparative analyses of EU agencies’ costs, which has not yet been answered. So as to manage budgetary resources better, the Commission is called on to stop increasing the agencies’ budgets and even to consider reducing the contribution from the EU budget. While we agree with the majority of the rapporteur’s comments and criticisms, we do not accept that the demanded budget reduction should be made indiscriminately and regardless of the duties of the agency in question. Specifically, we do not support the stance that the reduction should be made ‘in particular’ in agencies whose main activity is research: the purpose of this proposal is bound up with the intention of making these institutions – which should not pursue ends other than those indisputably in the public interest – even more dependent on private interests.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted in favour of granting discharge in respect of the budget of the European Union agencies for the financial year 2010 because I am convinced that the management of these agencies had, all in all, been economical, and even though there had been considerable carryovers in the case of the majority of the agencies, they still used their available resources well and their activities in 2010 served the promotion of common policies. The report adopted by the Committee made a clear distinction between expenses on financial performance, human resources and internal and external control; these are essential to ensuring that the operation of organisations facilitating the professional work of the EU is transparent to all European citizens.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union agencies for the financial year 2010: performance, financial management and control of European Union agencies. The decisions on the establishment and allocation of agencies taken by the Council during recent years are responsible for high expenditures and ineffectiveness of the functioning of the agencies concerned, as they are not based on efficiency considerations, leading, inter alia, to remote and high cost locations. Particularly at this time of crisis, the real added-value of the agencies should be seriously and rapidly analysed in order to avoid any non-mandatory and absolutely unnecessary spending, and to properly respond to the real needs of the Union and its citizens, and to react to concerns and the lack of confidence in our institutions. The Union and its Member States cannot ask Union citizens to save money without doing it themselves. Union bodies, agencies included, must be conscientious in making savings while requiring citizens, who are taxpayers contributing to the Union budget, to make savings as well.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report ‘2010 discharge: performance, financial management and control of EU agencies’, despite amendments which partially watered down the criticism in my report, in particular, the one referring to the way the European Court of Auditors fulfilled its duties as external auditing body for the agencies. In my view, agencies need to reduce their running costs and follow a zero-based budgeting approach when drawing up their budgets: each agency budget must be based on its real current needs and not on its needs established years ago. It is also time for the Commission to carry out an evaluation in order to detect occurrences of unnecessary or overlapping activities and to analyse the merger of some of the agencies. EU agencies should publish on their websites the lists of all contracts awarded over the last three years as well as the list of the management board members together with their declaration of interests and curriculum vitae. The same should be done for all persons in management positions in the agencies and for all experts and scientific guests. Conflicts of interest have proved to be a serious concern in several agencies.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, in which Parliament ‘Notes that some agencies have difficulties in spending their budgets in a timely manner and that funds are committed against projects unrelated to the financial year; is irritated by the fact that significant amounts of budget are allocated in the end of the financial year; considers this as a possible sign that Union funds are, in some cases, used unnecessarily; calls on the Court of Auditors and especially the agencies themselves to provide additional information and justification in the cases of CEDEFOP, CPVO, EFSA, EMSA, ENISA, ERA, EUROJUST and FRA that have spent more than 25% of their budgets in the final two months of 2010, as well as on the cases of CEPOL, CPVO, Frontex and again EMSA that exhibit continuously high percentages of carry-forwards which have to be cancelled’.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. EU agencies should, therefore, do everything possible to cut administrative costs, specifically by sharing them.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The agencies of the European Union have a vital importance in terms of delivering the goals and results of EU policies. The agencies represent less than 1% of the EU budget. I support the agencies as they help make our food safer, our environment cleaner and our planes and flights safer and more secure. This is clearly of benefit to EU citizens.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I support the call for the Commission to provide the discharge authority annually with consolidated information on the total annual funding per agency made from the general EU budget. On the basis of this recommendation and the reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts for the performance, financial management and control of European Union agencies.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. – (ES) I abstained on amendment 14(d) because it combines too many issues in that I agree with ‘merging’ agencies, but not with research cuts. I voted in favour of amendments 44(d), 47(d) and 12(d) because this could have a negative effect on the agencies established in some countries, as is the case of Spain.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) One of the areas in which EU cooperation has the chance to provide definite added value for the Member States and all of their citizens is the cooperation in relation to research. Expensive and resource-heavy projects that are difficult and costly for individual states to implement become cheaper for the Member State and possible to implement if there is cooperation at European level. I have therefore voted in favour of the resolution granting discharge in respect of the implementation, financial management and control of EU agencies as a whole, but I rejected the passages that seek to discontinue or make cuts in research in particular within the European project.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0125/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. However, I would stress that, of the 12 ‘very important’ recommendations by the Internal Audit Service, the centre rejected that relating to financial reporting. It should be asked to explain the reasons for this decision to the discharge body.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union. I agree with the Court of Auditors’ recommendations that the Translation Centre should take measures to remedy the constant increase in its surplus (in 2009, this surplus amounted to EUR 24 000 000). At this time of financial crisis, the EU should no longer increase agencies’ budgets and should even consider the possibility of reducing its contribution to their budgets.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to support granting discharge to the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, since the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It is important for the Translation Centre to further develop its ability to evaluate its performance by applying SMART indicators for performance monitoring. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report granting the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010, since the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the CdT’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable, and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Translation is one of the instruments without which multilingualism and equal public access to the European institutions would not be ensured. The Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union plays an important role as regards the EU’s specialised and decentralised agencies, and its services have been increasing. I hope it will continue to have the funds enabling it to carry out its mission and that it will successfully respect its budgets and the rules of sound financial management.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) for the financial year 2010. The Luxembourg-based CdT was created in 1994 to provide the translation services necessary for the various EU agencies to operate. Moreover, it plays an active part in the work of the interinstitutional committee for translation and interpreting. The Court of Auditors stated that it had reasonable assurance that the CdT’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and rigorous. In view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control, notwithstanding the rapporteur’s recommendations, I am therefore voting for this report granting the Director of the CdT discharge in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the centre’s Director in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, in which Parliament ‘Grants the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union discharge in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for the financial year 2010’.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Translation Centre plays an important role in the work of the bodies of the European Union. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0129/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I would stress the annual accounting report’s conclusions indicating that the Internal Audit Capability (IAC) audit plan 2010 envisaged several ex post and in-process audits of procurement procedures, notably for studying contracts and grant procedures. It is also noteworthy that, following an IAC audit of grant procedures, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) recovered amounts paid to national grant beneficiaries totalling EUR 23 647.67. I am concerned that the IAC left Cedefop on 31 August 2010. I take the view that the IAC’s reports could lead to further improvements in the internal control measures for procurement and grant procedures. However, I acknowledge Cedefop’s observations that the IAC functions are now covered either by external contractors – for example, an audit of Cedefop’s financial software (FIBUS) was contracted out and concluded in 2011 – or by internal project groups.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). I welcome the calls for Cedefop to base its budget on its true needs and to use appropriations properly because carrying them forward to the following year goes against the principle of annuality. I welcome Cedefop’s initiative to use an online tool for recruitment, RECON – Recruitment Online – in 2010, which will help the centre increase the speed, efficiency and transparency of its recruitment procedure, and I would urge all agencies to follow suit.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2010. The analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that in the course of its audits, it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It is important that the centre apply the budgetary principles of specificity and transparency more effectively. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it approves discharge for the 2010 accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). I am pleased to note that Cedefop has made Gantt charts available, as requested by the discharge authority. These charts concisely outline the amount of time spent by each staff member on a project and encourage a results-oriented approach.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The crisis being experienced throughout Europe makes it even clearer that we need to continue with the ongoing training of workers and to adapt their skills to the requirements of an increasingly globalised and competitive labour market. The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training plays an important role in this joint effort, so it should be supported and provided with resources commensurate with pursuing its goals. I note the reliability and regularity of its accounts.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) for the financial year 2010. Cedefop is an agency designed to promote and develop vocational training in the EU by providing information and analysis of policy, research and practices relating to vocational education and training. The report by the European Court of Auditors confirms that Cedefop’s accounts faithfully reflect the centre’s actual financial situation on 31 December 2010 and that the accounts respect the financial regulations. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I am voting for this report granting the Director of Cedefop discharge in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the centre’s Director in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, in which Parliament ‘Welcomes the fact that the centre was able to assure the discharge authority that it effectively applied the principle of transparency by regularly reporting to its Governing Board on all transfers between budget lines throughout the year; notes, in particular, that as of 20 September 2011, five transfers of commitment appropriations (of a maximum of EUR 35 000) had been made by the centre between budget lines and that the Governing Board was regularly informed of those transfers; calls nevertheless on the centre to reduce as much as possible those transfers in order also to apply the principle of specification’.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training is very important for implementation of the EU’s social policy. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The successful implementation of EU chemicals legislation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is noteworthy. The other observations accompanying the discharge decision are cross-cutting so, on the basis of the Council recommendation and the reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the ECHA’s 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0119/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I would highlight that the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (CEPOL) concluded that there is a case for its relocation. I therefore welcome Decision 24/2011/GB of the Governing Board of CEPOL of 15 June 2011 disbanding existing committees as of 1 January 2012, thereby reducing the overlap between different structures. I would stress the need for CEPOL to respond regarding its rules of procedure, which were amended to limit the number of regular governing board meetings to one per Presidency and to restrict the size of national delegations, as each Member State is encouraged to send a maximum of two delegates to each meeting.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Police College (CEPOL). Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College (hereinafter CEPOL) for 2010. There is concern over the large proportion of appropriations constantly carried forward by CEPOL, which goes against the principle of annuality. The Court of Auditors has identified that 2010 appropriations were used to cover 2009 expenditure. I welcome the European Parliament’s call for CEPOL to take action in order to avoid a repeat of similar deficiencies in the future and to take effective measures to improve programming of the budget and the monitoring of its implementation.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to support granting discharge to the European Police College, since the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Police cooperation is key to providing the European public with a high level of security throughout the area of freedom, security and justice. The European Police College (CEPOL) was created in 2001 to support the development of a European approach to the main problems relating to combating cross-border crime, to crime prevention, and to upholding public security. It provides police services with continuous training and development, and creates common quality standards for their methods and action criteria, so as to ensure a minimum level of training for the services responsible for applying the law throughout the EU. Both CEPOL and the European Police Office have become EU agencies, both of which have similar areas of involvement and complementary activities, so analysing the pros and cons of a possible merger could be relevant. This discussion should take place within the competent committee – the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – and on the basis of an impact assessment, in order that the decision reached can be backed up and will serve the public interest in the best possible way. No progress can ever be made with this type of decision in default of appearance within the context of a discharge process.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Police College as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The European Parliament approved the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2010. Although the Court of Auditors considered the transactions underlying the College’s annual accounts to be legal and regular, it also highlighted that, in respect of expenditure for organising courses and seminars, there was a lack of rigour in the process for approving cost claims related to such activities. The incompleteness of supporting evidence in particular raised questions in certain cases. It is important for the College to supply any missing documents as soon as possible and to avoid a repeat of similar deficiencies in the future. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report granting the Director of the European Police College (CEPOL) discharge in respect of the implementation of the College’s general budget for the financial year 2010. I therefore call on the Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service to assure Parliament on CEPOL’s effective improvements as regards budget consumption and optimisation of the 2011 budget implementation, and to indicate that all programming and monitoring instruments are firmly in place.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At a time when criminal activity, too, is becoming globalised, it is only right to attempt to increase cooperation between police training institutions. As well as swapping experiences and exchanging information, the more direct contact that is desired could contribute to creating a closer relationship between the officers of each police force, thereby streamlining their ability to respond jointly and in good time to the countless challenges they face. A merger with the European Police Office could contribute to achieving these objectives, to reducing duplications, and to focusing efforts and resources on a single crime-fighting endeavour. I await the Commission’s evaluation of this possibility.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College (CEPOL) for the financial year 2010. CEPOL brings together senior police officers from across Europe, with the aim of encouraging cross-border cooperation on combating crime and upholding public safety, law and order. CEPOL’s performance has been subjected to a number of criticisms regarding discharge of previous years’ accounts, with the 2009 accounts even being rejected for a period. I agree that CEPOL’s expenditure is high compared to its activities, so its restructuring needs to continue. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I am voting for this report granting the Director of CEPOL discharge in respect of the implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the College’s Director in respect of the implementation of the College’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. For the first time since the College became an agency, the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2010, expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. In its report on the College’s multiannual action plan (MAP) for 2010-2014, the Court of Auditors stated that the College is progressing according to the milestones established in its MAP.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which notes the College’s claim that the financial year 2010 was characterised by a lack of sufficient financial resources with a cut of EUR 1 000 000 in the Union contribution to the College’s budget; is surprised by this view, particularly in this time of crisis, as good management ensures correct and cost-efficient spending of the budget available and considering that 31.6% of the College’s 2010 budget was carried over to 2011.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Police College since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions. I also applaud the efficient way in which the agency has been operating since the appointment of its new director.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Police College.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2010.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In its report on the annual accounts of the European Police College (CEPOL) for the financial year 2010, the Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions for the first time since CEPOL became an agency. I therefore voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge CEPOL’s 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0130/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I believe the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) needs to take the necessary measures with regard to aligning access rights to the ABAC system for the authorising officers by delegation, to payment delays, and to a policy handling exceptions and setting up a central exceptions register. Nevertheless, the CFCA needs to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken and the results achieved. It is therefore relevant for the CFCA to take immediate action on the items below and to inform the discharge authority on the actions taken; specifically, as regards implementing a risk management system and introducing regular reviews of the internal control system.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the Community Fisheries Control Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Community Fisheries Control Agency for 2010. I welcome the European Parliament’s calls for the agency to improve its annual work programme by including specific measurable objectives, to review its internal control system and all its procedures, both administrative and operational, and to increase transparency in its recruitment procedures.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to support granting discharge to the Community Fisheries Control Agency, since the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Community Fisheries Control Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the Community Fisheries Control Agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It is important to call on the agency to further improve the efficiency of its annual work programme by setting specific measurable objectives both at policy area level and at operational level; the Court of Auditors’ report also deems the establishment of SMART indicators necessary. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Executive Director of the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. The CFCA’s important work should be stressed, and I welcome its efficient performance. Nevertheless, I call on the Court of Auditors to continue scrutinising the CFCA’s recruitment and procurement procedures.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am from a country whose history is closely bound up with the sea and, consequently, fishing. I therefore understand the need for the European Union to have a Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) whose remit includes, inter alia, coordinating the fight against the illegal fishing jeopardising this activity, and employing fishers who observe the rules on catches, on transporting and wrapping fish, and on maritime ecosystems themselves. The European Union needs a CFCA properly equipped with human and material resources, and managed in an increasingly transparent and effective way.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) for the financial year 2010. The CFCA is based in Vigo, Galicia, Spain, and was created in 2005 to increase the uniformity and application of EU legislation. To this end, it ensures that all Member States apply common fisheries policy rules in the same way. It is also responsible for teaching inspectors new inspection techniques and methods. Although the CFCA has control mechanisms, such as the Internal Audit Service and the internal control system, as recommended when discharge was granted for 2009, I agree with the rapporteur that the CFCA needs to improve its annual work programme by including specific measurable objectives. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I am voting for this report granting the Executive Director of the CFCA discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Community Fisheries Control Agency for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the Community Fisheries Control Agency’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which encourages the agency to increase transparency in its recruitment procedures; notes that the Court of Auditors stated weaknesses in this respect; acknowledges, in particular, that with regard to staff selection procedures, neither the thresholds that candidates had to meet in order to be invited to the selection interview nor those necessary to be put on the reserve list were fixed in advance.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the Community Fisheries Control Agency because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Community Fisheries Control Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I support the Fisheries Control Agency since it makes our food safer and the environment cleaner. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would underline the important work of the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA). I welcome its efficient and effective performance, which Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries was able to observe during its visit to the CFCA in June 2010 and will inspect again at its next visit in 2012. In view of this, and on the basis of the Council recommendation and the reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the CFCA’s 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0124/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. However, I would stress that several ‘very important’ recommendations from the Internal Audit Service (IAS) aimed at reducing outstanding risks to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) are still open and are currently under review by the IAS. As such, the EASA needs to take measures relating to documenting its risk assessments after its annual inspection programmes and inspection visit, to improving the monitoring of, and reporting on, the significant deficiencies that raise safety concerns, and to following up and monitoring its observations after inspection visits.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Aviation Safety Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Aviation Safety Agency for 2010. In its conclusions, the Court of Auditors noted deficiencies in staff selection procedures, which put at risk the transparency of recruitment, and the agency must therefore take steps to remedy these deficiencies. Among a number of other things, the European Parliament has urged the agency to establish a clear link between the work programme and the financial forecasts when drawing up the operational budget, to improve performance monitoring and reporting, and to attach a report to each year’s budget on the unspent appropriations carried over from previous years, explaining why those monies have not been used and how and when they will be used.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Aviation Safety Agency for the financial year 2010. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Aviation Safety Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that in the course of its audits, it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Aviation Safety Agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It must be noted that the agency must fully implement an activity-based structure for the operational budget in order to establish a clear link between the work programme and the financial forecasts, and must improve performance monitoring and reporting. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report granting the Executive Director of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. I call on the EASA to improve further performance monitoring and reporting. It is important for the EASA to set SMART objectives and RACER indicators in its programming, as it has done in its annual work programme and in its annual activity report since 2008.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The events of 11 September 2001 called into question all security measures employed by civil aviation and laid bare the extent to which it is exposed to the world’s most radical and destructive agendas, and the need to adopt effective measures for defending and protecting passengers, crew and aeronautical equipment. As such, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has a mission of the utmost importance, all the more so because of increased air traffic and the ever increasing movement of people and goods. Given the small number of manufacturers of aircraft and aeronautical equipment, it is justified for Europe to be particularly concerned about the need to be careful of conflicts of interest, to preserve the impartiality of decisions made, to ensure best certification practices, and to keep in mind the main interests at stake.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for the financial year 2010. The EASA was established in 2002 to create and maintain a uniformly high safety level for civil aviation throughout Europe. It is also responsible for certifying aeronautical equipment and its manufacturers. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the EASA’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, I share the rapporteur’s view that risk assessments, monitoring and transmission of information on defects, and follow-ups to inspections need to be improved. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I am voting for this report granting the Executive Director of the EASA discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Aviation Safety Agency for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter agency) for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which recalls that two-thirds of the agency’s budget comes from fees and charges paid by the industry, one third comes from Union subsidies, and the initial Union contribution to the agency for 2010 amounted to EUR 32 879 000; notes, however, that EUR 1 318 000, coming from the recovery of surplus, was added to that amount which, as a result, makes a total Union contribution of EUR 34 197 000.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Aviation Safety Agency because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Aviation Safety Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Aviation Safety Agency helps to maintain a high level of aviation safety. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I share the rapporteur’s concerns that the conflicts of interest policy of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) should set out to what extent, and under which conditions, one of its employees can be involved in certifying an aircraft on which they worked prior to joining the EASA. I would highlight this recommendation, but I voted in favour of approving the accounts submitted by the Commission and discharging the EASA’s 2010 accounts.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for the financial year 2010 because this agency plays an important role in establishing and maintaining a high, consistent level of civil aviation safety in Europe. The agency received EUR 34 200 000 from the 2010 European Union budget. The agency’s budget increased by 61% between 2007 and 2010, from EUR 85 200 000 to EUR 137 200 000 EUR, and the number of staff rose from 333 to 524. We deplore the irregularities found by the Court of Auditors in recruitment and procurement procedures. We call on the Commission to ensure that the agency applies EU regulations correctly, and we stress the importance of transparency in procurement and recruitment procedures. Furthermore, the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the EASA for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) budget for the financial year 2010 since its expenditure was approved by both the European Court of Auditors and the Committee on Budgetary Control. However, I am concerned about the criticisms of the agency’s methods for evaluating tenders in the context of its procurement procedures. It is essential that the European Union, which always insists strictly on businesses and Member States adhering to the principle of free and fair competition, should itself set a good example in this area. Discrimination or preferential treatment of any kind must not be tolerated. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Court of Auditors’ report will prompt the Commission to seek explanations from the EASA, which is governed, as we know, by the EU’s rules on public procurement.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0123/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report stating that the report on budget and financial management shows that the internal control system has been reviewed. However, I would express my concern that two of the standards have still not been implemented, notably, business continuity and evaluation of activities, and four others have only been partly implemented. I therefore believe the centre needs to take prompt action in this respect and inform the discharge authority of the stage of implementation of these standards.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (hereinafter ECDC) for 2010. In its recommendations, the Court of Auditors notes that the ECDC must address the high level of appropriations carried over to the next period, which has a negative impact on the implementation of the budget. Given that the ECDC’s budget increased by 17.5% in 2010, the centre should make better use of the appropriations it is allocated. I agree that more attention should be paid to absorption capacity and the call for the annual budget for the agency to be reduced unless it takes appropriate action to address this issue.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner.

The European Parliament approved the closure of the accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2010. The Court of Auditors found that in the course of its financial audits, it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The centre must address the high level of carryover, as they have a negative impact on the implementation of the budget and are at odds with the principle of annuality. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)’, because I believe this agency plays an important role in monitoring diseases at European level, and in assessing and communicating public health risks in Europe.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The speed and ease with which part of the world population travels today makes it less likely that contagious diseases will be identified in time, adequately contained and combated effectively. This undeniable fact amply demonstrates the value that prevention and control thereof can have in an area like the European Union, in which internal land borders have been scrapped. The possibility that criminal acts could spread disease cannot be ignored and increases the need for permanent epidemic control. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is charged with a particularly delicate and important mission that requires the utmost transparency and rigour, including in budgetary and human resources terms.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) for the financial year 2010. The ECDC was created in 2004 to help ‘strengthen Europe’s defences against infectious diseases, such as influenza, SARS and HIV/AIDS’. It works in partnership with the Member States’ health protection bodies. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the ECDC’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, I agree with the rapporteur that the ECDC should comply with the recommendations made to it as regards granting discharge for 2009. Thus, in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I am voting for this report granting the Director of the ECDC discharge in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the centre’s Director in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted to approve the closure of the accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The mission of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) is to identify, assess and communicate current and emerging threats to human health posed by infectious diseases. I think the ECDC is functioning efficiently; therefore, I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) is an important EU body for strengthening and developing European disease surveillance, for assessing and communicating current and emerging threats to human health posed by infectious diseases, and for pooling Europe’s health knowledge. I support the recommendations for improving services provided and for making its actions more effective and transparent. For these reasons, and on the basis of the Council recommendation and the reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the ECDC’s 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0126/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report and would stress that, at the end of 2010, two important deadlines for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation were passed. It is also noteworthy that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has successfully handled the reception and storage of 25 000 registration dossiers on 4 300 chemical substances that either are commonly used in Europe or are the most hazardous, and of over 3 million notifications for over 100 000 substances that are classified and have to be labelled to protect users. I welcome the ECHA’s initiatives for enhancing its customer focus and feedback procedures, and am particularly pleased that it has paid special attention to its communication activities, such as stakeholders’ days, publications and helpdesk assistance.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted this week in the European Parliament on whether or not to grant discharge to the budgets of European institutions and agencies for 2010. I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Chemicals Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency for 2010. In its report, the European Parliament sees a number of deficiencies in the management of the agency and calls for them to be addressed. I welcome calls to improve the agency’s control system, to strengthen financial circuits, and to provide action plans and risk assessments. Given the deficiencies identified, it is important for the agency to further develop the planning and monitoring of its procurement and budget execution, improve the planning of its human resource activities and projects, and ensure greater consistency in the treatment of files.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2010. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Chemicals Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The report calls on the agency to inform the discharge authority of the steps taken to improve its control system by strengthening its financial circuits, workflows, action plans and risk assessments. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Chemicals Agency’, because this agency performs important functions relating to implementing EU legislation on chemical products.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The impact that the European Chemicals Agency’s decisions could have on members of the public and businesses are sufficient cause for how it manages its budget, and how it regulates and protects itself from conflicts of interest to come under rigorous scrutiny. Public and environmental safety demand this rigour and make it advisable to pay particular attention.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for the financial year 2010. The purpose of the Helsinki-based ECHA, founded in 2007, is to guarantee the European public’s quality of life by implementing EU regulations on chemical products, particularly by providing information and promoting the safe use of these products to help businesses to comply with legislation. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the ECHA’s annual accounts are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, I agree with the rapporteur that the ECHA should comply with the recommendations made to it as regards granting discharge for 2009. Thus, in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I am voting for this report granting the Director of the ECHA discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which notes that around the end of 2010, two important deadlines for REACH and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation passed, and welcomes, therefore, the fact that the agency successfully managed to handle the reception and processing of 25 000 registration dossiers on 4 300 chemical substances that are either commonly used in Europe or are the most hazardous and of over 3 million notifications for over 100 000 substances that are classified and have to be labelled to protect the user.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Chemicals Agency because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. Generally, we can say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Chemicals Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is the driving force among regulatory authorities in implementing the EU’s groundbreaking chemicals legislation for the benefit of human health and the environment, as well as for innovation and competitiveness. The ECHA helps companies to comply with legislation, advances the safe use of chemicals, provides information on chemicals and addresses chemicals of concern. I voted in favour.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0105/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I acknowledge that in 2010, the Internal Audit Service (IAS) conducted an audit of the ‘management plan system (MPS)/monitoring of activities’, the objective of which was to assess and provide assurance on the adequacy of the planning and monitoring of the agency’s activities. It is worth pointing out that the IAS made eight recommendations, six of which were rated ‘important’ and two ‘desirable’. It is therefore up to the agency to promote guidelines for objectives and measurable indicators in project planning and progress monitoring, to allocate project costs, and to promote more effective project management and procedures for checking and verifying new data entered into the MPS. Moreover, the agency should adopt without further delay additional measures to address the weaknesses found by the IAS in its previous audits on quality management and on grant management in order to develop and use the QA/QC checklist for the Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report; to plan, describe and document relevant quality checks; to assure supervision of quality controls; to anticipate business continuity issues; to realise on-the-spot controls and verification of grants; and to monitor and follow up grant implementation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I argued in favour of granting discharge to the European Environment Agency, which does a superb job. However, a majority of my fellow Members has asked for the vote to be postponed in order to investigate a possible conflict of interest that might affect the running of the agency. Since the agency’s Executive Director has also sat on the international consultative committee of the non-governmental organisation Earthwatch (an international environmental protection organisation), Parliament will take the time to look into the agency’s accounts in greater depth. This will send out the message that conflicts of interest, if they are substantiated and could have an impact on the running of public agencies, will not be tolerated.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I was against postponing the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for 2010. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament report contains important recommendations for the agency, such as improving communication methods, increasing the transparency of the agency and ensuring public interest in its work so that the budget is used effectively, addressing deficiencies identified in recruitment procedures, and adopting an action plan and publishing the declarations of interest on its website to prevent potential conflict of interest. However, I do not agree that the European Parliament should postpone discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 on account of these deficiencies because similar deficiencies were identified in a number of other agencies to which the European Parliament has granted discharge, and which have been urged by it to address the deficiencies identified.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted to postpone the budget discharge for the European Environment Agency as I did for the European Medicines Agency and the European Food Safety Authority. The discharges for these three agencies have been postponed, and I welcome this outcome. Through these votes, we are using our powers as a budgetary authority to the maximum. The objective is to flag up the deficiencies present in these agencies. As regards the European Environment Agency, I was prompted by signs of possible conflicts of interest and by internal management problems, especially in the area of budget management, to vote to postpone the discharge. We now have until October to appraise the steps undertaken by the respective managements of these three agencies to rationalise their operations and to give a more transparent account of the use of their respective budgets.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Environment Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The discharge report highlights that the main issue with the European Environment Agency was the occurrence of multiple errors in procurement procedures in the agency’s 2010 management. The report points out that a number of cases of conflicts of interest within the agency were revealed recently, and the Committee does not recommend granting discharge until these are settled. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to postpone the granting of discharge, as it found that in order for the agency to be granted discharge, some additional issues concerning its 2010 management needed to be clarified. I supported the postponement of granting discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Environment Agency’, as I believe that this agency plays a vital role in ensuring a high level of environmental protection in the EU.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Environmental protection is a modern phenomenon which has long ceased to be the sole preserve of a particular ideology or political family. Today, this concern with environmental conservation is common to most developed societies, and reflects the extent to which they are facing up to the need to adapt their growth to their sustainability. As a collective and fundamental third-generation right, the environment deserves unanimity over its protection, even though there are many doubts and alternative views on the appropriate measures to be taken in specific cases and areas. The European Environment Agency is responsible for advising on the best decisions to be taken, and it must be capable of conducting independent assessments that are not subject to any one agenda. In addition to fiscal discipline, therefore, particular care is also needed in relation to situations where there are conflicts of interest, and counterproductive, militant stances should be rejected.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010. The EEA, which was created in 1993, currently has 32 members: the 27 EU Member States, and also Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Turkey. Its goal is to ‘help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment’. The Court of Auditors stated in its report on the accounts of the EEA that ‘it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular’. I welcome the high level of implementation of the budget in terms of committed appropriations (100%) and payment appropriations (90.75%), and while I understand the need for the agency to improve its performance, particularly by including objectives and measurable indicators, I am voting against this report, as I believe that, as has been done in relation to other agencies, the Executive Director of the EEA should also be granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010, in line with the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We support the rapporteur’s position on delaying discharge for the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010. We believe that conflicts of interest involving senior agency officials and the uncertainty over the real value of the reports it has produced should be clarified. These conflicts relate to the build-up of management functions in organisations that have projects funded by the EEA. We also support the call for greater transparency in terms of preventing and combating conflicts of interest. Some of the proposals made by the rapporteur are along these lines, such as the proposal to publish senior EEA officials’ declarations of interest on the agency’s website.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) Whilst the remit and functions of the European Environment Agency may not be on a par with those of other agencies for whom a postponement of discharge has been requested, it does have the task of providing reliable, independent information on the environment. If there are any doubts about the transparency of certain funding or about conflicts of interest, I believe we must take the time to iron them out. That is why I voted in favour of postponing discharge.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of postponing the decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010 and postponing the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010 because substantial replies to the critical remarks and requests made are awaited, along with information on appropriate action.

  Kent Johansson, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) The rapporteur has done a sterling job, highlighting important aspects of the work and management of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). As regards the rapporteur’s criticism of potential conflicts of interest, however, we believe that the EMA and the EEA have provided perfectly adequate answers to Parliament’s questions. We therefore support the proposal by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to grant both of these European agencies discharge.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – The report on the 2010 discharge for the European Environment Agency provided for postponement of the discharge. I certainly voted for the postponement of the discharge, which I proposed as rapporteur. I have serious concerns towards this agency with regard to conflicts of interest, public procurement, transparency and the way it spends the EU taxpayers’' money. In 2010, the agency built a green façade that lasted only 5 months, but cost more than EUR 294 000, and yet no public tender was made. The agency will also spend EUR 250 000 for media monitoring in the next 4 years. This is excessive, unjustified and disregards the taxpayers’ money. Conflicts of interest are a major problem in the agency. In 2010, while the EEA Executive Director was a member of the International Board of Directors of Earthwatch, 29 staff members of the agency, including the Executive Director, went for up to 10 days of research on different biodiversity projects in the Caribbean or Mediterranean managed by Earthwatch to whom the agency paid a total of EUR 33 791.28. Moreover, WorldWatch Institute Europe used the EEA premises for its own activities without paying any rent.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome Parliament’s call in this resolution encouraging the agency to continue its efforts to further develop its communication methods in order to attract more media coverage for its findings and thus feed public debate and broaden the scope of the environmental information available to the public on important environmental issues, such as climate change, biodiversity and the management of natural resources.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. In this specific case, the Court of Auditors has raised some doubts as to the conduct of the European Environment Agency. I therefore voted to postpone discharge in respect of the implementation of this agency’s budget.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The task of the European Environment Agency is to provide sound, independent information on the environment for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would highlight the conflicts of interest mentioned in Parliament’s resolution, and I hope that the doubts raised will be resolved. Based on this assumption, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thus granting the European Environment Agency discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. In this case, some clarifications needed to be made, so I voted in favour of postponing the discharge in order to have a bit more information.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The error range in respect of the use of EU funds within the Cohesion Fund and the energy/transport funds increased by 7.7% in 2010. Deficiencies in the public procurement procedure accounted for a large proportion of this. Common funds that are not used as intended represent a problem. When it comes to the management of common funds, the EU institutions must set a good example themselves, particularly at the current time in view of what financial mismanagement has led to in large parts of Europe. I therefore decided to vote in favour of the postponement of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for 2010. The rapporteur has indicated a number of areas in which deficiencies have been found: a conflict of interest on the part of the Executive Director which may have had a substantial effect on the agency’s work, the procurement of services that was not carried out correctly and the incorrect use of EU funds. It bears mentioning here that the issue at hand is the postponement of discharge. The European Environment Agency has demonstrated compliance on many points, and the quality of the supporting research reports produced is good. Therefore, an extended deadline is what is needed in order to deal with the irregularities and to provide an explanation for Parliament.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0106/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as six ‘very important’ recommendations by the Internal Audit Service still need to be implemented, three of which have already been delayed by more than 12 months. In particular, it is worth pointing out that these delays concern the following issues: information security management, the contract renewal process and the transparency of decision making, and filing and archiving policy. This report calls on the authority to remedy these deficiencies more rapidly and inform the discharge authority on its progress.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I argued in favour of granting discharge to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). As I am very involved within the European Parliament on all matters relating to food safety, I visited the EFSA to find out more about how the agency operates, talk about its scientific opinions and bring up the matter of its financial management. I was able to observe the quality of the work that this agency does. However, a majority of my fellow Members has asked for the vote to be postponed in order to investigate a possible conflict of interest that might affect the running of the agency. This postponement will now give Parliament time to look into the agency’s accounts in greater depth.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I was against the proposal to postpone the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for 2010. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament report contains important recommendations for the agency, such as improving its budget management in order to reduce its high carryover amounts of appropriations, focusing on deficiencies in recruitment procedures, and initiating a survey on the potential conflicts of interest of its leading scientists, its management board and its panel members. However, I do not agree that the European Parliament should postpone discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 on account of these deficiencies because similar deficiencies were identified in a number of other agencies to which the European Parliament has granted discharge, and which have been urged by it to address the deficiencies identified.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is a tell-tale sign that on the day of our vote on discharge for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the chair of its management board resigns, the reason being that she had accepted a post in an industrial lobby, which was not compatible with her duties at the European agency. Unfortunately, this is not the only actual, proven case of conflicts of interest at this agency. For example, certain senior managers have joined pro-GMO companies after leaving the EFSA or, conversely, now have managerial responsibilities at the EFSA after having belonged to pro-GMO lobbies. These conflicts of interest must stop. Agencies that we believe to be independent and that were set up to provide opinions and issue authorisations with complete impartiality must not come under the thumb of any interests within the industry. We have called a halt to this today by a majority in Parliament and we will await the Court of Auditors’ report in June before voting again in October on discharge for the budgets of the agencies in question.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the amendments disclosing the risks of conflicts of interest within the EU agencies and proposing that we take measures to prevent this kind of practice in future. I also decided to abstain from the final votes in the cases of the European Food Safety Authority, the European Medicines Agency and the European Environment Agency. The French socialists are concerned not to impede the smooth running of the important programmes currently under way and therefore wished to stop at abstention. The aim is to shed light on practices that could go against the original purpose of these agencies.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has decided not to grant budget discharge to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as its costs were considered too high and conflicts of interest have been identified. As a member of the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I have personally witnessed the level of media scrutiny which the EFSA has, quite rightly, undergone, with the resignation of the chair of its management board, Diána Bánáti, who has taken up a post as the head of a major agri-food industry lobby. This move has given rise to a good deal of criticism, especially since Ms Bánáti’s links with the industry have been known for a long time. When asked about the matter on Thursday, the Commission said it was sorry that Ms Bánáti had moved straight from the EFSA to the lobby. Although this move is not illegal as such, it is certainly not in keeping with the agency’s spirit of independence. The vote in Parliament today therefore sends out a very important signal that conflicts of interest with industry are not and will not be tolerated.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Food Safety Authority as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The discharge report points out that a number of cases of conflicts of interest within the authority were revealed recently, and in order to facilitate the clarification of these and to promote the efficiency and economy of the authority’s management, the Committee does not recommend the granting of discharge for the time being. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to postpone the granting of discharge, as it found that in order for the authority to be granted discharge, some additional issues concerning its 2010 management needed to be clarified. I supported the postponement of granting discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Food Safety Authority’, as I believe that this agency plays a vital role in ensuring food safety in the EU. It is, moreover, important to recognise the efforts made to address issues of potential conflicts of interest.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the financial year 2010. The EFSA was created with the aim of improving food safety throughout the EU and ensuring a high level of protection for consumers, so that they can trust European food products. It is therefore involved at every stage of the food chain, from food safety for animals intended for human consumption to plant protection and plant health. The Court of Auditors stated in its report on the EFSA’s annual accounts that ‘it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular’. Thus, in spite of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and in view of the recommendations by the Ombudsman, I am voting for this report postponing granting the Executive Director of the EFSA discharge in respect of the implementation of the authority’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We support the rapporteur’s position on postponing discharge for the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010. We believe that reports of potential conflicts of interest and, in particular, the ‘revolving door’ cases mentioned by the Ombudsman in his annual report, are sufficient grounds to request that discharge be postponed until these cases are fully cleared up. The report ‘underlines that the Ombudsman concluded that the authority had not carried out a thorough assessment of the alleged potential conflict of interest and called on the authority to improve the way in which it applies its rules and procedures in future ‘revolving door’ cases; stresses, moreover, that the Ombudsman also observed that negotiations by a serving member of staff concerning a future job which could amount to a ‘revolving door’ situation would themselves constitute a conflict of interest and recommended that the authority should strengthen its rules and procedures accordingly; calls on the authority to inform the discharge authority of the concrete measures adopted, and their respective deadlines, to properly address the conclusions of the Ombudsman’. We voted for the resolution for these reasons.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against discharge for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in respect of its budget, as it is unacceptable for an EU agency to be hampered by conflicts of interest. As an agency, the EFSA is responsible for citizens’ health and therefore cannot have links with private interests. Through this vote, Parliament has obliged the Commission to take steps to ensure that rapid, binding measures are introduced to guarantee the independence and transparency of the EFSA, which is in need of a root and branch reform.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of postponing the decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the authority’s budget for the financial year 2010 and postponing the closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 because six very important recommendations from the Internal Audit Service (IAS) still need to be implemented and three of them have already been delayed for over 12 months. These delays concern information security management, the contract renewal process, transparency of decision making, and filing and archiving policy, and the authority is therefore urged to rapidly address these deficiencies and to inform the discharge authorities of the results achieved. I also believe that product assessment should not be based solely on industry data, but should duly take into account independent scientific literature published in peer-reviewed journals. Extra caution should be exercised in relation to industry influence in the development of guidelines and assessment methodologies, which should not favour industry-sponsored studies on speculative grounds, and which should be developed in an open, transparent and balanced manner. The authority should, in addition, focus on public interest in its independent decision making by taking into account all relevant data and information.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – The report on the 2010 discharge for the European Food Safety Authority provided for postponement of the discharge. I certainly voted in favour of this report, as rapporteur and the one who proposed the postponement of the discharge. The costs of the agency’s management board are excessive although it is composed of only 15 members. In 2010, each meeting cost, on average, EUR 92 630, which represents an amount of EUR 6 175 per member. The decisions of the agency are repeatedly challenged over cases of conflicts of interest involving members of the management board and members of the experts’ panels, who come from or go to the food industry, or even are in both places at the same time. For instance, in September 2010, the chair of the management board was reported to be a member of the Board of Directors of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) – Europe, a food lobby group, from where she stepped down in October 2010, only to accept a professional position at ILSI on 8 May 2012. A thorough screening of the declarations of interest submitted by the agency’s staff, experts and members of the management board must be undertaken.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted to give discharge to the European Food Safety Authority while noting that Parliament ‘[f]inds it unacceptable that while the management board of the authority consists of only 15 members, each meeting costs, on average, EUR 92 630, which represents an amount of EUR 6 175 per member; underlines that this amount is nearly three times higher than the second most expensive management board of a decentralised agency; is of the opinion that the management board meeting costs are excessive and should be reduced drastically; calls on the authority and its management board to remedy the situation immediately and to inform the discharge authority of the measures undertaken by 30 June 2012’.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). I therefore sincerely deplore the fact that its discharge has been postponed until October, as the criteria were not met. The European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of the EFSA’s accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. As for the Internal Audit Service (IAS), none of its recommendations were ‘critical’: the recommendations that give the most cause for concern. Furthermore, I do not think the rapporteur took a very useful approach by talking about ‘alleged conflicts of interest’ in her report. The agency has put in place rules to prevent possible conflicts of interest, but it also needs the expertise of officers who have worked in the private sector. The fact that some experts have had previous experience in the private sector does not mean they are not performing their new duties objectively. It should be proven that this is not the case before we condemn the agency in this way. The report provides no such proof.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Our rapporteur recommended postponing the granting of discharge to the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010 because of ‘conflicts of interest’ issues. I do not think that such matters, especially those that are current, should be addressed in a report addressing discharge for 2010. For these reasons, I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds for this postponement and therefore, I voted in favour of granting discharge to the agency.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. In this specific case, the Court of Auditors has raised some doubts as to the conduct of the European Food Safety Authority. I therefore voted to postpone discharge in respect of the implementation of this agency’s budget.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the keystone of European Union (EU) risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. In close collaboration with national authorities, and in open consultation with its stakeholders, EFSA provides independent scientific advice and clear communication on existing and emerging risks.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I must distance myself, in part, from the explanations of vote given by some of my colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) in relation to Parliament’s decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010. Indeed, I think that the role played by the European Food Safety Authority is extremely important for consumer health and that it should in no way be put at risk of any conflicts of interest that could arise in the event that the independence of its members is put in doubt. I cannot, therefore, vote in favour of the amendment to the motion for a resolution that removes the requirement for the Food Safety Authority to see a conflict of interest in the current or recent past participation of its management board, panel and working group members or staff in International Life Service Institute activities, such as taskforces, scientific committees or chairs for conferences. The independence of the members of the authority is a fundamental requirement for them to be able to act with the sole aim of protecting the health of EU citizens and that of citizens of third countries.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted to postpone discharge in respect of the implementation of the budgets of the European Environment Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the European Food Safety Authority due to the alarm bells sounded concerning the potential conflicts of interest, especially those involving the inflated expenses attributed to them. Postponing discharge does not resolve these problems. However, I believe that it can provide a starting point for a meticulous examination of the way in which these, as well as the other, extremely numerous EU agencies operate, and of their costs and benefit.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the deficiencies identified in relation to information security management, the contract renewal process and the transparency of the decision making, and filing and archiving policy, I support the request made to the authority to remedy these deficiencies more rapidly and inform the discharge authority of the progress achieved. In view of this, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thus granting the European Food Safety Authority discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0132/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which underlines the need to fill all vacancies necessary for the European Institute for Gender Equality to run effectively and fulfil its stated goals. I regret the delays and cancellation of a number of procurement procedures as a consequence of, firstly, the institute’s financial and administrative independence only being gained at the end of the second quarter of 2010 and, secondly, the lack of qualified support to the institute’s operations unit. For those reasons, the majority of the budgetary commitments had to be carried forward to 2011, as stated in the institute’s annual activity report. I also recall that the Court of Auditors has stressed that the institute is of the utmost importance for promoting gender equality in the European Union. Therefore, future reports should contain details of any obstacles that have hindered the institute’s activity during the budgetary procedure.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As Chair of the voluntary organisation Femmes au Centre (Women at the centre), I consider the work of the European Institute for Gender Equality to be of vital importance. I voted in favour of the report on the 2010 discharge for the institute. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted against discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Institute for Gender Equality for 2010. I was opposed to the proposal that a merger of the European Institute for Gender Equality and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights should be considered in order to avoid duplication and reduce overhead costs. As the proposal to merge these two agencies was approved, I voted against discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s entire budget for 2010. I believe that it is important for the EU to hold to its commitment to having at least one EU agency in every Member State and I am therefore opposed to the proposal that Lithuania should lose the agency. I fully agree with the European Parliament’s proposals that we need to make savings and use money from the EU budget more effectively, but this can be done in other ways, such as optimising procurement procedures, allocating and using human resources more effectively and promoting greater rationality and efficiency in expenditure.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted for the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Institute for Gender Equality. However, I also voted against a merger of the institute and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights because I believe that European leadership in order to develop equality requires the work of the institute to be strengthened so that it can continue to drive forward cross-cutting measures in all areas, both in Europe and internationally.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Institute for Gender Equality as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the institute for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The Court of Auditors confirmed that the institute’s annual accounts regarding its budget are reliable in all material respects and fairly represent its financial position as of 31 December 2010, and that the institute’s operations and cash flows for the financial year 2010 were in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Leonidas Donskis (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the amendment to this resolution presented by three groups, which would delete the call to merge the European Institute for Gender Equality and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. I believe that it is important to keep the institute, as a separate agency, in Lithuania for two reasons. Above all, gender equality is an important political and moral subject in the European Union. It deserves special attention. There is a risk that by merging these two institutions, this topic will simply disappear among other human rights issues. Secondly, it is important for this institute to remain in Lithuania. Our relatively young democratic and conservative society needs the European Union to stress gender equality through the work of its agency in Vilnius. I am convinced that we currently do not need to interfere with the work of this institute, which only recently began to fire on all cylinders, and has therefore not yet managed to effectively demonstrate all its possibilities.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I support closing the European Institute for Gender Equality’s accounts for the financial year 2010. Although I voted to grant discharge, I would like to clarify that I do not support any merger between this institute and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on cost reduction grounds. This institute’s work is recent and has massive potential for promoting gender equality in the EU, so it needs to go on functioning independently.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Social and legal equality between the sexes is essential for a balanced society, as they complement one another. Efforts to achieve this are worthwhile and should be followed up by the EU. I note that the institute has not yet announced the results of the ex ante evaluation that it commissioned from the discharge authority.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Significant progress has been made on equality between men and women in recent years, and it is considered a fundamental right. This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) for the financial year 2010. The EIGE is a European agency designed to support the Member States and the European institutions in promoting equality between men and women. In order to do so, it collects and analyses data, develops methodologies and promotes the sharing of best practices. As 2010 was the first year of operation for the EIGE, I welcome the fact that the Court of Auditors, in its report on the accounts of the EIGE, has declared all of its financial transactions to be legal and regular, and I hope that it will continue to improve its performance, despite the difficulties that the EU is experiencing. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I am voting for this report granting the Director of the EIGE discharge in respect of the implementation of this institute’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In times of crisis, such as that which the peoples are currently experiencing, it is vital to defend the rights won by the workers and peoples. These rights should even be strengthened, as they are the only way to achieve progress and social justice, and to ensure the fair distribution of wealth by those who generate it, thereby overcoming the difficult situation in which the crisis of the capitalist system has placed us. Equality between women and men is an essential element and goal of this struggle. Unfortunately, it is a long way from being achieved. The way forward should be to fight inequality and enhance the conditions in which this struggle can be fought, on all fronts. We therefore disagree with the rapporteur’s proposal to merge or scrap the European Institute for Gender Equality. It is, however, necessary to improve working conditions in this area, in particular, in terms of recruiting qualified staff, which will ensure its smooth running and the furtherance of the principles for which it was created.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted for the report concerning the promotion of gender equality and, more specifically, the budget of the European Institute for Gender Equality. With my vote, I also endorsed the view that the aforementioned institution and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights should not be merged, as I believe that since we dedicate a separate policy to gender equality and the assessment of the effects of inequalities between men and women, this matter cannot be looked at solely from a budgetary point of view, meaning that the operation of the relevant organisation must be shown in a separate budget as well. This is the only way that allows us to identify the effects of expenditure on gender equality, including, in particular, the assessment of whether men and women receive a proportionate share of such expenditure. At the same time, I agree that control must be given more emphasis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution and share the view that a merger between the European Institute for Gender Equality and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights should be considered in order to avoid duplication and reduce overhead costs.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Institute for Gender Equality because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Institute for Gender Equality.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Institute for Gender Equality is an EU agency which supports the EU and its Member States in their efforts to promote gender equality, to fight discrimination based on sex, and to raise awareness about gender equality issues. Its tasks are to collect and analyse comparable data on gender issues, to develop methodological tools, in particular, for the integration of the gender dimension in all policy areas, to facilitate the exchange of best practices and dialogue among stakeholders, and to raise awareness among EU citizens. The work of this institute is very important. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I agreed that the budget of the European Institute for Gender Equality for 2010 should be implemented. The institute was established in 2006 and only became autonomous in June 2010, which means that the institution was only autonomous for half of the financial year in question, and that must be taken into consideration in discussing the sustainability of the European Institute for Gender Equality.

In contrast to my group, I decided to support the continuation of the European Institute for Gender Equality as an autonomous body, and I do not support its incorporation into any other institution for cost-cutting purposes. In 2006, we considered it necessary to create the institute, and it is premature to make decisions regarding the institution’s efficiency or the achievement of its objectives, since the final establishment procedures were only completed in 2010, and several positions that are important for the institute’s work remain vacant. The European Institute for Gender Equality and its work are important in dealing with issues of gender equality at European Union level, and we should not create any restrictions or hindrances to the development of this institution.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Institute for Gender Equality was granted administrative and financial autonomy on 15 June 2010. At a time of economic crisis and austerity, it is vital that the institute rein in its spending, without compromising the performance of its important mission. The Internal Audit Service will carry out its first audit in 2012. In this context, and on the basis of the Council recommendation and the reports by the European Court of Auditors, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thus granting the European Institute for Gender Equality discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In times of crisis such as that which the peoples are currently experiencing, it is vital to defend the rights won by the workers and peoples, and urgent that they are strengthened. Only the path of progress and social justice can remedy the difficult situation in which the capitalist system has placed us. In this context, equality between women and men is a goal that urgently needs to be achieved, but which, unfortunately, is still a long way off. The way forward should be to fight such inequalities and enhance the conditions in which this struggle can be fought, on all fronts. We are therefore against the proposal to merge or scrap the European Institute for Gender Equality. Instead, we are in favour of conditions being improved, in particular, in terms of recruiting qualified staff, which will ensure the smooth running of the institute, as intended.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0107/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, principally because the management board adopted limitations on the subsequent professional activities of the former executive director, following public protest supported by Parliament regarding its decision in January 2011 to authorise his new activities fully. I would highlight the fact that the parliamentary committee held an exchange of views with the executive director-designate in July 2011 where the issue was addressed again in order to avoid future recurrences. I regret that in its follow-up report of September 2010, the Internal Audit Service continued to find the assessment of experts’ independence inadequate, and it is essential that the executive director publish a list of all the authorised medicinal products concerned and report how the agency intends to rectify those procedures.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In relation to the discharge of the budget of the European Medicines Agency, I share the points that have been made about the previous administration. At the same time, I would also like to underline that in a few short months, the body’s new management has taken important decisions for the healthy and proper governance of the agency. An action plan has been completed in relation to public procurement, which will be formally adopted by the management board at its next meeting, which is to be held in June. Furthermore, April 2012 saw the adoption of a new revision of the policy on managing conflicts of interest among members of its scientific and expert committees, alongside a disciplinary procedure for the abuse of trust by members of committees and experts. It will be important to take care over monitoring the implementation and actual results of the new agency management, which deserves all our support and confidence as they continue the renewal and recovery work that the agency needs.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I argued in favour of granting discharge to the European Medicines Agency. However, a majority of my fellow Members has asked for the vote to be postponed in order to investigate a possible conflict of interest that might affect the running of the agency. This postponement will now give Parliament time to look into the agency’s accounts in greater depth.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I was against postponing the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for 2010. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament report contains important recommendations for the agency, such as taking steps to remedy deficiencies identified in procurement procedures, verifying whether all the actions specified in the audit reports, including those for 2010, were fully implemented, providing central control and coordination for the development of an experts’ assessment methodology and effectively addressing potential conflicts of interest. However, I do not agree that the European Parliament should postpone discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 on account of these deficiencies because similar deficiencies were identified in a number of other agencies to which the European Parliament has granted discharge, and which have been urged by it to address the deficiencies identified.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), I considered it important not to grant budgetary discharge to the European Medicines Agency, in order to make full use of our budgetary authority and to shed light on cases of conflicts of interest at both these agencies. They are both vital for European citizens, given their role of granting marketing authorisations for products for human consumption. Extreme vigilance and a duty of complete impartiality are therefore required. Since the policy on conflicts of interest was only adopted in April 2012, it is wise to postpone the vote on discharge until October in order to give us time to assess the content of the undertakings made.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Medicines Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The discharge report notes that the main issue with the European Medicines Agency is that its management board has yet to approve the action plan drafted during last year’s discharge procedure to remedy existing issues. The report points out that a number of cases of conflicts of interest within the agency were revealed recently, and the Committee does not recommend granting discharge until these are clarified. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to postpone the granting of discharge, as it found that in order for the authority to be granted discharge, some additional issues concerning its 2010 management needed to be clarified. I supported the postponement of granting discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Food Safety Authority’, as I believe that this agency plays a vital role in ensuring medicines’ safety and effectiveness in the EU. It is, moreover, important to recognise the efforts being made to address issues of potential conflicts of interest.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As in previous years, several issues have again arisen in relation to the normal operation of the European Medicines Agency, in particular, the existence of possible conflicts of interest, and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. In view of this, I would congratulate the rapporteur on her decision to postpone discharge, which I support, and I would reiterate that it is vital that all of the EU institutions and agencies follow and respect the same principles of good management and transparency.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the financial year 2010. The EMA, which was created in 1993 but only became operational in 1995, is aimed at protecting and promoting public and animal health by evaluating and supervising medicines for human or veterinary use. No medicine can be marketed without this agency’s assent. The Court of Auditors’ report, despite making some observations on carryovers, IT contracts and the payment system, considered that the accounts of the EMA for the financial year 2010 ‘are reliable, legal and regular’. Thus, in view of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I am voting against this report, as I believe that, as with the other agencies, the Director of the EMA should also be granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We support the rapporteur’s position on delaying discharge for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the financial year 2010. As with other agencies, this position is the result of conflicts of interest within the agency. The resolution urges the agency to strengthen its recruitment processes and ensure that its documentation is correctly managed, and to improve the documentation of recruitment processes for contract workers, thus improving the selection process. It also calls on the EMA to inform Parliament ‘of the way in which it ensures that procedures for the involvement of experts are fully applied until the Memoranda of Understanding on the independence of scientific evaluation have been signed by all national competent authorities’. We voted for this resolution.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) Following considerable pressure from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has finally established a new procedure for avoiding conflicts of interest within the agency itself. I welcome this move. Nevertheless, I voted against granting the EMA discharge for its budget, as this is out of the question until it proves that what is proposed on paper is being put into action. It is vital that the European Union does all it can to establish complete transparency in public procurement procedures, conflicts of interest and systematic breaches of important internal procedures.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of postponing the decision on granting the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010 and postponing the closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency, also for the financial year 2010. The Court of Auditors regards the agency’s accounts of 2010 as reliable, legal and regular, but the Court of Auditors made observations on carryovers, IT contracts and the payment system for services provided by national authorities.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of postponing the granting of discharge to the European Environment Agency and the European Medicines Agency since, as mentioned by Ms Macovei, the rapporteur, we have problems concerning conflicts of interest in both these agencies. I agree with the view expressed by Ms Macovei that this conflict has a negative effect on Europeans’ trust in institutions and causes concern among taxpayers. I believe that, particularly in the current difficult situation, the European Union cannot take such risks. For this same reason, the agencies should apply themselves with particular commitment to the issue of improving the effectiveness of their expenditure and the transparency of their financial management. I hope that by 30 June, all agencies will have succeeded in taking appropriate steps to address the comments made today.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – The report on the 2010 discharge for the European Medicines Agency provided for postponement of the discharge. I certainly voted in favour of this report as rapporteur and the one who proposed the postponement of the discharge. During the 2009 discharge procedure, the European Parliament requested a multiannual procurement plan from EMA, which has not yet been adopted. Moreover, the management board refused a new payment system for the agency, hence the management board accepts and takes direct responsibility for very important risks, such as non-compliance with legislative requirements, the potential financial impact of the current remuneration system, as well as reputation. Serious weaknesses in terms of conflicts of interest also remain. Its approach on the scrutiny of declarations of interest is based on trust rather than on verification of the experts’ declaration of interest published by the relevant national agencies. A genuine mechanism enabling proper scrutiny of the declarations of interest recently adopted by the agency must be implemented and show concrete results. The CV of its experts should be made available on its website. Consumers and, at the same time, taxpayers should be aware of who, how and why drugs are recommended and used by citizens.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which ‘[n]otes weaknesses in the agency’s system for validating creditor claims in respect of IT contractors; takes note of the agency’s statement that the weaknesses noted by the Court of Auditors related to a human error and were corrected, that it has strengthened its ex ante operational and financial control of invoices and that no further weaknesses have been detected; invites the Court of Auditors to verify and inform Parliament in this respect’.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. In this specific case, the Court of Auditors has raised some doubts as to the conduct of the European Medicines Agency. I therefore voted to postpone discharge in respect of the implementation of this agency’s budget.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Medicines Agency is a decentralised agency of the European Union, located in London. The agency is responsible for the scientific evaluation of medicines developed by pharmaceutical companies for use in the European Union.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would highlight the conflicts of interest that have been observed, and I acknowledge the agency’s willingness to publish the declarations of interest of experts involved in evaluating medicinal products. However, I deplore the fact that many of the experts have yet to publish their declarations of interest. In this context, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thus granting the European Medicines Agency discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) By granting discharge to a particular institution or agency, Parliament is declaring that the spending thereof was in line with EU rules and closing the budget. If, on the other hand, the institution breached the existing rules, Parliament can either refuse or postpone discharge. The Members of the European Parliament, acting on a recommendation of the Council, base their decision on the reports of the Court of Auditors. Parliament may also recommend that the Commission take action on a given issue. In this specific case, I voted for the decision to postpone granting discharge to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0134/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, taking into account the centre’s recommendation, which stresses the importance of it consolidating its financial management, and recognising that drug-related issues should be adequately represented in the next new multiannual financial framework (2014-2020). I also welcome web dissemination as an efficient and cost-effective part of the centre’s overall communication strategy and information activities. The centre should propose greater support for the European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction. Given the economic difficulties that Europe will have to overcome, there should be a call for renewed flexibility, innovative organisational measures and better coordination between EU institutions, agencies and national authorities.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for 2010. I welcome the European Parliament’s recommendations to improve the agency’s programming of activities with a view to reducing the level of carryovers to the next period, to ensure consistent implementation of the staff appraisal procedure, to consolidate its financial management and implement the Internal Audit Service’s recommendations as soon as possible, particularly with regard to grant management and preparedness to move.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to support granting discharge to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, since the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The European Parliament approved the closure of the accounts of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2010. The Court of Auditors stated that it had obtained assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It is necessary for the Monitoring Centre to continue to ensure consistent implementation of the approved staff appraisal procedure, and to implement, without delay, nine ‘very important’ recommendations of the Internal Audit Service and to inform the discharge authority of the progress made. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report, which grants the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction discharge in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for the financial year 2010. Cooperation between the centre and the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs has improved. The monitoring of alcohol, tobacco and other addictive behaviours unrelated to substances should be included as a priority in the next EU drugs strategy.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addition plays an extremely important role in Europe: its remit is to provide objective, reliable and comparable information enabling the European Union and its Member States to have a wide-ranging perspective on the drug-addiction phenomenon and its consequences. Rigour in information justifies equal rigour in accounting. I would reiterate my hope that the centre will not stop truly and accurately carrying out the mission entrusted to it, and that it will do so whilst managing its budget as best it can.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) for the financial year 2010. The EMCDDA, which is based in Lisbon, aims to provide politicians with information enabling them to make the best decisions. Its mission is to gather, analyse and handle objective and reliable data on the phenomenon of drugs and drug addiction in Europe. The Court of Auditors’ report, despite having made a number of observations, stated that it has obtained ‘reasonable assurance’ that the accounts were ‘reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular’. However, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs takes the view that the EMCDDA needs to consolidate its financial management and improve its relationship with the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for this report granting the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction discharge in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the centre’s Director in respect of the implementation of the centre’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular, but the centre must consolidate its financial management. Drug-related issues must be adequately represented in the new multiannual financial framework (2014-2020). The centre still needs to implement five very important recommendations from the Internal Audit Service (IAS) audits on grant management (2009) and on Preparedness for the Move (2008). For three very important recommendations, implementation is delayed beyond the date defined by the centre in its original action plan. The centre implemented one more recommendation at the end of 2010 and a follow-up by the IAS with the purpose of confirming its effective implementation is now awaited. The centre must take immediate steps to redress the situation and inform the discharge authority of the measures taken.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on discharge for the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which welcomes the improved cooperation between the centre and the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD), and believes that the monitoring of alcohol, tobacco and other addictive behaviours which are unrelated to substances should be included as a priority in the next drugs strategy of the Union.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction exists to provide the EU and its Member States with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid evidence base to support the drugs debate. Today, it offers policy makers the data they need for drawing up informed drug laws and strategies. It also helps professionals and practitioners working in the field pinpoint best practice and new areas of research.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the warning about compliance with previous discharge reports’ recommendations, and in the expectation that the requested information will be given to the discharge authority, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thus granting the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0137/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, noting that the European Maritime Safety Agency still has to implement 15 of the ‘very important’ recommendations made by the Internal Audit Service. I would also express my concern that the implementation of eight of these recommendations has been delayed by six to 12 months, while one has been rejected. The first 11 ‘very important’ recommendations concern the legal and financial decision-making process, human resources management and internal control standards. As the rejected recommendation concerns responsibility for the accounting officer’s performance evaluation, the agency should explain to the discharge authority the reasons behind this rejection, and the agency is called upon to take action on the delayed recommendations.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) for 2010. There is concern over the large proportion of appropriations constantly carried forward by the EMSA, and the fact that the agency’s procurement procedures are not transparent. If the EMSA does not have underlying data to take a financing decision on planned operational procurement, then this may pose a risk to the validity of the agency’s decision. I welcome the calls for the agency to include in its annual work programme (AWP) clear information on the global budgetary envelope provided for procurements and an indication of the number and the types of contracts. It is also important for the agency to implement 15 very important recommendations from the Internal Audit Service as soon as possible. The implementation of eight of these recommendations has been delayed by 6-12 months, while one has been rejected.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2010. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Maritime Safety Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that in the course of its audits, it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The report calls on the agency to apply procurement procedures correctly; however, it welcomes the fact that in its 2009 annual activity report, the agency included a specific annex on negotiated procedures in order to inform the budgetary authority. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the European Maritime Safety Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. This body has numerous responsibilities, in particular, ensuring a high, uniform and effective level of maritime security, and preventing pollution caused by ships in the EU.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This agency, based in Lisbon, has an extremely important role which I fully support. The European maritime area’s safety is, and will continue to be, a responsibility of the utmost importance for the EU and public safety. I would therefore congratulate the rapporteur on her recommendations, which I support, and I hope that the agency will continue to make efforts to comply in full with all of the recommendations issued here, as well as those issued in previous years.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) for the financial year 2010. The EMSA, which was created in 2002 and is based in Lisbon, is intended to provide support and technical advice to the EU and its Member States on developing and implementing legislation in the following areas: maritime safety, shipping protection, and preventing and responding to spills and pollution by ships. The Court of Auditors’ report, despite having made a number of observations, stated that it has obtained ‘reasonable assurance’ that the accounts were ‘reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular’. I welcome the fact that the Court of Auditors has not criticised the budgetary and financial management of the EMSA, as has happened in the past, and I urge the agency to continue improving its performance, financial management and control, as recommended in the 2009 discharge report. In view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I am voting for this report granting the Executive Director of the EMSA discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2010 because the agency must correctly apply procurement procedures and ensure adequate data on planned public procurement is provided in its annual work programme. If a financing decision on planned operational procurement is not adequately supported by underlying data, then this may call into question the validity of the agency’s decision. The agency still has to implement 15 very important recommendations from the Internal Audit Service. The implementation of eight of these recommendations has been delayed by 6-12 months, while one has been rejected. The first 11 very important recommendations concern the legal and financial decision-making process, human resources management and internal control standards, while the rejected recommendation concerns responsibility for the performance evaluation of the Accounting Officer. The agency is urged to explain to the discharge authority the reasons behind this rejection and to take action on the delayed recommendations.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the European Maritime Safety Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Maritime Safety Agency because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Maritime Safety Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The objectives of the European Maritime Safety Agency are addressed through a matrix of mainly preventive, but also reactive, tasks in a number of key areas. Firstly, the agency has been tasked with assisting the Commission in monitoring the implementation of EU legislation relating, among others, to ship construction and planned maintenance, ship inspection and the reception of ship waste in EU ports, certification of marine equipment, ship security, the training of seafarers in non-EU countries and Port State Control. Secondly, the agency operates, maintains and develops maritime information capabilities at EU level. Significant examples are the SafeSeaNet vessel-tracking system, for EU-wide tracking of vessels and their cargoes, and the EU LRIT Cooperative Data Centre, to identify and track EU flagged vessels worldwide.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular, and on the basis of the recommendation by the Council, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the EMSA’s 2010 accounts.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) provides technical assistance and support to the European Union and its Member States in drafting and implementing EU law on maritime safety, pollution from shipping and maritime security. It also has responsibilities in the areas of preventing and responding to oil spills, vessel monitoring, and long-range identification and tracking of vessels. Given the new tasks assigned to the agency by the amendment to its founding Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002, we call on the Commission to increase the resources allocated to it. We call on the agency to manage its resources efficiently so as to fulfil properly the new responsibilities entrusted to it on the basis of the regulation. We draw the agency’s attention to the resolution of the European Parliament of May 2011 on the 2009 discharge regarding performance, financial management and control of EU agencies, and we urge the agency to comply with this resolution’s recommendations. As part of the resolution, Parliament has asked the agency to carry out the following: to produce a Gantt chart as part of the programming for each of its operational activities; to set out a diachronic analysis of operations subject to discharge carried out in this and previous years; to improve its planning and monitoring in order to reduce the number of budget transfers; and to apply public procurement procedures correctly.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2010 since its expenditure was approved by the European Court of Auditors. The agency, which was set up in the wake of the Erika disaster and has the means to prevent any cause of pollution and tackle its disastrous effects for the environment and human health, is a cornerstone of our maritime protection. As we renegotiate the agency’s mandate, I hope we will take care to ensure that its future activities are both useful and cost-effective and that it therefore remains a high value added European resource. We need to be realistic in particular, and only ask the agency to do what it is able to do, particularly at a time of budgetary cuts. Personally, I feel these new roles should tie in with the agency’s key mission, which is to preserve both the security and safety and the environment of the EU’s maritime areas. I also support the idea of a role of preventing and combating pollution caused by offshore platforms, and I must stress that any extension of its roles must be matched by an extension of its financial and physical resources.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0136/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, given that in 2010, the Internal Audit Service carried out an audit of ‘planning: stakeholders and operational objectives’, in order to assess and provide reasonable assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal control system, related to the input and needs of stakeholders, and the effectiveness of allocation of resources with respect to priorities in operational activities. I would stress that it is essential in this context for these ‘very important recommendations’ to include developing a map of stakeholders’ expectations, involving stakeholders in project planning, and improving the management of stakeholder relationships through a suitable IT tool.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) for the financial year 2010. The Court of Auditors’ conclusion that appropriations carried forward to the following year represented 19% of the agency’s total budget is a concern. Furthermore, there has been no progress since the previous year concerning the refund of EUR 45 000, which was paid in advance by the agency to the tax authorities of the host Member State. I welcome the European Parliament’s recommendations on paying more attention to absorption capacity, on addressing deficiencies in staff recruitment procedures, and increasing transparency in its work, including greater transparency with regard to the estimates and who has responsibility.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Network and Information Security Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. In the course of its audits, the Court of Auditors obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The agency needs to put in place an exhaustive physical inventory list and ensure the correctness of the accounting records, as well as improve the transparency of the estimates and of who has responsibility. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report granting the Executive Director of the European Network and Information Security Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. This agency is intended to strengthen capacity for network and information security in the EU Member States and the business sector with regard to preventing, responding to and managing problems relating to network and information security.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As levels of Internet use are constantly increasing all over the world, the role of the European Network and Information Security Agency is becoming extremely important. Dedicated to cybersecurity and access to reliable information for its millions of users, this agency has taken on an increasingly central role in the EU and its Member States. I would therefore congratulate the rapporteur and I hope that the EU will continue to play a leading role in the area of cybersecurity and privacy.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) for the financial year 2010. The ENISA, based on the island of Crete, has the aim of ensuring a high level of network and information security in the EU. In a globalised world in the digital age, the security of data transfer systems is vital in order for people and businesses not to feel hindered in their activities. The Court of Auditors’ report states that it has obtained ‘reasonable assurance’ that the accounts are ‘reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular’. Although the work done to implement and consolidate procedures and internal controls is acknowledged, much remains to be improved in this area. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for this report granting the Director of the European Network and Information Security Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The agency faces increased risks in its planning, accounting, budget execution, IT development and management, business continuity, stakeholder relations, external communication, and impact assessment and evaluation, and the agency must therefore promptly establish the necessary measures to reduce the risks in the abovementioned subjects. The agency has implemented four very important recommendations related to the 2009 audit on procurement.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, but am concerned that, once again, the Court of Auditors reported 52% of carryovers from the agency’s operational budget (Title III), expresses concern that this situation indicates delays in the implementation of the agency’s activities that are financed from Title III, and is at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality, and once more urges the agency to inform the discharge authority of the action taken by the agency to address this deficiency.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Network and Information Security Agency because the European Court of Auditors did not express any reservations regarding either the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I believe that this agency brings a great deal of added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Network and Information Security Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Network and Information Security Agency is the EU’s response to the cybersecurity issues of the European Union. As such, it is the ‘pace-setter’ for information security in Europe, and a centre of expertise.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the warning about compliance with previous discharge reports’ recommendations, and with the expectation that the requested information is given to the discharge authority, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thus granting the European Network and Information Security Agency discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). The agency’s mission is to ensure a high level of IT network and data security in the EU by supporting national authorities and EU institutions as an expert on IT network and data security. The agency also acts as a forum for exchanging good practices by facilitating contacts between EU institutions, national authorities and European companies in the ICT sector. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the agency’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. We welcome the fact that the agency has improved its transparency, both with regard to budget estimates and assigning responsibilities for projects. Its procurement authorisation procedure has been strengthened at the financing decision and work programme level. Given the agency’s importance and the proposal for amending the ENISA’s founding regulation, which will assign the agency new tasks, as well as the views of the Court of Auditors in previous years, we call on the agency to return to carrying out the majority of its activities, both in terms of its staff deployment and costs, in the area specifically relating to IT network and data security.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0118/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which acknowledges, on the basis of information from the European Railway Agency, that the Internal Audit Service (IAS) audited the planning and budgeting processes in 2010 in order to provide reasonable assurance on the agency’s internal control system as regards its planning and budgeting processes. I would highlight that the IAS recommendations concern the strategic planning, coherence and accuracy of the draft estimate revenue and expenditure, the annual work programme as a financing decision, and mid-term IT strategy. It is therefore important that the agency implement the measures necessary to fulfil these IAS recommendations. As such, I believe that the agency should implement the IAS recommendations relating to the audit of human resources management undertaken by the IAS in 2009.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Railway Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to make a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political element of the external control of budget implementation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Railway Agency for 2010. There is concern that the European Railway Agency (ERA) is carrying over a high number of appropriations to the following year, thus breaching the principle of annuality. The agency’s budget for 2010 increased by 14.9% and the large proportion of appropriations carried over or cancelled means that the agency is unable to manage a greatly increased budget. Furthermore, in 2010, there were cases of cancellations and delays in procurement procedures, as well as recurrent delays in the execution of payments and significant changes to the work programme. I welcome the European Parliament’s recommendations to address the problem of appropriations being carried forward as soon as possible, ensure effective procurement procedures, create a consolidated recruitment procedure, draw up a multiannual action plan with tasks and key performance indicators, and implement the other recommendations made by the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Railway Agency. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Railway Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The European Court of Auditors found that in the course of its audits, it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It must be noted, however, that the agency needs to place more emphasis on addressing the problem of appropriations being carried forward from one year to the next, and on the matter of recurrent delays in the execution of payments and significant changes made to the work programme during the year. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report granting the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s general budget for the financial year 2010. The report urges the agency to create a multiannual plan translating long-term objectives into multiannual tasks, which would provide stakeholders with better information on objectives/activities, strategic priorities and resource allocation. It is also worth noting that the agency is carrying out its activities in two locations, increasing its costs.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European rail sector suffers from its technical and national safety rules being incompatible, constituting a serious obstacle to its development. It is for the agency to reduce this gulf and establish common safety objectives. This sector remains extremely important in the EU, particularly in the outlying countries, and it should be used and improved so that it can play a role in exports. In view of this, I welcome and support the rapporteur, and I would reiterate that it is essential the European Railway Agency follow and respect the same principles of good management and transparency required of all the EU institutions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Railway Agency (ERA) for the financial year 2010. The ERA, which is based in Lille, France, has the aim of cooperating with the rail sector in order to develop techniques and safety measures to harmonise European rail systems, ensure that they are economically viable, improve safety and allow trains to run between the Member States without having to stop at borders. The Court of Auditors’ report states that it has obtained ‘reasonable assurances’ that the accounts are ‘reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular’. I welcome the fact that the criticism made by the Court of Auditors of the accounting and budget for the financial year 2009 has been heeded. We believe that, in the face of the financial crisis, it is very important to optimise the use of budget appropriations, so real needs have to be prioritised. Therefore, and in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I am voting for this report granting the Director of the ERA discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2010 because it is extremely important to optimise the use of budgetary resources at a time of financial crisis and the Commission and the agency are urged to analyse and establish the agency’s real budgetary requirements so that it is able to carry out all the tasks assigned to it.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Railway Agency since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Railway Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The construction of a safe, modern integrated railway network is one of the EU’s major priorities. Railways must become more competitive and offer high-quality, end-to-end services without being restricted by national borders. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would highlight the fact that the European Railway Agency (ERA) operates from two sites, Lille and Valenciennes, increasing its costs. This observation has been made since 2006 and no action has yet been taken by the Council to amend Decision 2004/97/EC of 13 December 2003 obliging the agency to have two sites. In view of this, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thereby granting the ERA discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2010. The agency helps integrate railway systems in Europe by reinforcing the safety of rail transport and providing the opportunity to cross EU Member States’ borders without stopping. The agency cooperates with the rail sector, national authorities, EU institutions and other bodies on drafting technical standards, as well as common, cost-effective safety measures and objectives. The agency also issues reports on railway safety in the EU and coordinates the efforts aimed at devising standard signalling regulations throughout Europe. Achieving the most cost-effective use of budget funds is of paramount importance during the current financial crisis. We urge the Commission and agency to examine and define the real budgetary requirements for carrying out the tasks under the agency’s remit. We should mention that the agency has already carried over a substantial amount of funds from the 2008 and 2009 financial years to the following year. We think that these serious breaches of the budgetary principle of annuality are no longer acceptable in future and that, if the relevant budgetary principle is breached again, discharge should not be granted next time. With this in mind, we call on the agency to take the necessary corrective action forthwith.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since the European Court of Auditors found the 2010 accounts and expenditure of the European Railway Agency (ERA) to be reliable and legal, I granted discharge to the agency’s director through my vote. Whilst the legality of the expenditure has been ascertained, and whilst I fully share the ERA’s objective of making Europe’s railway network more interoperable, I do not think it is right that the agency should carry forward from one year to the next sums that have been allocated strictly for the implementation of its annual budget. The agency carried forward over EUR 5 million from the 2010 financial year to the 2011 financial year, having already acted in a similar way from 2008 to 2009. This practice, which goes against the principle of annual budgeting periods, must not become a habit and will no longer be tolerated at a time when public expenditure must be rationalised and set an example. It is essential that the ERA take on board the criticisms made by this House, which it had already made in 2010; otherwise, it risks the House exercising its powers as a budgetary authority to penalise it.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0135/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which takes account of the fact that the Internal Audit Service (IAS) audited planning and monitoring in 2010, and notes, in particular, that the IAS made eight recommendations, one of which was rated as ‘very important’ and concerns the need for the European Training Foundation to clearly define and describe the utility of its annual planning approach. I therefore recommend that the foundation focus on cost-effective reporting relevant to its governing board and key stakeholders, allowing them to check the performance of the foundation, and that it implement the remaining IAS recommendations from previous audits.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Training Foundation. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation for 2010. I welcome the European Parliament’s recommendations that the agency should draw up budgetary procedures more rigorously in order to avoid the considerable number of budgetary transfers, and obtain the authorisation of its governing board when transfers are necessary, as required by the foundation’s Financial Regulation. The foundation should also fulfil its obligation to show a summary statement of the schedule of payments, so that in subsequent financial years, budget commitments entered into in earlier financial years will be met.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to support granting discharge to the European Training Foundation, since the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Training Foundation as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It is important for the foundation to draw up its budgetary procedures more rigorously in order to reduce the number of budgetary transfers during the financial year, and to fulfil its obligation to prepare a summary statement of the schedule of payments necessary to fulfil the budgetary commitments made in the previous financial years. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as it approves closure of the European Training Foundation’s accounts for the financial year 2010, given that the Court of Auditors has obtained reasonable assurance that the accounts are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Training Foundation (ETF) aims to contribute to the development of vocational training systems by stepping up cooperation on vocational training and ensuring aid coordination. The ETF’s activities cover EU candidate countries, the countries of the Western Balkans, of Eastern Europe and of Central Asia, and Mediterranean partner countries. I would congratulate the rapporteur and I support her conclusions. I would also reiterate that there is a need for both caution and rigour when spending available funds on issues related to professional training involving developing world countries.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Education and training are two parts of the learning process that safeguard a country’s development and the well-being of its population. This report, by Ms Macovei, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation (ETF) for the financial year 2010. The ETF, which is based in Turin, Italy, has the aim of helping the Member States to modernise their education and training systems in order to improve their citizens’ skills. The Court of Auditors’ report declares the operations underlying the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 legal and regular. However, it has not yet verified whether the accounts faithfully reflect the ETF’s actual financial situation as at 31 December 2010, nor whether the transactions and cash flows are in accordance with its financial rules. However, in view of the report by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I am voting for this report granting the Director of the ETF discharge in respect of the implementation of the foundation’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the foundation’s Director in respect of the implementation of the foundation’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, the foundation is urged to focus on effective reporting relevant to the foundation’s governing board and key stakeholders, allowing them to check the performance of the foundation. It is also urged to implement the remaining recommendations of the Internal Audit Service from the previous audits. According to the foundation’s annual activity report, it adopted the revised 16 standards for effective management as set out in the internal control standards framework.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Director of the European Training Foundation discharge in respect of the implementation of the foundation’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Training Foundation since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Training Foundation.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The mission of the European Training Foundation is to help transitioning and developing countries harness the potential of their human capital through the reform of education, training and labour market systems in the context of the EU’s external relations policy.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2010, the Internal Audit Service (IAS) audited the planning and monitoring in 2010 of the European Training Foundation (ETF) and made eight recommendations, one of which was rated ‘very important’ and concerns the need for the foundation clearly to define and describe the utility of its annual planning approach. In view of this observation, and in the expectation that the recommendation will be implemented, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission and to discharge the ETF’s 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0117/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I welcome the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work’s initiative of automatically providing the discharge authority with its annual internal audit report conducted by the Internal Audit Service (IAS), as well as the fact that the IAS followed up on the open recommendations of past audits. In relation to following up on earlier IAS recommendations, I particularly welcome the IAS’s assessment that all very important recommendations have been adequately implemented and closed, except the one on validation accounting systems, which has been downgraded to ‘important’ due to partial implementation. The agency therefore needs to implement these two recommendations in full and inform the discharge authority of the measures taken.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for 2010. I welcome the European Parliament’s calls for the agency to base its budget on its true needs and to properly use appropriations allocated to it. I welcome the fact that in its annual activity report (AAR) in 2010, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work detailed data comparing one year to another so that we could assess more effectively the agency’s performance. I believe that other agencies should apply such a practice. I welcome the calls for the agency to implement the recommendations from the audit carried out by the Internal Audit Service as soon as possible.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2010. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 corresponded to the agency’s actual financial position as at 31 December 2010, and that the operations and cash flows for the year concerned were in accordance with the agency’s financial rules. The Court of Auditors deemed the agency’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 to be legal and regular. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. I would highlight the agency’s efforts in submitting detailed data comparing one year to another, so as to enable the discharge authority to assess the agency’s performance more effectively. This is best practice, and should be followed by other agencies.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This agency’s remit is to provide the EU bodies, the Member States and interested parties with technical, scientific and economic information on health and safety at work. This information is essential to enabling assessment of workplace health and safety conditions in the EU, and of what Europe’s current best practices in this field are. I welcome and support the rapporteur’s conclusions, and would highlight the importance of this agency in these times.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The agency’s initiative of automatically providing to the discharge authority the Internal Audit Service’s (IAS) annual internal audit report on the agency is welcomed. This could be an indication of transparency and an example of best practice for other agencies. The IAS’s audit reports often help to further develop processes and measures which mitigate or control the agency’s risks.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which grants the Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year. 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. I therefore voted for the report on the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is committed to making Europe a safer, healthier and more productive place to work. It promotes a culture of risk prevention to improve working conditions in Europe. I am in favour of granting budget discharge to this agency.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The detailed data from the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work compare one year to another so as to enable the discharge authority to assess the agency’s performance more effectively. This is best practice, and should be followed by other agencies. In view of this observation, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thereby granting discharge for the agency’s 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0131/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because, in its report for the financial year 2010, the Court of Auditors emphasised that the Euratom Supply Agency’s statutes lack compliance with Article 54 of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, that the agency did not receive any subsidy to cover its operations, and that the Commission bore all expenses incurred by the agency for the implementation of its budget. I note that this situation has persisted since the creation of the agency in 2008. I believe that this inconsistency is due to the absence of an autonomous budget, as the agency is integrated with the Commission. This situation is at odds with its statute.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the Euratom Supply Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Euratom Supply Agency for 2010. This agency’s situation is unique when compared to other EU agencies because, since it was established in 2008, this agency has not received any subsidies to cover its operations and the Commission has borne all expenses incurred by the agency for the implementation of its budget. The agency does not have an autonomous budget and is de facto integrated into the Commission, although this situation is at odds with its statutes. I therefore welcome the decision to re-establish a specific budget line for the agency in the general budget of the European Union for 2012 and to allocate its activities EUR 98 000 from the EU’s general budget.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Euratom Supply Agency. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Euratom Supply Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. In its report for the financial year 2010, the Court of Auditors pointed out that the agency’s statutes continue to lack compliance with Article 54 of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. The agency did not receive any subsidy to cover its operations in 2010, and all expenses incurred by the agency during the implementation of its budget were borne by the Commission. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Director-General of the Euratom Supply Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. One of the main objectives of the Euratom Treaty is to ensure an equitable supply of ores and nuclear fuels, including source materials and special fissile materials, for all EU Member States.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) intervenes in fields related to atomic energy such as research, the development of security standards and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Through the creation of this agency, Euratom aimed to ensure a regular and equitable supply of ores, raw materials and special fissile materials in the European Union. I congratulate the rapporteur and agree with her conclusions. I believe it is essential to maintain Euratom’s work.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Euratom Supply Agency for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Director-General in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the agency’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. In 2010, the agency did not receive any subsidy to cover its operations and the Commission bore all expenses incurred by the agency for the implementation of its budget. In the absence of an autonomous budget, the agency is de facto integrated into the Commission and this situation is at odds with its statutes. In order to resolve this situation, an agreement has been reached to propose the re-establishment of a specific budget line for the agency in the general budget of the European Union for 2012.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which grants the Director-General of the Euratom Supply Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the Euratom Supply Agency since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Euratom Supply Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Euratom Supply Agency aims to provide a wide range of information on nuclear market developments, as well as making reports on the EU market, average prices, total supply and demand, etc., available to the public.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Taking note of the need to carry out the recommendations included in previous discharge reports, as given in the annex to the European Parliament resolution containing the observations that form an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the Euratom Supply Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting the agency discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0116/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which begins by welcoming the agency’s initiative of automatically providing the discharge authority with the internal audit report on the agency from the Internal Audit Service; this is a sign of transparency and a best practice that all other agencies should follow. However, work remains to be done on the seven recommendations, none of which have been classified as ‘critical’, although two were considered ‘very important’ and relate to the documentation for the service level agreement, and to the adoption and implementation of a safety policy.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. As far as human resources are concerned, I welcome the call for the agency to take the necessary steps to increase the legitimacy, transparency and objectivity of its recruitment procedures. There is concern over the Court of Auditors’ conclusions regarding major weaknesses in financial organisation. I welcome the call for the agency to provide full details on its financial situation. I believe that the Commission should not try to increase the agency’s budget at this time of financial crisis.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to support granting discharge to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, since the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The principal activity of the foundation is to facilitate the improvement of living and working conditions within the Community. In the course of its audits, the Court of Auditors obtained assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It is important to urge the foundation to provide evidence concerning the background of its staff selection decisions in order to guarantee the transparency of its recruitment procedures. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2010. I must, however, stress the need for the agency to provide additional detailed information to the discharge authority about the amended budget submitted at the end of 2010, which significantly increased the budget for this financial year.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is a tripartite EU body, created in 1975 with the aim of helping plan and introduce better living and working conditions in Europe. Its more specific objectives are to evaluate and analyse living and working conditions; to provide authoritative opinions and advice to social policy makers and stakeholders; to contribute to improving living standards; and to take stock of developments and trends, particularly those giving rise to change.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the foundation’s Director in respect of the implementation of the foundation’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The foundation’s efforts to strengthen control measures to improve the quality of its surveys are also welcomed.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which emphasises that the foundation’s main activity involves contributing to the establishment of better living and working conditions by increasing and disseminating knowledge relevant to this subject through networks and surveys. It also observes that 68% of the foundation’s staff are allocated to these operative activities while the rest of the staff are allocated to administrative tasks. The report considers it of high importance, therefore, for the discharge authority to assess the efficiency and the effectiveness of the surveys’ management process in the foundation.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Eurofound’s role is to provide information, advice and expertise – on living and working conditions, industrial relations and managing change in Europe – for key actors in the field of EU social policy on the basis of comparative information, research and analysis.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Taking note of the need to carry out the recommendations included in previous discharge reports, as given in the annex to the European Parliament resolution containing the observations that form an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) for the financial year 2010, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting Eurofound discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0128/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, while deploring the fact that the evaluation committee failed to apply the weightings published in the tender specifications. However, Eurojust has provided welcome information on measures such as the submission to the administrative director of full documentation concerning the substantial and commercial evaluation for each procurement before any contracts are awarded. It is also noteworthy that progress has been made on the rate of vacant posts, which had been reduced to 13% by the end of 2010 compared to 24% at the end of 2009.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of Eurojust. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. There is concern that a large proportion of 2010 Eurojust appropriations were carried forward to the following year, which breaches the principle of annuality. The agency’s budget increased by more than 20%. Usually, a large proportion of appropriations carried over or cancelled means that the agency is unable to manage a greatly increased budget. I agree that there should be a greater focus on absorption capacity and welcome the call for the annual budget for the agency to be reduced unless it takes structural action to address this issue. I believe that the agency should not forget the need to seriously take into account the recommendations of the Internal Audit Service and the Court of Auditors and to take the necessary measures to address its shortcomings.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of Eurojust. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of Eurojust as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The European Parliament approved the closure of Eurojust’s accounts for the financial year 2010, and the Court of Auditors found that it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the institution for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the closure of Eurojust’s accounts for the financial year 2010. I would congratulate Eurojust’s budget, finance and procurement unit on introducing an enhanced method of financial reporting and analysis at unit level. The unit heads now receive complete information on their spending and commitments by budget line, which is published monthly and quarterly, providing comparisons between the budget for the year and the previous year, by month and cumulatively. Implementation of this method should lead to better budgetary and financial management.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Eurojust is a European Union body established to help investigators and prosecutors across the EU work together on combating cross-border crime. It plays a key role in information exchanges and extradition processes. I would congratulate the rapporteur on her conclusions, which I endorse. I would highlight the importance and sensitivity of the materials Eurojust handles, which justify it being allocated the resources it needs to process them efficiently.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of Eurojust for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Administrative Director of Eurojust in respect of the implementation of Eurojust’s budget for 2010 and the closure of its 2010 accounts is approved. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that Eurojust’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, 12 very important recommendations from the Internal Audit Service (IAS) are still open, including two that have been reported as implemented by the agency, and the IAS is therefore urged to clarify the actual stage of their implementation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which grants the Administrative Director of Eurojust discharge in respect of the implementation of Eurojust’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for Eurojust since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on Eurojust.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Eurojust is an agency of the European Union (EU) dealing with judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Its task is to stimulate and improve the coordination of investigations and prosecutions among the competent judicial authorities of the EU Member States when they deal with serious cross-border crime and organised crime.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I observe that 12 ‘very important’ recommendations from the EU Internal Audit Service (IAS) are still open, including two reported as implemented by the agency. I call on the IAS to clarify the current implementation status of its recommendations. Despite this observation, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting Eurojust discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0111/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, while calling for the measures mentioned as necessary in the recommendations of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to be implemented. The IAS recommendations follow its audit on the implementation of internal control standards, in order to assess their implementation status, notably in respect of the areas of mission and values, human resources, planning and risk management processes, operation and control activities, information and financial reporting, and evaluation and audit.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of Europol. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. There is concern over the high number of appropriations carried forward. It is very important for Europol to set a budget that it really needs, because carrying forward appropriations to the following year breaches the principle of annuality. This problem arose because of the office’s move to new premises. I welcome the call for the agency to ensure the consistency of the annual work programme, relevant procedures and guidelines, and to include in it information on planned public procurement activities.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of Europol. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of Europol as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The European Parliament approved the closure of the accounts of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010. The Court of Auditors obtained assurance that the annual accounts of the European Police Office presented fairly, in all material respects, its position for the financial year 2010 and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the closure of the accounts of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010. I welcome the fact that the office’s annual work programme is aligned with its strategy for 2010-2014 and contains key performance indicators as well as the critical risks and resources assigned to each annual objective.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Police Office (Europol) performs an extremely important role, not only in the European Union, but in the world. Recently, expenditure increased as Europol moved to new headquarters, which will quite rightly be taken into consideration in 2012. I would congratulate the rapporteur on her conclusions, which I endorse, and I would stress the importance of Europol being allocated the resources required for it to meet its objectives.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the office’s Director in respect of the implementation of the office’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. Following a request by the discharge authority, the final accounts for the financial year 2010 were made publicly available on the office’s website on 17 February 2012. However, the final accounts for the financial year 2010 should have been made public immediately after their adoption on 13 September 2011. The office must therefore do so in future in order to increase its transparency. The office’s annual work programme (AWP) is aligned with its 2010-2014 strategy and contains key performance indicators as well as critical risks and resources assigned to each annual objective.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Director of the European Police Office discharge in respect of the implementation of the office’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for Europol since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on Europol.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Europol is the European law enforcement agency. Its job is to make Europe safer by assisting the Member States of the European Union in their fight against serious international crime and terrorism.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Considering the complementarities between the European Police College and Europol, as well as the potential synergies, I endorse the call for the Commission to prepare a comprehensive impact assessment on a potential merger of these two agencies, setting out the cost and benefits by March 2013. With this proviso, I voted to approve the closure of Europol’s accounts for the financial year 2010.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0122/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which acknowledges that the Internal Audit Service audited the implementation of internal control standards in order to assess their implementation status, notably in respect of the areas of mission and values, human resources, planning and risk management processes, operation and control activities, information and financial reporting, and evaluation and audit. This audit noted the need to implement important recommendations related to the segregation of duties, to ex post controls, to exceptions to processes, to business continuity plans and to continuity of transactions, in order to promote greater transparency in all European Union bodies.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. As far as human resources are concerned, I regret that the agency still had a high number of vacancies in 2010. I welcome the call for the agency to take all necessary steps to prevent a repeat of this situation. In 2010, the agency’s budget was increased by 17.44%. Usually, a large proportion of appropriations carried over or cancelled means that the agency is unable to manage an increased budget. I agree that there should be a greater focus on absorption capacity and welcome the call for the annual budget for the agency to be reduced unless it takes structural action to address this issue.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to support granting discharge to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, since the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that in its audits, it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. It is important for the agency to improve its budgetary and recruitment planning in line with Parliament’s recommendation in order to address the lack of consistency between its budgetary and staff forecasting. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. The development of the MATRIX project management software is welcome. This provides an effective computer-aided tool, which the Internal Audit Service audit stated constitutes an example of best practice. I welcome the agency’s initiative to link MATRIX with the accrual-based accounting budgetary system, in order to provide information on the implementation of commitment and payment appropriations.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agency’s goal is to provide European Union institutions and Member States with assistance and expertise on fundamental rights, and to support them in taking measures and formulating appropriate courses of action. The annual activity report notes that the agency adopted a code of good administrative behaviour which, together with the staff regulations, aims to ensure ethical conduct, avoid conflicts of interest, prevent fraud and encourage reporting of irregularities. I note, moreover, that specific measures for awareness raising and avoiding conflicts of interest – declarations – are taken during recruitment procedures and procurement selection panels. Accordingly, I note with satisfaction that, in order to strengthen further this internal control, the agency aims to improve the application of the whistle-blowing rules and the protection of whistle-blowers, and that this improvement is planned to take place during 2012.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The annual activity report acknowledges that the agency adopted a code of good administrative behaviour, which, together with the staff regulations, aims to ensure ethical conduct, avoid conflicts of interest, prevent fraud and encourage reporting of irregularities. It is also noted that specific measures for awareness raising and avoiding conflicts of interest (e.g. declarations) are being taken during recruitment procedures and on procurement selection panels. In order to further strengthen this internal control, the agency aims to improve the application of the whistle-blowing rules and the protection of whistle-blowers, and this improvement is planned to take place during 2012.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which grants the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) helps to ensure that the fundamental rights of people living in the EU are protected. It does this by collecting evidence about the fundamental rights situation across the European Union and providing advice, based on evidence, on how to improve that situation. The FRA also informs people about their fundamental rights. In doing so, it helps to make fundamental rights a reality for everyone in the European Union. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The problem of maritime piracy has been growing constantly since 2008 – attacks are increasing each year, the arms used by pirates are becoming technologically more advanced, attacks are becoming more coordinated and ransom demands are growing in size. It should be noted that without the efforts of the international community and the EU Atalanta operation, this problem would probably be even more widespread and out of control. Instances where ships transporting military technology fall into the pirates’ hands are particularly worrying. Piracy impedes international trade, poses a threat to the transportation of strategic and environmentally dangerous cargos, increases costs (the cost of insuring ships alone has increased tenfold), may cause an environmental disaster (oil spills from ships, for example), exacerbates the destabilisation of countries and regions, halts development and, above all, regularly costs innocent lives. There can be no justification for piracy. This activity is an international crime and could be compared to terrorist activity. I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe the fight against maritime piracy must continue to be strengthened.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Noting that the agency has adopted a code of good administrative behaviour which, together with the staff regulations, aims to ensure ethical conduct, avoid conflicts of interest, prevent fraud and encourage reporting of irregularities, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in Parliament, we voted on a motion for a resolution on an issue that has been very sensitive over recent years: maritime piracy. The European Parliament, having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1 816 of 2 June 1968 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, wishes to express its disappointment with the Member States, which reduced the number of vessels supplied for the EU NAVFOR Atalanta operation from eight to only two or three at the beginning of 2012, and therefore calls on the Member States to ‘provide more naval assets to enable the Atalanta operation to succeed’. The House has also formally called on the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton, as well as the Member States, to urgently find a way to liberate the 191 seafarers still being held hostage and to secure the release of the seven hijacked vessels. I hope that this vote sends a strong, powerful message, enabling the Member States and competent EU bodies to find better solutions to a problem which, especially in recent years, has been afflicting boats and people from all over the world.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0133/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, but would stress that the Internal Audit Service monitored the recommendations it made in 2010 and found that all of these are still to be implemented. I would draw attention to its recommendations from previous discharge reports, as set out in the annex to this resolution. I would also underline the importance, in relation to Parliament’s 2012 resolution on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies, of resolving all aspects of the discharge decision.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge of the 2010 budget of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I view negatively the fact that the ratio of Frontex’s accruals versus carry-forwards in 2010 was lower than 50%, without justification, and this breaches the principle of annuality. The centre should put the appropriations it is allocated to better use. I agree that there should be a greater focus on absorption capacity and welcome the call for the annual budget for the agency to be reduced unless it takes structural action to address this issue. It is a shame that the agency has two ongoing litigation cases related to tender procedures. I welcome the call for it to increase the effectiveness of its internal control system in order to identify and avoid regular errors that pose a risk to the legality and regularity of the agency’s operations.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors stated that in the course of its audits, it had obtained assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The agency undertook a revision of the REM sheets, which are the basis for budget estimations and reimbursement claims. In respect of the use of grants by beneficiaries, it is important that the agency carry out on-the-spot visits which should include ex post controls. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report, which grants the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget. The agency should further develop coherence in the strategic and annual planning of its operations, since the objectives of the annual work programme for 2010 are not clearly linked with those for 2010 in the multiannual plan 2010-2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) coordinates operational cooperation between Member States in the field of external border management and assists them with training national border guards, including by establishing common training standards. I note that, although the agency’s budget rose in 2010, the net allocation to operational activities fell, while the number of operational working hours rose by 27%. I also note the agency’s efforts to monitor the operating budget better. Growing migratory pressure on the EU borders and the need for coordination between Member States fully justifies the agency being allocated the resources required to perform its functions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The fight for another Europe – one of peace, cooperation and solidarity between peoples; an area of progress, social justice and well-being – is also a fight to protect human dignity; for all, immigrants included. The Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) has been, and will always be, at the forefront of combating the repressive and criminal view of immigration current in the EU, of which the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States (Frontex) is an expression. There is no greater expression of this view than the so-called ‘Return Directive’, or the ‘Shame Directive’ as it has also become known, because it criminalises immigrants and their families. Frontex, one of the central pillars of this security-focused and exploitative view of EU immigration policy, urgently needs to be denounced and condemned. There is an urgent need to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. We voted against this report as a form of protest.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, the agency is urged to further improve coherence in the strategic and annual planning of its operations. The objectives of the annual work programme (AWP) for 2010 are not clearly linked with those for 2010 in the multiannual plan 2010-2013. The agency is reminded that the absence of a clear link and consistency between the different planning documents might have a negative impact on the delivery of the strategic plan.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which grants the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. This is why I voted for the report on the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex).

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) coordinates operational cooperation between Member States in the field of external border management, assists Member States in their training of national border guards, including the establishment of common training standards, carries out risk analyses, follows up development of research relevant to the control and surveillance of external borders, assists Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at external borders, and provides Member States with the necessary support in organising joint return operations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Reiterating the call on the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) to make the strategic and annual planning of its operations more coherent, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting Frontex discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Court of Auditors found the management of the Frontex accounts to be reliable; however, the agency carried forward several sums again, since it had not used some of the funds previously allocated to it. This did not prevent the agency from asking for and obtaining an increase in its budget once again. Frontex’s mandate may have been revised in 2011 to extend its remit and powers; however, this was primarily in the area of returning migrants. We are still waiting for Frontex to satisfy Parliament’s request to appoint a human rights officer so that it can fulfil its human rights obligations just as effectively. This vote related solely to discharge on the agency’s budget management, not the budget itself. Like the rest of my group, I therefore decided to abstain, so that we would not be backing in any way practices that we still find just as dubious, but which relate more to the agency’s mandate than to its financial management. On 14 March 2012, the European Ombudsman announced that an inquiry would be opened into the agency’s implementation of its fundamental rights obligations. We are awaiting his findings.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The fight for another Europe – one of peace, cooperation and solidarity between peoples – is also a fight to protect the human dignity of immigrants. The Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) has been, and will always be, at the forefront of the battle against the vision of a repressive, imperialist and federal European Union, particularly in this area, and especially following the ‘Return Directive’, or the ‘Shame Directive’, which criminalises immigrants and their families. There is an urgent need to denounce and condemn the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) – one of the central pillars of the security-focused and exploitative EU immigration policy – and to demand that the UN’s International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families be ratified.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0127/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, with the proviso that the agency should ensure that all of the objectives in the multiannual plan are properly and clearly transposed into the annual work programme. I would stress that the Internal Audit Service (IAS) has to review the agency’s implementation of seven ‘very important’ recommendations from previous IAS audits. I note, in particular, that these recommendations cover the 2009 audit of grant management; the 2008 follow-up audit of internal control systems and, particularly, the allocation of sufficient personnel to achieve its objectives; and the 2007 audit of internal control systems and, particularly, the review of the registration procedure and the required full functional description, as well as communication with staff.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the European GNSS Agency. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. It is important for the agency to remember that it must seriously take into account the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and take the necessary measures to address its shortcomings. I welcome the reduction in the GNSS budget.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution with observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Agency. Indeed, the analysis contained in the report by Ms Macovei has not thrown up any problems or controversial points.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European GNSS Agency as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that in the course of its audits, it had obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the agency for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. In 2011, the agency took the steps required by the European Parliament to guarantee transparency, equal treatment, and effectiveness in its staff selection procedures. The discharge report found that the financial audit had been completed properly and that the inspection had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Executive Director of the European Global Navigation Satellite System Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. This agency was established to ensure the security of accreditation, to operate the Galileo security centre, and to contribute to preparing the systems for commercial use. During 2011, it took the steps demanded by Parliament to guarantee transparency, equal treatment and effectiveness in its staff selection procedures.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Global Navigation Satellite System Agency was established to manage all public interests connected with the European satellite radionavigation programmes and to be their regulatory authority. Its list of responsibilities makes it even more important that it brings its activities and expenditure into line with its allocated budget and follows the budgetary implementation rules.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the agency’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. However, the agency is urged to rectify the deficiencies identified by the Court of Auditors in the evaluation process as regards the FP7/Galileo/Second Call grant procedures which have a budget of EUR 26 000 000. Above all, there is acknowledgement of the Court of Auditors’ observations, according to which the criteria for assessing the applicants’ financial capacity were not defined and although the status of the applicant determined the maximum reimbursement rate, such status was not verified by the agency. However, the agency is urged to remedy the weaknesses found by the Court of Auditors on two grant agreements within the Sixth Research Framework Programme (FP6)/Third Call. It is noted, in particular, that the cost claims submitted by the beneficiaries were based on standard rates, instead of actual costs. This is not in compliance with the non-profit principle for Union financial contributions and the agency should redress the situation promptly.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which grants the Executive Director of the European GNSS Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European GNSS Agency since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the European Global Navigation Satellite System Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The objective of the agency is to ensure that essential public interests are properly defended and represented in connection with the European Union’s satellite navigation programmes (Galileo and EGNOS). The aim of Galileo is to provide a modern European alternative to the established GPS system of the United States of America. The agency is responsible for managing and monitoring the use of the programme’s funds. It will help the Commission deal with any matters relating to satellite radionavigation.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Taking note of the need to carry out the recommendations included in previous discharge reports, as given in the annex to the European Parliament resolution containing the observations that form an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Global Navigation Satellite System Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting the agency discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0109/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, recalling that joint undertakings are public-private partnerships, meaning that public and private interests are intertwined. I therefore believe the possibility of conflicts of interest needs to be properly addressed and not ignored. Accordingly, joint undertakings should provide the discharge authority with information on the verification mechanisms existing in their respective structures in order to ensure conflicts of interest are properly managed and prevented. The Court of Auditors should be asked to provide a special report to Parliament, within a reasonable timescale, on the benefit of establishing joint undertakings to carry out EU research, technological development and demonstration programmes in an efficient manner.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of Artemis – Embedded Computing Systems. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I welcome the calls for the undertaking to base its budget on its true needs and to use appropriations properly, because carrying them over to the next year breaches the principle of annuality. It is important for evaluation and selection processes to be modified in order to improve the match between the portfolio of supported projects and the strategic European aims of the programme. ARTEMIS should fully implement its internal controls and financial information systems and solve the ‘free riding’ problem. I welcome the call for the undertaking to conclude a host agreement with Belgium, as provided by Regulation (EC) No 74/2008.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of ARTEMIS as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The discharge report stressed that the Joint Undertaking should establish a procedure where non-member beneficiary countries pay a percentage of their Union contribution into the budget of the Joint Undertaking. Furthermore, evaluation and selection processes should be modified in order to improve the match between supported projects and the strategic European aims of the programme. The report also points out that joint undertakings are public-private partnerships and that it is therefore very important to address the matter of conflicts of interest appropriately. It is vital that the joint undertakings, including ARTEMIS, appropriately inform the discharge authority of the verification mechanisms which exist in their respective structures to enable proper management and prevention of conflicts of interest. The discharge report notes that the comprehensive audit of the financial status of embedded computing systems did not reveal any major errors. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Executive Director of the Artemis Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. The Joint Undertaking was established to pursue efficiently a ‘research agenda’ for developing key technologies for embedded computing systems across various application areas in order to make Europe more competitive and sustainable, and to allow new markets to emerge.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Artemis Joint Undertaking implements a joint technology initiative in embedded computing systems. This public-private partnership aims essentially to support cofinancing for European-level research initiatives and to improve cooperation between the sector’s various operators. I endorse the rapporteur’s call on the Commission to provide the discharge authority annually with consolidated information on the total annual funding per joint undertaking realised from the EU general budget in order to ensure transparency and clarity on the use of EU funds and to restore trust among European taxpayers.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Joint Undertaking’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. It should be noted that the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 was not adopted by the end of the previous year. Note is made of the Joint Undertaking’s reply that its 2010 budget was adopted in January 2011 due to the fact that the operational part of the budget depends on the commitment of the Member States and that for most of them, the amount of commitment can only be ascertained after the adoption of their national budgets. The Joint Undertaking and the contributing Member States are therefore urged to reach an agreement on a timetable and practical arrangements for the disclosure of their respective commitments to enable the adoption of the Joint Undertaking’s budget in due time and to keep the discharge authority informed on this matter. The structure and presentation of the Joint Undertaking’s 2010 budget are not in line with the provisions of the Joint Undertaking’s financial rules. The Court of Auditors is urged to assure the discharge authority that the structure and presentation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget are now fully in line with its financial rules.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to ‘Artemis – Embedded Computing Systems’ since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this Joint Undertaking contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Artemis embedded computing systems.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – ARTEMIS aims to tackle the research and structural challenges facing European industry by defining and implementing a coherent research agenda for embedded computing systems.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the call on the Court of Auditors to provide the discharge authority with a follow-up on the comments it has made for each of the joint undertakings, including Artemis. As such, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting Artemis: Embedded Computing Systems discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0115/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report. I would stress that seven joint undertakings have so far been established by the European Commission under Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I note that six joint undertakings – Innovative Medicines Initiative, Artemis, ENIAC, Clean Sky, Fuel Cells and Hydrogen and ITER-Fusion for Energy – are in the research area under the Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Technology and the Directorate General for Information Society and Media. The other – Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research – is charged with developing the new air traffic management system in the field of transport and its activities are supervised by the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport. The total EU contribution deemed necessary for the joint undertakings for their period of existence amounts to EUR 11 489 000 000. It is important that the Court of Auditors provide the discharge authority with a follow-up on the comments it has made for each of the joint undertakings in their respective reports on the annual accounts for the financial year 2011.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of Clean Sky – Aeronautics and Environment. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. There is concern that the structure and presentation of the Joint Undertaking’s 2010 budget were not in line with the requirements of its founding Regulation (EC) No 71/2008, and that at the end of 2010, the Undertaking had not yet completed the internal procedures to supervise the application of the provisions regarding the protection, use and dissemination of research results. I welcome calls for the Undertaking to address these problems as soon as possible. I welcome the call for the Undertaking to conclude a host agreement with Belgium, as provided by Regulation (EC) No 74/2008.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The discharge report welcomes the fact that the Joint Undertaking adopted a comprehensive strategic internal audit plan for the period 2010-2012, but the rapporteur regrets that some of the key processes, such as the ex ante validation of cost claims and the ex post audits, were not planned to start before 2011. The discharge report found that the financial and regularity audit of the aeronautics and environment projects had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Executive Director of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. Clean Sky was established to accelerate the development, evaluation and demonstration of clean air transport technologies in the Union. However, weaknesses have been identified, such as the accumulation of significant delays compared to the initial plans and a lack of preparedness, both administrative and technical.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking was established to promote the development, evaluation and demonstration of clean air transport technologies in the European Union, with the aim of putting them into practice as soon as possible. Accordingly, I welcome the Joint Undertaking’s adoption of a comprehensive strategic internal audit plan for the period 2010-2012.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Joint Undertaking’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. It should be noted that attention is drawn to the fact that the structure and presentation of the Joint Undertaking’s 2010 budget were neither in line with the requirements of its founding Regulation (EC) No 71/2008, nor with its Financial Rules. It is understood from the information provided by the Joint Undertaking that the structure and presentation of the budget have been adapted in the 2011 budget. The Court of Auditors is urged to assure the discharge authority that the structure and presentation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget are now fully in line with its founding Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 and its Financial Rules.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for ‘Clean Sky – Aeronautics and Environment’ since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this Joint Undertaking contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Clean Sky is the most ambitious aeronautical research programme ever launched in Europe. Its mission is to develop breakthrough technologies to increase significantly the environmental performances of airplanes and air transport, resulting in less noisy and more fuel-efficient aircraft, hence bringing a key contribution to achieving the Single European Sky environmental objectives.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the call for the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking to implement the necessary measures for finalising its internal controls and financial information systems, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting Clean Sky discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0112/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report. I would stress once again during this sitting that joint undertakings are public-private partnerships and, consequently, public and private interests are intertwined. I therefore believe the possibility of conflicts of interest needs to be properly addressed and not dismissed. Accordingly, joint undertakings should provide the discharge authority with information on the verification mechanisms existing in their respective structures in order to ensure conflicts of interest are properly managed and prevented. It is the responsibility of the Court of Auditors to provide the discharge authority with follow-up information on the comments it has made for each of the joint undertakings in their respective reports on the annual accounts for the financial year 2011.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I welcome the calls for the undertaking to base its budget on its true needs and to properly use appropriations allocated to it. It is important for the undertaking, which was only granted financial autonomy at the end of 2010, to complete its internal control and financial information systems. I welcome the call for the undertaking to conclude a host agreement with Belgium, as provided by Regulation (EC) No 74/2008.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. The Joint Undertaking was established to define and implement a ‘research agenda’ for the development of key competences for nanoelectronics across various application areas.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The ENIAC Joint Undertaking was established for a 10-year period on 20 December 2007 to define and implement a ‘research agenda’ for the development of key competences for nanoelectronics across various application areas. The Joint Undertaking was granted financial autonomy in July 2010. ENIAC received a qualified opinion from the Court of Auditors on the reliability of its accounts, on the grounds that it has not included in the accounts the budgetary outturn account and its reconciliation with the economic outturn account, as required by EC Accounting Rule 16 ‘Presentation of budget information in the annual accounts’. The two organisations referred to different dates to establish when the Joint Undertaking began to work autonomously, something which needs to be resolved.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Joint Undertaking’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. In its reports on the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, the Joint Undertaking received a qualified opinion from the Court of Auditors on the reliability of the accounts, on the grounds that it has not included in the accounts the budgetary outturn account and its reconciliation with the economic outturn account, as required by EC Accounting Rule 16 ‘Presentation of budget information in the annual accounts’.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the ENIAC Joint Undertaking since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this Joint Undertaking contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the ENIAC Joint Undertaking.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The task of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking is to coordinate European research in nanoelectronics by organising calls for proposals and managing the execution of research projects. I support the work of the agency. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The ENIAC Joint Undertaking was established for a 10-year period on 20 December 2007 to define and implement a ‘research agenda’ for the development of key competences for nanoelectronics across various application areas. The Court of Auditors should be asked to provide Parliament with a special report, within a reasonable timescale, on the benefit of establishing joint undertakings to carry out EU research, technological development and demonstration programmes in an efficient manner. With this observation, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting the ENIAC Joint Undertaking discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0110/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, recalling that joint undertakings are public-private partnerships, meaning that public and private interests are intertwined. I therefore believe the possibility of conflicts of interest needs to be properly addressed and not ignored. Accordingly, joint undertakings should provide the discharge authority with information on the verification mechanisms existing in their respective structures in order to ensure conflicts of interest are properly managed and prevented. The Court of Auditors should be asked to provide a special report to Parliament, within a reasonable timescale, on the benefit of establishing joint undertakings to carry out EU research, technological development and demonstration programmes in an efficient manner.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the ‘Fuel Cells and Hydrogen’ (FCH) Joint Undertaking. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I welcome the calls for the Undertaking to base its budget on its true needs and to use appropriations properly, because carrying them over to the next year breaches the principle of annuality. It is important for the Undertaking to provide information on measures taken to address these issues and ensure a greater execution rate of its budget. I agree that the Undertaking should provide a report on the current situation regarding projects, both in terms of contracting and payment, and the Undertaking’s financial rules that have not yet been changed to include a provision referring to the powers of the Commission’s internal auditor.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Joint Undertaking should endeavour to stimulate beneficiaries to define strategically relevant projects and to identify national programmes which could be implemented more effectively if managed at European level. Furthermore, the discharge report points out that it is necessary to engage additional national funding entities. The discharge report notes that the financial audit was completed properly and that the inspection revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Executive Director of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. The Joint Undertaking was established to develop market applications, thereby facilitating additional industrial efforts towards rapidly deploying fuel cells and hydrogen technologies.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Court of Auditors believes that the Joint Undertaking has an adequate level of IT governance and practice for its size and mission. Nevertheless, there have been delays in formalising policies and procedures for the strategic IT planning cycle, for classifying data in accordance with confidentiality and integrity requirements, and for the business continuity plan and the disaster recovery plan. Accordingly, I endorse the call for the Joint Undertaking to remedy the situation and to provide the discharge authority with an up-to-date report on the matter.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Joint Undertaking’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the ‘Fuel Cells and Hydrogen’ (FCH) Joint Undertaking since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this Joint Undertaking contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) is a unique public-private partnership supporting research, technological development and demonstration (RTD) activities in fuel cell and hydrogen energy technologies in Europe. Its aim is to accelerate the market introduction of these technologies, realising their potential as an instrument in achieving a carbon-lean energy system. I am in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking has only enjoyed financial autonomy from November 2010. It still has many failings in its organisation and with a lack of transparency that have been identified and need to be overcome. With that caveat, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0108/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, recalling that joint undertakings are public-private partnerships, meaning that public and private interests are intertwined. I therefore believe the possibility of conflicts of interest needs to be properly addressed and not ignored. Accordingly, joint undertakings should provide the discharge authority with information on the verification mechanisms existing in their respective structures in order to ensure conflicts of interest are properly managed and prevented. It is the responsibility of the Court of Auditors to provide the discharge authority with follow-up information on the comments it has made for each of the joint undertakings in their respective reports on the annual accounts for the financial year 2011.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge of the 2010 budget of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I welcome the calls for the Undertaking to base its budget on its true needs and to use appropriations properly, because carrying them over to the next year breaches the principle of annuality. It is very important for the IMI Undertaking, which began its work in 2009, to fully implement its internal control and financial information systems.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. As regards the Joint Undertaking’s financial management, the discharge report highlighted the fact that internal governance structures are not yet working optimally, that proactive communication activities are still lacking, and that available human resources capacities are not sufficiently exploited. It should be noted that the Joint Undertaking put several implementing measures in place in its operational processes in order to prevent conflicts of interest. All individuals involved in the activities of the Joint Undertaking should comply with pre-established rules. Furthermore, the discharge report calls on the Joint Undertaking to develop an action plan with concrete measures and deadlines to prevent conflicts of interest and strengthen transparency, and to submit it to the discharge authority. The discharge report notes that the financial audit was completed properly and revealed no major deficiencies regarding the Innovative Medicines Initiative. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Executive Director of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. The Joint Undertaking was established in order to implement a joint technology initiative on innovative medicines designed to improve significantly the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug development process with the long-term aim of enabling the pharmaceutical sector to produce more effective and safer innovative medicines.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This Joint Undertaking was established to make the drug development process more efficient and effective so that the pharmaceutical sector will produce more effective and safer innovative medicines. The Joint Undertaking’s goals are thus to contribute to implementing the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), and to support pharmaceutical research and development in the Member States and countries associated with the FP7. The Joint Undertaking encourages small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in its activities, while also encouraging cooperation between the private sector and the academic world.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Joint Undertaking’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. There is concern that the members of the Joint Undertaking could not establish and agree in the required timeframe the scientific priorities to be included in the annual implementation plan which delayed the launch of the 2010 annual call for proposals until 22 October 2010.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this Joint Undertaking contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Innovative Medicines Initiative.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) is Europe’s largest public-private initiative aiming to speed up the development of better and safer medicines for patients. IMI supports collaborative research projects and builds networks of industrial and academic experts in order to boost pharmaceutical innovation in Europe. IMI is a joint undertaking between the European Union and the pharmaceutical industry association EFPIA.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) While I would warn that the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) should communicate to the discharge authority the measures adopted, with their implementation timeframe, to address the recommendations of the interim review and to provide regular updates on the progress achieved, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission, thereby granting the IMI discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0113/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, recalling that joint undertakings are public-private partnerships, meaning that public and private interests are intertwined. I therefore believe the possibility of conflicts of interest needs to be properly addressed and not ignored. Accordingly, joint undertakings should provide the discharge authority with information on the verification mechanisms existing in their respective structures in order to ensure conflicts of interest are properly managed and prevented. It is the responsibility of the Court of Auditors to provide the discharge authority with follow-up information on the comments it has made for each of the joint undertakings in their respective reports on the annual accounts for the financial year 2011.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I welcome the calls for the Undertaking to base its budget on its true needs and to use appropriations properly, because carrying them over to the next year breaches the principle of annuality. I welcome the calls for ITER, which began its work fairly recently, to fully implement its internal control and financial information systems and to validate the business processes that provide financial information to the accounting systems.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The Court of Auditors found that it had obtained assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular. The discharge report points out that the financial audit was completed properly and revealed no major deficiencies in the areas examined. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This Joint Undertaking contributes to Euratom’s work within the ITER International Fusion Energy Organisation regarding the rapid realisation of fusion energy and the preparation and coordination of a programme of activities in readiness for the construction of a demonstration fusion reactor (DEMO) and related facilities, including the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). I share the rapporteur’s concern that, out of the nine procurement procedures audited, three of them received only one offer. Grants are of particular concern, as the average number of proposals received was only one per call. I therefore welcome the call for the Joint Undertaking to develop an action plan with concrete measures and deadlines to maximise competition and to follow the value-for-money principle in call preparation, publication, evaluation and contract management.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Joint Undertaking’s Director in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The Court of Auditors also drew attention to the requirement for substantially increased resources for the ITER project compared to the approximate total resources deemed necessary for the period 2007-2014.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Director of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with this function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Fusion for Energy (F4E) is the European Union’s Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy. The organisation was created under the Euratom Treaty by a decision of the Council of the European Union in order to meet three objectives. F4E is responsible for providing Europe’s contribution to ITER, the world’s largest scientific partnership that aims to demonstrate fusion as a viable and sustainable source of energy. ITER brings together seven parties that represent half of the world’s population – the EU, Russia, Japan, China, India, South Korea and the United States. F4E also supports fusion research and development initiatives through the Broader Approach Agreement, signed with Japan – a fusion energy partnership which will last for 10 years.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Noting that the Joint Undertaking’s internal control systems have not yet been fully established and implemented as required by the relevant Financial Regulation, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thereby granting the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy discharge for its 2010 accounts.

Report: Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0114/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report. which recalls once again in plenary that Joint Undertakings are public-private partnerships and that as a consequence, public and private interests are intertwined. I believe that under the circumstances, the likelihood of conflicts of interest should not be dismissed but addressed properly. The Joint Undertakings must therefore inform the discharge authority on the verification mechanisms which exist in their respective structures in order to facilitate proper management and prevention of conflicts of interest. The Court of Auditors is therefore responsible for providing the discharge authority with a follow-up on the comments it has made for each of the Joint Undertakings in the reports on their respective annual accounts for the financial year 2011.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the 2010 budget of the SESAR Joint Undertaking. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year. Following the audit and the finalisation of the annual accounts, it falls on the Council of the European Union to draw up a recommendation and then it is up to us, the MEPs, to decide whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the preceding financial year. This decision is based, in part, on a review of the annual accounts and on the Court of Auditors’ annual report. Discharge is therefore the political dimension of the external audit of the implementation of the budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed discharge. I welcome calls for the Undertaking to include operational programme management systems in financial reporting systems used by the Commission. It is important for the Commission and the Member States to increase the effectiveness of how the Single European Sky regulations are applied in order to increase the effectiveness of investments in the SESAR project. I am pleased with the Undertaking’s good utilisation rates for commitment and payment appropriations.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Following the presentation of the European Court of Auditors’ annual report for the financial year 2010, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out the financial audit of the European Union general budget in respect of the SESAR Joint Undertaking as part of the 2010 discharge procedure. The Committee’s primary responsibility is to ensure and verify that the Community budget is implemented in a regular and efficient manner. The report welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors found the SESAR Joint Undertaking’s accounts for the financial year 2010 to be reliable and the underlying transactions to be, in all material respects, legal and regular. The rapporteur encourages the Commission and the Member States to increase the effectiveness of how the Single European Sky regulations are applied in order to increase the effectiveness of investments in the SESAR project. The discharge report found that the financial and regularity audit concerning the Joint Undertaking had revealed no major deficiencies. At its meeting in late March, the Committee decided to grant discharge and to close the accounts for 2010. I supported the granting of discharge at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report granting the Executive Director of the SESAR Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010. This Joint Undertaking was set up in February 2007 to run the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This Joint Undertaking aims to ensure the modernisation of the European air traffic management system. It brings together EU research and development efforts within the framework of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) project. The safety of citizens, who are increasingly using air transport, and of airline staff justifies a particular commitment to finding the best solutions for managing this type of traffic, as well as to monitoring and comparing the methodologies already implemented in several Member States, for the joint adoption of best practices and of safe, economical and innovative solutions. I therefore acknowledge the importance of the Commission and the Member States increasing the effectiveness of how the Single European Sky regulations are applied in order to increase the effectiveness of investments in the SESAR project.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 because discharge is granted to the Joint Undertaking’s Executive Director in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for 2010 and approval is given to the closure of its 2010 accounts. The Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which grants the Executive Director of the SESAR Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the SESAR Joint Undertaking since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of its accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this Joint Undertaking contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions that depend on the EU budget must be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with this function. There is a need to verify that EU funds are being put to good use, that the institutions are meeting their established objectives, and that no resources are being wasted. We can generally say that the institutions in question – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – are using the funds available to them properly and meeting the proposed objectives. That is why I voted for the report on the Sky Air Traffic Management Research Joint Undertaking.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The mission of the SESAR Joint Undertaking is to develop a modernised air traffic management system for Europe. This future system will ensure the safety and fluidity of air transport over the next thirty years, will make flying more environmentally friendly, and reduce the costs of air traffic management.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although I call on the Joint Undertaking operational programme management system to be integrated with the financial reporting systems, I voted to approve the accounts submitted by the Commission, thereby granting the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking discharge for its 2010 accounts.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) Joint Undertaking to modernise air traffic management has presented a satisfactory financial report for 2010. I therefore voted unreservedly in favour of this discharge, which confirms the legality and regularity of its expenditure. SESAR funding essentially aims to develop a European system integrating new and unprecedented technologies, methods of organisation and industrial components to manage air traffic. In the long term, this will allow us to reduce the number of flights within European airspace, address the lack of airport capacity and ensure the safety and fluidity of traffic, which should more than double in the next 20 years. SESAR also aims to address the future challenges faced by this sector, which is so crucial to the economy and to European cohesion, namely, the reduction of CO2 emissions, rising fuel prices and airport congestion. I therefore have high hopes for this partnership between Eurocontrol and the EU, which will enable the streamlining and coordination of research efforts, and I invite this Joint Undertaking to use its surplus of EUR 57 million to implement the Single European Sky as soon as possible.

Reports: A7-0089/2012; A7-0090/2012; A7 0093/2012; A7-0103/2012; A7-0125/2012

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union since the European Court of Auditors expressed no reservations regarding the reliability of the accounts or the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. Furthermore, I consider that this agency contributes significant added value to the work of the European institutions.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – I was unable to be present for the votes on some discharge reports. Had I been there, I would have voted against all of them. The scrutiny, evaluation and audit reporting on these budgets is unsatisfactory and therefore controls on waste, fraud, excess and ineffectiveness are inadequate. The EU budget needs to be reduced and the contributions of countries such as the UK, the second largest net contributor to the EU budget even after the ‘rebate’, should be cut.

Reports: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0098/2012, A7-0102/2012), Boguslaw Liberadzki (A7-0120/2012), Martin Ehrenhauser (A7-0100/2012), Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0095/2012, A7-0088/2012, A7-0091/2012, A7-0092/2012, A7-0090/2012, A7-0089/2012, A7-0093/2012), Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0103/2012, A7-0125/2012, A7-0129/2012, A7-0119/2012, A7-0130/2012, A7-0124/2012, A7-0123/2012, A7-0126/2012, A7-0105/2012, A7-0106/2012, A7-0132/2012, A7-0107/2012, A7-0134/2012, A7-0137/2012, A7-0136/2012, A7-0118/2012, A7-0135/2012, A7-0117/2012, A7-0131/2012, A7-0116/2012, A7-0128/2012, A7-0111/2012, A7-0122/2012, A7-0133/2012, A7-0127/2012, A7-0109/2012, A7-0115/2012, A7-0112/2012, A7-0110/2012, A7-0108/2012, A7-0113/2012, A7-0114/2012)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) By granting discharge to a particular institution or agency, Parliament is declaring that its spending was in line with EU rules and is closing the budget. If, on the other hand, the application breached the existing rules, Parliament can either refuse or postpone discharge. The Members of the European Parliament, acting on a recommendation of the Council, base their decision on the reports of the Court of Auditors. Parliament may also recommend that the Commission take action on a given issue. As regards discharging the 2010 accounts, I am voting to approve the accounts submitted by the European Commission.

Reports: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0098/2012, A7-0102/2012), Boguslaw Liberadzki (A7-0120/2012), Martin Ehrenhauser (A7-0100/2012), Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0095/2012, A7-0088/2012, A7-0091/2012, A7-0092/2012, A7-0090/2012, A7-0089/2012, A7-0093/2012), Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0103/2012, A7-0125/2012, A7-0129/2012, A7-0119/2012, A7-0130/2012, A7-0124/2012, A7-0123/2012, A7-0126/2012, A7-0105/2012, A7-0106/2012, A7-0132/2012, A7-0134/2012, A7-0137/2012, A7-0136/2012, A7-0118/2012, A7-0135/2012, A7-0117/2012, A7-0131/2012, A7-0116/2012, A7-0128/2012, A7-0111/2012, A7-0122/2012, A7-0133/2012, A7-0127/2012, A7-0109/2012, A7-0115/2012, A7-0112/2012, A7-0110/2012, A7-0108/2012, A7-0113/2012, A7-0114/2012)

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) By granting discharge to a particular institution or agency, Parliament is declaring that its spending was in line with EU rules and is closing the budget. If, on the other hand, the institution breached the existing rules, Parliament can either refuse or postpone discharge. The Members of the European Parliament, acting on a recommendation of the Council, base their decision on the reports of the Court of Auditors. Parliament may also recommend that the Commission take action on a given issue. On this specific situation, I voted in favour.

Reports: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0098/2012, A7-0102/2012), Boguslaw Liberadzki (A7-0120/2012), Martin Ehrenhauser (A7-0100/2012), Inès Ayala Sender (A7-0095/2012, A7-0088/2012, A7-0091/2012, A7-0092/2012, A7-0090/2012, A7-0089/2012, A7-0093/2012), Monica Louisa Macovei (A7-0103/2012, A7-0125/2012, A7-0129/2012, A7-0119/2012, A7-0130/2012, A7-0124/2012, A7-0123/2012, A7-0126/2012, A7-0106/2012, A7-0132/2012, A7-0107/2012, A7-0134/2012, A7-0137/2012, A7-0136/2012, A7-0118/2012, A7-0135/2012, A7-0117/2012, A7-0131/2012, A7-0116/2012, A7-0128/2012, A7-0111/2012, A7-0122/2012, A7-0133/2012, A7-0127/2012, A7-0109/2012, A7-0115/2012, A7-0112/2012, A7-0110/2012, A7-0108/2012, A7-0113/2012, A7-0114/2012)

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Discharge is the final approval of the EU budget for a given year (following the audit and finalisation of the annual accounts). It is granted by Parliament on a recommendation from the Council. Discharge equates to approval of how the Commission implemented the budget in that financial year and the closure of that budget. The decision is based on a review of the annual accounts, the Court of Auditors’ annual report (including its official statement of assurance) and the Commission’s responses (answering specific questions and providing further information requested). Discharge is the political element of the external control of budget implementation as it represents oversight by Parliament and the Council of the EU.

Report: Zigmantas Balčytis (A7-0121/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, stressing the need for the Commission to inform Parliament on which other indicators, sources or methods, apart from the information provided by whistle-blowers or informants, it can use in order to determine in which areas of EU funding or EU revenues there are increased levels of fraud. The Commission must assess whether the investigated cases of fraud resulting from whistle-blowers or informants correspond to the areas where it is estimated that there is a possibility of a high level of fraud, based on independent criteria or indicators. If not, I call on the Commission to assess other methods of initiating investigations in areas where suspected fraud is concealed under the ‘laws of criminal silence’, which prevent information leaking through whistle-blowers or informants. I believe that Member States are failing to provide data in a timely manner, or that the data they do provide is inaccurate and does not stand up to comparison, thus making it impossible to evaluate objectively the true scale of fraud in the Member States. The European Parliament, the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) are unable to perform their functions regarding assessment of the situation and the submission of further proposals.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The financial crisis which the EU is facing requires special measures to be taken in order to ensure adequate protection for EU financial interests. I think that tighter enforcement of fiscal policy has the potential of leading Europe out of the crisis, in particular, by decreasing the size of the EU’s shadow economy, estimated to be at around one fifth of official GDP. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The annual report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests and the fight against fraud includes the latest information on irregularities and cases of alleged fraud reported by Member States. This year’s report focuses particularly on the risk of double financing in cohesion policy. In the rapporteur’s opinion, this situation is unsatisfactory, and I voted in favour of the Commission and Member States informing Parliament of all the irregularities and fraud detected. Controlling the management of European funding is vital – it is a valuable tool that I set out to defend every day in Parliament and in my constituency.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I am delighted that my MEP colleagues have approved the report I prepared on combating fraud in the European Union. According to data provided by the Commission, EUR 120 billion is lost to fraud every year in the EU, but the true scale of fraud in the EU is simply unknown because of the absence of reliable data. From 1989, when the Commission began to provide the European Parliament and the Council with annual reports, until the present, it is safe to say that neither the Commission nor the institution responsible for combating fraud – OLAF – have had reliable data from the Member States about the true scale of fraud. This is acknowledged by the Commission itself, which states in its annual report that the data it provides in its annual report must be interpreted with caution. I believe that this situation must be changed fundamentally. One of the main provisions in the report adopted by Parliament states that the Commission must take full responsibility for recovering unduly paid EU funds and for the collection of correct, necessary and comparable data from the Member States, thereby enabling us to have accurate and correct data in future which would allow the extent of fraud in the Member States to be assessed objectively and help combat the illegal use of EU funds more effectively.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) In view of the current global crisis, I support the adoption of measures to protect the financial interests of the EU and the Member States. Member States are, at present, implementing a policy of very stringent cuts, which, in many cases, is disrupting overall economic growth. In this context, I believe it is necessary in particular to target the grey economy, which is estimated to account for 20% of GDP. If we manage to tax this grey economy, I believe it would be possible to raise sufficient resources to consolidate budgets and secure economic growth. In view of the interconnected nature of the EU economies, I consider it important for Member States to cooperate in looking for ways to limit the grey economy.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I abstained from this vote as, while I concur that fraud regarding Member State usage of funding must be tackled, it raises a number of concerns. In certain instances, what Brussels deems to be ‘irregularities’ are punitive measures that simply return funding back to Brussels based upon an illogical and unjust rationale, and indeed funding that I believe should not necessarily exist in the first place. Most often, necessary data from the Member States is not collected, making it impossible to establish the actual scale of fraud. There is also a high incidence of fraud within the EU institutions. As a Member of Parliament who opposes the majority of the EU’s functions, I do not endorse many of the funds and regulations to which such anti-fraud measures are attached.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In these times of crisis, we must rethink the way we control EU spending. Parliament has decided to focus on the Commission’s 2010 report on the fight against fraud, which gives Parliament the opportunity to propose concrete measures for proper management. More specifically, it calls for special measures to be put in place, alongside the development of e-government and reliable statistical data, in order to improve transparency and combat fraud. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of adopting this report on cases of alleged fraud and irregularities observed in the actions of the European Union. I was particularly struck by the increased irregularities in the vast majority of EU intervention sectors, and by the risk of double financing in cohesion policy. I want the Commission and Member States to take our recommendations into account and accept their responsibility to keep Parliament fully informed of all confirmed irregularities and cases of fraud. We must improve the way we control the management of European public funds, to which all our fellow citizens contribute, directly or indirectly.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The 2010 discharge procedure included the preparation of the annual report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests and the fight against fraud. As shadow rapporteur for the motion, I support the rapporteur, who provided an appropriate presentation of the efforts made in 2010 by the European Commission, OLAF and the Member States to protect the Community’s financial interests and strengthen the regularity of the use of Community resources. The report also gives an accurate description of those areas where further steps need to be taken or where the efforts made so far have been unsuccessful. 2010 saw an increase in the number of irregularities discovered in almost all budgetary areas, the sole exception being the pre-accession funds and traditional own resources. In relation to the expenditure side of the whole budget, the ratio of irregularities resulting from fraud rose from 0.13% to 0.34%. In 2009, cases of fraud accounted for only EUR 180 million, whereas in 2010, this figure increased to EUR 478 million. The highest number of irregularities reported occur in the implementation phase, while in terms of value, they are highest in the selection and procurement phases. A more transparent and more flexible public procurement system could prevent an enormous number of errors. It is the duty of the Commission to implement the reform of the public procurement system. I supported the adoption of the report at both the Committee vote and the vote in plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the 2010 annual report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud, as it alerts the Commission to irregularities and cases of suspected fraud. The report calls on the Commission to exercise the right of legislative initiative, demanding all data on the level of irregularities from Member States, making it possible to establish the actual scale of fraud in the Member States.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Fraud is an example of purposeful wrongdoing and is a criminal offence, while an irregularity is a failure to comply with a rule. It must therefore be heavily penalised to limit it as much as possible. I deplore the fact that in 2010, reports of irregularities increased in all sectors, with the exception of pre-accession funds and traditional own resources. The report states that in 2010, the financial impact of irregularities in the area of expenditure rose and amounted to EUR 1.8 billion. This means that funds are still being misspent and mismanaged, so measures must be taken to hold Member States more accountable for irregularities and to improve the prevention and detection thereof. These are worrying facts which require urgent and effective corrective and punitive action, including immediately suspending payments in cases of fraud and applying effective sanctions in cases of misuse of EU funds.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report, drafted by Zigmantas Balčytis, addresses the protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud – annual report 2010; namely, the ‘risk of double financing in cohesion policy’, agreed in advance between the Commission and the Member States. According to the report, ‘In 2010, reports of irregularities increased in all sectors, with the exception of the pre-accession funds and traditional own resources’. Despite implementing an Irregularities Management System (IMS), managed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), some Member States do not update their data, making the system less effective. The Commission must therefore take all necessary steps, using legislative initiative where required, to obtain data in a timely manner on the level of irregularities and fraud in the Member States. I voted for this report, as the Commission’s annual reports cannot be based on inaccurate data.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report notes that in 2010, the overall financial impact of irregularities detected by control systems amounted to EUR 2 193 million, up from 2009. According to the European Court of Auditors (ECA), the control systems were found to be only partially effective in ensuring the regularity of payments.

The ECA considers that, in the majority of cases, the Member States’ authorities had sufficient information available to have detected and corrected at least some of the errors before payments were made. There is therefore room for improvement. The rapporteur’s main criticism focuses on the lack of reliable statistical data on the extent of fraud and corruption, on the extent of tax and customs duty evasion, and on misuse of EU funds by organised crime; Parliament has repeatedly requested this data from the Commission.

This means that the Commission is unable to assess the actual scale of irregularities and fraud in the EU, or to distinguish between individual cases. Although the report has positive aspects, some issues are not adequately covered and some of the solutions proposed require more context and some caution. We do not support the proposals on suspending payments or applying sanctions to Member States.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) As in previous years, the ‘Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud – annual report 2010’ includes the latest information on irregularities and cases of suspected fraud reported by Member States. The report examines a special topic, agreed in advance between the Commission and the Member States, namely, the risk of double financing in cohesion policy. In 2010, reports of irregularities increased in all sectors, with the exception of pre-accession funds and traditional own resources. The European Parliament has called on the Commission to take all necessary steps and also to exercise the right of legislative initiative to ensure that Member States honour their reporting obligations and so that it is possible to obtain reliable and comparable data on the level of irregularities and fraud in the Member States. In my opinion, the current situation is unsatisfactory because, if the Commission’s annual reports are based on inaccurate data which cannot be compared, this raises questions about its purpose overall. I believe the Commission must take full responsibility for demanding all the necessary data from the Member States in a timely manner, so that the true extent of fraud in the Member States can be established.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Court of Auditors’ annual report 2010 should, in my view, be welcomed, since it picks up on various critical issues such as the need for reliable statistical data about the scale of fraud and corruption, tax and customs evasion, and the misuse of EU funds by organised crime. These are essential figures, but thus far they have been provided with a lack of precision, preventing the Commission from effectively estimating the scale of irregularities and fraud. Such figures must be precise, since they form the basis for the development of new strategies for combating this kind of phenomena. That is why I voted in favour.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) As in previous years, the report includes the latest information on irregularities and cases of suspected fraud reported by Member States. The report also examines a special topic, agreed in advance between the Commission and the Member States, namely, the risk of double financing in cohesion policy. In my opinion, the current rules do not always provide appropriate and sufficient means to identify and prevent the misuse of EU funds, and by this I mean, for example, the differences in relevant Member State regulations, in particular as regards sanctions applied for fraud. One such barrier is that regulations concerning procedures, crime and punishments vary by Member State, which acts as an impediment to fraud-related investigations and criminal proceedings across Member States. In the interest of coordinating Member State regulations, I still find the establishment of a uniform legislative background necessary. However, considering the differences that exist between Member States, it is questionable whether detailed rules falling within Member State competence could actually be harmonised and, most of all, in how far the individual countries would consent to this. I believe that the rapporteur is correct in stating that the Commission’s annual reports are based on inaccurate and non-comparable data, and that this raises questions about their purpose overall. I voted in favour of the report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because large amounts of EU funds are still misspent. Meanwhile, the Commission is urged to take decisive action in order to recover more erroneous payments, to hold Member States more accountable for the amount in irregularities that have yet to be recovered, to improve the prevention and detection of irregularities and cases of fraud, and to immediately suspend payments and apply effective sanctions in cases of misuse of EU funds. I also welcome the provision according to which it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF, and the Commission must take full responsibility for recovering unduly paid funds.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) There is no sign of a let up in the current prevalence and significance of illegal economic and financial behaviour. Financial fraud is widespread in many EU Member States and, in some cases, during 2010, some 90% of the cases reported by the EU were labelled as ‘suspected fraud’. However, illegal financial practices also include the use of EU funds, which are often managed badly, inefficiently and with a huge number of grey areas by the regional administrations of the Member States. I have tried many times to urge national institutions to take steps to resolve the problem. Putting greater controls on transactions is certainly a good starting point, but it is not enough: we need to spread a culture of legality and raise awareness of payment methods that move increasingly towards the use of e-money.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report to acknowledge the need to consolidate the fight against fraud, corruption, and economic crime. In April, the European Parliament's Special Committee on Organised Crime, Corruption and Money Laundering held its constitutive meeting; this is a good step forward, but its results will depend on finding concrete examples to argue for changes in law and practice. Many challenges remain. Member States should be made more accountable for the amount in irregularities that remain to be recovered; the Commission and the Member States should apply uniform systems of procurement, define and implement clear conditions for participation in public procurement, as well as transparency in criteria and decision making on public procurement. We also need one-stop transparency: we need a single website that publishes all the beneficiaries of EU funds on the basis of standard categories of information to be supplied by all the Member States in at least one working language of the Union. Otherwise, we will be lost in a lot of diverse information in diverse languages that fails to provide an overall picture and cannot offer real transparency.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which reiterates that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Through this report, we are looking to confirm our staunch commitment to protecting the financial interests of the European Union, identifying all possible cases of irregularities and suspected fraud reported by the Member States – especially those relating to the risk of double financing under cohesion policy.

In 2010, reports of irregularities increased significantly in all sectors, with the exception of the pre-accession funds and traditional own resources. Once again, we call on the Commission to take all necessary steps to exercise the right of legislative initiative to ensure that Member States honour their reporting obligations and that reliable and comparable data can be obtained on the level of irregularities and fraud in the Member States. The Commission’s annual reports are actually often based on inaccurate data which cannot be properly compared and results in questions being raised about their purpose overall. In our opinion, the Commission must take full responsibility for demanding all the necessary data from the Member States in a timely manner and for making it possible to establish the actual scale of fraud in relation to the EU budget.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The global economic and financial crisis and, in particular, the euro area crisis, call for special measures to be put in place in order to ensure adequate protection of EU financial interests in terms of revenue, which are directly linked to the financial interests of the Member States. I agree with Mr Balčytis that the Commission must take full responsibility for demanding all the necessary data from the Member States in a timely manner and for making it possible to establish the actual scale of fraud in the Member States. I am voting in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests –Fight against fraud – annual report 2010, includes the latest information on irregularities and cases of suspected fraud reported by Member States. The report examines a special topic, agreed in advance between the Commission and the Member States; namely, the risk of double financing in cohesion policy. It is essential that the data provided by Member States are reliable and ensure that fraudulent use of EU funds will be combated increasingly effectively, so as to safeguard the money of all EU citizens.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This is an increasingly important area in the current financial climate. The rapporteur is correctly putting the emphasis on the need for efficient revenue collection in the fight against fraud domain. I completely support MEP Mr Balčytis.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The European Union functions on the principles of cooperation and consensus. Our common welfare depends on good coordination between 27 Member States. It is an extremely complicated task which necessitates fair contributions from all the participants in the process. The whole world is witness to a difficult situation in which the EU was placed on account of fraud perpetrated by some Member State governments. This situation gives us even more responsibility: we have not only to overcome our difficulties, but to improve our cooperation processes. Good reporting is an integral part of this task. The Commission’s annual report 2010 on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests argues that not all Member States honour their reporting obligations. I support the rapporteur in his call to the Commission to demand all necessary data from the Member States. I voted in favour of this report because I agree that the EU governments should promote the effective use of reporting tools in order to improve the Commission’s EU development monitoring and facilitate European decision making.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) With over 1% of GDP lost every year to fraud, we urgently need to take measures to fight corruption and fraud in Europe in these difficult economic times. However, protecting the economic interests of the European Union depends on increased cooperation between the Member States. It is a fact that reports of irregularities increased in all sectors in 2011; however, further improvements are needed to the Irregularities Management System (IMS). As the Commission itself admits, data in annual reports must be interpreted with caution because the actual levels of irregularity are not known or estimated and therefore not given. This highly unsatisfactory finding makes it clear that the Commission and the Member States have not exhausted policies and measures to help limit fraud in Europe. In this report, which I supported, the European Parliament calls for and expects specific proposals, actions and initiatives, both from the Commission and the Member States, in order to combat corruption and fraud.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Combating fraud is essential to ensuring that all EU funds are put to proper use and that the EU budget remains wholly intact. Work has been done but there is still a long way to go. I voted for this report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests –Fight against fraud – annual report 2010, as it suggests new ways of combating fraud and calls on the Commission to step up this fight.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I supported the resolution on fraud in the EU. We need more rigorous fiscal policy in order to reduce the size of the EU’s shadow economy, which is currently estimated as one fifth of GDP. Europe must step up its efforts to provide transparency on public finances in order to combat fraud and corruption, thereby safeguarding public finances. Member States must lower their thresholds for compulsory non-cash payments. Documented electronic transactions make it harder to commit fraud. We need full implementation of the Irregularities Management System (IMS) by Member States to improve their compliance and speed in reporting irregularities. We must apply newly developed techniques to measure corruption and fraud in order to provide an accurate assessment of the extent of the misuse of EU funds and embezzlement of EU revenues. We must have proper collection of VAT and excise duties. Improved collection systems need to be of upmost priority for Member States, as fraud affects both the EU’s and Member States’ budgets. In this regard, I welcome the setting up of the EP’s special committee to deal with organised crime, corruption and money laundering within the EU.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report includes the latest information on irregularities and cases of suspected fraud reported by Member States. In 2010, reports of irregularities increased in all sectors, with the exception of pre-accession funds and traditional own resources. The fact that the Irregularities Management System (IMS) is not being used by all Member States has led Parliament to call on the Commission to take all necessary steps to the extent that Member States honour their reporting obligations and that it be possible to obtain data on the level of irregularities and fraud in the Member States that is reliable and comparable. I voted in favour, as it is essential that all necessary data be made available in a timely manner, making it possible to establish the actual scale of fraud in the Member States.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Parliament wants to stress that the global financial crisis and, in particular, the euro area crisis, which the EU is now facing, call for special measures to be put in place in order to ensure adequate protection of EU financial interests in terms of revenue, which is directly linked to the financial interests of the Member States. Parliament is of the opinion that a more rigorous implementation of fiscal policy has the potential to lead Europe out of the crisis, in particular, by decreasing the size of the EU’s shadow economy, estimated to be at around one fifth of the official GDP.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The annual report 2010 on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests includes the latest information on irregularities and cases of suspected fraud reported by Member States. The report examines the risk of double financing in cohesion policy. This situation is unsatisfactory because, if the Commission’s annual reports are based on inaccurate data which cannot be compared, this raises questions about its purpose overall. We should therefore be necessarily wary of these data since they are not totally reliable. The aim of this vote is actually to clarify the issue so that the real scale of fraud in the Member States can be established.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) I should like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report. Our role as the European Parliament is to render account to the public and confirm that taxpayers’ money is being used transparently and efficiently. This obligation is even more important within the context of the current economic and financial crisis, as pressure on government finances has never been greater. Efficient and proper use of public money is more important than ever. The most important problem identified in the Commission’s annual report, and which was highlighted by the rapporteur in his report, is the lack of cohesion between the Member States in recording and notifying irregularities or suspected fraud. This means that is it impossible to objectively evaluate the real scale of fraud in the Member States and for the European Parliament, the Commission and OLAF to perform their duties in terms of evaluating the situation and submitting further proposals. This has to stop and the Commission must take full responsibility for recovering money paid in error and for collating the necessary, comparable data from all the Member States.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud – annual report 2010. In 2010, the financial impact of irregularities in the area of European funds’ expenditure rose to EUR 1.8 billion, compared to EUR 1.4 billion in 2009. The financial impact on revenue is also greater: EUR 393 million, compared to EUR 357 million in 2009. According to the statistics for 2010, around 70% of all reports about irregularities related to the cohesion policy. We call on the Commission and Member States to design, implement and regularly evaluate uniform procurement systems to prevent fraud and corruption, so as to define and implement clear conditions for participation in public procurement. Systems need to be implemented to review public procurement decisions at national level in order to ensure transparency and accountability in public finances, and to adopt and implement risk management and internal control systems. We call on the Commission to provide reliable statistics about the scale of fraud and corruption, particularly relating to tax and customs evasion, and about organised crime activities involving the misuse of EU funds.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Every year, the European Parliament evaluates the regularity of the European Union’s revenues and expenditure. Unfortunately, the report for 2010 shows that the situation has worsened. In 2010, the total financial impact of irregularities was EUR 2 193 million, compared with EUR 1 757 million in the previous year. A worrying trend is the reduction in revenues, especially due to VAT losses, which account, on average, for 12% of the losses, and lost customs duties. In my opinion, we must introduce effective countermeasures, as this reduces the actual amount of funds available for Member States to spend. I am in favour of an increase in the EU budget, and expenditure should be directed mainly at achieving greater equality in standards of living. This is particularly important for countries such as Poland, which, admittedly, is developing ever faster, but which still needs enormous efforts and resources to reach the EU average. I would therefore like to emphasise that any irregularities tolerated in the generation of the EU’s joint revenues are, in fact, to the detriment of those countries that entered the Union in recent years.

Report: Angelika Niebler (A7-0149/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, given the recommendations made by the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which believe that the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since the single market should be a space operating, in the first place, in the interests of the consumer and not those of big business, I support the new measures put forward in the agreement because it seems to me that the time has finally come to remove the barriers to free competition and open the market to new operators. The high charges currently applied to mobile devices – which are a significant expense for users and especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – are unjustifiable and stand in stark contrast to the digital age we live in and to free movement. At long last, with the new rules coming in on 1 July, roaming charges will fall drastically and users will be able to travel within European borders free to choose and purchase different services from various operators, with clear and transparent information at hand.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The cost of using a mobile phone abroad is still well above the cost of domestic communications. Thus, Angelika Niebler’s text was adopted by an overwhelming majority. This text illustrates how Europe is working to help the everyday consumer. Following tough negotiations, the ‘roaming’ regulation will, from July onwards, force mobile phone operators in Europe to charge the same prices and less than the prices currently being charged. The text introduces, for the first time ever, structural solutions that will enable consumers to freely choose another operator for roaming services, independent of their domestic operator. The text provides for the temporary application of new caps on retail and wholesale tariffs for voice, SMS and, in particular, data services. To quote Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda: ‘We now have a ‘future-proof’ solution. Injecting competition into roaming markets will mean, for the first time ever, a structural, sustainable way to protect consumers, because competition is the best guarantee of long-term low prices’.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this report. The low level of use of roaming services within the EU is not in the interests of the European economy and is incompatible with the fundamental idea of a European digital single market. In order to reduce the often high data roaming charges, it is very important to boost competition between operators and thus encourage them to offer customers more attractive prices. It is very important to reduce the current wholesale and retail price caps for voice and SMS services and introduce a retail price cap for mobile data services. The regulation on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Community currently in force will expire in June and I therefore welcome its recast and the proposals it contains. I agree with the lower prices proposed by Parliament: EUR 0.24 a minute for outgoing calls, EUR 0.10 for incoming calls, EUR 0.10 for text messages and EUR 0.50 per megabyte for downloading data and surfing the Internet abroad.

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. – (NL) We have approved the new price caps for roaming. This is good news for those who will be going abroad this summer. From 1 July, not only will the calling and texting rates continue to fall, but even those who want to surf the Internet on their smartphones or laptops abroad will no longer have to worry about facing an astronomically high mobile phone bill after the holidays. In a Europe without borders, there is no place for rates that differ so much at home and abroad. Hopefully, the structural measures we are to decide on today will lead to customer-friendly packages, so that we will not have to impose price caps again in the near future.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report in order to have clearer regulation in terms of the cost of Internet services and mobile phone calls between different EU countries. The new regulation will also allow consumers to take out a contract with a different company from their usual operator for roaming services abroad, keeping the same number and without penalty. I think that it is a step in the right direction towards what European policies should be, which, after all, affect the day-to-day lives of citizens.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report tackles a central issue in the area of consumer rights and the freedom of communication and circulation of information and news, and I therefore welcome it. Exorbitant charges for international roaming services with minimal transparency and information on costs is probably caused by the fact that the devices market has developed very quickly compared with the system of operators, and especially compared with the onset of a modern business culture. The creation of a euro tariff is therefore to be welcomed, not only as a way to protect consumer rights, but, above all, as a way to set a benchmark and provide an incentive for the market. Achieving the political objective of aligning roaming charges by 2015, as per the Digital Agenda for Europe, looks difficult without robust incentives and accompanying measures. In this sense, and in a liberal and market-oriented view, greater information and guaranteed freedom for consumers to choose between a number of operators will act as a driver, including by way of allowing mobile telephone operators to access wholesale roaming services, thereby injecting greater competition into the market.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of Ms Niebler’s report calling for the introduction of caps on roaming tariffs for mobile communications. I note that the report has reduced the caps initially proposed by the Commission. This is very good news for European users, hitherto penalised when travelling abroad. Two points in particular caught my attention: the idea of applying the regulation on roaming outside the European Union in order to extend the protection of European users, and the possibility from 2014 of signing up for a mobile roaming contract separate from the national mobile service contract. Both measures will help to improve the situation for users.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Niebler’s excellent report on roaming on public mobile communications networks because I think that the solutions it sets out can have a concrete and immediately beneficial effect on the daily lives of European citizens, while also bolstering the free market. Specifically, the solutions will reduce the difficulties faced by anyone moving around within the EU, who will have less trouble using mobile telephone services, whether making phone calls, sending messages or browsing the Internet. I am also sure that the proposals set out in the report can make an effective contribution to the development of a competitive European digital market, making it easier for new and alternative operators to access the wholesale market. The decision to reduce tariffs even further than had already been proposed by the Commission is also deserving of special praise. This choice definitely benefits end consumers, correcting a number of distortions and inconsistencies created over time.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There is still very little competition in the roaming market, even though it continues to grow at a good pace. Excessive roaming tariffs are not in the interests of European consumers or the European economy. I voted for this motion for a resolution because, in addition to formulating structural measures designed to solve this problem, it introduces a retail price cap for mobile data services for the first time.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the compromise text, negotiated with the Council, on the ‘roaming’ regulation, which will mean Europeans pay less to use their mobile phones abroad. As the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, we have called for the removal of these artificial borders within the internal market because they go against the very spirit of the European project and its founding fathers. That is why we urged the Commission to act quickly to effectively end roaming from 2016. As well as applying lower mobile roaming tariffs than those currently being charged from July, the text introduces, for the first time ever, structural solutions that will enable consumers to freely choose another operator for roaming services, separately from their domestic operator, from July 2014.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This proposal aims to increase the level of competition in the mobile roaming segment through a so-called structural solution. Users will be able to take out a separate contract exclusively for roaming tariffs, while keeping a single phone number and a single SIM card. Since I am sure the proposed solution will help establish greater competition in the sector, I have voted in favour of this report. I do, however, regret the decision not to adopt the amendment that would have blocked phone companies charging users roaming costs for calls made within an area of 10 km from the border of the country where the phone contract was entered into. This amendment would have avoided the unfair application of roaming costs for calls made in municipalities bordering other countries and would also have lessened usage costs for cross-border workers, such as citizens resident in Italy but employed in Swiss businesses near the Italian border.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives and Christian Democrats in the European Parliament voted today in favour of a regulation on voice, SMS and data roaming. We do not believe that price regulation at consumer level will solve the structural problems on the roaming market, as regulation counteracts price formation below the regulated price. We therefore welcome the fact that the new regulation contains market mechanisms that can increase competition on the roaming market and thereby create lower prices for consumers. We particularly welcome the proposal for local breakout mechanisms, which mean that consumers will be given the option to connect directly via local networks when they are abroad without needing to use data roaming via their home provider.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We have voted in favour of a report that cements for all European consumers the idea of a Europe that protects them. The lower price caps for voice, SMS and data services will be immediate and progressive. Furthermore, consumers will be able to benefit from these caps from this summer. I am very pleased with the progress this new regulation promises to bring to the mobile phone market.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which increases the control European consumers have over their mobile phone bill when travelling abroad. Parliament is setting a maximum price for the use of data, voice or SMS services while abroad, in order to reduce the high cost of mobile communications outside the user’s national territory. It is also ensuring that citizens are better informed, able to make their own informed decisions relating to these communications in future. By adopting these measures, Parliament has undertaken to create competition in the mobile phone market and thus, from 1 July 2012, put an end to the additional costs unfairly charged by phone operators.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The cost of using a mobile phone abroad is still well above the cost of domestic communications. Sometimes, it seems like a blatant moneymaking scam. The new EU regulation adopted today puts an end to such pricing, which was completely unfair. It introduces new price caps for voice calls, SMS and, for the first time ever, data services. These lower price caps will be implemented in three stages: for example, one SMS will cost EUR 0.09 on 1 July 2012, EUR 0.07 in 2013 and EUR 0.05 in 2014. This is therefore very good news for users. The new price caps will enter into force on 1 July 2012, thus preventing consumers from facing ludicrous mobile phone bills after returning from their summer holidays.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on ‘roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union’ because the text makes for better discipline in the mobile communication market in the EU. It was necessary to find an agreement at first reading as the previous regulation was about to expire and that would have left Europe’s mobile communication market without this discipline for the whole summer period. In particular, the regulation provides for cuts in the price caps for roaming on voice calls and text messages. But the most significant improvement achieved concerns data services. Thanks to the fundamental contribution of the S&D Group, citizens will enjoy significant price reductions when using Internet services from abroad. I would reiterate, however, that our final goal must be the creation of a roaming-free Europe, in which no artificial borders will prevent citizens from communicating with one another freely and cheaply, even when they travel or live in other European States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which proposes to reduce roaming prices on EU mobile networks. The purpose of the legislation is to create an internal telecommunications market without differences between domestic and roaming prices.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) For several years now, the mobile phone has been a vital and irreplaceable means of communication for millions of citizens. Nowadays, as well as enabling calls and SMS messaging, the mobile phone is a preferred means of accessing the Internet and data services. Despite geographical mobility and the free movement of people and workers laid down in the Treaties, however, most Europeans still turn off their mobile phones when abroad to avoid paying roaming charges. Excessive roaming tariffs and the consequent reduced use of mobile phones outside the home country are not in the interests of European consumers or the European economy. It is therefore urgent that steps be taken to lower roaming prices. I therefore voted for this report and I would congratulate the rapporteur on her work.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Information technology has taken over our day-to-day lives. You only have to watch passers-by on a busy street in any European capital or see students going in and out of school. Both young and old never leave home without their mobile phones, iPads, smartphones, pens, tablets, etc. Data transfers are relentless and the market is constantly evolving. It is vital that EU citizens, whether at home or abroad, are able to access these services quickly and at competitive prices. The current cost of data transmission is becoming almost unaffordable, especially when moving between Member States. We live in a borderless Europe and are building an internal market. It is vital that this market also applies to new information technologies. We will all benefit: consumers and businesses. I welcome the creation of a roaming regulation that will limit operators’ tariffs outside their own Member State, enabling foreign operators to be contracted, with significant savings on roaming charges. I voted for this report by Angelika Niebler, as I believe that the recommendations tabled will promote mobility within the EU, will benefit consumers, and will make businesses more competitive.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We undoubtedly appreciate the planned price reduction in mobile roaming services, the cost of which nowadays is very high and unjustified. There are, however, other aspects of this draft regulation which cannot be overshadowed by this aspiration. The planned liberalisation of the sector, with the realisation of the internal market in this area, will inevitably mean supply concentration in some large transnational operators. The results of this monopoly are known in other industries and are predictable here too: price fixing and even higher prices at later stages of the process, and pressure on conditions of the sector’s workers. We would also express some concern about the increased use of radio spectrum, a hugely important and limited public asset, whose growing occupation – and domination by private interests – requires an impact assessment at various levels, which has so far been overlooked.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome Ms Niebler’s proposal on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union. Now, with the major increase in mobility within the Union and the concurrent major developments in the telecoms sector, we cannot ask our citizens to take on the burden of excessively high costs, especially for data roaming. I therefore support the further lowering of roaming charges – tariffs that ensure complete transparency and consumer protection. I believe that these new measures, in force from 1 July 2012 and running at full speed from 1 July 2014, giving customers the chance to choose a different roaming services provider from their national operator, will encourage a greater number of operators to compete, further reducing tariffs.

  Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives and Christian Democrats in the European Parliament voted today in favour of a regulation on voice, SMS and data roaming. We do not believe that price regulation at consumer level will solve the structural problems on the roaming market, as this kind of regulation counteracts price formation below the regulated price. We therefore welcome the fact that the new regulation contains market mechanisms that can increase competition on the roaming market and thereby create lower prices for consumers. We particularly welcome the proposal for local breakout mechanisms, which mean that consumers will be given the option to connect directly via local networks when they are abroad without needing to use data roaming via their home provider.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Commission has, in the past, made repeated calls to mobile operators to reduce the unreasonably roaming high charges in mobile communications. The calls, however, remained unanswered, and the EU has decided to intervene through price regulation in order to protect consumers. The submitted reform has the aim of reducing prices for international calls from mobile networks to the level of domestic tariffs. Healthy competition has not yet developed, and customers continue to pay unreasonably high prices. The report on developments in the market for roaming services states that current charges (with the exception of specific tariffs) are not sufficiently flexible for users to avoid paying unreasonably high prices in relation to competitive domestic tariffs. In my opinion, the proposed reduction in the ceiling on charges is a step in the right direction, within the framework of a gradual elimination of all specific charges for roaming. Electronic communications are a service of general political interest. They must be universally accessible and available at reasonable prices. I therefore support all measures aimed at eliminating unreasonable prices for roaming calls.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I enthusiastically welcome the move described in this report to ease the lives of citizens moving within the Union, allowing them to use their own domestic mobile phone number to telephone, send SMS messages or browse the Internet at cheaper prices than those currently offered. This does not only help people when travelling, but also contributes to the development of a competitive European digital market, making it easier for new, alternative operators to access the wholesale market. That is why I voted in favour.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In connection with the Digital Agenda for Europe, the Commission set a goal to reduce differences between roaming and national tariffs to near zero by 2015. In order to get closer to this goal, it is necessary to find a solution which guarantees competition and effective functioning of the roaming market also after the set date. The efforts put into the roll-out of broadband networks could also support the emergence of tools which can be an alternative to roaming services. The new regulation (Roaming III) continues to regulate roaming charges for calls and text messages and introduces a new essential element: a euro data tariff for retail data roaming services. The proposal also introduces a number of structural measures to boost competition while price caps are maintained as a ‘safety net’ for consumers to cover the period until competition itself drives the prices down. It must be emphasised that from 1 July 2014, customers will be allowed to sign up for a mobile roaming contract separate from the national mobile service contract. This will encourage competition on the roaming market and is a possible way forward for development. In conclusion, the report is extremely topical and clearly serves the interests of EU citizens, which is why I supported it with my vote.

  Nathalie Griesbeck and Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) While three out of four Europeans use their mobile phone while travelling, many find horrendously high bills waiting for them when they get home. Competition in the mobile roaming sector within the EU is still weak, leading to very high prices for consumers. I am pleased that an agreement has been reached at first reading on a text which I am sure provides effective solutions for improving the situation in the mobile roaming market for European consumers. Firstly, separating the provision of mobile phone services on national territory from roaming services will improve competition, as consumers will be able to choose whether they wish to keep the same communications provider while travelling and benefit from more attractive pricing. Secondly, gradually capping the maximum allowed charges made when billing for voice, SMS and data services between now and 2014 will be hugely beneficial to consumers. Furthermore, consumers will benefit from numerous measures improving transparency, such as the provision of information on roaming tariffs outside the EU, information on accumulated consumption expressed in the unit or currency of billing, and the introduction of safeguard caps (EUR 50 by default).

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I welcome this report, above all, for two reasons.

First of all, this further lowering of the tariff ceilings is absolutely necessary, as the prices offered by providers have still not fallen far enough and competition continues to be impeded. The prevention of monopolies in the roaming market and easier access to the networks for smaller providers will make fair prices possible for EU citizens and further promote a uniform internal market.

Secondly, the report finally tackles the problem of unintentional roaming, which occurs above all in border areas, when the home country’s mobile signal is too weak and devices fall back on the foreign signal instead. Border residents are flabbergasted when they get their bills only to discover that they have been charged for roaming when they have not left their home country – a stop must be put to this as soon as possible, and this report is a first step in that direction.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) After three years of reform that has not sufficiently reduced charges for consumers using roaming services, today we can celebrate the significant drop in roaming tariffs over the coming months, beginning this summer. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has been particularly involved in this fight. The time has come to implement structural reform, rather than forever be regulating prices. Our ultimate objective must be to completely eliminate the differences in prices for roaming and national communications over the years to come. Despite the involvement of the S&D Group, majority support has not been forthcoming. However, this is how we must shape our reforms in future. It is no longer acceptable for operators to charge prohibitive prices for mobile data services, leading consumers to find horrendous bills awaiting them because there is no transparency with regard to pricing for these services. I welcome the proposal to allow customers to buy roaming services from a different operator to their domestic service provider. At last, we have some healthy competition which should serve the interests of the consumer!

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I voted in favour of the report. It seeks to go further than the Commission and proposes a lower price ceiling for roaming voice services. This is a step in the right direction, even though I, personally, believe that the ceiling could be even lower. The report also contains proposals concerning a certain increase in transparency and better consumer protection. Here, too, we could go considerably further in order to safeguard the interests of consumers, but as this is nevertheless a step in the right direction, I am voting in favour of the report.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The number of persons who make telephone calls, send text messages or browse the web while abroad is constantly increasing. Unfortunately, prices for these types of services are very high and there is still minimal competition in this market. These very high roaming tariffs do not benefit either consumers or the European economy. I believe that the ability to make calls or send data at favourable prices is closely linked to mobility. If we want greater mobility of citizens in the European Union, then we must make sure that excessively high charges do not stand in the way of using mobile telephones. Unfortunately, many Europeans switch off their telephones when travelling to another Member State because they are afraid of high phone bills. Telecommunications should become part of the internal market, but we will only be able to speak of such a market when roaming tariffs are at the same level as national tariffs.

I am in favour of systematic reductions in roaming tariffs, and this objective will gradually be achieved over the coming years. Today, Parliament has approved roaming charges that are much lower than those proposed by the European Commission. I am pleased that Parliament has been more ambitious on this issue. The regulation as adopted today will provide greater protection for consumers, and measures have also been introduced to stimulate competition.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I very much welcome the adoption of this report which, for the first time, will cap the amount consumers are charged for using mobile Internet while roaming within the EU.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The cost of mobile communications is about to drop. This was the decision made by Parliament on Thursday 10 May and I am delighted. The report on mobile phone roaming provides for a number of measures benefiting the consumer and virtual operators, who are restricted to using networks owned by other operators. Among the key measures, we should note the lower price caps for voice, SMS and data roaming services. From 2012, the price per minute for an outgoing call will be EUR 0.29 instead of EUR 0.35, for incoming calls EUR 0.08 instead of EUR 0.11, as it is currently, and for SMS EUR 0.09 instead of EUR 0.15. A one megabyte download will be capped at EUR 0.70, while there had been no previous price cap until now. Consumers living in border regions who are billed for inadvertent roaming must be informed by their provider of ways to avoid this inconvenience. When users travel abroad, they will be able to access local data services and choose the most favourable offer from different local providers, as for Wi-Fi.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I supported this report, just as I have supported past reports on this issue. Mobile phone companies have shown themselves unwilling or incapable of delivering fair charges to consumers so legislative intervention is necessary. This report will benefit thousands of consumers and businesses across Europe.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of a regulation on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union because most Europeans turn off their mobile phones when abroad, fearful of receiving a huge bill when they get home because this is what often happens when using a mobile phone abroad. Only 19% (the minority) of those who use their mobile phone to surf the Internet while abroad believe that roaming charges for data transport are acceptable. According to the Commission, the average cost per megabyte is currently more than EUR 2, but can, in extreme cases, be as much as EUR 12. This sorry state of affairs is largely due to the fact that there is still not enough competition on the roaming market. Excessive roaming tariffs and the consequent low level of use of roaming services within the EU are neither in the interests of European consumers nor the European economy. This development is incompatible with the fundamental idea of a European digital single market. This proposal for a regulation is therefore intended to rectify this situation. In its 2010 Digital Agenda for Europe, the Commission set the objective of bringing roaming tariffs into line with those for domestic mobile services by 2015. In addition to the planned structural measures, further efforts are needed to ensure transparency. Above all, there is a need for understandable information on the new options and tariffs now available to customers as a result of the decoupling measure. In future, roaming contracts should be set out in a clear and straightforward manner.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) In the European Parliament’s plenary session, I supported the draft legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union. I consider that roaming services in EU Member States have hitherto been too expensive and yet, as people increasingly travel to other EU Member States, their use these days is exceptionally important. It is essential that everyone should be able to use these services without worrying about excessive costs. Until now, for example, there has been no cap at all on prices for data downloading via roaming, but the new rules provide that as from 1 July 2012, such a cap must be introduced, and that these price caps for roaming are progressively reduced to EUR 0.05 (exclusive of VAT) per megabyte for data and per minute for telephone calls and to EUR 0.02 (exclusive of VAT) for SMS messages by 2014. I further consider that the new rules will also be advantageous for operators, as competition will be encouraged, by virtue of the fact that customers will be able to acquire domestic and roaming services from different operators while keeping the same number and without extra charge.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) High roaming prices result from insufficient competition on the market for roaming, which, in turn, is caused by structural problems in the market. Until a solution is found in the form of effective structural measures, it will be necessary to respond with temporary price regulation. The price ceiling should, however, leave sufficient room for new operators to enter the market, thereby strengthening competition. The new regulation introduces a new element: a euro data tariff for retail data roaming services. Also, from 1 July 2014, the option will be introduced for customers to sign an agreement on the provision of mobile roaming services that is separate from domestic mobile services. The regulation will continue at least until 1 June 2016, and I have supported the text of the regulation.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Niebler because I am convinced that the mobile phone market needs structural reforms that ensure that consumer rights are protected while at the same time making it possible to increase competition in the roaming market, thereby driving down tariff costs. Among the planned measures, the introduction of price caps heads in the direction proposed and contributes to the goal of streamlining the European single market and making it competitive in terms of trade relations with third countries. In view of the exponential growth of roaming services, the adoption of this resolution is a significant step that takes the needs of consumers and EU citizens into serious consideration.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for these new EU-wide laws which will further slash roaming fees in time for summer. As well as action on call charges, these new rules are designed to bring down the costs of data roaming. Texts will fall to 7p, calls will fall to 20p per minute and data costs will be capped, with 1 MB costing 40p. These new rules help end the rip-off culture that has existed for too long and helps British consumers out in these tough times. The new rules will take effect on 1 July this year.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We welcome this report because for years, we have thought that there is still a lack of competition in the mobile roaming market, to the direct detriment of our citizens and consumers.

Despite the measure we brought in during 2007, roaming tariffs are still too high, causing a modest use of these services in the EU that stands in stark contrast to the fundamental principles of an ambitious internal European digital market. In its 2010 Digital Agenda for Europe, the Commission set the objective of bringing roaming tariffs largely into line with those for domestic mobile services by 2015.

In order to increase competition, the Commission proposal for a regulation voted on today not only provides for the existing price caps, but also brings in the structural measures we think are needed, which can help protect consumers properly. We do, however, take the view that further transparency measures are still needed, such as readily understandable information on the new options and tariffs now available to customers as a result of the decoupling measure, as well as price caps on retail data roaming that are more ambitious than those put forward by the Commission here.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I support an end to roaming within the EU, thereby eliminating the difference between domestic tariffs and roaming tariffs in mobile communications, in the interest of consumers without technical knowledge who have been falling victim to speculative tariff policies. I am bound to support any step that contributes to reducing these differences, lowering bills paid by consumers who use their communications equipment outside the country where their service contract was concluded. The widespread use of mobile communications equipment, particularly with Internet access, is a positive sign of our times which should not be hindered by these service providers’ unfair commercial exploitation.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Niebler. The demand for roaming services is growing exponentially. However, high data roaming prices are deterring customers from using mobile data services when travelling within the EU. I therefore agree that there should be no obstacles to using alternative data roaming services, provided directly on a visited network, temporarily or permanently, regardless of existing roaming contracts or arrangements with domestic providers and without any additional charge levied by them.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Under the pretext of lowering the cost of roaming services, this report sets out the complete deregulation of the mobile phone market. Once again, we have dogmatically decided to intensify competition without carrying out any assessment of the pros and cons of existing competition. I voted against this report.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Millions of citizens in the European Union use mobile phones in their everyday communications. The number of these users is increasing almost on a daily basis, which provides for the conditions of easier communication. Still, most European citizens will switch off mobile services when travelling abroad in order to avoid receiving hefty bills from their service providers. This undesirable situation is due primarily to the still overly weak competition on the roaming market. Excessive roaming tariffs and the consequent low level of use of roaming services within the EU are not in the interests of European consumers or of the European economy. The present situation is also incompatible with the fundamental idea of a European digital single market. The regulation adopted now seeks to find a remedy for this situation and therefore I, too, supported this proposal.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Roaming III Regulation is aimed at further capping roaming tariffs, facilitating access to the wholesale market for new alternative operators, and allowing consumers to freely choose an operator other than their national operator for roaming services from 2014. Thanks to advances in technology, communication by mobile phone is now possible everywhere. In a Europe without borders, we must prevent citizens from being surprised with excessive charges. Citizens must be able to use their mobile phone, through the operator of their choice, in a Member State other than their home country. Ultimately, the aim of this structural process is to achieve naturally low roaming tariffs through real competition between operators.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – It is necessary to make it possible for users of mobile services in the EU to pay the minimum price for conversations they have and text messages they send while staying outside their home country. Today, many phone operators collude and rob users of mobile networks impudently. I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Recent years have seen a significant increase in the number of people who move frequently between the various Member States for the most varied reasons. One of the major annoyances that these people face is, without doubt, the astronomical cost of using mobile phones abroad. In recent years, the situation has been improving gradually and the text that we have adopted today quite rightly continues down this path. Indeed, the measures set out in the adopted regulation will result in a significant fall in the costs of phone calls, SMS messages and data when roaming. What is more, the market will have to open up to more operators, thereby allowing real competition and reducing the monopoly held by the few phone companies currently offering roaming services. European-level initiatives such as these are certainly worthwhile and welcome, bringing benefits for all citizens and consumers without causing any harm at all. These are the kinds of initiatives that the EU should concentrate on, showing that it can be of some use and on which it can therefore have our complete and convinced support, as in this case.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting in favour of this report, I wish to affirm that Europe exists to serve its citizens. Until now, roaming tariffs have been much more expensive than the price of domestic communications, for no good reason. The new EU regulation puts an end to these unfair tariffs by imposing price caps and enabling consumers to choose an operator other than their national operator for roaming services. This regulation represents a great leap forward for European citizens, who will now have more control over their mobile phone bill.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Travelling is an integral part of European life. It is therefore only natural that we should want to receive the same services abroad under the same conditions as in our own country, and that we should not feel that we are being discriminated in comparison with the inhabitants of the country in which we are travelling. Charges for roaming and data transfer are one area where exclusion still needs to be reduced. This decision not only helps Europeans when travelling, but is an example of how the European Parliament actually contributes to the creation of a united Europe.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Internet is gradually becoming a part of everyone’s lives. The demand and, all too often, the need to be constantly online wherever you happen to find yourself is increasing all the time. In my opinion, the roaming charges in the EU’s single market constitute an unnecessary financial burden for consumers. The only ones who profit from this are the big companies providing these mobile services. Despite the fact that we have failed to get rid of roaming charges completely, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has recorded significant successes in reducing roaming charges for calls, text messages and data. Data roaming in particular has caused serious problems for users. We constantly encounter cases where the unintentional activation of this service results in users owing large sums to mobile companies. I therefore consider it extremely important to address these problems through the fair regulation of prices for roaming services. By 2014, consumers should pay 65% less for roaming services, but I firmly believe that we will one day be able to remove these charges entirely.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In perfect synchrony with the start of the holiday season, roaming fees will be falling as of July. One example is the prices for Internet use, which will be capped at EUR 0.70/MB, and EUR 0.50/MB from 2014. This will mean that smartphones and tablets can be used without fear of incurring incredible costs. The plans for ‘more competition in the mobile communications market’ are particularly pleasing. As of 2014, customers will be able to find the cheapest provider and buy their roaming services separately, even from foreign providers. Every time you cross a border, your mobile phone will automatically switch to the network of the provider you have selected, while your phone number remains the same. Roaming charges are the only area in the EU where costs are incurred simply by crossing a border. When I consider the wage and social dumping that has resulted from the opening up of the eastern European labour markets, I can see that the internal market has not always only brought benefits. What we have here, finally, is a truly sensible measure, and I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms of the European Union. Furthermore, we have set the objective of making travel and resettlement within the EU as easy as possible and reducing unwarranted costs connected with this. One of these is the cost of mobile communication, which is still disproportionally high because of limited competition. In addition to call roaming charges, other problem areas include data communication rates, which are beyond the means of many travelling individuals, and large bills arising from insufficient information or human error. The new formulation of the regulation that is now under discussion seeks to correct those shortcomings and establishes common conditions for both roaming rates and, for instance, informing consumers in the European Union. I believe that prices and conditions for roaming in public mobile communications networks should be kept at a reasonable level because this would make it possible for us to achieve a more uniform and competitive European internal market and to protect consumers. For the abovementioned reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Niebler’s report because I am one of those mobile phone users who think they spend too much on using phone services outside my own country, in comparison with domestic tariffs. The Commission’s analysis on the proposal for a regulation on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union shows that the prices or the risks of incurring high costs are caused by a low level of competition in this market. There are not many mobile phone operators, which allows them to keep user costs much higher than if there were greater competition. That is why, other than setting price caps on international calls made and received and for SMS messages, the EU also intends to carry out structural reforms of the system that will open up international roaming networks to operators in other countries, through regulated wholesale tariffs.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The cost of, and charges for, roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union are the subject of frequent discussion in Greece, as in the rest of Europe. It is a fact that, from time to time, the charges for these services seem to derogate from the European legislative framework. For example, in addition to the fixed charges set for calls and messages and in order to avoid huge bills, the rule is that the EUR 50 cut-off limit applies to all consumers who have not already opted for a different cut-off limit. Nonetheless, certain companies have still not applied the recommended charges to their consumers and complied with EU law. Be that as it may, excessive roaming charges and the limited use of roaming services within the EU as a result do not benefit either European citizens or the European economy. This proposal for a regulation is therefore intended to address these distortions, which is why I voted in favour of it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution, including measures designed to address the excessive cost of roaming tariffs and introducing a retail price cap for mobile data services for the first time. There is still very little competition in the roaming market, even though it continues to grow at a good pace, and excessive roaming tariffs are not in the interests of European consumers or the European economy.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) I am very pleased to support this regulation, which requires a further reduction in roaming charges for cross-border telecommunications services. This regulation does not simply mean showing consideration for mobile phone users and, in particular, their holiday budgets; it is also a contribution towards greater competitiveness.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the EU contains measures to address the legitimate wishes of our citizens. The main point of this draft resolution is to impose limits on mobile phone roaming tariffs charged to EU consumers. It is the first step towards ending roaming in the EU from 2016. Another essential aspect involves the quality of information given to consumers. From this summer, operators will also be required to inform consumers of the prices charged when they travel outside the EU. In addition, consumers can choose to have two contracts: one for domestic services and one for services abroad, keeping the same mobile phone number and having only one bill. Finally, it calls for operators to have easier access to the market, meaning increased competition which, in turn, will foster better services and better prices for consumers. I therefore voted in favour.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The vote on mobile phone roaming this afternoon has resulted in excellent news for consumers, who will once again see their mobile phone roaming costs reduced. So-called roaming tariffs are not a deciding factor for consumers when selecting an operator, meaning that operators are having a field day, often charging prohibitively high prices, particularly in Belgium. Public sector intervention is therefore completely justified, in order to restrict these tariffs within reasonable limits, not only for voice and SMS services, but also for data roaming services. For example, the maximum price for sending an SMS abroad will be reduced by 80% over five years, gradually falling from a pre-2009 cost of EUR 0.29 to EUR 0.11 in 2009, before dropping to the capped price of EUR 0.06 in 2014, less than it costs for a user to send one SMS in Belgium! Data downloads will be capped at EUR 0.70 in July 2012, EUR 0.45 in July 2013 and EUR 0.20 in July 2014. With this news, I must point out that mobile phone tariffs in Belgium are the highest in Europe and remind you of the need for the government to act quickly to address this anomaly.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today’s part session in Brussels saw the vote on the report by Mr Bradbourn. The cost of using mobile phones, smartphones and tablets when travelling within the EU is set to fall drastically from 1 July this year, under the terms of an agreement with the Council adopted today. The new rules will also enable customers to buy roaming services from an operator that is not their domestic provider and open the market to new competitors, increasing competition and reducing prices. The proposal will enter into force on 1 July 2012, replacing the 2007 regulation, which expires on 30 June 2012, meaning that our citizens will be able to benefit from more favourable tariffs during their summer holidays. Parliament’s request for a lowering of roaming prices for consumers, and especially for data services, has therefore been a success. Moreover, from July 2014 onwards, consumers will be able to choose a different roaming services provider from their national operator for roaming services. These new rules will help open the market to new operators, thereby increasing competition.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The objective of reducing the difference between national and roaming tariffs, which was included in the Commission’s Benchmarking Framework 2011-2015, endorsed by the i2010 High Level Group in November 2009, and included in the Commission Communication ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’, should also remain the goal of this regulation. The planned separate sale of roaming services and domestic services should increase competition, and therefore lower the prices for customers and create an internal market for roaming services in the Union with no significant differentiation between national and roaming tariffs. Union-wide roaming services can stimulate the development of an internal telecommunications market in the Union.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Today, using a mobile phone has become as ordinary and necessary as eating and drinking. At the same time, the purpose of using phones has changed – in addition to calling, mobile phones are used for sending and receiving SMSs, browsing web pages or using GPS. The number of users and services is increasing day by day. Although, in recent years, more attention has been devoted to roaming fees for mobile communications, costs for the use of call and SMS services are, unfortunately, still unreasonably high, especially for data transmission, where prices can differ several hundredfold. I am pleased to welcome this report as a further development in the European internal market. If people can move freely from one Member State to another, they must also be able to communicate freely, and for a reasonable price, and to use different mobile communication services. For this reason, I supported the adoption of this report, and look forward to a reduction in mobile communications prices.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), in writing. – (DE) As far back as June 2007, the European Parliament passed the first regulation on roaming in German mobile communications networks. In doing so, we positively strengthened the internal market in mobile communications services. In particular, we cut the high prices for roaming considerably. However, the Commission’s July 2011 interim report showed that consumers are still not really offered tariffs lower than the maximum prices. We therefore want to strengthen competition and tackle the structural problems in the mobile communications market.

The agreement in the trialogue has now delivered good results which, to some extent, provide incentives for more competition – and that means lower prices in the long term – for consumers and for market operators.

For those who live in border regions, in particular, it should be emphasised that unintentional roaming will be made more difficult in the short term in that users will be informed how they can avoid these ‘expensive treats’ and use their mobile phones without roaming.

It remains to be said at this juncture that this must be effected in an unbureaucratic way and that reclaims procedures must also be straightforward.

I will be monitoring this closely and I will bring up all the negative elements that could possibly result over time in the review report that the Commission has to bring forward by 2016.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. –(IT) The cost of using mobile phones abroad (roaming) has long been much higher than the cost of domestic calls. The new EU regulation, which we voted in favour of this morning, puts an end to such unfair pricing practices. This is a victory for this House, which has always fought on behalf of our citizens to reduce the price of phone calls made abroad and to eliminate the abusive practices of large telecoms companies. There are many positive aspects to this text, foremost among which is the fact that from 1 July 2012, the regulation will also apply if European consumers travel abroad, outside EU territory. Another huge innovation is the fact that, from 1 July 2014, consumers will be able to take out a cheaper mobile roaming contract that is separate to their contract for domestic mobile services, while retaining the same phone number. Overall, this is an excellent first-reading agreement off the back of three trialogues with the Council; through it, EU citizens can see the new strength of the post-Lisbon Parliament in decisions that have a positive influence on their daily lives.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) I supported the roaming regulation with the proposed amendments because it introduces structural measures that will encourage competition. Mobile operators are the most prosperous businesses in this time of financial and economic crisis. Their massive daily advertising campaigns lure people into purchasing their services, often without publishing the prices for individual items, offering the services in packages where the consumer cannot compare prices for individual services. Mobile phones and data services have become an essential need in people’s everyday lives. All users will therefore surely welcome a reduction in prices for data services and roaming services. The approved decision has also created the possibility for consumers to choose between individual operators of mobile services.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. – (HU) This legislation will establish a common approach in order to ensure that in their travels within the EU, users of public mobile communication networks do not pay excessively high charges for roaming services within the EU as compared with national charges. Unfortunately, roaming tariffs continue to be unreasonably high compared to national charges, and the relationship between costs and prices is still far from what would prevail under actual competition circumstances. High tariffs impede the use of mobile devices during journeys across borders within the EU. In order to ensure a functioning internal market and the protection of consumers, we must guarantee fair roaming charges to EU citizens travelling abroad for leisure or work-related purposes. I am of the opinion that we must entirely eliminate the distinction between national and roaming tariffs as soon as possible. This proposal represents a considerable step towards this goal, as it reduces the costs of phone calls and text messages from other Member States, and compels market participants to compete in respect of data roaming as well.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In an era of communication without borders, the additional charges imposed on European consumers have become completely unjustified. Citizens who take holidays in Europe must no longer return home to find mobile phone bills that break the bank. This is also quite a bonus for all those citizens living in border regions. Most conveniently, the consumer will be able to enjoy this service without having to change their number. Finally, to stop consumers getting nasty surprises, operators will be obliged to send a message to the user containing all the tariffs applicable in the country they are entering, wherever they are in the world. European citizens currently pay too much for communications. My ultimate aim is that the consumer ends up paying a fair price. We will be carrying out a study between now and 2016, analysing the behaviour of operators following this new regulation. If we find that tariffs are still too high or that the margin between national and European services is too wide, we will introduce a new amendment procedure. For too long, real competition, which is beneficial to consumers, has been conspicuously absent. Parliament is coming to the rescue.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I have always stuck to the premise that less regulation and better regulation should be our goal when we legislate. Roaming has been a very sensitive issue for many years now, and the prices have been too high for our citizens. Given the importance of having a strong single market to boost the economy, roaming charges should be based on market prices. I voted ‘yes’ to better regulation and better protection for users, as well as the fair charges that service providers deserve.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The adoption of the report is good news for consumers throughout the European Union. Roaming rates will be significantly reduced thanks to the European Parliament. This will not only affect calls and text messages but also, for the first time, data transfers.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of this report. Market forces evidently have not managed to give rise to fair prices for cross-border telecommunications through economic competition. It is therefore right that the European Parliament should intervene and set ceilings for roaming fees. This is only meant to be one step in the right direction, however, in order to ensure that competition takes hold in this area and leads to significant falls in prices, perhaps even rendering roaming fees superfluous altogether. The timing of this decision has been well chosen – it comes just before the summer tourist season gets under way.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) While the aim of this draft regulation – to reduce the price of mobile roaming services – is important, it glosses over issues of sovereignty, the economy and public health, which we would like to address. While having an initial positive impact by lowering the regulated price of roaming services, the realisation of an EU internal market in this area will mean supply concentration in some transnational monopolies in the sector. This will lead to many workers losing their jobs and price increases, as seen in the realisation of internal markets in other industries. Spectrum space is increasingly being monopolised by, committed to or reserved for commercial ends, with very few exceptions. Public space is dead, with an increasingly small number of private companies dominating this public asset and natural resource shared between countries. The spectrum is being filled but the environmental and public health impact of this occupation has not been properly assessed and rules have not been imposed, despite the warnings made by many studies. The urgency of expanding technical applications and their rapid commercialisation by monopolies in the sector is taking precedence over safeguarding public health, which may have disastrous consequences for citizens and the environment.

Report: Dan Jørgensen (A7-0015/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, given the recommendations made by the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which believe that the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union has a crucial role in European environmental policy. By signing Regulation (EC) No 689/2008, entering into the Rotterdam Convention, the EU has set itself the goal of incentivising and increasing information exchange about the chemicals traded between the parties to the convention and also to implement the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure. The measure ensures that exporting countries of chemicals formally obtain consent from the importing countries before the export can take place. Mr Jørgensen’s proposal aims to limit the derogations usually adopted against the PIC procedure, thereby trying to defend the original meaning of the Convention. The joint intervention of the Commission and the designated national authorities will also be of significant help. This synergy will undoubtedly result in more accurate and reliable documentation on the possible impact on human health or the environment of using dangerous chemical substances in the importing country or another exporting country.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The export and import of dangerous chemicals requires close supervision. This report provides the necessary legal and environmental security. The proposal’s key elements provide greater clarity for exporters, without adding any additional administrative burden. Nevertheless, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) wished to make some amendments to rapporteur Dan Jørgensen’s report. He has now consented to significant concessions in support of our cause. The PPE Group has therefore achieved its key objective. This provides that chemicals originating in the European Union and in compliance with all legal European public health and environmental standards should not be prohibited from the world market, or replaced by chemicals subject to lower standards. Thus, the European Union can now export not only its chemicals, but also its legal standards.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this report. I welcome the new recast of the regulation prepared by the Commission. It is important to clarify certain definitions and align the regulation with recent legislation and involve the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in the implementation of the regulation. It would be logical to make use of the ECHA, which could take over much of the responsibility for implementing this regulation. I would not agree with changing the rules in the PIC procedure. The PIC procedure applies to chemicals, including pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons. When exporting these chemicals to third countries, the EU should take great care to ensure that this is not done against these countries’ will. I do not believe that the objective of ensuring revenue for the producers of dangerous chemicals, who find it difficult to sell these chemicals within the EU, should be more important to the EU than the EU’s obligation to protect human health and the environment.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because it provides additional legal clarity about chemicals, while also involving the European Chemicals Agency more in enforcing the regulation on the export and import of dangerous chemicals. I welcome the fact that a good balance has been reached on the prior informed consent procedure. At the present juncture, when 30% of chemical exports cannot be completed due to a lack of response from the importing countries, I think that the amendments tabled by the European Parliament will benefit chemicals originating from Europe on global markets, avoiding unjustified obstacles imposed by third countries. At the same time, this will further promote the European Union’s high public health and environmental standards, thereby preventing products from being replaced by some complying with lower standards in the abovementioned areas. I should also stress the importance of implementing measures for classifying, packaging and labelling chemicals, in line with Amendment 14 of Parliament’s proposal.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Jørgensen. Transparency over the trade and therefore export of chemical substances between the parties to the Rotterdam Convention, implemented in the EU through Regulation (EC) No 689/2008, is a political priority and an act of good sense that should always be ring-fenced in the name of the safety of all EU citizens.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it implements the Rotterdam Convention in the European Union, the aim of which is to promote information exchange about chemicals being traded between the parties to the convention and also to implement the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure when a party to the convention exports chemicals subject to the convention to another party to the convention. The PIC procedure helps to ensure that countries exporting chemicals formally obtain consent from the importing countries before the export can take place. By adopting a recast of the regulation today, the European Union goes beyond the Rotterdam Convention in the sense that the regulation includes more chemicals than the ones listed in the Rotterdam Convention. A recast of the PIC Regulation is necessary to clarify and align the regulation with chemical legislation adopted recently, to change the provisions related to external representation of the Union, to facilitate export and import conditions, and to apply stricter measures in connection with the inadequate implementation of these conditions.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Chemicals play a key role in our modern-day society. We use them every day, in items ranging from medicines to cars and building materials to toys. The European Union’s chemical industry is the third biggest industry in the world, generating waste directly from dangerous chemical substances and preparations. The aim of the regulation on the export and import of dangerous chemicals is to promote responsibilities and joint cooperation efforts on the international transportation of chemicals that pose a risk, with a view to protecting human health and the environment against potential harm. The regulation is applied to all chemicals exported to other parties to the convention or other countries, except where there is a conflict between the relevant provisions and any specific requirement of the parties or countries in question, along with compliance with the regulation’s provisions on classifying, packaging and labelling dangerous chemicals. The EU is a leading global player in the area of environmental legislation, and I think that we have a duty to maintain this position.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this as I am keen to protect the UK chemicals industry from over-regulation. The Chemical Industries Association has stated that unless bold steps are taken, many companies may seek to move manufacturing plants from Europe. In the current economic climate, it is my belief that more needs to be done to promote growth and investment and create incentives for manufacturing plants to be based in Europe. This means cutting the red tape that stifles development and seeking cost-effective solutions. In one of the worst recessions for generations, the chemicals industry has still driven more than GBP 1 billion into capital expenditure and spent more than GBP 5 billion on research and development, accounting for a third of the overall UK investment. The industry employs over half a million people and puts GBP 70 million a day into the UK economy, a grand total of GBP 17 billion a year. It is therefore essential that the industry is protected and concerns are heeded.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution as I believe that the EU must continue to play a leading role in environmental legislation. I also agree that we should limit the derogations from the prior informed consent procedure as it is the responsibility of the EU to ensure that the chemicals we export do not cause unnecessary harm to humans or the environment.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This regulation provides a clear legal basis for businesses trading with foreign countries in the chemical products sector. It therefore helps clarify which substances may be traded within the Union and the labelling requirements for their export. As a result, this proposal contributes to safety within EU borders without burdening exporter companies in the sector or compounding the task of the designated authorities. The regulation makes it possible to export substances that are not banned – but which do, however, need to be authorised by the destination country – to countries that have not responded within the agreed deadline if there is proof that they have been in use in the destination country for at least five years. Indeed, despite the Commission’s efforts, around 30% of past requests have not received a response, which de facto prevents trade in non-prohibited chemicals. Believing, as I do, that this regulation strikes the right compromise between citizens’ safety requirements and the consolidation of the single European market, I decided to vote in favour of the report on trade in dangerous chemicals.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text regulating trade in dangerous chemicals so as to ensure human safety and environmental protection. In particular, this report requires importing countries to give prior consent for trade in these dangerous products, even when these countries are not part of the EU. The adoption of such a regulation by Parliament meets our international commitments under the Rotterdam Convention, and even goes beyond its requirements, to better protect our fellow citizens.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the draft European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals. I did so because I believe that this report contains a balanced analysis of the role that the EU has to play in protecting human health and the environment, both within and outside Europe. The EU, deeming health and environmental protection to be of fundamental importance for its citizens, has decided to extend the list of prohibited chemicals established by the international Rotterdam Convention. I welcome the rapporteur’s suggestion to oppose allowing exporters to trade the listed products when they have not received a response within 60 days from the importing countries because this would create an exception that would be potentially harmful to the health and to the environment of those countries with weaker administrations. This goes against the purposes of the EU, and the Rotterdam Convention as well. It is important that that the EU carefully limits its derogations regarding the export of dangerous chemicals, since I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that the products we export do not have negative effects in other countries.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the export and import of dangerous chemicals because I believe the agreement reached with the Council introduces important provisions protecting human health and the environment, by applying the prior informed consent procedure provided for in the Rotterdam Convention.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has proposed to recast the regulation applying to the Rotterdam Convention on exchanging information on sales of chemicals sold: the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Regulation. The main objective is for chemicals produced in the European Union that comply with all EU environmental and health legislation not to be prevented from entering markets worldwide, thereby being replaced with chemicals that observe lower quality standards. By doing this, the European Union is not just ensuring the export of its chemicals, thereby protecting the European chemical industry, but is also safeguarding a high level of environmental protection.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 689/2008, or the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Regulation, applies the Rotterdam Convention; however, it goes further, covering a greater number of chemicals. Moreover, the regulation applies the PIC procedure to all countries that import the listed chemicals from the EU, not just the convention’s signatory countries. I support European Chemicals Agency involvement in applying the regulation so as to take on greater responsibility as regards the implementation thereof. The chemicals listed in items 2 and 3 of Annex I to the PIC Regulation are banned or severely restricted in the EU because they are often harmful to the environment and/or human health. It is important to take particular care with exporting these chemicals to third countries, ensuring that we do not do so against their will. I therefore agree with the rapporteur on limiting waivers for the PIC procedure, since it is the EU’s responsibility to ensure the chemicals we export do not cause unnecessary harm to humans or the environment.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report seems generally positive to us, so we voted for it. The Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Regulation applies the Rotterdam Convention in the EU, promotes information on the chemicals sold and applies the PIC procedure to exports of chemicals covered by the convention. As such, the mechanism ensures that countries exporting chemicals obtain the formal consent of importer countries before exporting them. The Commission proposal, supported by Parliament, clarifies some definitions and involves the European Chemicals Agency in implementing them. As such, it warns that the manufacturers of chemicals banned or restricted in the EU that normally choose to export them, specifically to countries with weaker legislation, will only be able to do so with formal certification that the third countries to which they are exporting these products are not opposed to receiving them, because some chemicals jeopardise public health and the environment; that issue is central to this regulation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The aim of the Rotterdam Convention, which is being implemented in the EU, is to promote information exchange about chemicals being traded between parties to the convention, and also to implement the prior informed consent procedure when a party to the convention exports chemicals subject to the convention to another party to the convention. It was important to change the rules of prior informed consent in order to make it easier for exporters of chemicals to export in cases where no response is forthcoming. The Commission argues that if a country does not respond to an export request, it might be because the authorities in that country do not feel the need to respond to requests regarding chemicals that are not listed in the Rotterdam Convention, but only in EU legislation. It might also be the case, however, that the country has a very weak administration and is therefore not capable of responding in time. In such cases, it seems very problematic, in my view, to allow the export of dangerous chemicals to these countries. If their administration is not able to react to an export request, it is not likely that the same administration is able to protect the citizens or the environment from dangerous chemicals. The EU is a leader when it comes to environmental legislation, and it should remain so. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the EU to ensure that the chemicals we export do not cause unnecessary harm to human health or the environment.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I supported this report. This report represents a compromise and the best available deal for Ireland and the EU under difficult circumstances. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mairead McGuinness who acted as shadow rapporteur for the EPP group. I am concerned that, under the current text, chemicals whose use is allowed for specific uses in the EU cannot be exported for the same verified uses in third countries. This is something that I feel needs to be resolved during the second reading. We need to ensure that we strike the right balance between environmental/health aspects, on the one hand, and trade/competitiveness aspects on the other.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals because Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 (PIC Regulation) implements the Rotterdam Convention in the European Union. The aim of the Rotterdam Convention is to promote information exchange about chemicals being traded between the parties to the convention and also to implement the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure when a party to the convention exports chemicals subject to the convention to another party to the convention. This is a mechanism that ensures that countries exporting chemicals formally obtain consent from the importing countries before the export can take place. This procedure applies to the chemicals listed in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention, which covers pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted by parties to the convention for health or environmental reasons and which have been notified by parties to the convention for inclusion in the PIC procedure. With Regulation (EC) No 689/2008, the EU goes beyond the Rotterdam Convention in the sense that the regulation includes more chemicals than the ones listed in the Rotterdam Convention. Furthermore, the regulation applies the PIC procedure to all countries that import the listed chemicals from the EU and not just countries that are parties to the convention.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) A degree of caution is required when it comes to the commercial transfer of chemicals between countries as they pose risks to the population as well as the environment. However, all the Commission’s proposal for amending the PIC (prior informed consent) Regulation is going to do is give producers of chemicals banned or restricted by the EU the opportunity to sell their products in countries which have clear-cut legislation on these transactions. We cannot allow it and I disagree that the ignorance of the governments of all the countries facing this situation should endanger people’s health. The only point I welcome in this proposal is the clarification of the definitions in the regulation and the involvement of the ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) in enforcing it. However, I think that it is absolutely imperative to restrict the departures from the PIC procedure allowed by the Commission, so as to fulfil the European Union’s duty to help create partnerships that are fair and beneficial to all the parties and states involved.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution. Exchange of information, shared responsibility and cooperative efforts between the Union and the Member States and third countries should be promoted with a view to ensuring sound management of chemicals, whether or not those third countries are parties to the convention. In particular, technical assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition should be provided directly by the Commission and the Member States, or indirectly via support for projects by non-governmental organisations, especially assistance seeking to enable those countries to implement the convention, thereby contributing to the prevention of harmful effects of chemicals on human health and the environment.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that the provisions thereof will better protect public health, the environment and even the economy than those of the Commission proposal. I believe we should not facilitate the export of banned or severely restricted chemicals from the European Union to third countries. I was therefore unable to vote for widening the possibility of waivers in this regard. Failure to respond to an export request could be due to a number of factors, such as a weak administration, economic frailty or the belief that the case is covered by the general law. Lack of response cannot, therefore, be taken as acceptance of imports of these chemicals. The EU’s role should not be that of facilitating the export of banned chemicals from European territory to third countries with weaker chemicals legislation or administrations. The EU should be committed to safeguarding public health and the environment, rather than the profits of European manufacturers of chemicals banned in the EU.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Some amendments have been made which I think are very effective. I agree that information exchange, shared responsibility and cooperative efforts between the Union and the Member States and third countries should be promoted with a view to ensuring sound management of chemicals, all of which applies equally even if those third countries are not parties to the convention. Moreover, technical assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition should be provided directly by the Commission and the Member States, or indirectly via support for projects by non-governmental organisations. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – To achieve and make possible a first reading agreement on this recast proposal, the rapporteur made substantive concessions by agreeing to this compromise text, which is a major departure from his original text. This was the best and only agreement possible and with that in mind, I vote in favour to secure the first reading agreement.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report regulating the trade in dangerous chemicals because it is concerned with ensuring public safety and protecting the environment. This report introduces amendments, such as requiring the prior consent of importer countries to the trade in these dangerous chemicals, even when they are not EU Member States. Adoption of this regulation safeguards the European Parliament’s international obligations under the Rotterdam Convention.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Regulation (EC) No 689/2008, known as the PIC (prior informed consent) Regulation, covers the export and import of dangerous chemicals and implements the Rotterdam Convention for the EU. I am in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The European Union is currently the world leader in terms of protection of the environment. I hope that we will remain so. While agreeing with the rapporteur that we need to simplify administrative procedures when transporting chemicals and align them with international agreements, I would therefore like to stress that this must be done so that there is not the slightest impact on the environment.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 implements the Rotterdam Convention in the EU, which promotes information exchange about chemicals being traded between the parties and implements the prior informed consent procedure. Under this system, those wishing to export the chemicals listed in the convention must receive the consent of the importer country. The regulation even goes beyond the convention itself because it covers a greater number of chemicals and applies the informed consent procedure to all countries that import from the EU, including third countries. The Commission proposes to increase the possible derogations from the prior informed consent procedure for third countries, thereby allowing – under certain conditions – a substance to be exported even if consent has not been received. However, some of these substances can be truly harmful to health and the environment. I therefore think it is too dangerous to use the Commission’s proposal in this case and declare my support for the report by Mr Jørgensen, who has made clear his disapproval. The EU should continue to play a leading role in environmental legislation in order to guarantee the health of citizens and of the environment.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree with the rapporteur’s amendments to the European Commission’s proposal for a regulation concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals. Dangerous chemicals should not be exported to another country unless consent is received from the importing country. Experience shows that countries importing cargo do not respond to queries because they do not see the need to answer requests concerning chemicals that are included in EU legislation, but not the Rotterdam Convention. I voted in favour of the report because I agree with the rapporteur and am opposed to the amendments to the European Commission’s proposals facilitating the export of dangerous chemicals. I urge you not to amend the regulation of the Rotterdam Convention, the most important objective of which is to protect human health and the environment.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is the EU’s responsibility to ensure the chemicals it exports do not cause unnecessary harm to humans or the environment. Therefore, and because I believe the EU should continue to play a leading role with environmental legislation, I voted for this motion for a resolution.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the recast Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals. Although this regulation followed the Rotterdam Convention, it is true that its scope goes beyond that, covering a greater number of chemicals. The Commission is now proposing a recasting of this regulation intended, specifically, to clarify certain definitions, to bring the regulation into line with recently adopted chemicals legislation, to increase the European Chemicals Agency’s involvement in implementing the regulation, and to amend the rules on the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure. This will make it easier for exporters to export the chemicals provided for in the PIC Regulation. I would stress that we must remain cautious regarding the possibility of waiving the PIC procedure for exports of chemicals considered harmful or dangerous to third countries, since it is the EU’s responsibility to ensure the chemicals we export do not cause harm to humans or the environment. I therefore voted for this report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The key points in the Commission proposal are: a) to widen the conditions under which exports can proceed in the absence of a reply from the importing country (chemical has been used in the importing country in the last five years and no regulatory action has been taken); b) to give the Commission exclusive competence for external representation in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty; c) to involve the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in certain administrative tasks. Point a) was suggested in response to complaints from EU traders concerned that they could not proceed with exports due to lack of prior informed consent (PIC), even when this lack of PIC was allegedly due to the administrative incapacity/unwillingness of the importing country to react, even though the substances were often not banned/restricted in the importing country. As Greens/EFA, we tried to get rid of the wider conditions and to introduce further safeguards in case exports proceed without PIC.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – I would like to thank our colleagues for their hard work on this dossier and to congratulate them on their successful negotiations with the Member States. As well as transposing the Rotterdam Convention into EU law, this agreement reflects Parliament’s additional concerns about the trade in dangerous chemicals. We are determined that the EU does not become complicit in the export of dangerous chemicals to countries which have not fully considered their impact and which may lack the capacity to use, store and dispose of them safely. I welcome the guarantees that this agreement provides, particularly with regard to those chemicals which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. –(IT) The European Union plays a leading role in environmental legislation and should continue to do so. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the EU to ensure that the chemicals we export do not cause undue harm to humans or the environment. Currently, the prior informed consent procedure in the import and export of dangerous chemicals ensures that exporting countries of substances formally obtain consent from the importing countries before the export can take place. This vote confirms and strengthens the previous provisions in this area, without resulting in any distortions. One of the goals that has been set out is to ensure that producers of chemicals that are banned or restricted in the EU will find it hard to sell these chemicals in Europe.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Jørgensen’s report on the recast of European legislation on the export and import of dangerous chemicals. This recast implements the Rotterdam Convention within the European Union, regulating trade in these products through the information exchange between the parties to the convention and the implementation of the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure, which requires exporting countries to formally obtain consent from the importing countries before the export can take place. The Commission has proposed recasting the legislation specifically to clarify certain definitions, involve the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and, above all, to facilitate the export of products when no response is received from the importing country, due to the fact that European legislation covers more chemical substances than the convention, by widening the possibility of derogations from the PIC procedure for substances that are banned or severely restricted, on account of the risks they represent to human health or the environment. The report sets out to restrict the possibilities for derogation and opposes the export of products against the will of importers. The report also limits the rights of the ECHA by preserving the right of Member States to control trade in dangerous chemicals.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The rapporteur stresses the importance of limiting derogations from the PIC procedure because it is the role of the EU to ensure that the chemicals exported do not cause negative consequences, either to humans or to the environment, and therefore this report has to be supported. Its adoption will improve the sharing of information on dangerous chemicals, including how to store, transport, use and dispose of these chemicals safely.

Report: Carlo Casini (A7-0072/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report and the related amendments. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for making European institutional processes more democratic by increasing the institutional role of the European Parliament, which is the only European institution that enjoys direct universal suffrage. I therefore believe there is a need for European Commission delegated acts to come under greater scrutiny from the European Parliament, so as to make the European Union’s institutional system more democratic.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty radically changed certain legislative procedures, particularly for the European Parliament. The comitology procedure was therefore adapted to take into account Parliament’s new powers. This was the system used by Member States to control the Commission’s adoption of implementing acts as part of EU legislation. However, since the entry into force of the new Treaty, this procedure has been turned into a new system for adopting delegated acts and implementing acts. I have approved the amendment to new Rules 87a and 88, which lay down the standard procedure to be followed.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this report. I agree with the amendment of Rules 87 and 88 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of amending Rules 87a and 88 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure because this will clarify how to adopt quickly both delegated and implementing acts. The two new rules are important as they define the procedure to be followed by a responsible committee. Given that the Lisbon Treaty’s entry into force has radically changed the comitology procedure, I welcome the new Rule 87a, which sets out the procedure to be followed if the Commission refers a delegated act to Parliament, and the new Rule 88, which takes into account the ways of exercising the implementing powers. I also think that a new Rule 88a needs to be introduced, which provides specific provisions for associated committees or joint meetings, since it supplements the provisions in the two previous rules.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) While the preparation of delegated acts and implementing acts by the Commission is necessary to ensure the implementation and effective application of decisions adopted by the Council and the European Parliament, Parliament must have the right of scrutiny of these acts, as part of its role in monitoring the Commission. This will clearly be the case with this text, which lays down the procedure to be followed. I have therefore given it my full backing. It is essential that the EU acts in the sole interests of its citizens and that they have the right to scrutinise all legislative steps.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Carlo Casini concerns the proposed amendment of Rule 87a on delegated acts and Rule 88 on implementing acts of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. These were created with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, which profoundly changed the comitology procedure. Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for measures for the Member States to control the Commission’s executive powers. Therefore, following the amendments to the Rules of Procedure and in view of the President of the European Parliament’s request to set out more clearly the arrangements for rapidly approving a delegated act or implementing act, the codecision procedures urgently need to be streamlined. I am voting for the proposals to amend Rules 87a and 88 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure; specifically, I agree that the procedure to be followed should be that of a single committee responsible, without associated or jointly responsible committees.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon radically changed the comitology procedure, turning it into a new system for adopting delegated acts and implementing acts; see Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The implementation of Article 290 of the TFEU was the subject of a non-binding common understanding between the EU institutions. The common understanding concerning Article 291 of the TFEU provided for the adoption of a regulation laying down ‘in advance the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers’. The report proposes changes to the comitology rules. The new Rule 87a, in combination with the new Rule 88, lays down the standard procedure to be followed. The rapporteur proposes a procedure setting out more clearly the rules for cases requiring rapid approval or implementation of a delegated act; that is positive. Another positive element of this proposal is the possibility that a political group – or 40 Members – can contest the competent committee’s decision. It is important that there be increased control over the Commission’s executive powers. It is therefore crucial that the national parliaments have the same power.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty brought about a radical change in the comitology procedure. The revision of the Rules of Procedure entailed by the changes stemming from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty also enables us to meet a request from the President of the European Parliament for a procedure which sets out more clearly the arrangements for the rapid approval of a delegated act or implementing act. The new Rule 87a, in combination with the new Rule 88, lays down the procedure to be followed in the majority of cases – i.e. the procedure for the committee responsible without the associated committees or committees jointly responsible. In the case of Rule 87a (delegated acts), it was necessary to define the procedure whereby Parliament declares, prior to the expiry of the deadline set in the basic legislative act, that it does not intend to raise objections to the delegated act, as provided for in item 11 of the common understanding, particularly in order to enhance the legal certainty of any such decision. In the case of Rule 88 (implementing acts), in the event that the new provisions will apply immediately in respect of legislative acts adopted after the entry into force of the new Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, during the period needed to bring the existing legislation into line, a number of legislative acts will continue to be covered by the regulatory procedure with scrutiny pursuant to Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. The provisions of Article 5a should therefore continue to apply to the basic acts to which it refers.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – Generally speaking, comitology procedure refers to the mandate of the European Commission to execute its implementing powers delegated to it by the legislative branch (the European Parliament and the Council). This delegation of power is now based on Article 290 TFEU. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty changed the comitology procedure, turning it into a new system for adopting delegated acts and implementing acts. The new Rule 87a, in combination with the new Rule 88, lays down the standard procedure to be followed where consideration of the proposed delegated act or implementing act by a committee responsible is involved, this without being associated committees or committees jointly responsible. The procedure applicable in cases involving associated committees or committees jointly responsible is laid down in a new Rule 88a. The revision of the Rules of Procedure is welcomed for it allows for the rapid approval of a delegated act or implementing act; it provided more flexibility in the process, all while strengthening the democratic principles of separation of power. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which sets out a new procedure for adopting delegated acts and implementing acts. The aim is to have a procedure which sets out more clearly the arrangements for their rapid approval.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I will be voting in favour of the report by Mr Casini, in which I think it is very important to point out the excellent work on clarifying the Commission’s powers. The revision of the Rules of Procedure entailed by these changes stemming from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon was carried out correctly and will undoubtedly enable us to meet a request from the President of the European Parliament for a procedure which sets out more clearly the arrangements for the rapid approval of a delegated act or implementing act.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted to amend Rules 87a and 88 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, setting out more clearly the arrangements for approving a delegated act or implementing act, thereby making the procedure in question more efficient and faster.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The change in the comitology procedure due to the Lisbon Treaty enables a new procedure for adopting delegated acts and implementing acts. The aim is to have a procedure which sets out more clearly the arrangements for their rapid approval. There is no precise and clear interaction of bodies. The report is amorphous. I abstained.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon profoundly changed the comitology procedure, turning it into a new system that provides for adopting delegated acts and implementing acts. I voted for this amendment to Rules 87a and 88 of the Rules of Procedure, which adapts them to the new situation. Of these amendments, I would highlight the new Rule 87a, which fills an existing gap by creating specific rules applicable to the processes of associated committees and joint committee meetings.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is intended to adapt the Rules of Procedure to the new system introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon for exercising implementing powers, which is currently based on approving delegated acts and implementing acts, pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. More specifically, it concerns the need, already identified by the President of the European Parliament, to provide for a procedure setting out more clearly the arrangements for rapidly approving a delegated act or implementing act, whether there is just one committee responsible, or whether this is taking place in the context of associated committees or joint committee meetings. In the latter case, this also adapts the Rules of Procedure to the provisions of the recent Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. As regards delegated acts, the new rules provide for changes in the procedures to be followed and deadlines to be met by the committees involved (including in cases where Rules 50 and 51 applied for the adoption of the legislative act) and/or by the groups when tabling motions for resolutions to object to delegated acts, revoke a delegation of powers (the two possibilities laid down in Article 290 TFEU) or on the contrary, and in exceptional cases (notably in cases of urgency), give rapid approval prior to the deadlines. As regards implementing acts, the new rules need to take into account transitional provisions governing revision of the existing basic acts based on Articles 3, 4 or 5 of the old Comitology Decision. This means that during the time needed to bring the existing legislation in line, a number of legislative acts will continue to be covered by the old procedure. For the Greens/EFA, this ensures proper procedures within Parliament so that both all the committees involved and the groups can effectively exercise the new rights for Parliament deriving from the Lisbon Treaty.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) It was essential to make changes to the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament because of the revolutionary changes that the Treaty of Lisbon introduced to the comitology procedure.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The rapporteur argues that regulatory measures with scrutiny should become delegated acts when the existing legislation is adapted. It seems more appropriate to retain terminology which makes a clear distinction between implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU and measures which, for a transitional period, are still covered by the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. Specific provisions govern procedures with associated committees or joint committee meetings (Rule 88a): the incorporation of the new Rule 88a reflects the need to take account of cases in which the basic act was adopted under the procedure provided for in Rule 50 or 51 of the Rules of Procedure. This new rule, which lays down the procedure to be followed in such cases, thus supplements the provisions of the preceding rules.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon radically changed the comitology procedure, turning it into a new system for adopting delegated acts and implementing acts; see Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The implementation of Article 290 TFEU was the subject of a non-binding common understanding between the institutions. The common understanding concerning Article 291 TFEU provided for the adoption of a regulation laying down ‘in advance the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers’. The Casini report proposes changes to the comitology rules. The new Rule 87a, in combination with the new Rule 88, lays down the standard procedure to be followed. The rapporteur proposes a procedure setting out more clearly the rules for cases requiring rapid approval or implementation of a delegated act. This proposal’s most positive element is the possibility that a group – or 40 Members – can contest the decision of the committee responsible. What is contradictory about this process is that Parliament is gaining this power rather than the European Council and the national parliaments, which have the power to control their governments’ actions.

Report: Cecilia Wikström (A7-0152/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since it is also considered that in order to promote the public goods of reducing litigation, promoting access to justice, ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and securing an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the right to a private life, the Commission should carry out extensive consultations with interested parties, including journalists, the media and specialist lawyers and judges, with a view to proposing the creation of a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, by way of alternative dispute resolution. I think this would be a much more progressive and 21st century approach to the resolution of such disputes and facilitate a move towards a more modern mediation-friendly justice culture.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the proposal to add to the Rome II Regulation a provision to govern the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which makes the necessary amendments to the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality. I would emphasise the proper balance between freedom of expression and respect for private life. I share the opinion of the rapporteur on the need to adapt existing legislation to extend the scope of the law to different content published on the Internet. This report also makes it possible to better identify which law is applicable in the case of cross-border litigation.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution including recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) because I agree with the recitals on which it is founded and because the recommendations are consensual.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Where a person believes his or her rights have been infringed through content placed online on a website, he or she should have the option of bringing an action for liability, with a view to compensation for the damage caused. However, the Rome II Regulation does not include provisions setting out the law applicable to violations of privacy and rights relating to personality. This loophole has contributed to the emergence of controversy on ‘libel tourism’, whereby the claimant chooses the jurisdiction allowing him or her the most favourable result: ‘forum shopping’. I am therefore voting for this initiative and call on the Commission to table the necessary proposals for correcting this situation. I also consider important the proposal to create a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation. This should be another step towards the pursuit of a genuine European area of justice, which should always take into account promoting access to justice, safeguard the smooth running of the internal market, and ensure the proper balance between freedom of expression and the right to private life.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which aims to clarify the national law applicable to violations of privacy and rights relating to personality. It was right to establish legal certainty on this issue, given that defamation claimants were playing national courts off against each other, choosing to bring actions in those considered most likely to produce a favourable result. The development of ‘libel tourism’ was, in return, threatening freedom of expression. Better protection of our fellow EU citizens’ individual rights, now that is what Europe stands for.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendations made to the Commission on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). The report calls on the Commission to add to the Rome II Regulation a provision governing the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the Rome II Regulation does not include a provision on determining what law is applicable to infringements of private life and rights relating to personality, it is important to amend it to insert a provision governing the right applicable to non-contractual obligations resulting from infringements of private life and rights relating to personality, including defamation. I agree with the rapporteur for this very reason.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European public’s mobility has been increasing exponentially in recent years, on account of both their longevity and the EU’s eastwards expansion. As well as this increased mobility, the data belonging to each of us know ever fewer borders. The Internet, and social media in particular, have put our personal, professional and social data a click away. This situation represents the ease with which social media can invade many people’s privacy without them leaving their desks, but can also make the public more vulnerable. In fact, defamation cases are increasingly common internationally and it is essential to specify what legislation is applicable. This report includes recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). Although I believe these amendments could have a negative impact on freedom of expression, I voted in favour because the right to keep private life private needs to be balanced with the right to information. Moreover, I welcome the proposal to create an alternative system for settling disputes by mutual agreement.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes an amendment to the regulation governing the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). It basically seeks to clarify which legislation is applicable to cases of breaches of rights relating to personality through online content or printed material, where the person who believes his or her rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability.

The issue claimed to justify this need is the ease with which a claimant can currently elect to bring an action for defamation in the jurisdiction considered most likely to produce a favourable result, known as ‘libel tourism’. This amendment sets out clearer rules, for example, that the applicable law shall be the law of the country in which the most significant element of the loss or damage occurred, and, in the case of printed matter, shall be deemed to be the law of the country to which the publication is principally directed. The inalienable and non-transmissible right of all individuals to control the use of their body, name, image and privacy, etc. should be protected and safeguarded.

It should be mentioned that this amendment also includes a recital stating that ‘This regulation does not prevent Member States from applying their constitutional rules relating to freedom of the press’ ...

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) It is extremely important that corrective remedies are available when freedom is abused, particularly when this is to the detriment of people’s private lives and reputations. Each Member State should ensure that such remedies are effective in the event that these rights are infringed. Member States should also strive to ensure that prohibitively high legal costs do not, in practice, result in any claimant being denied access to justice. Each State must determine the proper balance between the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression, as it thinks fit. These rights are guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In order to promote the public goods of reducing litigation, promoting access to justice, ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and securing an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the right to a private life, I think the Commission should carry out extensive consultations with interested parties, including journalists, the media and specialist lawyers and judges, with a view to proposing the creation of a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, by way of alternative dispute resolution. In my opinion, this would be a significant move towards a more modern mediation-friendly justice culture.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The Swedish Conservatives today abstained in the vote on the amendment of the regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. We believe that rules governing the choice of law in this area must not come into conflict with the Swedish Freedom of the Press Ordinance and the fundamental law on the freedom of expression. This proposal could result in such conflicts if a Swedish court is required to apply foreign law. If this means that current exceptions do not remain in place, the legislation ought very clearly to give precedence to constitutional provisions in individual countries, such as the Swedish Freedom of the Press Ordinance and the fundamental law on the freedom of expression.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the document because the Commission is asked to submit, on the basis of point (c) of Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal designed to add to the Rome II Regulation a provision to govern the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex hereto. The Commission is also asked to submit, on the basis of point (d) of Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for the creation of a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, by way of alternative dispute resolution. It is believed that the requested proposal will not have financial implications.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Press and media freedom are hallmarks of a democratic society and legal remedies must be available when that freedom is abused, particularly to the detriment of people’s private lives and reputation. Each Member State should ensure that such remedies exist and are effective in cases of infringements of such rights. Member States should strive to ensure that prohibitively high legal costs do not result in any claimant being denied access to justice in practice. The cost of legal proceedings can also be ruinous for the media.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Wikström. In particular, in order to promote the public goods of reducing litigation costs, promoting access to justice, ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and securing an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the right to a private life, I agree on the need for the Commission to carry out extensive consultations with interested parties, including journalists, the media and specialist lawyers and judges, with a view to proposing the creation of a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report including recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), specifically as regards introducing fundamental rights such as freedom of expression on social media, the right to privacy and other rights relating to personality. Without clearly adopting these fundamental principles, the pillars of democratic society will cease to exist. In a democratic society, legal remedies must be available when these freedoms are abused and each Member State should ensure that such remedies exist and are effective where such rights are breached.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) This report proposes an addition to the regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), which is essentially aimed at clarifying what legislation is applicable in cases of infringement of personality rights, when a person who considers that his or her rights have been infringed by content published, printed or placed on the Internet has the option of bringing an action through civil liability. This amendment is necessary as nowadays, it is too easy for claimants to bring an action for defamation in the jurisdiction which, at the same time, they believe the most likely to produce a favourable result, giving rise to a phenomenon known as ‘libel tourism’. With this amendment to the regulation, the rules are more clearly defined, such as the law applicable to one country or another with regard to the publication of printed matter, for example. I have voted in favour of this report.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Cross-border defamation occurs extremely easily through the use of new technologies. Therefore, which law should be applied? Which country is competent? It is important to establish clear rules within the EU to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the right to a private life. The creation of a single authority will help to determine which country is competent in cases of international litigation. In a hyper-connected world, in a world where the impact of information has increased tenfold, the EU needed to establish such a body. Respect for the right to a private life and the image rights of individuals must be guaranteed within the European Union. Fundamental rights and freedoms must be exercised with respect for democratic values.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report provides an answer to widespread concerns over an increase in libel tourism (claimants choosing the most favourable jurisdictions for their suit). I agree with the proposal to ask the Commission to consider for its future working programme a conflict of laws solution for privacy and rights relating to personality, which should be integrated into the Rome II Regulation. It builds on Parliament’s position of 6 July 2005, which was rejected in the Council.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Digital technologies allow publicly available information to be published throughout the world on the Internet. A problem arises when such information offends personal honour and dignity and is of a defamatory nature. We therefore need to lay down provisions on choice of law, which would be applicable in such cases. I welcome the regulation’s proposed provision contained in the report establishing the opportunity to choose the law in cases relating to violations of privacy and rights relating to personality.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Rome II Regulation lays down which law should apply to non-contractual obligations where more than one Member State is involved. This includes, for example, product liability or culpa in contrahendo. Essentially, the regulation stipulates that the law that applies is either that of the State in which the damage occurs or that in which the person suffering damage habitually resides. Hitherto, however, Rome II has not applied to cases connected with the protection of privacy and the freedom of opinion. However, increased use of the Internet has given rise to numerous cross-border cases in precisely that area. Rome II does not, in essence, mean any harmonisation of the substantive law. The regulation contains conflict rules that make it possible to determine which law is to be applied. I would not be in favour of any substantive harmonisation, as the Member States often differ in the way they balance the legal rights to privacy and freedom of opinion. This balance must be respected, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. I voted accordingly.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report and the recommendations contained therein to amend Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, adding a provision regarding rights arising from the inviolability of privacy and rights relating to personality – the right to apply to a non-contractual obligation arising out of defamation, among other things, the law of the country in which the most significant elements of the loss or damage occur. This is necessary in order to prevent so-called ‘libel tourism’ that occurs at present, in which the aggrieved party chooses to initiate legal proceedings in the country in which s/he is most likely to obtain a favourable result (in the form of greater compensation, for instance), and thereby place publishers in an unfair position. Another recommendation contained in the report for solving the abovementioned problematic situation is to create a separate institution for the resolution of disputes arising from such cross-border violations of privacy and rights relating to personality (including defamation) – an extra-judicial dispute resolution centre that would, in addition to preventing libel tourism, help protect the publisher’s rights on a par with those of the aggrieved party.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s recommendations in this report are consensual. I also agree with the recitals on which the aforementioned recommendations are based, so I voted for this motion for a resolution including recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report includes recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). It is particularly concerned with infringements of personality rights by means of content placed online on a website. In this sense, the person who considers his or her rights to have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established, or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his or her interests is based. The intention is, in this way, to add to the Rome II Regulation a provision governing the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Rome II Regulation currently lacks a provision for determining the law applicable to violations of privacy and rights relating to personality. In this context, the report calls on the Commission to submit: a) a proposal designed to add a provision to the Rome II Regulation to govern the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation; and b) a proposal for the creation of a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, by way of alternative dispute resolution.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. –(IT) I voted in favour of this report because I am in favour of the recommendations on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, as set forth in the Rome II Regulation. The basic principle will, therefore, be rounded off by a foreseeability clause. In a democratic society such as ours, the right to a private life is a fundamental and sacrosanct right. When personal freedom is violated, it must be possible to take legal action. The goal is to ensure both freedom of expression and the right to privacy in a way that maintains a balance between these two priorities.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In the past, few people had the opportunity to use the traditional media as a means of expression. Today, technological development and the resultant boom in Internet use have given rise to new ways of infringing personality rights. Statements verging on, and often overstepping, the limits of freedom of expression have multiplied in the electronic media. Defamations have become an international issue. Unfortunately, when the regulation concerning non-contractual obligations (Rome II) was adopted, the protection of personality rights was excluded from its scope. I believe that in order to ensure transparency and predictability, conflict of law norms pertaining to delict law should be consolidated. Although Member States have the right to establish the balance between the various fundamental rights at their own discretion, it is high time that in the interest of legal certainty, we make it clear, at Community level as well, what laws are applicable to liabilities for damages arising from privacy and personality rights’ infringements.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). I think that legal remedies must be available when people’s freedom is abused, particularly when it is detrimental to their privacy and reputation. Every Member State must ensure that these remedies are available and effective in the event of infringement of these rights. The Rome II Regulation lacks a provision for determining the law applicable to violations of privacy and rights relating to personality. Therefore, we call on the Commission to submit a proposal designed to add to the Rome II Regulation a provision for determining the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation. In order to promote the public benefit gained from reducing the amount of litigation, improving access to justice, ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and striking an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy, the Commission should propose the creation of a centre for the amicable settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of the violation of the right to privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, by means of alternative dispute resolution.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes an amendment to Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, seeking to clarify what legislation is applicable to cases of breaches of rights relating to personality – the inalienable and non-transmissible right of all individuals to control the use of, inter alia, their body, name, image and privacy – through online content or printed material, where the person who believes his or her rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability. This need is justified by the ease with which a claimant can currently elect to bring an action for defamation in the jurisdiction considered most likely to produce a favourable result, known as ‘libel tourism’. This amendment sets out clearer rules, for example, that in the case of a judicial complaint, the applicable law shall be the law of the country in which the most significant element of the loss or damage occurred, and, in the case of printed matter, shall be determined by sales or audience size. The report’s content could help to clarify legal proceedings in these cases while safeguarding each Member State’s own laws at the same time.

Report: Niccolò Rinaldi (A7-0104/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I am convinced that the Commission’s trade initiatives need to be supported by a stronger presence of EU trade officials on the ground. I also deplore the fact that the EU Delegation has only one trade official in Tunisia and has no presence whatsoever in Jordan, despite conducting scoping exercises for deep and comprehensive free trade agreements with those countries. The EU must fully coordinate its trade, investment and financing support activities in the region in order to ensure maximum positive impact. It is a concern that the significant number of actors, both internally within the EU and in the partner countries themselves, as well as other external actors, could lead to crucial efforts being wasted or duplicated through a lack of coordination. I will conclude by saying that, without closer coordination between the European Neighbourhood Policy financing instruments, such as the Neighbourhood Investment Facility, and the different EU and international and regional financial institutions in the region, including the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, we will be unable to guarantee maximum effectiveness and coherence.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution because it states that the Arab Spring has offered the EU the opportunity to match its commercial and foreign policy interests with its core value of human rights. The Lisbon Treaty defines international trade as one of the three arms of the EU’s external action and requires coherence between foreign affairs and international development policies. It is in the highest interests of the European Union to adopt a strategy that is flexible, mutually beneficial, and based on support for democratic transition. In addition, I believe that the call for the reconsideration of the public external debt of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East to be of fundamental importance. That debt was built by the dictatorial regimes, mostly through the personal enrichment of the political elite and the purchasing of arms, which were often used to oppress their own populations.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since the Arab Spring, the European Union has strived to promote stability and democracy in neighbouring Mediterranean countries. To support them in their transition, we believe it is important to increase trade by focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). As pointed out by the rapporteur, Niccolò Rinaldi, this trade strategy could enable job creation and help to dismantle oligarchies. It is imperative that our cooperation includes financial support for SMEs through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank. We must also promote cultural and educational exchanges within the framework of the Euromed Erasmus and Da Vinci programmes. In this way, we can share our democratic values by creating a real Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Arab Spring has provided an opportunity to develop more active economic cooperation between the EU and the countries of the Mediterranean region. I entirely agree with the need to adopt a mutually beneficial, responsible and flexible cooperation strategy based on democratic principles. It is very important for the EU to use this opportunity to draw up mutually beneficial trade agreements on goods and services, thus encouraging the liberation process in the economic and trade landscape as well as the consolidation of democratic reforms in the countries of the Mediterranean region. I also welcome the proposal to strengthen the EU’s role as an investor in the countries of the Mediterranean region. To achieve this objective, the EIB should be given a broader mandate to provide further investments for small and medium-sized enterprises in European and Mediterranean countries. It is very important to dismantle existing tariff barriers in goods and agricultural products and expand the scope of trade agreements, etc. Visa facilitation would be one of the most important incentives for trade and cooperation.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) This report supports the Commission’s policy of taking a liberal approach. Deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (DCFTAs) entail the dismantling of tariff barriers and opening of markets and may weaken these emerging economies. Social, environmental, educational and cultural issues are not addressed sufficiently, contrary to the aspirations of the people. Furthermore, DCFTAs are the result of a long process with strict criteria, particularly the obligation to align with European internal market regulations. In addition, these numerous requirements are not related to the prospect of integration into the European Union, as may have been the case for the countries of Eastern Europe. Do we need reminding of the EU’s failure in relation to the Mediterranean? These agreements focus on bilateral relations, failing to provide support for the regional integration of these countries. Instead, such agreements pit these countries against each other for the honour of being ‘champions’ who meet their criteria. At a time when Europeans are considering the possibility of European protectionism, we are demanding the opposite from our Southern partners. Is that really consistent? Is it fair? I do not believe so and that is why I am voting against this report, despite the fact that it does have some positive aspects.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Despite some good parts, overall, I do not share the rapporteur’s outlook and have voted against the report. Specifically, I find some assessments of the Arab Spring to be too optimistic and I do not agree with the proposal on visa facilitation based on the pretext of facilitating mobility for businesspeople. Moreover, two aspects were decisive in leading me to vote against the report: the lack of care for the interests of EU businesses and the desire to create a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area, which would have extremely damaging repercussions for our businesses.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the only key to permanent stability, security and economic development and progress in Europe is by developing good relations with neighbouring countries, in order to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union. The Lisbon Treaty defines international trade as one of the three arms of the EU’s external action and requires coherence with its other policies: foreign affairs and international development. Although trade has always been a strong pillar in the neighbourhood policy, there is a perception that the European Union should be more proactive in aiding political and economic transformations in neighbouring countries. The economic and political reconstruction of the countries of North Africa in the aftermath of the Arab Spring is not being overseen by regional institutions – no specific Euro-Mediterranean financial institution exists. Furthermore, the economies of Southern Mediterranean countries (SMCs) have thus far been run by undemocratic leaders to the benefit of the few, often overlooking the needs of the most vulnerable. The European Union has exclusive competence over trade and investment policy, which allows it to provide an effective response to the upheavals and to contribute to economic and social progress in SMCs. It is therefore very important for the European Union to aim high regarding economic cooperation and to adopt a strategy that is mutually beneficial, responsible and flexible, based on support for democratic transition and the defence of human rights.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the report, while underlining its strategic and structured nature and the careful articulation of the areas of policy action for the existing instruments. Moving from a frank analysis of the mistakes that have prevented effective stabilisation initiatives in this area, in favour of bilateral and regional tactics and policies, the report acknowledges the need to create a free trade area, which will act as an expression of the EU’s external policy action. It also highlights the need to involve the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (with an extended mandate) to promote deep and comprehensive free trade agreements, to support the creation of legal systems and legal, administrative, financial and civil frameworks that will contribute to the establishment of a business-friendly environment and to bolstering the middle class – an essential part of the equation for developing proper, stable models of democracy. Furthermore, the report courageously tackles the delicate issue of the dubious link between free economies and civil rights through the ‘more for more’ doctrine, which will ensure a more targeted aid policy that is based on regular, careful monitoring of results.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as I do not believe it is the prerogative of the EU to act as a mediator in international affairs and set terms for democratic transitions and trade deals, etc. As part of the international community, Britain as a sovereign country and member of NATO and the UN has opportunity to cast its opinion in such matters. However, the EU is a democratically bankrupt supranational organisation that I believe is on the cusp of witnessing its own revolutionary spring as elections across Europe demonstrate growing distaste for austerity-led policies to protect the single currency. It is thus laughable that the EU should demand support for the transition to democracy in the Arab Spring countries when it has shown little willingness over the past few decades to host open and fair referenda and tackle the democratic deficit of its own triumvirate system.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution because it tries to make a real contribution to relations between the EU and all the Mediterranean countries in the light of the changed conditions following the Arab Spring revolutions. On the one hand, the proposal urges the EU to act with increasing diligence to incentivise international trade together with all EU businesses looking to invest outside the EU, thereby contributing to the establishment of a free and inclusive Euro-Mediterranean market. On the other hand, the text looks at those countries that have begun their journey towards democracy since the Arab Spring to try and ensure that these people understand that economic development is possible and that it is the first step towards the prospect of a better life. My support for this initiative is due, lastly, to the fact that I consider this not only a commercial strategy for its own sake, but the start of a series of initiatives that the EU and the countries of the Southern Mediterranean must be capable of pursuing and coordinating with increasing vigour, skill and effectiveness with regard to democracy, development and the well-being of all citizens involved.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution because I believe the Arab Spring – the greatest political transformation in the European neighbourhood since the fall of the Berlin Wall – constitutes an opportunity for the EU to match its foreign policy and commercial interests with its core values of human rights, democracy and a free society. This resolution is in line with that aim.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Arab Spring has raised huge expectations for democratic and economic growth for Southern Mediterranean countries. These two phenomena must go hand-in-hand, generating a virtuous cycle from which Europe can also benefit. The EU is therefore duty-bound to take this opportunity to promote the development of the affected countries. Economic and democratic growth in the EU’s neighbouring countries is beneficial not only to these countries, but also to all the Member States. By establishing trade relations with such countries, European businesses – and especially Italian businesses, for obvious geographical reasons – will have a chance to recover from the current economic situation, while problems related to migration would also be alleviated. Bearing this in mind, the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) is essential, since it is responsible for promoting the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in the area. Moreover, we also need to promote integration in the area so as to develop internal trade there, which is currently very limited. I therefore voted in favour of this report on the EU trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the European Union trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean following the Arab Spring revolutions. The European Union is using this report to send a strong signal of its support for the democratic aspirations expressed by the peoples of the Southern Mediterranean. At the same time, I would like to highlight that some EU Member States have not yet ratified the amendments to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Agreement. Considering the experience the bank has gained in Eastern and Southern Europe and the beneficial impact it could have in the Southern Mediterranean as well, I think that the decision to extend the EBRD’s mandate to the Southern Mediterranean needs to be ratified urgently by all EU Member States.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which sets out our priorities for cooperating with our Mediterranean neighbours and helping them to rebuild and embark on genuine economic and social development to the benefit of all. The Arab Spring revolutions offered the EU a unique opportunity to match its commercial and foreign policy interests with its core democratic values. That is why I support the Commission’s approach that ongoing political and democratic progress should be accompanied by a more open economy and trade.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the vote on this resolution on the EU’s commercial strategy for Southern Mediterranean countries. The text is very balanced and constitutes a good, in-depth analysis of the current situation following the Arab Spring. It offers, I think, some good medium- and long-term prospects. Beyond a simple commercial strategy, this is about developing trade with our neighbours and guiding them so as to provide support for the democratic transition of these countries. It is vital that we play a role at this level so that their populations see a significant improvement in their rights and living conditions.

That is why it nonetheless seemed important to me to draw the attention of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) to certain issues, for example, the greater involvement of civil society in future partnerships. It would also be sensible for the European Central Bank to give stronger support to the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Southern Mediterranean countries. SMEs should be at the heart of growth in these countries. In conclusion, I will finish on a point which, to me, seems fundamental: mobility and student exchanges between both shores of the Mediterranean. It would be advisable to adopt extensive programmes promoting such exchanges, since our countries’ future depends on a greater understanding of each other.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Arab Spring can be considered the most significant political transformation in Europe’s neighbourhood. This process presents us with an excellent opportunity to harmonise the EU’s trade and foreign policy interests with the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and free society.

It is well known that the EU has exclusive competence over trade and investment policy, which allows it to provide an effective response to the upheavals. The perception amongst the civil societies of the Southern Mediterranean countries is that the EU should be more proactive in aiding political and economic transformation in the region. Since the 2008 economic crisis directly affected the main sectors that represent the economic drivers of the Southern Mediterranean countries, and since the turmoil experienced by Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Libya during the Arab Spring has further compounded the economic downturn in those countries, I find it necessary to strengthen relations in terms of the creation of investment opportunities. This strategy must be implemented in full cooperation with the other policy areas. Through the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), the European Investment Bank (EIB) plays an important role in supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Southern Mediterranean. These enterprises need essential investment to allow them to innovate and restructure in a manner that would enable them to tap the potential of the EU’s internal market. Additionally, I welcome the recent extension of the EBRD’s mandate and I hope that the bank’s experience in Eastern Europe will bear fruit in the southern neighbourhood.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on the EU trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean following the Arab Spring revolutions because I believe that a determined EU strategy for the development of economic and trade relations with these neighbouring countries is fundamental. Since international trade is one of the exclusive competences of the EU, given the importance of the Euro-Mediterranean strategy resulting from the Barcelona Process and in view of Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that the EU must develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries with the aim of establishing an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, I believe that the European Union has both the legal competence and the political responsibility to trigger a serious engagement in the area. I very much welcome the introduction of the ‘more for more’ principle, since it can represent a very effective tool to enable tailor-made and bottom-up strategies, which are fundamental for tackling the different economic and societal demands of the different Southern Mediterranean countries (SMCs), while also ensuring that funding schemes, shaped according to the political and economic ambitions of SMCs, are sufficiently effective.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I advocate a new EU trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean, in view of the socio-economic changes caused by the Arab Spring revolutions. Trade and investment policy is an exclusive EU competence, which should provide innovative instruments for achieving the goals of democracy, prosperity, stability and peace in the region.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The so-called Arab Spring was a ‘breath of fresh air’ sweeping through the countries of the Southern Mediterranean. Imbued with a longing for freedom and social justice, civil society drove a revolution that toppled a number of totalitarian regimes. However, in some countries, we are starting to witness smatterings of religious intolerance from the Islamic majority, in breach of the rights, freedoms and safeguards enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is intolerable that we are witnessing the Islamic majorities negatively discriminating against Christians when they used to live side-by-side. This report concerns the EU trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean following the Arab Spring revolutions. Although negotiations with Morocco have not progressed as much as is desirable, the fact is that a memorandum for the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) was agreed with the countries of the Southern Mediterranean in December 2011, which was aimed at their integration with the single market. The EU should continue supporting these countries, particularly with regard to implementing the democratic process and to fostering entrepreneurship and student mobility. However, it should also demand absolute respect for human rights.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this report is to tackle the challenges to EU trade and investment policy following the democratic movements in the Middle East and North Africa. The rapporteur characterises the movements as an ‘unparalleled historical event’ and then as ‘opportunities to open up the economies of the region and create a true market economy’, regardless of whether or not that is what the peoples in question choose.

The report makes weak criticisms of the role of the EU and its Member States in maintaining relations with these regions’ dictatorships for decades; they may have been dictatorships but were also ‘market economies’, in line with the present criteria. The report highlights the social, economic and democratic weakness of the various countries, but explains at the same time that ‘the EU is the biggest consumer market in the world, to which access should only be granted if partner countries are serious about engaging in the bilateral opening of markets’. It argues that deep and comprehensive free trade agreements are the right path towards these regions’ social and economic development. The entire report is inspired by a neoliberal vision and an apology for free trade. Obviously, we voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Arab Spring is the greatest political transformation in the European neighbourhood since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and has offered the EU the opportunity to match its commercial and foreign policy interests with its core values of human rights, democracy and a free society. The EU has exclusive competence over trade and investment policy, which allows it to provide an effective response to the upheavals, and to contribute to economic and social progress in Southern Mediterranean countries. I consider it essential for the EU to coordinate its support for trade, investment and financing fully in the region, in order to ensure maximum positive impact. Given the significant number of internal actors within the EU, such as the various Directorates-General of the Commission, the Members States and the European Investment Bank, and the external actors such as the partner countries themselves, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Islamic Development Bank, the African Development Bank and even the G8, it is extremely important to ensure synergy between the measures in order to avoid a ‘doubling up’ of activities. The Arab Spring is a challenge for the EU and for a more determined effort at trade liberalisation and the creation of investment opportunities. This strategy should be conducted in full cooperation with other policy areas with the aim of creating training opportunities for business people, promoting participation in EU programmes and facilitating visa access.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report is a highly political document. In my opinion, the assessments of what has happened in some countries in the area are too premature and optimistic, putting concerns over escalating violence and religious fundamentalism in the shade. What is more, this is a report by the Committee on International Trade, so it should look, above all, at the legitimate interests of European businesses, not aid for third countries. For these reasons, I voted against the report.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) On the one hand, this report offers further progress on human rights and the involvement of civil society. On the other hand, it unfortunately does not support the greater regional independence needed to deal with biased trade relations with the European Union. Therefore, I had no choice but to abstain.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which calls on the European Union to proactively support through trade the democratic transitions occurring in North Africa. This report particularly emphasises the need to carry forward existing trade agreements and develop these further using a dynamic approach, adapted to suit the characteristics of each country. Finally, this is an opportunity for us to give greater focus to EU programmes, by supporting organic farming and Fair Trade, by regulating the arms trade, by providing general technical support and by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has reiterated its support for the process of economic development and democratisation occurring in the Southern Mediterranean countries by adopting a report that defines EU strategy in two areas: trade and investment. This balanced report, adopted by a large majority, introduces ambitious proposals with a view to strengthening Euro-Mediterranean relations: the ‘more for more’ approach linking the political and economic dimensions, the active participation of civil society, support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly through the European Investment Bank (EIB), the promotion of the European Neighbourhood Facility for Agriculture and Rural Development and regional integration. The development of a close relationship with our Mediterranean partners is vital to the prosperity of this region, to a deeper economic partnership and to genuine political cooperation. That is why I welcome the adoption of this report, which demonstrates a broad consensus within Parliament on this issue.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) This report, on developments in trade in the Mediterranean, provides a balanced and well-founded analysis of the current state of play in relation to the latest events in that part of the world. As we move towards a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area, the new ‘more for more’ approach put forward in the report represents the linking of political progress on the road to more extensive democratisation with the liberalisation of the economic and trade landscape. I voted in favour of this report as trade and investment represent two strong pillars in the development of relations between the EU and the countries of the Southern Mediterranean. Trade and investment represent an effective response to the latest challenges in this region and will contribute to economic and democratic progress in the countries in question.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Arab Spring was a major event and was triggered both by people’s aspirations for freedom and by the desire to improve living standards.

The unrest continues in this region at the moment and is obviously linked to the weaknesses in the local economies. The main features of these are an unequal distribution of wealth, inadequate economic reforms, limited ability to create jobs and a low level of commercial integration in the region.

I think that these countries have to revitalise their economies to achieve sustainable and inclusive economic growth. To do this, they need much more consistent and appropriate support from the EU to promote genuine economic development for the benefit of all the region’s inhabitants. These states must also be encouraged to create a sound legislative framework, conducive to business and entrepreneurship, providing an important role for small and medium-sized enterprises, which make a key contribution to creating jobs.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which stresses that, while country-specific commercial strategies should be welcomed, these agreements should not be to the detriment of regional integration. It also regrets that South-South trade remains very limited and notes, in this regard, that in 2009, only 6% of SMC imports originated in other Southern Mediterranean countries (SMCs), compared to 40% from the EU. The resolution encourages the new democratically elected governments to be more open than their predecessors towards trading with neighbouring countries.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Particularly in light of the recent events of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, the European Union should be able to play a much more ambitious role with the countries of the Southern Mediterranean, especially in the spheres of the economy, business and trade. The aim of this would be to offer opportunities for exchange between civil and business communities, bringing political leadership at long last.

We are convinced of the need for the EU’s trade, investment and financing support activities in the region to be totally coordinated in order to have the maximum positive impact. This strategy should be conducted in full cooperation with other policy fields to create training opportunities for business people, promote participation in EU programmes and facilitate visa access. We therefore welcome the ‘more for more’ concept introduced by the Commission and believe that achievements on democratic reforms and individual freedoms should be mirrored by a liberalisation process in the economic and trade landscape, in order to dismantle the oligarchies which have traditionally dominated.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As per the Committee on Foreign Affairs’ opinion of last 17 February, I would like to underline the importance of tolerance and economic development, which are fundamental contributors to long-term political and social stability, and for improving living standards in the affected countries. I also think it is important for the countries in democratic transition to ensure full respect for all fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of religion, conscience and thought for all citizens, both men and women, including the members of Coptic Christian communities.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report offers the Arab revolutions nothing more than the prospect of establishing the same free trade area that the European Union had ‘agreed to’ with the overturned regimes. It claims that this is the aspiration of the Arab people.

Anyone who votes for this text shows scorn for the struggle of the Arab people for a better life. I shall vote against.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Arab Spring is the greatest political transformation in the European neighbourhood since the fall of the Berlin Wall and has offered the EU the opportunity to match its foreign policy and commercial interests with its core values of human rights, democracy and a free society. The Arab Spring is a unique opportunity for serious engagement and for the EU to display political leadership. It does not call for the reinvention of the wheel but for a more determined effort at trade liberalisation and the creation of investment opportunities. This strategy should be conducted in full cooperation with other policy fields to create training opportunities for business people, promote participation in EU programmes and facilitate visa access.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) The soul of the report reflects the liberal focus of the EU: it characterises the uprisings in the region as an opportunity to open up the economies of the region and create a true market economy. The report also welcomes the opening of negotiations on deeper and more comprehensive free trade areas with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which have played a part (the EIB is still doing so) in privatisation processes in those countries. Precisely because of the spirit and the demands of the Arab Spring, because of the role the EU has played in the region, being complicit in the dictatorships, because of the fragility that some North African states are still experiencing, I voted against to make it clear that the solutions being proposed will crush prosperity and stability in the region. The EU is taking advantage of the weakness of some of these countries in order to impose free trade.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Arab Spring has given the EU a unique opportunity for renewed engagement with the countries of the Southern Mediterranean. This report examines how the EU can live up to its promises following the changes in the southern neighbourhood. Furthermore, it looks at greater commercial engagement balanced alongside human rights, democracy, sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. A very important report, I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) There can be no denying that the events of last spring have profoundly changed the outlook of all countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean: they have escaped from regimes that had been in power for several decades and often dominated by a charismatic leader. We should therefore look favourably on a change that brings greater democracy and participation, while being wary about how the various situations are dealt with. Pretty much everywhere, where more or less ‘free’ elections have been organised, the Islamic fundamentalist parties have done very well, influencing the political and social climate as a result. Therefore, it looks a bit risky to me to embark this early on such important initiatives with these countries, which still do not offer the necessary guarantees, especially in terms of social and economic stability. Europe was wrong to behave in an almost servile way with the previous leaders, but I do not want Europe to make another mistake by launching itself enthusiastically into new relationships, especially where trade is concerned, which I would not want us to regret quite quickly. That is why I decided to vote against this report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that trade is a very effective EU instrument directly linked to foreign policy and development aid, and that the EU must respond to the expectations of civil societies in the countries concerned as soon as possible and increase its active support for progressive reforms. Trade agreements and the promotion of trade between countries is an excellent means of really encouraging progress in reforms without direct interference. The more important objectives of trade dialogues with these countries should include economic diversification and the stimulation of employment for young people and women, the reduction of corruption, and transparency. At the same time, I believe that while actively developing EU trade relations with the Arab countries, mutually beneficial trade links between the EU and Israel – the EU’s Mediterranean partner – should not be put on ice.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) It is the European Union’s duty to support the process of continuing and expanding the reforms launched in the Arab states in the wake of the Arab Spring, which was a highlight of 2011. This support must include measures relating to EU trade policy. However, I insist that we must apply to farmers in these states, wishing to export to EU Member States, the obligation to comply with the same standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare which are imposed on European farmers. Any product reaching the European consumer’s table must comply with these standards, which are the highest in the world as well as being very costly.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Arab Spring represents the biggest opportunity for the EU to expand its market and create growth in Southern Mediterranean countries in what is an unprecedented social climate. However, the EU needs a proper strategy on investment, on expanding trade, and on opening up the market by creating a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area, all of which has been discussed for some time but never put into practice. Unfortunately, the EU’s foreign policy is still struggling a great deal and is unable to take strong, shared decisions. That said, it looks as if the future will see greater room for manoeuvre towards a sound political integration and trade policy with the Arab Spring countries, building around the ‘more for more’ principle, whereby the parties commit to work for a bilateral opening of their markets, to the benefit of citizens and the social and economic reforms undertaken in these countries.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since I consider the Arab Spring an unparalleled historical event instigated by the peoples’ aspirations for freedom, democratic rights and an improvement of their living standards. I view very positively the fair and transparent elections that have taken place in several North African countries, accompanied by economic, legal and social reforms that make it possible to ensure these countries’ unity by establishing democratic and pluralist institutions, thus laying the groundwork for increased stability and development. However, I was bound to vote against item 15 of the report because I believe that the margin for agricultural negotiations between the EU and this body of countries should be given due consideration: otherwise, we run the risk that excess EU political enthusiasm will disproportionately penalise European farmers.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Mr Rinaldi’s report is very ambitious and gives us a chance to reflect on the effects – and also the causes – of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. In contrast to the rapporteur, however, I think the view that has been set out is too optimistic and that many of the proposed measures are more pertinent to development cooperation than to international trade.

The growing instability and increasingly extremist political trends which are increasingly being seen in countries such as Egypt and Libya prevent me from sharing in the overall feeling of confidence over the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ and the rather premature comparison, in my view, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The ‘more for more’ principle should be at the heart of EU policy on Mediterranean countries and any increase in European contributions ought to be dependent on real reforms designed to bring about thoroughgoing democracy in these countries. Only then will we be able to discuss a possible review of tariff barriers.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Arab Spring is the greatest political transformation in the European neighbourhood since the fall of the Berlin Wall and has offered the EU the opportunity to match its foreign policy with its commercial interests. As such, achievements in terms of democratic reforms and individual freedoms should be mirrored by a similar process in the economic landscape. It is in this field that the EU will have an important role to play, provided that appropriate political, social and environmental commitments are made and met by Southern Mediterranean countries. Some of this report’s proposals concern the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The former is key to helping small and medium-sized enterprises, through granting micro-credit. In turn, the latter should make use of the experience acquired in Eastern Europe when making its contribution. The set of objectives to be achieved include creating the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area and facilitating knowledge and direct contacts through exchanges between students and the business communities in Europe and Southern Mediterranean countries. This is a unique opportunity for Europe to show political leadership, so I voted for this report.

  Jean Roatta (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Arab Spring represents an unprecedented revolution in the Mediterranean world. These revolutions have redefined the relationships between the Southern Mediterranean and the European Union, and have built a new trading partnership, founded on fundamental values such as human rights and democracy. This partnership must therefore be consolidated through the establishment of a free trade area, regional integration and a trade strategy. We have a unique opportunity to cooperate in the fields of employment and growth, to step up regional integration and the presence of the European Union through its trade, investment and financing activities. The report reaffirms trade as a solid pillar in the European Neighbourhood Policy, and as a means of involving SMEs by making them an additional tool for economic democratisation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. The Greens have a rather critical stance to the FTA policy in principle. In the Mediterranean, the Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) commissioned by DG Trade for the EuroMed FTA project has – along with problems of the environmental carrying capacity of the basin – indicated increased social hardships in the short to medium term, which could be detrimental to the democratic aspirations of its people. However, the Greens accept that in the EU’s neighbourhood, countries will need to be aligned to the EU economy. In this sense, a reasonably timed DCFTA approach might be the right way ahead. This is surely true for the devastated economies of the eastern neighbours.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This is a highly political report, which sets out a series of views that are very far removed from reality and overly optimistic in its assessment of the Arab Spring – the biggest political transformation since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Mr Rinaldi strongly criticises the Union’s diplomatic weakness in North Africa, but fails to remember that the absence and severe limitations of the High Representative do not only apply in that area, but highlight the lack of a European foreign policy. I am against the report since it includes some problematic passages, such as the call to increase European Investment Bank financing and aid, particularly for the small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) of the Southern Mediterranean, and the proposal on visa facilitation for businesspeople, as used for Turkey. Since the report barely addresses the matter of a common commercial policy that would protect our businesses, I voted against.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted with absolute conviction against this report. I understand Mr Rinaldi’s position, but I do not share his enthusiastically positive stance on the outcomes of the so-called Arab Spring. I do not agree on his call for the creation of a free trade area with the countries of North Africa, which would seriously damage our textiles industry and agriculture, which have already been hampered by an unprecedented crisis. Lastly, I do not approve of the general tone of the report, which focuses exclusively on protecting and promoting the interests of the other party, while completely forgetting to refer to and defend legitimate EU trading interests. It seems more like a report by the Committee on Development than one by the Committee on International Trade.

  Edward Scicluna (S&D), in writing. – The collapse of a series of autocratic governments in North Africa during the Arab Spring radically changes the outlook for the EU’s trade and investment with our neighbours across the Mediterranean, and underlines the need for a revised strategy. In particular, I support the report’s references to the role of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Arab Spring countries do not share the desire of the former Eastern bloc to become EU members, but they do demand political and economic reforms which the EU and the EBRD can help them with. While it is important that this Parliament and the Council of Ministers ratify the amendments to the EBRD agreement so that the bank can become fully operational in the region and increase the funding available for EBRD investment, one should not sideline the long-term request of the countries bordering the north and south for a Mediterranean Investment Bank which would be owned and managed by them. This is important both for ourselves and North African countries. There are thousands of small businesses in the south Mediterranean who are crying out for access to investment tailored to their specific needs.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. –(IT) Even though I am generally in favour of the report that we have voted on, since the EU and the Member States should make greater efforts to support the transition to democracy in the countries of the Arab Spring, I did vote against two paragraphs that refer to promoting trade relations, which could damage European agriculture. The controversial partnership agreement between the EU and Morocco in the sector of certain agricultural products, providing for an increase in trade volumes at low customs duties, is still fresh in the memory. The risk of another positive vote on this text could de facto form the basis for new agreements that would be damaging for our farmers or other sectors in the long run.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the EU trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean following the Arab Spring revolutions. A successful commercial strategy for the region must strengthen the role of SMEs, which provide as much as 30% of employment in some countries. Greater efforts need to be made to reduce the high number of unregistered SMEs operating in the ‘black market’. Certain studies put the percentage of informal employment (excluding agriculture) in certain Southern Mediterranean countries at 70%. I regret that SMEs and cooperatives have limited access to investment, and I insist on the need to provide proper access to funding through the reliable, accessible and user-friendly provision of micro-credit and counter-guarantee schemes by the European Investment Bank (EIB). In this regard, I welcome the recent extension of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s mandate. Visa facilitation is still a problem for many representatives of SMEs in Southern Mediterranean countries who intend to visit EU institutions for meetings, training courses or other business reasons. The EU is responsible for taking the lead in facilitating the region’s transition towards democracy and economic integration, supported by a fair and free market.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Parliament today voted for a report on the EU trade and investment strategy for the Southern Mediterranean. This is yet another European Union report which still fails to learn any lessons from the citizens’ demands during what has come to be called the Arab Spring. In this report, relations between both sides of the Mediterranean remain mainly economic relations based on free trade. Niccolò Rinaldi (rapporteur of this liberal text) even dares to say that ‘Trade (…) facilitates a more equitable distribution of wealth’. He goes on to add that some Mediterranean countries ‘inherit large quantities of assets and natural resources’. Do we still need to ask ourselves who in fact exploits them? The EU is more anxious to protect the interests of its major companies than it is to see the wealth of these countries benefit the populations who brought about the revolution, first and foremost for social reasons. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance managed to include in this report the need to reconsider what is considered to be an odious debt. I therefore could not vote in favour of a report which is profoundly at odds with my view of international relations.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The rapporteur stresses the necessity of appropriate political, social and environmental commitments by the third countries, dialogue among minorities, religious groups and political parties, promotion of local know-how, guaranteeing equivalent social, environmental and phytosanitary standards, and highlights the importance of compliance with international labour law. Therefore, the role of civil society has to be taken into more consideration as an engine of democracy and economic prosperity. This report supports the creation of even deeper and more comprehensive free trade agreements and economic relations for the Southern Mediterranean area, the empowering pilot programmes for agricultural, rural and regional development, the empowering of education, especially for women, the use of EU money by SMEs in Southern Mediterranean countries and many more strategies. It had, therefore, to be supported.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report states that the European Union will now be in a much better position to develop its external policy and its trade agreements with the countries of the Southern Mediterranean. The rapporteur argues that, following the popular revolutions, these countries will now move towards democratic ideas. However, it should be remembered that the nature of the previous regimes did not inconvenience the EU until then and nor did their governments, with which they established deep relationships. It should be recalled that Ben-Ali’s party was a member of the Socialist International until he was overthrown by the Tunisian people’s struggle. Following the European Commission’s lead, the report advocates the ‘more for more’ concept; that is, democratic reforms and individual freedoms should be reflected in a so-called ‘liberation’ process in the economic and trade landscape, by consolidating the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area. It also advocates the use of the notorious free trade agreements, which have, to date, demonstrated that they only lead to peoples losing sovereignty, multinationals appropriating natural resources and biodiversity, increased dependence for third countries, and disaster for some Member States’ productive sectors, particularly in those with more fragile economies, like Portugal.

Patenting of essential biological processes (B7-0228/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which starts by acknowledging the important role of the European Patent Office in supporting innovation, competitiveness and economic growth in Europe, and by recognising that patents promote the dissemination of valuable technical information and are an important tool for the transfer of technology. However, the Commission needs to coordinate with the Member States on addressing, in its forthcoming report, the potential implications of the patenting of breeding methods for plants and their impact on the breeding industry, agriculture, the food industry and food security.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am thoroughly convinced of the need to have a patents system that is harmonised at European level because this is a key tool for the transfer of technology. However, I voted in favour of this report, which plans to protect European breeders against excessive protection by patents. We have generally recognised that ‘excessively broad patent protection can hamper innovation and progress and become detrimental to small and medium breeders by blocking access to animal and plant genetic resources’.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this motion for a resolution. I welcome the decision of the board of appeal, dealing with the correct interpretation of the term ‘essentially biological processes for the production of plants (or animals)’ used in Directive 98/44/EC, which excludes such processes from patentability. I agree that intellectual property rights are important for stimulating the development of new plant varieties and are a prerequisite for boosting growth and innovation. However, in the area of breeding in particular, excessively broad patent protection hampers innovation and progress and is detrimental to small and medium breeders by blocking access to animal and plant genetic resources.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Thursday 10 May, I voted in favour of the resolution ‘Patenting of essential biological processes’. The issue of patentability is a sensitive one as it underlines, on the one hand, the need for greater protection for European innovation and, on the other, the need to support European businesses by promoting research. Furthermore, we must set clear limits in line with our ethical principles: we cannot authorise patents on living matter. That is why, in this vote, Parliament opposed by a substantial majority the possibility of patenting plants and animals bred through conventional selection procedures. This vote endorses our determination to combat the appropriation of living matter. We must therefore pursue our action along the following lines: we must protect intellectual property without limiting access to these species, and preserve agricultural biotechnology without hampering European innovation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Intellectual property rights are key to stimulating the development of new plant varieties and plant-related innovations, and are a necessary prerequisite for boosting growth and innovation and helping European business, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, to face the economic crisis and global competition.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution was tabled following a Commission statement pursuant to Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and concerns patenting essential biological processes. Around 800 patent applications are submitted every year, adding up to thousands in a few years. Although there are rules on patenting, we need greater legal certainty in this regard. Clearly, patents need to be protected, since registration thereof defends inventors, encourages research and stimulates the economy. However, not all genetic manipulation should be allowed. It should not be possible to patent natural products, such as plants and animals, and only crossing by traditional methods should be allowed. It is the future of the planet that is at stake. We need a climate of honesty, so life cannot be patented. I voted for this report because I argue that the process should be more transparent – companies cannot falsify data or use tricks – and that it should only be possible to patent something that is new and relevant to humanity.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We do not fully support some of the resolution’s observations on intellectual property rights or the reference to the European Patent Office supporting competitiveness. However, this resolution is positive overall, even including some important clarifications. It is intended to prevent abuses of the rules for patenting living beings and processes involving improvements to living beings or parts thereof.

It is very significant that the report argues that it should be impossible to patent agricultural processes, such as improving species and the new varieties created, which seeks to ensure that farmers are able to continue using centuries-old improvement processes and have access to their products without being at the mercy of multinationals. There is a need to ensure free circulation of scientific information and to prevent disproportionate profits from being made from biological processes or the manipulation thereof. We also welcome the exclusion from patentability of essentially biological processes and the results thereof, and call for reflection on the consequences of patenting. The resolution highlights the Commission’s failure to report ‘on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering’, which should take place annually pursuant to Directive 98/44/EC ...

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Intellectual property rights are important for stimulating the development of new plant varieties and plant-related innovations, and are a necessary prerequisite for boosting growth and innovation and helping European business, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, to confront the economic crisis and global competition. In the area of breeding, in particular, excessively broad patent protection can hamper innovation and progress and become detrimental to small and medium-sized breeders by blocking access to animal and plant genetic resources. The breeding of plants is an essential prerequisite for the security of food supply and, to some extent, of energy supply as well. Conventional breeding methods are of critical importance to modern plant and animal breeding. It is a fundamental principle of the international system of plant variety rights that the holder of a plant variety cannot prevent others from using the protected plant for further breeding activities. I think it is important that a similar privilege should exist within patent law throughout the European Union, since patents promote the dissemination of valuable technical information and are an important tool for the transfer of technology.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) By voting in favour of a resolution such as this, Parliament has sent a decisive message to the Commission and the European Patent Office (EPO), which echoes citizens’ demands: we want to put an end to the appropriation of living matter. The Commission has a duty to ensure compliance with European law and the EPO is being asked to comply with European legislation prohibiting patents on conventional seeds. The threat of world agro-genetic resources being concentrated in the hands of a limited number of seed and agro-chemical companies entails disastrous consequences for our farmers and also, further afield, for those in developing countries. While 90% of the world’s biological heritage is in the hands of developing countries, 97% of patents are held by the industrialised world. Indigenous populations and the most deprived are therefore the forgotten victims of multinational companies. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in Parliament will remain extremely alert to any future modifications to the patenting system, which is totally unsuitable and must be reformed.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because intellectual property rights are important for stimulating the development of new plant varieties and plant-related innovations, and are a necessary prerequisite for boosting growth and innovation and helping European business, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to face the economic crisis and global competition. Especially in the area of breeding, excessively broad patent protection can hamper innovation and progress and become detrimental to small and medium breeders by blocking access to animal and plant genetic resources. The breeding of plants is an essential prerequisite for the security of food supply and, to some extent, of energy supply. Conventional breeding methods are critically important for modern plant and animal breeding. The Commission is therefore urged to address in its forthcoming report the potential implications of the patenting of breeding methods for plants and their impact on the breeding industry, agriculture, the food industry and food security. The Commission and the Member States must ensure that the EU will continue to apply a comprehensive breeders’ exemption in its patent law for plant and animal breeding.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of this motion as it is very important that the non-patentability of biological breeding methods should be maintained in agriculture. Our farmers and breeders must continue to have available to them the unrestricted diversity of genetic resources from farm animals and agricultural crops. I would therefore like to express my emphatic opposition to the patentability of biological methods for breeding plants and animals and of breeding material used in conventional breeding, along with my support for the EU continuing to apply a comprehensive breeders’ exemption in its patent law, applying across the Union, for plant and animal breeding. Patent protection for essential biological processes of this kind would be unethical and would stand in the way of innovation and progress in the field of breeding, in particular, and be to the detriment of breeders.

  George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. – Today, I voted against the motion for a resolution on bio-patents. Together with my Liberal colleagues, I considered that this issue should have been debated in a broader context as part of an in-depth analysis of the current legislation and the recent decisions of the EPO. The postponement of today’s vote we requested was unfortunately rejected. It would have allowed time to reach a genuine political balance between the rights of plant breeders and the rights of those who hold patents on innovative breeding processes such as smart breeding. The approved resolution presents the debate as a settled matter and a mere clarification of current practice. This is not the case. I am committed to defend the breeders’ exemption principle under the Plant Variety Rights Directive. However, this cannot be a full blown exemption infringing the rights of the original right holder. A distinction must be made between free access to conventional breeding material for research and respect of the patent holder’s right through licensing when new varieties are commercialised and still contain the patented trait. This resolution literally removes all incentives for smart breeding developments and risks hampering innovation in an area where Europe is a frontrunner.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I consider essential biological processes natural heritage; they are humanity’s heritage, so they can never be patented or have intellectual property rights declared thereon. The resolution’s core goal is to exclude from patentability a number of processes: in particular, essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals; products derived from conventional breeding; all conventional breeding methods, including SMART breeding, which is also known as precision breeding; and breeding material used for conventional breeding. I voted for the report for that reason. However, I should add that I believe patents are often an obstacle to technology transfer.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of this joint resolution. I especially agree on the call for the European Patent Office (EPO) to exclude from patenting those products derived from conventional breeding and all conventional breeding methods, including SMART breeding (precision breeding) and breeding material used for conventional breeding.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I supported the oral amendment that called for a delay in today’s vote, to allow Members time to scrutinise and debate the issue. The oral amendment was not approved. The failure to debate this motion for a resolution, to debate the matter of the patenting of essential biological processes and also these aspects of European patent law more broadly, meant that I was unable to support the text. I therefore abstained on the final vote of this motion for a resolution.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that intellectual property rights are important for stimulating growth and innovation, and that excessively broad patent protection can hamper innovation and progress, I voted for the European Parliament resolution on the patenting of essential biological processes.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) Despite not being fully in agreement with some of the points made in the report with regard to property rights, I voted in favour of this report as I believe that, in general, the resolution is positive, as it tries to stop abuse in patenting living beings and biological processes. Defending the fact that it is impossible to patent agricultural processes gives farmers the guarantee that they can continue using agricultural processes without being dependent on multinationals. We must ensure the free movement of scientific information and stop disproportionate profits from being obtained from biological processes.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In the resolution, Parliament acknowledges the important role of the European Patent Office in supporting innovation, competitiveness and economic growth in Europe. I voted in favour.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution since it is vital for encouraging an explanation of a situation fraught with legal uncertainty, with a potential impact on farmers’ activities, which is also likely to cause concern among public opinion. The complex nature of the issue requires further wide-ranging debate because the solutions referred to by the resolution are necessary, but not enough. Parliament must send out a strong signal on this issue because no one can own a patent on nature. However, there is no need for the current or future debates to turn into a battle against the companies involved in research, and intellectual property rights based on sound arguments should not be brought into question.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I consider intellectual property rights important for stimulating the development of new plant varieties and plant-related innovations. Indeed, recognition thereof is a prerequisite for boosting growth and innovation.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This concerns a motion for a resolution on patenting essential biological processes. Intellectual property rights are important for stimulating the development of new plant varieties and plant-related innovations. Moreover, they are a necessary prerequisite for boosting growth and innovation and helping European businesses to face the economic crisis and global competition. However, excessively broad patent protection can hamper innovation and progress and become detrimental to small and medium-sized breeders by blocking access to animal and plant genetic resources. So as to treat differently that which is different, I believe that patents can be granted in the field of genetic engineering, but that prohibition of patents on plant and animal varieties has to be safeguarded, since I consider plant breeding an essential prerequisite for the security of the food supply and, to some extent, of the energy supply. I voted for this report for the aforementioned reasons.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted, as did 191 MEPs, against the resolution on the patenting of essential biological processes. Indeed, behind that legal jargon lurks one of the most important struggles at this moment in time: what place is given to therapeutic freedom in an open and modern society? We are entitled to question the motivations of the signatories of this resolution, who ‘almost clandestinely’ brought it as far as plenary, when what is at issue appears to be the legitimate respect for species variety, in this instance, broccoli and tomatoes … These appealing demands ill disguise a struggle of quite different proportions: the future of scientific research in Europe. The unnatural coalition between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has let its mask slip with the adoption of amendments which glorify the European judges’ very troubling decision of 18 October 2011 which excludes any possibility of patenting the human embryo, despite the fact that these cells are used to treat neurological diseases. It is troubling indeed that scientific obscurantism is back with a vengeance. Liberals, progressives and humanists must form a coalition now to ensure that, in the Eighth Research programme, the ethics of hope triumph, which is what the majority of patients and researchers are calling for.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The main objectives of our group were: 1) to protect farmers and breeders from the burden of paying fees to patent holders or being prevented from breeding activities by patent holders who have been granted patent protection when this should have been excluded; and 2) to draw attention to the need to follow closely the European Patent Office’s practice in granting patents, as the Office too often appears biased in favour of patent applicants in its interpretation – also – of Directive 98/44.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, which reiterates the principle that plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, as well as all derivative products of conventional reproduction, shall not be patentable. The Commission had appealed against the European Patent Office granting patents on tomatoes and broccoli. I maintain that intellectual property rights are essential – and in this case, vital – for stimulating the development of new plant varieties and plant-related innovations. Patents allow small and medium-sized enterprises, especially, to add impetus to growth and innovation and help European businesses to stand up to the economic crisis and global competition.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I have voted in favour of this resolution for several reasons. First of all, because I think it is fundamental to ensure that plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals shall not be patentable. Secondly, I am satisfied to see that patenting processes that come from genetic engineering are protected. Thirdly, I see that the resolution includes provisions to ensure that patenting doesn’t hamper innovation and further research. In this sense, giving support to exclude breeding processes from being patentable is a step in the right direction.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution on the patenting of essential biological processes. MEPs want to protect European breeders against excessive protection by patents, which could hamper innovation and restrict animal and plant genetic diversity. This is an important subject because of its multiple consequences, particularly for agriculture, industry and food safety as well as the risks of privatisation and the patentability of living matter. Fortunately, a certain number of ‘pro-GMO’ amendments were rejected by Parliament. I also welcome the fact that the European Patent Office (EPO) now excludes patentability from processes consisting of natural crossing. The resolution also proposes to extend the exclusion of patentability to a range of genetic material and sources in order to prevent the exclusions from being bypassed. Parliament, in voting for this text, is on the right lines in aiming to prohibit any marketing of living matter. This may have multiple positive effects and consequences, in particular for biodiversity, and we can go even further in this direction.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution is intended to prevent abuses of the rules for patenting living beings and processes involving improvements to living beings or parts thereof. It is very significant that the report argues that it should be impossible to patent agricultural processes, such as improving species and the new varieties created, which seeks to ensure that farmers are able to continue using centuries-old improvement processes and have access to their products without being at the mercy of multinationals. It is essential to ensure free circulation of scientific information and to prevent disproportionate profits from being made from biological processes or the manipulation thereof.

Maritime Piracy (B7-0226/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report and would stress the importance of close cooperation with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in the field of maritime capacity building as well as the work towards the conclusion of an EU-IMO Strategic Partnership to counter piracy in the wider Horn of Africa. I also believe that the use of private armed guards is no substitute for the necessary comprehensive solution to the multifaceted piracy threat.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Maritime transport has been one of the key stepping stones to economic growth and prosperity in our continent and over 80% of world trade is carried by sea. Piracy is now a threat to international security and regional stability. Combating the deeply-rooted causes of this phenomenon is a priority for the Union. Through today’s vote, Parliament has pointed out just how committed our institution is to combating piracy and has made it quite plain that, on the high seas, according to international law, in all cases, including actions taken in the fight against piracy, the national jurisdiction of the flag state shall be applied on the ships concerned, as well as on the military staff employed aboard. Moreover, no arrest or blocking of a ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by any authorities other than those of the flag state. This is a core principle of international maritime law, but it is flouted all too often. The same applies in the case of the two Italian marines, who are still being held unjustly in Indian jails even though they were assisting a ship sailing under Italian colours that was in international waters. We urge India, once again, to comply with these standards.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The group of the Greek Communist Party in the European Parliament voted against the joint motion for a resolution by the conservative, liberal and social democrat groups on ‘maritime piracy’ because it is being used as a pretext for stepping up imperialist interventions by the EU, the US and NATO from the Horn of Africa to the Indian Ocean, in order to control the wealth-producing resources and exploit the people. The motion calls on the EU to strengthen its military and maritime presence in the area as a whole by boosting the EU NAVFOR Atalanta force in coordination with NATO. It also proposes increasing the presence of armed guards on ships and promoting new Euro-army and Euro-fleet staffs in the area. Intervention by land is being legalised and the break-up of Somalia is being promoted. It calls for the militarisation of the European Maritime Safety Agency and other bodies, in order to support maritime war operations by the EU and NATO, thereby increasing the risk to seafarers and citizens. The people urgently need to step up their fight to dismantle the EU and NATO and other imperialist unions, in order to win power for the people in their countries.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I support this resolution because piracy continues to spread in the Indian Ocean, particularly off the coasts of Somalia. In that country, one of the causes of piracy is political instability. Indeed, I believe that an effective approach to countering maritime piracy must include a broader strategy to lift Somalia and the whole region of the Horn of Africa out of poverty and state failure. For this reason, I am particularly concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the region. The international community should increase its provision of aid assistance and prevent any further worsening of the situation. In addition, third countries and those EU Member States that have not yet done so must transpose into their national law all the provisions laid down by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The problem of maritime piracy has become a real menace. The turn of events in the Horn of Africa is no longer acceptable and that is why we have asked the European Union High Representative, Baroness Ashton, to take urgent action to secure the release of almost 200 sailors currently held hostage by pirates. However, this appeal should not let us forget that we must address the root causes of this problem, which are poverty in the Horn of Africa and the shortcomings in Somalia.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this motion for a resolution. Maritime transport is an important factor in the EU’s economic prosperity. Maritime piracy poses a threat to international security and regional stability and the EU must contribute to international maritime security and fighting piracy. I very much welcome Operation Atalanta’s contribution to maritime security off the coast of Somalia by protecting World Food Programme chartered vessels delivering aid to Somalia, as well as the decision by the Foreign Affairs Council to launch the EUCAP Nestor project, which will aim to strengthen maritime and judicial capabilities and the training of a coastal police force and judges in eight countries in the Horn of Africa and the western Indian Ocean. I believe that training is a particularly important part of maritime capacity building. The Commission’s additional EUR 100 million in EU financial support for the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) is very important. I welcome calls for Member States to begin to promote peace and economic development and to build a stable democratic regime in Somalia.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Nowadays, 80-90% of global trade is carried out by sea. The annual cost of piracy to the global economy ranges between USD 7 and 12 billion, with the profits gained by the pirates in 2011 amounting to an estimated USD 238 million. Pirate attacks in the Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean have risen from 20 in 2006 to 219 in 2011, while the area covered by the pirates has expanded now to 1 300 nautical miles from the Somali coast. The Gulf of Aden is one of the key maritime routes along which approximately 12% of the world’s oil is transported. Somali territorial waters and the adjacent coast are largely ungoverned, which allows piracy to flourish with impunity and affect the global maritime sector. This combination of illegal activity and lawlessness provides fertile ground for high levels of instability, organised crime and other transnational threats.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Authors including W. Bernstein and Niall Ferguson have explained that major international trade is once again being organised along shipping routes, which means that piracy should be seen as a direct threat to the heart of our societies, on a par with terrorism. According to the Centre for Strategic & International Studies, piracy costs the global economy from USD 7-12 billion each year, with profits from trading in hostages alone thought to be around USD 250 million. A threat like this, which challenges the international rule of law and global stability, which latches onto and prospers parasitically from regions suffering failed governance and the infiltration of terrorist or criminal organisations, requires a firm and measured response, as called for by this joint resolution, which has my utmost support. The framework for international cooperation requires urgent reinforcement as the violent acts of these criminal bands are being met with isolated responses by sovereign states and private operators. A lack of legal and organisational coordination in this area threatens to nullify the considerable efforts and investments made in fighting piracy and risks, compounding the number of crises caused by differing interpretations of operating protocols and the pillars of international law, such as the crisis involving the two Italian marines who are still being held in India.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Thursday, 10 May, I voted in favour of the resolution on maritime piracy. While the subject is no longer in the news, it has not gone away. Quite to the contrary, in 2011, the Indian Ocean and, in particular, the coasts of Somalia, have fallen prey to a resurgence in acts of piracy. Although Parliament has prioritised the fight against piracy, since 2008, piracy has remained a lucrative trade, generating USD 12 billion per year. Piracy trade is fuelled by ransom money and the misappropriation of international aid and we must put an end to it as soon as possible. It also represents a threat to regional stability and maritime transport. This resolution reaffirms our determination to improve maritime safety and the coordination of military resources in this region which is victim to institutional failure. We have therefore decided to extend the mandate of the Atalanta programme for two years. Furthermore, it would be counter-productive to neglect the social dimension of our action in this region known as the ‘Horn of hunger’, given that this criminal behaviour is, in part, a symptom of poverty and violence.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I believe it is utterly inappropriate for the EU as a supranational European organisation to be policing the coast off Africa. Piracy is a major problem and impacts around the world. Recent high profile cases involving British tourists have brought the issue under the media spotlight, and it is of the utmost importance that the international community cooperate to prevent this damaging illegal industry that was responsible for 15 deaths last year alone. Yet it is not just policing that will combat the threat of piracy. The international community also needs to examine the root causes of the proliferation of this criminality. The EU has contributed to the increasing incidence of piracy in East African seas by over-fishing African waters under unjust trade deals. EU trawlers indiscriminately dredge oceans around the world for fish, leaving native communities, many of which are under-mechanised and wholly dependent upon fishing for self-sufficiency, unable to harvest the sort of catch they need to earn a decent living. The international community should look into the foreign exploitation of East African waters as a primary cause of the increase of piracy. The reason the EU wishes to police East African coasts is to protect their own commercial interests.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this resolution on maritime piracy and the consensus that it has created between the different political groups. Indeed, I believe that the situation in Somalia requires the European Union to reaffirm its commitment to the Atalanta operation. I also agree with the rapporteur on the need to take measures on land as well as at sea. I think that it is important to contribute to establishing a strong Somali State, which can offer its people prospects for the future.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, which reminds us of our support for the Atalanta operation, now in operation in the Horn of Africa to protect our ships from pirate attacks. The European Union must show firmness in putting an end to these archaic attacks, which terrorise our sailors operating in the area. This operation was launched on the initiative of President Sarkozy in 2008 and shows the utility of facing such wide-ranging challenges on external territory together. It has been a real success and, moreover, we can congratulate ourselves on having developed a genuine European strategy for the Horn of Africa. The European Union, by acting in this area, is sending a strong message to the rest of the world: no attack against a European citizen, even coming from outside our borders, will go unpunished.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The situation in Somalia, both in terms of food and security, makes it one of the countries in the world with the harshest living conditions for its people. Acts of piracy have proliferated in recent years in this important global maritime route, due in part to these circumstances. The Council recently extended the mandate and the scope of the European Atalanta mission. I do not think that there can be a military solution to the crisis in Somalia or to the piracy in the waters around the Horn of Africa and Somalia. I therefore join with Parliament, through this resolution, and call on the Council and the Commission to review their political strategy on Somalia and to put an end to the EU NAVFOR Atalanta mission, as this cannot be judged a success given the increasing number of attacks. I therefore call on the Commission and the Council to support instead the efforts deployed by the United Nations to promote the reconciliation process between both parties in the civil war in Somalia. We must also guarantee access to humanitarian aid for the affected areas, with our priority being to improve the population’s humanitarian situation.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution because it urges the EU High Representative to step up her efforts to free the more than 200 seafarers currently being held hostage, victims of maritime piracy off the coast of Somalia and in the western Indian Ocean. The EU should actively contribute to creating an international court specialising in combating maritime piracy.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This joint motion for a resolution, tabled pursuant to Rule 110(2) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure, replaces the motions for resolutions by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) concerning maritime piracy. More goods are transported by sea than by any other means on the planet. In recent years, however, we have witnessed a phenomenon that recalls the Age of Discoveries in the 16th and 17th centuries: piracy. For centuries, piracy was one of the main risks of travelling by sea, and it still represents danger and uncertainty for many of the vessels that ply the oceans. We are all aware of the recent piracy phenomena across Somalia. The European Union has been taking measures and participating in actions intended to prevent this phenomenon that we could term maritime terrorism. I voted for this report since, as well as recommending that the Member States protect their fleets, it seeks to attack the problem at its source; that is, in the pirates’ home ports. Since these regions constitute very poor communities with high immigration levels, it promotes their economic development.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) With this resolution, the majority in this House are reiterating unacceptable militarist and interventionist positions. The resolution supports prolonging and strengthening the mandate of EU NAVFOR Atalanta and increasing coordination with the NATO operation to combat piracy. However, it obscures this phenomenon’s real causes. It obscures the fact that a number of European countries, the US and NATO are responsible for the serious problems facing the peoples of Somalia and other regional countries, and that these problems are at the root of the so-called piracy. We are well aware of the interest aroused by the region. It is rich in natural resources – particularly fisheries – and important for international trade, with the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden linking the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean, which is the fastest route between Asia and Europe. The solution to the region’s problems involves respecting Somalia’s sovereignty over its resources and its exclusive economic area, the immediate withdrawal of the EU and NATO mission, and an immediate break with the so-called structural adjustment policies of the IMF and the World Bank, which, since the 1990s, have led to the collapse of the country’s fragile economy, jeopardising its food sovereignty and security.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Maritime transport has been one of the key stepping stones to economic growth and prosperity in Europe throughout its history. More than 80% of world trade is carried by sea. Piracy, however, threatens international security and regional stability, and the fight against piracy and its main causes is therefore a priority for the EU. Piracy on the high seas has still not been solved. It is becoming an increasing threat both to human life and to the safety of seafarers and other persons, as well as to regional development and stability, the marine environment, world trade, all forms of maritime transport and shipping, including fishing vessels, and also to the delivery of humanitarian aid. Pirates are constantly adapting their tactics and methods, and have expanded their operational radius through the use of larger hijacked ships. In my opinion, it would be justified to make an attempt at a more formal coordination of a comprehensive strategy against piracy among the various interested parties in the EU. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to set up an official operational group under the aegis of the European External Action Service, for example, which would bring together all participating bodies. The EU could promote this concept of an action group within the UN Security Council, with a view to creating a global action group that would work in close cooperation with the International Maritime Organisation.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Once again, pirates from the Horn of Africa are attacking cargo boats off their coasts. Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean is not, therefore, in decline. There are increasing numbers of incidents and they are becoming more violent. At the same time, more than 190 sailors are still held hostage and poverty remains ever present in this region of the world. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution, which calls for a strengthening of military resources, and also for solutions to be found to address the root causes of piracy. It is obviously essential to step up military presence, but that must be accompanied by an increase in humanitarian aid. Let us not forget that piracy and violence in the Horn of Africa are nourished, first and foremost, by the extreme poverty that prevails in the region.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – This is a very important issue affecting many of Europe’s seafarers, and I am glad the matter is being raised again by Parliament so that we push forward with more effective solutions for this issue.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which ‘[s]tresses that further piracy with impunity is an obstacle to deterrence; deplores the fact that despite EU transfer agreements with third countries (Kenya, Seychelles, Mauritius), bilateral repatriation agreements for convicted pirates between Seychelles and the Somali regions of Puntland and Somaliland, and the various international legal frameworks, many pirates and other criminals are still not arrested or, when arrested, are often released due to a lack of solid legal evidence or a lack of political will to prosecute them; notes, too, that some EU Member States have inadequate criminal-law safeguards against piracy on the high seas’.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The continued impunity of piracy contrasts with the need for a deterrent. Despite the European Union’s transfer agreements with third countries (Kenya, Seychelles, Mauritius) as well as bilateral repatriation agreements for convicted pirates between Seychelles and Puntland and Somaliland, many pirates and other criminals are still not arrested or, when arrested, are often released due to a lack of solid legal evidence or a lack of political will to prosecute. We therefore ask for the adoption of immediate and effective measures so that persons suspected of acts of piracy can be committed to trial and punished.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Piracy represents a threat to international security and regional stability, and should be considered an international organised crime, but also an economic problem, since it threatens international maritime trade routes and has a considerable negative impact on international trade. I therefore welcome this motion for a resolution, for which I voted. I would highlight the need for immediate and effective measures to prosecute and punish those suspected of acts of piracy, urging third countries and the EU Member States that have not yet done so to transpose into their national law all the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, in order to tackle pirate impunity.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against the solution to the piracy problem in the Horn of Africa, which cannot be a military solution. I reject any possible mission under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in Somalia or in the region. The Council and the Commission should review their political strategy on Somalia and put an end to the EU-NAVFOR Atalanta operation, as it can be considered a failure in view of more and more attacks and acts of violence. The Commission and the Council should adopt a joint vision with regard to the situation in Somalia and, most importantly, they should focus on the need to tackle the humanitarian situation on the ground and eradicate the real causes of the disaster that is resulting in the suffering of millions of Somalis, such as extreme poverty, illegal fishing and overfishing in Somali waters.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – With the threat of piracy in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the Horn of Africa, a continued major danger to regional development and stability, world trade, maritime transport and shipping including fishing vessels, the resolution calls for better coordination on the issue and for the following in particular: measures to address the root causes of the problem, and to achieve the liberation of seafarers held hostage by pirates, as well as a harmonised EU approach to the use of certified armed personnel on board; plans for the future of the EU-NAVFOR Atalanta mission, especially considering that the number of naval assets operating in the mission has decreased; actions at international level (UN, IMO) to improve cooperation in the fight against maritime piracy; and traceability and confiscation of ransoms paid and placed in bank accounts in EU Member States and action to convince third countries to take equivalent measures so that ransoms from piracy can no longer be placed in third-country bank accounts. In that sense, the report coincides with my position. I am in favour.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The question of Somali maritime piracy cannot be resolved by using military means alone, and I therefore supported this resolution, which devotes attention to the question of finding a political solution through support for social development in the Horn of Africa. I am pleased to note that the EU is the world’s biggest development aid donor to Somalia, having allocated EUR 215.4 million between 2008 and 2013, thereby strengthening Somalia’s weak central government and significantly contributing towards finding a lasting solution to the problem of the country’s instability. Despite this fact, I think it is important to extend the EU’s military mission in order to safeguard the security of the 10 000 European ships that traverse dangerous maritime areas each year.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Maritime piracy, particularly off the coast of Somalia, poses a threat to European Union ships and crews. Last year, in the Indian Ocean off the Horn of Africa, 300 pirate attacks were carried out, 25 ships were hijacked and 11 people were killed. This year, there have already been 35 cases. We condemn the aggression of the pirates, which endangers the lives of seamen and causes their families pain, and leads the European Union and its businesses to incur losses. I voted in favour of this resolution because I agree that the phenomenon of piracy will only be stopped by wide-ranging measures – processes for comprehensive restructuring in Somalia. Only by ensuring the enforcement of the rule of law, sound administrative management and improved welfare in this country will we root out piracy – both at sea and within the country itself. Today, the EU is the largest donor of aid to Somalia – EUR 415 million is allocated in development aid. In addition, tens of millions are also allocated to humanitarian aid alone. All this money is for creating jobs and developing infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. The EU also supports the creation of security forces. The EU should also continue the Atalanta mission because in this case, the partner countries – Russia, China and India – would rather cooperate with the EU than NATO.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The question of maritime piracy, especially in the region of Somalia, is also a matter of concern and has caused damage to the Greek merchant fleet. This motion for a resolution, which I supported, reiterates the European Parliament’s serious concerns about the continuing and increased threat from maritime piracy and armed robbery to international shipping and calls on the High Representative and the Member States to urgently consider ways of liberating the 191 seafarers currently being held hostage. Clearly, the inability to arrest and hence punish those engaged in practices that constitute piracy is putting the international community at risk and encouraging these practices to continue. That is why the European Parliament calls for immediate and effective measures to be taken to prosecute those suspected of acts of piracy, urges third countries and the EU Member States that have not yet transposed into their national law all the provisions laid down by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation to do so immediately, and calls on the Council and the Commission to examine opportunities for creating specialised anti-piracy courts in the countries in the region, so that pirates can be prosecuted locally.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Maritime piracy today is increasingly widespread, frequent, better organised, more profitable, audacious and violent. No vessel appears immune to it, from fishing boats and merchant vessels to yachts and cruise ships. People’s safety and freedom are seriously imperilled, and all maritime and economic activities are suffering significant losses. In 2009, the Commission organised an intervention at two levels: prevention, deterrence and repression, as well as combating the causes of piracy. The Commission must extend its military action beyond 2012 and intensify its diplomatic action to obtain effective collaboration from the third countries that shelter the pirates. The Member States have to engage in criminal investigations and legal action, in particular, with regard to establishing conditions for bringing pirates to trial. I voted for this resolution for all these reasons, and I hope that concerted action by the Commission, the Member States and other countries and regions of the world will be able to restore safety to the seas which, in terms of fishing, affects both industrial fleets and small local vessels, thus affecting the EU economy.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I supported the resolution on maritime piracy which requires a coordinated response. The fight against piracy will not be won solely by military means but through promotion of peace, development and state-building. I welcome the decision to extend the EU’s counter-piracy operation for two years to protect vessels of the World Food Programme. I welcome the commitment of an additional EUR 175 million through the European Development Fund (EDF) to provide lasting solutions to the root causes of piracy, namely poverty and state failure, and to support development projects for sustainable economic growth. We must liberate those currently being held hostage by pirates and secure the release of the seven hijacked vessels. We need enhanced coordination between the EU and other international actors to achieve a comprehensive approach to fight piracy. We need more effective measures to punish those suspected of acts of piracy. EU Member States need to put into national law all the provisions laid down by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigations. Member States need to investigate and confiscate money which is paid as ransom to pirates in order to identify and dismantle organised crime networks.

  Jean Roatta (PPE), in writing. – (FR) There is no doubt that this draft resolution on maritime piracy strengthens the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). Indeed, maritime transport has been a key vehicle for European economic growth, and not just growth in Europe, as more than three quarters of world trade is carried by sea. The European Union therefore has a genuine interest in ensuring that security is a factor in the common maritime policy. Over recent years, we have seen in the news a resurgence of criminal acts at sea. We find the greatest number of acts of maritime piracy in targeted areas, often concentrated in the Red Sea, and through which large numbers of European and international transport and trading vessels pass. Most of these acts remain unpunished. That is why this motion for a resolution is essential because it calls again for immediate and effective measures against impunity of this nature and calls for the need for strategic coordination between the European Union and third countries.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. Although, not surprisingly, many of our amendments were defeated, so we had no other choice than to vote against the text of the resolution, which is too focused on a purely military approach to the situation.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. –(IT) The resolution we have debated this morning has been signed by almost all political groups, showing that this issue has been tackled across the political spectrum. The text reminds us that there are currently around 200 sailors being held hostage by pirates, who continue to hijack ships carrying humanitarian aid, as well as merchant and fishing ships, in order to get a ransom. The attacks mostly take place off the coast of Somalia and in the western Indian Ocean, as also shown by the United Nations forces currently stationed there. Through this resolution, we are appealing loud and clear for the EU High Representative to obtain the liberation of the hostages and the ships and to support the establishment of an anti-piracy court. The fight against piracy can only be won if the Union tackles the root causes of this phenomenon: extreme poverty and the failure of the State in this area.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on maritime piracy. Maritime transport has been one of the key factors contributing to economic growth and prosperity in Europe throughout its history, and more than 80% of world trade is carried out by sea. Unfortunately, piracy poses a threat to international security and regional stability. This is why the EU has a genuine interest in contributing to international maritime security and the fight against piracy and its deep-rooted causes. Since 10 000 European ships pass through dangerous maritime areas every year, piracy poses not only a problem to human life and safety, but also an economic problem, as it jeopardises the international commercial maritime routes, entailing a considerable adverse impact on global trade. We call for immediate and effective measures to prosecute and punish those suspected of acts of maritime piracy. We urge third countries and EU Member States which have not yet done so to transpose into their national legislation all the provisions set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – We all agree that there should be a free and safe circulation in national and international maritime routes, a premise that is not being respected by piracy in different parts of the world. As a democrat, I welcome the EU’s efforts to combat piracy and I am especially satisfied because we are taking steps forward to solve the main cause of this situation: piracy exists because there is poverty in many countries. That is why the EU authorities have increased the provision of humanitarian assistance to people in need in these countries, in order to provide the local population with alternative livelihoods through which they can properly sustain themselves. For all these reasons, I will support this joint motion for a resolution.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the joint motion for a resolution on maritime piracy as I believe that it does not take account of the socio-economic factors which account for this state of affairs and that the international action which has been put in place is not the right response. Military intervention is not a solution and the European Development Fund (EDF) should not therefore be used for this purpose. If we follow this argument, the EU NAVFOR Atalanta operation must be considered a failure. In my view, there can be no improvement in the situation without an improvement in the living conditions of the population, who are caught in the stranglehold of civil war and ecological and economic disasters. European economic interests should not drive decision making. Piracy is the result of poverty and the absence of a cooperation policy worthy of that name which could do something about it. What the southern countries need is for the rich countries to completely reverse their international policies. Until things change, extreme poverty, famine and conflict will remain the southern countries’ daily lot.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this resolution, which reminds us that we need to fight against sea pirates primarily for the obvious reason of protecting human life. We cannot in good conscience deliver our ship owners and sailors to their fate. They work on a daily basis to develop trade and global growth. Nor can we abandon local populations, who make a living from fishing and can no longer go out to sea. Clearly, as far as both local communities and the international community are concerned, it is imperative for us to mobilise all our legal and military resources to combat pirates, who are using increasingly heavy weapons and who stop boats increasingly far from the coast. This, in any case, is the wish that Parliament has clearly expressed and which I emphasised when drawing up this text. I now hope that Baroness Ashton will urge the States to increase military resources for Atalanta and to apply the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea fully, in order to put an end to the unacceptable impunity of pirates.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – I have voted in favour of the resolution on Maritime Piracy (2011/2962(RSP)) in an effort to continue the protection of all seafaring vessels and the men and women that work at sea. I strongly believe that this resolution can implement the appropriate measures to insure safer waters as well as hamper, if not stop, the actions of the so called pirates. Many of our Member States rely heavily on shipping, be it for imports or exports, or employment, either as a ship’s crew or, the vastly important fishing industry. Therefore, we must demonstrate our willingness to do what is necessary to protect against this horrific practice. It is important that we continue, and even increase, our participation with the current actions being taken by the UN, NATO, the US and others. It can be said that we as a democratic Union will not lay down to the terrorists of the seas as it infringes upon the ideas which are greatly valued by us. The protection of our citizens and those of our allies is of the utmost importance and cannot, and will not, be undermined by these perpetrators.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) In 2010, Somali pirates collected a total of about USD 238 million in ransom money and, to achieve this, attacked over 4 500 ships. Over the past years, their actions have created significant difficulties for trade, especially for oil and its derivatives. The cost of marine insurance has also increased and shipowners have passed this on to their customers. What is worse, the attacks are covering a greater area year on year. Pirates have been active off the coast of India and they have carried out attacks in the Bay of Bengal and in Indonesian waters. This issue demands that decisive military as well as aid measures be taken. As far as the first is concerned, the European Union should not become actively involved in military action, but instead ensure that more experienced organisations, especially NATO, have more scope for action. The alliance has always been a strong supporter of Europe’s military interests and this should continue. Our efforts should be focused on allocating funds to rebuild Somalia, which has fallen into chaos, as well as on consolidating the stocks of fish that fishermen from the Horn of Africa used to catch.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution supports prolonging and strengthening the mandate of EU NAVFOR Atalanta and increasing coordination with the NATO operation, but it obscures the causes of the serious problems facing the peoples of Somalia and other regional countries and the responsibility of the EU, the US and NATO for these problems. The majority in the European Parliament are reiterating militarist and interventionist positions, so as to promote the domination of big capital and the major EU powers over the region’s natural wealth – particularly fisheries – and over one of the most important regions for international trade, with the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden linking the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean, which is the fastest route between Asia and Europe. We defend Somalia’s sovereignty, including over its exclusive economic zone, and we advocate a peaceful political solution free from international interference to its civil war. We advocate the immediate withdrawal of the EU and NATO mission, of which Portugal is also part. We defend the right of peoples to their food sovereignty and security, and reject so-called trade liberalisation within the framework of the World Trade Organisation, other instruments like economic partnership agreements, and the structural adjustment policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank.