Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - Strasbourg

14. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Monica Luisa Macovei (A7-0299/2012)

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to give an explanation of my vote against the discharge for the European Food Safety Authority. I would like to make it clear that my views on the European Food Safety Authority are not reflected in this vote against, in the sense that I find it impossible to vote for discharge on any of the Environment Committee-related agencies due to the fact that the Court of Auditors are unable to sign off on their accounts for any of these environment-related agencies and therefore I would by default be approving the procedure, which I do not wish to do. But I would like to state on record that the work of the European Food and Safety Authority that I have been involved with has been in every case exemplary.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, food safety is one of the most serious responsibilities an executive body can dispense to its citizens. Although, in line with my group, I express deep reservations about granting a discharge in the absence of firm assurances from the Court of Auditors, the European Food Safety Agency is an EU body which I personally wholeheartedly endorse in principle.

Food is, by its very nature, transnational, travelling from the field, the ocean or an abattoir to the processing plant and eventually to our dinner plates. It does not respect national boundaries. When something goes horribly wrong, such as the outbreak of an infectious disease or poisoning or contamination of our foodstuffs, we need a well-run supranational organisation to identify the problem and enact the necessary measures to alert our national authorities and thus protect our consumers everywhere throughout the European Union.

Report: Monica Luisa Macovei (A7-0298/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, the European Medicines Agency is a prime example of a successful devolved EU body which can bring tangible benefits to European citizens and consumers. Based in my own constituency of London, the EMA replaces the previous complex, bureaucratic requirements for British pharmaceutical companies to apply individually in 26 other countries in order to license their medicinal products. Instead, we have developed a one-stop shop for assessing the safety and granting product licences for innovative medicines, thus saving considerable time and money and benefiting both patients and the pharmaceutical industry, which is a major export earner for the United Kingdom.

Nevertheless the ECR, my Group, maintains serious concerns about some of the contractual arrangements and the transparency of this Agency, which of course merit further scrutiny by the Court of Auditors.

Report: Antigoni Papadopoulou (A7-0271/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 2013 will rightly be the Year of European Citizens. This is an important initiative because recalling and enhancing awareness, in particular among young people, of the rights and achievements attached to European citizenship should be treated as an absolute priority.

Today, thanks to the process of European integration, EU citizens may live, work, study and travel freely within the territory of the Member States, use the health services, enjoy rights and protection as passengers and consumers, and vote and stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence.

These are important achievements, which bring with them not just a strong symbolic connotation that strengthens and promotes the sense of belonging to Europe, but also undoubted advantages and practical opportunities. However, according to a Eurobarometer report, and as I can confirm on a daily basis in my work as an MEP, there is often a lack of awareness of these rights, and of the values and principles that inspire them. It is therefore essential to make every effort, particularly in the schools but also elsewhere, to raise awareness of and provide information on the great advantages of our dual citizenship, the European aspect of which enhances and strengthens the national aspect.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, among the most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications.

Unfortunately, there is still a lack of visibility of Union citizenship and lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides. I am therefore supporting 2013 as the Year of European Citizens. The general objective of the Year of European Citizens will be to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, since 1983, the European years have covered everything from music to cancer. The 30th year will be the European Year of Citizenship and, clearly, we are running out of ideas. We have already had a European Year of Citizens through Education and a European Year of Workers’ Mobility. We simply do not need another European Year to inform people of their rights as EU citizens because, not only is the EU running out of ideas, but it is also running out of money.

The Commission’s proposed budget for the year was EUR 1 million but, in its wisdom, Parliament has called for a five times increase in this budget. This morning I and my group called on the EU to make meaningful cuts to the budget to reflect the austerity measures governments have faced across the continent. Putting an end to the European years would be a good start.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, almost two decades have passed since the concept of European Citizenship was legally established, but still only 43 % of EU citizens claim familiarity with the term ‘citizen of the European Union’. They lack information and awareness of their rights: language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas, degrees and qualifications are among the most common problems that EU citizens face on a daily basis. I therefore agree with the Commission’s initiative to declare 2013 the Year of European Citizens.

I also fully support the rapporteur’s wish to have the scope of application of the Decision widened to focus on enhancing the awareness of citizens in order to allow them to make full use of their rights, and not just their right to move and reside freely. I also hope that the Year of European Citizens will not be another celebratory year but rather provide the foundation for a framework for the future policies, measures and actions needed to reinforce Union citizenship.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) The European Commission has proposed designating 2013 the European Year of Citizens. I am convinced that in spite of the current crisis this will strengthen resolve to ensure that citizens are able to exercise and assert their rights. According to the statistics, one-third of citizens intend to do so, but administrative difficulties and inadequate language knowledge still present barriers to taking up employment when they move abroad to another Member State. The plan for the European Year of Citizens places responsibility for ensuring adequate information in the hands of Member States, but the most effective way to exchange positive experiences will always be at EU level. The objective of our amendments was to broaden the scope of the programme and ensure that citizens have a bigger role in raising awareness regarding their rights.

As shadow rapporteur, I would like to stress that the Commission has successfully mapped out the demands behind the motto ‘More Europe!’ and listened to the expectations voiced in relation to the European Year of Citizens at EU, Member State, regional and local levels. Delivering on these, however, and running popular communications channels or portals will require an increase in the budget. I was pleased to see that, as today’s vote showed, all of the political groups agreed on this.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, the Year of European Citizens is a way of focusing attention on the half a billion people living in the EU. It is a way of remembering that all of the other measures we are discussing in these days – the banking union, the economic and financial measures for combating the crisis – have the interests of citizens as their primary objective. The aim of the European Year on which we have voted is to enhance the rights attached to Union citizenship and the role played by the associations in the Union, reinforcing the right of students, teachers, artists and those working creatively to move freely.

In short, it aims to strengthen European identity through concrete initiatives in which the citizens play the leading role. This is a real bottom-up approach to building the Union, and the reason why I voted in favour.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report, because it is very topical. Next year it will be 20 years since the concept of EU citizenship was introduced. Despite this, many EU citizens are still unaware of their rights and opportunities in Europe.

The attitudes of citizens towards the EU have cooled, thanks to the financial crisis. The EU is regarded more and more as a mere bureaucracy, and the legal instruments that it issues are regarded as making the everyday lives of citizens more difficult, rather than easier. Convincing citizens of the benefits of the EU is primarily the duty of politicians. The participation of citizens in public debate on the various EU policy areas is something that must be promoted. It is only in this way that we will be able to build a Europe that is really supported by the people.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Madam President, the concept of EU citizenship became a reality 20 years ago with the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty, yet public awareness of EU citizenship is still very low. The 2010 Eurobarometer survey showed that only 43 % of respondents were actually familiar with the term ‘Citizen of the European Union’, and even fewer knew what it meant – although the Irish figure at that stage was 58 %.

The purpose of the European Year of Citizens must be to raise awareness about the rights and responsibilities of EU citizens, the role citizens play in exercising the right to free movement and the importance of civic and democratic participation, including participation in European and local elections. No doubt many of the planned initiatives for next year will be carried out through programmes such as the Lifelong Learning Programme in our schools and institutions, and this will pave the way for a more concerted longer-term effort to raise awareness about EU citizenship. I am concerned about the reduction in the budget from a proposed 5 million to just 1 million, but I also want to welcome the fact that the European Year of the Citizen coincides with the start of the Irish Presidency, and I know that the Irish Government is committed to holding events to promote the European Year throughout its presidency.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the possibility to travel to other countries in Europe without stopping at a border is just one of the many rights and privileges afforded by Union citizenship. For most of us, they are already accepted as a matter of course, but many of our citizens are not aware that they are based on citizenship of the Union, which was introduced 20 years ago. It is therefore only right and proper, not to mention extremely important, to make it a priority to explain to our citizens what the European Union means and how it makes life easier for each and every one of us every day. This year, 2013, is the European Year of Citizens, and I hope to see many more initiatives in future which aim to bring the European Union closer to every citizen. Again, we are on the right track here, but we certainly have not reached our goal.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, this could be a welcome initiative in a Europe, in a European Union that is increasingly becoming more a union of governments than a union of citizens, but on one condition: it should not be a formal one, with the emphasis on ceremony, but should try and pull together the energies of all European citizens to achieve a closer community.

There are still questions regarding free movement, the use of languages and the recognition of third-level qualifications, as well as questions regarding elections. We are organising this campaign one year before the elections but an institutional framework is needed for less formal, more efficient dialogue with the European institutions. These questions could help to re-establish the trust of the European citizens in the Union.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. I think it is very good that the concept of European citizenship is being raised again. As has been mentioned today, it is 20 years since the concept of European citizenship was launched. It is not enough for this sort of concept to exist; the biggest problem in the European Union right now is the fact that citizens do not feel that the Union is theirs. Citizens feel that the Union is more a Union of the elite, a Union of hard cores. It is therefore good that next year there will be a focus on what the European Union actually means to citizens.

The European Parliament is currently also look at the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme, for which I am the rapporteur. Under this programme, which will take place during the next programming period, we will invest a sum of approximately 10 cents a year for every citizen of the European Union. This means that we are currently observing citizens within the Union using economic and other indicators at quite a low cost. It is therefore very important that citizenship and people’s participation in Union decision-making be reinforced.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, free movement of people, statutory rights, civil and human rights, an open labour market, recognition of diplomas: these are all benefits for citizens in the different Member States of the European Union. It was the European Parliament that, in 2010, asked the Commission to designate next year as the European Year of Citizens. The European Year of Citizens is of course an opportunity to talk about Europe in a sensible way so as to increase interest in European opportunities and participation in the Member States, in elections, for example.

I am certainly not in favour of a European superstate, but I feel that the European Year of Citizens will contribute to increased awareness and knowledge of the different rights and responsibilities of citizens of the Union, which should logically encourage citizens to take part in democratic life.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE) . – (RO) Madam President, I also voted in favour of the report because designating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens is a good opportunity to offer correct information to all Europeans. Better information could contribute to an enhanced sense of belonging to the Union. The status of European citizen offers more rights and benefits that we all need to know about, such as free movement and mobility of the workforce.

Until now, Romanian citizens have not fully exercised their rights. A number of Member States still impose labour restrictions on Romanian workers. The restrictions are unjustified and the European Commission has, on numerous occasions, recommended that they be eliminated. The impact of such a measure could be positive not only for Romanian workers but also for the Member States. I believe that the labour market in these Member States would become more dynamic, stimulating competition and economic growth.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was pleased to support these proposals and I especially welcome the European Year of Citizens next year. We often hear that we should be closer to the citizens and next year will give us that chance. I would propose one thing: we must give citizens more opportunities to visit Parliament, either here in Strasbourg or in Brussels. I have seen that when people come to visit us, even though they may have a negative view of Parliament or the institutions, they leave with a different opinion. After coming and seeing what we do here, they have a positive impression and perception of us and we should avail of the opportunity afforded by next year to bring more people to Parliament. As Emer Costello said, Ireland will hold the presidency of the Council next year, and we will make every effort to promote the European Year of Citizens.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, I have to say that I can scarcely believe these proposals. I feel that they are utter nonsense and it should worry democrats that two-thirds of MEPs supported this motion. I did not.

How can we throw money away on such nonsense when the peoples of Europe are hurting? As they are in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal, in France and in my own country. The EU is clearly hopelessly out of touch with the people it purports to represent.

At a time when Angela Merkel today is threatening to veto the entire budget summit if David Cameron vetoes anything but a freeze, this is crazy. David Cameron is trying to do the right thing. Are the peoples of Europe, in between paying higher taxes, in between job cuts and riots, turning to one another to say that what we really need is a Year of European Citizenship? No, absolutely not. Nor am I a citizen of the EU, but a loyal subject of the Queen. The idea is flawed, insulting and an utter waste of money.

  László Tőkés (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Europe must protect its citizens. Last week, Andrea Varga, a Hungarian historian from Bucharest, was seriously assaulted on the street by an unknown individual. Andrea Varga is a distinguished researcher on the Communist era. He is currently working on the restitution of Hungarian church property confiscated during the Communist dictatorship. In 2009, at the request of the Romanian office of the European Commission, he organised an important exhibition in Bucharest on the regime change in Central and Eastern Europe. During the final vote on the report on the European Year of Citizens, I think it is vital to draw attention to the case of Andrea Varga and to call for protection for him as a European citizen by the Romanian authorities and the European Parliament. Europe must protect its citizens.

  Gerald Häfner (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, what we have agreed here for the European Year of Citizens – which, incidentally, goes back to a parliamentary initiative – is both brilliant and tragic, for it highlights the yawning gap between Europe’s institutions and its citizens. Nonetheless, it is a major step forward. Everything that is set out in the Commission’s draft, but particularly in the report which has now been adopted, has my wholehearted support. That is why I not only voted in favour; as the rapporteur for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I also contributed in no small measure to making this a better report.

Nonetheless, I should like to make one thing very clear, if I may: it is like offering a thirsty man a teaspoon of water when he really needs a glass. The budget, the legal framework and the practical measures all fall absurdly short of the mark compared with what Europe actually needs. In the current situation, with major, indeed crucial issues being negotiated in Europe without any citizen involvement whatsoever, we not only need a Year of Citizens; we also need more citizen participation as a whole. We do not need a Europe of citizens imposed from above; what we need is far more involvement from the bottom up, so that we can rightfully claim to put citizens at the heart of the Union.

Report: Kristiina Ojuland (A7-0285/2012)

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). – Madam President, first of all allow me to thank all my colleagues who worked very closely together to prepare this recommendation to the Council. I believe that this is an instrument which demonstrates EU value-based politics. This recommendation is also a clear message to those Russians who want Russia to be a country of the rule of law, and not of corrupt governance.

Those guilty of causing Sergei Magnitsky’s death should be brought to justice, should not be allowed to travel to the European Union and should have their assets frozen here on EU territory. I would also like to call on the Member States and the EIS to take further necessary steps to implement this recommendation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this proposal because I consider that the European Union must not tolerate the infringement of fundamental human rights. Therefore, we need to take firm measures against those who are responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky. His case is a sign that the criminal justice system in Russia is not functioning properly. We must ensure that those responsible for Mr Magnitsky’s death cannot travel freely in Europe. Moreover, I believe that all of their bank accounts in EU Member States should be frozen.

One solution to this could be the widespread establishment of such practices for all those who infringe human rights regardless of their country of origin. I also believe that we need to introduce an automatic sanction mechanism for such cases. In the case of Mr Magnitsky, the Union could make the lifting of the restrictions subject to the establishment of an independent inquiry that would eventually punish the guilty parties.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, I voted for this very important initiative because the Magnitsky case is a well-proved example of cynical human rights violations which culminated in the tragic death of a Russian lawyer who defended the interests of a British company.

This is a recommendation to the Council to ensure that officials who blatantly violate human rights in their respective countries must feel that they cannot escape unpunished. In this way the recommendation could become an important instrument in making a difference in our policies, and we would be indicating that the EU is serious in insisting on compliance with the rule of law and human rights. This is vital for our own credibility in relations with third partners. So I would ask the Council to take this recommendation very seriously and ensure that this is implemented.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Ms Ojuland as well for this initiative which – if the Council does adopt the recommendations of Parliament – would be the first example of its kind, whereby targeted sanctions of this kind are used as a way of preventing impunity in a strategic partner, in this case Russia.

Russia, we have to remember, is supposed to be a member of the Council of Europe and of the OSCE. It is supposed to have a constitution which demands that the rule of law be upheld, yet we have the terrible case of this man, who died in terrible pain, which was covered up as a result of high-level criminal corruption.

We do not welcome on our territories criminally-acquired funds. Stopping these people travelling to the European Union is, I think, a way of exerting leverage over Russia and pointing out the terrible injustices that prevail in that country, the lack of democracy and the deterioration in the standard of human rights.

This proposal is not unique to this Parliament. Other jurisdictions and other parliaments, such as the US Congress and the British House of Commons, have done very similar things. If it is successful I think it will actually send very strong signals to other countries where we can use similar targeted sanctions to put pressure on them to observe the rule of law.

Report: Jacqueline Foster (A7-0254/2012)

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of Ms Foster’s report, which calls for strong action from the Commission, including sanctions, in order to force Member States that are violating their obligations under the Single European Sky (SES) legislation to fall into line. The SES is an ambitious project aimed at creating a single airspace that would allow increased capacity and efficiency in air traffic management, also bringing economic and environmental benefits.

The implementation of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research programme, which is the technological pillar of the SES project, is a vital aspect for its success, especially from 2015 on, when the program should be launched. Unfortunately, there are still several gaps in the single airspace project, particularly with regard to the realisation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB). In this regard, I welcome the new impetus given a few days ago by Italy and other countries involved in the ‘Blue Med’ FAB, which is of strategic value since it involves the Southern Mediterranean countries.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, we need to have an organised and unified European air traffic control system for commercial flights. The current high volume traffic and outdated technology has led to increasingly congested skies with more delays for passengers. With an ever-expanding demand for air travel, these problems can only get worse without proper infrastructure and a new approach.

The nation-centric approach we see today is no longer fit to handle air traffic on its own. It is estimated that with a more coordinated approach presented by the Single European Sky, delays and cancellations may be reduced by as much as 50 %. The coordination would foster growth and competition by allowing for more efficient use of air space. The Single European Sky would not impede national sovereignty and each nation would retain unilateral control over its air space for military purposes.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Madam President, I welcome this own-initiative report on the ‘Single European Sky’; it gives a strong signal from Parliament to the Member States and the Commission. The fragmentation of European air space is estimated to cost EUR 4 billion per year; it is costing jobs and is unnecessarily increasing our CO2 emissions. We need a more efficient European air space to relieve congestion around airports and also to meet our environmental challenges.

This is a project where, I am quite proud to say, the United Kingdom is not lagging behind, but all Member States must do their part of the job. A sustainable future for aviation in Europe means that we have to make the right efforts now for our economy, for our environment, to tackle our capacity constraints, to keep our position as a hub in the world but also to remain an environmental world leader. The single sky is one of the alternatives to building new capacity, as are the development of multi-modality and an increased use of regional airports. It is the Member States that now have to deliver on this. We are doing our bit.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the Single European Sky project is visionary and a necessary next step for Europe. Air traffic requires a new approach. Defragmentation must be avoided as it involves major costs. Implementing the legislation and cooperating in this area is crucial. At the same time we must highlight the effect of the project on security issues because there are a number of security-related questions, including questions specific to the Member States, that need to be approached in a much more constructive manner.

Secondly, the economic component is also crucial. The reports indicate the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs through this programme, and beyond these jobs, the economic benefits envisaged are huge. I believe that this project can also make a major political contribution to future European unification.

Report: Georges Bach (A7-287/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, protection of passenger rights is an increasingly important issue, especially at times of crisis such as the present, when transport cost cutting and sudden airline bankruptcy in the sector can cause serious disruption to passengers.

All too often we read in the newspapers of cancelled flights and hundreds of passengers left to fend for themselves, sometimes for days on end; not to mention rail delays and cancellations, leaving thousands of workers, students and whole families stranded, often without information on alternative modes of transport to bring them home or to work.

Passengers must be guaranteed more price transparency and must be protected against unfair commercial practices, such as the addition of non-optional operational costs and excessive restrictions on hand luggage. Efforts must be made to provide multilingual information points to deal with rerouting and cancellation of flights and trains, in order to provide the best protection possible for European citizens.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, passenger rights are central to the debate on transport. The concept of accessibility is the cardinal point of this report, including physical accessibility for all to destinations and information. Correct information must be available to travellers, using various means and covering a range of needs. Furthermore, passengers must have access to assistance through helpdesks with adequately trained and competent staff.

Finally we call for revision of the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC, in order to ensure that consumers and firms in the sector have a clear legal framework for both standard situations and exceptional situations, eliminating abusive and unfair practices and ensuring greater transparency.

Mr Bach’s report addresses all of these aspects and I therefore voted in favour of it.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, with today’s vote we are once again supporting passenger rights in all transport modes. However, we are also taking another qualitative step.

Until now, there have been six different directives which regulate the same issue for the individual transport modes. With today’s report, we are unifying a fragmented legal environment, we are taking a step in the right direction, so that passengers will have a fuller knowledge of their rights, regardless of the transport mode. We certainly take account of the specifics of each form of transport, but it is crucial that there should be a fundamental basis applicable to all transport modes. We are achieving greater transparency and a better level of information on citizens’ rights.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. Even though more than 10 years have passed since the Commission communication, it continues to be the case that not all passengers know their rights. I believe that this stems from inertia on the part of businesses and operators in the tourism industry with regard to legislation at EU level. Another reason for this is insufficient information. Many passengers renounce their rights in the belief that it would be expensive and difficult to defend them.

There are many places in the report that take a position on the problems relating to pricing. Many people wonder why the final price of a journey differs from the advertised price. I do hope that, through this report, we can rein in the problems relating to travel pricing and find rules for the game that are common, functional and fair to all parties.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, one cannot but support this report, but the process of achieving a unified approach to passengers’ rights has yet to be completed. It is important to ensure there is no discrimination against passengers on the basis of their nationality or place of residence, but it is similarly important to avoid discriminating against travel agencies on the basis of their location.

The final goal should be a single EU directive that would include all forms of transportation and should be implemented in the medium term. I especially support the establishment, in departure and arrival halls, of focal points of information and assistance to passengers and the introduction of a unified form of complaints with facilities to forward these complaints electronically, and immediately, to the relevant authorities.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Madam President, I very much welcome the Bach report on improving passenger rights in the EU and ask the Commission to address the various recommendations as soon as possible.

A survey carried out by the European Consumer Centre in Dublin last year indicated that less than ten percent of Irish air passengers have a complete grasp of their rights under EU law. But of specific concern to Irish passengers is the proposed Ryanair takeover of Aer Lingus which, if it is allowed to proceed, would have negative implications for the rights of those passengers travelling to and from Ireland. A Ryanair takeover would reduce actual and potential competition on a large number of air routes from Dublin, thereby depriving Irish passengers of any real choice and pushing up fares. Moreover, Ryanair has a history of aggressively disputing the rights of air passengers. I would point out that Ryanair actually charges passengers a levy of EUR 2 for complying with its obligations set down in the Air Passenger Rights regulation. For these and other reasons, I would urge the Commission to reject the Ryanair bid for Aer Lingus in the interests of passenger rights.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, this report is the practical application of our wish to respect the rights of citizens, including disabled citizens, who choose to travel. The report recognises the need for a clearer definition of passenger rights and of key terms such as ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

The publication of these rights would ensure that passengers are fully aware of what they are to expect from their carriers. Defining these rights would make it easier for both passengers and carriers. Passengers should know their rights and carriers must be more accountable to their passengers.

This report calls for better infrastructure to make various modes of transport accessible for the disabled. Transportation services must comply with the design-for-all principle. They must make transportation available physically, and provide facilities for booking and information for help on a variety of matters. All transport modes should be ICT-accessible throughout all of the European Union. Introducing minimum accessibility standards would accomplish this goal.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Madam President, I certainly welcome this own-initiative report, which points out in particular the need for more information to passengers and the need for more price transparency – which other Members have mentioned – better protection of passengers in the case of airline bankruptcy and more accessibility and assistance to persons with reduced mobility.

I made quite a few amendments myself to this report, particularly on issues such as through ticketing. I believe in addition that we also need clear information to be given to passengers on other issues such as the liability of carriers in the event of damaged or lost baggage, differential baggage allowances, compensation for delays and, particularly, adequate rerouting in the case of travel disruption and missed connections, which should include intermodal rerouting. I am also very keen in fact on the idea of a European multimodal travel planner which would give customers and travellers door-to-door information, including the cost and duration of multimodal journeys, including the air journey. That is something we should pursue.

Report: Maria Luisa Macovei (A7-0300/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, I have previously called on this House to make a bonfire of EU quangos. EU agencies are inefficient, unnecessary and unaccountable. I hope that the scandals of the European Environment, Medicine and Food Safety agencies will make Members think twice about what these quangos do.

The European Environment Agency’s relationship with an NGO, which it sent on trips to the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, are totally unacceptable. The agency’s lack of regard for public procurement procedures is also offensive, especially as so many public bodies in my London constituency are struggling to abide by complicated EU public procurement rules.

Finally, we get to the area where I feel all EU bodies are wasting money: information and communication. The agency’s ‘living façade’ was a EUR 300 000 over-indulgence. I congratulate the rapporteur on recommending a vote against granting discharge.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, regarding the discharge for the European Environmental Agency, I asked colleagues to refuse discharge. We even had more information than we had in May, when we decided to postpone discharge. We had information and written evidence of contracts of over one million euros, which probably breached the procedural rules for procurement, because they were designed specifically for certain companies.

Nevertheless, the discharge was granted following a close vote. I lost, but I think that, at the end of the day, after we voted three times in the COCOBU and once in plenary against the discharge of this Agency, the signal has been sent. Finally I would like to say that it was bad management to let the executive director decide whether a discharge is given and not the agency on environmental issues, and I ask for the resignation of this executive director.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, the entire Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe voted for discharge for this agency. In our vote, we had to balance the assertions that indicate an element of corruption – but without having seen the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office or any relevant authority – with the report of the Court of Auditors, which expresses criticism but does not make any accusations, with the statements of the two Commissioners who evaluated the Agency’s management (I am referring here to Commissioner Potočnik and Commissioner Šemeta) and the statements of a board comprising mainly prestigious bodies, especially Cambridge University. All of this indicates that those involved in the Agency’s management appreciate its performance and its leadership.

Mere suspicions alone should not prevent us from granting discharge for a European agency. It is only natural that such suspicions be backed up by evidence. What would happen if tomorrow we refused to grant discharge for the Commission because it was alleged in some newspaper that Mr Barroso had who knows what sort of important business in a Member State, yet these were just harmful allegations?

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0289/2012)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, why is it that a trade agreement that will facilitate the import of high-quality and affordable medicines into Europe is such a political hot potato? Because the trade agreement is with Israel.

To provide European patients with life-saving drugs at lower prices has taken over two years of negotiations, even though this is an already established joint commitment with Israel. We need to use more generic drugs to lower our healthcare bills. Israel, despite its small size, is at the forefront of major medical innovations. By using Israel’s generic drugs, the cost to healthcare systems for blood pressure medication, for example, could be reduced by 92 %.

I voted for this report because I believe in free trade. Members of the European Parliament should be supporting free trade, especially in an industry which is vital to the recovery of the EU.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as I consider the approach to be very important. I do not believe that when we talk about the interests of European citizens’ we cannot see that healthcare standards in Europe are not very efficient. On the contrary, access to generic medicines at reasonable prices could be good for European citizens.

I think it is wrong to politicise this topic, as there are no politics here except the politics of those whom one represents. Therefore, I welcome the adoption of this report by Parliament because, in my opinion, it is very beneficial for the healthcare of European citizens and their access to medication.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, as the shadow rapporteur for the report on Israel’s participation in Community programmes, I voted in favour of this Agreement as it represents an additional step towards economic consolidation between the Union and Israel.

Israel is one of the most important partners of the European Union. Moreover, Romania has a very strong political and economic relationship with Israel in various areas, including industry, agriculture, healthcare and tourism.

The effects of the Protocol will be felt by both European and Israeli producers. Reduced certification costs will make it easier for these products to enter the market. European and Israeli consumers will benefit from greater product choice. This is further proof of a high degree of harmonisation between the Union and Israel.

Report: Charles Goerens (A7-0293/2012)

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Madam President, this is a very important report, but I regret to say that I abstained in the final vote on it, for two very good reasons.

The first is that 72 % of the world’s poor live in the middle-income countries and the Commission is proposing to reduce, and then eliminate altogether, the support that we give to middle-income countries for poverty alleviation. If we do that, our entire poverty elimination programme is just going to be a farce, and will be of no use to the European Union at all.

Secondly, we sadly endorsed in the report the Financial Transaction Tax. I think this is a hugely damaging move. It will drive people in the financial services sector away from Europe – particularly from the great City of London, where financial services are the prime revenue earner – to other places, like Dubai, Hong Kong and New York, where there is no Financial Transaction Tax. Should a tax like this be introduced, it should be global. There is no effort at all to introduce it at a global level, so I think it is a very bad move.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, as the shadow rapporteur for this report in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I know how difficult it was to incorporate a perception of development aid as a whole into the resolution. Even the members of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament on the Committee on Development approved my amendment on inter-generational solidarity. However, in plenary today, the S&D Group asked for a separate vote on paragraph 15. Its objective was to remove family mainstreaming from development aid. The family is the cornerstone of every policy directed towards the future. This is as true in Africa as it is in Europe. Without family policy and inter-generational solidarity, there is no struggle against poverty or sustainable development. I am therefore pleased that paragraph 15 was eventually retained in the approved text.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of Mr Goerens’ report. I feel that it is realistic, but it also presents problems because with the list of changes, the Commission is trying to redefine not only the volume but, more importantly, the quality of the assistance.

I am sure that in the future, a number of emerging countries will need to be taken off the list of countries receiving assistance, because at the moment Europe is in a rather delicate situation. Many citizens, for example, the Portuguese, are looking for work in Brazil, and Brazil is still on the list of supported countries. It is important to re-orient changes towards social protection systems, governance and sustained growth. I am saying this because just recently, after an analysis of the support given to African countries, the rumour resurfaced that the assistance Europe gives Africa is ‘fatal’. Therefore, I believe that the quality, dimensions and criteria of this help must be reconsidered.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report as the eradication of poverty at global level is an essential objective of the Union. The European Union is the main donor of assistance to poor states but other developed countries must concentrate more on eliminating poverty. Emerging states should allocate larger sums towards this objective.

In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in 2015, concerted action is needed. I also believe that the Union must consider the groups most prone to poverty, and I am referring here to children, women, old and disabled people. Not least, the help for development must be oriented towards those sectors that have the greatest impact on reducing poverty: education, healthcare, agriculture and infrastructure. This would assure the sustained development of the countries that are in difficulty.

Report: Paul Rübig (A7-0293/2012)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, it is clear that if the European Union wishes to emerge from the crisis, it should enhance the competitiveness of its small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are responsible for the creation of 85 % of all new jobs in the EU.

It is therefore necessary to harmonise national industrial polices to a greater degree, while it is also essential to achieve another objective: internationalisation of SMEs. Only 25 % of SMEs in the European Union have been internationally active within the single market. I therefore agree with the actions proposed by the Commission aimed at encouraging the process of internationalisation and the need expressed by the rapporteur for provision of specific information about priority markets together with details of the various support services available.

In conclusion, I would underline the need for greater coordination of the various initiatives at EU level. At a time of rationalisation of public spending, we cannot afford to duplicate efforts or policies, risking the creation of pointless administrative and bureaucratic burdens.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Madam President, small- and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economies and drivers of growth, and much of this report is helpful.

However, when it comes down to comments on regulation, the report is simply too vague. To help these businesses we need to do less, not more. Tiny businesses, micro-entities, should be exempt from vast swathes of European legislation, a policy that is now supported by the European Commission, but this Parliament’s report sets hurdles for tiny companies to go through before they can get that exemption. It is the wrong way round.

We should have to prove to those companies why they need to be included in regulation and not leave it up to them to prove to us why they can be exempted. The Commission and national parliaments need to be better at assessing the impacts of legislation. If Parliament really wants to prove its commitment to helping companies then we must consider the impacts of our own amendments before we pass them.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. Support for SMEs during the current financial crisis is important, because they play a significant role in maintaining employment and welfare and in promoting growth. The vast majority of new jobs are being generated in SMEs and especially in businesses in new sectors. SMEs are the backbone of the EU economy.

As far as the report is concerned, it supports the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, which will help the EU to try and increase its competitiveness in the face of increasingly intense global competition. The report also sets out how we could truly make European businesses more international.

Of the individual themes in the report, I would like to highlight the Erasmus programme aimed at young entrepreneurs. By supporting entrepreneurship among young people, we can also intervene in youth unemployment and prevent the marginalisation of young people.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, in order to dig our way out of the financial crisis, everyone must fully understand the context behind job creation. In fact between 2002 and 2010, 85 % of all new jobs within the European Union were created by small and medium-sized businesses.

The Commission must accomplish the aim to increase and help small and medium-sized businesses by ensuring that they have access to Structural Funds. These funds provide small and medium-sized enterprises with a source of money for the development and expansion of their businesses. The Commission must also promote more harmonisation between the Member States in order to enhance competition, which will further grow the economy.

As part of this step towards more harmonisation, the Commission must also conduct a fitness check to review any existing erroneous or overbearing regulations. We need simple, clear and transparent regulations that are also predictable. These steps entail a long, time-consuming process, which is what we have now. That is why I say we need clear and predictable rules to a short deadline. We must work together to improve the job outlook and the European economy.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, 99 % of EU firms fall into the category of small and medium-sized enterprises, which account for 70 % of all jobs. That alone makes them of huge importance to the European economy. It is therefore vital to take steps to boost competitiveness in this area, as well as to remove the administrative burdens on businesses. At present, European provisions impose excessive administrative and bureaucratic burdens, which firms under financial strain are often unable to handle.

I am in favour of strong support for micro-enterprises. We should take action to help citizens onto the job market, in particular young people. By offering temporary allowances and concessions, the relevant authorities should encourage people to start and run a business. At present, many are understandably afraid of taking such a step, put off, to a certain extent, by often complicated tax arrangements. Given the small proportion of small businesses that trade outside the EU, it seems necessary to take action in order to stimulate growth in this area.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Madam President, I voted in favour of the report, along with my ALDE colleagues, largely because it highlights the crucial role which SMEs play in our economy and their vital role in helping Europe out of the economic crisis. I am pleased that we recognise that a third of red tape and bureaucracy for SMEs derives from poor implementation by national governments.

Member State governments really have to get a grip here and make sure they do everything within their power to make life simple and straightforward for hard-working entrepreneurs who employ the vast majority of the workforce and generate the vast majority of GDP.

Legislation coming from Brussels and Strasbourg also has an effect, and we need to be more sensitive to business realities. It needs to complement existing best practice. It needs to safeguard workers, consumers and employers, while also being smarter, more streamlined and less onerous.

Finally, the problem of access to finance cannot be underestimated. Banks are still failing to lend to the people and businesses that they ought to lend to, having spent years lending to people they ought not to have lent to. SMEs are finding innovative ways of sorting finance, but the banks and governments need to do more to support businesses that are viable. This is vital to ensure not only their short-term survival but also their long-term growth and ability to create new jobs.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as I consider it necessary to give better support and encouragement to the presence of the European small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) on the international markets, as they represent the great majority of companies and are the main source of jobs and innovation in the Union. I am of the opinion that their potential should be better exploited. In this way, the economy will be spurred on towards growth.

Furthermore, SMEs can contribute significantly to promoting and extending the vocational training system in order to substantially reduce youth unemployment. I also wish to highlight the fact that support for SMEs must consider the specific needs of each enterprise. We need a more coherent and coordinated European policy on SMEs, and the new strategies must be implemented as soon as possible.

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0321/2012)

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of this proposal on trade and economic relations between the EU and the United States, in part because of the important, balanced and complete report drawn up by Mr Moreira, for which I thank him. The proposal offers us a complete framework of the commercial and economic prospects and of the difficulties and challenges involved in the meeting of the two main world economies that together account for about half of global economic output and nearly a third of world trade flows.

After many years of deadlock, we are now approaching a possible turnaround in bilateral relations, with the prospect of a far-reaching agreement between Europe and the United States that could open up positive scenarios for transatlantic relations. Naturally there are questions relating to tariff barriers, and an agreement of this scope would have to aim to remove the many trade and technical barriers that unfortunately persist. It would also deal with other important issues, such as the protection of indications of origin, the opening up of the public procurement markets and harmonisation of rules of origin and regulatory standards, including health and plant protection standards, where there is still too much divergence. However, this in no way detracts from the steps being taken.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the United States occupies a key position in matters of Europe’s security and development. Mutual trade cooperation must therefore be viewed as a priority for strengthening transatlantic economic relations. The ongoing bilateral talks within the EU-US High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth are of huge importance. They serve to develop methods of cooperation that increase growth potential and foster financial stability in order to create high quality jobs. These activities must promote entrepreneurship and aid financial market stability. It is essential to open up our public procurement markets further to ensure full reciprocity and transparency, as well as to improve opportunities for businesses through access to public procurement contracts at all levels of government in accordance with national rules. While I support the motion for a resolution, I would like to stress that, with specific regard to Poland, the visa issue remains unresolved, which, to a certain extent, also restricts bilateral trade.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report as I think that the trade between Europe and the United States must be beneficial to both parties. Eliminating duties on bilateral trade could be advantageous to those Member States that adopt a pro-investment policy.

This applies to Romania, too, as it uses its strategic partnership with the United States to promote cooperation in a number of areas. Besides defence and cooperation within NATO, the US and Romania have engaged in strengthening relations in key areas such as energy and IT. Well-known IT and carbonated drinks companies have operated successfully in the Romanian market for some time. It was the highly qualified workforce that prompted them to transfer some of their activities to my country. I would like to encourage US companies to maintain their presence in Romania.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Francesca Balzani (A7-0308/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I consider that the aim of the draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget 2012 is threefold: namely, the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments, and a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. In addition, the draft amending budget No 4/2012 foresees the possibility of reflows and amounts left over from Union support to risk-sharing instruments financed from cohesion policy being added the following year, at the request of the Member State concerned, to its cohesion policy financial allocation. However, I would stress that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, as provided for by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Communist Party of Greece in the European Parliament voted against the report on the Draft amending budget for 2012 because it transfers 10 % of EU funds from the Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund to directly finance the monopoly groups through ‘risk-sharing instruments’. The funds for the Euro-Mediterranean budget, in other words the workers’ money again, are allocated to guarantees for low-interest bank loans to the monopolies, for the implementation of projects in high-profit sectors which, of course, have nothing to do with the people’s needs. This is the growth which the EU and the bourgeois governments seem so eager to achieve. Cash for the business groups, enabling them to revive and maintain their profitability; harsh austerity and destruction of the livelihood and rights of the workers; sky-high unemployment. Capitalist crisis and capitalist growth are the two sides of this coin of savage exploitation of the working class and popular strata. The needs of the people cannot be met unless the EU capitalist wagon is unharnessed and overturned; unless monopoly power is quashed in every Member State and power passes into the hands of the working class and its allies.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of this report, which I supported, is to create four budget lines to reallocate appropriations from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund 2007-2013. The text also calls for a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report as it supports the objectives envisaged in the amending budget. I think that it is very important that a percentage of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund for the next period be reallocated to risk-sharing instruments. This transfer must be done correctly and must be subject to suitable and effective controls.

Moreover, the inclusion in the budget of the provisions regarding own resources will lead to useful and welcome changes in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. Informing Parliament about this procedure should be a priority.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I have no objections to the Council’s position on the draft amending budget No 4/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which will, in particular, reallocate appropriations to risk-sharing instruments. It strengthens the transparency of this mechanism, which I fully support.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I support the draft amending budget No 4/2012 presented by the Council, without amendment. It is essential that Parliament is guaranteed regular and detailed access to information on the operational programmes to be reduced, on the financial instruments to be implemented, and on the projects to be supported in this area.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 1 December 2011 the European Parliament definitively adopted the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012. We all know that budget implementations never fully correspond to the amounts approved, whether due to the unpredictability of revenue received or due to unexpected expenditure. To resolve these situations, we have these amending budgets, which allow the initial allocations to be adjusted. Draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget of the EU for 2012 aims to create four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to ‘risk-sharing instruments’, to revise and budget the ‘forecast of the own resources’, and to replace ‘the “dash” presented in payment appropriations for a budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible’. Given that this draft is in line with the amendments to the Financial Regulation agreed between the EP and the Council, I voted in favour of this report by Francesca Balzani.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The approval of this amending budget (No 4/2012) aims to ensure budget cover for provisions allowing the creation of a ‘risk-sharing instrument’, based on authorising the transfer of capital from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, from the Member States to the European Commission, that is to say the transfer of part of the financial appropriations made available to countries in difficulty, which will therefore reduce the remaining overall appropriations. The majority in Parliament support the concentration of capital in the European Investment Bank (EIB) to cover expected and unexpected losses resulting from loans and guarantees. This risk sharing is established between the EIB and other national or international, public or private financial institutions, which will grant loans to project sponsors and banks in order to provide private cofinancing to projects implemented using contributions from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. Other methods exist and could have been used to overcome the existing limitations of private investment. These methods would not have resulted in a reduction, in practice, in the overall financial envelope of these countries, but would rather have boosted it. Accordingly, as we indicated previously during the debate on this instrument, this represents yet another sui generis exercise in European ‘solidarity’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The aim of the draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the general budget 2011 is threefold: the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments; a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget; and the replacement of the dash presented in payment appropriations for a budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible. The draft amending budget No 4/2012 is fully consistent with the modifications to the Financial Regulation agreed between the European Parliament and the Council. The European Parliament approved, without amendment, the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 4/2012 and instructed the President to declare that this amending budget had been definitively adopted and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Since I agree fully with this report and have no objections, I voted in favour.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Francesca Balzani was adopted by a large majority and I welcome that. This report relates to the draft amending budget No 4/2012 for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission. I voted for this report in plenary on 23 October 2012.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Balzani’s report on draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the EU general budget for the financial year 2012. This proposal aims to create four new budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments. The rapporteur proposes to approve the Council’s position without amendment, while placing great emphasis on certain policy matters, considering for example that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, and that all relevant details and information should be transmitted to Parliament in a timely manner.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. The aim of Draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the general budget 2011 is threefold, namely the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments, a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget, and the replacement of the ‘dash’ presented in payment appropriations for a budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe by a token entry (p.m.) to make a transfer possible.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The amending budget is needed to reallocate credits in particular from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. It also seeks to revise inaccurate forecasts of own resources and national contributions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget 2012 is threefold: namely, the creation of four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments, and a revision and budgeting of the forecast of the own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. However, in my view it is essential that Parliament is given regular and detailed information on the operational programmes to be reduced, on the financial instruments to be implemented, and on the projects to be supported.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Draft amending budget 4 translates in the EU budget (creation of new budget lines) the May 2012 agreement reached between Council and EP to enable those Member States experiencing or likely to experience serious difficulties with respect to financial stability to re-use/re-target some of the funds they receive in the frame of the cohesion policy via the setting up of risk-sharing instruments. The main idea is to address the problem of the lack of cofinancing that has occurred in recent years in those countries by putting in place a financial engineering mechanism which should attract more easily private (and public) funding to complement the EU’s public funds.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As I have no objections to the Council’s position on the draft amending budget No 4/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Draft amending budget No 4/2012 to the general budget 2011 aims to create four budget lines in order to reallocate financial appropriations from up to 10 % of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 allocation to risk-sharing instruments. It also aims at a revision and budgeting of the forecast of own resources, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own resources contributions to the EU budget. Considering that the draft is fully consistent with the modifications to the Financial Regulation agreed between the European Parliament and the Council, and that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. We have approved that any transfer from cohesion policy to those to-be-defined financial instruments should be duly justified and well controlled, as provided for by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 and that prior to operating any such transfer as specified in paragraph 2 the budgetary authority be informed by the Commission.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report approves, without amendment, the Council’s position on the draft amending budget No 4/2012. The most important aspect to be highlighted is Parliament’s resolution, which requires any transfer from cohesion policy to financial instruments to be duly justified and well controlled, with all relevant information being promptly forwarded.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the proposal to amend the European Union budget is to authorise the use of available cohesion policy appropriations to cover risks resulting from guarantees for loans granted by financial institutions, thus creating ‘risk-sharing instruments’. I voted in favour of the document, as this proposal will allow countries such as Portugal and Greece, which have received assistance from the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and European Commission, to carry out projects that are essential to stimulate economic activity, create jobs and attract private investment. It should also be noted that these risk-sharing instruments will allow the launch of projects cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund or by the Cohesion Fund, which are currently blocked due to financial restrictions. This will all be subject to a very strict framework of democratic control by the European Parliament with regard to these financial instruments.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the Council’s position regarding the draft amending budget of the European Union, (DAB No 4/2012) for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission. The amending budget (DAB No 4/2012) contains the following provisions:

- a revision of the forecast of traditional own resources (TOR), i.e. customs duties and sugar sector levies), VAT and GNI bases, the budgeting of the relevant UK corrections as well as their financing and revision of financing of GNI reductions in favour of the Netherlands and Sweden in 2012; resulting in a change in the distribution

- the creation of four new budget lines for the implementation of risk-sharing instruments financed from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, to promote convergence, regional competitiveness and employment;

- Modification of the budget line 16 03 05 01 – Preparatory action – EuroGlobe to replace the ‘dash’ for payments on the line with a token entry (p.m.), in order to allow the final payments to be made.

The use of an updated forecast of own resources improves the accuracy of the payments that Member States are asked to make during the budgetary year and reduces the unavoidable forecasting errors from the previous year.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution for two reasons. Firstly, because the main objectives of the draft amending budget are to reallocate financial appropriations to risk-sharing instruments and to revise and set the budget for the own-resources forecast. Secondly, because the draft is in complete accordance with the Financial Regulation agreed between Parliament and the Council.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report approves the amending budget allowing the creation of a ‘risk-sharing instrument’, which will be implemented through the transfer of capital from the Structural and Cohesion Funds to this instrument. This is therefore a decision which supports the concentration of capital in the European Investment Bank to cover expected and unexpected losses resulting from loans and guarantees. This decision once again reflects the political priorities of the EU, which regularly cites ‘solidarity’ as a flagship concept, but without any substance to it.

Report: Luisa Macovei (A7-0299/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament that requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. Necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. I believe that, in such cases, the European Food Safety Authority has to draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aimed at remedying the shortcomings, and that its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 10 May the European Parliament postponed the discharge decision for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and it has now drawn up a second report on the matter. The European Parliament and I decided this time to grant discharge for EFSA, given the considerable efforts it has made. It has endeavoured to reduce significantly the conflicts of interest that previously risked undermining its decision-making processes.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After the refusal to grant discharge for the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the spring, today I voted for the Macovei report, which, in light of the Court of Auditors’ report and the measures that have been taken (or are in the process of being adopted) to prevent conflicts of interest and strengthen the Agency’s independence, decided to grant discharge. Some problems remain, however, and we saw that again recently in the study by Professor Seralini (study calling into question the harmless nature of genetically modified organisms (GMO)), which is currently being examined by the EFSA experts, the very same experts who have always authorised GMOs… The battle for independent agencies, providing scientific expertise without being influenced by industrial and/or private interests, is still very relevant. I am therefore under no illusions when I vote in favour of discharge.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − A vote in favour would mean granting of discharge of EFSA when the Court of Auditors have failed to rule the accounts admissible. There is a definite urgency in calling for greater transparency and further austerity in keeping with the current economic climate.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Authority’s main objective is to offer independent, scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety.

The Authority must improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific literature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views. The Authority must be encouraged to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process. Certain elements of importance to the discharge have been addressed and taken up and it is to be believed that the roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach will take due account of those issues.

I voted for discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After the European Court of Auditors presented its annual report for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. The discharge report drew Parliament’s attention to the fact that several conflicts of interest at EFSA had recently come to light. In the interests of clearing these matters up and putting management of EFSA on a more efficient and economical footing, the committee recommended postponing granting of the discharge in spring. At its late September sitting, the Committee on Budgetary Control presented its second report on discharge for EFSA in which it stated that it had found sufficient assurances that management of EFSA would in future comply with the rules. The committee decided to grant the discharge. I supported the granting of discharge in the vote in both committee and plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Food Safety Authority’, because I believe that the Authority has taken important steps to effectively tackle potential conflicts of interest and thus continue independently and transparently to guarantee food safety in the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was set up in order to improve food safety throughout the European Union and thus guarantee a high level of consumer protection so that consumers can trust Europe’s food products. It acts throughout the food chain, from the safety of food for animals intended for human consumption to the protection of plants and plant health. This report concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the EFSA budget for the financial year 2010, following the European Parliament Decision of 10 May 2012 postponing the discharge decision for that financial year due to issues raised by the Court of Auditors, although the latter 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’. Given the replies from the Authority and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I voted in favour of this report to grant discharge in respect of the EFSA budget for 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Due to potential conflicts of interest and a ‘revolving door’ case, in May of this year discharge was not granted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the financial year 2010. However, according to this second report, many of the obvious problems have been solved. In particular, the Authority has proposed to its Management Board that it elect its chairperson by open ballot, which was previously done by nomination, in order to avoid what happened with the previous Chairperson, who accepted the position without declaring that she was also Chair of the Board of an institute financed by undertakings in the food sector. We therefore believe that discharge of the EFSA accounts can be granted.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) On 10 May 2012 the European Parliament postponed its discharge decision on the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010. The Authority subsequently provided extensive replies to the discharge authority by letters of 29 June 2012 and 20 August 2012. The European Parliament noted the Authority’s statement that adequate measures have now been undertaken to improve financial management and that execution rate in terms of commitment appropriations was close to 100 % in 2011. It pointed out that the Authority’s main task is to provide independent, scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety. It also drew attention to the need to implement measures to safeguard the Authority’s credibility. Members of the European Parliament expressed the conviction that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. In such cases, it is necessary to draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aiming to remedy the shortcomings. These problems must be addressed by changing the existing rules and regulations to eliminate possible loopholes.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because we need independent and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety. It is therefore essential to implement measures to safeguard the credibility of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Authority is encouraged to introduce in its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest. The Authority is also encouraged to improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process, to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific literature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views. The Authority is encouraged to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process. It is felt that discharge can be granted to the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of EFSA’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. As a reminder, the European Parliament postponed its decision on discharge in May 2012, mainly due to a conflict of interest involving EFSA staff.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − I voted for granting the discharge to the European Food Safety Authority in order to acknowledge the measures implemented by the Authority and the commitments it made since the postponement of the discharge last May. I acknowledge in particular the Executive Director’s commitment to foster the Authority’s transparency towards European citizens by proposing that the Management Board elect its chairperson by open ballot and by working with the European Commission in order to define the modalities of full public access to unpublished raw data. I also welcome the Authority’s intention to consider the possibility of publishing the outcomes of the breach of trust procedures and to reinforce the mandate of its Committee on Conflict of Interest. However, the Authority should further strengthen its independence policy and consider adopting rules, including among others sanctions and publishing the curriculum vitae and declarations of interest of the in-house experts and scientists. It is crucial for the Authority to keep the discharge authority regularly informed on the progress achieved, and in this respect I believe that its annual activity report should include a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflicts of interest from now on.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report which encourages the European Food Safety Authority to improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process, to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific literature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views; and encourages the Authority to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the 2010 discharge for the European Food Safety Authority. Since the discharge decision was postponed in May 2012, the Agency has improved its management and has taken measures to resolve its structural problems, particularly as regards the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. As a result, I voted in favour of the report on the European Food Safety Authority.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the discharge of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010, as it has met the requirements imposed by Parliament. These requirements were proposed by Parliament on 10 May 2012 owing to a potential conflict of interests, in particular the ‘revolving door’ case. In July 2012 EFSA introduced new rules on the monitoring and prevention of conflicts of interest that comply with the international standards applicable in this regard. In my opinion, the Agency has met Parliament’s requirements and I therefore voted in favour of discharge.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I fully support the EFSA as it has a vital role in making our food safer. I acknowledge that the Authority has taken important steps to address the issue of conflict of interests. Therefore, the EFSA should be granted discharge for the budgetary year 2010. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010, and the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts, Parliament has approved the closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the financial year 2010. Discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament in this respect, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. In this context, it is important to recall the existing rules, that is, the Staff Regulations for Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community, the Financial Regulation applicable to the European Communities, the authority’s founding regulation, and specific policies and procedures set up by EFSA. I strongly believe that the necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur, and I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 10 May 2012, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge and closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) for the financial year 2010. The Authority, then, provided extensive replies to the discharge authority by letters of 29 June 2012 and 20 August 2012. We need to give a reminder that the discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament in this respect, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments; recalling, in this context, the existing rules, i.e. the Staff Regulations for Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community, the Financial Regulation applicable to the European Communities, the Authority’s founding regulation and specific policies and procedures set up by the Authority. Thus, the EP grants 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.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) One of the fundamental objectives of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is to provide a high degree of protection for humans and animals. I take a welcome the Authority’s efforts to resolve some of the points on which it has received criticism, in particular, the prevention and management of conflicts of interest. I acknowledge the efforts by EFSA to ensure the integrity of its decision-making by introducing policies and actions aimed at improving ethics and transparency, and ensuring effective enforcement of its code of conduct. I also welcome the decisions taken by the Authority to ensure its independence and the integrity of its members. Also of particular importance is the integrated approach to food safety adopted in the EU to combat food-borne zoonoses. This coordinated action has helped to combat a serious and widespread public health threat, with over 320 000 human cases confirmed each year in the EU. I therefore voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) It was important to grant this discharge for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Almost 500 million consumers expect EFSA to work efficiently. I still strongly advocate measures to ensure that independent work is the rule, to fully address the audit and to carry out a genuine analysis in order to restore the crucial trust between EFSA and consumers.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report at second reading authorises discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) because the problems found at first reading have been solved. EFSA has made efforts to solve its structural problems, particularly in the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the financial year 2010. I would emphasise that EFSA’s main objective is to provide independent, scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety.

I welcome the fact that EFSA has developed an instrument for subsidies and public acquisitions with a view to improving the monitoring of tendering processes, contracts management and the payment forecast capacity. I welcome the fact that a new Database on Procurements and Grants was launched on 28 June 2012.

I think that the significant reduction in the costs of the management board meetings is a good sign, as they amounted to EUR 6 175 per member in 2010. Especially pleasing is the 66 % reduction compared to 2010, realised through switching to audio streaming on demand, using English as the only language for Board meetings and holding all meetings at the premises in Parma.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The European Food Safety Authority’s main task is to provide independent scientific and transparent advice on matters with an impact on food and feed safety. The Authority therefore needs to implement measures to safeguard its credibility. These would have enabled it to avoid previous shortcomings connected with the conflict of interest and lack of transparency. The strategy adopted by the Authority with regard to independence does not go far enough. Furthermore, it has yet to adopt rules providing for sanctions and the publication of the curricula vitae of in-house experts and scientists. For that reason, I voted against the report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) According to the statement by the European Food Safety Authority, adequate measures have been taken to improve financial management. The main task of the authority is to provide independent scientific and transparent advice on matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety. It is therefore necessary to implement measures to safeguard the Authority’s credibility, which should improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report states that many of the problems which prevented the European Parliament from granting discharge to the European Food Safety Authority last May have been solved. In particular, the Authority has proposed to its Management Board to elect its Chairperson by open ballot, which to date has occurred by nomination. We therefore voted in favour of this report.

Report: Luisa Macovei (A7-0298/2012)

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the discharge decision for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) cannot be based upon additional requirements, such as the guidelines of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), when the implementation of those requirements has not been officially requested by either the EU legislator or specific arrangements within the Agencies during the respective discharge procedure. The European institutions are therefore invited to examine whether it is advisable to incorporate and to commit to additional guidelines in a possible common framework for all European institutions and bodies. On the basis of the data available, I agree that discharge can be granted to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the EMA’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 10 May the European Parliament postponed the discharge decision for the European Medicines Agency and it has now drawn up a second report on the matter. The European Parliament and I decided this time to grant discharge for EFSA, given the considerable efforts it has made. It has endeavoured to reduce significantly the conflicts of interest that previously risked undermining its decision-making processes.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After the vote in May, the European Parliament is for the second time examining the discharges and it has decided to grant discharge to the three agencies found to be at fault in the spring. Today I voted in favour of granting discharge for the budget of the European Medicines Agency, as I did for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Environment Agency. It seems that each of these agencies has fulfilled its commitments and introduced new procedures to increase its independence and prevent conflicts of interest. That is therefore a step in the right direction, even if the question of the agencies’ independence remains, as we see at the moment with EFSA and the GMO issue.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − A vote in favour would mean the granting of discharge of the EMA when the Court of Auditors have failed to rule the accounts admissible. There is a definite urgency in calling for greater transparency and further austerity in keeping with the current economic climate

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Medicines Agency has an important role in providing the best possible scientific advice on any question relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use to the Member States and the institutions.

I have noticed that the Agency has improved the scope and methodology of the systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls related to the screening of declaration of interest. It should be commended for its decision to perform a yearly evaluation of its revised policy on declaration of interest. The Agency must keep the discharge authority informed on the implementation of its revised policy and in particular of its systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls on a six-month basis. The agency should introduce in each of its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest.

I voted for discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Medicines Agency has cooperated faithfully with the European Parliament, responding to the observations that we sent it in the spring and remedying most of the shortcomings that we mentioned. I therefore support the position of this report and voted in favour of granting discharge. The Agency must however, continue to work tirelessly to improve transparency and the management of conflicts of interest. This is non-negotiable for retaining and reinforcing the trust of European citizens.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After the European Court of Auditors presented its annual report for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the European Medicines Agency. The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. The discharge report drew Parliament’s attention to the fact that several conflicts of interest at the Agency had recently come to light. In the interests of clearing these matters up and putting management of the Agency on a more efficient and economical footing, the committee recommended postponing granting of discharge in spring. At its late September sitting, the Committee on Budgetary Control presented its second report on discharge for the Agency in which it stated that it had found sufficient assurances that management of the Agency would in future comply with the rules. The committee decided to grant discharge. I supported the granting of discharge in the vote in both committee and plenary.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Medicines Agency’, because I believe that the Agency has taken important steps to effectively tackle potential conflicts of interest and to thus continue independently and transparently guaranteeing the safety and efficacy of medicines in the EU.

  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 Medicines Agency (EMA) for the financial year 2010, following the European Parliament Decision of 10 May 2012 postponing the discharge decision due to issues raised by the Court of Auditors. The EMA, which was set up in 1993 but only entered into operation in 1995, is responsible for protecting and promoting public and animal health, through the evaluation and supervision of medicines for human and/or veterinary use. No medicine can be marketed without authorisation from this Agency. The Court of Auditors’ report, despite having made observations on carryovers, IT contracts and the payment system, considered the EMA’s accounts of 2010 to be ‘reliable, legal and regular’. Accordingly, bearing in mind the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, whose recommendations merit my full agreement, I voted in favour of this report to grant discharge for the EMA budget for 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament refused to grant discharge for the financial year 2010 to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) due to clear irregularities in the recruitment process, given that there was one ‘revolving door’ case and conflicts of interest between management staff and experts. According to this second report, the Agency has made progress in resolving these issues, by improving ‘the scope and methodology of the systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls related to the screening of declaration of interest’. Consequently, we voted in favour of closing the EMA accounts.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) On 10 May 2012 the European Parliament postponed its discharge decision on the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for financial year 2010. The European Medicines Agency subsequently addressed to a large extent the weaknesses highlighted in the report of 10 May 2012 and provided the discharge authority with substantial information by letters of 2 and 6 July 2012 and 2, 7 and 24 August 2012. The European Parliament – taking into account the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and approving the final accounts of the European Medicines Agency for financial year 2010 – granted the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. Its President will forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because of the importance of the work of the European Medicines Agency in providing the EU Member States and institutions with scientific advise relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. The discharge is therefore a valid instrument of the European Parliament, which requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. It is felt that discharge can be granted to the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the EMA’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Medicines Agency at the sitting of 23 October 2012. I should point out that Parliament had postponed its discharge decision in May 2012 because of a problem involving conflicts of interest.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of granting the discharge to the European Medicines Agency in order to acknowledge the measures implemented by the Agency since the postponement of the discharge last May. The Agency has shown a commitment to addressing the concerns raised by the European Parliament. I commend in particular the efforts made by the Executive Director and his team to foster the Agency’s transparency towards European citizens through, for example, its commitment to developing public access to clinical trial data. I also welcome the its commitment to improving the prevention and management of conflicts of interest with systematic ex-ante and ex-post controls related to the screening of declarations of interest as well as a yearly evaluation of its revised policy on declarations of interest. It is crucial for the Agency to keep the discharge authority regularly informed on the progress achieved, and in this respect I believe that its annual activity report should include a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflicts of interest from now on.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report which acknowledges the European Medicines Agency’s efforts to address the discharge authority’s concerns with regard to the prevention and management of conflict of interest; and notes in particular the reports of 29 June 2012 and 7 August 2012 received by the discharge authority on the review of the conflict of interest management cases identified by the IAS and on the review of potential conflicts of interest of experts involved in assessing the medicinal product Pandemrix.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge for 2010 for the European Medicines Agency. Since the discharge decision was postponed in May 2012, the Agency has improved its management and has taken measures to resolve its structural problems, particularly as regards the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. As a result, I voted in favour of the report on the European Medicines Agency.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of discharge in respect of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010, as it has met the requirements laid down by Parliament. These requirements were proposed by Parliament on 10 May 2012 owing to the need to ensure that documentation relating to recruitment was correctly managed. Parliament postponed the discharge for the financial year 2009 for a similar reason. The EMA has improved its documentation control systems and has undertaken to carry out periodic assessments of the recruitment process. In my opinion, the Agency has met Parliament’s requirements and I therefore voted in favour of discharge.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I fully support the EMA as it helps make our medicines safer and more efficient. I acknowledge that the Agency has implemented all necessary actions required by the report as voted in plenary in May 2012. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I have no objections to discharge being granted to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010 and the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts, Parliament granted 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. Discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament, and it requires a decision based on factual and substantive arguments. I strongly believe that the necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur, and I therefore voted in favour of the proposal. The discharge decision for the EMA cannot be based upon additional requirements, for example, guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, when the implementation of those requirements have neither been officially requested by the EU legislator nor by specific arrangements within the agencies during the respective discharge procedure. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The work of the Agency is important in providing the best possible scientific advice on any question relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use to the Member States and the institutions. The Agency put in place a multiannual procurement plan for 2012-2014 as requested by the discharge authority in its report on the discharge for the financial year 2009. We should remember, however, that the Court of Auditors reported a high level of carry-overs for the financial year 2010 as well as a lack of compliance with the budgetary principle of annuality. This is one of the cases in which we will have to be cautious.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Medicines Agency (EMA) protects and promotes public and animal health through the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. All medicinal products for human and animal use derived from biotechnology and other high-technology processes must be approved via the centralised procedure. The same applies to all human medicines intended for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes or neurodegenerative diseases and for all designated orphan medicines intended for the treatment of rare diseases. The Agency is also involved in referral procedures relating to medicinal products that are approved or under consideration by Member States. I voted in favour of closing the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text. Because of the many serious problems posed recently by dangerous medicines circulating freely on the market with the authorisation of the European Medicines Agency, it is absolutely essential to introduce, as soon as possible, procedures that are clearer, more transparent and subject to sanctions if they are infringed with regard to the clinical trial data, and the selection and training of the Agency’s scientific staff, including the declarations of interest of its experts and committee members who have been actively involved in the Agency’s activities.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of discharge being granted to the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010, and would highlight the efforts made by this Agency. I also want to highlight the Agency’s role in issuing scientific opinions on the evaluation of the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use within the EU territory.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2010. I would like to stress the importance of the Agency’s activities in offering the best possible scientific advice on any question relating to the evaluation of the quality, the safety and the efficacy of medicinal products for human and veterinary use to the Member States and the institutions. I welcome the efforts to reform the payment system for services provided by Member States’ authorities, which, clearly, ought to be based on real costs.

I think that a high level of reliability concerning the declaration of interests can only be achieved if pharmaceutical companies themselves make public their list of experts and research centres with which they work, and the sums concerned in their financial links with them. Thought should be given to whether a legislative initiative in this area would be pertinent. Also, the Agency should introduce in each of its annual activity reports a special section describing the actions taken to prevent and manage conflict of interest.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The European Medicines Agency provides the EU Member States and EU institutions with scientific advice on questions relating to the evaluation of the quality, safety and effectiveness of medicinal products for human and veterinary use. It is therefore extremely important to avoid a conflict of interests. However, in June 2012, a ‘revolving door’ case occurred at the Agency, the consequences of which are still unknown pending the outcome of the investigation. I therefore voted against this report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament refused to grant discharge for the financial year 2010 for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) due to clear irregularities in the recruitment process, given that there were conflicts of interest between management staff and experts. However, the rapporteur considers that these issues in relation to the declaration of interests have been resolved, which is why we voted in favour of closure of the EMA accounts.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0277/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This text, which I supported, is more technical than political. Given that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material moving in international trade has been updated, the European system also has to be adapted. The main change is a simplification of the importation of forest reproductive material into the European Union from third countries, based on a system of reciprocity, if eligible.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is important to have monitor the conditions under which forestry material is imported into the Union. Third countries that export forestry material for reproductive purposes into the European Union must respect the same conditions that are imposed on producers in the Union. Therefore, I believe that these materials must respect the European standards in their authorisation system and the registration of the basic material, as well as the standards regarding the production of the reproductive material from the respective basic material. Only in this way can we be sure that the forestry reproductive materials will not destabilise the European Union’s ecosystem. The protection of the environment and forests must remain a constant concern for the Union.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Council Directive 1999/105/EC regulates the internal marketing of reproductive material of plant species. To facilitate trade and to promptly respond to the marketing request, that Directive foresees the possibility for the Council to establish rules for authorising the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence system. Member States and stakeholders proposed to the Commission to submit this updating to facilitate trade, in particular the importation of forest reproductive material and to promptly respond to the marketing request in particular for fast growing tree plantations intended for energy/biomass production.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. This report seeks to establish rules for authorising the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence system. In my view, it is important to ensure optimum certification of the products that can be imported into the Union.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − This updates the authorities in certain non-EU countries including Canada, Switzerland, Norway to allow the import of forest tree seeds. To oppose it is to block trade yet to support the motion is to endorse an EU competence I do not agree with so I have chosen to abstain

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour as I have no objections to the Commission proposal.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This text will help to facilitate trade in order to meet the demand for forest reproductive material. I therefore support its position and voted in favour of the report.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on forest reproductive material as it makes important updates to the equivalence rules for forest reproductive material produced in third countries and respective conditions for import into the Union.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Paolo De Castro concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category (seed and planting stocks) within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. Council Decision 2008/971/EC established the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of forest reproductive material and determined the conditions under which forest reproductive material could be imported into the European Union. Given the need to facilitate trade in forest reproductive material in order to meet market demand and bearing in the mind the favourable opinion of 18 September 2012 of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposed text, I voted in favour of this report, which allows the import of seed and planting stocks of the categories listed in Annex II and produced in the third countries listed in Annex I, provided that they are officially certified by the authorities in those countries.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Through this report, Parliament has approved the European Commission proposal to amend the Council decision as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. The Council decision determines the conditions under which forest reproductive material of the ‘source identified’, ‘selected’ and ‘qualified’ categories may be imported into the Union. The aim of this updating is to facilitate trade in this forest material, in particular for fast growing tree plantations intended for energy/biomass production, which is the aspect giving us the most cause for concern. The Commission’s intention to include forest and agricultural plants and seeds in just one directive is viewed by sector organisations as a further obstacle to their development. For that reason, we have already alerted the Commission to the consequences of applying this legislation to national operators in the sector. The requirements imposed on agricultural material cannot and must not be the same as those imposed on forest material, as it is natural for agricultural material to have completely different rules, due to being part of the food chain. These amendments will not protect small producers and are in fact a reason for increased concern.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Council Decision 2008/971/EC of 16 December 2008 on the equivalence of forest reproductive material produced in third countries lays down the conditions under which forest reproductive material included in the ‘source identified’ and ‘selected’ categories produced in third countries can be imported into the European Union. According to these rules, the systems for the approval and registration of raw material and the subsequent production of reproductive material from the raw material should comply with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) system for the certification of forest reproductive material in international trade. As regards material in the ‘qualified’ category, these conditions should include the provision of information as to whether the products are genetically modified or not. I therefore believe that Decision 2008/971/EC should be amended as appropriate.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Paolo De Castro at the sitting of 23 October 2012. This report was adopted by 537 votes to 13, with 14 abstentions. I welcome that result. In order to facilitate trade and respond rapidly to market demand, this report gives the Council the opportunity to lay down rules for authorising the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence system.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal, which amends Council decision 2008/971/EC to allow the import of the ‘qualified’ category of forest reproductive material into the European Union from certain third countries that satisfy the conditions to meet the ‘qualified’ category. Qualified material is derived from parent trees that are selected on the basis of the superior quality of their observed characteristics. The third countries that we are referring to are Croatia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey and the United States. I am certain that it is in our mutual interest to pursue this course.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal for the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of the decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of production.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. I agree that conditions for materials of the ‘qualified’ category should include the provision of information indicating whether or not the products are genetically modified. This information should help in the application of Directive 2001/18/EC.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, which proposes adopting, under the simplified procedure, the Commission proposal to include forest reproductive material in the ‘qualified’ category and to update the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The Commission proposal contains the extension (from Dec 2012 till Dec 2022) of Council Decision 2003/17/EC providing the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. This proposal contains also an updating of third countries under the equivalent regime.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament position with a view to adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC, as this is intended to facilitate commercial transactions, particularly as regards the import of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category, and to respond more quickly to market demand in the forest sector. The adoption of this decision will also allow the updating of available information on the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of forest production.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council, after consulting the European Economic and Social Committee, and having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the request by Parliament that the Commission refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Decision 2008/971/EC established the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the equivalence principle for importation, and determined the conditions under which forest reproductive material of the ‘source identified’ and ‘selected’ categories produced in those countries may be imported into the Union. This is all based on new information received from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development about the adoption of an updated scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material moving in international trade.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This has to do basically with the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that Decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. The EP adopts its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposal, which amends Council decision 2008/971/EC to allow the import of the ‘qualified’ category of forest reproductive material into the European Union from certain third countries that satisfy the conditions to meet the ‘qualified’ category and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of production.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Decision 2008/971/EC on the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production contains a list of the countries eligible for an equivalence scheme for importation. It also defines the conditions for forest material to be regarded as ‘qualified’ and ‘selected’ material. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development supported the proposal for a Council decision, as presented by the Commission, for which I voted during the European Parliament sitting.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the inclusion of forest reproductive material from the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of the Decision, as well as for the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production.

The national rules for the certification of forest reproductive material in Canada, Croatia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States of America provide for an official field inspection to be carried out during the collection and processing of seed and the production of planting stock. The systems for the approval and registration of basic material and the subsequent production of reproductive material from this basic material should follow the OECD Scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material moving in international trade.

As regards material of the ‘qualified’ category, those conditions should include, the provision of information on whether the products have been genetically modified or not. As soon as the seed or planting stock has entered EU territory, the importer must inform the competent authority of the relevant Member State accordingly.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) This proposal for a decision on the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category within the scope of that decision and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production should be approved.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the proposal because of the benefits it will bring. The proposed changes will, above all, facilitate all areas of trade, in particular the import of forest reproductive material. It will also make it possible to respond more quickly to market needs, especially with regard to fast-growing tree plantations intended for energy and biomass production.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I supported the text presented by Mr De Castro proposing approval under the simplified procedure of the Commission’s proposal of the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category, and the updating of the name of the authorities responsible for production, approval and control.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Through this report, Parliament has approved the European Commission proposal to amend the Council decision as regards the inclusion of forest reproductive material of the ‘qualified’ category, with the aim of this updating being to facilitate trade in this forest material, in particular for fast growing tree plantations intended for energy/biomass production. In addition to this issue which gives us the most cause for concern, we believe that these amendments will not protect small producers.

Report: Antigoni Papadopoulou (A7-0271/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, remembering that the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty 20 years ago introduced the concept of ‘citizenship of the Union’, which it is worth underlining through expressions of European sentiment. It is therefore essential to highlight the objectives of raising awareness about the rights and responsibilities attached to Union citizenship: citizens can exercise their rights of freedom of movement and of civic and democratic participation.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the European Parliament welcomes the Commission proposal to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens. The European Year of Citizens must build a ‘bridge’ between Brussels and the EU Member States which would encourage EU citizens to participate actively in elections and would ensure that their voice is heard in the EU institutions. The year 2013 will be very important for promoting and enhancing our shared European identity based on fundamental European Union values. I believe that in the continuing economic crisis the Year of European Citizens will encourage EU citizens to exercise the rights and opportunities that freedom gives them. According to statistics, a third of EU citizens would like to exercise their rights but they still face obstacles in the labour market, such as administrative difficulties, when they come to live in another country. The year is being designated Year of European Citizens to mark the 20th anniversary of EU citizenship, enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht. All initiatives and awareness-raising campaigns will draw attention to the true value of EU citizenship: active participation in the democratic life of the European Union, especially following the European Parliament elections that will take place in 2014.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Treaty of Maastricht established Union citizenship in order to strengthen and enhance the European identity, and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. European citizenship should be understood as more than a mere legal status and take account of all aspects of life in a democratic society. The EU is the union of all of its Member States working together to improve the lives of their citizens. It is our duty to help them to exercise their rights to the full: the right to study, to work, to conduct a business, removing all obstacles, often of a bureaucratic nature, that create barriers and difficulties. We must continue to enhance participation by citizens in the European decision-making process, above all supporting the right of petition and the right to popular legislative initiative introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By making 2013 the European Year of Citizens, our aim is to make citizens more aware of their rights, particularly concerning mobility between Member States. This text, which I and the European Parliament as a whole supported, will allow us to organise awareness-raising and information campaigns for the European citizens. Conferences and events will also be organised and exchanges of information promoted. Finally, particular attention will be paid to the multilingual platforms set up by the European Union because linguistic differences are still one of the main obstacles to the mobility of European citizens.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I supported the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013) because the European Union needs the opinion of its citizens, especially in today’s rather difficult economic circumstances. As a Member of the European Parliament, an EU player directly elected by citizens, I consider it an important duty to ensure that citizens’ ability to exercise their rights is protected. In Hungary, too, I have witnessed the process whereby growing numbers of EU citizens are leaving their native Member State and settling in my home country. Foreign workers such as these must be clear about their rights, and the EU must provide as much help as possible with this in 2013. In Parliament we have frequently heard how effective an instrument citizens’ initiatives can be and I, too, have expressed my support for initiatives that come directly from citizens. As a member of the Committee on Culture and Education, I would also like to point out that the concept of EU citizenship helps to promote a sense of respect for common European values and contributes to cultural diversity.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Maastricht Treaty established European citizenship in order to strengthen and enhance the European identity and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. However, there are still problems and obstacles, such as the lack of visibility of Union citizenship and a lack of awareness about the concrete benefits it provides to EU citizens. More emphasis should therefore be placed on participatory democracy and the new rights deriving from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as the Citizens’ Initiative. We agree with the need for information, education and awareness campaigns, accessible to all citizens, with the preparation of an action plan in the run-up to the European Year, in collaboration with all Member States, EU institutions and civil society, and with the organisation of a pan-European campaign on Union Citizenship in 2013 by the European Parliament, in collaboration with the national parliaments. The European Year of Citizens 2013 paves the way to the new ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme (2014-2020), which will support activities designed to increase citizens’ awareness and understanding of the EU. For those reasons, I supported this report.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) For many citizens, Europe is still what Jacques Delors called an ‘unidentified political object’. However, European citizenship has grown and developed constantly. Family rights, pension rights, vocational training, recognition of qualifications: it is our shared responsibility to make everyone aware of the provisions of European citizenship that are concrete and useful in daily life. The European Year of Citizens, 2013, is therefore excellent news in this regard.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The overall purpose of the proposed European Year of Citizens is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. In my view this proposal provides a new momentum to the debate on Union citizenship and puts the informed and effective exercise of this right at the centre of the political agenda. Today there is still a lack of visibility of Union citizenship and lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides to EU citizens. According to a Eurobarometer study published in September 2011, among the most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. These barriers have become more severe at the present time of economic and financial crisis within the EU, because of the negative consequences of the crisis, including the rise of unemployment and social unrest. I therefore consider that the European Year of Citizens provides a great momentum to increase citizens’ awareness on Union citizenship and to stimulate their participation in democratic life.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support this report because the European institutions are constantly taking decisions that objectively improve citizens’ lives. Many have an immediate impact, meaning that they are noticed by the European public, but they are rarely attributed to the work of the European institutions. Others that are more complex or aimed at a specific public barely attract any attention, in spite of the many prospects and opportunities they create for citizens. Any efforts to address this situation will aid European integration.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The concept of ‘citizenship of the Union’ introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht has the objective of consolidating and strengthening the European identity and at the same time allows European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. The feeling of belonging to the European Union is an extremely important factor in outlining and defining civic participation, which can enhance the degree of collective identity, on which the future of the Union depends. I welcome the Commission’s decision to make 2013 the Year of Citizens and I think that this approach will give new impetus to the debate on citizenship. It will put the exercising of citizenship rights in the centre of the political agenda.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Reports by Eurobarometer and other research institutes contain some worrying findings on the ideas of European citizens on Union citizenship. Of course, the economic crisis has made it more difficult to appreciate the original reasons for the Union and its advantages. It is easier to underline the negative aspects, perhaps for internal electoral reasons. The report draws up a proposal that is of particular importance at this moment in history. We do not mean to update the ambitions of Porfirio Díaz for the 21st century, but rather to spread a basic awareness of the positive values and effects attached to Union citizenship, even on a practical level and in terms of opportunities, to counter the effects of continuous underlining of the failings of European integration, real or otherwise. We cannot allow European citizenship to mean no more to our young people than a different passport queue at airports. Opportunities, freedom of movement, training, professional and cultural growth are essential today for many countries affected by double-digit youth unemployment. I therefore support this proposal, including the detailed recommendations for the organisation and coordination of events for the European Year of Citizens.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013). According to a 2009 Eurobarometer survey, close to one in five Europeans see too many obstacles to working in another Member State. They include lack of information about the rights of European citizens, administrative issues, social welfare systems and the recognition of diplomas. At a time when employment must become the priority of European policies, I believe that it is important to facilitate and encourage cross-border mobility for workers. This report therefore proposes implementing various communication initiatives and measures to publicise good practices at European Union level, which will make European citizens more aware of their right to move and reside freely.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Parliament voted to designate 2013 European Year of Citizens with the aim of raising awareness of EU citizenship. Events will be organised during 2013 to explain the rights of citizens who decide to study, work, set up a business or draw their pension in another Member State. I have deep concerns about the free movement of people and the strains it puts on public services and manners in which these rights can, and indeed are, abused. I therefore cannot sanction a programme which will effectively endorse and promote the passage of people across the Union, granting them the same benefits as those citizens already resident in a nation when austerity and economic problems could see droves of people relocating, placing unprecedented strain upon domestic exchequers. It is my belief that Member States need the ability to control their own borders and set out their own package of benefits to encourage immigration that balances with the workforce need and the level of emigration taking place.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the European Year of Citizens will make an important contribution towards enhancing and deepening knowledge of the rights and responsibilities attached to European Union citizenship, with the aim of enabling citizens to make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The right to move and reside freely within the territories of Member States is an essential individual right arising from Union citizenship and all citizens ought to be fully aware of it and profit from the multitude of rights accorded by the legislation of the Union.

The European Year of Citizens also provides vital momentum for greater awareness of Union citizenship and stimulates citizens to participate in the democratic life of the Union, so as to solve democratic deficits and the low turnout at European elections. There is a need for practical ways to eliminate the gulf between EU institutions and European citizens, to address democratic deficits and the low turnout at European elections. Citizens must have access to simple and transparent information about the European Parliamentary elections, to programmes and objectives of political parties and candidates and to know their electoral rights. In addition, the procedures must be simplified.

I am asking for an information, education and awareness campaign, easily accessible and without restrictions, for EU citizens and especially for vulnerable groups. I also request that the Commission issue a comprehensive manual that will explain the terminology, scope and substance of Union citizenship to promote a better understanding of the concept.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Europe of which we want to be proud is not limited to the common market, but prioritises people and puts citizens at the heart of European policies. I therefore welcome the designation of 2013 (20th anniversary of the introduction of citizenship of the Union at Maastricht) as the European Year of Citizens, which is intended to ensure that all citizens are aware of their rights in a cross-border context. In 2009 it was estimated that the number of EU citizens living in a Member State other than their own was around 12 million, adding that 35 % of citizens would consider the possibility of going to work in another Member State. However, much still needs to be done to fill the gap between the legal rules ensuring freedom of movement for EU citizens and the obstacles that they face in reality, particularly the lack of visibility of Union citizenship and of its concrete benefits for citizens. It is vital to ensure greater visibility in relation to the impact and potential that the right to free movement, as an inalienable aspect of Union citizenship, may have in terms of strengthening social cohesion, mutual understanding, non-discrimination and creation of a common European identity.

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), in writing. − I would like to express my support for the proposition to designate the next year as European Year of Citizens. I am convinced that striving to ensure people’s awareness of available European rights, we could promote cross-border labour mobility. Being knowledgeable, European citizens could not only take informed decisions, but also be fully engaged in the Union’s projects and initiatives. In my opinion, it is important to explain more effectively the advantages of the Union Citizenship status so as people could use accessible privileges as well as enjoy and protect their rights.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support the proposal on the European Year of Citizens in 2013 to raise awareness amongst European citizens of the connection between Union citizenship and the right to freedom of movement. Of those questioned in the 27 EU Member States, 43 % claim familiarity with the term ‘citizen of the European Union’ and more than two thirds (67 %) are not well informed or not informed at all.

As a representative of the citizens, Parliament must be a key player in making European policies understood, with special emphasis on participative democracy and the new rights derived from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as the Citizens’ Initiative.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) European citizens enjoy rights that they do not exercise fully. It is time to tackle the obstacles that still hinder their mobility. Thanks to the European Year of Citizens, from next year we will be able to make every effort to achieve real European citizenship. The first stage in building that citizenship is making everyone aware of what it covers. The main objective of this action is to inform and debate, and I support that fully.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EP voted to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens. Against a general backdrop of economic, political and social crisis, I believe that it is important for European citizenship to have a role. The aim of this event is to inform the general public, and young people in particular, about how to put their rights into practice. European citizens enjoy numerous rights, of which they are not always aware, such as the right to reside freely in another Member State, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in European and municipal elections, and the right to petition the EU. Another important aspect for me is the need to emphasise cooperation with local authorities, work in conjunction with the national parliaments and the Europe Direct centres, and involve civil society.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) On the basis of a Commission recommendation, 2013 will be the European Year of Citizens. The initiative is intended to draw European citizens’ attention to their rights and obligations within the EU, notably with regard to freedom of movement and freedom from discrimination within the EU. The vast majority of European citizens are unaware of the kinds of rights and obligations they have by virtue of being EU citizens, on the basis of Treaties and initiatives such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Stockholm Programme. The statistics produced by Eurobarometer for 2009 revealed that around 11.9 million European citizens are working outside the country of their birth, while 35 % of the EU’s population has considered trying their luck abroad. One in five people, however, believe that many barriers need to be overcome in order to do this. The main reasons for this are lack of information and language differences and difficulties.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of the report on the European Year of Citizens because I believe that this is an opportunity to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It is important to give concrete solutions to achieve better and equal opportunities for all. Citizens must be fully aware and take full advantage of the broad array of rights granted to them under Union law, both in their country as well as in cross-border situations. Moreover, I am convinced that the European Year of Citizenship will increase citizens’ awareness on Union citizenship and will stimulate citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the European Union. Any restrictions imposed on European citizenship, such as the ones in place for Romanians and Bulgarians, must be ended as soon as possible in order for the citizens of these countries to benefit fully from their rights.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I support the designation of 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. Most citizens have no knowledge of the rights deriving from European citizenship. In the current context of scepticism about Europe, it is more essential than ever before to increase awareness of these rights and to use next year’s campaigns to better inform citizens about the potential that European legislation has to improve their living conditions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe in a better Europe. For that reason, I welcome the adoption of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council that 2013 be regarded as the ‘European Year of Citizens’. I hope that this event will help to raise awareness among European citizens about the benefits of this project. At a time when we are commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty being signed, all European citizens should be informed about the contents of the ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’. I would also like to welcome the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union, which, in addition to raising the self-esteem of European citizens, represents recognition of the work carried out by the EU institutions to consolidate peace in various conflict regions. Europe is an area of free movement of persons and goods where, without losing our national identities, we feel imbued with a spirit of fraternity and solidarity that needs to be propagated. Many European citizens are unaware of their rights as such. For that reason, the ‘European Year of Citizens’ will provide an excellent opportunity to conduct information and awareness campaigns on this project in order to make European citizens more aware and participative.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report advocates establishing a European Year of Citizens (2013) in order to raise awareness about the rights deriving from Union citizenship. Unfortunately, the current political, economic and social context could not be more contrary to the view of the EU – which the report adopts – as an area of democracy, equality, solidarity and citizen participation. This view is contradicted every day by the practice, policies and priorities that the EU is imposing on various people and countries, as is the case with Portugal. We are currently witnessing an unprecedented attack on democracy and the rights of citizens. The EU is increasingly an area of inequality, exploitation and loss of the rights for which people have fought and won over centuries. In this EU of free movement of capital and goods, which serves the international monopolies, the ‘free’ movement of people is conditioned by the hard reality for millions of workers, who have no possibility of remaining in their own country due to a lack of jobs and who are forced to seek support for their families elsewhere.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Treaty of Maastricht established Union citizenship in 1993 in order to strengthen the European identity and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. Union citizenship, conferred automatically on all nationals of the respective Member States, is additional to national citizenship. At the present time, we are targeting the lack of visibility of Union citizenship and lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides to citizens, students, consumers, and business people as well as to providers of goods and services in the European Union. The most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are the lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as the language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. Citizens want concrete solutions to their daily problems, equal opportunities for all, without discrimination on the grounds of nationality, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, belief or religion. I am convinced that the European Year of Citizens is an opportunity to exert a strong impetus for an improvement in citizens’ awareness of Union citizenship and has the potential to

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because it sends a strong political message by dedicating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. The rights and duties conferred by European citizenship are still largely unknown. Now we have an opportunity to increase their visibility. Now we have an opportunity to remove certain obstacles to exercising them. This multi-level citizenship confirms the Union’s commitment to its citizens but it also underlines the need for active citizens who participate in the shaping of the Union’s policies.

Finally, this European Year of Citizens is an opportunity for all citizens to take ownership of it. It is a strong sign for them to renew their commitment. I am sure that we are capable of tackling this challenge together.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The year 2013 will mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of citizenship of the Union. It is essential to put Union citizenship right at the centre of the political agenda.

This is all the more true at a time when families, businesses and European citizens are feeling the effects of severe crisis.

Today’s vote approved the proposal to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens, in order to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship.

Union citizens often lack awareness of their rights, including the rights to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, and to petition the European Parliament.

I hope that these measures to enhance awareness and promote citizens’ participation will be effectively applied.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I completely support the report by Antigoni Papadopoulou to establish the European Year of Citizens in 2013. In these times of economic and social crisis, it is essential to highlight the rights conferred by European citizenship in order to restore the confidence of our citizens in the European project.

Too few people are actually aware of the rights enshrined in European citizenship. We therefore need to support every action aimed at highlighting the rights of European citizens and ensuring that they are applied correctly. European citizenship cannot be a purely declarative phenomenon; it is eminently political. It is by defending and raising awareness of the existing rights and developing new guarantees for citizens that this concept of citizenship will assume substance and force and become tangible for all.

It is for those reasons, too, that I support an ambitious budget for this Year, greater than the EUR 1 million approved by the Member States, which is still much less than what we need to achieve our goal of European citizenship in everyday life.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Citizens are at the heart of the European Union’s policies. This is confirmed in a series of documents, presided over by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Unfortunately, although they enjoy many rights, EU citizens are often unable to exercise them because they are unaware that they have these rights. An interesting discussion during the launch of Single Market Week, in which it was predominantly citizens participating, revealed this lack of information to be a huge problem and, ultimately, a real barrier to making full use of the opportunities offered by the internal market.

One of the most important opportunities is the right of freedom of movement within the EU. It is this right that will allow us to develop the mobility that is of such key importance to the European economy. Exploiting the potential arising from mobility depends, however, on citizens being fully informed of the rights associated with it. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens, because it will be a great opportunity to communicate information in the most effective way possible to citizens in every corner of the EU and at EU, national, regional and local level.

I voted in favour of the report because I have always stressed the importance of the effective communication of information. Furthermore, I believe that the European Parliament, as the most democratic of the EU institutions, should uphold the rights and responsibilities of and their genuine exercise by more than 500 million Europeans.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The most common criticism of the European Union is the gap between its supposedly technocratic institutions and the citizens, who have difficulty identifying the key actors, and understanding their role, who is responsible for what, and, above all, the actual impact of European decisions on their daily lives. Numerous communication campaigns are organised every year to bring the citizens closer to the institutions and give them a better understanding of the actions carried out at EU level. For example, in 2009, an estimated 11.9 million Union citizens were living in another Member State than their own and the creation of the internal market has only served to increase such movements. Nevertheless, many Europeans feel that the obstacles to mobility within the EU are still too high, especially the lack of information about administrative issues, social welfare systems and the recognition of university qualifications. That is why 2013 has been designated European Year of Citizens. Its purpose will be to raise awareness of the rights attached to European citizenship in a cross-border context. Let us hope that this initiative succeeds in reconciling the citizens with the EU.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal because the overall purpose of the proposed European Year is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Unfortunately, Union citizenship is not visible enough and there is a lack of awareness of the concrete benefits it provides to EU citizens, students, workers, consumers, and business people as well as to providers of goods and services. The proposal provides a new momentum to the debate on Union citizenship and puts the informed and effective exercise of this right at the centre of the political agenda. I therefore believe that it is particularly important to strengthen Union citizenship at all levels and at every stage of the democratic process, to make citizenship an especially important dimension of EU policies and a key priority in all areas of EU action. In order to enhance citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the Union, citizens must be aware of how they can truly benefit from EU rights and policies, and exercise them everywhere within the societies of the EU Member States. I am convinced that by giving greater visibility to Union citizenship and to its concrete benefits for individuals, a better understanding of the value of European integration is guaranteed.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I would like to welcome the initiative to dedicate 2013 to European citizens and the 20 years of existence of European citizenship. Such a thematic term may provide remedies to the shortcomings of practicing this right, namely the lack of widespread knowledge and awareness regarding the benefits that European citizenship may provide to all European citizens, students, workers, or pensioners. It must be made clear, that these benefits are not privileges of the elite, but are the fruits of one of our most important community acquisitions that everyone is entitled to without discrimination. We therefore expect to see information and awareness campaigns that target all citizens of the EU, with special emphasis on vulnerable groups who, due to their socio-economic status, encounter serious difficulties when exercising their right to move, reside and work freely everywhere within the European Union.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Next year, the institution of EU citizenship will celebrate the 20th anniversary of its founding. It was intended to address the European Union’s so-called democratic deficit and to involve the population more closely in its workings. Today we can see that these objectives have not been achieved. Successive Eurobarometer surveys indicate scant awareness of the existence of European Union citizenship and that few people associate it with any rights. The fundamental problem is not merely that EU citizens lack awareness of their rights but, above all, that they feel so little involvement in the workings of the EU. We should therefore concentrate on strengthening our pro-citizen stance and creating a sense of European patriotism. Europeans who are aware of their rights will instinctively make use of them. I therefore voted in favour of this report, which promotes a series of measures aimed at improving Europeans’ knowledge of their rights.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Antigoni Papadopoulou, which I supported, was adopted in plenary on 23 October 2012 by 518 votes to 63, with 19 abstentions. Its main aim is to ensure that in 2013 all European citizens are informed of their rights, in particular their right to move freely. For this Year, the European Parliament is inviting the European Commission and the Member States to launch broad information, education and awareness campaigns for the general public.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I support the idea of a European Year of Citizens. This proposal’s main purpose is to ensure that all Union citizens are aware of the rights available to them in a cross-border context by virtue of their Union citizenship status, so as to enable them to make informed decisions about whether to make use of their right to free movement and to facilitate the effective exercise of this right. Many citizens of Poland have taken advantage of the ability to travel, work, and reside in different parts of the EU. I am in favour of raising awareness of the importance and benefits of the right to free movement and residence. I hope, however, that the initiatives that will be organised at Union, national, regional or local levels linked to the objectives of the European Year will not duplicate the work of the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The more Europeans know about their rights as citizens of the European Union, the better equipped they will be to make informed decisions about their private lives and the richer European democratic life will be at all levels. I welcome the adoption of the report by Antigoni Papadopoulou on the European Year of Citizens, which will enable us, throughout 2013, to explain the European Union’s contributions to the daily lives of European citizens. Free movement is the most widely recognised right conferred by European citizenship and the one to which the citizens are most attached. However, they are unaware of most of the other advantages offered by European citizenship due to a lack of information. I firmly believe that this European Year of Citizens will have to remedy a number of shortcomings in this area and will enable us to provide the citizens of Europe with valuable information over the course of the year.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013). Today, almost 12 million European citizens live in another country than their own, yet there are still many obstacles to mobility within our Union. I thus voted for the various financing strands proposed by the report, such as the development of communication tools for information campaigns for the general public. Although it is up to the Member States to inform their citizens, it is essential that we establish multilateral information campaigns. We must help EU citizens to exercise and defend their rights more successfully, at local, regional, national and European level.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Next year will mark the 20th anniversary of the Treaty of Maastricht and the concept of ‘citizen of the European Union’. The establishment of European citizenship impacted millions of people, bringing with it a series of advantages including cross-border access to health services.

However, a recent survey by Eurobarometer has shown that 48 % of citizens say that they are not sufficiently well informed about their rights as European citizens and only 30 % feel that they can personally influence the European process. A study performed by Eurobarometer in 2011 showed that only one third of EU citizens are fully or partially satisfied with the efficiency of the EU administration, its availability to offer services and its transparency; the rest are dissatisfied, especially with regard to the last aspect. In spite of the small budget allocation (EUR 1 million compared to the 2011 European Year, which had EUR 11 million at its disposal), we need to capitalise on the European Year of Citizens to remind our citizens about what the European Union can do for each of us.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Parliament’s decision to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens is very important for European democracy. All initiatives and actions, information campaigns, conferences and public hearings will have the aim of raising citizens’ awareness of the rights associated with the freedom to move and settle in other EU Member States. The founding of a European Year of Citizens is intended to educate young people, in particular, on their rights within the European Union and how to make use of them. I believe that this is a very important initiative and I voted in favour of Antigoni Papadopoulou’s report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the European Year of Citizens, which will be an opportunity to inform citizens about their rights, including information about voting rights, consumer rights and their rights linked to working and studying in another EU country than their own.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to designate 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. I believe that it is vitally important to raise awareness among European Union citizens of their rights and guarantees, as enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Year of Citizens is intended to increase the active civic and democratic participation of Union citizens. As Vice-Chair of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I support this proposal because I hope that it will not only reinforce equality and solidarity among the Member States, but will also enhance gender equality among citizens and increase the participation of women in the economic, political and social life of the European Union. I also regard this decision as extremely important in terms of increasing the mobility of workers and the resulting employment rate.

  Marisa Matias and Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In a Europe that has always seemed to be concerned only about its economic and monetary agenda, with people being forgotten, even when this agenda threatens to bring Europe crashing down and crush the lives of many citizens, the initiative to declare 2013 as the European Year of Citizens is good news. Furthermore, given that 2013 is a pre-election year for Europe, it may be a good strategy to bring citizens closer to Europe and to non-market-related European issues. We hope that this will also provide the opportunity to discuss a proper concept of European citizenship, encompassing everyone living in the European area, with less fortress Europe. The European Year of Citizens cannot just be for some and against many others.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Through the Treaty of Maastricht, all citizens in the Union benefit from European citizenship in addition to their national citizenship, which grants the right to travel, study and work in any of the Member States and a series of other related rights.

Unfortunately nearly half the citizens are not aware of these rights and cannot make any use of them. Therefore, 20 years after the introduction of European citizenship, the European Year of Citizens in 2013 is most welcome. The actions for 2013 could make people more aware of the rights, values and history of Europe, so that citizens could benefit from the opportunities derived from belonging to the EU. Certainly any initiative that brings citizens closer to the European institutions is useful. Personally, I think that the activities of the European Year of Citizens should be coordinated at EU level so as to make sure that the information is passed on uniformly to all corners of the Union.

Unfortunately, the budget earmarked for this programme is insufficient, much lower than funds allocated to other European Years. On top of that, there are no provisions to co-finance the projects of civil society organisations, and therefore we can foresee only a limited success for this initiative.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I welcome the proposal for a European Year of Citizens. It would be an excellent opportunity to enhance general public awareness of the rights and responsibilities attached to Union citizenship. It would also make Union citizens more aware of their rights.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of this decision, for which I voted. The creation of a ‘European Year of Citizens’ is an excellent way to increase people’s awareness of the rights, and the responsibilities, associated with European citizenship. The initiatives proposed to achieve the objectives set out in the legislative text are to be applauded. However, the idea that the citizens themselves must also play an active role in strengthening these rights through their participation in civil society should be reinforced.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, because I believe that the European Year of Citizens will raise EU citizens’ awareness of the rights they are entitled to exercise. The Commission will need to develop the debate on active citizenship by introducing discussion within the European institutions on participation and the exercise of citizens’ rights. This is a historic opportunity to promote active citizenship and the framework provided by the European Year of Citizens will serve to make citizens aware of the rights they enjoy.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. − (SK) As the sole intermediary between citizens and the Union, in 2010 the European Parliament invited the Commission to announce 2013 as the European Year of Citizens on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty, which introduced the concept of Union citizenship. I welcome the European Year of Citizens in particular owing to the upcoming elections to the European Parliament to be held in 2014. In the past, we have been afflicted by a low turnout in elections to the European Parliament, which certainly contributes to the Union’s ‘democratic deficit’. I am convinced that the Year of Citizens will contribute to increased awareness and knowledge of Union citizens’ different rights and responsibilities, which should logically also encourage citizens to take part in democratic life. For these reasons, I support the European Year of Citizens and express the conviction that appropriate resources should be allocated from the budget to strengthen the active democratic participation of citizens in Union activities.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − In times of economic and social crisis, raising awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship can help restore citizens’ faith in the Union project. European citizens should enjoy all fundamental rights. What is more, non-citizens, or those deprived of citizenship should also enjoy fundamental rights, I am in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I support the proposal to designate 2013 the European Year of Citizens. Time and money must be used effectively and rationally to help the EU further increase awareness among its citizens so that they have a better understanding of their rights and unprecedented privileges, the likes of which are not enjoyed by the citizens of the member countries of any other international organisations. Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in his or her Member State of residence, the right to enjoy protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State in a third country, the right to petition the European Parliament, the right to apply to the European Ombudsman and the right to address institutions of the Union as well as a series of rights in various fields such as the free movement of goods and services, consumer protection and public health, equal opportunities and equal treatment, access to employment and to social protection. The development over 20 years of the concept of Union citizenship has produced many positive results but there are still many cases where EU citizens are unable to exercise their rights because of practical obstacles and because they are insufficiently aware of their rights and duties. We are therefore looking forward to the 2013 EU Citizenship Report, which should contain proposals on how to eliminate remaining obstacles. At the end of 2013 I would also like the impact of the awareness-raising and communication campaign on European citizens to be analysed in quantitative studies, which would reveal whether the campaign was effective and whether the objectives were achieved.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this report because I consider essential the activity of civil society and the involvement of EU citizens in exercising their rights in full. Furthermore, I am convinced that all EU citizens should be aware of their right to move freely and choose their place of residence in the EU. Because there is little awareness of the concept of EU citizenship and the related rights, I consider it necessary to additionally inform and involve the citizens of all Member States. This is particularly important for me as an MEP representing the people here. For this reason, I supported the European Year of Citizens.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) EU citizenship is granted automatically to all citizens of the Member States, and does not replace national citizenship but is complementary to it. This report by the Commission responds positively to the proposal for a European Year devoted to raising awareness of the rights associated with EU citizenship. However, although the proposal promotes the idea of citizenship, problems are noted in the everyday life of citizens, such as the lack of equal opportunities for all, travel opportunities for the young, and the lack of administrative effectiveness. Increased awareness therefore means increased citizen participation and increased consensus on the European project. The proposals contained in this report contribute towards this aim, and for this reason I voted in favour of the report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Raising awareness among the general public of the rights and responsibilities associated with Union citizenship is vital so that both the rights and duties resulting from European citizenship are effectively observed. It is only by exercising these rights that the continuing obstacles in this respect can be identified and eliminated. European citizens themselves therefore have a vital role to play in strengthening those rights through their participation in civil society and democratic life, alongside the European institutions, which must run awareness-raising campaigns such as this one involving the European Year of Citizens. For all those reasons, I voted for this report, although I deplore the drastic cut in the budget for this initiative, when this is such a vital issue for the democratic culture of the Union.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In addition to their national rights, all Member State citizens enjoy a series of rights inherent to citizenship of the Union under the Treaties and incorporated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, Union citizens often lack awareness of their rights. The overall purpose of the proposed European Year of Citizens is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to help citizens make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. This European Year should not be another celebratory year but rather pave the way for the new ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme (2014-2020), which supports activities to increase awareness and citizens’ understanding of EU, its values and history. For these reasons, I voted in favour of this proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) I voted in favour of the report on the European Year of Citizens (2013). Citizenship of the Union was introduced through the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, to strengthen and reinforce the European identity, and it enabled European citizens to participate actively in the European process of integration. The common objective of the European Year is to raise the awareness of citizens about their rights arising from Union citizenship when they exercise their right to move and reside freely in another Member State. A Eurobarometer study, published in September 2011, shows that among the most common problems that EU citizens face when they reside, study or work in another EU country are the lack of information and awareness of their rights as well as the language barriers and the non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. These barriers become more severe at the present times of financial, political and social crisis within the EU, because of the negative consequences of the crisis, including the rise of unemployment and social unrest.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The year 2013 will be designated as the European Year of Citizens, with the general objective being to ensure that all Union citizens are aware of their rights, in a cross-border context, due to their European citizenship. The EUR 5 million budget agreed in plenary is therefore intended to enable Union citizens to make more informed decisions about how to exercise their right of freedom of movement and to facilitate its effective use. Although the Member States are predominantly responsible for raising awareness, appropriate actions to address this problem require multilateral partnerships, exchange of information, Union-wide experience-sharing, and dissemination of transnational good practices. This awareness-raising campaign aimed at removing many of the remaining obstacles to the exercise of the rights deriving from Union citizenship is hugely important. Only more and better information can help Europeans to use their rights. I voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As recent Eurobarometer surveys show, Europe is experiencing a crisis of confidence and trust. Since autumn 2009, the number of people who trust the EU has fallen by around 30 %. Given that next year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the creation of European citizenship and we will be less than a year from the European elections, it is a good idea to make 2013 the European Year of Citizens, a year for the citizens of Europe. In the hope of conferring on 2013 a symbolic significance, particularly in the current context, I voted for this text. It has become clear that the citizens do not have enough information about their rights as EU citizens. We must make every effort to ensure that the Year of European Citizens succeeds in raising citizens’ awareness of their rights. We also have to take effective measures to stimulate their interest in the activities of the European Union as that is crucial for the development of European democracy, which in turn is so important for the EU’s legitimacy. However, the success of this Year obviously depends on the financial resources allocated to it, and in this regard, I regret that its budget is so meagre.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Our amendments focused on highlighting the practical difficulties EU citizens face relating to their nationality, social and marital status, in their different roles (as consumers, residents, tourists, students, professionals, volunteers, political actors, people with disabilities) in their daily lives, such as the rights of international couples, portability of pensions and social security rights or access to public services. The right to information about accessing one’s rights within the EU should also include those resident or travelling within the EU or otherwise directly affected by EU legislation and should also be available in appropriate formats for those with particular disabilities.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The purpose of the proposed European Year of Citizens in 2013 is to enhance awareness of the rights attached to Union citizenship. The year will mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of citizenship of the Union. In all this time Union citizens have acquired a number of fundamental rights, including the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence. At a time of economic crisis, it is absolutely essential to put Union citizenship and participative democracy at the centre of the political agenda.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Ms Papadopoulou’s report. It is of fundamental importance for democracy and pluralism that European citizens should be informed of their rights arising from their European identity/citizenship. The establishment of the European Year of Citizens (2013) is an important initiative and contributes towards deepening the democratic institutions of the European Union.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is the right time to put the citizens back at the heart of European concerns. We are currently celebrating 20 years of the internal market, which we often accuse of having prioritised the movement of goods over the movement of people, and competition over solidarity. There are still many obstacles to exercising fully the rights conferred by European citizenship. The first of these is knowing what they are. In theory, we should all be aware of them. In practice, unfortunately, few of us are: confusion over the transposition of Directives, complexity of the decision-making process and lack of interest among the citizens mean that we need to raise awareness of our European rights. Indeed, once we are aware of the advantages of European citizenship, we must be able to put them into practice. EU territory is far from a homogeneous, uniform living space for its citizens. Sometimes, it seems as though the elimination of controls of people crossing internal borders has created as many problems as it has solved. In these times of crisis, the European project and European citizenship must rediscover their relevance. The European Year of Citizens in 2013 must be our opportunity to put the citizens back at the heart of European legislation.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) It is almost 20 years since European citizenship was founded and was automatically conferred on all citizens of the Member States. As a result, they acquired many rights across the territory of the European Union. They can now vote in local elections in their country of residence, take part in the European elections and stay, live and study in any Member State. Unfortunately, as the report shows, only 43 % of EU citizens are familiar with the term ‘citizen of the European Union’, while as many as 67 % believe they are not well informed of their rights. On top of that, officials and employers are guilty of all manner of abuses and discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, which effectively discourages many people from travelling and working abroad. Diplomas and qualifications are not recognised, while the language barrier makes it difficult for people to exercise their rights. The present economic crisis and unemployment only exacerbate these problems. For that reason, I greatly welcome the Commission’s proposal to designate 2013 the European Year of Citizens. We must do our utmost to make the best possible use of this time to increase citizens’ awareness of their rights. Furthermore, we cannot allow European solidarity and the sense of belonging that has built up over the years to cease to exist as a result of a temporary financial crisis. I agree with the rapporteur that we must lend European Union citizenship greater visibility.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Year of Citizens in 2013 marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Union citizenship by the Treaty of Maastricht. I see this as an opportunity to promote participation by the citizens of the individual Member States in the process of European integration. All too often the citizens I represent, like those of other countries, lack awareness of the rights and opportunities attached to Union citizenship. The European Union has achieved many important objectives in the areas of protection of rights, health, and freedom of movement within the territory of the Member States, but I think Europe can play a still greater role in the daily lives of its citizens. Therefore, in order to pave the way to a new phase of European citizenship through effective exercise of citizens’ rights, I have voted in favour of the Commission’s proposal to proclaim 2013 the European Year of Citizens.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. − (SK) I supported and very much welcomed the EP resolution of 15 December 2010 inviting the Commission to name 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. Next year will definitely be another good opportunity to disseminate information on citizens’ rights and the benefits of EU citizenship. Following the accession of new Member States to the EU and the enlargement of the Schengen borders, it may be a good opportunity for action on the part of Parliament as a direct intermediary between citizens and the Union. Members of Parliament play a vital role in providing information on the rights and benefits of Union citizenship, gender equality, participation of women and men in the democratic life of the Union, public health, equal opportunities and equal treatment, access to employment, social security and many other benefits. The Commission’s progress report for 2010-2013 and the assessment of measures and adoption of new measures will be further suitable stimuli not only for raising awareness of the European Year of Citizens, but also for providing information on citizens’ rights.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a decision on the European Year of Citizens in 2013, as it will be 20 years since the establishment of EU citizenship. The Union is based on the indivisible and universal values of human dignity, liberty, equality and solidarity and the principles of democracy and rule of law.

Each citizen of the Union must enjoy the rights provided in Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. For the citizens of the Union to be able to take decisions in the full knowledge of exercising their right to free movement, it is essential that they be appropriately informed about other rights to which they are entitled to in accordance with the Union cross-border legislation.

I also voted for the multilingual web portal ‘Your Europe’, a type of information ‘one-stop-shop’ with reference to the rights of citizens and EU enterprises, to be popularised among EU citizens. All the initiatives launched for the European Year of Citizens and their objectives should enhance the degree of awareness of the staff of public authorities of the citizens’ rights, whether those authorities are at Union, national, regional or local level.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In addition to shortcomings in European regulations, the citizens complain about problems with the EU’s administrative efficiency, a lack of transparency and excessive bureaucracy. There is still a gap between the EU and the institutions, and the citizens have little involvement in the workings of the EU. Abstention rates in the European elections are high, particularly among young people. There is a real lack of visibility of EU citizenship and the concrete advantages it offers to EU citizens.

The main problems facing EU citizens when they reside, study or work in another Member State include the lack of information and lack of knowledge about their rights, in addition to linguistic obstacles and non-recognition of diplomas and qualifications. This is magnified further during a financial, political and social crisis in the EU.

The proposed European Year will therefore aim to raise awareness of the rights attached to EU citizenship in order to help the citizens to exercise fully their right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 20(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes citizenship of the Union, explaining that: ‘Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship’. In recent years a series of problems and obstacles to the civic participation of citizens in activities connected with the construction of the European project have been identified. It is therefore vital to promote projects which attract ever more citizens in general, and young people in particular, to the civic and political component. I agree with the proposal to designate 2013 as the ‘European Year of Citizens’, with the general objective of raising the awareness of citizens about the rights attached to Union citizenship, in order to enable them to make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. However, I believe it would be more appropriate to use the term ‘European Year of Citizenship’, and I feel that it is vital that the EUR 1 million budget made available for this initiative be significantly increased.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − On Tuesday 23 October, I voted in support of designating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens. I believe this will be a key starting point in removing the obstacles to people fully utilising their rights as European citizens. Throughout the year, the European Year of Citizens will aim to educate the general public on what it means to be a EU citizen, especially those who decide to work, study or open a business in another Member State. It will also focus on cross-border healthcare and passenger and consumer rights. Thanks to this initiative, UK citizens will be fully aware of what it means to be a citizen of Europe and how they can personally benefit.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), in writing. − (DE) The European Year of Citizens offers us an important opportunity to put European citizenship at the heart of the European debate. There is far too little awareness of this issue among Europe’s citizens, especially as regards the rights attached to it. Euro-fatigue, Euroscepticism and even hostility to Europe are the direct consequences of this deficit. The European Year of Citizens therefore offers a great opportunity to bring the European project closer to citizens and to contribute to the development of a European public sphere. This is the only way to ensure the active involvement of the people. Europe does not only need politicians; above all, it needs people who are willing and able to engage in society. If the European Year is to be successful, two key prerequisites must be fulfilled: firstly, European civil society organisations must be closely involved in preparation and implementation. Secondly, there must be appropriate deployment of financial resources. The funding currently earmarked for this purpose is certainly not commensurate with the significance of the European Year for 2013 and the opportunities that it affords.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) With the report on the European Year of Citizens, the intention is to enhance awareness and, above all, knowledge of the rights attached to Union citizenship. One of these is the right to reside, study and work in another EU country. This will create better and equal opportunities for all.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) European Union citizenship was established in order to strengthen and enhance European identity and enable European citizens to participate actively in the European integration process. However, the democratic deficit that exists in the European Union denies citizens their basic right to freedom and to democratic governments. Furthermore, excessive EU bureaucracy and a lack of transparency mean that citizens feel removed from the EU institutions. I therefore voted against this report.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. − (SK) EU citizens should be better informed about their rights and opportunities. We are living in difficult times and therefore it is extremely important to talk about what unites us as Europeans. However, we should not forget that every EU citizen is first and foremost a citizen of a Member State. EU citizenship cannot replace nationality, but can be a useful supplement to it.

I agree with the rapporteur that it would be a good idea to amend the title and change ‘European Year of Citizens’ to ‘European Year of Citizenship’. It would be more logical and such a change would also be in line with the European Parliament’s original proposal. The European Year of Citizenship 2013 would thus commemorate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of European citizenship.

Through greater visibility of the concrete benefits of Union citizenship for individuals, we can contribute to a better understanding of the importance and benefits of European integration. A common denominator in activities during the European Year should be a strengthening of a sense of belonging, tolerance, mutual understanding, solidarity, and social and civic cohesion.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report supports the establishment of the European Year of Citizens (2013), with the declared objective of raising awareness about the rights of EU citizenship. In our opinion, organising the European Year of Citizens (2013) is nothing more than an EU strategy to try and legitimise the idea of the EU as an area of democracy, equality, solidarity and citizen participation at a time when the European institutions lack public credibility. In reality, the EU is not an area of free movement of persons, and this initiative, albeit in a surreptitious manner, will propagandise the single market as an area of freedom. Bearing in mind the difficult situation that workers are currently facing and the need for emigration to cope with unemployment in their countries of origin, we introduced into the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs the idea of the need to safeguard workers’ social security and trade union rights, and that labour mobility should not be interpreted by some employers as an opportunity to reduce wages, cut back on social security or, in general, to downgrade working conditions.

Report: Kristiina Ojuland (A7-0285/2012)

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this report because, although I totally support the necessity to ask for a further investigation on the Magnitsky case and to reiterate, once again, the rejection of any violation of human rights, I believe that an order of visa restriction for people not condemned by a tribunal would be a clear act of inconsistency with our own legal standards. In fact, if on the one hand we ask Russia to respect the basic principle of human rights, on the other hand we are violating the principle of presumption of innocence. In addition, I deem that the quest of making family members accountable for actions they have not done contradicts one of the basic principles of the rule of law.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While I believe the international and European community should seek to cooperate on matters such as this I am of the belief that it should not be an EU precedent to turn obligation to partake in border restrictions on individuals into the rule of law. It would be in Britain’s interest to partake in restrictions in cases such as these but these decisions must be wrought in the British Parliament and acted out under UK law according to UK Government policy in relation to the third countries in question. I therefore abstained from voting on this matter.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with its assumptions and content.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Kristiina Ojuland concerns the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. Sergei Magnitsky was a courageous Russian lawyer who died in a Russian prison, as a result of mistreatment, where he was being held after his arrest for fighting corruption in Russia. Despite all of the efforts made with the Russian Government to ensure that this case was properly investigated and that those responsible were tried by an independent court, the fact is that, despite the promises made by those in power, nothing has yet been done and this case continues to be raised at summits with Russia. This image of a lack of freedom and credibility is calling into question the consolidation of the democratic process, as reinforced by Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organisation, and is deterring investors. I voted in favour of this report and urge the Russian authorities to quickly resolve this case of human rights’ violation in the interests of the Russian community itself.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The discussion and adoption of this report represent yet another instance of interference in the legal and constitutional system of a sovereign country, which gives us serious cause for concern and which is difficult to accept in the context of normal and healthy relations between independent and sovereign states. Regardless of any assessment that may be made about the political and social situation in Russia, this represents an attempt to use a legal case to attack this country and its sovereignty, at a political moment when this country is opposing, within the United Nations Security Council, the military aggression in Syria. For that reason, it is clearly a form of blackmail and political retaliation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law. The European Union has repeatedly offered Russia additional assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order. The arrest and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represents a well documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights. Furthermore, the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system. The European Union has urged the Russian authorities on many occasions and formats, from regular human rights consultations to summit-level meetings, to conduct thorough independent investigations in this special, well documented case, and to put an end to the current climate of impunity. Visa restrictions and other restrictive measures are not in themselves traditional judicial sanctions, but constitute a necessary and legitimate foreign policy tool, constituting a signal of the Union’s concern. EU sanctions on the Sergei Magnitsky case could prompt the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to address, in a more concrete and convincing manner, the question of the rule of law in Russia.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The own-initiative report by Kristina Ojuland was adopted by a large majority in plenary on 23 October. I supported this report, which is a recommendation from the European Parliament to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. In the report, Parliament states that the conditions of his detention and death in custody represent a well-documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights. These conditions clearly showed the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system. Like the United States, Parliament is, with this resolution, calling on the Council to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up, and for the sustained harassment of his mother and widow. The Members of the European Parliament are also calling on the Council to implement an EU-wide visa ban on these officials.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. − (LV) I voted in favour of this resolution, because I think that both the death of Sergei Magnitsky and many other events in Russia point to substantial disrespect for fundamental human rights in that country and the dependence of the courts’ authority on political power. Only in autocratic regimes and dictatorships is the criminal law system used to take action against the opposition, against the freedom of opinion of its citizens or to shield those close to the elite from a fair trial and punishment for criminal activities. I believe that the specific restrictions proposed on persons who are responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky will serve as a serious warning to the Russian authorities and may have a significant effect on the actions of Russian officials in the future. I very much hope that these restrictions will change the current climate of impunity there. I am satisfied that increasing numbers of Europe’s political decision-makers are aware that it is necessary to adopt a firm, robust and comprehensive EU policy towards Russia. Such a policy will only produce results if cooperation, support and assistance are balanced by firm and fair criticism, including sanctions and restrictions when needed.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because the death of Sergei Magnitsky, and the subsequent judicial cover-up of the harassment of his family, was another example of the gross violation of human rights and suppression of democracy that is going on in Russia. Furthermore, the Russian authorities have not carried out a credible investigation into this tragic case. We need to remember that after Magnitsky uncovered the fraud carried out by state officials, the people that he accused were responsible first for his detention, and then for the degrading treatment in prison where he died. We need to implement an EU-wide visa ban on those officials and freeze their financial assets.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal. The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well-documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky are clearly a violation of fundamental human rights. The Council should take account of the corruption and the flawed Russian judicial system in its relations with Russia, and call in a more resolute manner for respect for human rights in Russia. The Russian officials involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky should also be deprived of European visas.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report. We should make every effort to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case, and to bring all those responsible to justice. The Magnitsky case should also be used to urge the Russian authorities to put an end to the widespread corruption and to reform the judicial system, bringing it into line with international standards by creating an independent system.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky are evidence of a violation of fundamental human rights by a member of the Council of Europe, which has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and all of the principles inherent in the rule of law. I therefore believe that visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in this case are a necessary and wholly legitimate foreign policy tool and a political signal of the EU’s concern about the frequent human rights’ violations in Russia.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR), in writing. − (PL) I firmly support the report drafted by Ms Ojuland, in which the Council is called upon to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow. The case of Sergei Magnitsky has long been covered up by Russia, the investigation is dragging on and, in spite of there being clear evidence, those responsible for the death of this Russian lawyer are still at large. In my opinion, the report sends a clear signal to the Russian authorities that the European Union will not cease to call for justice for those unfairly charged in this case. The posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is unacceptable. I consider that to vote in favour of this report is to give voice to our European values.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The rapporteur comes with a proposal from the European Parliament to the Council to establish visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in case of Sergey Magnitsky.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on establishing visa bans for Russian officials that have been and continue to be involved in this case where human rights have been flagrantly violated. It is regrettable that although it is already three years since the EU raised the issue of this case with Russia within the framework of the human rights dialogue there has been no progress. As the human rights dialogue continues to be limited, I do not feel that there will be any more serious movement in this case. It is time to send Russia a strong signal so that it focuses on rampant injustice, corruption and the human rights situation. I therefore hope that the Council will listen to the European Parliament proposal and adopt appropriate decisions. It should be noted that a number of Member State parliaments have already contacted their countries’ governments with similar recommendations. I believe that the people included on the list should not be issued with either Schengen or national visas of the EU Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the assumption that this is an exceptional measure, and as I have no objections to the assumptions and content of this report, which justifies and explains the exceptional nature of this measure to establish common visa restrictions for certain individuals, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well-documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights. The posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system. We encourage the Council to take a coherent and proactive stance on other serious human rights violations in Russia, on the basis of well-documented, converging and independent sources and convincing evidence, and to introduce similar restrictive measures against offenders as a last resort measure. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If the Russian authorities fail to respect the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, as seen in the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky’s death, a stable and reliable partnership cannot be developed between the EU and Russia. Although the restrictive measures proposed by the report are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, they should, however, serve as a political signal of the EU’s concern, which will be conveyed to a wider target audience with the hope of prompting the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to address, hopefully in a more concrete and convincing manner, the question of the rule of law in Russia.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The recommendations to the Council include establishing a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow; imposing and implementing an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and freezing any financial assets they or their immediate family may hold inside the European Union; and calling on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case, and to bring all those responsible to justice.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report as I believe that respecting fundamental rights values is a prior condition for EU-Russia relations. The reform of the judicial system is essential in order to be in conformity with international standards.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe and of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, and the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order. Despite the 2011 conclusions of the inquiry conducted by the Russian President’s Human Rights Council on the illegality of Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest, detention and being denied access to justice, the investigations are stalled and the officials involved have been exonerated and even assigned to the posthumous case. Such actions on the part of the authorities demonstrate the politically motivated nature of Magnitsky’s prosecution. I therefore voted in favour of the establishment of common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I felt that it was important to take a stand against the human rights violations. The death of Sergei Magnitsky is an injustice and just one of many manipulative moves by the Russian Government and judicial system.

More recently, the Pussy Riot conviction attracted a lot of attention in the media because it reflected an increase in the level of repression in Russia, where the government clamps down on public protests, rigs elections, intimidates the media, has banned gay pride marches for the next 100 years, and arrests and beats critics like the chess master Garry Kasparov.

The application of these sanctions at last exposes the senior Kremlin officials to actual consequences, which help to combat their systematic attacks on democracy and transparency. We must send Mr Putin and the Russian regime a strong political message against corruption and impunity.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Magnitsky case is a further example of the rule of law being violated in the Russian Federation, given that there has been a clear abuse of power, in particular by the law enforcement authorities. Following numerous calls by the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe for the true facts to be released, the Russian law enforcement authorities exonerated the officials involved and posthumously convicted Sergei Magnitsky, which is a clear violation of international and national law. The EP is therefore asking the EU and Member States to approve sanctions to show their disapproval of this conduct, namely visa restrictions on officials involved in this case.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death of Sergei Magnitsky represent a substantial and well documented case of non-compliance with fundamental human rights. His posthumous prosecution is a clear indication of the failures of the Russian justice system. Visa restrictions constitute a political signal of the European Union’s concern at these events. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Regardless of whether or not it is appropriate to detain any citizen in any country of the world, we consider that every country and its legal system must guarantee access for its citizens to the law and to the courts in order to defend their legally protected rights and interests. This principle applies to the arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of the Russian citizen Sergei Magnitsky. This report represents a clear interference in the legal and constitutional system of a sovereign country, which we cannot and must not accept in the name of cooperation between independent and sovereign states. This represents an attempt to use a legal case to attack Russia and its sovereignty, at a political moment when this country is opposing, within the United Nations Security Council, the military aggression in Syria. For that reason, it is clearly a form of blackmail and political retaliation.

Report: Jacqueline Foster (A7-0254/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report which concerns the recent Commission document on the ‘Implementation of the Single Sky legislation’. The urgent need for progress and the increased need for political support must be highlighted in order to ensure the successful and timely implementation of the Single European Sky legislation. Other key issues in this report include the implementation of the Functional Airspace Blocks and delays in deploying the SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) technology, which are both essential to the functioning of the Single European Sky.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The authorities providing air traffic control strictly mirror the geographical boundaries of their countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider. This fragmented national approach needs to be replaced by a common European system to increase efficiency and reduce congestion. Parliament and I supported this report, which should help to consolidate the Single European Sky project.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In recent years, increased air traffic has meant that Europe’s airspace is fast approaching its maximum capacity, and the problem can only be expected to grow over time. The fundamental processes of air traffic control have barely evolved since World War II: controllers continue to communicate instructions to pilots by radio voice communication. Implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) legislation would offer the possibility to move to a more modernised and automated industry. This would allow controllers to contribute to a more flexible, robust and innovative industry. Despite the fact that the implementation of the SES has already taken many positive steps forward, I am particularly concerned with the timing aspects of its implementation. The benefits of a full and timely implementation of the SES are too great to ignore: a study on the macro-economic impact shows a cumulative impact on EU GDP of EUR 419 billion, 328 000 jobs created and 50 million tonnes of CO2 saved. For these reasons alone, it is clear why it is so pressing to make Europe’s airspace as efficient as possible. I agree with the rapporteur’s request to the European Commission to report back to Parliament by a fixed date on progress with the implementation of the SES legislation.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support the substance of this report, because Member States’ reluctance to accept principles as logical as those guiding the Single European Sky legislation represents an example of poor use of resources and a complete lack of respect for citizens. The Single European Sky will allow cheaper, safer, shorter and, consequently, less environmentally damaging flights and requires the standardisation of the technology used in air traffic control systems, which presents an opportunity for European industry. With these principles in force, a crisis such as the one caused by the eruption of the volcano Eyjafjallajökull would never have occurred in Europe.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European air traffic management system is still fragmented, especially the organisation of airspace, technological equipment and air traffic control procedures. This has made flight operations inefficient and generated extra costs of EUR 1 million per year.

There has also been a considerable increase in the level of air traffic and this trend is expected to continue in the near future, especially in south-eastern Europe. The high level of air traffic can be managed safely and efficiently only if neighbouring states and suppliers of air navigation cooperate more closely in future. The creation of a Single European Sky is a basic tool for overcoming future challenges and should generate enough management capacity for the ever-increasing number of flights on the continent so as to reduce delays, increase safety and cost-efficiency, and lessen the impact on the environment.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite the current economic crisis, demand for air travel increased in the EU by 9.3 % in 2011 with a 4 % rise forecast for 2012, only slightly under the International Air Transport Association’s 5 % long-term average forecast. If the Asia-Pacific economies are included, the global rise in passenger demand currently exceeds 6 % annually, with cargo demand increasing by 5 %. However, the impact of the crisis cannot be ignored, as underlined by the Association of European Airlines, whose Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus in a recent interview forecast operating losses of EUR 2 billion for the whole sector. This combination of rising demand and falling operating profits makes implementation of the new Single European Sky (SES) legislation imperative, since corrections and restructuring are unavoidable (for example, to take account of the tendency for supply to move progressively towards European Low Fares Airline Association carriers). It seems incredible that the airlines should still be operating mainly on a pre-Union scheme based on the national economies. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the implementation of the Single European Sky legislation. Today, air traffic is still too dominated by the geographical boundaries of the Member States. In this regard, the harmonisation of air traffic control at EU level offers the opportunity to move to a more modernised and automated industry. Several European Commission initiatives must now be promoted, such as Functional Airspace Blocks and SESAR, the Single European Sky’s technological pillar.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. − (CS) I believe that the implementation of the Single European Sky programme will increase the demand for highly qualified workers and bring with it jobs with high financial rewards. The fundamental processes of air traffic control have barely evolved since the Second World War and have remained essentially a craft. Air traffic controllers still use mental maps of individual aircraft, their positions, headings and speed within the sector of airspace for which they are responsible. They are still certified and licensed and are appointed for only one or a few such sectors. They continue to communicate instructions to pilots by radio communication. The Single European Sky, the SESAR programme and the Functional Airspace Blocks initiative offer the opportunity to modernise and automate this branch. This would allow greater mobility for air traffic controllers, who would be able to apply their talents more widely – as pilots increasingly do now – and thus contribute to a more flexible, robust and innovative branch.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I cannot endorse in principle an effort to create pan-European legislation over airspace despite condoning cooperation on matters of air traffic safety and management. The EU has a history of disastrous policy-making in harmonised fields from fisheries policy to farming. The implementation of this legislation could result in a tangled web of bureaucracy that would benefit neither the aerospace and passenger air industries nor the passengers that use the services. I am also concerned by proposals in line with CO2 reductions that could pass the burden of cost down to airlines and ultimately the public.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Foster report, which aims to encourage the Member States to accelerate the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES). I regret the delay in the completion of the SES, which should offer passengers a means of transport that is more affordable, safer and kinder to the environment. In the current crisis, the SES offers significant economic benefits and potential increased growth and employment. I also share the rapporteur’s concern that the Union might lose its lead in terms of technology if the implementation of the SES does not accelerate.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Foster because it provides us with a timely analysis of a policy launched a decade ago that we must now admit does not work. Indeed, the Single European Sky (SES) intended by the legislators of the time, with greater air traffic capacity and lower costs both in economic and environmental terms, has yet to be realised. I therefore agree with the approach of the rapporteur, who provides an exact account of existing shortcomings, in identifying the need for action by the European Commission. Let us recall that the various components needed for achieving the SES include: the performance scheme, the Functional Airspace Blocks, the role of the network manager and above all the implementation of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme, which is the technological pillar of the SES project. SESAR will complete its research phase in 2015 and onboard and ground systems should then be introduced into the market over a period of 15 years. Drawing partly on EU funding, it will contribute to increased passenger benefits (above all, reduced waiting times and delays) as well as lower CO2 emissions and flight operating costs.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the full and timely implementation of the Single European Sky will bring significant benefits to the Member States, as everything indicates that it should have positive effects on the economy, employment and the environment.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At the moment, Europe’s airspace is among the busiest in the world, with over 750 million passengers using EU airports. Given the constant increase in air traffic, it is vital to successfully implement the Single European Sky legislation as soon as possible, in order to avoid congestion in Europe’s airspace and ensure high-quality air transport services for the European public. This will also lead to considerable economic, safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level. Although many positive steps have already been taken in the right direction, there is still a long way to go to achieve full and timely implementation, in order to avoid possible safety or operational risks caused by ever heavier traffic flows, outdated technologies and fragmentation of European airspace. Timely implementation should also allow the EU to maintain its competitiveness, encourage a new dynamic in this area, fostering growth and employment, particularly in the aeronautics and aviation industries, and contribute significantly to reducing CO2 emissions.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) At a time when the European Union is focusing on the creation of new jobs, we must also consider the fact that implementing the Single European Sky will mean better organisation and management of the air traffic in Europe, which will create greater demand for high-end, highly skilled and highly paid jobs. A more efficient European airspace will bring additional economic gains at European level, including benefits from economic growth, job creation and environmental protection. Europe cannot afford to experience a 30 % impact on the EU’s GDP, see 58 % fewer jobs created or miss out on CO2 savings of 110 %, which would happen if the implementation of SESAR were delayed by 10 years.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We can only achieve a Europe without borders if we have strong, unhindered transport networks. Our airspace does not yet meet that requirement. For the mobility of our citizens and the growth of our businesses, we need to create a real Single European Sky, because the single market will certainly need aviation. This report is ambitious and sets out clear, concrete objectives, which I support. I therefore voted for it. I hope that Europe will soon have an airspace that responds to its requirements and its global competitors.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which summarises the situation regarding the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES). The SES is an opportunity for the aeronautics industry, but all of the stakeholders must fulfil their responsibilities by respecting their commitments. The delay by certain Member States in implementing Functional Airspace Blocks unfortunately reflects the fact that certain governments are not willing to contribute to the realisation of this excellent European project. Is it still necessary today to point out that this streamlining of flight plans actually has major repercussions for our fellow citizens? Achieving a Single European Sky that is safe, efficient and sustainable, and that benefits both travellers and businesses, is an ambitious but achievable target for Europe that should not pose any problems for the Member States. Some 328 000 jobs are likely to be created against a backdrop of the crisis, which means that it is certainly worth sticking to the timeframe.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the resolution adopted on Tuesday to relaunch the Single European Sky (SES). The SES is designed to reduce journey times, thereby reducing CO2 emissions and the cost of flights, while improving safety and creating jobs. It is important to use all of the means available to us to manage European air traffic effectively and ensure that consumers do not waste any more time or money. Some 328 000 jobs are at stake, and they are very important, particularly during a crisis. With this vote, the EP aims to achieve a Single European Sky that is safe, efficient and sustainable, and that benefits both travellers and businesses.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Finalising the legislation on the Single European Sky would enable the most efficient use of Europe’s airspace from the perspective of the economy, of growth and job creation, and of environmental protection. The most appropriate instrument for this is to develop the new-generation air traffic management system (SESAR), which would successfully replace the already outdated technologies and the safety and operational risks that go along with them. The national Air Navigation Service Providers currently in operation represent the biggest barrier to creating the Single European Sky. These operate along national borders. In future the current system is expected to give rise to congestion as European airspace is fast approaching its maximum capacity, and it will also indirectly affect the quality of air transport services offered to the public. This is why we must support the creation of the Single European Sky.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the ‘Implementation of the Single European Sky Legislation’ as it underlines the need for concrete measures to overcome the obstacles and ensure the timely implementation of this legislation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Each Member State currently manages its airspace in cooperation with neighbouring countries. This uncoordinated management of Europe’s airspace is estimated to cost EUR 4 billion per year. The European Union has for many years been considering the need to implement centralised management of Europe’s airspace with obvious consequences for all: safety, speed and economy. In this respect, in 2004 the European Commission launched a highly ambitious initiative to reorganise air traffic by creating the SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) programme, which forms the technological pillar of the Single European Sky. Since then progress has not matched expectations, which is why it is now urgent to raise awareness among the Member States, so that the difficulties in its implementation can be overcome. At stake is the technological and economic development of Europe (creation of jobs, reduction of CO2 emissions, increased safety, more tourism, more competitive industry, and so on). I voted in favour of this report by Jacqueline Foster on the implementation of the Single European Sky legislation because we need well-organised airspace – in which safety is the watchword – and because the implementation of this legislation will make an important contribution to the future of Europe.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to speed up the process of creating the Single European Sky, by identifying the need to lay down ‘binding time frames’ for its implementation. There are two fundamental axes to this report: 1. Clear pressure on the Member States to implement the Single European Sky legislation, with it even being proposed that the Commission adopt punitive measures against countries still failing to meet the deadlines. 2. Disproportionate propaganda on the alleged benefits of the Single European Sky. The wolf has been dressed in sheep’s clothing and they are trying to overcome resistance by promoting the same old chestnuts: more jobs, more wealth for all, more safety, more environmental protection. The lack of basis for these alleged benefits is clear and compelling. The report hides the true purposes of the Single European Sky: national subordination, reduction in labour costs and increased profits for large companies. It also hides the fact that progress in terms of improved coordination and use of airspace can and must be achieved while maintaining the sovereignty of each country over its respective airspace. This is essential in order to defend the specific interests of each country, whether in relation to commercial aviation or defence.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Air traffic plays an important part in the economy and society of the European Union. In this respect, the air traffic management system is of vital importance for air traffic activities, given its involvement in problems relating to competitiveness, safety and sustainability. Air traffic management is still based on national sovereign airspace. In Europe, this is very fragmented and dominated by national monopoly service providers. Since the volume of traffic has greatly increased, not least owing to the development of the single market in air traffic, this fragmentation is now posing serious problems, especially with respect to capacities and long passenger delays. There is still no unified European airspace. A possible solution is offered by the Single European Sky initiative comprising the five pillars of performance, safety, technology, airports and the human factor. This concept has strong political support. There is no doubt that the completion of the Single European Sky will bring significant economic, safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable airspace and a more efficient air traffic control system at a European level.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I welcome this proposal because we must avoid any further delay in the achievement of the objectives established in the Single European Sky (SES) project. The report indicates clearly the advantages to be gained in terms of EU GDP, renewed competitiveness for European industry and job creation. Implementation of the SES is fundamental for putting an end to the current problems affecting Europe’s airspace and maintaining the leading role of the EU in the field of research and innovation. It would also fully respect the sovereignty of the Member States as regards military and other state aircraft operations. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − Mr President, today I have voted in favour of the implementation of the Single Sky legislation, which seeks to reduce the fragmentation of the European airspace and create additional capacity, as well as to increase the overall efficiency and safety of air traffic. I agree that the time has come for national governments to deliver on the commitments they made 10 years ago to create a Single European Sky (SES). As air traffic in Europe fast approaches maximum capacity, it is imperative for both the environment and the European economy that airspace is maximised through a more coordinated approach. I believe that my colleague, Mrs Foster, has done a commendable job in bringing forward these important proposals and I am happy to support them.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The creation of a Single European Sky is an essential component in achieving the objective of a Single European Transport Area.

Back in 1999, it was agreed that the existing fragmentation of EU airspace into 27 national air traffic control systems should end, with airspaces being merged into more manageable units based on a specific number of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB), in order to bring practical benefits: shorter flight times, fewer delays, fuel savings, better protection of the environment, and a reduction in air fares. Specifically, it means that implementation of the FABs and the deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) technology will result in flight times being shortened by approximately 10 %, 50 % fewer flight cancellations and delays, and a net saving in CO2 emissions of some 50 million tonnes. These benefits clearly demonstrate why there is a need to create a Single European Sky.

Although 4 December 2012 is the deadline for completion of implementation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs) and SESAR technology, the results achieved so far are sobering, to say the least. The Member States do not wish to be reminded of their obligation to create a Single European Sky, which they entered into ten years ago. Due to the Member States’ lack of commitment, the target date for implementation at the end of this year cannot be achieved.

How can the EU present itself as a respected negotiating partner on an international level in the aviation sector – an area of transport where the international dimension is critically important – if its 27 Member States are unable to speak with one voice?

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170)

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because a globally coordinated approach is needed to ensure that the new technologies are interoperable worldwide. A strong partnership is necessary to achieve the synchronised implementation of the SES legislation with all players and all Member States, including cooperation with neighbouring countries as well. One of the main challenges that needs addressing is the defragmentation of European airspace. The companies providing air traffic control strictly mirror the geographical boundaries of their countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP). This fragmented national approach needs to be replaced by Functional Airspace Blocks to increase efficiency and reduce congestion.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The own-initiative report by Jacqueline Foster was adopted by a large majority in plenary on 23 October 2012. I voted in favour of the report in plenary. It calls for measures to address the defragmentation of airspace. The industry providing air traffic control strictly mirrors the geographical boundaries of its countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider. This report calls for the development of Functional Airspace Blocks to reduce congestion. Finally, the report supports the public-private partnership approach.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. A Single European Sky (SES) could reduce delays and make air travel safer. Most importantly for EU consumers, it could reduce ticket costs. As air traffic in Europe approaches maximum capacity, maximising airspace through a coordinated EU approach using new technologies makes perfect sense.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Single European Sky (SES) project aims to establish common air traffic management rules in Europe. On Tuesday we adopted the report by Jacqueline Foster on the SES, which seeks to improve the capacity, safety and efficiency of air traffic. That will eventually result in shorter, faster and cheaper flights. As well as reducing travel time for passengers, the optimisation of air routes should lead to significant fuel savings and lower greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation. Indeed, the inefficiency created by the fragmentation of European airspace costs an additional EUR 5 billion every year. The average flight is 42 kilometres longer as a result, which means greater fuel consumption by aircraft, higher emissions, additional costly charges and increased delays. The long-term goal is to triple airspace capacity and halve traffic costs.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report proposes the implementation of air traffic legislation as it plays a major role in the economy and society of the European Union. Air traffic management (ATM) is essential for air traffic operations; the legal challenges connected to competitiveness, safety and stability must also be considered.

It is important to note that air traffic is fast approaching its maximum capacity and, with the passing of time, the problem will be intensified; there is an urgent need to implement the Single European Sky (SES) legislation to avoid the safety and operational risks arising from the ever-increasing traffic and outdated technology. By implementing this project, the expected cumulative impact on the EU GDP will be EUR 419 billion, the creation of 328 000 jobs and a saving of 50 million tonnes of CO2. SES is open to all neighbouring countries, aiming to expand and bring benefits to a wider geographic area than the EU.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report which sets out to address the recent Commission Report on ‘The Implementation of the Single Sky Legislation: time to deliver’. Although there have already been many positive steps in the right direction, there is still a long way to go, and 2012 is expected to be a pivotal year for the implementation of the SES.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of rapid implementation of the Single European Sky and I regret the delays thus far. The harmonisation of air traffic management would allow aircraft to take the shortest routes and thus offer passengers a means of transport that is cheaper, safer and kinder to the environment. The Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research programme (SESAR) must not be neglected. We must encourage the deployment of new technologies for information exchange and satellite navigation systems. It is important to remember that this would create no less than 328 000 jobs. We must continue to invest in research and, above all, rapidly deploy the new technologies that are available so that we do not lose our technological lead.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The most effective way of implementing the Single European Sky is by replacing a bottom-up with a top-down approach by calling on the Commission to propose measures aimed at eliminating factors delaying application of the Functional Airspace Blocks.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the Single European Sky (SES) legislation. The Single European Sky will help to create a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level. It will benefit competition throughout the EU, and even globally, by fostering growth and jobs, particularly in the aeronautics and aviation industries. I consider that enhanced priority should be afforded to this issue in order to work on developing and implementing this legislation.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted against this report, because the drafting of legislation in this area cannot serve as a pretext for extending the competences of the defence sector. This report emphasises on cooperation with NATO and strengthens the role of the European Defence Agency in advising and assisting the Member States in their efforts. It also envisages the need to involve the Military Committee of the European Union in the process. A space that should serve civilian purposes is being used by the military authorities to impose their decisions and objectives. Given the track record of these military institutions, we believe that the Single European Sky is being used to increase military competences at European level. The militarisation of Europe is not the solution to, but the cause of, the main threats to Europe. For these reasons, I voted against this report.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Single European Sky (SES) offers many advantages. The new provisions are going to add to the expectations of 2004: less air congestion; enhanced, unique safety features; a 10 % reduction in flight times, a 50 % reduction in delays and cancellations, and lower flight prices; lower CO2 emissions; and the creation of jobs, which is a crucial element. In this regard, according to a European Commission study, which I found to be particularly interesting, full and timely deployment of the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) would reduce CO2 emissions by 50 million tonnes and create 328 000 jobs, which is vital, in my opinion. Following the changes in recent years, the adaptations to the SES will at last improve aviation performance and create a unified airspace, a truly single sky. This vote also enables me to stress that the Member States must adopt a proactive political approach in this area.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The progress and the greater need for political support in order to guarantee a successful and timely implementation of the SES legislation are needed.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Given the need for the efficient and effective use of resources, legislation that has an impact on the Single European Sky must also be implemented as a matter of urgency. Only by aligning flight management systems would billions of euros be saved, in terms of passengers’ time, unnecessary flight cancellations and emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. I understand Member States’ concern regarding national security interests but I encourage them to address these problems as soon as possible for the sake of more efficient travel and a more competitive EU aviation sector.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of swift implementation of the Single European Sky (SES). Air traffic is increasing rapidly and with it airfares, to the detriment of passengers, safety and efficiency. Today the highways of the sky do not run in straight lines due to the fragmentation of airspace, causing longer flight times, and therefore also greater CO2 emissions and higher airfares. The fragmented national approach to air traffic control based on national airspaces in Europe urgently needs to be unified precisely in order to ease congestion, raise levels of safety, reduce flight times and delays, and lower airfares. Above all, full and timely deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research technology could result in the creation of 328 000 new jobs.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Since 2004, when the European Union was given authority in the field of air traffic control, vital aspects shifted from the intergovernmental level to the European Union. The EU’s main objective is to reform air traffic control in Europe in order to cope with the constant growth in air traffic and to operate air traffic so that it is as safe, efficient and environmentally friendly as possible.

The Commission communication on this matter gives a detailed description of the results of a study undertaken by SESAR (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) on the macroeconomic impact of the SES project. If the SES is introduced on schedule, the estimates are very promising. It is anticipated that there will be a cumulative impact on GDP of EUR 419 billion. There will also be an opportunity to create 328 000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 50 million tonnes. The benefits of full and timely implementation of the Single European Sky are therefore too great to be ignored.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This welcome legislation on the Single European Sky (SES) must be implemented. Studies indicate that the SES will bring economic and competitive benefits to all stakeholders, including end users, namely passengers, through reduced ticket prices. For those reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Although the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) project has already taken many positive steps forward, 2012 is expected to be a pivotal year for its implementation. Since air traffic is fast approaching its maximum capacity and as time passes the problem continues to grow, there is a relative sense of urgency with regard to the need to successfully implement the SES legislation in order to avoid possible safety or operational risks with ever heavier traffic flows and outdated technologies. I would also underline that the benefits of a full and timely implementation of the SES are too great to ignore, not only for economic gains but also for potential benefits on growth, job creation and the environment. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) I supported the non-legislative resolution calling on the European Commission to take all necessary steps, including the imposition of sanctions, to encourage Member States to eliminate borders in the Single European Sky. The majority of EU Member States, including Germany and France, will not have merged their air traffic control areas into nine Functional Airspace Blocks by the deadline of 4 December 2012. This unjustified delay means that airlines and their passengers will not have access to shorter, quicker and cheaper routes, in the view of MEPs.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One of the challenges that most urgently needs addressing is the defragmentation of Europe’s airspace. The industry providing air traffic control strictly mirrors the geographical boundaries of their countries, each of which have at least one Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP). This fragmented national approach needs to be replaced to increase efficiency and reduce congestion. The report supports public-private partnerships as this is a win-win situation for all throughout the whole supply chain, using incentives to encourage commitment, and bringing numerous socioeconomic benefits.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I would like to congratulate Ms Foster on her work. Following the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Parliament, in approving this text, has shown a firm desire to implement a true Single European Sky. The aim is to use airspace and current technology to make traffic management as efficient as possible and above all to ensure that consumers do not waste time and money. It should also be underlined that according to the Commission full and timely deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research technology could bring major benefits in terms of job creation, environmental protection and shorter flight times. The Commission has therefore been called on to adopt a new approach, including both sanctions and, where necessary, EU funding.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Although I welcome the progress made by the Union in implementing the Single European Sky, I agree with the other Members who voted in favour of the resolution that this legislation has to be implemented effectively and without delay. France has significant problems with air traffic congestion. At Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport, an aircraft takes off every two minutes at peak times. It will soon reach its maximum capacity, yet air traffic is increasingly constantly. According to the Commission, introduction of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research programme (SESAR) would have other advantages, too, including the direct and indirect creation of no less than 328 000 jobs and a saving in CO2 emissions of some 50 million tonnes. As we face a constant rise in unemployment and reflect on how our lifestyle affects our environment, I fully support the establishment of the Single European Sky.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The financial investment in research and development for the SES, the FABs and the SESAR technology so far has been substantial. Now is the time to put in place the measures necessary to reap the benefits of that investment with the successful and timely implementation of the SES. Without the SESAR technology, the implementation of the SES would simply not be possible and therefore the industry needs to take the deployment phase of this project seriously. As the technologies are already available from the manufacturers, the implementation of the SES is an achievable goal. Furthermore, the success of the Pilot Programmes also demonstrates that the theory can work in practice.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) National air traffic control spaces in Europe urgently need to be merged so as to clear congestion, increase safety, and reduce flight times, delays and fares. The European Commission should put pressure on Member States to meet their obligations and seize the opportunity to create 328 000 jobs through deployment of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research technology.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Union has the most congested airspace in the world due to its economic importance and the number of states it includes, some of which are small in size. The objectives of the Single European Sky (SES) project were established in 2004 and required air traffic control exercised by the individual Member States to be replaced by an integrated approach at EU level. The aim was to reduce the fragmentation caused by air traffic management based on national frontiers instead of aviation needs. It now appears that the aim to merge airspace by 2012 was optimistic and there is the real risk of further delays in achievement of the SES objectives. It should be underlined that this approach to European air traffic management would fully respect the sovereignty of the Member States. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Ms Foster’s report because it aims to reduce or eliminate delayed flights, reduce airline service costs and ticket prices, develop air transport and create jobs and, finally, bring about economic growth in the tourist sector.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Our airspace needs to be made more efficient through the application of the most recent air traffic management technology in order to avoid a situation in which consumers pay twice: with their time and their money. Increased levels of air traffic mean increased operational risks and we therefore need to act swiftly. The Single European Sky involves a number of measures in the civil and military aviation sectors covering regulation, the economy, safety, the environment, technology and the institutions. I voted in favour of changing the organisation of air traffic management, which has remained unaltered for decades, in the hope of meeting the future needs of aviation safety.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text and I want to stress, in particular, that it is important for the Member States to complete the Single European Sky in order to make considerable safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level. I would also emphasise the importance of taking into account regional airports, given their role in removing network congestion and increasing capacity.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) will bring competitive advantages and significant growth to the whole aviation industry, and to those sectors directly and indirectly involved, at a turbulent time in the history of Europe. If the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) technology is deployed, it is estimated that there could be a cumulative impact on EU gross domestic product of EUR 419 billion, with 328 000 jobs being created and a reduction in CO2 of some 50 million tonnes. Furthermore, air traffic is fast approaching its maximum capacity, which may threaten air operations and safety. It is time to reap the benefits of all of the investment made in the SES and SESAR in order to modernise European aviation and eliminate the defragmentation of Europe’s airspace, which is still divided by the borders of the European countries. Strong and effective European aviation, capable of competing internationally, will bring huge economic benefits to the Member States.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the implementation of a Single European Sky as it represents great progress; 2012 is a key year to implement it. Europe’s airspace is one of the busiest in the world; more than 750 million passengers use EU airports. The ever-increasing volume of air traffic will lead to insufficient capacity and more delays for passengers. We would therefore stress the urgency of successful implementing the SES to prevent increasing congestion and to insure greater coherence of the European directives regarding air safety.

For this reason, when developing SES, regional airports should also be taken into consideration, given their contribution to easing network congestion and increasing air capacity. We call on the Commission to report back to the Committee on Transport and Tourism by March 2013 on the progress made with regard to the implementation of the SES legislation. This progress report should include an assessment of the consequences of the delays in implementing the Functional Airspace Blocks.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I unreservedly support this report, which calls strongly for a more rapid completion of the Single European Sky (SES). This project will release aircraft from the constraints imposed by national borders and will authorise them to take the shortest route between two European airports. To this end, the project is based, on the one hand, on the realisation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) and, on the other, on the harmonisation of flight management technologies (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research). Unfortunately, this project, which should reflect the full sense and breadth of European added value, is struggling. The technological pillar is way behind schedule. We urgently need to accelerate and reverse that trend because the usefulness of, and need for, the SES will become increasingly evident as air traffic triples over the coming years. Its benefits are widely known: a reduction in flight times and costs, a 10-fold increase in safety levels, a reduction in CO2 emissions of 50 million tonnes, and the creation of 328 000 jobs. Therefore, why are the Member States and the stakeholders delaying the completion of this European project?

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The advantages of a Single European Sky are self-evident: increased competition and growth, positive impacts on job creation and the environment, and benefits along the entire supply chain. It will also have positive effects on the labour market and trigger further developments, for example, in relation to safety and controllers, which will create new jobs.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The Member States overwhelmingly supported the legislation creating a Single European Sky and are therefore publicly committed to implementing it. It is necessary to move quickly and push ahead with the implementation of the SES legislation to ensure effective air navigation services. It is essential, therefore, to lay down binding time frames. For that reason, I voted in favour of the report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Ms Foster’s report analyses the shortcomings of a policy launched ten years ago in this sector, requiring greater political effort by the Member States and underlining how the benefits of a full and timely implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) are too great to ignore. The completion of the SES will lead to considerable economic, safety and environmental savings by creating a more sustainable aviation sector and a more effective air traffic management system at European level.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I welcome the adoption of this important document. I have repeatedly said, whether in this Chamber or within the Committee on Transport and Tourism, that we cannot conceive of a common Europe without putting into practice the idea of a Single European Sky. A situation whereby passenger air traffic above Europe is still controlled by 27 different centres is unacceptable. Today’s passenger aircraft reach speeds that make it possible for them to fly through some Member States in a matter of less than 20 minutes. Requiring them in this time to make manoeuvres to change their flight path from the shortest and quickest possible is ineffective, unprofitable and incomprehensible. We do not need to introduce an emissions trading requirement for the aviation industry; we simply need to implement the Single European Sky in order to achieve similar results in terms of environmental benefit. I would also reiterate that the Functional Airspace Blocks must be implemented before the end of the year.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the process of creating the Single European Sky (SES). In other words, it is an attack on national sovereignty with greater national subordination, a predictable reduction in the workforce and increased profits for large companies. Another of our concerns about this project is its militaristic overtones, such as when it states ‘that the military community is a key actor in the SES context’. This may mean that this process, in addition to the economic objectives of privatising the ‘sky’, has military control objectives at the service of those interests that command the destinies of the EU.

Report: Georges Bach (A7-0287/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I agree that the specific passenger rights listed in the communication are a step towards fundamental rights cutting across all transport modes. The drawing up of guidelines on the application and implementation of these rights is one of the main requests designed to improve their short-term enforcement. A single cross-cutting regulation on passenger rights as a whole remains a medium-term vision. Passenger rights are at the heart of our transport policy and better information and transparency for citizens are needed in relation to these rights.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The mass transport of European citizens is no longer a simple aspect of our life. Given the ever-increasing number of citizens of our Member States who travel, we can say that transport modes are an integral reality of the European economy, society and culture. It is the duty of European authorities to make sure that there is transparent and appropriate interaction between citizens and operators in this sector.

We must also keep in mind that for smooth travel it is necessary to respect not only passengers’ rights, but also their responsibilities. We should expand the European Commission’s information on the rights enjoyed by travellers in the EU but also emphasise the information concerning individual responsibilities. More and more European citizens are using the internet to buy or validate their tickets. This process should be encouraged for its advantages: it speeds up the boarding process and helps to protect the environment. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is essential to defend passenger rights in all transport modes. Therefore, the European Parliament and I voted in favour of this report, which contains both a summary of existing legislation and a call for new legislation. The European Parliament has called, inter alia, on the European Commission to present a legislative proposal to protect passengers by means of compulsory airline insurance or a guarantee fund. Efforts are also needed to improve arrangements for persons with reduced mobility or disabilities.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Freedom of movement is a fundamental European right, and the European Commission must immediately adopt strict measures to ensure the rights of passengers. As recommended by the rapporteur, the Commission must introduce penalties to ensure full price transparency and put a stop to unfair commercial practices, such as imposing ‘non-optional costs’ or unreasonable restrictions on hand luggage. I agree that the Commission should provide a clear and unambiguous definition of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that can affect services and for which carriers are not liable. The rights of passengers are often infringed because carriers wrongly invoke ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in order to avoid their obligations with regard to passengers’ rights. Evidently, the current laws are not being implemented properly and that thus creates uncertainty for passengers. Passengers are not made aware of their rights and they are by no means happy about the time and cost involved in obtaining enforcement of their rights.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report because it strengthens passengers’ rights in respect of all modes of transport in three fundamental ways. It introduces the requirement to provide passengers with more and better information about the services associated with the tickets they purchase, it improves all passengers’ access to a system for handling complaints that operates under the same conditions throughout Europe, with particular emphasis on access to this system for people with disabilities, and it prevents fraudulent practices that sometimes occur through the provision on the websites of certain air carriers of information that is not entirely accurate or is incomplete at best. This is a step forward for European citizens.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the Commission’s policy, which aims to guarantee rights and common and comparable conditions for all modes, namely air, rail, waterborne and road transport. I support the measures on intermodality aimed at removing the obstacles that prevent European citizens from exercising their rights correctly. At the same time, I think it is necessary to improve the information given to passengers and compensation in the event of problems, cancellations or lost luggage, and to define the rights of passenger organisations, which are in the best position to inform and support citizens.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Inconsistent application of EU passenger rights law, emergence of new trends in services provided and the intermodality affecting some areas of the EU due to local conditions are the three main elements considered by this report, which deserves to be supported. While acknowledging and taking account of different national situations, the need for rationalisation must also be recognised, in order to achieve clear and precise awareness of a minimum and uniform level of EU passenger rights. The report gives due attention to e-commerce; the Italian General Confederation of Enterprises recently underlined that this sector is expanding rapidly, requiring increased regulation of passenger rights, particularly with regard to ticket cancellations, refunds and transparency in pricing. I therefore particularly welcome the comments in paragraphs 41, 48, 49 and 54 regarding an unambiguous definition at EU level of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ under which carriers are not liable to passengers, taking note of the relevant Court of Justice case-law. I also welcome, in addition to the environmental considerations of the report, the proposals for encouraging new ticketing technologies, as well as intermodality and interoperability of networks and carriers, as test areas for best practices having positive economic effects.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this own-initiative report on passenger rights in all transport modes. This report seeks to improve passenger rights by harmonising European rules. It is important to consolidate the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, and to strengthen consumer protection in the event of airline bankruptcy or insolvency.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. − (CS) Research shows that, in rail transport, 50 % of all problems are caused by delays and missed connections, but the respondents also spoke of cancellations and poor information during train journeys and at stations. It is therefore important that information on passenger rights should be simple, clear and accessible from the time of booking to the journey’s end. Carriers and terminal operators should set up information points or help services in order to provide passengers with the necessary information when making decisions in the event of travel problems and provide information if baggage has been lost or delayed. A standard complaint form, a single email address, and an inexpensive telephone line should be introduced, and a central electronic complaint site set up not only to give advice, but also to pass on complaints to the appropriate national bodies. There is also a need to improve information about air fares. Prices offered on the internet should, from the outset, include all of the costs payable. Customers must be in a position to ascertain the actual total price from the moment that they start booking. The Commission must prohibit every unfair commercial practice.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − The cooperation of airlines and airports in the protection of passenger rights is something I in principle agree with, but as a staunch opposer to the creation of further European legislation and EU competencies I have voted against the harmonisation of compensatory rights for delays. I fear that creating pan-European legislation in this area would not protect airlines in incidents where planes are forced to be grounded and create complex insurance in matters where passengers are seeking compensation in large numbers. MEPs urged the Commission finally to define clearly the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ causing interruption of services for which airlines cannot be held responsible. It is essential that both customers and businesses are fairly protected.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the European Parliament’s adoption of the Bach report on passenger rights in all transport modes. It is essential to have legislation that harmonises all passenger rights in order to ensure that passengers are better protected. I support the measures proposed to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, transparency of the quality of services and prices, passenger information, and intermodality. I also believe that it is essential to simplify the procedures to help passengers to assert their rights in relation to large transport companies.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mr Bach’s report deals with passenger rights, a question that is crucial for us as members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. The report draws attention to needs directly affecting our fellow citizens on a daily basis when they travel for work or family reasons or as tourists. The Commission communication lists 10 passenger rights that should apply for all transport modes and that aim to ensure a minimum level of protection for all passengers in the EU. In my view, the rights relating to accessibility, correct information and assistance to passengers should always be guaranteed. I particularly welcome the comments on persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, passengers who travel with children and assistance should travel problems occur.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that it is vital to strengthen the application of the current provisions on passenger rights and to improve them in those cases where this proves to be necessary.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the last 10 years we have developed a series of EU passenger rights, regardless of the mode of transport, to ensure a minimum level of protection, thereby facilitating mobility and at the same time creating uniform competition conditions for carriers. Unfortunately, these rights are still not being applied completely and correctly, either by carriers or by national authorities. It is therefore vital to revise the current legislation in order to make it clearer and to strengthen passenger rights, particularly the right to information on their rights and how they can exercise them. Effective and efficient application of these rights can only be guaranteed if they are actively and effectively monitored by national enforcement bodies. Passenger rights are therefore based on three pillars: non-discrimination, accurate, timely and accessible information, and immediate and proportionate assistance. I therefore support this initiative which, as one of the measures included in the communications on a Single Market Act, lists the rights and principles applicable to all modes of transport, while making distinctions due to the specific characteristics of each mode of transport, and identifies the areas in which greater convergence must be achieved as well as current shortcomings.

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), in writing. − Supporting this report, I would like to call for the necessity to continue the ongoing improvement of passengers’ rights in EU legislation as well as in Member States. I would like to stress that it is important to raise the awareness of European citizens about the existing consumer protection mechanisms at national and European level. At the same time it seems extremely important to submit the simplified and comprehensible form for application for the legislative petition so passengers could immediately and effectively defend their rights in the event of problems (delay of flights for example).

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In a Europe where citizens are free to go where they wish, when they wish, depending on their needs and interests, it is essential to have better coordination of the modes of transport and to apply a common core of passenger rights to all transport modes. In my opinion, Member States need to cooperate more closely to develop a European multimodal travel planner that allow passengers to plan their journeys across Europe using a whole variety of means of transport.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Our objective is to allow citizens to move throughout the Union, but we are well aware that it is not yet a reality. One of the problems we all face is the fact that we are often unaware of our rights as passengers: what do I do if my luggage has been damaged or lost? Can I receive compensation if my journey is cancelled or there is a serious delay? How can I complain? This report aims to respond to a problem that affects us all and it has the benefit of being both realistic and ambitious. I fully support that and I voted in favour of it. I agree with its ambition to achieve, in the long term, a more uniform and stronger framework for the protection of European passengers. Pending such a framework, we must continue to better inform passengers by promoting simplicity and communication.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which calls for better protection for passengers in all modes of transport. Often, when passengers encounter difficulties during a trip, they are baffled by all of the existing legislation. Therefore, we are today calling on the Commission to combine in a single text, in the medium term, the provisions on passenger protection. We also call on the Commission to submit a proposal in response to another recurring problem in the transport sector: passenger protection in the event of bankruptcy of a carrier from which they have already purchased a ticket. We can no longer allow passengers to be grounded because of bankruptcy and then deprived of the means to obtain compensation.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the resolution that we adopted, in which we expressly call on the European Commission to harmonise passenger rights in Europe in all modes of transport. Although there are six Directives at present, the aim is to create a common core of rights that are applied fairly to all transport modes, taking into account the characteristics of the different modes. That should result in greater transparency because the current situation remains unclear for thousands of European travellers. In emergencies and unforeseen situations, travellers must no longer be helpless and must be able to consult a simple document setting out their rights. It should contain a clear definition of what is meant by ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and should also clarify the rules on carrier bankruptcy. We need to ensure better protection for travellers, who must be assured of being able to return home. All prepaid travel should be reimbursed, too. Measures must be taken to guarantee the transparency of prices on the internet because all too often the initial price is nothing at all like the final price.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Previous Commission communications contained proposals relating to all modes of transport. It should be possible in the medium term to draw up a single cross-cutting passenger rights regulation, and it is essential to do so in order to promote intermodality. The legislation addresses the problems of air transport by eliminating ambiguities concerning passenger rights and clarifying issues relating to the responsibilities of air carriers in the case of denied boarding, long delays, cancellations, lost luggage, and barrier-free access to airport facilities. Regulation (EC) No 137/2007, in force since 2009, significantly strengthened the rights of rail passengers, but since EU provisions were framed to take account of the diversity in national rail systems, this has allowed Member States to exempt certain services from the application of passenger rights. For all of these reasons, new guidelines need to be drawn up with a view to reinforcing passenger rights, while taking into account the diverse nature of the different modes of transport.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mobility is one of the pillars of modern society and has been extensively promoted, not only among the young – look at the success of the Erasmus programme – but also in business terms (relocation and globalisation), and as a way of overcoming the economic and financial crisis. In fact, in recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of passengers carried, particularly in aviation due to the ‘low cost’ concept. This increase in the number of passengers carried has brought with it an increase in the number of problems in this sector. Every day hundreds of transport services are cancelled or delayed, causing serious complications for passengers (workers, students, tourists, etc.). Sometimes passengers are not aware of their rights, perhaps due to negligence on the part of the carriers themselves, particularly with regard to assistance when transport services are cancelled. In addition, information is not always correct, clear and available in multiple languages. I voted in favour because I agree with the need to implement a legislative framework ensuring respect for passenger rights, mainly easier access to information and support services.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This document brings together a series of passenger rights applicable to all modes of transport, to ensure a minimum level of protection in the EU. It sets out the criteria for compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, and the liability of air carriers when there are problems with luggage. It also aims to ensure rights for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility travelling by air, in relation to access, information and adequate training. As regards rail transport, it proposes improvements in the protection of passengers and their baggage and on the issue of delays and accidents. However, it is worrying that these rights can be challenged, bearing in mind, for example, that it is considered ‘essential to strike a balance between the need for passenger rights in the case of rural bus services and ... to ensure that the burden is not so heavy as to make such services unviable in the future’. There is also a symptomatic lack of any reference in the report to public transport services, which are an essential way of ensuring that the transport services needed to link isolated regions and places are maintained, thereby guaranteeing the full rights of passengers and populations.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Since the relevant goals were set out in the Commission’s 2001 White Paper, a comprehensive EU passenger rights package has been developed for all modes, affording basic protection to passengers while ensuring a level playing field for carriers. The existing regulations have failed to provide clarity on passenger rights or the responsibilities of service providers and therefore require revision. The common criteria (non-discrimination, equal treatment, physical and ICT accessibility, the requirements of ‘design for all’, fulfilment of the transport contract, exact and accessible information given in good time before, during and after travel, and appropriate assistance without delay in the event of problems and possible compensation) together with the 10 specific passenger rights (defined by the Commission in its communication) correspond to the main rights cutting across modes and form a solid basis for establishing a legally enforceable charter of passenger rights. The same fundamental principles and rights have been introduced across all modes of transport so that travelling in the EU – thanks to an increase in service quality, passenger protection and the appeal of the European transport sector – is easier and pleasanter. These passenger rights remain an integral part of the European vision for transport policy, although the conditions and methods of implementation of these rights differ and are still developing.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Broadening passenger rights is fundamental for reinforcing civil liberties in the EU as it enables citizens to exercise their right to freedom of movement. EU citizens unfortunately lack sufficient awareness of their rights, and so it is important to provide them with information. In my opinion, we should also make citizens aware of the protection available to them in the event of specific incidents such as airline bankruptcy or grounding of aircraft due to a volcanic eruption. Increasing passenger rights helps to increase passenger confidence in the various modes of transport, and without this confidence there can be no economic growth. Mr Bach’s report is exemplary, since it proposes solutions to remedy numerous current problems. I voted in favour of the report.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) In a Single European Transport Area, clear and comprehensible uniform rights for EU passengers are essential. Individual passenger rights have already been established at the European level for all modes of transport. In the aviation and rail sectors, these are already in force. They will apply to passengers travelling by ship from December 2012, and to coach and bus travel from March 2013. This report is to be welcomed as it draws attention to the remaining problems relating to passenger rights.

Among other things, the strengthening and clarification of rights are essential. Enforcement of these rights is often problematical and transparency must be increased, as travellers are still not receiving adequate information about their rights to compensation and reimbursement. Information campaigns are a good way forward here. Enforcement can also be improved with clear rules on the establishment of national authorities tasked with guaranteeing harmonised implementation of passenger rights in all Member States.

The Commission is already planning a reform of passenger rights at the end of this year. In doing so, it should take the European Parliament’s proposals to heart so that passengers’ rights are clear and unambiguous, with no further need to consult a lawyer for an interpretation, and to enable these rights to be enforced in a uniform manner throughout the EU.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report on passenger rights in all transport modes. Although the Union already has a comprehensive, integrated set of rules, it is now essential to ensure further convergence of current legislation and remove the obstacles that still prevent citizens from exercising their rights. For that reason, I especially welcome our recommendations aimed at informing passengers more fully: only citizens who are properly informed will be able to exercise their rights effectively. That requires, in particular, setting up information points and helpdesks and having properly trained personnel.

The future proposal should also, in my view, respond to the new challenges passengers have to deal with in terms of information and reservation systems. In addition to greater price transparency, it should set out clear provisions on complaint handling and the issue of liability. One of the other pillars of passenger rights, as far as I am concerned, is the right to mobility: we urgently need to establish minimum standards for assisting people with disabilities so as to ensure a coherent and effective approach throughout the Union.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) There is much talk at present of citizens’ rights, particularly in the context of the European Year of Citizens in 2013. I therefore welcome the fact that we are also focusing on the rights of specific groups, such as passengers. We can now cite a series of rights common to all forms of transport, such as the ban on discrimination against passengers on the basis of their place of residence or nationality, access to information about travel conditions and assistance should travel be disrupted, for instance, in the form of reimbursement of the full ticket price in the event of cancellation or long delays. Passenger rights naturally differ according to the mode of transport, but a list of common rights will enable these rights to be enforced more effectively. However, this list cannot be allowed to undermine the flexibility and proportionality required due to the diverse nature of the modes of transport in question.

I particularly support the Commission’s intention to continue with the information campaigns, as I have always stressed that clear, complete and accessible information is the basis for ensuring that rights are exercised.

I back this report, because I believe that this core package of rights common to all modes of transport will guarantee a basic standard of service and uniform procedures for all carriers, ensuring that passengers enjoy better travelling conditions, and that it constitutes another step towards further integration of the EU internal market.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 23 October the European Parliament adopted the report on passenger rights in all transport modes, including, in addition to air and rail transport that is already regulated, waterborne transport and bus/coach transport. This report seeks to coordinate the existing regulations and to establish common guidelines. Mobility is one of the key successes of the single market: facilitating the mobility of European citizens thus meant, of course, that the technical and administrative obstacles to their daily journeys had to be removed. I therefore welcome the fact that the EU is drawing up a set of basic passenger rights comprising rules that take account of their concerns. Among these basic rights, I would draw attention to the right to information that is clear, precise and easy to access from the time of booking and throughout the journey, facilitated by the establishment of information points, but also the right to cancel a journey and receive a full refund of the cost of the ticket, the right to compensation in certain circumstances, the carrier’s liability for luggage, and easy and non-discriminatory access for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because the Commission communication lists the rights applying to all modes, a package affording basic protection to passengers in the EU. The EU rules have been drafted so as to provide proportionality and the differentiation required by the diverse nature of the individual modes and their markets, that is to say, the type of journeys. Together they constitute the basis of common passenger rights: non-discrimination, implying that passengers and carriers must not be discriminated against on account of their place of residence or nationality; information about travel conditions; transparency, including price transparency; should travel problems occur, assistance in the form of rerouting and reimbursement of the full ticket price in the event of cancellation or long delays; compensation (except in extraordinary circumstances); care (food or possibly payment of hotel costs); and assistance and accessibility for people with disabilities or reduced mobility.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Georges Bach was adopted by a large majority on 23 October 2012. I supported this report, which relates to the Commission communication on the application of passenger rights in all transport modes. This report calls for improvements in many areas and, above all, the introduction, in the medium term, of a single regulation on passenger rights, which would apply to all passenger modes. A significant section of the report is also dedicated to persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report and I agree with the range of requests addressed to the Commission, Member States and other stakeholders (transport companies, service providers, industry) on issues such as clear and timely information of passengers, price-transparency, liability in the case of insolvency, enforcement of legislation by specific bodies at national level, as well as Commission monitoring and infringement procedures. EU consumers and their rights should be our priority. In addition, I particularly welcome the emphasis placed on the needs of persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) My colleagues and I adopted the report by Georges Bach on passenger rights in all transport modes. This report strengthens passenger rights by providing legal clarifications, irrespective of the mode of transport. It aims to facilitate the arrangements and information for passengers in the event of delays, lost or damaged luggage, and even carrier bankruptcy. Parliament has thus provided for an upwards harmonisation of passenger rights in all transport modes. The application of this report will, eventually, involve the introduction of a standard complaint form and processing time for all modes of transport, greater price transparency on the internet, and protection for passengers in the event of carrier bankruptcy.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I think that when harmonising EU citizens’ rights concerning all modes of transport, it is necessary to pay particular attention to people with disabilities or reduced mobility, and their need for accessibility. The report includes a number of measures intended to help these people, notably when special assistance is needed; that is a considerable improvement on the present situation.

In future, we will need to concentrate our efforts in each of the EU countries, to find solutions to make the infrastructure accessible and to harmonise and adapt the common standards to the architectural barriers in each Member State. In this way, the safety and security of people with disabilities or reduced mobility will not be affected by architectural obstacles and they will be able to play an active role in society.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report. The Commission communication lists the rights applying to all modes – a package affording basic protection to passengers in the EU. The regulations relating to air and rail transport are already in force; those relating to waterborne and bus and coach transport will not enter into force until December 2012 and March 2013 respectively.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is important to defend passenger rights in all transport modes. Passengers need to have rapid access to information and assistance in the event of travel disruption. The European Commission must react in more cases and investigate more systematically the companies that do not respect their users’ rights. It is particularly important to ensure that the principle of transparency is applied in internet prices: too often, additional costs that are not advertised are added at the end of the booking process, for example, credit card fees. The report also calls on the Commission to provide a clearer definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, which too many airlines abuse in order to avoid reimbursing customers affected by flights delays or cancellations.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with the recommendation that the Commission includes in its list of passenger rights on the right to a minimum quality services standard on the part of carriers and I am pleased that it set out a clear definition of such a standard. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) For some years now the EU has been developing a series of EU passenger rights, regardless of the mode of transport, to ensure a greater level of protection, facilitate mobility and, at the same time, create conditions for a competitive market for all carriers. However, it has not always been possible to fully use all of these rights, mainly at the fault of stakeholders, carriers and national authorities. We must therefore revise the current legislation in order to make it clearer and thus strengthen passenger rights, particularly the right to information on their rights and how they can exercise them. Passenger rights must be based on three pillars: non-discrimination, accurate, timely and accessible information, and immediate assistance.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, as it increases passengers’ protection in the event of carriers’ failure to abide by the rules. Passengers need to be protected, regardless of the mode of transport they use, from the abuses committed by carriers. These practices are very widespread among certain carriers, which shirk their responsibilities and leave passengers to their fate in the event of non-compliance. The report calls on the Commission to provide a clear definition of the extraordinary circumstances under which carriers could be exempt from responsibility. The report also refers to the need for price transparency with regard to transport fares and for the promotion of through-ticketing and the use of intermodal transport. For all of these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. − (SK) The fragmentation of passenger rights in the most important modes of transport, air, rail, waterborne and road transport, weakens passengers’ standing. Passengers, like all other consumers, are entitled to accurate and clear information and therefore the right thing to do to is to establish a minimum set of rights in all modes of transport. I consider it a priority clearly to establish passenger rights and service provider responsibilities. The harmonisation of legal rights in these four modes of transport will, in my view, result in the provision of equal responsibilities and conditions among transport operators who have previously not implemented many of the minimum passenger rights. The establishment of a list of minimum passenger rights represents just the first step in improving the situation in practice, since passengers encounter difficulties on a daily basis in enforcing their legal claims. I therefore consider that regular monitoring of the observance of rights and, above all, of the pursuance of passenger rights by national authorities is an essential logical step in the direction of a real improvement in the situation of passengers in the EU.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Passengers’ right are in the core of our transport policy. We need better information and the enforcement of current legislation and it is necessary to strengthen passengers’ right in the forthcoming legislation. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Integration does not just mean new Member States’ membership of the European Union or inclusion of new policy areas among the EU’s competences. Integration is also the application of uniform rules in the same sector. In terms of passenger transport, we have already adopted documents in the parliamentary term establishing the rights of passengers travelling by bus, ferry and plane. It is very important to ensure that a passenger travelling by different modes of transport during a single journey is guaranteed the same rights, particularly rights regarding information about journeys or their cancellation, as well as passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore welcome the comment that the Commission still has a lot to do for passengers to be able to travel comfortably and safely in the European Union.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Bach’s report on passenger rights for all transport modes. We have lived in a single market for two decades, and travel is increasingly important both for economic development and the personal fulfilment of citizens. Therefore, travelling should be a normal everyday activity, not an obstacle race. We should also promote the use of new technologies for all modes of transport, to be applied to the issuing of boarding cards that can be retained, are valid and can be shown using electronic devices.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) I consider the protection of passengers against operators’ behaviour to be a very important objective in the field of transport. Appropriate regulations are already in force in air and rail transport; in waterborne and bus transport, regulations will not enter into force until December 2012 and March 2013, respectively, and therefore we shall not be able to implement them until sometime in the future. The relevant air transport regulations govern the system of compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, and the liability of air carriers when luggage is lost, delayed or damaged.

Protection is also essential for passengers with disabilities, focusing for example on the quality of service to this group of people, including barrier-free access to airports, proper staff training and clarification of the matter of liability for loss or damage to mobility devices.

Our citizens are constantly encountering problems associated with transport and therefore it is essential that their rights are harmonised in all modes of transport.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the Commission communication setting out a list of rights applicable in all modes of transport, which together guarantee EU passengers (in a broad sense) a minimum level of protection. This report proposes improving the application of the current provisions on passenger rights and indicates the need to fine-tune these provisions when appropriate. For those reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) A common core of rights applying to all modes, a basic level of service, and a standard way of proceeding for carriers and enforcement bodies as a whole are required if intermodal travel is to work and become a matter of course in the EU internal market. The Commission has so far failed in its attempt to develop a European multimodal travel planner that would enable passengers to plan their journeys across Europe using a whole variety of means of transport. The Member States, together with the Commission, should seek to remove the obstacles preventing carriers from developing a travel planner of this kind. I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report calls for improvements in several areas, in particular for the creation of a single cross-cutting regulation on passenger rights for all modes of transport, to be implemented in the medium term. Another important consideration is passenger protection in the event of airline bankruptcy. In this case, the rapporteur calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal to protect passengers through a compulsory insurance or guarantee fund. The rights of citizens with reduced mobility or disabilities are also considered in this report. As I agree with the recommended measures, I voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Consumer law in transport modes is highly developed in the European Union. However, we must acknowledge that the existing legislation has a number of shortcomings. I therefore support this resolution, which aims to provide solutions for the remaining gaps. For example, too often, in the event of delays or cancellations, consumers are not reimbursed for their travel because the company pleads extraordinary circumstances and is thus exempt from having to provide compensation or a refund. For that reason, I welcome the resolution’s call to the Commission to provide a clearer definition of these circumstances. Another key element, in my opinion, is the information that must be provided to consumers and the assistance that may be offered to them in the event of a problem. Consequently, personnel must be able to take immediate decisions and deal with claims for compensation or reimbursement. Finally, I support the call to the Commission to present legislative measures to improve complaint procedures, in particular, the introduction of a standard complaint form.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Depending on the mode, passenger rights differ in terms of their scope and possible exceptions, especially as regards the definition of delays, the extent of assistance and care while passengers are waiting to be rerouted, the amount of compensation (a flat rate or a percentage of the fare), the circumstances in which compensation is not (or no longer) payable, and the time-frame for handling complaints. Essentially, the crux of passenger rights is considered to be the entitlement to fulfilment of the transport contract. Delays are accordingly the case in which the compensation arrangements are most clear cut. Interpreting the relevant regulations, the Court of Justice has ruled on the scope of passenger rights as regards cancellations, delays, and extraordinary circumstances.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Despite points of disagreement, such as the proposal for a common frame of reference for all modes of transport and the use of the new technologies such as certain smartphone applications, I voted in favour of this report because I see the protection of passenger rights as indispensable. More price transparency, proper management of complaints, and more rights than prohibitions are all very useful aims. I also agree with the call for inclusion of better levels of assistance for persons with disabilities. In fact, I made a similar proposal, acting in my capacity as rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, in the European disability strategy. It is intolerable that passengers with disabilities cannot find suitable means of transport and often do not know whether the means on which they intend to travel are equipped with suitable facilities.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I believe that the report adopted today on passenger rights in all transport modes has considerable importance for the transport sector, but above all for passengers. Given the continuous growth of the transport sector and the increasing number of passengers in all transport modes, equivalent and relevant passenger rights must be guaranteed. This is becoming ever more important because in many cases travelling involves several different transport modes rather than just one. Unfortunately, there was no support for the idea to require the Commission to consolidate all rights into a single regulation, which in my opinion would have made them more accessible and clearer for all stakeholders. One of the essential common features of passenger rights in the different transport modes is the prohibition on discriminating against passengers on the basis of their place of residence or citizenship and against travel agencies on the basis of their place of business. Furthermore, as regards passenger rights, I find it important to take the rights and possibilities of the elderly, the disabled and persons with limited mobility fully into account. Uniform pan-European passenger rights must be available for everyone. In view of the above, I voted in favour of this report.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. − (CS) As the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I voted in favour of the draft report by Georges Bach on passenger rights in all transport modes. Passenger rights are a fundamental pillar of our group’s transport policy. The draft report takes note of the current rules for the protection of passenger rights and sets out clear requirements for Member States to improve and accelerate the adoption of the current measures in the field of passenger rights in all transport modes. As the shadow rapporteur, I pushed for the draft to take sufficient account of the rights of passengers with reduced mobility, the fundamental right of passengers to safety, better access to information in intelligible form, the right to compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy or insolvency and collective passenger redress.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Union affords basic levels of protection to passengers. This vote emphasises, among other things, the fundamental importance of a better quality of service to passengers with disabilities, including barrier-free access to airport facilities, devising of coordinated and standard notification procedures, proper staff training, and liability for damage to, or the loss of, mobility devices. With regard to rail transport, significant improvements have been made in recent years in the protection of passengers and their baggage in the event of delays or accidents, but further improvements in service are necessary. Depending on the mode, passenger rights differ in terms of their scope and possible exceptions, especially as regards the definition of delays, the extent of assistance and care while passengers are waiting to be rerouted, the amount of compensation, the circumstances in which compensation is not payable, and the time-frame for handling complaints. The crux of passenger rights is considered to be the entitlement to fulfilment of the transport contract.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The migration of EU inhabitants for work is now an everyday occurrence. I therefore welcome and support the report on passenger rights in all transport modes. For us personally, when travelling every week to Brussels or Strasbourg from different Member States, we find that sufficient information is often lacking in real time. In the draft amendment of passenger rights, the Commission should clearly define ‘exceptional circumstances’ for the disruption of transport and passenger rights for those using more than one transport mode. The current EU legislation in the field of passenger rights is still not being implemented and pursued in all transport modes or in all parts of the EU, which is hindering competitiveness and affecting citizens’ confidence in travelling. The introduction of common standards for the carriage of hand luggage is extremely essential, since many carriers demand a payment immediately before boarding which exceeds the price of the air ticket for just 1 kg of excess weight.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Access to information about passenger rights should be simple, clear and transparent, from the time of booking or purchase to the journey’s end. Passengers must have all necessary help in the event of travel problems or if baggage has been lost or damaged. Information about the costs and prices of services should be clear and accessible from the start of the process. We can only support measures that promote and facilitate information and transparency and consequently ensure passenger rights.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, which once again highlights the numerous problems and risks affecting passengers in all transport modes. In particular, the Commission is urged to improve the transparency of the computerised reservation systems governed by Regulation 1008/2008/EC, which leave consumers open to all types of abuse, such as unfair terms in the overall calculation of ticket prices, with the automatic inclusion of extra unwanted costs.

Moreover, we must again urge the Commission to table, at last, a legislative proposal revising the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC, which is no longer adapted to the industry and is thus depriving travellers of a legal framework for both standard and exceptional situations.

Finally, the current levels of consumer protection in the event of airline bankruptcy or insolvency are insufficient and require a legislative proposal encompassing measures to protect passengers who are stranded in the event of cessation of operations, compulsory airline insurance and the creation of a guarantee fund.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Passenger rights in the EU have been constantly and gradually developing. Air and rail passenger rights are already in force, while those relating to waterborne and bus/coach transport will enter into force in December 2012 and March 2013 respectively. I would highlight, in this document, the need for transparency of the information provided, from the time of booking to the journey’s end. There must be a point of contact in any mode of transport. Furthermore, undertakings must be liable in cases of insolvency, and the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ must be better applied. Lastly, the rights of passengers with reduced mobility must be underlined, as they must receive a service appropriate to their needs.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the own-initiative report on passenger rights in all transport modes. I consider that all future initiatives regarding passenger rights must tackle the elements that are missing from the existing regulations, especially routes with no obstacles for all passengers and for all modes of transport. The recommendations adopted on passenger rights include the following: inclusion of minimum quality standards for service providers and the right to compensation, reimbursement and information, all within a common legislative framework that will create competitive conditions between the different means of transport. It is important that clear information be provided on the liability of carriers in the event of damage to baggage during the journey and on differentiated baggage allowances and compensation for delays.

I wish to highlight the importance of the following aspects: the ability to purchase a ticket online that is not more expensive; a simplified procedure for the rapid handling of complaints; clarification of liability if mobility or other assistive devices are damaged, given that the cost of replacing them exceeds the maximum reimbursement permitted by international law, as this frequently occurs.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report, which has my full support, calls for a number of measures that will strengthen passengers’ rights across the EU. It recommends several sensible suggestions that would improve and build upon current EU passenger rights. Regardless of the mode of transport – be it rail, bus, air or maritime – customers should have access to swift information in all official EU languages in the event of service disruption or if the need to seek compensation should arise. Furthermore, a key recommendation of this report is to improve complaint procedures and tighten rules regarding price transparency, which will help put an end to unfair hidden travelling costs. The suggestions outlined in this report represent a significant contribution to the drive to improve and harmonise passengers’ rights across the EU.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which called for an improvement in passenger rights in all transport modes. Among the suggestions for achieving this goal, I support, in particular, the idea of a European charter that is available to travellers and contains the 10 basic passenger rights. In emergencies and unforeseen situations, it would be useful for travellers to have access to a simple document setting out the most basic rights. Discouraged by the complexity of complaint procedures, passengers all too often decide not to exercise their right to compensation. To remedy this, I proposed a standard complaint form and a maximum time limit for complaint handling for all modes of transport, and that idea was accepted. Finally, the report calls for greater price transparency on the internet, because too often the advertised price is far from being the final price. In my opinion, it should be a more accurate reflection of the price to be paid and should not hide administrative and credit card fees in order to lure customers. The ball is now in the Commission’s court and it must come back to us with an ambitious legislative proposal.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution, because it is essential to guarantee all passengers in the European Union a minimum level of protection in respect of all modes of transport. Passengers are entitled to simple, clear and accessible information about their rights. The application and enforcement of these rights should be the responsibility of the national enforcement bodies across the EU, which should cooperate more effectively in this regard.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. − (SK) Passengers are entitled to accessible and accurate information on services provided by carriers, so that they can make appropriate decisions. However, the European legislation should not become like a nanny. It should ensure that citizens are compensated when carriers breach the transport terms and conditions. Rampant regulation harms the free market and puts prices up. It is therefore important to find the right balance.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − The Commission’s list of basic passenger rights for all transport modes that affords basic levels of protection to passengers in the EU is of great value. The EU rules have been so drafted as to provide proportionality and the differentiation required by the diverse nature of the individual modes and their markets. Together they constitute a core of common passenger rights.

Unfortunately, laws are not being implemented completely or consistently by carriers and national authorities. In addition, passengers are not fully informed about their rights and are unhappy about what it takes, cost included, to assert them. One particular source of unease is the complexity of the procedures. It is therefore necessary to establish clearly the conditions for drawing up a single cross-cutting passenger rights Regulation, placing particular emphasis on clarity and accessibility of information.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. − (LV) Parliament’s report on passenger rights should be supported because, firstly, it calls for the introduction of legal certainty in relation to passenger rights in all transport modes. Passenger complaints for each type of transport – air, rail, waterborne and road transport – in the various Member States are considered and passenger rights issues are resolved in various different monitoring bodies. Therefore, there is often a lack of clarity about the handling of legal provisions and the procedure for considering complaints. In the future, therefore, passenger rights, including rights to compensation, refunds and information, on all transport modes must be based on a common foundation of legal regulation, which must of course take into account the particularities of each type of transport.

The report also points out that in air transport the definitions of delays and cancellation of flights is still too often interpreted in different ways. Another important issue is the need to have a clearer definition of the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, since a technical fault should not be considered to be an extraordinary circumstance; the carrier is responsible for such a fault.

I welcome the fact that Parliament’s report returns once again to the issue of basic fares, which was recently considered in another report. The basic fare ought to include costs which are linked to the carrier’s legal obligations, such as safety, security and passenger rights, and to the provision of tickets and boarding cards or the carrying of a minimum amount of luggage, and all costs related to payment, such as credit card costs.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to identify some of the passenger rights in all modes of transport, such as the criteria for compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellations or long delays, and the liability of air carriers when there are problems with luggage. It also aims to ensure rights for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility travelling by air, in relation to access, information and adequate training. These, like other aspects, are essential. However, it is extremely worrying that the report contains no references to public transport services, which are an essential way of guaranteeing the maintenance of transport services and the right to mobility, without any regard for profit, thereby ensuring transport in isolated regions and places to the benefit of their populations.

Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0301/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because this text sets out the types of procedure that must be adopted to ensure adequate scrutiny of this part of the budget, which must occur to show how the Council has used its budget. Regrettably, Parliament’s questions on 2010 have not been answered. Although the Danish Presidency has endeavoured to make progress, there have been no concrete results or subsequent follow-up on the part of the Council.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Council. However, as no significant irregularities were revealed, I voted in favour of discharge. Although I regret the lack of information and cooperation from the Council, it is not sufficient justification for refusing discharge. In times of crisis, these types of interinstitutional conflicts are particularly regrettable.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In May the European Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Council. Nothing has changed since then so we are reiterating our position today. Cooperation among the institutions does not happen automatically; it is built on respect and mutual trust. The European Parliament is one of the EU’s budgetary authorities, on an equal footing with the Council. The expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of the other institutions. It must therefore be transparent and work in close cooperation with Parliament, by responding to the questionnaire that we send every year, by coming to meetings and public hearings, and so on. Without these elements, without open and constructive dialogue, we cannot exercise our right of discharge to the best of our ability.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of a refusal to grant discharge owing to the Council’s serious failure to provide the information required to make the relevant assessments. The lack of transparency with which this institution has acted is truly deplorable, which is why my vote against discharge relates not only to the discharge itself but also to the Council’s disregard for transparency.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour as I support the refusal to grant the Council’s Secretary-General discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After the European Court of Auditors presented its annual report for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the Council. The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. In its annual report for 2010 based on the inspection carried out by the European Court of Auditors, the committee stated that, overall, for the financial year ending on 31 December 2010, payments by the institutions and agencies relating to administrative and other expenses were free from material errors. The discharge report notes that the financial inspection went smoothly and no major deficiencies were encountered in the course of the inspection. However, the Council failed to make available to Parliament and to the committee a number of documents necessary for conclusion of the discharge procedure. Without these the financial year 2010 cannot be concluded. At its sitting in late March, the Committee on Budgetary Control decided to postpone granting discharge. The second discharge report produced for September presented a similar view to that set out in the spring report. The outcome of the vote in committee was to refuse to grant the Council discharge. In the vote in both the committee and plenary, I, too, voted against granting the Council discharge.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Inés Ayala Sender concerns discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council. The Council is the institution responsible for adopting EU legislation, coordinating economic policies and cooperation between courts and police forces, signing agreements between the EU and third countries, approving the EU’s annual budget, and defining the foreign and defence policies. Notwithstanding its responsibilities, the Council also has obligations, particularly as regards interinstitutional cooperation with the European Parliament, especially in relation to supervision of the budget implementation. In the sitting on 12 May 2012, a proposal was adopted to postpone granting discharge to the Council’s Secretary-General for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010. Despite the explanations given by the Council’s Secretary-General and the measures adopted to deal with the criticisms made by the Court of Auditors on the 2010 discharge, I voted in favour of the proposal to refuse discharge.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this second report, the rapporteur again proposes postponing the decision to grant discharge for the Council’s budget. This postponement is again based on the lack of transparency and presentation of accounts by the Council, which is the reason for the long-standing disagreement between the two institutions of Parliament and the Council. The report is highly critical of the position adopted by the Council, which is still refusing to send all of the documents on the budget implementation, to meet or to answer Parliament’s questions on this matter. As a result, Parliament has no information on the Council’s accounts, despite having participated in the discharge procedure. Without the Council’s response to the questions that Parliament needs answered in order to fully understand and close the Council’s accounts, the rapporteur, as in May, is refusing to grant discharge to the Council’s Secretary-General for implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. We supported this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The Council, as an institution of the Union, should be subject to accountability to Union citizens as far as the implementation of Union funds is concerned. Parliament is the sole directly elected body among the Union institutions and has responsibility to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union. It is essential and justifiable to carry out an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments carried out by the Court of Auditors in relation to the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor in the course of preparation of its annual report concerning the financial year 2010. In my view, it is indisputable that efficient supervision over the budgetary implementation process is a matter of high responsibility and its successful fulfilment depends entirely on an unhindered interinstitutional cooperation between the Council and Parliament.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour because our citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled. The Council, as an institution of the Union, should be democratically accountable to Union citizens as far as the implementation of Union funds is concerned because Parliament is the sole directly elected body among the Union institutions and is responsible for granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union. We should note the right of Parliament to grant discharge, that is, to submit the implementation of the entire budget of the European Union to parliamentary control and scrutiny without exception, and to grant discharge autonomously, not only in respect of the section of the budget implemented by the Commission, but also in respect of the sections of the budget implemented by the other institutions.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At the sitting of 23 October 2012 I voted in favour of granting discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010. This discharge had been postponed in May due to the lack of cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament. This is thus the second discharge report for 2010. Most of my colleagues and I supported this second report, although we were extremely disappointed that the Council did not respond to our questions. They related, in particular, to the costs involved in the creation of the post of High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the budgetary implications of transferring Council staff to the European External Action Service.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against discharge for the Council’s budget for the 2010 financial year. I regret the difficulties encountered in having an open dialogue between the Council and the Committee on budgetary control, and especially the Council’s refusal to answer the supplementary questions from Parliament. This action is a legitimate budget discharge procedure. Efficient supervision of the implementation of the budget depends on appropriate unconditional institutional cooperation between Parliament and the Council. For this reason, I wish to highlight the fact that all parties involved must take the utmost responsibility in this matter.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which notes that, in its resolution with observations forming an integral part of the above-mentioned decision of 10 May 2012 on the discharge for implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council, Parliament asked 26 supplementary questions linked to the discharge procedure and regrets that the Council refused to answer those questions

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the Council for 2010. The Council’s failure to respond to a number of supplementary questions from the Committee on Budgetary Control is not sufficient justification for refusing discharge, especially since we had already postponed it at the May part-session.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. However, in the rapporteur’s opinion, this is not the case with the EU’s general budget for the Council, given that various irregularities have again been found and the Council is still unable to present its accounts, which is why I voted accordingly.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Parliament is bringing to light as much information as possible on the way all institutions implement their budgets, including the Council, but at this stage insufficient information has been provided to allow an informed granting of the discharge for 2010.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the reasons for refusing to grant the Council’s Secretary-General discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the European Union general budget, and recalling that ‘citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled’, Parliament has refused to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge for implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2010. Given that, under Article 335 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ‘the Union shall be represented by each of the institutions, by virtue of their administrative autonomy, in matters relating to their respective operation’, and that an efficient supervision over the budgetary implementation process is a matter of high responsibility and its fulfilment depends entirely on an unhindered interinstitutional cooperation between the Council and Parliament, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour (which means that we have not approved the discharge. The report underlines that in its 2010 annual report, the Court of Auditors criticised the financing of the Residence Palace building project because of the advance payments made (paragraph 7.19). It also notes that the Court of Auditors made the observation that during the period 2008–2010 advance payments made by the Council totalled EUR 235 000 000 and that the amounts paid came from under-utilised budget lines.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Bearing in mind the Council’s excessive budget appropriation for the purchase of property, its breach of the principle of budgetary accuracy (bearing in mind the opinion of the Court of Auditors of the European Union), the refusal to provide all of the documents needed for discharge of its accounts, and the refusal to answer 26 questions asked by the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control with regard to the discharge procedure, this leads to the conclusion that the Council has a negative attitude towards democratic scrutiny and transparency with regard to the European Union’s taxpayers. The Council, as a European Union institution, must submit to the assessment of its management by the Committee on Budgetary Control and must cooperate with the latter on all levels. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the report, which proposes to refuse discharge of the Council’s accounts.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament’s decision on the discharge for the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section II – Council, with which the Secretary-General of the Council was refused discharge in respect of the implementation the Council’s budget for the financial year 2010.

Parliament’s right to refuse to grant discharge, in accordance with Articles 316, 317 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, must be interpreted within the context and its objectives. The execution of the Union’s entire budget must, without exception, be subject to parliamentary control and discharge should be granted separately not only for the budgetary section of the Commission but also for the sections for the other institutions referred to in Article 1 of the Financial Regulation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The Council, as an institution of the European Union, should be subject to democratic accountability towards EU citizens as far as the implementation of EU funds is concerned. However, the Council obstructs democratic control through its failure to cooperate with Parliament in respect of the discharge procedure. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur’s proposal to postpone the decision to grant discharge for the Council’s budget (2010) is once again based on the lack of transparency and presentation of accounts by the Council, which is the reason for the long-standing disagreement between the two institutions of Parliament and the Council. Without the Council’s response to the questions that Parliament needs answered in order to fully understand and close the Council’s accounts, the rapporteur is again refusing to grant discharge to the Council’s Secretary-General for implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010. We supported this position.

Report: Luisa Macovei (A7-0300/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, congratulating the Agency on the transparency in the declarations of interest of its management team, and recognising the Agency’s efforts to deal with the concerns on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 10 May the European Parliament postponed the discharge decision for the European Environment Agency and it has now drawn up a second report on the matter. The European Parliament and I decided this time to grant discharge for this Agency, given the considerable efforts it has made. It has endeavoured to reduce significantly the conflicts of interest that previously risked undermining its decision-making processes.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After the vote in May, the European Parliament is for the second time examining the discharges and it has decided to grant discharge to the three agencies found to be at fault in the spring. Today I voted in favour of granting discharge for the budget of the European Environment Agency, as I did for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency. It seems that each of these agencies has fulfilled its commitments and introduced new procedures to increase its independence and prevent conflicts of interest. That is therefore a step in the right direction, even if the question of the agencies’ independence remains, as we see at the moment with EFSA and the GMO issue.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted against this report because I consider that discharge should have been granted to the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) in 2010, and following the requirements laid down by the European Parliament for improving the communication of the EEA with the public and the media, the EEA put extra emphasis on the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES), the International Year on Biodiversity, e.g. via the Green Facade project, the Eye on Earth platform, thereby using EU subsidies thematically in a way as intended by the European legislator and the European budgetary authority. The European Court of Auditors made no special observations with regard to the EEA's accounts of 2010 and, as a consequence, the ECA considers them reliable, legal and regular. The European Environment Agency (EEA) always provided useful, detailed and satisfactory answers to the questions asked by the rapporteur, within the corresponding time frame; the EEA Management Board has done everything it can to prevent any risks in future.

In view of the above, as well as the excellent work of the EEA, I vote in favour of discharge in respect of the EEA budget for the financial year 2010.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) After presenting the annual report of the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010, as part of its discharge procedure for the financial year 2010 the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control carried out its financial audit of the implementation of the European Union’s general budget in relation to the European Environment Agency. The primary task of the Committee on Budgetary Control is to scrutinise and ensure that the EU budget is being implemented appropriately and effectively. The discharge report highlights the main problem concerning the European Environment Agency is that several errors relating to public procurement procedure occurred during the Agency’s 2010 management period. The report also draws attention to the fact that several conflicts of interest at the Agency had recently come to light. The committee will not recommend granting the discharge until these issues are clarified. At its sitting in late March, the Committee on Budgetary Control decided to postpone granting the discharge. In the view of the committee, several additional questions relating to Agency management in 2010 require clarification before the Agency is granted discharge. The situation has not changed significantly since spring. In my view the Agency should have made more of an effort to restore appropriate management procedures and comply with operational regulations. Both in the committee and in plenary, I, too, voted in favour of refusing to grant discharge.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted against the report on ‘Discharge 2010: European Environment Agency’, because I believe that, contrary to the rapporteur’s opinion, the Agency has taken important steps to effectively tackle potential conflicts of interest and to thus continue transparently fulfilling its task of providing sound and independent information on the environment in the EU.

  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 Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010, following the European Parliament Decision of 10 May 2012 postponing the discharge decision due to issues raised by the Court of Auditors. The EEA, which was created in 1993, currently has 32 members: the 27 Member States of the European Union, together with Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Turkey. Its objective is to help the EU and national governments make informed decisions about the environment. The Court of Auditors, in its report on the EEA accounts, considered 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 therefore consider that discharge should be granted for the EEA budget for the financial year 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament postponed closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010 and refused to grant discharge. The main reasons for this decision were connected with conflicts of interest, particularly involving the Agency’s Executive Director. In this second report, the rapporteur maintains her position and is highly critical of the progress made by the Agency. Three aspects stand out in this assessment: painting of the façade of the Agency’s building without issuing a public tender, which, in order to cover the costs, required a reinforcement of budget line 2140 – ‘Fitting-out of premises’; contradictory information sent by the Executive Director on her relationship with Earthwatch, and use by a non-governmental organisation of the EEA’s premises, without any rent payment. We supported the rapporteur’s position, unlike the majority in Parliament, which therefore opted to grant discharge for the EEA budget (financial year 2010).

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) On 10 May 2012, the European Parliament postponed its decision on the discharge and closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010. The Agency subsequently provided replies to the discharge authority by letters of 24 May, 15 June and 3 July 2012. The European Parliament has always welcomed the professional, reliable and independent provision of information by the Agency for all institutions, the Member States and Union policy-making bodies, and will further expect this kind of professionalism in the future. Parliament is firmly convinced that the necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. In such cases, the Agency has to draw up an action plan aiming to remedy the shortcomings. The European Parliament or the European legislator has to address these problems quickly by changing the existing rules and regulations to eliminate possible loopholes. The European Parliament refuses to grant the Executive Director of the European Environment 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 this proposal because the discharge is a valid instrument of the European Parliament to assess the proper spending of Union subsidies based on factual and substantive arguments. Furthermore, the professional, reliable and independent provision of information by the European Environment Agency (EEA) to all EU institutions, EU Member States and Union policy-making bodies has always been welcomed. I therefore expect this kind of professionalism in the future.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge for the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010. This discharge was adopted by 374 votes to 235, with 39 abstentions. The vote related to the second discharge report because in May 2012 Parliament had postponed discharge, primarily due to a problem involving conflicts of interest within the European Environment Agency.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Because of the defeat of most of the amendments which I was supporting I voted against this resolution.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge for the European Environment Agency. The rapporteur did not provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations of conflicts of interest within the Agency. Discharge cannot be refused on the basis of mere suspicions. Moreover, since the discharge decision was postponed, the Agency has in fact taken many steps that demonstrate responsible management.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All European institutions dependent on the European Union’s budget have to be rigorously audited by the Court of Auditors and by all bodies that have this role. It is vital to check that EU funds are being correctly used, that these European institutions are achieving the objectives set out, and that no resources are being wasted. In general, aside from a few rare exceptions which must be assessed through the usual checks, we can confirm that the institutions in question are correctly using the funds made available and achieving the proposed objectives. As a result, I voted in favour of the report on the European Environment Agency.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I think that the EEA should be granted discharge for the budgetary year 2010, therefore I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the reasons for refusing to grant the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the light of the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010, and the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts, Parliament has refused to grant the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010. It is firmly convinced that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non-compliance with existing rules occur. It also believes that, in such cases, the Agency has to draw up an action plan aiming to remedy the shortcomings, that its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament, and that either the European Parliament or the European legislator has to address these problems by changing the existing rules and regulations to eliminate possible loopholes. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against (which means that we grant the discharge). Large majorities for granting discharge to EFSA and EMA and a smaller majority for the discharge of the EEA with votes on the attached resolution going with two or three exceptions along our voting list, which means that we have deleted several articles of the resolution that were controversial.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) I abstained from the vote, because I did not have enough information to gain a full understanding of the issue debated and put to the vote.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. − (SV) In the spring, Parliament, including myself, voted in favour of postponing discharge for the European Environment Agency. That Agency has demonstrated its compliance on many points since then, and its Executive Director has been helpful and willing to cooperate throughout the investigation period. The Director’s actions with regard to the business trip that was arranged must still be treated as improper. However, on the whole, we should not, in my view, deny discharge on these grounds alone. The extended deadline granted by Parliament for them to deal with irregularities and explain themselves has been used well and has straightened out several questions. I therefore voted in favour of granting discharge for the European Environment Agency.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Macovei report, which meant voting in favour of discharge for the European Environment Agency for 2010. I regret this report and its justification, which jeopardised this discharge that is so important and that is in line with Europe’s desire to make the environment a priority.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, at second reading, raises questions about conflicts of interest involving the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, thereby calling into question the management of the Agency itself. However, the European Commission has not raised any questions on this same issue. I therefore felt that it was right to abstain from voting on this report.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I voted for the report with gritted teeth, as unfortunately, all of the amendments which conceal or water down the truth have been adopted. What I find astonishing is the connivance of some Members from the CDU, who applied what I can only describe as sniper tactics in support of the opponents’ position. In view of their unvarnished glee, I worry for the future of good cooperation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) In 2010, the European Environment Agency covered its building with a ‘Green Façade’, at a cost of EUR 294 641 and without announcing a public tender. Furthermore, in order to cover the related costs, it transferred funds between budget lines. In view of the Agency’s lack of clear internal rules regarding the Financial Regulation, I voted against the discharge.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In May 2012 Parliament postponed closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency (EEA) for the financial year 2010 and refused to grant discharge. The main reasons for this decision were connected with conflicts of interest, particularly involving the Agency’s Executive Director. As the rapporteur maintains the same position in the second report (due to no changes having occurred that justify altering this position), we opted, for the sake of transparency, to support the rapporteur’s position.

Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0296/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the nomination of Mr Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors. The main reasons for this are the candidate’s lack of relevant professional experience in auditing and the existence of a potential conflict of interests. In fact, the candidate, Romania’s current Minister for European Affairs, is responsible for managing European Union funds in Romania.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of Leonard Orban’s nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors because of his vast professional experience of European and other matters. This is demonstrated by the posts he has held over the years: Minister of European Affairs, a job he also held with a previous government, former European Commissioner, Presidential Adviser and Romania’s Chief Negotiator for accession to the EU. There is absolutely no doubt as to his professional competence.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) At its meeting of 26 September 2012, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors and assessed his qualifications. From September 2011 to the present time, Leonard Orban has held the post of Minister of European Affairs. In the past, he was a Member of the European Commission responsible for multilingualism. He also acted as Chief Negotiator with the European Union, coordinating Romania’s preparations for accession to the EU. However, the European Parliament does not agree with the Council’s proposal to nominate Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors and has instructed its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − I cannot support the appointment of Mr Orban to the European Court of Auditors. This would only exacerbate the growing trend in many Member States to make political appointments to the ECA. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Orban has a long history of political appointments in the European institutions. He was the Deputy Chief Negotiator (2001-2004), and then Chief Negotiator for Romania’s accession to the EU (2004-2005). He served as Secretary of State at the Ministry of European Integration (2004-2006) before taking up an appointment as European Commissioner for Multilingualism (2007-2010). Mr Orban was then appointed a Presidential Adviser on EU Affairs before being made Minister of European Affairs in September 2011. Mr Orban’s appointment is not in line with the policies of neutrality that govern such selection processes, and I oppose his appointment.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − Mr. Orban has a wide experience in European affairs; he is a former Commissioner and Minister of European Affairs in the Romanian government, having been appointed to these posts due to his expertise and not to political affiliation. He was also chief negotiator on behalf of Romania for the country’s accession to the European Union. In this position he supervised the establishment of the audit and control system in Romania, acquiring a good knowledge of auditing. These are the reasons why I voted for his nomination.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Like most of my colleagues, I voted against the nomination of Leonard Orban to the Court of Auditors. This vote took place in plenary on 23 October 2012. We shared the opinion of Inés Ayala Sender, who recommended rejecting Mr Orban’s nomination. The main reasons for this are the candidate’s lack of relevant professional experience in auditing and the existence of a potential conflict of interests. In fact, the candidate, Romania’s current Minister for European Affairs, is responsible for managing European Union funds in Romania.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the nomination of Mr Leonard Orban to the European Court of Auditors as, on the basis of information supplied, he appeared to have the appropriate qualifications.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I rejected Leonard Orban’s nomination to the Court of Auditors. This Court has a vital control function. That is why its members have to be impartial and competent. The risks of a conflict of interest posed by Mr Orban’s candidacy are too high given his current responsibility for managing European Union funds in Romania. Moreover, his professional experience in auditing is too limited.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Court of Auditors is a supervisory institution, which checks the legality and regularity of the European Union’s income and expenditure and its sound financial management, and which works totally independently. In this spirit, the nomination of its members must be governed by criteria of competence and independence. Mr Leonard Orban presented his Curriculum Vitae, answered a written questionnaire and was heard by the Committee on Budgetary Control, but did not provide sufficient evidence to justify his nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors in terms of performing his duties competently and independently, which is why I voted accordingly.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Mr Leonard Orban was Member of the European Commission and currently serves as a Member of the Romanian Government responsible for European Affairs. Although during the hearing in the Committee on Budgetary Control he displayed a high level of knowledge and experience and showed that he is fully qualified for the job, I abstained.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the nomination of Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors. All of the information presented for this candidate, including the answers to the questionnaire for candidates applying to become members of the Court of Auditors, as annexed to this report, formed the basis for my decision by indicating compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the need for full independence of the members of the Court of Auditors. I therefore welcome the nomination of Leonard Orban.

  Aldo Patriciello (PP E), in writing. − (IT) With regard to the nomination of Mr Leonard Orban as a Member of the Court of Auditors, having examined his curriculum vitae and his answers to the questionnaire, and considering that Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and at its meeting of 26 September 2012 heard the Council’s nominee, I voted against the proposal.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported the opinion of the rapporteur, who worked in collaboration with representatives of each political group to reach the most objective and constructive conclusion on Leonard Orban’s candidacy. On Tuesday Parliament rejected the Romanian candidate’s nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors, with 269 votes in favour of his nomination, 294 against and 80 abstentions. Mr Orban had previously stated that he would withdraw his candidacy if it were rejected by the Members.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors followed the specific guidelines laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. For that reason, I voted in favour of the nomination.

Report: Frédéric Daerden (A7-0322/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from Ireland aims to assist 432 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the support of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) at present is very welcome. The global economic and financial crisis has seriously affected Ireland in recent years and the loss of 592 jobs is of great significance to the Irish economy.

The loss in revenues owing to the Irish redundancies is also expected to generate significant losses in indirect employment through the loss in workers' disposable incomes and through a reduction in Talk Talk's purchases of Irish goods and services locally and regionally. I believe that the mobilisation of the EGF is very important in this situation in order to help revitalise the local economy.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 of the EGF for Ireland in order to support 493 potential beneficiaries out of 592 redundancies in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report, because the economic situation in the area in question demands it. The Talk Talk facility was located on the outskirts of Waterford City in the NUTS III South-East Region of Ireland, which has had persistently higher than average levels of unemployment compared to the rest of the country. Furthermore, it has fared disproportionately badly as a result of the financial and economic crisis. For example, the region’s unemployment rate has jumped from 4.9 % in 2007 to 18.2 % in 2011, compared to a national average of 14.3 %. I also agree with the use to which this funding is to be put.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. The fund provides support for individual workers and is not to be used for the benefit of the enterprises that made the workers redundant. I supported the mobilisation of the EGF in the present case and voted in favour of the proposals because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. Ireland has requested assistance for 592 redundancies, 432 of which are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk from Ireland. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help Ireland to deal with huge job losses (586 redundancies) in the new information technologies sector since its application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − In 2011, the broadband service firm Talk Talk cut the number of its service centres from 24 to 13. The entire Waterford operation was closed with 592 workers made redundant. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the EP’s approval of the proposal to allocate EUR 2.7 million to help over 400 ex-Talk Talk workers made redundant in 2011 to retrain, return to education or establish their own businesses. The Talk Talk application is possibly the last EGF application to come from Ireland, at least until the end of 2013, given last year’s decision by a blocking minority of Member States to veto the extension of the EGF ‘crisis derogations’ until the end of 2013. The EGF can help workers who have been made redundant to stay in the labour market and must continue after 2013 as an instrument available to all workers. In its 23 October resolution on the 2014-20 MFF, the EP rightly placed considerable emphasis on continuing the EGF after 2013. I do welcome the recent Cyprus Presidency proposals to continue the EGF after 2013 though I am concerned that it is proposing to cap spending at EUR 245 million per annum, down from the Commission’s proposed EUR 429 million per annum. The Council must remember that the EP’s consent is required for the 2014-20 MFF and ensuring an effective EGF is a key priority for the Irish Labour MEPs.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a tool that few citizens are aware of and it should be highlighted. It will help 432 former employees of the Irish telecommunications sector to cope with their redundancy and assist them in retraining and finding work. I am pleased that Europe is in this way providing concrete support on the ground to the victims of the crisis. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the proposal to mobilise EUR 2 696 382 of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Ireland in order to support 592 workers made redundant from Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited in the telecommunications service sector. I would underline the importance of improving the employability of these workers by means of tailored training and the recognition and validation of skills and competences gained throughout their professional career. I would also highlight that the mobilisation of EGF funds is intended to help workers made redundant to rapidly reintegrate into the labour market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2012/001 IE/Talk Talk’ from Ireland). The EGF, which was created in 2006, aims to support workers who, due to structural changes in world trade patterns as a result of globalisation, are made redundant. On 29 February 2012 Ireland submitted an application to the EGF following 573 redundancies from Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited (customer service centre). It requested support totalling EUR 2 696 382. On 27 July 2012 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision to grant the support requested. This is the seventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget. Given that, according to the Commission’s conclusions, the application meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for deploying the EGF, I agree with the rapporteur’s recommendations and voted in favour of this proposal for a decision.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This application concerns 592 redundancies in the telecommunications sector, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited in Ireland. It involves the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 to provide assistance to those workers made redundant as a result of outsourcing to the United Kingdom, India, the Philippines and South Africa. These redundancies are not inevitable. They are the result of political choices. We are approving palliatives, which are necessary, but we need to go further. The disease must therefore be attacked at the root: we must break with these neoliberal policies which are leading us into the depths of despair without any glimpse, even fleetingly, of a small ray of hope for the millions of workers who are losing the right to work and to a dignified life.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) Point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management provides for the release of resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) through a flexibility instrument with an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million over and above the relevant range of the financial framework. Ireland submitted an application on 29 February 2012 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers or associated manufacturers and supplemented it by additional information up to 15 May 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 696 382. I remain of the view that the EGF should be mobilised in order to make a financial contribution with respect to Ireland’s application.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I welcome the approval of 2.7 million in EGF aid for workers made redundant at the Talk Talk facility in Waterford, Ireland, in 2011. The closure of Talk Talk was a severe blow to the region, particularly in light of the fact that the average age of the laid-off workers was 26. I have been highlighting the EU youth unemployment crisis for many months, indeed Commissioner Šefčovič said in plenary yesterday that youth unemployment is a crisis within a crisis, and something we cannot afford as a society. This funding can make a real difference to the prospects and employability of these young people, who through no fault of their own found themselves without work last year. I for one would like to see the Irish Government taking a decisive, proactive role in administering this EGF funding so that these young people will elect to stay, retrain, upskill, or start businesses in Ireland, rather than emigrate as so many of their friends and relatives have done.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Frédéric Daerden on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help Ireland to cope with redundancies in the new information technologies sector. There have been around 592 redundancies in this sector to date. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 576 votes to 64, with 12 abstentions.

  Seán Kelly (PPE), in writing. − I welcome and am very pleased that there was such an overwhelming vote in favour of the report. I wish to commend Irish Minister of State at the Dept of Education and Skills, Ciaran Cannon TD, as well as Paudie Coffey TD for the active engagement with workers from the outset of the application. Hopefully the funding will aid the workers to retrain and upskill so they can re-enter the jobs market as soon as possible. I hope that the implementation of this application will be far more successful than previous ones in Ireland.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) at the request of Ireland. The application for the mobilisation of the EGF was made in relation to 592 redundancies, 432 of which are targeted for assistance, in the Talk Talk enterprise operating in the broadband services sector. Today’s vote will approve mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382. Finally I wish to underline that this important instrument today allows us to provide a tangible response and assistance to workers made redundant as a result of globalisation or the current financial and economic crisis, not merely by alleviating their difficulties but by supporting their reintegration in the labour market.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this application. One of the criteria for the Commission’s assessment was the evaluation of the link between the redundancies and major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Irish authorities argue that Talk Talk was a customer service centre based in Waterford, originally set up to provide services for both the companies Talk Talk UK and AOL UK. The company supported Talk Talk’s UK market for broadband, voice and, more recently, for TV via inbound, outbound, email and white mail services. Following the purchase of the UK’s ISP division of AOL, broadband services under the AOL Broadband brand were also provided. Talk Talk offered telecoms services to residential Irish customers under the Talk Talk and AOL brands and to business customers under the Opal brand. It also provided full lifecycle management of Talk Talk’s customers in the UK. Talk Talk in Waterford, as near-shore location for the provision of shared services for a foreign client (AOL and Talk Talk UK), benefited from the international trend over the past decade known as business process outsourcing (BPO). BPO typically involves a company contracting specific operations or processes to a third party provider.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people made redundant by Talk Talk in Ireland.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to Ireland, which has submitted an application for assistance for 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) targeting 432 of the 597 redundancies that have occurred in the company Talk Talk, which operates in the telecommunications sector in the South-East region of Ireland. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. Ireland has submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the seventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 696 382 from the EGF for Ireland. It concerns 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) and three of its suppliers in Ireland during the four-month reference period from 7 September 2011 to 7 January 2012 and a further six redundancies outside the reference period, but related to the same collective redundancies procedure.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 27 July 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Ireland in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the seventh application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 696 382 from the EGF for 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland during the four-month reference period from 7 September 2011 to 7 January 2012 and a further six redundancies outside the reference period, but related to the same collective redundancy procedure. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for Ireland, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 27 July 2012, the Commission therefore adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Ireland in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Considering that the Commission has concluded that the application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF as set out in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, and was submitted within the deadline of 10 weeks referred to in Article 5 of that Regulation, and underlining the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of Decisions on the mobilisation of the fund, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the application for assistance submitted by Ireland for 592 redundancies, 432 of which are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers in Ireland, the Commission proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 696 382 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which was created in 2006 in order to ‘provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns’. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. According to the provisions of point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, the Fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million, drawn from the margin under the global expenditure ceiling from the previous year, and/or from the cancelled commitment appropriations from the previous two years, excluding those related to Heading 1b. The appropriate amounts are entered into the budget as a provision as soon as the sufficient margins and/or cancelled commitments have been identified. Concerning the procedure, in order to activate the Fund the Commission, in case of a positive assessment of an application, presents to the budgetary authority a proposal for mobilisation of the Fund and, at the same time, a corresponding request for transfer. In parallel, a trialogue could be organised in order to find an agreement on the use of the Fund and the amounts required. The trialogue can take a simplified form.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I view this as a useful instrument for supporting the workers, and particularly the younger workers, of the call centre of the UK enterprise Talk Talk who have been made redundant in Ireland. Following mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, assistance for reintegration in the labour market may be offered to 432 of the 592 workers made redundant following the closure of the centre and outsourcing of services to India, the Philippines and South Africa. I think that action is necessary since the EU fund will allow the workers access to study and training courses, scholarships, tutoring and economic and professional support. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Ireland in support of the 432 employees dismissed from Talk Talk Broadband Services and from three of its suppliers in the telecommunications sector.

I regret that this particular company decided to ally itself with three main providers outside the EU, where a large part of its operations has been transferred, reflecting a strategy which is harmful to industrial jobs in the EU and, in general, to the EU 2020 strategy.

The negative consequences of globalisation, combined with the continuing economic crisis affecting Ireland, further highlight the added value of EGF as a tool in EU social policy. The targeted financial support which it provides for retraining and reintegration programmes for workers affected by mass dismissals is particularly important. Furthermore, the support which it provides is a practical expression of EU solidarity. The Irish Government is making efforts to achieve budgetary rationalisation and drastic cuts in expenditure. EGF assistance can contribute towards the battle against unemployment without significantly burdening the efforts to consolidate the national budget.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. − (SV) Since 2009, I have as a rule voted against all motions to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The Fund has grown, developed, expanded its scope and received its own grant. It exists, and it will not disappear in the foreseeable future. We therefore have to make the best of the situation. I chose to abstain from voting on the report on the Globalisation Fund that was put to the vote. That is because I feel the Fund is not the right instrument for helping employees who are hit by structural changes. It is primarily structural changes that are actually needed in the individual countries that have been hit. Instead, we in the EU should concentrate on supporting such changes. Sweden has also implemented such changes over the years, since the global market is changing. It is often a painful process, but it is indeed necessary in the long term.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text. I would like to congratulate Frédéric Daerden on his excellent work in preparing, drafting and organising the vote on his report. As far as the content is concerned, one of the European Parliament’s priorities clearly must be to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and help them to reintegrate in the labour market.

Finally, I must criticise Talk Talk on its decision to form alliances with three key non-EU providers. That has resulted in a significant bulk of work being transferred, reflecting a strategy that is detrimental to EU industrial jobs and to the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. I agree with Ireland’s request to mobilise the EGF in respect of 592 redundancies, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited and three of its suppliers. I believe that the European Commission should mobilise EUR 2 696 382 to assist with the reintegration into employment of workers in Irish telecommunications companies. The financial package now approved should be used to support measures in the areas of career guidance, individual training and general information provided through specific employment channels.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) The EGF exists in order to provide additional support for workers who are suffering from the impacts of globalisation and to facilitate their re-integration into the labour market. This application from Ireland has been reviewed; it relates to 592 workers who were made redundant. Talk Talk was a customer service centre originally set up to provide services. It grew very rapidly and to address the new challenges, it rationalised its systems and simplified its business processes, resulting in a dramatic downturn in business.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been set up to provide additional support for workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. The measures under the Fund should complement those taken by national institutions. It is regrettable, therefore, that the regulation allows EGF support to substitute social welfare payments required under national legislation. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this part-session alone we have voted on eight applications to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This clearly shows the road to economic and social disaster along which the capitalist and neoliberal policies are leading the EU countries. This application concerns 592 redundancies in the telecommunications sector, of which 432 are targeted for assistance, in Talk Talk Broadband Services (Ireland) Limited in Ireland and six of its suppliers related to the same collective redundancy procedure. It involves the mobilisation of EUR 2 696 382 to provide assistance to those workers made redundant as a result of the relocation of work to the United Kingdom, India, the Philippines and South Africa. We are approving palliatives, which may be temporarily useful, but the disease must really be attacked at the root: we must break with these neoliberal policies which are leading us into the depths of despair without any glimpse, even fleetingly, of a small ray of hope for the millions of workers and their families who are losing the right to work and to a dignified life.

Report: Dominique Riquet (A7-0325/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Created in 2006, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) seeks to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to changes in world trade. In 2009 its scope was broadened to include support for victims of the financial crisis. This request from Sweden aims to assist 543 people who were made redundant. It was supported by the European Parliament and I voted for it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who suffered as a result of the EU economic and financial crisis is a good idea. During the crisis, several Member States decided to consolidate their budgets. Most often this took the form of slashing research and development programmes, and many companies in this field reduced their output. With this funding, however, approximately 700 workers will be reintegrated in the labour market through support to find a job, training and professional retraining, funds for setting up a business and assistance for the reintegration of older workers.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. The scope of the EGF was broadened from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the economic, financial and social crisis. At this time when we are faced with a severe economic, financial and social crisis, with one of the main consequences being increased unemployment, the EU should use every means at its disposal to react, particularly as regards the support to be provided to those who find themselves without a job. I therefore supported this report which concerns the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854 of the EGF for Sweden in order to support 700 potential beneficiaries out of 987 redundancies in the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an instrument to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. I have voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund in the present case because there are no problem areas and the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up. Sweden has requested assistance for the 987 workers dismissed in the pharmaceutical enterprise AstraZeneca. The affected sites are located in four Swedish municipalities with the majority of the staff made redundant in Lund; the closure of the site is a heavy burden for Lund and affects the entire pharmaceutical sector in Sweden and the regional labour market.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF): application EGF/2011/015 SE/Astra Zeneca. The EGF is designed to provide additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration in the labour market. I strongly support this initiative, which allows us to help Sweden to deal with huge job losses (987 redundancies) in the pharmaceutical sector since its application meets the conditions for deploying the EGF.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − In 2011, the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca closed two R&D sites and reduced its staff on two other sites creating 700 redundant workers. While it is always a tragedy to have a large workforce face redundancy and a sad indictment of the economic woes in which Europe finds itself, it is my belief that the EU has been part architect of the current situation through austerity and cuts that have killed consumer confidence and exacerbated the economic crisis. The EU should therefore not be in a position to pour money into its failings. The EU is an outdated model that is not fit for purpose in a globalised market place. National bodies should have full jurisdiction over trade and employment and forge partnerships with third countries to manage in times of crisis and provide for their workforce in both good and bad times. Member States such as the UK would have more financial aid to provide of their own accord without EU membership and without the burden of red tape that being a member of the European Union inevitably brings.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Thanks to the assistance they will receive from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), 700 Swedish workers who were made redundant will be able to cope with the difficulties involved in losing their job, and will receive support and training to help them find a new job. I am in favour of granting this assistance.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The globalisation of markets, on the one hand, and the expiry of patents and growing share of the generics market, on the other hand, have resulted in significant changes to the pharmaceutical industry, forcing it to make adjustments, in an already tough environment, in order to retain its competitiveness. Furthermore, global investments and biotechnological research are on the increase and, given the climate of austerity in Europe, the state of R&D in the EU is cause for concern. In the face of new investment patterns and strategies in the areas of biosciences, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical technology begun by third countries, European companies, even those regarded as examples of success such as AstraZeneca, have been forced to adapt their production to deal with the new challenges. For that reason I voted in favour of this report which mobilises EUR 4 325 854 of the EGF for Sweden.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the extremely serious social consequences of the current economic and financial crisis, the European Union created the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in order to provide additional assistance to workers affected by structural changes in world trade. This report concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EGF, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the EP, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application ‘EGF/2011/015 SE/AstraZeneca’ from Sweden). On 16 July 2012 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Sweden in order to support the reintegration of workers made redundant due to the global crisis, following the aforementioned application submitted on 23 December 2011. This is the sixth application submitted under the 2012 EU budget and refers to the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854. It is intended to mitigate the social effect caused by 987 workers being made redundant by the Swedish company AstraZeneca. I voted in favour of this proposal as it fulfils all of the eligibility criteria laid down by the EGF Regulation.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report approves the mobilisation of the EGF in the amount of EUR 4 325 854 in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of 987 workers made redundant by AstraZeneca in Sweden, in the pharmaceutical sector, due to ‘structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation’ – always the same line ... – outsourcing and cuts made in R&D investment at European level. Unlike the Asian communities which, during the recession, have increased their investment in R&D, Europe, which is fixated with tackling the deficits, is restricting public support for R&D, an approach that could last for years, with inevitable consequences on employment rates and medical research. Each new mobilisation of this Fund can only merit our strongest condemnation and denunciation. This is the result of the policies imposed by the EU on Europe. We need to find another approach.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. − (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation and to help them rejoin the labour market. The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows mobilisation of the EGF within an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million. Sweden submitted an application for EGF mobilisation on 23 December 2011 in connection with redundancies at AstraZeneca and supplemented it with additional information up to 16 April 2012. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 4 325 854. I believe that funds should be released from the EGF in order to provide a financial contribution with respect to Sweden’s application.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I am pleased that MEPs have approved EGF funding for AstraZeneca Sweden. There were 987 redundancies following the closures of the company’s research and development sites in the municipalities of Lund and Umeå, and limiting operations in Mölndal and Södertälje. 700 of these workers – those who are expected to have the greatest difficulty gaining new employment – will be targeted for support from the EGF. The package aims to help the workers by offering them occupational guidance and job-search assistance, as well as vocational training and retraining, and aid for self-employment. The pharmaceutical industry worldwide is increasingly reorganising and consolidating in order to retain its competitiveness, so I am satisfied that the EGF is yet again demonstrating clearly the EU’s added value in providing a safety net for those who lose out as a result of these changes.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Dominique Riquet on the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help Sweden to cope with redundancies in the pharmaceutical sector. There have been around 987 redundancies in this sector to date. This assistance was approved by a large majority: 574 votes to 71, with 15 abstentions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Sweden. At times of economic crisis such as the present, the EGF is an appropriate means of assistance, and not only to workers in difficulty. Today’s vote involved about 700 redundancies at the pharmaceutical enterprise AstraZeneca. The total amount mobilised is EUR 4 325 854.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this application. One of the criteria for the Commission’s assessment was the evaluation of the link between the redundancies and major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Swedish authorities argue that the pharmaceutical sector is increasingly affected by globalisation. The pharmaceutical industry is currently undergoing significant changes in order to retain its competitiveness in a tough environment. Many companies are in a state of transition; reorganisation, consolidation, mergers and acquisitions are being considered in order to maintain growth centres. The industry is increasingly seeking synergies to hold down the increasing costs of research and development (R&D) activities.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports workers who have been redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. The eligibility criteria are met in this case. It is therefore appropriate to give tailored aid to the people made redundant by Astra Zeneca in Sweden.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity which offers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This support is vital to help the unemployed and victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised context. The number of undertakings which are relocating is constantly on the increase, due to their taking advantage of the cheaper labour costs which are available in various countries, particularly China and India, to the detriment of those countries which respect workers’ rights. The EGF is intended to help workers suffering the consequences of relocations, and it is vital to facilitate access to a new job. In the past the EGF has been used by other countries in the EU. This support must now be given to Sweden, which has submitted an application for assistance for 987 redundancies, of which 700 are targeted for assistance, in the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in Sweden.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report supporting the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund targeting 700 of the 987 redundancies that have occurred in the company AstraZeneca, which operates in the pharmaceutical sector in Lund in Sweden. The EGF provides additional support to workers who are suffering the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. Sweden has submitted an application for EGF assistance for redundancies that meets the conditions of the EGF Regulation. It must now be ensured that the EGF assistance is used to support the dismissed workers’ reintegration into the labour market and must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the sixth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the EGF for Sweden. The application cites 543 redundancies in AstraZeneca during the four-month reference period from 15 June 2011 to 15 October 2011. I supported this application.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 16 July 2012 the European Commission adopted, under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Sweden in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. This is the sixth application to be examined under the 2012 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the EGF for 543 redundancies in AstraZeneca during the four-month reference period from 15 June 2011 to 15 October 2011. A further 444 redundancies (987 in total) occurred before and after the reference period and are related to the same collective redundancy procedure. With this procedure having been assessed by all of the parties involved, particularly the European Commission, and with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs having been associated to the process and being in favour of the Fund being mobilised for Sweden, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration in the labour market. On 16 July 2012, the Commission therefore adopted a new proposal for a Decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Sweden in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. Since in accordance with the Commission’s assessment, the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set out by the EGF Regulation, and underlining that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that as such deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the application for assistance submitted by Sweden for 987 redundancies, 700 of which are targeted for assistance, in the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, the Commission proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 4 325 854 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which was created in 2006 in order to ‘provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns’. I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. According to the provisions of point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, the Fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million, drawn from the margin under the global expenditure ceiling from the previous year, and/or from the cancelled commitment appropriations from the previous two years, excluding those related to Heading 1b. The appropriate amounts are entered into the budget as a provision as soon as the sufficient margins and/or cancelled commitments have been identified. Concerning the procedure, in order to activate the Fund the Commission, in case of a positive assessment of an application, presents to the budgetary authority a proposal for mobilisation of the Fund and, at the same time, a corresponding request for transfer. In parallel, a trialogue could be organised in order to find an agreement on the use of the Fund and the amounts required. The trialogue can take a simplified (written) form.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I take a positive view of the timely assistance to 700 workers dismissed by the pharmaceutical enterprise AstraZeneca through mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The pharmaceutical industry is making important changes in an attempt to retain competitiveness at a difficult time and I am certain that the fund can help the workers affected to make the transition to new employment. This package will offer the workers job-search assistance, occupational guidance, training and retraining, and aid for self-employment. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in order to support workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. Sweden submitted a request to mobilise the EGF for 543 redundancies in AstraZeneca during the four-month reference period (15 June 2011 to 15 October 2011). A further 444 redundancies (987 in total) occurred before and after the reference period and were related to the same collective redundancy procedure. I agree with the mobilisation of EUR 4 325 854 of the EGF in order to support the reintegration of the workers into the labour market, which also includes incentives to encourage participation in the various measures undertaken, such as a job search allowance of EUR 7 170 and a mobility allowance of EUR 500. I would also highlight that the EGF support should be used for training and job search, instead of contributing directly to unemployment benefits which are the responsibility of national institutions.