Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 25 October 2012 - Strasbourg

15. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Regina Bastos (A7-0310/2012)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very satisfied with the report by Ms Bastos, on which I voted in favour. Unfortunately, the severe economic crisis in Europe has had a negative impact on perceptions of the single market’s potential, among both citizens and businesses, and some governments and national political movements. There is a danger that this will cloud our vision of the excellent work done by the European institutions to revitalise and strengthen the single market, for example the wide-ranging public procurement reform and the revision of the Late Payments Directive.

I agree that there is a need, as Ms Bastos has stressed, to strengthen interinstitutional cooperation between the European Union and the Member States. Fundamental measures – such as the setting up of unitary patent protection – are all too often blocked or delayed by institutional conflict and national egotism. In a period of crisis like the current one, we need to take a united approach to governance, one which enables us to introduce the necessary legislation promptly, to revitalise the internal market and strengthen the rights of citizens within the European Union.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). - (FR) Mr President, I believe that in politics we should not be afraid of words. The single market, which is now 20 years old, has brought many things. The benefits are huge. Let us not mince our words, though: we need to say out loud that the single market will not be fully justified until it has become a means of protecting our jobs and industries. If we do not change our ways, we need to ask ourselves what is going to happen in the future. Dominant economies like China, Korea, Japan and Qatar are going to carry on buying up our industries and our jobs, and when Europe’s new bosses decide to relocate, there will be nothing we can do about it. That is why words are important in politics.

I think we should agree that the time really has come to set up a proper protection policy for the internal market: European protectionism.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, as a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I have taken a close interest in the report by Ms Bastos on the 20 main concerns of citizens and businesses. Our debate on this report has also been linked to our debate on the 20th anniversary of the single market. For 20 years it has supposedly been possible to exercise the freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital in the single market, our area of living, trade and freedom.

Firstly, I was interested in the fact that one of the leading concerns expressed by European citizens was the difficulty of having professional qualifications recognised, and on this we really need to be particularly proactive and effective. That is what our citizens are expecting of us: that we succeed in setting up, in the very near future, recognition procedures for their certificates, skills and professional qualifications that are genuinely more rapid, simpler, more effective and less costly. This is a real challenge.

As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on this matter, the modernisation of these procedures, I am actively working with the other members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on a genuine response to this major challenge of mobility. More mobility for more of Europe: that is what our fellow citizens are asking for.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to relaunch the single market, which is a key element in realising the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, I think it is important to step up the strategies for reviving economic growth and employment, and winning the confidence of citizens and businesses. I support the report because it emphasises the gap between expectations and reality, which is often the cause of growing concern, for example about tax obstacles, energy costs, and payment of VAT.

At a time when citizens are eyeing Europe with mistrust, we need to improve cooperation between the EU institutions and the Member States in order to promote competitiveness, creating new jobs and contributing to research and innovation, and to territorial cohesion, in order to protect our businesses and high quality products. For example we need to harmonise energy costs, which are the largest outgoings for many businesses, in order to create a single European market.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report. I am particularly pleased that the report encourages businesses to be bolder in hiring young people who have studied abroad, and to produce information and publicity in such a way that consumers who are more disadvantaged are also taken into account.

In the case of information and publicity, the report also calls on the Commission to monitor and control the effectiveness and success of information campaigns. I sincerely support this proposal, since if the campaigns fail to reach the selected target groups or if consumers do not understand what we wish to say to them, then our work is pointless and we are wasting scarce resources.

I hope that, through this report, we find new shared ways of improving the position of citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises, and of increasing their mobility and their confidence within the Union.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - Mr President, I am honoured that you have chosen to speak English today. I find that delightful.

There are 20 concerns here about matters on which European legislation has focused, and they are important – about professional qualifications, opening bank accounts, having inheritance rights recognised, establishing rights to pensions and so on throughout the EU – but what is more important, in an EU where unemployment is growing very fast, is job creation. The engines of job creation in the single market are the small and medium-sized enterprises. They are in the vanguard when it comes to creating jobs and getting our economy moving, and the report has focused on that reality. That is why I supported it.

However, 35 % of European citizens do not even know about the single market. They do not understand the legislative framework or our regulations. What we need is less regulation in order to enable the enterprising spirit of European people to garner its own reward through hard work.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Deva. My English is not perfect, but I am learning.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the single market is a major achievement and is now, more than ever, a key element in realising the ambitious objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Twenty years of the single market is a long time, but there is still a lot to do. So it is fundamentally important that this celebration is used as an opportunity to relaunch the single market, and it is also important for us to look ahead and see what we still lack. For example, a common energy policy is now essential if all of Europe’s citizens are to be guaranteed secure and clean energy supplies at more accessible prices.

Removing obstacles and relaunching the single market will prove decisive in Europe’s current economic and social crisis, because they will contribute to innovation, growth, development, the promotion of competitiveness and above all to job creation.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Mr President, I support the agreement between Parliament and the Commission. The single market was formed to increase the flow of commerce between Member States, without barriers. Today, unfortunately, that is not the reality.

We need to assure our citizens that they benefit from EU membership and that they all belong to the same community. To make that a reality, we must further deepen the single market, thus increasing competition, economic growth and job creation, and making available more money to increase social benefits. We must accomplish this, but how do we do it?

We must promote harmonisation; we must create a single rail system, for example; we must introduce standardised rules for small and medium businesses. We need less regulation and clearer regulation. Harmonisation is vital for the single market and for our citizens.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the objective of a single market is to have a free flow of goods, services and capital between Member States, which should lead to balanced economic growth. But citizens continue to run into problems with the proper functioning of this market, particularly because of a number of legal loopholes, and also because of inadequate information. Consequently I agree with the need to present the Commission and Member States with recommendations that will bring about standardisation of the functioning of the single market, as an improvement will only come about with Member States’ involvement.

As a minimum, standardisation is needed in the recognition of occupational qualifications, or access to health and pension services, and also to banking services. Support is needed for a functional digital single market, to enable it to bring benefits to business people and consumers. I support the call to modernise national public administration to promote electronic facilities. I also take a positive view of the demand for closer cooperation between Parliament, the Council, the Commission and Member States in the direction of increasing the influence of citizens in EU internal affairs.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was happy to give my support to this report, but I believe that the earlier we can put a single market in place, the better it will be for all of us, especially to escape from the economic recession and to create jobs and growth in the European Union.

I find it somewhat bemusing to hear that this addresses the concerns of European citizens and businesses. It certainly addresses the concerns of businesses but, unfortunately, where most citizens are concerned, they are probably not even aware of the single market and what it means. That certainly is a challenge for us.

Having said that, the proposals are eminently sensible and certainly they are worth completing as soon as we can. I would just like to emphasise two of them. One is the vast potential that is there in the use of the internet and e-commerce. Too many businesses do not trade outside their own Member State, never mind the European Union: there is a challenge for us. The other is the recognition of qualifications across the European Union.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I too voted in favour of this report because consolidating the single market is an essential factor for the relaunching of economic growth and employment for the labour force. For this reason, I consider that the existing obstacles, including with regard to freedom of movement within the single market, need to be removed as soon as possible.

That way, citizens will be able to take full advantage of all their rights. Yet Romanian citizens still face restrictions, although the latter are not justified and should be eliminated. Against the background of the economic crisis, elimination of the gaps and barriers identified is becoming increasingly important. By that means, we will be able to contribute to innovation, growth, competitiveness and greater confidence in the single market. I would like to highlight the importance of better joint government, primarily with regard to improved cooperation. Furthermore, I consider that the economic and social wellbeing of the Union’s citizens must be central to this approach.

- Motion for a resolution: EU trade negotiations with Japan (B7-0462/2012)

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - Mr President, this is a very important report. Japan is our second largest trading partner after China, with the EU, and Japan has invested heavily in the European Union. Japan’s production of motor vehicles, both in the European Union and in my own country, the UK, is quite splendid. 140 000 jobs are being kept going – the number is in fact increasing – because of Japan’s investment in the EU economy.

Likewise, we ought to be investing in the Japanese economy. What we need to do is to ask the Japanese not to keep on with quantitative tariffs and quantitative restrictions, but to open up their distribution networks to our exports and our services. It is sometimes very difficult to distribute within Japan because of the way in which business is done there, and we need Japan to understand that we should also be able to have a level playing field so that we can access the Japanese market and Japanese consumers in the same way that we have permitted Japan to access our markets and to sell its goods to our people. This is a very important report.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, taken together, the European Union and Japan represent more than one fifth of world trade. Many high-quality Japanese products have for years enjoyed the trust of a high proportion of Europeans. A mutual free trade agreement should make it significantly easier for our business people to obtain goods, and also expand exports to Japan. The mere fact that a distinct majority of them are in favour of commencement of negotiations bears this out. Such matters as duty, intellectual property law, business competitiveness and above all the removal of non-tariff barriers and obstacles to market access in public procurement must be sorted out. Attention must be drawn to the need to carry out an assessment of progress in eliminating non-tariff barriers after commencement of negotiations, which is not without significance for Parliament’s future stance. While avoiding an uncontrolled rise in imports, we must also envisage bilateral protective measures, especially in respect of such sectors as the automobile industry, so as not to cause any threat to European businesses. I support this resolution.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). - (HU) Mr President, amidst the current global financial crisis we must not forget that the European Union also has to hold its ground as the circumstances of global economic competition change. Some believe that the 21st century will be Asia’s century, not to mention China’s. Looking at the emerging markets, the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations – Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia – will be capable of generating incredible economic output. Under these circumstances we have to do everything we can to ensure that the EU continues to develop its trade links with the region, principally with the countries that already have functioning market economies. One such step is the forthcoming free trade agreement with Japan, which could provide a significant boost to trade based on experience of the similar agreement reached with South Korea, and thus be beneficial for both sides.

We know that dismantling the customs and duties standing in the way of free trade is not the most difficult task, unlike the abolition of non-customs barriers that are vital to achieving genuine free trade. Europe has to pay more attention than ever before to the countries in East Asia, as trade with this region still harbours many opportunities.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I too want to congratulate you on your excellent English; keep it up. I will try speaking the language of Dante one day, but not yet.

The EU and Japan should be proud to cement their partnership in a free trade agreement (FTA). Japan is not only a key European ally and a liberal democracy, but also the third largest economy in the world, with highly advanced systems of production and levels of consumption. As mentioned by my colleague, trade with Japan is massive, generating over EUR 116 billion in combined imports and exports last year. Free trade is, after all, a cornerstone of what the EU is all about for the benefit of manufacturers and consumers alike. We must carry on developing and consolidating these markets, trading opportunities and strategic partnerships wherever we find them, and particularly those with democracies like India and Japan, which will enable us to kick-start economic growth, with this being what is missing on our continent at present.

In the 21 years since the first EU-Japan joint declaration was made on trade and other issues, it is clear that political relations between the European Union and Japan have gone from strength to strength. This FTA can only serve to benefit both sides.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this agreement. Japan is the European Union’s second-largest trading partner, and this is important. Last year trade amounted to EUR 160 billion, and, as Europeans, we all know that Japan has a very strong presence in Europe, above all in our industrial markets.

It is also very important that the access of European firms to Japan’s markets is likewise facilitated. It is important to remember at all times that in trade policy the principle of reciprocity is a good thing. Right now the opportunity exists for the abolition of unnecessary tariffs. Europe, too, needs growth and consequently this free trade can be of benefit to both parties.

Of course, as European decision-makers we must always remember that since the European Union is a community of values, it is also important to strengthen links with Japan, which despite its cultural differences and background shares the common European values of democracy, human rights, freedom of opinion and the rule of law, and it would be good to be mindful of these values when we engage in trade.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I must say that we have a high regard for Japan. I believe that Japan is a wonderful nation. The Japanese are sensible, they are intelligent: they work diligently and they have made an enormous amount of progress over many years.

Of course, they have great difficulties at present because of the worldwide economic recession, because of the tsunami, because of Fukushima and such events, but they shall overcome all of those in time. We, in the European Union, can help them by concluding a free trade agreement with them.

Having said that, there are still problems. I am thinking of one in particular, public procurement, and they have to change their mind about this issue. Some of the most important points in relation to the creation of the free market between us have already been mentioned, and the earlier that is resolved, the better it will be for the Union and for Japan.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I have not asked for the floor in order to explain my vote, but because I want to respond to the situation that occurred during the vote – and that was during Ms Schnieber-Jastram’s report. I want to speak on behalf of all Members who stood up during the oral amendment, because they were only voting according to their conscience. Mr Cashman used the speaking time to discredit and blame us; I believe that this Parliament says a lot about human rights, and the right to conscientious objection and freedom of conscience is one of the fundamental human rights. I therefore greatly regret this incident.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Iuliu Winkler (A7-0273/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, arising from the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part. The Agreement will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Parties notify each other that their respective ratification procedures have been completed. Bearing in mind that the Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia – signed on the same date to allow the early application of trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) – entered into force on 1 February 2010, I agree with the Commission’s proposal for an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

On the other hand, for the sake of consistency of the trade legislation, I agree with the rapporteur, who proposes amendments which aim at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the 5 Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) A Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) on 29 April 2008 between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg. The Commission has proposed an Implementing Regulation to facilitate the application of the Interim Agreement, which lays down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements. Mr Winkler felt that the amendments to the Commission proposal under examination should mirror the amendments brought about by the Trade Omnibus I report. I agree with the rapporteur because this will guarantee the consistency and coherence of the European Parliament’s position on the matter. Consequently the report contains amendments aimed at aligning the amended provisions with the amendments brought about by the Trade Omnibus I Regulation to the five Regulations on the application of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements and the Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries. I fully agree with Mr Winkler’s report, and that is why I have decided to give it my full support.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of this agreement, adopted by the European Parliament and on which I voted in favour, is to specify the framework for trade relations between the European Union and Serbia. It gives the Commission the option of taking protective measures at the request of one or more Member States, if necessary.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the Implementing Regulation to lay down rules for the implementation of provisions of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) and Interim Agreement (IA). In order to integrate Serbia into the European political and economic sphere, it is essential to correctly and transparently follow the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Therefore, I agree with the proposal to apply the Agreement to the first Single Market Act, allowing for the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because the ratification of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia marked a historic moment in the relationship between the two parties. Moreover, the granting of candidate status to Serbia this year marked another step forwards on the road to this country’s reconciliation with the Union.

I believe that by adopting these additional implementing procedures for the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the Interim Agreement, we will be able to stimulate trade with Serbia in the agricultural and fisheries sectors. In addition, the Union will be able to ensure that Serbia complies with competition requirements when it places products on the European market. Not least, these procedures will spur Serbia to push ahead with reforms in other key areas in order to deepen its cooperation with the European Union.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia. In this case, for the sake of the consistency of trade legislation, the rapporteur proposes amendments aimed at aligning the amended provisions to the changes introduced by the Trade Omnibus I Regulation relating to the Western Balkan countries.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report because the purpose of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Serbia is to align common commercial policy rules to the new regime of delegated acts and implementing acts introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because on 29 April 2008 one of the first stabilisation agreements, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Serbia, was signed, which influences further economic partnership agreements and trade-related provisions between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia. In order to correctly and smoothly apply interim agreements, the Commission has indicated that the provisions of five regulations relating to implementing acts fundamentally conform to the provisions of the newest Commission proposal on the EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the Interim Agreement. For this reason, potential amendments to the provisions of the above five regulations brought about by the Trade Omnibus I report should be mirrored in the amendments to the Commission proposal under examination. This way, a consistent and consequent position of the European Parliament on the issue of stabilisation and association with the Republic of Serbia would be ensured.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The entire significance of the SAA between the EU and the Republic of Serbia could be represented by just the trade balance of this Balkan republic. Serbia sees the EU as its leading trade partner, accounting for almost two thirds of the overall value. This fact makes close integration between Brussels and Belgrade a necessity. This integration has already been consolidated on the basis of trade and industrial partnerships, and now further action is required to fit it into the institutional and regulatory system.

Previous agreements have shown how significant and important progress can be promoted across a wide spectrum of fundamental areas, from the liberalisation of markets to encouraging foreign investment, from strengthening legality to the resulting rise in free enterprise, from the exchange of ideas and information to civil and economic liberties, from the modernisation of legal systems to the gradual alignment of laws with the European acquis. For our countries, Serbia is an important market and a natural partner. I am therefore voting in favour of the report, including the proposed amendments (for example, conferring implementing powers on the Commission) and the stipulations on tariff quotas.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report concerning the rules for the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and Serbia and the Interim Agreement between the European Community and Serbia. The report lays down detailed rules for the implementation of tariff quotas for fish and fishery products, reduced tariffs, technical adaptations to the Combined Nomenclature codes and trade defence instruments. I therefore support this report proposing to align the amended text to the changes brought about by the Trade Omnibus I to the five regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements with the other Balkans’ countries.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this as a prelude for Serbian membership of the EU. There are already far more net beneficiaries than net contributor Member States in the Union, placing an even greater burden on countries such as the UK. Europe is struggling through severe financial crisis and cannot manage those countries already in the Eurozone, while all new Member States must take on the beleaguered single currency. There are serious questions regarding democracy in Serbia and the debate surrounding Kosovo. I do not assent to Serbia joining the EU and therefore have voted against.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I agree with the proposed amendments.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this regulation, which will enable the European Commission to ensure that the EU-Serbia Interim Agreement is properly implemented and hence that the provisions concerning trade, which are so important to the consolidation of a stable and prosperous society in Serbia and setting this country on the road to accession to the Union, will be applied.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Serbia along with the Interim Agreement facilitating the prompt application of provisions on trade and trade-related issues was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008. The former is still being ratified. The proposed regulation provides amongst other things for fish and fishery product tariff quotas, trade protection mechanisms and customs tariff regulation. Several agreements were previously reached with countries in the Western Balkans, which are part of the Trade Omnibus I Regulation. These are aimed at harmonising existing regulations with a view to ensuring the smooth implementation of common trade policies. Only in this way can we ensure that the European Parliament position on the issue is consistent. The agreement represents another important step towards the full EU membership of our southern neighbour.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and Serbia is awaiting completion of the ratification process. Until it enters into force, it is right that some rules between the Union and Serbia may already be applied, in particular those concerning trade. The Implementing Regulation for the Interim Agreement, which the Commission is proposing, follows the line of others already established with other Balkan countries. This Agreement and the others will have to be compatible with the legal regime in force following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. It will also have to be clear and appropriately incorporated.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008 and envisages that it will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date of notification by the Parties, of its ratification. On the same date, an Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia was signed to allow the early application of the provisions set out in the SAA. That IA entered into force on 1 February 2010. The report under debate deals with the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the procedures for applying the SAA. The SAA regulations include the ongoing ‘Trade Omnibus I’ Regulation, on which the European Parliament adopted its first-reading position on 14 March 2012. In order to speed up implementation of the IA, the Commission is proposing an Implementing Regulation on detailed rules and procedures for implementation of the provisions set out in the SAAs. I therefore voted in favour of this report drawn up by Iuliu Winkler.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report, like other reports on international trade, aims principally to align the legislation in this field with the amendments affecting this field introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. The amendments introduced by the rapporteur aim at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements. However, we must assess this report on its deeper significance, bearing in mind positions of principle concerning the Treaty and the provisions therein on trade policy. In principle the Treaty of Lisbon lays down that commercial policy is the exclusive competence of the EU. Commercial interests are clearly different from country to country, since the respective economies and their weaknesses and potential are different. Placing the interests of the strongest over those of the weakest in this field, as in other fields, is harmful to the weaker economies and that is happening with Portugal, which is subject to the commercial interests of the big companies of the EU powers, especially Germany, which are so often contrary to the interests of the national productive fabric.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) A Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008. It will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Parties notify each other that their respective ratification procedures have been completed. In addition, the Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia, signed on the same date to allow the early application of trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), entered into force on 1 February 2010. I believe it is important and necessary to lay down rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Interim Agreement, as well as procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for its implementation. Since the provisions of the agreements governing trade and trade-related issues are largely the same, this regulation should also apply to the implementation of the SAA after its entry into force.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Mr Winkler in plenary. The report was adopted by a large majority (514 votes) and I am delighted. A Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and Serbia was signed on 29 April 2008, and the purpose of the Winkler report is to define, by means of a regulation, the detailed rules for implementation of the provisions on tariff quotas for fish and fishery products, reduced tariffs and trade defence instruments.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report, the aim of which is to ensure the correct and smooth application of the Interim Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia. The Commission proposes an implementing regulation, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We voted in favour of this report to lay down detailed rules for the implementation of the Interim Agreement between the European Community and Serbia signed in 2008 on trade and trade-related provisions. In particular, detailed rules are laid down for the implementation of tariff quotas for fish and fishery products, reduced tariffs, technical adaptations to the Combined Nomenclature codes and trade defence instruments.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution. The report concentrated on proposing amendments aimed at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the 5 Regulations concerning application of Stability and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries. It is thus possible to develop a consistent European Parliament position on this issue.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that these agreements could be effective tools for stabilising the Balkan region. The report establishes the adoption of detailed rules improving the implementation of the agreements. In this case, the improvement of economic relations could help the recovery of the region following the fierce conflicts that ravaged it during the last decade of last century. The normalisation of relations with EU countries could thus be an important step in the recovery and development of the region. For these reasons I voted in favour of this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − With the aim of the correct and smooth application of the Interim Agreement, this Implementing Regulation is proposed, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I support the European Commission’s proposal for an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement and EC-Serbia Interim Agreement to ensure that these agreements are implemented smoothly and correctly. Serbian progress was recognised in 2008 when the Stabilisation and Association Agreement was signed, and also when Serbia gained the status of a candidate country. However, in order to become an EU Member State, Serbia still has to implement reforms not only through legislation, but also by introducing European practices in areas such as foreign investment protection, improvement of the business environment and visas to Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the amendments to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia aimed at aligning the amended provisions to the changes to the other Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries, thus providing greater consistency between all the agreements signed.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Having regard to the fact that a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008 and entered into force on 1 February 2010, in order to ensure the correct and smooth application of the Interim Agreement, the Commission is proposing an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements. Bearing in mind that this has previously been done for other SAAs by means of regulations that form part of the Trade Omnibus I Regulation, the amendments to the Commission proposal under examination should mirror the amendments made by the Trade Omnibus I report to the provisions of these regulations. For the sake of consistency in trade legislation, I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. A Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, was signed in Luxemburg on 29 April 2008. It will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Parties notify each other that their respective ratification procedures have been completed. The Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia, signed on the same date to allow the early application of trade and trade-related provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), entered into force on 1 February 2010. With the aim of the correct and smooth application of the IA, the Commission proposes an implementing regulation, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report. It is, of course, a text that has undergone only slight amendments and that could be seen merely as an alignment to existing legislation. However, I would like to explain the political importance of this little vote. We should be close to Serbia and be helping its development and growth. I am generally sceptical about this kind of agreement with other countries, but encouraging interchange between the EU and Serbia could prove an important opportunity for both sides.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In order for the Interim Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia to be correctly applied, I welcome the proposal for an Implementing Regulation to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements. To guarantee the coherence and consistency of trade legisation, I believe that the amended provisions should be aligned with the amendments brought about by the Trade Omnibus I Regulation to the five Regulations on the application of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements and the Interim Agreements with the other Western Balkan countries. For this reason I voted in favour of the report.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. − When one considers that just 13 years ago, Serbia was governed by tyranny and its cities were being bombed by NATO planes, the fact that we now stand ready to welcome that country into the EU is a remarkable achievement. Serbia, like many of its neighbours, still has a long way to go before it reaches that ultimate destination of full EU membership, and the necessary paths of reform and negotiation will not be easy, but its new status as a candidate country is a crucial breakthrough for that journey, and a development that all in the EU should welcome. Let us hope, in particular, that progress can be made on finding a solution to the Kosovo question, and on repealing Article 359 of the criminal code, the offence of abuse of office. Serbia has made it this far – now we need to offer all the help we can to enable its citizens to realize their dreams of development and prosperity that so many others among us have come to enjoy.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this procedure. For information, a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, had already been signed in 2008. The amendments tabled in this text by Mr Winkler are designed to align the text to the changes brought about by the Trade Omnibus I to the five Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements with the Western Balkans’ countries.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In view of the agreements signed between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia with a view to boosting trade between the two economies and having regard to the amendments arising from implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is necessary to introduce amendments to the agreements signed. The legislative changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon are in addition to the changes introduced by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ and the resultant strategic alignment of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements between the EU and various Balkan countries. Therefore, the European Parliament must maintain legislative consistency as regards treatment of the Balkan countries, which include Serbia. In view of the above, I am voting in favour of the report which proposes to bring the agreements signed between the EU and Serbia into line with existing legislation.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, and for applying the Interim Agreement (IA) between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part. The SAA and the Interim Agreement stipulate that certain agricultural and fishery products originating in Serbia may be imported into the Union at a reduced customs duty, within the limits of tariff quotas. It is therefore necessary to lay down provisions regulating the management and review of these tariff quotas in order to allow for their thorough assessment.

It is appropriate that the advisory procedure be used for the adoption of immediate measures in case of exceptional and critical circumstances given the effects of these measures and their sequential logic in relation to the adoption of definitive measures. Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair it is necessary to allow the Commission to adopt immediately applicable provisional measures. With the aim of the correct and smooth application of the IA, the Commission proposes an Implementing Regulation, to lay down rules and procedures for the adoption of detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of these Agreements.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Both the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Serbia and the Interim Agreement were signed back in 2008. I voted in favour, because the proposed directive is aimed at facilitating their proper and effective application. The regulations and procedures they contain enable the adoption of detailed regulations relating to implementation of the provisions of these two agreements.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. − I voted for this report because I believe in free trade. However, as the report concerns the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement, which includes as a general principle the observance of human rights, I feel I must comment on two recent incidents in Serbia which are of concern to me. Firstly, the recent behaviour by Serbian football fans at an England-Serbia under-21 match in Belgrade was despicable. The fans made monkey taunts at black England player Danny Rose, and stones, coins and chairs were thrown at the players. Secondly, Belgrade’s decision to ban a gay pride event for the second year running is worrying. Serbia should respect the right of LGBT people to free assembly. Commenting on the banning of the gay pride event, the Serbian Prime Minister said that ‘Nobody will be telling anyone what should happen in Belgrade’. In principle I agree, as I am opposed to EU meddling in issues which should be decided at Member State level. However, if Serbia is serious about accession to the European Union it must ensure that fundamental rights are respected, and that means tackling all forms of discrimination, especially racism and homophobia.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The amendments introduced by the rapporteur aim at aligning the amended provisions to the changes brought about by ‘Trade Omnibus I’ to the Regulations concerning application of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and Interim Agreements. It is important, however, to make one criticism, since the Treaty of Lisbon lays down that commercial policy is the exclusive competence of the EU. It is clear that there will be different commercial policies adapted to the interests of each country, and history shows that placing the interests of the stronger countries above the interests of the weaker countries, in this field as in other fields, is harmful to the weaker economies, which is what has happened and is happening with Portugal.

- Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0315/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, since I agree with the rapporteur’s proposal, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime. However, I agree with the rapporteur’s position in underlining that the Commission proposal has failed to amend the ‘old’ comitology provisions of Decision 2003/17/EC, which in fact only concerned the amendment of both its annexes. It is well known that old comitology provisions, given the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, have to be replaced by either delegated or implementing acts in accordance with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, the Commission confirms that the annexes to Decision 2003/17/EC are not expected to be amended before the entry into force of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform’s legislative proposal on seed. For that reason, and to avoid any possible obstacles to the prompt adoption of this urgent proposal, the rapporteur considers that it should be enough to delete the current comitology provisions of the amended Decision 2003/17/EC (i.e. its Articles 4 and 5). The rapporteur therefore proposes three amendments; nevertheless, if an amendment to those annexes proves necessary, this will still be possible by means of the ordinary legislative procedure and, consequently, I am voting in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which is a technical measure allowing a system for the certification and control of products during trade with third countries to be updated.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. Council Decision 2003/17/EC states that certain types of seed grown in third countries are considered equivalent to seed grown according to Union legislation. In order to ensure the necessary seed supply to the European market, the Council Decision recognising the equivalence principle for importation of seed from third countries needs to be extended to 31 December 2022. I also agree with the proposal to remove Yugoslavia from this text as it was replaced by a few new countries a long time ago. It is also essential to update the names of some authorities responsible for approval and control of the production.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the rules which the European Union applies for the inspection of seed must also be complied with by third countries which export these products into the Union. In addition, seed should be produced in accordance with all of the safety standards which the Union lays down. This is our only means of ensuring that human and animal safety will not be put at risk.

It is important for us to know whether seed marketed within the Union, including seed which has not been formally certified, has been treated with chemicals or whether the variety has been genetically modified. Not least, detailed rules on the exact information that must be mentioned on the labels of certified seed imported into the European Union will have to be upheld.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on extending the period of application and updating the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. The report relates to the continuation of the regime for the importation of seed. Following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU did not amend the provisions relating to the former commitology procedure, while now it should refer to delegating acts and implementing acts. In this respect the rapporteur considers that it should be sufficient to remove the current commitology procedure provisions and therefore tables the amendments.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − This is a technical measure to facilitate continued trade in seeds and plants. While to maintain balanced fauna throughout Europe and avail ourselves of a spread of planting options is beneficial, to support this measure is to endorse a further EU competence, therefore I abstain.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think it is very important to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I agree with the rapporteur’s view that Parliament should accept the Commission’s proposal in its current form, given the importance of maintaining the rules governing imported seed.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The importation of seed is of great importance to our economy and agriculture. Where it works well, there is no need to create obstacles to it. This report underlines the fact that the existing scheme is working properly and therefore calls for it to be extended. I support this objective.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘Extending the period of application of Council Decision 2003/17/EC, and updating the names of a third country and the authorities responsible for production approval and control’, taking into account its importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime until revision of the relevant regulation is completed.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I fully agree with the list drawn up by the European Commission on the equivalence principle for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seeds, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries, as well as with extending the relevant time limit beyond 31 December 2012.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Mr De Castro has presented his report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC, which extends its period of application and updates the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production. On 31 December 2012 the period for recognition pursuant to Decision 2003/17/EC expires 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. Since it is necessary to guarantee the supply of seed to the EU agricultural market whilst the revision of the Regulation on seed under codecision procedure is in progress, the Commission is proposing extending the time limit by ten years in order to avoid it expiring before the revision of the Regulation on seed is completed. I voted in favour, since I agree with the rapporteur’s position recommending that the ‘Commission proposal be accepted by Parliament in its substance as it stands, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime’.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the principle of equivalence for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. The period of application is five years, which may be extended if all requirements are fulfilled, and it is due to end on 31 December 2012. This report aims to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market and therefore extends the time limit to 31 December 2022, thus extending the period laid down by ten years. It also amends provisions which, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, are replaced by delegated or implementing acts. Even though we supported the rapporteur’s proposal, I should like to take this opportunity to draw attention once more to the constraints associated with the world seed market, which is increasingly controlled by a handful of large monopolies, which make millions of producers throughout the world dependent upon them. There are also serious and persistent agri-foodstuff production deficits which affect several EU countries, such as Portugal.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Council Directives on the marketing of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants regulate the internal marketing of seed for sowing of the plant species as listed by those Directives. To facilitate trades and to promptly respond to the marketing request, those Directives foresee the possibility for the Council to establish rules for authorising the importation of seed under an equivalence system from third countries. It appears that those field inspections continue to afford the same guarantees as those carried out by the Member States. These field inspections should therefore continue to be considered as equivalent. As Decision 2003/17/EC will expire on 31 December 2012, I believe it is reasonable to extend the period for which equivalence is recognised under that Decision. It appears desirable to extend that period to 10 years.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of Mr De Castro’s report is to facilitate trade and enable the EU to respond rapidly to market demand for forest reproductive material. This decision will enable the Council to lay down rules for authorisation of the importation of reproductive material from third countries under an equivalence regime. I supported this report in plenary, which was adopted by 558 votes to 7.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided 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. It also set out detailed requirements to be fulfilled, in particular to limit the period for which equivalence is recognised to five years, to be extended if all the relevant requirements are fulfilled. That period will expire on 31 December 2012. In order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, the Commission considers that these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only. The Commission argues that since the revision of the regulation on seed (under codecision procedure) will only be launched in September 2012, a time limit of ten years seems necessary to avoid the expiration within this process.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provides a 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 until 31 December 2012. The revision of the new Regulation on seed and reproductive material will only be launched in September 2012. It is therefore necessary to extend the equivalence principle by an extra 10 years, given the importance of the seed importation regime.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite some issues with amending old provisions, I agree with the rapporteur about the need to accept the Commission’s proposal as it stands, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the principle of equivalence for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries. It set out the requirements to be fulfilled as well as the limit on the period for equivalence recognition, which expires on 31 December 2012. Extension of the period envisaged for application of Decision 2003/17/EC, now 31 December 2022, given the urgency and importance for the seed importation regime, will guarantee operation of the sector and the necessary supply of seed to the EU market.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe the application period needs to be extended in order to ensure the supply of seed to the European market. The Decision includes the application of the equivalence principle to fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants for a period of five years ending on 31 December 2012. The report aims to extend the validity of that Decision to a period of 10 years provided that third countries comply with the conditions established in the Decision. In this way, the hope is to guarantee that European farmers have sufficient materials to carry out their production. This guarantee for European farming was sufficient to motivate me to vote in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Annex I to Decision 2003/17/EC lists Yugoslavia as a country under an equivalence regime. Some new countries now replace the former Yugoslavia. Slovenia is a member of the European Union, Croatia is already recognised as equivalent by Decision 2003/17/EC, and Serbia should be added as being a member of the OECD Scheme for the Varietal Certification of Seed moving in International Trades and member of the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) as regards the seed sampling and testing. Hence, Yugoslavia should be deleted. Other countries from the former Yugoslavia cannot be added, not being members of the OECD and ISTA. But it is understandable. Under thorough examination it becomes clear what kind of disorder is in the European Commission. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Owing to droughts in various agricultural areas, the prices of agricultural commodities such as soya beans and corn have increased by 30 %, or 50 % for wheat, compared to the previous year. In addition to this, agribusiness is being promoted in Eastern European countries and there is an increasing demand for animal feed in the emerging countries. In response, farmers are increasing their seed purchasing. Because of the diversity of the guidelines, for example the genetic engineering guidelines, the importation of seed from third countries can create problems. The proposal before us does not address this issue sufficiently. Therefore, I cannot support it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given the urgency and importance of continuing the seed importation regime, I voted in favour of this report, since I agree with the rapporteur’s position that the Commission proposal be accepted in its substance as it stands.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I recall that Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided 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, and limited the period for which equivalence was recognised to five years. That period expires on 31 December 2012. Therefore, in order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only. Furthermore, because I believe that Serbia should be added to the list of countries under equivalence regime and the former Yugoslavia should be removed from the list, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided 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. It also set out detailed requirements to be fulfilled, in particular to limit the period for which equivalence is recognised to five years, to be extended if all the relevant requirements are fulfilled. That period will expire on 31 December 2012. In order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, the Commission considers that these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only. The Commission argues that, since the revision of the regulation on seed (under codecision procedure) will only be launched in September 2012, a time limit of ten years seems necessary to avoid the expiration within this process.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of the proposal in order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, and, given the urgency and importance of the continuation of the seed importation regime, these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline to 31 December 2022.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided the list of countries to be recognised for the application of the principle of equivalence for importation of fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries, set out the requirements to be fulfilled and, in particular, set the limit on the period for equivalence recognition at five years, to be extended if all requirements are fulfilled. That period expires on 31 December 2012. Thus, in order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, the Commission considers that those rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently envisaged for 5 years only. The rapporteur proposes that the Commission proposal be accepted by Parliament, given its urgency and importance for the continuation of the seed importation regime and I therefore voted in favour.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC by extending its period of application and by updating the names of a third country and of the authorities responsible for the approval and control of the production.

Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided 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. It also set out detailed requirements to be fulfilled, in particular to limit the period for which equivalence is recognised to five years, to be extended if all the relevant requirements are fulfilled. In order to ensure the necessary supply of seed to the EU market, these rules must be prolonged by amending the deadline until 31 December 2022, even if the temporary extension is currently foreseen for five years only.

Annex I to Decision 2003/17/EC lists the countries under the equivalence regime. Croatia already benefits from the equivalence regime, and Serbia should be mentioned as a member of the OECD Scheme for the Varietal Certification of Seed moving in International Trades and member of the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) as regards the seed sampling and testing.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Council Decision 2003/17/EC provided 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. The period for which the regulations remain in effect is currently having to be extended to ensure that the required seed material is supplied to the EU market. It is also necessary to update the entry for Yugoslavia, which has been replaced by several new countries. This is why I voted in favour.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report aims to guarantee the necessary supply of seeds (fodder plant seed, cereal seed, beet seed and seed of oil and fibre plants from third countries) to the EU market and therefore extends the time limit making that possible to 31 December 2022. We voted in favour of this proposal, although we must stress the growing constraints associated with the world seed market, controlled by a handful of large monopolies, which make millions of producers throughout the world dependent upon them.

- Report: Ian Hudghton (A7-0314/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting in favour of this report. The conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources is a matter of the utmost importance and must be given the priority it deserves; I therefore stress the importance it holds for the viability of the fishing communities of the islands. To that end, I agree with the rapporteur who thinks that the issue of the 12-mile limit should be included in a wider debate on the reform of the common fisheries policy.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this resolution on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. It is important that the European Parliament has voted unanimously in plenary to extend the 12-mile access regime until an agreement on a new common fisheries policy (CFP) has been reached. If we had voted against, the 12-mile regime would have ended at the end of this year. I agree with the rapporteur that this would be completely unacceptable and unthinkable. It is important that management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful, whilst the common fisheries policy was impracticable owing to over-centralised and ineffective Brussels control. I agree with the rapporteur that the general effectiveness of Member State control within the 12-mile zones clearly demonstrates that management appropriate to circumstances is most effective.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Commission proposal seeking to extend the time limit on the 12-mile access regime. Considered a success, this coastal management regime is a central part of the conservation and exploitation of fisheries resources.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this proposal. Since 2003, Member States can limit the rights of certain ships to fish in the territorial waters of Member States within a 12-mile zone. This derogation aims to give Member States the opportunity to protect biologically sensitive regions, ensure sustainable fisheries management and protect traditional fishing. The derogation expires on 31 December 2012 and I agree that it should be extended to 31 December 2014 in order to ensure uninterrupted application of this derogation until a new common fisheries policy is established.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that greater attention should be paid to good management of fishing zones and resources. I agree with the rapporteur that the coastal zones should be extended. I consider that it is extremely important for the reform to allow Member States to take more management decisions. That would enable them to cooperate on a regional basis. At the same time, I believe that the intended reform should move in the direction of a decentralised regime focusing on the implementation of these matters. As the 12-mile zones have worked well so far, their extension is welcome. We need to reform the common fisheries policy so that it can work to its maximum potential.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on fisheries as conservation of resources and sustainable fishing through the common fisheries policy is essential. It is important to point out that the current 12-mile zone created under the common fisheries policy regulation in 1983 must be maintained, as the alternative would mean opening up Pandora’s box. We are currently in the throes of the reform of the common fisheries policy, which aims to promote conservation as well as efficiency in the fisheries sector.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am in favour of the report by Mr Hudghton because I support the proposal seeking to extend to 31 December 2014 the powers of the Member States over coastal waters within a 12-mile limit. Unlike the CFP, the policy for coastal waters within the 12-mile zone has been acknowledged to be a success and has had positive effects.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because the Commission proposal seeks to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime. Within the framework of the existing common fisheries policy (CFP) legislation, Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle when exploiting Member States’ fisheries resources within a 12-mile zone. This derogation is valid from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The proposal seeks to extend the derogation until 31 December 2014. The current 12-mile zones work well, but they will expire on 31 December of this year if the current proposal is not in place. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities – and these communities would not be understanding if that protection was to be removed as a result of an inter-institutional stalemate.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Fisheries continue to be essential for a large number of local economies within the European Union. Despite the modest contribution made by fisheries to the economies of the Member States (less than 1 % in the majority of cases), many local communities depend on the incomes of more than 300 000 full-time and part-time fishermen who work within the Union. We must also consider industries related to the fisheries sector, which employ several hundred thousand people. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that this activity can only continue if there are enough fish. For these reasons, I believe a policy on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources is necessary.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. In January 2003 a derogation allowed Member States to limit fishing to certain vessels in waters less than 12 nautical miles from their coast. From January 2013 this derogation becomes part of the Regulation. I fully support this initiative, given that it makes a positive contribution to the conservation of fisheries resources and allows traditional fishing activities to be preserved by introducing a differentiated access regime to coastal waters.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While I disagree wholeheartedly with EU control of British fishing waters I am very much in favour of extending the time limit on the current 12 mile access regime. The article does not go far enough but I will vote in favour of even the smallest of improvements to the CFP until the time that Britain can leave the EU and regain sovereignty of her own waters. Member States can and do manage fisheries with a degree of success. Whilst the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12 mile limits has been characterised by highly centralised and ineffective Brussels control, management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful. I hope that the Commission learns from this and sees fit to restore national territories and fishing rights beyond the current 12 mile stretch. One Member State has suggested that the zones be extended to 20 nautical miles. Even this does not go far enough

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think that fisheries management by the Member States within the 12-mile zones has been stable, effective and successful.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I agree with the rapporteur’s proposal to accept the current proposal for a two-year extension of the regime, but continue to argue for greater national control of coastal fisheries within the wider CFP reform package.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Until there is a new common fisheries policy, we must support this regime, which has proved its worth. The 12-mile derogation from the equal access rule is effective and crucial for European fishermen and seafarers. I therefore fully support its extension and I voted in favour of this report.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The common fisheries policy (CFP) has not succeeded in protecting fisheries resources and the balance of the ecosystem any more than it has managed to prevent economic and social damage to a particularly important sector of activity. Management of coastal areas by their Member States is one of its rare successes. That is why the extension of this zone in space and time is a step in the right direction for the complete overhaul of the CFP. The future CFP must propose local solutions within the framework of partnerships with the Member States and the large coastal regions. It must also give a larger role to producers and improve consumer protection. Finally, the new CFP must not simply take a free trade approach. In international negotiations, fisheries products should be treated as ‘sensitive products’ just like certain agricultural products.

  Nirj Deva (ECR), in writing. − I voted together with my group for the extension of national fisheries management within the 12-mile zones of each Member State. This is one of the very few aspects of the common fisheries policy which have in fact proved to be a resounding success. Why? Because it leaves Member States with the power to manage their own waters. It is no secret that the management of the fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limit, a regulation under the purview of the European Union, has been a resounding failure. This is why I believe we must substantially increase the 12-mile limit for the period beyond 2014 (to 20 miles or beyond) and capitalise on the lessons we have learnt here in the overhaul of the common fisheries policy. Since the management of fisheries controlled by Brussels has always been over-regulated, highly centralised and utterly ineffective across the board, it is only sensible that we work towards a decentralised and regionalised system for the entire fisheries policy. The coastal regime stands as a brilliant example of how we must restructure other policies where powers have been grabbed by Brussels and Member States have been sidelined.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. - (CS) The EU common fisheries policy has had limited powers and has been weak at managing fishing. There continues to be a massive disappearance of fish species as a result of overfishing. This report addresses the two-year extension of the special 12-mile regime to protect the coast, which is the most vulnerable. I urge the adoption of the report in its current form, and I support the extension of the zone to 20 miles from the coast. Some Member States can address the protection of their coasts entirely on their own, but the minimum protection requirements must be set by the European Union. The report continues in the fight for the preservation of fisheries as an industry for the next generation, and this is why I voted for its adoption.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, taking into account the need to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime, which has been managed by the Member States, and thus avoid a legal vacuum until a wider reform of the common fisheries policy has been completed.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I agree with extending the current 12-mile fishing zone, introduced in 1983 by the first Common Fisheries Policy Regulation. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities. The current 12-mile zones work well and should be extended beyond 31 December 2012.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The fisheries sector is fundamental to the European Union, not only as regards food but also as regards the environment. Thus the sustainable management of fisheries resources is one of the EU’s concerns, above all as regards endangered species. The European Parliament, aware of the importance of this sector, has often debated this matter. In 2009 it adopted a resolution (206), on the need to conserve fisheries resources in the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. Everyone acknowledges that the common fisheries policy has in general been a failure. Whereas fisheries management within the 12-mile zones (which is the responsibility of the Member States) has been a success, management outside these zones (the responsibility of Brussels) has been a disaster. I voted in favour of this report because I agree with the rapporteur on the two aspects mentioned in his conclusion: as regards urgency, since the current 12-mile zones, although they work well, will expire on 31 December, it is necessary to extend them for two more years; and as regards inclusion of this debate within a broader scope – that is, within the process of reform of the European Union’s common fisheries policy.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report covers the extending time limit on the current 12-mile access regime (exclusion zone). Within the framework of existing legislation, Article 17(2) of the current Regulation establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. Since it is highly unlikely that reform of the common fisheries policy will be completed before the end of 2012, it has been necessary for the Commission to bring forward the current proposal to ensure that the existing regime – which the Commission itself has assessed as very positive – does not lapse. We voted in favour of the report. However, we think that the principle of exclusive access should be of a permanent nature and that the area should be extended beyond 12 miles (with the proviso that, in the case of the outermost regions, that area should include the whole of the Exclusive Economic Zone, that is, should be increased from 100 to 200 miles). The rapporteur also thought this, which is why we support his position. Unfortunately, the right and the social-democrats voted together to block this amendment, allowing only extension of the current derogation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Union fishing vessels have equal access to Union waters and resources subject to the rules of the common fisheries policy. Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy provides for a derogation from the equal access rule, by authorising Member States to restrict fishing to certain vessels in waters up to 12 nautical miles from their baselines. Rules in place restricting access to resources within that zone have benefited conservation by restricting fishing effort in the most sensitive part of Union waters. However, the derogation is to expire on 31 December 2012. I believe that it should be renewed until a new regulation on the common fisheries policy has been adopted.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The common fisheries policy was described as a failure by the Green Paper on CFP reform, while the Green Paper acknowledged the success of local management in this sphere, represented by the policy on coastal waters within the 12-mile limit. I therefore have no option but to support this report because I wish to support the proposal seeking to extend the 12-mile limit policy to the end of 2014. For these reasons I voted in favour of the report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I supported this proposal, which seeks to extend the time limit of the current 12-mile access regime. It is to be hoped that the reformed CFP will in general bring about a highly decentralised regime and allow Member States to take real management decisions whilst cooperating on a regional basis.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) During the plenary I supported Mr Hudghton’s report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. This report was adopted by a large majority of 658 votes. I applaud this. The aim of this report is to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime until the entry into force of the new regulation on the common fisheries policy (CFP).

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I have come across the opinion that the CFP has generally left much to be desired over the last 30 years. Today, it seems that the Commission shares that opinion. The Commission’s comment in its Green Paper on CFP reform notes that ‘the current CFP has not worked well’. On the other hand, it has been acknowledged that the fisheries management within the 12 mile zones has been a success. The Report on Reporting Obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 stated that ‘the regime is very stable, and the rules have continued to operate satisfactorily’. It seems to me that there is still a lot of work ahead of us. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mr Hudghton’s report raises various issues and problems linked to the CFP reform. In particular, attention is given to measures to be adopted to protect threatened species on Europe’s coasts. However, because of its importance and because of the role it plays in regulating the fisheries sector, the common fisheries policy must give serious consideration to individual territorial issues. As is the case with the drafting of the new common agricultural policy, the needs of the environment, which of course requires protection, must be carefully balanced with the competitive and market needs of those operating in the sector.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The common fisheries policy is of considerable value to the EU. The report was accepted unanimously, which is an exceptional occurrence. Rational exploitation of reserves, enabling species and balance to be preserved, is a key task. Let us remember, however, that problems may still remain with regard to individual sea areas and states. As a guide, the report provides a better and stronger basis for securing the interests of Baltic fishing and Polish fishermen. Governments should consequently familiarise themselves with these provisions and adapt their policy accordingly, in relation to reserves, exploitation principles and fishermen.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. The Commission proposal is seeking to extend the time limit on the current 12 mile access regime. Within the framework of the existing CFP legislation, Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The current proposal seeks to extend this period to 31 December 2014.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The derogations from the equal access rule within coastal waters, due to expire in December 2012, must be extended. This measure is all the more necessary in view of the fact that the management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I approve of the proposed extension of the differentiated access scheme to coastal waters. This is the fundamental point of this report. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy. With Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, rules were introduced restricting access to fisheries resources in the 12-mile zones, which has helped to conserve resources. The derogations are due to expire on 31 December 2012, which is why the amendment to the above-mentioned Regulation is of extreme importance at a time when the common fisheries policy is under discussion.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The current 12-mile zone was put into place in the first CFP Regulation in 1983. Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 established that the zone would be in place from 1 January 1983 until 31 December 1992; equivalent provisions were enacted in the subsequent CFP reforms (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 and Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002). The current basic regulation (Council Regulation 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy) will remain in force until a new regulation has been adopted, except for a provision in its Article 17(2) on access rules and restrictions for the 12 nautical miles waters which expires on 31 December 2012. Taking into account that a new basic regulation will not be adopted before that date, the provisions of this article will no longer apply. The necessity to avoid that gave the green light to the report. But why is this at the last moment? What was the European Commission doing earlier?

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Unfortunately, the current fisheries policy does not ensure the sustainable exploitation of fishing resources. Therefore, until discussions on the CFP and the wider use of scientific-research-based exploitation of fisheries resources are taking place, it is appropriate to apply separate measures that can be used efficiently to ensure the protection of fisheries resources and their sustainable exploitation, as has been shown in practice. For this reason, I agree with the extension of the regulation.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the conservation of fisheries resources. Reform of the common fisheries policy has so far been weak and misunderstood by European fishermen. There needs to be better communication with these communities, who often have legislative decisions imposed on them that seek to maintain the sustainability of fish stocks and therefore guarantee a continued living for them but that should not be to the detriment of the economic and social equilibrium of seafarers.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report and support these measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, which are scientifically grounded and truly necessary. Such measures are necessary in the Black Sea, which over the past 30 years has undergone continuous deterioration in the quality of its coastal waters and pressure from exploitation. As a result, live marine resources have suffered a dramatic decline which in some cases has led to the exhaustion of the stocks of exploitable organisms. While the annual catch exceeded 15 000 tonnes of fish in the mid-1980s, in 2008 it was barely 500 tonnes. Currently, only 5 of the 26 species of fish with commercial value are still being exploited in the Black Sea. Many species of sturgeon are endangered, as are dolphins, sharks and seahorses. Seals, many species of shrimp and seashells, and tens of species of plants and organisms have already disappeared from the Black Sea. I therefore support the conservation of fisheries resources as mentioned in this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The common fisheries policy (CFP) includes the principle of equal access to coastal waters, and this principle has now been in effect for more than 40 years. However, the Regulation is due to expire on 31 December 2012. The current proposal seeks to extend this period until 31 December 2014. The retention of the 12-mile zone is particularly important, not only as a security measure but, above all, because of the statutory nature of environmental legislation and possible criminal prosecution. Therefore, I voted in favour of it.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which should in theory be operational on 1 January 2014, has a total budget of EUR 6.5 billion for maritime affairs and fisheries. Consequently, and in view of the current crisis, we would like to make sure that this money is dedicated to the greater good. If we opted to make the common agricultural policy greener with new environmental conditions, why should the same requirements not apply to the fishing industry, when we know that the ocean biomass is in a critical state? The text of the fisheries reform proposed several months ago by the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Ms Damanaki, sought ‘to promote sustainable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture’. However, it has to be said that the proposals of certain political groups and Member States seem a long way from the spirit of the reform. The idea that a temporary ban on fishing in the Atlantic would protect stocks and ultimately increase the revenue of the fishing industry is gaining currency and therefore merits close examination.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The 12-mile zone was put into place in the first Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Regulation in 1983. Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. Since that derogation expires on 31 December 2012, the current report proposes a two-year extension in order to ensure that the 12-mile regime does not lapse by extending its validity until 31 December 2014. The current 12-mile regime has worked well enough, affording protection to the fishing activity of coastal communities. Since I agree with the reasons given and with the urgent need for this extension, I voted in favour of this report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The current 12-mile zones work well but will expire on 31 December 2012, so it is now necessary to extend them. Whilst the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limits has been characterised by highly centralised and ineffective Brussels control, management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful. It is to be hoped that the reformed CFP will in general bring about a highly decentralised regime and allow Member States to take real management decisions whilst cooperating on a regional basis. The 12-mile zones have clearly been effective and there is a strong argument in favour of having their distance extended. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) During the plenary in Strasbourg today, we voted in favour of Mr Hudghton’s report. The rapporteur supports an extension of the 12-mile zones both in time and distance, and accepts that this debate should take place within the wider debate on CFP reform. The current 12-mile zones work well but they will expire on 31 December 2012. Today’s vote extends this period to 31 December 2014. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities. The rapporteur therefore proposes to accept the current proposal for a two-year extension of the regime but will continue to argue strongly for greater national control of coastal fisheries within the wider CFP reform package.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. That the CFP has generally been a failure over the last 30 years is a universally acknowledged fact. The Commission's comment in its Green Paper on CFP reform (COM(2009)0163) that "the current CFP has not worked well" is perhaps something of an understatement and the ongoing reform process has been brought about by necessity. In contrast, there is widespread acknowledgement that fisheries management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. The Green Paper for example stated that the coastal regime "has generally worked well and could even be stepped up", whilst the report on reporting obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (COM(2011)0418) stated that "the regime is very stable, and the rules have continued to operate satisfactorily". As the debate around the wider CFP reform continues, one of the key issues to be decided upon is the level and nature of decentralisation and regionalisation to be brought into effect. The general effectiveness of Member State control within the 12-mile zones clearly demonstrates that management appropriate to local circumstances is most effective. The success of Member State control contrasts sharply with the failure of EU-centred control - and offers a useful guide for the direction in which CFP reform should be heading.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Hudghton’s report. The existing 12-mile zones work satisfactorily, and I think the current regulation on the smooth operation of fishing and marine policy should be renewed.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The common fisheries policy (CFP) aims to guarantee the long-term sustainability of the fisheries sector. It is acknowledged that, within the CFP, fisheries management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. These results are attributable to the success of the Member States in managing fisheries. Given that the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limits, which has remained in the hands of Brussels, has been ineffective, I would be very much in favour of a decentralised regime. This would mean that Member States could manage fisheries beyond these limits, whilst cooperating on a regional basis, with the aim of greater national control. I voted in favour because I support the extension of the 12-mile limit for accessing fisheries resources off the coast of the Member States.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We have to accept that the common fisheries policy (CFP) is, on the whole, a failure, and has been for 30 years. However, despite this chaos, the 12-mile zone rule is admittedly one of the few grounds for satisfaction. I therefore supported the rapporteur’s opinion in favour of an extension of the 12-mile zone both in time and in distance. Nevertheless, the debate must be part of a wider debate on the reform of the CFP. The current 12-mile zones work well, but they will expire on 31 December of this year if the current proposal is not in place. The zones offer some protection to vulnerable coastal communities; these fishing communities would not be understanding if that protection was to be removed as a result of an inter-institutional stalemate.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Commission proposal is seeking to extend the time limit on the current 12-mile access regime. Within the framework of the existing common fisheries policy legislation, Article 17(2), of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The rapporteur supports a two-year extension of that period. The European Parliament approved his position at first reading, adopting the Commission proposal, on which I voted in favour.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, a report voted on unanimously in plenary, which was a historic moment! The report itself presented no problems. The access regime to the current zone of 12 nautical miles, which is managed and controlled by the Member States, is one of the CFP measures introduced in 2002 that has been the most widely supported by stakeholders, and the effectiveness of which is undisputed. The report voted on in plenary only had the effect of extending the time limit of the regime until 31 December 2014, after which it was expected to be brought into line with the CFP reform currently under way by means of a new regulation. The vote was unanimous because certain questions raised by the committee were not addressed, such as the proposal to extend the derogation in coastal zones beyond the current limit. In order to avoid any further extension, the rapporteur also proposed that the regime should be extended indefinitely. These questions will of course be discussed in more detail when the future regulation is adopted, which is expected to cover a period of 10 years.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Within the framework of the existing CFP legislation, Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a derogation from the equal access principle within 12 nautical miles of each Member State. The derogation is in place from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012. The current proposal seeks to extend this period to 31 December 2014.

Management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. This demonstrates that the Member States can and do manage fisheries with a degree of success. I welcome the stable and successful management implemented within the coastal zones by individual Member States. The general effectiveness of Member State control within the 12-mile zones clearly demonstrates that management appropriate to local circumstances is most effective. We welcome the current proposal for a two-year extension of the regime, but will continue to argue strongly for greater national control of coastal fisheries within the wider CFP reform package.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) This report seeks to extend the period of validity of the current rule on access to the 12-mile zone (current proposal: until 31 December 2014). The 12-mile zone has been shown to be effective, independent of the final form of the reformed CFP. This is a convincing argument for its extension. The proposal before us for a two-year extension of the rule should be accepted. In addition, greater national control of coastal fisheries should be part of the more comprehensive CFP reform package.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) The principle of restricted access within 12 nautical miles, and its effect of management by halves in the 12-mile zones, is an example of success. It indicates that Member States are in a position to manage fishing in a stable and successful way. This success stands in stark contrast to the failure of centralised EU control and marks out the direction in which reform of the common fisheries policy should go. That is why I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The common fisheries policy has met with various failures over the last 30 years, while it is widely acknowledged that fisheries management within the 12-mile zones has been a success. Whilst the management of fisheries resources beyond the 12-mile limits has been characterised by highly centralised and ineffective Brussels control, management within the coastal zones by individual Member States has been stable and successful. Consequently, as the debate around the wider CFP reform continues, I have expressed my support for extending the derogation concerning the 12-mile zones until 31 December 2014.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The report covers extending the time limit on the 12-mile access regime (exclusion zone), which was due to expire on 31 December 2012. We agree with that decision, although we maintain that the principle of exclusive access should be of a permanent nature and that the area should be extended beyond 12 miles (with the proviso that, in the case of the outermost regions, that area should include the whole of the Exclusive Economic Zone, that is, should be increased from 100 to 200 miles).

- Recommendation: Vital Moreira (A7-0272/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report, recalling that the European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote quality within the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. I share the rapporteur’s view that the EU interest is well protected in the Agreement. Moreover, Moldova is the EU Eastern Partner that is, after Ukraine, next in line to conclude a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement with the European Union. The present agreement paves the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations and should be supported in that context.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The European Union has developed precisely because of the acceptance and adoption on a large scale of the principles of free trade. At the same time, consumer protection through the maintenance of a high level of transparency in relation to the origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs is of equal importance. The starting point for the analysis of this Agreement must be the need to reconcile these two imperatives. I support the approval of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, not only because it honours the formalities required by EU law, but also because it represents a major opportunity to bring the Republic of Moldova closer to the European Union, starting with the intensification of trade. I also believe that the adoption of this agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova will make a decisive contribution to both the successful development of the Union’s initiatives in this part of Europe, such as the Eastern Partnership, and the creation of a necessary climate of cooperation and mutual trust.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Adopted by the European Parliament and supported by me, this text will help to strengthen the reciprocal protection of geographical indications and to harmonise the legislation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As a member of the European Parliament delegation for relations with this country, I have followed the adoption of this agreement with great interest.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the Agreement on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The purpose of this agreement is to encourage bilateral trade by expanding the geographical indications system to protect the names of regional foodstuffs in certain areas from plagiarising as well as to prohibit potential misuse of EU indications. The Republic of Moldova will protect all EU geographical indications that are included in the list while protecting its own current geographical indications in EU territory. I am in favour of the proposed agreement as it will contribute to closer EU/Moldova trade relations as well as promote quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the conditions in which bilateral trade occurs between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova need to be improved. They should enhance the quality of foodstuffs and, at the same time, stimulate sustainable rural development. I would like to underline that the Union’s interests are well protected in this Agreement. At the same time, since the Republic of Moldova is one of the Union’s most important eastern partners and is due to enter into the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement with the European Union, I believe that this Agreement must be supported so that it can improve and strengthen trade relations between the two parties.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report on the agreement with Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The agreement is the result of negotiations between the EU and Moldova on this subject; it properly protects EU interests and it does not have any repercussions on the EU budget.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The European Union is an important economic partner of the Republic of Moldova. This is true of a variety of aspects of economic activity: foreign trade, foreign investment and remittances. Agricultural products and foodstuffs make up a much smaller proportion of the Republic of Moldova’s exports to the EU than they do of its total exports. This is because of the non-compliance of this category of products with the technical standards that exist within the EU. To remedy this, the Republic of Moldova has embarked on the process of linking up with EU technical regulation standards. I welcome the existence of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs as it will improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as promote quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I support the report as regards the rapporteur’s assessments and the merit of the agreement. The EU is the Republic of Moldova’s main partner, accounting for slightly under half of all its trade. This is something that should not be underestimated, including from a political and cultural point of view, in an area characterised, since the beginning of the 20th century, by conflicting geopolitical interests. Concerning the specifics of the Agreement, it should be emphasised that a good third of imports from Moldova are agricultural products and foodstuffs. This is why we have a direct interest in supporting cooperation agreements and legislative convergence processes that promote a culture of quality and excellence in this sector, which, like fashion, is one of the sectors most vulnerable to fraud. Consideration must be given to the positive effects of protecting geographical indications (PGI) in terms of protecting farmland from speculation, a problem that urgently needs to be addressed in view of the recurrent tensions in the commodities market. Any initiative in this direction helps to spread a culture of protection of the public interest, including in terms of preserving habitats and rural economies.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. I welcome the report, which seeks to provide reciprocal protection of the geographical indications of both parties in a bid to improve bilateral trade conditions.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While facilitating ease of trade along a far broader reach is positive in an ever globalised society, be those indications small or significant, I do not accept the EU as the final authority of bilateral trade agreements, therefore I abstained from voting.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − (RO) The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations concluded on 18 April 2011. These negotiations had two objectives: intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications and expansion of the protection of the geographical indications system of the Republic of Moldova. I voted in favour of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications as it will bring benefits for producers and traders in the Republic of Moldova and the EU and will improve the conditions of bilateral trade by guaranteeing quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report since I think that EU interest is well protected in the present Agreement and because the Agreement paves the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations beneficial to both sides.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs because I believe that both are aiming at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain, and stimulate value for sustainable rural development. EU citizens and consumers are increasingly demanding high quality traditional products of protected geographical origin, and this means that there is a need for agricultural products and foodstuffs whose specific qualities can be clearly recognised. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations that had two objectives: on the one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system, and on the other, the possibility of intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Similarly, the Republic of Moldova has an interest in developing and protecting its current geographical indications in the EU territory and strengthening its relations with the EU. In conclusion, the fact that this agreement has no implications for the EU budget means that I fully support it.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I believe that this report finds that the EU’s interests are well protected in the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova, which is aimed at the mutual protection and use of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade and promote quality in the food chain.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We naturally exchange agricultural products and foodstuffs with our trading partners. We do this while continuing to guarantee the protection of European interests. This text will specifically protect our geographical indications, thereby showcasing the wealth and specific qualities of European agricultural production. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which improves the transparency of trading relations between the European Union and Moldova. This text will also help to promote our local products by facilitating exports to the Moldovan market. The European Union is thus demonstrating its support for our rural areas, and honouring its commitments towards protecting diversity.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. This agreement was signed to provide a suitable framework for the political dialogue between the EU and the Republic of Moldova. The main goal of the agreement is to promote trade, investment and harmonious economic relations between the parties and also to encourage their sustainable economic development. Moreover, it is very important to underline that this agreement will provide a basis for legislative, economic, social, financial and cultural cooperation, and it will support the efforts that the Republic of Moldova is making to consolidate its democracy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, since it aims at mutual protection of the geographical indications of the European Union and of the Republic of Moldova and thus helps to strengthen bilateral trade and to promote food quality and sustainable rural development.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In order to maintain and even bring closer trade relations between the European Union and Moldova, with the aim of promoting product quality in the food chain and sustainable rural development, it is important to have mutual protection of the geographical indications (GIs) of the respective regions. For the sake of the EU’s interests, we should now move on to extending the protection and use of the geographical indication system to other products.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The recommendation under consideration put forward by Mr Moreira, concerns the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The EU and the Republic of Moldova also wish to protect geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. On 18 April 2011, the EU and the Republic of Moldova concluded bilateral negotiations aimed at extending the protection and use of the geographical indications system, thus avoiding misuse of EU GIs. According to the rapporteur, this Agreement not only provides sound protection for the EU interest, but also constitutes an ‘open door’ for closer trade relations between the EU and Moldova. Therefore, having regard to the opinion of the Committee on International Trade, I voted in favour.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This agreement between the EU and Moldova aims at the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development and improve the conditions of bilateral trade. We have always thought it important to defend protected geographical indications, protected designations of origin and guaranteed traditional specialities, since they are instruments which might help to safeguard various regional products, their quality and traditional methods of production and thus might be helpful in enhancing the living conditions of people in rural areas. But, as we have already stated several times, these denominations of origin and quality indications cannot be regarded as a panacea for the harm caused by existing agricultural and trade paradigms, based on intensification of production and deregulation and liberalisation of trade. We must, therefore, continue to draw attention to the intentions underlying this agreement leading towards signature of a ‘Deep and Comprehensive’ Free Trade Agreement.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report because I believe that protecting the geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs has undoubted advantages for consumers and producers. The interests of the countries involved are thus better protected as regards product quality and safety and sustainable rural development. In an increasingly global market with its succession of free trade agreements, including on agricultural products, we have a specific duty to defend the special character, quality and traceability of products.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) The European Union and the Republic of Moldova are making concerted efforts towards the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote quality in the food chain and stimulate sustainable rural development. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations, which had two objectives: on one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system and on the other hand intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Reciprocally, the Republic of Moldova had an interest to develop and protect their current geographical indications in the EU territory and strengthen its relation with the EU. The agreement provides for a mutual protection of geographical indications protected in the respective Parties. No less negligible is the fact that it will pave the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations. It is also for this reason that I consider it reasonable for it to receive appropriate support.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Although there are other countries that pose greater problems for our production system when it comes to the sensitive issues of geographical indications (GIs), it should be pointed out that this agreement, besides the fact that it has no implications for the EU budget, could play a worthwhile part in combating and preventing the counterfeiting of foodstuffs. I will therefore be voting in favour.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported in plenary the report by Mr Moreira, which was adopted by a large majority. The aim of this report was to adopt the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I support the European Union and the Republic of Moldova’s aim to assure the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development. This, of course, is a two-way street: the Republic of Moldova has an interest to develop and protect its current geographical indications in EU territory and to strengthen its relations with the EU. I am also glad that the rapporteur is of the opinion that EU interests are well protected in the Agreement and I applaud the fact that the Agreement is paving the way for closer EU-Moldova trade relations.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) European farmers produce top-quality goods. These high-quality products are internationally protected by geographical indications of origin. Famous Austrian examples of this are: Styrian pumpkin seed oil, Marchfeld asparagus and Tyrolean smoked bacon. By signing this agreement, the EU and Moldova agree to mutually recognise the protection of geographical indications. I voted in favour of it.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report because I think the text holds firm and fast to the guidelines that should be followed when negotiating such bilateral agreements. The European Parliament has worked and continues to work profitably to protect quality and the quality certifications of our agricultural products and foodstuffs. We need to stand by these intentions when negotiating agreements with non-EU countries, but it is also essential to consider the economic and social needs of both parties to the agreement. Most of all we should make a priority of protecting European agricultural products, which are alone in maintaining the food safety standards that safeguard consumers. My personal wish is for the quality of these bilateral agreements to improve by giving the necessary consideration to the special characteristics and requirements of European agricultural producers.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report. The European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote the quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This concerns the mutual protection of the geographical indications of the European Union and the Republic of Moldova in order to avoid, for example, the words ‘European Union’ being misused, and thus to promote quality in the food chain.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs began to be protected in the European Union in order to prevent abuse, imitation of products and false indications of origin, thereby ensuring better quality in the products offered to consumers. The purpose of registering names is to help producers earn higher incomes through the added value brought by this identification. From 1992 onwards, a system for the registration of those intellectual property rights which are also protected at international level was introduced at European level, though in a less effective way. The Union applies the same standards for the mutual protection of geographical indications in its dealings with third countries. This is also the case with the agreement with Moldova, through which bilateral trade conditions will be improved. It must be pointed out that for products from third countries, there is an additional requirement over and above those for EU products, namely that names must be protected in the country of origin at the time when the application for EU protection is made. This agreement with the EU gives the Republic of Moldova the opportunity to extend and protect its current geographical indications across the Union, with a view to the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This legislative resolution is based on the result of bilateral negotiations, concluded on 18 April 2011, between the EU and Moldova. This Agreement paves the way for closer EU/Moldova relations, which is why I voted in favour.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the geographical indications of the goods produced by both parties must be protected. This report presents the agreement relating to the bilateral negotiations that took place in April 2011 and aims to promote respect for local, good-quality production by both parties in agricultural and food trade. Geographical indications are tools for protecting and recognising traditional agricultural practices that enable producers to add value to their produce by respecting quality. Recognising these indications is therefore essential in order to recognise good practice by farmers. For these reasons I supported the adoption of this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − As is known, geographical indication is a name or sign used on certain products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (e.g. a town, region, or country). The use of a geographical indication may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. For example, Champagne, Cognac. If I understand correctly from now on Moldavian products will be named ‘wine with gas’, ‘grape alcohol from a barrel’! It is just excellent! I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe we have a duty to protect as best we can the agricultural specialities produced within our territories, and this measure on the mutual recognition of typical geographical indications with the Republic of Moldova does just that. The European Union should sign similar agreements with all of its commercial partners, starting with those that cause us the greatest problems by failing to protect our products of excellence. I refer in particular to the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with whom we still need to resolve this delicate and important question. A report was approved just this week on trade relations with the United States, in which an explicit reference was finally made to the protection of our origin and quality marks. This agreement with Moldova, which, among other things comes at no cost to the EU budget, can therefore be used to prevent cases of food counterfeiting, to which our products and companies so often fall victim.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Correct information about agricultural products and foodstuffs is an essential condition for guaranteeing that food is safe for consumers. One of the elements of this information is proper protection of geographical indications. It is important that products that originate both in the EU and in third countries are subjected to a homogenised set of rules. Therefore I am in favour of the decision on the conclusion of the Agreement with Moldova on the protection of geographical indications.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as an Italian MEP who comes from a country which excels for the quality of its agricultural products and foodstuffs – too often illegally imitated – I voted in favour of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, because it has two objectives: the Republic of Moldova will protect the full list of EU geographical indications (GIs) and the EU will expand the protection and use of the geographical indications system; additionally, the possibility will exist of intervening at the source of potential abuses of EU GIs.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I welcome the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, an agreement for which I was the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Mutual protection of geographical indications is essential for the improvement of bilateral trade conditions and will bring significant benefits for producers and traders within the EU and Moldova. Romanian producers have viewed the ratification of similar agreements with other countries with satisfaction and are also looking forward to the ratification of an agreement with the United States, the Union’s biggest trading partner.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. − (PL) Geographical indications of agricultural products in the European Union are one of the symbols of an EU presence on European tables. The regional agricultural products protection system in the European Union is good at implementing the objective, which is to protect the names of these products and guarantee their authenticity. Both producers and consumers of foodstuffs have recorded their satisfaction with the functioning of this system many times over. Consequently we have reason to recognise an extension of its geographical scope to include states aspiring to EU membership as sound. One such state is Moldova.

For some years now, Moldova has been making progress along the road to EU membership that has been seen as positive. Moldova is definitely the Eastern Partnership state that is taking fullest advantage of its political opportunity. The European Union should make efforts to draw Moldova closer to European institutions, together with an imminent prospect of concluding a deeper and more comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU as part of an association agreement. With the above considerations in mind, I think it would make sense to conclude an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. Such an agreement would have advantages for both parties.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution, which gives a green light to the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova aiming at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Union and the Republic of Moldova are aiming for the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development. On 18 April 2011 bilateral negotiations were concluded that, for the EU, had two objectives: on the one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system, and on the other, the possibility of intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Since the EU’s interests are well protected by the agreement and because the agreement under examination paves the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The agreement will allow the mutual protection of geographical indications and will help to bring the legislation of neighbouring countries – in this case Moldova – more into line with that of the European Union. The agreement ensures that geographical indications that are protected in the two countries will be maintained and, from a European perspective, the interest of our countries is protected. This agreement is an important step in the negotiations under way for a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Moldova.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. The European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim to assure the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve bilateral trade conditions and promote quality in the food chain, while adding value for sustainable rural development. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations concluded on 18 April 2011. For the EU, these negotiations had two objectives: on the one hand expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system (the Republic of Moldova will protect all the EU GIs listed), and on the other hand intervention at source with regard to potential misuses of EU GIs. Reciprocally, the Republic of Moldova had an interest in developing and protecting its current geographical indications and strengthening its relations with the EU. The agreement provides for mutual protection of geographical designations and indications (PDOs and PGIs) on the territory of the respective parties. The proposed agreement has no implications on the EU budget.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I obviously voted in favour of this report. It is a good sign that the European Commission has reached an agreement of this kind, although Moldova is certainly no threat to our geographical indications. We expect efforts to achieve recognition of our products of excellence to be stepped up with other third countries such as the USA and Australia. This should be our objective, though I doubt that Commissioner De Gucht has either the will or the ability to pursue it.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − I supported this agreement to increase the protection of geographical indications of foodstuffs. More and more products are having their geographical indication recognised, and this protects the unique characteristics of local, traditional food produce, brings income to traditional food-producing regions and helps to preserve our rich culinary diversity.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) With the aim of mutual protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the European Union and the Republic of Moldova have reached an agreement that promotes quality in the food chain and provides support for sustainable rural development. I believe that seeking mutual protection is essential to protect the EU’s geographical indications against abuse, as well as to protect and encourage the development of the geographical indications in the Republic of Moldova. Since the agreement in question has no implications for the EU budget and for the reasons I have given, I voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Moreira. The agreement guarantees the mutual protection of geographical indications (protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications) for each party. Furthermore, the text provides adequate protection for EU interests. The agreement in question paves the way for stronger trading relations between the European Union and Moldova, and on that basis merits support.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim at the mutual protection of geographical indications (GIs) in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote the quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. The Agreement gives the European Union the opportunity to intervene at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications.

Moldova is the EU Eastern Partner that is next in line to conclude a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement in the Framework of an Association Agreement with the European Union. I believe that this agreement is paving the way for closer EU/Moldova trade relations. The proposed agreement has no implications for the EU budget.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) This agreement aims at the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade as well as to promote the quality in the food chain and stimulate the value for sustainable rural development. The proposed agreement is the result of bilateral negotiations concluded on 18 April 2011. For the EU, these negotiations had two objectives: firstly, expansion of the protection and use of the geographical indications system, and secondly, intervention at the source of potential misuses of EU geographical indications. Since the proposed agreement has no implications on the EU budget, it should be approved.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour because the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova will ensure mutual protection for geographical indications. The system of application and protection of geographical indications will be expanded between the two parties. It will bring about an improvement in bilateral trade conditions, and will also help to promote food quality and support balanced development of rural areas. Furthermore, it will strengthen future contacts between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report, by means of which the European Union and the Republic of Moldova aim for the mutual protection of geographical indications in order to improve the conditions of bilateral trade, promote quality in the food chain and stimulate value for sustainable rural development.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We have always thought it important to defend protected geographical indications, protected denominations of origin and guaranteed traditional specialities, since they are instruments which might help to safeguard various regional products, their quality and traditional methods of production and thus might be helpful in enhancing the living conditions of people in rural areas. The Agreement between the EU and Moldova falls within this scope. However, we cannot stop drawing attention to the intentions underlying this Agreement leading towards signature of a Free Trade Agreement, which would be highly damaging to the weakest economy in this relationship.

- Recommendation: Nirj Deva (A7-0309/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting in favour of this report, bearing in mind that the Food Assistance Convention (FAC) 2012 aims at improving transparency and openness towards other stakeholders, who can be invited to participate in the Food Assistance Committee’s formal or informal meetings and with whom the Parties are to consult regularly. I think it is useful to set up a publicly accessible website with the explicit objective of facilitating information-sharing with stakeholders. The publication of the Parties’ minimum annual commitments, the Committee’s annual report and the dates, locations and summary records of the Committee’s sessions will facilitate greater external accountability and allow stakeholders to track donor performance. The Committee’s annual report will include a summary of all Parties’ annual reports. However, some points should be reassessed and improved, either during the implementation period or with a view to a future revision of the Convention.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As one of the largest donors in the world, the European Union must go beyond simple monetary aid. This text seeks to bring about this change. The aim of the Convention, which includes new assistance mechanisms, is to be more than a humanitarian tool by encouraging local production in order to provide long-term solutions for the food insecurity that exists in many countries. I therefore voted in favour of this text.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention. This Convention is in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. I agree that it is essential to set an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries. I agree with the proposals to aim to provide food assistance fully in grant form, as well as to improve agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods in implementing this Convention. It is also very important to carefully monitor the repercussions of food assistance on local food production and markets.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. Although we are now in 2012, more than 13 % of the world population lacks adequate access to secure food. Despite the technological advances and economic growth of many countries, this problem has not yet been eradicated. Furthermore, more than 60 % of people affected by hunger are women, which confirms the vulnerability of certain groups to this phenomenon.

The conclusion by the European Union of the Food Assistance Convention will enable it to continue to promote its humanitarian aid policies at international level. I believe that the EU’s efforts will be able to be better targeted and integrated into a global hunger eradication strategy.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Hunger and food insecurity remain a global challenge. While progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress is still slow. The European Parliament fully subscribes to the objectives of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC) 2012, which is instrumental in allowing the EU to pursue at international level the advancement of its humanitarian aid policy objectives. The FAC 2012 will allow the EU to ensure that the most effective and efficient food assistance policy is put in place that responds to the nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations. The emphasis is placed on dialogue, exchange of information and sharing of best practices among the Parties to the Convention, and the aim is to increase transparency and openness towards other stakeholders. The FAC 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. In view of the above, I voted for this recommendation on the conclusion of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012).

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I support the Food Assistance Convention voted on today, on which Parliament has given its approval to the Council’s decision to conclude it. Today hunger and food insecurity continue to be challenges on a global scale, and although the battle has been fought on several fronts, more progress is still needed in order to advance the battle against hunger and malnutrition.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Deva’s report because the Food Assistance Convention is fully in line with EU policies and the Millennium Development Goals. With the Treaty of Lisbon, reducing and eliminating poverty are the main objective of EU policy. Food security remains a core challenge: around 14 % of the world’s population did not have enough to eat in 2010 and malnutrition is now an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, the European Parliament calls on the EU to make an ambitious minimum annual commitment for 2013 and duly fulfil its annual commitments regarding food assistance in developing countries. It is regrettable from the point of view of visibility for the EU as a humanitarian actor that no collective EU minimum annual commitment will be made that includes the contributions of both the EU and Member States. For this reason and as the result of a joint European Parliament decision, we request the Commission to keep Parliament fully informed of the implementation of the Convention by the EU and the Member States party to the Convention, inter alia by transmitting their annual reports and debriefing the Development Committee on a regular basis on the implementation of the Convention and Committee proceedings. Implementation of the convention will ensure that the most effective and efficient food assistance policy is put in place that responds to the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations, based on objectively identified needs.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Because it is not possible to make amendments to the content of the Convention, in declaring my vote in favour of the recommendation I wish to express my agreement with some of the observations made in the report. The broadening of the list of Eligible Activities is in response to the adoption of a food assistance approach more suited to the times, to the donors’ potential and to the needs of the beneficiaries. The Food Assistance Committee could promote coordination policies, partly to reinforce the necessary conditions for adopting assistance plans in line with the general principles that underpin the EU’s cooperation and development policies such as respect for human and civil rights, a minimum framework of administration and government, essential levels of transparency, periodic checks of the results and the uses made of the aid. The whole system needs to evolve, from the original idea of using up agricultural surpluses into an effective culture of support and development of agricultural production in the beneficiary countries. Finally, I concur with the wish concerning the donors’ expression of their commitments solely in terms of value, because it is quite clear that being able to express them in terms of quantity is simply a legacy of a time when the global agricultural products market was less volatile.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Food aid is vital to combat hunger which has always been a primary global challenge. Hunger and malnutrition affect a large percentage of the world’s population, with a death toll that continues to be far too high in the 21st century. I believe the international community has a responsibility to tackle starvation and malnutrition both at home and abroad. However I do not consider the EU as an independent authority with the right to distribute aid, especially given the poverty it has wreaked across Europe, leaving tens of thousands of families reliant upon food parcels in countries such as Spain and Greece. The UK is one of the largest donors of aid to the developing world and has a long history of pastoral care, especially to its former Commonwealth. Due to my beliefs about the role the EU plays on the international stage I chose to abstain from voting.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I endorsed the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). I believe that the FAC 2012 is an intrinsic part of the EU’s current efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate hunger within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The changes made represent a real step forward, and therefore I welcome the conclusion of this Convention.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think that the Food Assistance Convention 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals and that the amendments now made in comparison with the Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999) are major steps forward on the path to increasing food assistance.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Hunger and food insecurity remain major global challenges, despite the efforts made and the progress achieved on a number of fronts. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, 98 % of the world’s undernourished were living in developing countries, and 60 % of them were women. The Food Assistance Convention 2012 aims to improve food assistance policy, to which end the following will be necessary: moving from a product-based approach to a more varied, needs-based and locally adapted mix of tools; finding longer term solutions with activities that facilitate the transition from relief to rehabilitation or recovery programmes; donor coordination; and mutual learning around food assistance policy and practice. Accordingly, the European Union will need to put in place the most effective and efficient food assistance policy that responds to the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations, based on objectively identified needs. In addition, at the European level, a mechanism allowing for the maximum involvement of representatives of countries affected by emergencies needs to be developed as a means of increasing the legitimacy of the Food Assistance Convention.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition has remained stubbornly slow. Therefore, I believe that the continuous need for an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries is obvious.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EU has clear, strong and ambitious targets for food aid, and should be applauded for this. This report adopts an approach that, in order to be as effective as possible, focuses on the beneficiaries: we must consequently ensure that each euro is spent wisely. I therefore fully support this text.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Today, famine and food insecurity are two of the world’s major health issues which have not yet been eradicated. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat. The worst-affected tend to be women and children. For years the European Union has been working with its major international partners, signatories of the United Nations Food Assistance Convention, to put an end to this. Its annual commitment in terms of emergency food aid to developing countries totals EUR 200 million. With the implementation of the new agreement on food assistance, the European Union will no longer solely provide support in the form of emergency food parcels. This aid could also consist of vouchers or seed in order to precipitate food self-sufficiency for the worst-affected rural populations, and thus avoid any long-term dependency on international food aid.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the Food Assistance Convention, in view of the importance of continuing the EU’s efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Poverty and hunger are among the most pressing concerns in our society. Despite efforts to reduce the former, both persist. The vast majority of malnourished populations are in developing countries and are women and children. Malnutrition is the underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. In view of the most fundamental issues of human solidarity, I can only welcome the approval and renewal of the Food Assistance Convention.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The recommendation under examination, drawn up by Nirj Deva, concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). Hunger and malnutrition, despite all the technological advances and even though many developing countries have seen significant growth in their gross domestic product, are still a global scourge. Therefore, States, institutions and citizens must continue to support non-governmental organisations who are working to reduce the figure of around a billion people a year who suffer hunger. It is unacceptable that 20 % of children under the age of five in developing countries should be malnourished with the related consequences for their normal physical and cognitive development. Since this Food Assistance Convention is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals, I am voting in favour and welcome the approval, which represents a step forward in aid to the most deprived.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We support the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the Food Assistance Convention which has as its objectives ‘to save lives, reduce hunger, improve food security, and improve the nutritional status of the most vulnerable populations’. This Convention comes at a time when hunger is continuing to rise and to kill throughout the world. Hunger is also on the increase within the EU’s borders and is one of the most brutal consequences of the process of civilisation taking backward steps which is happening now. Within this context we must draw attention to the shocking attempts to put an end to the European food aid programme for the most deprived or to substantially reduce its budgetary provisions when they need to be increased.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60 % of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. Long-term undernutrition has left millions of children suffering from stunting (low height for age), putting them at risk for diminished cognitive and physical development. The number of people worldwide affected by disasters, including as a consequence of global climate change, is on the rise. In this context, the European Parliament is requested to give its consent to the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC). The FAC 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally. I therefore consider it to be highly justified and appropriate for Parliament to give consent to the arrangement.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The Treaty of Lisbon set as one of the main objectives of the European Union’s development policy the reduction and consequent elimination of poverty. Since the Food Assistance Convention is fully in line with EU policies and with the Millennium Development Goals and since malnutrition affects around 14 % of the world’s population and kills more than two and a half million children every year, I voted in favour of the recommendation.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Mr Deva in plenary. This report was adopted by a large majority during the plenary sitting on 25 October. The reason for the vote was to adopt the Food Assistance Convention on behalf of the European Union. I was pleased to see that there was a broad consensus among all of the European Parliament’s political groups on the issue of food assistance.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Given the still unresolved problem of hunger, with which 13.6 % of humankind is grappling, and the terrible consequences this problem creates, mainly among women and children in developing countries, I am supporting the new 2012 Food Assistance Convention. Thanks to the fact that this Convention differs from its predecessor at several crucial points, the battle against world hunger may become more effective. In my view, the main flow of assistance should be directed towards programmes supporting rebuilding and renewal which help to reinforce local production, and thus make a gradual move away from ad hoc assistance possible. Through this approach we can reduce the dependency of hungry countries on long-term aid. We should, however, continue to work to improve certain aspects of the Convention, including striving to create a system whereby the Convention’s obligations are expressed in value terms, meaning avoidance of, for example, delays in delivering food caused by rises in global food prices. This problem arises from freedom in the expression of one’s minimum annual obligations relating to food assistance. It is also important to increase the share of food assistance in grant form, and to improve farming yields in countries affected by hunger.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − In 2010, an estimated 925 million people or 13.6% of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries, and 60 % of them are women. The FAC is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The modifications made in comparison with the FAC 1999 constitute a major step forward. These modifications include: moves from a product-based approach to a more varied, needs-based and locally adapted mix of tools; activities that facilitate the transition from relief to rehabilitation and recovery programmes; a more active forum for donor coordination and mutual learning; and increased transparency and openness. I voted in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I approve of and support the Food Assistance Convention (FAC), which is adopting new criteria compared with the previous FAC. It introduces a criterion of encouragement towards non-dependency on aid instead of the kind of long-term dependency that prevents growth and development. Furthermore, the criteria introduced, which aim to increase transparency and openness towards new products and the terms of the Convention, make this a very positive revision of the FAC. As pointed out by the rapporteur, there are still some areas for improvement but the steps taken towards better regulation of distribution and access to aid will undoubtedly improve the effectiveness of this Convention. The introduction of agricultural products and foodstuffs that aim not to meet food needs but to protect livelihoods in emergency and early recovery situations, such as seeds and livestock for milk and meat should be highlighted.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made over the past decade on a number of fronts, progress on hunger and malnutrition has remained stubbornly slow. In 2010, an estimated 925 million people, or 13.6% of the world population, did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions; 98% of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries; 60% of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of child deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. Nearly one in five children under the age of five in the developing world is underweight. Long-term under-nutrition has left millions of children suffering from stunting, putting them at risk for diminished cognitive and physical development. The number of people worldwide affected by disasters, including as a consequence of global climate change, is on the rise. The Food Assistance Convention (FAC) 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The continuing need for an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries is obvious.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention. The fight against famine and malnutrition must be a priority. Good-quality nutrition in underdeveloped countries is essential to allow these countries to break out of the poverty cycle.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. I support the call for the EU to make an ambitious minimum annual commitment for 2013 in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, and to fulfil its annual commitments duly. Today, hunger and food insecurity remain challenges that we cannot ignore.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of the ratification of the new version of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC). I applaud the fact that, according to its principles, food assistance should not adversely affect local markets, create further dependency, add to the debt of the countries concerned, or serve the interests of the wealthiest countries, and that Member States and the EU should purchase the necessary supplies locally. However, it is a shame that the Parties to the Convention and the EU do not endeavour to adhere to these principles when they negotiate trade agreements. It is also a shame that the ban on blackmail in return for food aid is not mandatory. Finally, it is a shame that the minimum annual commitments of EU Member States can vary from year to year. Nevertheless, I still voted in favour of the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, since I think it is fundamental to give continuity to the EU’s efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate hunger globally in the context of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Hunger and food shortages remain global challenges. In 2010, an estimated 925 million people did not have enough to eat. While substantial progress has been made in various areas in previous years, the pace of improvement is still slow. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths. Besides this, the number of people worldwide affected by disasters is on the rise. The EU has to adopt a leading role in reducing poverty and eradicating hunger. The continuous need for an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries is obvious. We need long-term solutions, backed by activities that facilitate the provision of aid. By strengthening local production and livelihoods we can avoid long-term aid dependency. This is why we need to extend the scope of products entitled to subsidies to include ones that promote the protection of livelihoods. Consequently, I voted in favour of the proposal. Thank you.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe it is important to ensure food security. The Food Assistance Convention aims to help improve global food security, which is especially important when the food crisis is creating alarming situations in multiple regions. The Convention seeks to establish information protocols and databases between all the countries that donate food aid, which represents an improvement in the effectiveness of aid by preventing, for example, overlaps between aid sent by different countries, and improving the coordination of efforts to reach the greatest number of locations possible. It is essential that we equip ourselves with better aid structures in order to ensure global food security, which is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98% of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60% of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year. Nearly one in five children under the age of five in the developing world is underweight. Long-term undernutrition has left millions of children suffering from stunting (low height for age), putting them at risk for diminished cognitive and physical development. The number of people worldwide affected by disasters, including as a consequence of global climate change, is on the rise.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The experience of the European Union itself shows that food assistance can be an important part of social politics and assistance to the poorest EU citizens. Food assistance to third countries is also an important part of EU development policy and essentially seeks to achieve the same goals. For this reason, I support the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of an updated Convention that will simplify the provision of food assistance. When these changes take effect, we will be able to help citizens of countries that suffer from food shortages more efficiently.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Prior to the vote, the rapporteur said that today alone, 15 000 people all over the world will die from a lack of food. The EU has a duty to consider the world’s poor in the policies which it implements. At the same time, the EU must also think of its own poor, which is why I welcome the Commission’s initiative of creating a fund to help disadvantaged people within the European Union for the 2014-2020 period. Let us never forget that nearly 9 % of Europeans cannot afford a meal including meat or fish once every two days, which is a basic need according to the World Health Organisation.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − Today, global food security and hunger represent a serious challenge. In 2010, approximately 925 million people (13.6% of the world’s population) did not have enough food to eat. Despite advances made in reducing income poverty around the world, 98% of undernourished people live in developing countries. Child malnutrition runs rampant as well, affecting millions of children worldwide every year. The EU is committed to fighting poverty and eradicating hunger on a global scale. The Food Aid Convention 2012 will greatly aid in the construction of an international, legally binding framework to define and provide the necessary instruments for the delivery of food aid to developing countries. I voted in favour of this recommendation, because I believe that FAC 2012 will streamline and improve food aid policy and ensure that the food and nutrition needs of the most critical populations will be met effectively. FAC 2012 will increase transparency of food assistance and humanitarian programmes and provide for more effective donor coordination. We in the EU have a responsibility to assist our less fortunate counterparts in developing countries – FAC 2012 will go a long way towards helping us to achieve that goal.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Food Assistance Convention which the European Parliament is called upon to approve without being able to amend it. It is generally admitted that progress is slow on questions of combating famine. Even now, nearly 14 % of the world population is undernourished. The EU is undoubtedly the world’s largest donor in the areas of humanitarian aid and food; however, the economic crisis facing the EU is resulting in a growing dialogue – particularly among the large Member States – on the question of reducing such aid. The European Parliament expresses its disappointment at the fact that there is no collective EU minimum annual commitment that includes the contributions of both the EU and Member States towards this effort; at the same time, it emphasises individual political proposals, such as the transition from a product-based approach to a more varied, needs-based and locally adapted mix of tools, transparency and greater accountability in the implementation of these programmes.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012), which is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges and, despite substantial progress on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition has remained stubbornly slow. Consequently it is necessary to make modifications to the Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999). Highlighting the fact that the Food Assistance Convention 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals, and hoping for the setting up of an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. Parliament was requested to give its consent on the proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). No amendments are possible on the content of the Convention as such, and the consent concerns only the decision of the Council on the conclusion of the Convention and the deposit of the instrument of ratification, provided for in Article 12 of the Convention, with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I view in a very positive light the proposal to modify the previous Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999) in order to provide for the setting up, through the Food Assistance Convention 2012, of an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries. Food assistance policies capable of meeting the challenges of hunger and malnutrition need to be pursued. The needs of the poorest populations demand that we make a major effort to improve the instruments of intervention. The FAC 2012 will have a longer-term perspective of supporting rehabilitation and recovery programmes by strengthening local production and livelihoods. I believe that, by making targeted changes to the previous Convention, it is possible to remove the most vulnerable countries from long-term aid dependency, for example by including on the list of Eligible Products not only those that contribute to meeting food needs, but also those that protect livelihoods in emergency situations. With the prospect of these ambitious commitments being pursued, I voted in favour.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. - (SK) I appreciate the fact that the EU, as one of the main donors of humanitarian aid, has advocated together with the Member States a renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention of 1999 and was the main driving force behind a modified Food Aid Convention at both EU and international levels. The main objective of the Food Aid Convention is to respond efficiently and effectively to the food and nutritional needs of the most vulnerable groups. As regards the general principles of food aid, I only support its provision when it is the most effective and efficient means of addressing the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable groups in society. I expect that countries will take on the commitment to ensure their food security and that they will create the conditions for reducing poverty and eradicating hunger. We must work for a Europe which is not only characterised by having a unity of interests, but also has an appropriate social security system, and most importantly one where citizens – if they are dependent on food aid – are not in a situation where they have to live on charity, which may be demeaning to them.

  Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Certain points of the Convention still need to be reassessed and improved, either during its implementation, or when it is reviewed in future. However, the amendments made to the previous Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999) represent real progress and the conclusion of FAC 2012 must be applauded, as must the work done by Mr Deva on his report. To recap, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges today. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. In 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat, despite decreases in income poverty in several regions. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60 % of them are women.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Today, hunger and food insecurity remain global challenges. While substantial progress has been made on a number of fronts in the past decade, progress on hunger and malnutrition have remained stubbornly slow. The Convention is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The European Parliament is requested to give its consent on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Convention, although there is no possibility to make amendments. The document was approved by the European Parliament, and I voted in favour.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC 2012). According to recent statistics, in 2010 an estimated 925 million people or 13.6 % of the world population did not have enough to eat. 98 % of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. 60 % of them are women. Malnutrition is an underlying cause of more than a third of children’s deaths, an estimated 2.6 million a year.

I believe that the FAC 2012 will allow the EU to ensure that the most effective and efficient food assistance policy is put in place that responds to the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable populations, based on objectively identified needs. However, it is important to prepare the ground for longer term solutions with activities that facilitate the transition from relief to rehabilitation and recovery programmes, inter alia by strengthening production and local livelihoods, thus avoiding long-term aid dependency. The FAC 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s ongoing efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Hunger and food security are currently challenges with which the whole world is grappling. The European Union is making unceasing efforts to assist in limiting poverty and eliminating hunger in the world. What is essential is to establish legally binding frameworks helping to deliver food assistance to developing countries. The Food Assistance Convention will ensure that the European Union makes progress in this area at international level. This is why I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite significant progress in the past decade, progress on hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity remains stubbornly slow. The Food Assistance Convention 2012 is fully in line with the EU’s efforts to contribute to reducing poverty and eradicating hunger globally in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. It is obvious, however, that these objectives will only be achieved by setting up an international, legally binding framework that defines and provides the commitments and instruments for the delivery of food assistance to developing countries.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The Food Assistance Convention states as its objectives: ‘to save lives, reduce hunger, improve food security, and improve the nutritional status of the most vulnerable populations’. It is clear today that poverty and, consequently, hunger, are increasing throughout the world, but also within the EU due to the structural crisis of capitalism and to austerity policies. We shall totally oppose the attempts under way to abolish the European food aid programme for the most deprived or to substantially reduce its budgetary provisions, when it is more than evident that at the present time they need to be increased.

- Report: Edit Bauer (A7-0288/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, since it expresses Parliament’s opinion on the proposal for a Council directive on consular protection for the citizens of the Union abroad, within the context of a consultation procedure. The proposal aims to enable EU citizens to seek help from the diplomatic and consular services of any Member State, when in a third country where their country has no consular representation. The level of protection provided must be equivalent to that provided by the Member State to its own nationals. It is essential that European Union citizens should know that, where their Member State does not have representation in a third country, Union citizens may rest assured that they have the protection and assistance of the consular services of other Member States or European Union delegations. Such a proposal will make it possible to strengthen the feeling of belonging to the European Union amongst European citizens throughout the world.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the resolution on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. The proposed directive is intended to replace the 1995 decision on consular protection for EU citizens by diplomatic and consular representations. Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This principle has also been established in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The proposed directive covers not only everyday situations such as the loss of identity documents, arrest or imprisonment, but also covers situations where EU citizens might need assistance. I agree with the opinion that in cases of crisis situation, Union delegations should be in charge of coordinating and providing assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of crisis. In order not to put an unbearably heavy burden on the Lead State, or any Member State present in the area, it should be the Union delegation who deals with all the coordination of cooperation. In emergency situations it should also be responsible for coordinating the actions and plans and evacuation arrangements of the missions of the Member States. I agree with the speaker that this proposal is an excellent illustration of the fact that ‘more Europe’ does not mean more bureaucracy or more Brussels. ‘More Europe’ could also mean more help for EU citizens in need, and more protection for citizens who are not represented in third countries and who find themselves in precarious or crisis situations.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Citizenship of the European Union gives citizens whose Member State is not represented by an embassy or consulate in a third country the entitlement to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as nationals of that State, and this is indisputably one of the Union’s clearest expressions of solidarity and identity. To ensure that this right is not an illusory one, and that citizens may enjoy the practical benefits of citizenship of the Union, clarification of the contents and means of exercising this right effectively and simplified cooperation and coordination between consular and diplomatic authorities have become necessary at EU level. For that reason, I welcome the Commission’s motion and Ms Bauer’s report, which will remove the obstacles that exist when we seek the diplomatic or consular assistance to which citizens are entitled when they need protection, in cases where they are outside their country of origin. I believe that the way in which the accessibility of embassies or consulates has been defined is adequate to determine whether a citizen is represented or unrepresented in a third country as the resolution of emergencies without delay is facilitated.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The right of a citizen of an unrepresented Member State to seek assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States that are represented is one of the rights conferred by EU citizenship. It is a right that has existed for some years, but European citizens are still not fully informed of it. As a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I am more than satisfied with the work done on this report. I believe that the measures adopted will improve the enforcement of this right, through better coordination between Member States on consular representation. The only doubt that remains is how these new measures will be publicised among European citizens. I think that a coordinated campaign of information at European level could be the most effective way of achieving the results we hope for.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Consular protection is an integral part of the EU’s policy on citizens’ rights. This text allows European citizens, in the event of a crisis or in the absence of a consular mission in a particular area, to apply to the consular missions of another Member State of the European Union in the confidence that their request will be dealt with. I therefore voted in favour of this text.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. The large-scale crises of recent years, following the uprisings in Libya and Egypt and the earthquake in Japan, have affected about 150 000 EU citizens and highlighted the importance of consular protection in third countries. It is important that every citizen of the EU is, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, entitled to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State. I agree with the proposals for the development of a clear Member State cooperation and support coordination system as well as for the establishment of common consular protection terms. I agree that the Member States should consider establishing a trust fund for consular protection, from which the embassy or consulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial advance.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Thanks to this decision our citizens receive more tangible assistance from the Union when they are in third countries. Approving the report represents significant progress in protecting the interests of Hungarian citizens too as it will provide assistance in situations where they are most in need of help anywhere in the world outside the European Union if, because of an accident, attack, natural disaster or even the loss of documents, they find themselves isolated and unable to travel home. This is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that solidarity between the Member States must be supported. The Treaty of Lisbon gave the opportunity to any citizen of the Union to receive, in the territory of a third country in which their Member State is not represented, protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State. This is made all the more important by the fact that there are many Member States which do not have very developed networks of embassies and consulates, and this can leave citizens open to certain risks.

The directive creates a framework for every European citizen to enjoy maximum diplomatic and consular protection in any State. I believe this is another reason to strengthen the feeling of belonging to the Union.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In accordance with European legislation, citizens of the Union enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. In order to facilitate the access of citizens to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, a new legislative instrument is needed, which is why this directive aims to repeal Decision 95/353/EC. I voted for this report, since I agree that, in crisis situations, the European Union delegation should be in charge of coordinating and providing assistance in terms of preparation for crisis and should coordinate all cooperation, including contingency plans between Member States and evacuation, as well as making sure that all EU citizens, including unrepresented citizens, are covered by contingency plans. The Union delegation should have the necessary financial means to provide this coordination. For facilitating future consular protection, Member States should consider establishing a ‘trust fund’ for consular protection.

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Bauer report, which advocates better consular protection for European citizens abroad. Consular services must provide each EU citizen with equal protection, irrespective of his or her nationality. This particularly applies when a European national is unrepresented in a third country and seeks help from the diplomatic services of another Member State of the European Union.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, any EU citizen may enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. The aim of this Directive is to repeal the Decision of 1995, which is the current legislative framework, and to gradually deepen the work of the European External Action Service.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it is very important to define more precisely the means for coordination and cooperation that are necessary to ensure daily consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. Article 20(2)(c) and Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union define consular protection as a fundamental right of EU citizenship. More specifically, two types of consular protection can be distinguished: consular protection in everyday life and consular protection in crisis situations. The Member States should consider establishing a trust fund for consular protection, from which the embassy or consulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial advance. This way the Member States would not burden each other financially and in emergency situations all EU citizens would be taken into account, including those not represented. The Council Directive should create the necessary conditions for the wide network of EU representations to play a larger role in providing consular protection.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In a recent article the historian Niall Ferguson argued that the current European system of governance is a bit like the United States of America facing the 21st century with its old Articles of Confederation as its institutional instrument. I should point out that these Articles survived for barely eight years before succumbing to constitutional revisions imposed by political and practical imperatives. My point is that the European institutions should make an effort to bridge the gap between relatively advanced European integration and the manner in which this integration is applied, which in a wide variety of spheres, is slowly and imperfectly. This report, on which I voted in favour, deals with one of these contradictions in the field of the diplomatic representation of European citizens, the particular importance of which becomes apparent if we draw up, even for just one year, a list of the emergency situations that have required the intervention of the consular authorities of individual Member States. The various rights and interests of our citizens can be threatened by unforeseeable crises at any time, even in remote areas. I therefore feel that the measures in the report (including the creation of a trust fund) are appropriate because the integration of consular protection, which is already practised in some areas of the world on an informal basis, would allow the interests of Europeans to be defended more effectively and would give greater substance to the notion of European citizenship.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. This report distinguishes between two types of consular protection: on one hand, local consular protection, which should come within the remit of Member State missions; on the other, consular protection in crisis situations, where Member States must cooperate with each other, coordinated by the EU delegations. I support the general outline adopted, such as the definition of the scope, access to consular protection and cooperation, local coordination and assistance in a crisis situation. It is important, for example, that the EU delegation can turn to instruments such as the EU Civil Protection Mechanism in a crisis situation.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I am against this step to harmonise consular protection to all EU citizens. I believe strongly that the UK should be an independent member state with its own foreign policy and its own embassies and therefore am against making it compulsory to give consular aid to non-UK EU citizens where this decision has not been reached in a bilateral agreement between the UK and a third country. The proposal that diplomatic and consular services of all EU member states must give any EU citizen seeking help abroad the same protection that they give their own nationals paves the way for closing British embassies abroad and undermining the British presence internationally. It is up to individual countries to establish consular facilities overseas and offer protection to their own citizens.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Bauer report and the solidarity measures it proposes. It is time to give substance to the right of citizens to receive assistance, in third countries, from the diplomatic and consular authorities of all Member States. I support the idea whereby each EU delegation should be given the financial means necessary for coordination in crisis situations. I also support the idea of improved training for consulate and embassy staff on crisis management.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) According to Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This principle is enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I agree that, in order to afford EU citizens easier access to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, the appropriate legislative instruments are needed. It is essential to guarantee consular protection at local level and in crisis situations. For the reasons set out, I voted in favour of this report.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. − (RO) The right of a citizen of an unrepresented Member State to seek assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States is one of the rights conferred by citizenship of the Union. To facilitate EU citizens’ access to consular protection in third countries, the existing legal framework needs to be consolidated. To this end, the Council directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad must increase the role of EU delegations in the exercise of consular protection and clarify the coordination and cooperation measures necessary for the day-to-day consular protection of unrepresented EU citizens. Furthermore, the Commission must ensure that information on consular protection is as widely available as possible, to clarify that citizens should continue to benefit from the full range of consular assistance customarily provided by Member States’ representations. The Member States should consider establishing a ‘trust fund’ for consular protection, from which the embassy or consulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial advance.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Although there is an ever-increasing number of Union citizens living and working outside EU territory, it is possible to find consulates for all 27 Member States in just three non-member countries. Hence the importance of the fundamental right, inherent in the concept of European citizenship, for every citizen of a Member State without representation to be able to obtain assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States which are represented in that third country. In order to give EU citizens easier access to their rights – especially taking into account the difficulties they have faced in practice, in particular in the event of major crises, as was the case with the 2004 tsunami, or the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, or the 2011 earthquake in Japan, which highlighted the need to provide consular protection for citizens without representation – it has become necessary to adopt a new legislative instrument establishing a joint approach. I therefore support the adoption of this Directive which lays down common concepts and identifies two levels of protection, local consular protection for everyday matters, which is left to the responsibility of the Member States and consular protection in crisis situations, where cooperation should be coordinated by the EU delegations.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) We all know that the right of a citizen of an unrepresented Member State to seek assistance from the consular authorities of other represented Member States is one of the rights conferred by citizenship of the Union. This is why I believe that one of the biggest problems is the fact that citizens are not informed that they have the right to receive assistance from the consulate of another Member State if they are in a third country where their state is not represented. This new directive must also address this problem.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On a day-to-day level, what does European citizenship actually mean? In future, it will mean effective protection anywhere in the world for all Europeans without distinction. The text contains concrete and innovative measures to ensure that each Member State bears this obligation in a fair and equitable manner. I welcome the support and the help it will bring to European citizens who find themselves in difficulty in a foreign country.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Consular protection is an integral part of EU policy and a fundamental right granted to EU citizens defined in the Treaties. I therefore voted in favour of this report which introduces measures for coordination and cooperation between Member States and the EU, harmonising consular protection concepts and practices and thus facilitating the life of European citizens in third countries. I would point out that, under the Treaty of Lisbon, solidarity between Member States provides that a citizen of a Member State without representation may seek assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States which have representation. I welcome the Commission’s proposal which, by defining accessibility to the embassy or consulate as the time required to reach the embassy or consulate and return to their place of departure on the same day, makes access to consular services easier and more available to all European citizens since, regardless of whether or not they have representation in the third country, they can go to the nearest service. Another example that ‘More Europe’ means MORE protection for its citizens. Coordination and the provision of consular assistance in crisis situations are the responsibility of the EU delegation – one more step in the effective implementation of the European External Action Service!

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The recent events in Libya and Egypt during which numerous Europeans had to be repatriated, as well as natural disasters such as last year’s earthquake in Japan, demonstrate the need for optimal consular protection of European citizens abroad. The diplomatic and consular services of Member States must therefore offer each European citizen in search of aid abroad, irrespective of his or her nationality, the same protection as that given to their own nationals. From now on, any European citizen whose Member State is unrepresented in the country concerned may count on the support of other Member States and, if necessary, receive assistance from EU delegations abroad. The coordination of the diplomatic resources of Member States and the EU represents an important step towards affirming the external role of the EU. This joint approach sends out a clear signal of the solidarity between all European citizens.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which reinforces the right to consular protection of EU citizens who travel or live in a country that is not a Member State of the Union and in which their own Member State is unrepresented. While the European Union is often criticised for being too remote from its citizens, the increased consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad is a concrete example of what Europe can offer its people.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad because according to the Lisbon Treaty the solidarity among Member States shall be sustained, therefore in everyday cases of consular protection, such as loss of identity documents, arrest, detention or death, an unrepresented citizen has the right to request the help of any diplomatic or consular authority of any Member State. It has been noticed that one of the major problems for European citizens is that they have not been aware of their right to obtain help from the consulates of another Member State when they are in a third country in which their own Member State is not represented. For this reason I believe that we should raise awareness, to reduce citizens’ lack of knowledge of their rights, but we should also clarify that they should continue to benefit from the full range of consular assistance customarily provided by Member States’ representations, and make clear that the role played by the authorities of represented Member States does not mean that unrepresented Member States are excluded from providing assistance.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad, because I think it is a positive step for EU citizens from countries without representation in third countries to be able to enjoy consular protection from the diplomatic or consular authorities of another Member State, in accordance with the principle enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Consular protection of European Union citizens outside the EU borders, where there is no diplomatic representation of the State of which the citizen is a national, may be provided by the representation of any of the remaining EU Member States represented there. The same applies to conflict situations, and to everyday situations in which a citizen needs consular assistance or protection. That is fundamental for guaranteeing the rights of European citizens abroad and is an essential factor in coordination and solidarity between Member States.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In accordance with Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: ‘Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State.’ This same right is enshrined in Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This report by Ms Bauer, deals with the proposal for a Council directive on consular protection for European Union citizens abroad and envisages two levels of consular protection: local protection for everyday matters (loss of identity documents, arrest, detention or death) and in crisis situations. In order not to put too great a financial burden on Member States providing the assistance, each Member State should set up a ‘trust fund’ from which the amount necessary to cover the expenses of supporting citizens abroad may be withdrawn, then paid back later by the Member State of which the citizen receiving help is a national. I voted in favour of this report because I recognise the advantages for European citizens of implementing this directive.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We agree with the principle of cooperation between States, having regard to the objective of guaranteeing better consular protection for the citizens of the various European countries. It is known that Member States’ representation in third countries is very unequal and that, at the same time, there has been a significant increase in the number of Europeans travelling and living outside the EU. The Commission proposal is in line with the provision in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states that every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State. Although we support the extension of this directive, we regret that, in her proposal, the rapporteur introduced unwarranted and unnecessary amendments as far as the proposal’s aim is concerned. We cannot support those amendments.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Consular protection for citizens abroad (in accordance with Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) operates both for day-to-day matters and for emergency situations. Emergency situations are arising in an increasing number of contexts and for this reason the simplification of access to rights and better knowledge of these among citizens is desirable, so that they are in a better position to benefit from solidarity between Member States if their own country is not directly represented in the third country or if they are having difficulties reaching their own embassy. For this reason I am in favour of the report, though I recognise that further action and future clarifications will be necessary, for example concerning the role and functions of the delegations and the definition of the necessary financial resources to ensure they can be implemented.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Under Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This principle is also enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In order to facilitate the access of EU citizens to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, a new legislative instrument is desirable and required. The number of crisis-hit areas is also increasing. I therefore believe that a new, common approach is all the more important. We distinguish between local consular protection in everyday life and protection in crisis situations. According to the Lisbon Treaty, solidarity among Member States shall be sustained. Therefore in everyday cases of consular protection the unrepresented citizen has the right to request the help of any diplomatic or consular authority of any Member State. In cases of crisis situation, it is proposed that the Union delegation be in charge of coordinating and providing assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of crisis.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am in full agreement with the considerations expressed in the report. Every citizen of an EU Member State, whenever they find themselves in difficulty in a foreign country where their own country is not represented, should be able to turn to the diplomatic and consular services of the other Member States or, failing that, to the Union delegation in that country. I would also like to see the Union delegations in third countries given the role of coordination between Member States, particularly as regards representing and assisting citizens in emergency situations. For these reasons I voted in favour of the report.

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Adoption of the draft directive on consular protection and its subsequent implementation could be a sign of the continued existence of solidarity between EU countries that can be mobilised. This directive strengthens the protection of our citizens in situations where they feel most vulnerable. Belonging to the European Union gives them that extra chance at the most difficult of times. This is because the directive now approved means Member States which are represented in a given region, regardless of where that might be in the world, are obliged to give any EU citizens without foreign representation the same assistance as they give their own citizens, in the event of lost documents, arrest, accident or illness. This assistance must also be provided in cases where it is extremely difficult for citizens to reach their own consular representation (where travel would take more than one day). I think this represents significant progress in protecting the interests of Hungarian citizens in situations where they are most in need of help anywhere in the world outside the European Union if, because of an accident, attack, natural disaster or even the loss of documents, they find themselves isolated and unable to travel home. We also have an interest in the part of the directive that increases the role of the European External Action Service and EU foreign representation along with the coordination of consular protection, thinking here of the case of Előd Tóásó, who is currently languishing in prison in Bolivia. This is an important gesture from Parliament, the Council and the Commission to its own citizens.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Every year, EU citizens travel outside the EU more than 90 million times, but only in the United States, China and Russia do all 27 EU Member States have a diplomatic presence. These figures emphasise the importance of providing consular protection to EU citizens. I believe the report adopted today represents further progress in this respect as it facilitates access to consular protection for citizens whose Member States do not have a consular office in a particular country outside the EU. In the spirit of ‘more Europe’ I welcome the fact we are including the European External Action Service and EU foreign representations in the performance of consular duties, and so they will be responsible, in emergencies too, for coordinating cooperation between Member States and for evacuations. This will eliminate the somewhat unfair situation to date of one Member State taking on the entire burden of coordinating events in such cases. The proposal also simplifies access to financial assistance in crisis situations, and makes it easier for the country helping out to have costs reimbursed. This document is therefore based on European values and solidarity between European nations, and I believe it is an important step towards European citizenship, which is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) We passed this resolution establishing that EU citizens in difficulties abroad can seek assistance from the consulate or embassy of any EU Member State or where necessary, from the Union delegation, by a very large majority.

I congratulate Ms Bauer, who prepared the resolution.

I am entirely in agreement with her: this resolution reveals the face of a Europe close to its citizens. The proposal strengthens consular rights, clarifying the circumstances in which a citizen is considered unrepresented and specifying the type of assistance that the Member States should typically provide in case of need.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which guarantees better consular protection for EU citizens abroad. The diplomatic and consular services of all EU Member States must give each EU citizen in search of help abroad the same protection as that afforded to their own nationals. We also call on the EU delegations to play a key role in increasing the protection of EU nationals in third countries. This proposal is an excellent way of showing that more Europe does not necessarily mean more bureaucracy or more Brussels. Any EU citizen in difficulty abroad, for example after being involved in an accident, or being the victim of violence or theft, or being caught up in a crisis situation, should be able to seek assistance from the embassy or consulate of any EU Member State or, if necessary, the EU delegation, if his or her own country is unrepresented.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which seeks to implement Article 23 of the Treaty of Lisbon on consular protection, one of the principal rights conferred by European citizenship, in addition to Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, aimed at guaranteeing assistance for European citizens not represented in a third country.

Consular protection is a concrete manifestation of what everyday European citizenship might look like. It is also an opportunity to improve how the burden of responsibility is shared in the event of a crisis. This debate will pave the way for a discussion on the future role of EU delegations, which could in future handle everyday consular tasks on behalf of unrepresented citizens. This would also have the advantage of creating a more European type of diplomacy, redefining European citizenship and raising the profile of the Union. Finally, it would provide the assurance that the fundamental rights of all are guaranteed.

Parliament’s opinion is of course purely advisory, although the Council would have everything to gain by drawing inspiration from it, fostering true European solidarity beyond our borders for the benefit of our citizens.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) In the case of loss of identity documents, arrest, detention and other problems that may descend upon us while we are travelling outside the EU, consular support is essential. According to the provisions of the Treaty, EU citizens have the right to take advantage of diplomatic and consular protection from any other Member State in a third country where the Member State of which these persons are nationals does not have its own representation. This right is an important aspect of EU citizenship and, as it were, expands the scope of consular protection for Europeans throughout the world. It is increasingly common, however, for citizens to need assistance not only with routine problems, such as those concerning documents, but also in crises which constitute a major coordination challenge. It is therefore important to nominate a single unit responsible for coordination, which would, for example, ensure that all EU citizens, including those not represented, were covered by emergency and evacuation plans. The question of the funding of such protection is also of great significance in this context. It is therefore important that the report gives attention to this. The report has my full support, as it will lead to an increase in consular protection for EU citizens and the provision of more effective and more prompt assistance in third countries.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal as I firmly believe that new legislation is needed in order to ensure that EU citizens are able to exercise their rights, including rights in third countries. The right of citizens of unrepresented Member States to ask for assistance from Member States that do have consulates established is one of the rights of Union’s citizens. However, as experience has shown, citizens cannot comprehensively use their consular protection rights. One of the main problems is that citizens are not aware that they can get assistance from other Member States’ consulates while in third countries where their own Member State is not represented. This new directive will solve this problem. Furthermore, this directive will provide a common framework for assistance for citizens of unrepresented Member States. This directive will help to establish a system where Member States can agree that in certain countries or regions, one Member State acts as Lead State and coordinates consular work. This will not affect the ability of unrepresented citizens to seek assistance in establishments of any Member State. Such agreements will be publicised. That is, citizens who travel to a certain region will know which consulate they should contact first. In the long term, this will help to save funds as the presence of an agreed Lead State in the region will reduce the need for separate representations in that region for other Member States.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. − The right of unrepresented EU citizens to consular protection abroad under the same conditions as Member State nationals is one of the Union’s most important achievements and is symbolic of its solidarity and its common identity towards third countries. Moreover, the provisions for extending consular protection – including the broad definition of being unprotected, the clarification as to when the embassy or consulate of the citizen’s own Member State is non-accessible, and the inclusion of protection for third-country family members of EU citizens, to the same extent as Member States provide it to the third-country family members of their own nationals – bring great practical advantages for individuals.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Ms Bauer’s report on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. The report was adopted by a large majority of 596 votes in favour. I applaud this. The aim of the report was to facilitate access by EU citizens to their rights; namely, the right to be protected in third countries. The new provisions of this report are particularly important since consular protection is an expression of European solidarity and the identity of the Union in third countries.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to consular assistance from any Member State which is represented in that country, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This is stipulated in Article 20(2)(c) and Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The coordination of assistance, primarily through the establishment of ‘Lead States’ in third countries, which is described in the new directive, is aimed at improving the effectiveness of functioning in instances of consular protection both in routine matters and in crisis situations. The access to a diplomatic authority defined in the conclusion on the directive, which will enable it to be accessed with a round trip feasible within one day, is a good solution, particularly in urgent and common situations (e.g. theft or loss of documents, death or arrest).

The obligation of the Union delegation to coordinate and provide assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of a crisis distinctly lightens the load for the ‘Lead State’ nominated in the third country for this purpose, and for any other Member State that has a presence there. In the light of the above, I consider these changes to be both necessary and remarkably helpful for all EU citizens.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − A new legislative instrument may be required to facilitate the access of EU citizens to protection in third countries. I am concerned about additional costs, but I share the opinion that in crisis situations, where the Union delegation has the role of coordination, it should have the necessary financial means to provide that coordination. We should not forget about the prerogatives of Member States, because it is their consulates and embassies that, first and foremost, have the responsibility of protecting their citizens. Nevertheless, these are not always available. There are cases when even though an EU citizen has his or her embassy or consulate in the third country, it is inaccessible. This is where the EU must play a role because, according to Article 23 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member States of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as a national of that State.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has adopted Ms Bauer’s report, which seeks to increase the consular protection of EU citizens abroad. The diplomatic and consular services of all EU Member States must give each EU citizen in search of help abroad the same protection as they afford to their own nationals. The report was adopted by 596 votes to 66, with 12 abstentions. I voted in favour of the text, since the consular protection of European nationals by the embassies of Member States, in the event that they find themselves in difficulty abroad, helps to strengthen the sense of European citizenship. Union delegations in third countries must now take responsibility for cooperation and coordination between Member States, including the distribution of tasks in order to ensure that unrepresented citizens are fully assisted in the event of a crisis.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Our top priority, as representatives of the citizens of the European Union, is to protect them both within EU borders and outside the Member States; that is why this measure is more than welcome. From now on, the critical situations which citizens who are not represented through embassies or consulates in third countries may face will be able to be resolved much more easily through consular cooperation at local level, which boosts confidence in EU policies and, in particular, citizens’ sense of belonging to the European Union project. At the same time, I believe that in future we must pay particular attention to people with disabilities and the handling of critical situations in which they may find themselves, through special assistance and consular protection adapted to their specific needs, in accordance with the EU policies applicable in the Member States.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report. In cases of crisis situation, the report proposes that the Union Delegation is in charge of coordinating and providing assistance regarding the preparation for and in case of crisis. In order not to put an unbearably heavy burden on the Lead State, or any Member State present in the area, it should be the Union Delegation who deals with all the coordination of cooperation, including the contingency plans among Member States and evacuation. It should be the Union Delegation, who should make sure that all EU citizens, including the unrepresented citizens are covered by contingency plans. This idea is in line with the Article 35 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) which says that ‘the diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and the Union delegations in third countries (...) shall cooperate in ensuring that decisions defining Union positions and actions (...) are implemented. They shall contribute to the implementation of the right of citizens of the Union to protection in the territory of third countries as referred to in Article 20(2)(c) of the TFEU and of the measures adopted pursuant to Article 23 of that Treaty.’

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We are voting in favour because we acknowledge that it is essential to be able to guarantee consular protection for European citizens when they are abroad. However, we can only regret that the same principle and the same right was not extended to refugees with recognised status, stateless persons or persons who have not yet obtained the nationality of any of the Member States, residing in the European Union and even travelling with a document issued by one of the Member States.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) When they find themselves in difficulty abroad, European citizens have the right to ask any embassy or consulate of another Member State of the European Union for help if their country is unrepresented. This right to consular protection is a fundamental right, which I have been keen to reaffirm. I have fought to ensure that this right can be better guaranteed, particularly by involving Union delegations when a crisis situation arises so that each citizen can be granted protection.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In emergency situations, the Union delegations should ensure the necessary coordination between Member States. To be able to fulfil that role, the European External Action Service (EEAS) should be provided with the necessary financial resources, including for training Member States’ consular staff.

  Anthea McIntyre (ECR), in writing. − It is estimated that 40 000 EU citizens each year are not represented in a third country and require consular assistance by consular representatives of other Member States; the ECR Group recognises that all EU citizens are entitled to consular assistance if they face difficulty in a third country where their national consular or embassy is not present. And we see the value in EU Member States cooperating in this area in order to help our citizens. The ECR Group understands that this right is enshrined in law under Article 20 of the EC Treaty and we believe therefore that this report is unnecessary, given the existing regulations and frameworks in place. We have concerns that this report is significant in the on-going battle of some to further harmonise EU foreign, consular and diplomatic services. We strongly support the sovereign power of Member States to exercise and retain responsibility for their consular and diplomatic services and hence oppose an extension of powers and funding to the EEAS for consular duties. The ECR Group has therefore decided to vote against this report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report encourages solidarity between consulates of the EU Member States in helping European citizens and their families, regardless of the nationality of their members, refugees and stateless persons. I am in favour of this and welcome the prospect of such solidarity. However, I am concerned that the budget cuts introduced in the name of austerity, which the majority of this Parliament insisted on, have also undermined the protection that our consulates can effectively provide. I voted in favour of this text to express my support for the principles of consular solidarity that it enshrines, but remain critical of the lack of consistency of the European Commission and Parliament in this matter. I reiterate my opposition to setting up a pointless, expensive and meaningless service in the name of so-called European diplomacy.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Under Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), ‘Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State.’ This principle is enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In order to give EU citizens easier access to their rights, including the right to protection in third countries, a new legislative instrument is needed. The Stockholm Programme, as well as the European Parliament, called for common concepts in consular protection.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that European countries should be jointly responsible for the situation of other citizens abroad. Citizens of Member States that do not have consular representation in a third country have the right to consular protection under equal conditions to other European citizens, which therefore means that they should be able to access the consulates of other Member States. I think that the suggestion made by the report regarding ways in which consular services can work together and simplify their processes in order to make it easier to transfer information between them, and therefore speed up procedures, is a positive one. As this represents an increase in the guarantees and rights of European citizens in third countries, I voted in favour.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Consular protection must be effective, efficient and well-coordinated, its primary goal being that citizens can benefit fully from it. However, I find that the proposal does not allocate enough responsibility to Union delegations in the context of everyday, local consular protection. I think that a more important role should be given to Union delegations, including granting them consular powers. The proposed directive might then be an opportunity to assign a greater role to the delegations and give them the means to fulfil this role. This would create a more European form of diplomacy, raising the profile of the Union and strengthening European citizenship. Respect for fundamental rights must also be guaranteed. For example, can we be sure that the embassies and consulates of all Member States will guarantee the same rights for same-sex couples and their families? This guarantee is granted by Union delegations, which are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, I believe that a sound compromise has been reached on what is a key issue for the Union’s citizens.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Union citizens can now safely rely on protection and assistance from the consular services of other Member States or Union delegations. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In principle, there is no reason to object to common approaches regarding consular protection. However, since all the previous economy measures in this area went hand in hand with visa scandals that have still not been completely explained – or the necessary conclusions drawn – there are still risks involved here. Therefore, I voted against this report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. If this decision is implemented, a citizen of a Member State who encounters problems in a third country where the respective Member State has no diplomatic mission will be able to contact consular representatives of other Member States to obtain equivalent consular assistance. This decision is an expression of true solidarity between EU Member States and it will help to provide appropriate assistance for EU citizens as well as to secure their rights in third countries. At the same time, it will allow rationalisation of consular assistance provision, which is particularly relevant to smaller Member States that do not have a wide network of diplomatic missions or many bilateral agreements on the provision of consular services. It is important that this right is appropriately publicised and that EU citizens are aware of it and make use of it when travelling abroad.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) European citizens are travelling more and more thanks to better protection of their rights while travelling, something Parliament has fought hard for. Consular protection for EU citizens abroad who are unable to rely on diplomatic representation (a consulate or embassy) from their Member State of origin is only right from an EU that should be making an effort to promote a sense of European identity among all its citizens.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the report and underline the importance of greater consular protection for citizens of the Union who are overseas, especially in the light of a recent event in Indonesia. In this state, four European citizens from the county I represent were arrested for Christian religious propaganda and their rights were not defended, which caused particular concern for their families.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. − I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting this important report, for which I drafted the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The concept of European citizenship should be reinforced by concrete action to give it more weight. Therefore, it has been proposed to give the European External Action Service, and the Union delegations in particular, greater coordinating powers in crisis situations as well as to entrust them with consular tasks, where appropriate. These steps are necessary first of all to uphold the rights of the EU citizens, but also for the credibility and visibility of the Union. As a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of one of the smallest Member States I am well aware of the limited network of their representations abroad and the importance of cooperation between EU Member States. Quite often this is a matter of life and death.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − When EU citizens travel abroad in any third country in which their home state does not have representation, they should be entitled to protection by the consular or diplomatic authorities of any EU Member State. For example, if a Lithuanian citizen needed access to consular services in a third country and could not reach a Lithuanian embassy or consulate, then that citizen should have a right to go to any EU Member State consulate that is available. In crisis situations (such as national instability or rioting), the EU delegation present in the country should coordinate all cooperation between member consulates. I voted in favour of this report, because this document intends to make this goal a reality.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) In its recent proposal, the European Commission does not make adequate use of the new instruments offered by the Treaty of Lisbon in this particular field. This Parliamentary report, which I voted for, could be a forerunner to increased cooperation among EU representations in providing consular protection. Even now, EU citizens whose country is not represented by authorities in the country where they are living face unacceptable difficulties in obtaining assistance and exercising their rights. Clearly, European citizenship, as it is now defined in the Treaties, calls for better cooperation among Member States’ consular authorities in third countries. For this reason, the European Parliament seeks further initiatives on this issue in the near future.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a Council directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad, which clarifies the coordination and cooperation measures necessary for the day-to-day consular protection of unrepresented EU citizens, which is a fundamental right granted by EU citizenship as defined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), according to which every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State, there are cases when even though the EU citizen has his or her embassy or consulate in the third country, it is inaccessible. It is therefore important to define the accessibility of an embassy or consulate in terms of the ability to reach it and return to the place of departure the same day; furthermore, in crisis situations the Union delegation should be in charge of coordinating and providing assistance regarding preparation for the crisis. In order to facilitate the access of EU citizens to their rights, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) Consular protection is an integral part of Union policy on citizens’ rights. It is an expression of the solidarity of the European Union. It is emphasised that EU citizens can turn to another embassy or consulate of another Member State if there is no representative of their own country outside the Union. I strongly supported this proposal.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. − (FI) Recently there has been much discussion of the fact that people are not aware of their rights as EU citizens. This has led to many questioning the benefits which the EU offers to them as individuals. I voted in favour of this report, since it enhances the implementation of the rights of EU citizens in practical terms. Obtaining consular protection in a country where their own home country has no representation forms one of the most important rights of an EU citizen. In my opinion, in crisis situations EU missions should have a more important role in the coordination of relief work. In addition, where necessary they should also be able to provide other consular duties. A stronger role for EU delegations could also contribute positively towards a European identity.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The consular and diplomatic services of all Member States should protect all European citizens seeking help abroad, affording them the same protection as they would give to a fellow national. Any European citizen in difficulties abroad, for example after an accident, a rape or a robbery, or having been arrested in a crisis situation, can freely seek assistance from an embassy or consulate of any other EU Member State or, if necessary, from the Union delegation, where their country is unrepresented. The Union delegations in non-EU countries (managed by the European External Action Service) should coordinate the Member States to ensure that citizens who are unrepresented by their own country can receive full assistance during an emergency. Many EU citizens were caught up in crises last year, for example in Libya, Egypt and Bahrain, during the democratic uprisings in the spring of 2011, and in Japan after the earthquake in March 2011. Consular protection is often essential even in day-to-day situations, for example where people fall seriously ill or are the victims of crime. ‘More Europe’ could mean more help for EU citizens in need.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. Our group supports the initiative. We tabled several amendments, which, in particular, ensure that Union delegations participate in consular protection in everyday situations. We also insisted that not only family members of EU citizens but also recognised refugees, stateless persons and other persons without nationality who reside in a Member State and are holders of a travel document issued by that Member State be entitled to EU consular protection, but this suggestion has been included only in the form of a recommendation in recitals. Nevertheless, the initiative represents a significant improvement over the current situation, especially as regards the rights of family members.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The right of a citizen of an unrepresented Member State to seek assistance from the consular authorities of other Member States who are represented is one of the rights conferred by EU citizenship. All EU citizens living or travelling in a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented are entitled to protection from the diplomatic or consular authorities of another Member State under the same conditions as its nationals. In emergency or crisis situations – and I am thinking here of Japan, Libya and Egypt – EU citizens abroad are entitled to seek assistance from the consulate or embassy of other EU Member States if their own Member State is not represented, and Member States are obliged, when evacuating a country, to help all EU citizens as they do their own. According to the Lisbon Treaty, solidarity between Member States shall be supported, therefore, in everyday cases of consular protection, such as in cases of lost identity documents, arrest, detention or death, unrepresented citizens have the right to request the help of any diplomatic or consular authority of any Member State. For this reason I voted in favour of the proposal for a directive.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union because I believe that citizens who are abroad but whose own country is not represented should receive assistance from the diplomatic services of all Member States. Not only that, but the level of protection should be equivalent to that guaranteed by the Member State in question for its own nationals. Facilitating cooperation between diplomatic services locally, coordinating emergencies, giving out information to citizens including on the websites of the Commission and the Member States, should be objectives that the European Union should soon be able to guarantee for its own citizens.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) With new rules it will be possible to simplify the right of EU citizens to protection in third countries. Sharing new legislative instruments from the perspective of having a common approach to consular protection will facilitate the use of any Member State’s diplomatic or consular authority in many different cases, from the loss of identity documents to arrest, detention or death. I view in a very positive light the proposal to leave to the Union delegation the role of coordination and assistance in crisis situations in which EU citizens in a third country are caught up. Attributing a leading coordination role to the Union delegation could facilitate consular protection and strengthen the role of the extensive network of EU delegations when it comes to consular protection. For these reasons I voted in favour.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We are voting in favour because we acknowledge that it is essential to be able to guarantee consular protection for European citizens when they are abroad. However, we can only regret that the same principle and the same right was not extended to refugees with recognised status, stateless persons or persons who have not yet obtained the nationality of any of the Member States, residing in the European Union and even travelling with a document issued by one of the Member States.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. − The basis of this notion has actually featured in EU law since the Maastricht Treaty 20 years ago, and in many cases it is extremely useful for EU citizens to be able to make emergency use of other states' consular provisions abroad. The EU is nothing if not a solid alliance of nations united in friendship, and when an individual who is far away from home falls into difficulty or needs urgent help, occasional access to the services of a different state is an enormous benefit. But compromise is key: while smaller states should be allowed to opt in to consular protection organised at EU level, those states with larger resources should not be forced into giving way to the EEAS controlling consular matters. The UK is proud of its network of bilateral consular arrangements, and will firmly resist any pressure to abandon them.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Evidently I voted in favour of the Bauer report. In order to facilitate access by the Union’s citizens to their rights, including the right to be protected in third countries, a new legislative instrument is effectively needed. The Stockholm Programme, like the European Parliament, advocates common concepts when it comes to consular protection. Taking into account the growing number of crisis regions, a joint approach is more critical than ever.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that ‘Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State.’ In order to make it easier for European citizens to obtain that assistance, the European Parliament called for a set of common criteria for consular protection, at local level in everyday life and in crisis situations. I should like to stress that in crisis situations the EU delegation is responsible for coordinating provision of assistance, so that no specific Member State is overburdened. In the event of need, assistance may be requested from the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. I should also like to draw attention to the possibility for the Member States to apply this extension of rights to refugees and persons in need of protection.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad. EU citizens who travel or live in a third country where the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented by a consulate or embassy are entitled to consular protection from the consular authorities of any other Member State.

This directive lays down the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to facilitate protection of citizens of the Union, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, by the diplomatic or consular authorities of another Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State. The relevant Member State is obliged to offer assistance to unrepresented EU citizens under the same conditions as to its own nationals.

Many EU citizens have been affected by recent crises, such as those in Libya, Egypt and Bahrain after the democratic uprisings in spring 2011, or in Japan after the earthquake of March 2011. In day-to-day situations, too, such as in the event of a serious illness or when a citizen is a victim of crime, consular protection is often indispensable.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − Labour MEPs supported this proposal, which will allow EU citizens to seek consular assistance from the embassy of any other EU Member State. For example, if a UK citizen ran into trouble in a country where there is no British consular representation, they could apply for help to the embassy of another EU Member State and expect the same level of treatment as if they were a citizen of that state. In the cases of the revolution in Libya and the earthquake in Japan, large numbers of EU citizens could not access consular protection despite the emergency situation; this proposal will put an end to such a scenario and should ensure a faster and more effective response by allowing us to pool resources. This proposal is a good example of how European cooperation can benefit all European citizens.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Under the terms of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, every EU citizen has a right to diplomatic and consular protection in a third country by any other Member State if the state of which he or she is a national does not have its own representation. The solutions proposed are aimed at making it easier for EU citizens to take up such rights. They do not, however, make use of the full potential offered by the Treaty of Lisbon. This particularly concerns the failure to make use of the role of Union delegations. I have consequently voted against.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) According to Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, EU citizens in a third country where their Member State is not represented are entitled to seek assistance from the consulate or embassy of another EU Member State. Ms Bauer’s report, which supports the idea of a common approach to this issue, aims to strengthen the consular rights of European citizens and to facilitate their access to these rights, including the right to protection in third countries, given the growing number of crisis-hit areas.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. − (PL) Most EU countries do not have, and never will have, their own embassies and consulates in all countries of the world. Meanwhile, citizens of these countries visit every corner of the globe for tourism or work purposes. Sometimes accidents happen which require the provision of consular assistance and protection.

The proposed directive envisages such protection being extended not only to EU citizens, but also to members of their families from third countries. This is of particular importance, as it constitutes the implementation of one of the fundamental principles defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibiting discriminatory treatment. The draft legislative enactment also includes a rule on respect for the right of citizens to free decision, which should be reflected in the honouring of the will of each citizen, for example as regards non-notification of nearest and dearest of an event that has occurred or taking into account the wishes of the family on how to proceed with the body of a deceased citizen.

In my view the entry into effect of the directive will greatly facilitate the process of providing consular assistance, although the point should be made that so far not all of the potential offered by the Treaty of Lisbon has been utilised in it. Particularly under-emphasised is the role played by Union delegations, which should play a leading coordinating role here, and even, under strictly defined circumstances, carry out consular functions.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The Charter of Fundamental Rights states that every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he or she is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State. Clearly we agree as regards this mechanism which makes it possible for EU citizens to receive assistance. However, what the rapporteur is proposing is an amendment in the direction of centralisation of that assistance in the EU institutions, proposing the substitution of Member State coordination of contingency plans in crisis situations by the Union delegations and by the European External Action Service: ‘The Union delegation shall coordinate the exchange of information about available evacuation capacities in a timely manner, coordinate the evacuation itself and provide the necessary assistance for evacuation, with possible support from existing intervention teams at Union level.’ We do not agree with this transfer of competence replacing the coordination processes between sovereign states with ‘federalisation’ and we fear that intervention by the EEAS will constitute yet another possibility for political interference in the countries in question. On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that Portuguese consular services and embassies do not close as a result of the setting up of these assistance services.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Bearing in mind the continuing increase in the mobility of EU citizens throughout the world and the problems of a legal or personal nature which they run into in third countries, I think that a directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad is a very worthwhile thing, which will give our citizens greater assurance as to where to turn and who to talk to in a situation where an office of their country of origin is not accessible. I do not agree with those who warn that such assistance will be costly. The draft of this directive does not talk about encumbering anyone with additional tasks and outlay; what it says is that both EU citizens and Member States are to be provided with assurance and a legal framework for how to proceed. It is also worth stressing that greater coordination and a more effective division of tasks between Member States’ consulates will de facto lead to a reduction in costs. I am pleased that my opinion has found favour with the rapporteur and the numerous comments from the Committee on Legal Affairs have been considered in a positive light and incorporated into the final version of the report. I also hope that work at the Council will proceed so efficiently that our citizens will be able to take full advantage of the rights which EU citizenship confers as soon as possible.

- Report: Regina Bastos (A7-0310/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I welcome the fact that the European Commission, following on from the European Parliament’s resolution, is presenting a working document on ‘The Single Market through the eyes of the people: a snapshot of citizens’ and businesses’ views and concerns’. Importance must be attached to this document, since it presents a general view of the obstacles encountered in practice in the internal market. It is based on an analysis of complaints received by the European Commission and by the assistance services in conjunction with the results of the most recent Eurobarometer surveys and targeted research with specific target groups. In conclusion, there is a difference between expectations and reality as regards the single market. That difference is the result of deficiencies such as lack of information, gaps in application and a legislative vacuum – certain areas of the EU’s legal framework do not meet the expectations of citizens and businesses. The economic, financial and social crisis that has been affecting Europe since 2008, has had a strong impact on the single market, leading citizens to form a negative view of the market, whilst the European institutions and the Member States are aware that the single market has not been fully exploited.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since I personally support this text, I welcomed the fact that the European Parliament voted in favour of the report, which contains a snapshot of the main concerns of European citizens regarding the single market, now in its 20th year. Fundamental to the European Union, the single market could still be improved and help to facilitate the mobility of Europeans. The main issues at stake concern the recognition of qualifications, the reimbursement of health care costs between Member States, and pensions. Administrative procedures must be simplified. The European Parliament has pledged to reduce these by 25 %.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. It is 20 years this year since the single market was established. Progress has been made in many areas. However, EU consumers and companies still face serious barriers that do not allow them to make full use of the opportunities provided by the single market. A fully functioning single market is an essential condition for successful implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and the main EU tool for stimulating the economic recovery and future growth of the Member States. Many barriers still remain owing to inappropriate or untimely implementation of legal acts in the Member States. There is also a lack of political will, especially in the Council, to reach agreements on significant measures such as the approval of e-signatures, clear intellectual property protection and copyright and redress, which results in EU citizens and companies looking upon the single market with distrust. For these reasons, I expect the European Commission to have a more significant and responsible role in overseeing the introduction of single market legal acts in the Member States, as well as in securing the smooth operation of the market.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I believe the European single market, the area consisting of more than 500 million consumers and economic activities in excess of EUR 11 billion, is an essential element for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and its goals of sustainable, smart and inclusive growth. Revitalising the single market and strengthening its efficiency are essential to enable Europe to achieve economic growth and employment and to win the confidence of its citizens. It is sad to see that European businesses and citizens continue to be obstructed in exercising their rights under the single market. There is still a gap between expectations and reality with regard to the single market, and this gap arises from shortcomings such as the lack of information and/or assistance for citizens in exercising their rights, and legislative vacuums in certain areas that businesses encounter during their activity. The importance of removing these obstacles and relaunching the single market, especially in the current context of economic and financial crisis affecting Europe, is evident, in order to contribute to growth, competitiveness, and job creation.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Bastos on the main concerns of European citizens and businesses with the functioning of the single market. For 20 years the single market has been one of the EU’s greatest achievements, and I welcome the fact that the Commission has put forward this proposal on how citizens see that achievement. We must continue to deepen it so that we have a single market in every sector.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in order to ensure the well-being of EU citizens, it is essential to create a domestic market and have concrete actions and feasible proposals to resolve the issues faced by citizens. I believe that the EU now needs to step up its efforts to eliminate barriers to the smooth functioning of the single market, in particular in sectors which can act as motors for sustainable growth, such as crossborder business and entrepreneurial activities, service provision, mobility, access to finance and financial literacy. Moreover, I would urge the European Commission to encourage SMEs to recruit young people and to strengthen mobility programmes that encourage the young to enhance their skills, thereby becoming more employable and able to enter the labour market. It is particularly important to have a common position on the single market, with European citizens and consumers placed at its centre so that they can benefit fully from the advantages of this market and contribute to the territorial, economic and social cohesion of the European Union.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Parliament is working on a number of fronts to strengthen the concept of European citizenship and, certainly within this framework, the social value of the internal market is a leading theme. I agree with Ms Bastos’ analysis of the shortcomings (in information, application and legislation), and the resulting recommendations and remedies, and I therefore voted in favour of the report. I particularly want to emphasise the urgency of certain initiatives, given the obstacles encountered by our fellow citizens, especially small businesses, families and the elderly, when it comes to benefiting from their rights and opportunities in relation to competitiveness (training and human capital, access to public contracts in other Member States, energy supplies), and taxpayers’ rights (double taxation of pay and pensions, pension portability, European health services). The current obstacles to the single market (including in company law, the interoperability of technological, transport and training networks) hinder competitiveness and obstruct competition, to the benefit of structures, plans and mentalities characteristic of pre-Maastricht economies, with measurable negative effects on citizens. The best instrument for combating this resistance is transparency and the vigilance of the relevant European institutions, working with consumers and public opinion.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market. This report accompanies the Single Market Act, and seeks to demonstrate the coherence of the actions proposed and the actual concerns of European citizens. It emphasises the importance of encouraging mobility in the European labour market and better recognition of professional qualifications, which are the key elements of a single market for European citizens. I supported this report, which seeks to introduce mechanisms facilitating the participation of SMEs, mainly through ‘one-stop shops’. We must continue to strengthen social cohesion at all levels and to support our SMEs, the main source of job creation, in order to boost growth.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. - (CS) Twenty years after the introduction of the single market, the European Commission has proposed 12 further levers under the Single Market Act II, which mainly focus on the digital economy and crossborder mobility in the European Union. The European Parliament report, which I supported, emphasises support for employees who make use of the opportunity to work abroad. Citizens do not yet have sufficient information on the socio-legal conditions, so I believe that the European Union and each affected Member State should focus on providing employees with better information on their rights and obligations in those countries in which they work. In addition, Member States should improve language learning at an early age and adopt a uniform system for the recognition of formal and non-formal education, including lifelong learning. These options will improve the mobility of citizens between Member States, which will contribute to the quality of the single market and its development and growth. These are the reasons why I supported the report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Comments on the single market demonstrate that many aspects are not working according to case studies and Eurobarometer results. It is however the prerogative of member states and individual nations as to how far they wish to make systems accessible to immigrants and the responsibility of national institutions to forge resolutions to problems such as those that the single market is failing to address. Just as a British person would have to jump through a lot of hoops before becoming resident in America, it is not unthinkable that new residents of any new country of domicile would also be seemingly burdened with the necessary checks and registration procedures for example that create watertight systems.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − (RO) In the current economic context, the report on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market lends support to the process of relaunching the single market and its consolidation and smooth functioning.

The single market offers a real solution to the current financial crisis and for economic development. The driving force behind the single market is SMEs, whether we are talking about the creation of jobs or economic growth, and this report pays particular attention to them. Among the issues highlighted in this report are the recognition of professional qualifications, social security, tax obstacles, access to finance, online purchasing, pension portability, etc. These issues must be resolved to enable Europeans to fully enjoy their right to freedom of movement and the benefits of membership of the European Union, and also to increase their confidence in the single market.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Bastos report on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market. It is apparent that a gap still remains between the expectations and the reality of the single market. In addition, citizens and businesses today still face concrete obstacles to exercising the rights granted to them. This is why I believe it is more necessary than ever to strengthen cooperation between institutions, breathe new life into the single market and thus contribute to innovation, growth and employment. I also support the idea of improving access to information for citizens and businesses on their rights by simplifying administrative procedures.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I believe it is of the utmost importance that we overcome the lack of information and understanding among European citizens as regards their rights, reduce the gap between the EU’s legislative framework and the way legislation is implemented in practice and strengthen legislation in areas where the standards in force do not satisfy European citizens’ expectations.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) At this time when we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the single market, it is regrettable that there are still so many barriers preventing European citizens from fully enjoying its benefits. The effects of the economic and financial crisis that has been ravaging the EU have contributed significantly to increasing the economic and social disparities between the Member States and the regions, with serious ramifications for the single market, as well as helping increase distrust amongst our citizens and businesses towards it. Nonetheless, it is worth recalling that the single market has been the backbone of the European economy and still is the basic pre-condition for us to be able to master the challenge of competitiveness and growth. We must look at what still needs to be done and what has not worked, putting things right and moving forward in a proactive and dynamic spirit, and thus addressing our citizens’ expectations. I would therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur Regina Bastos on the excellent work she has done in identifying the major concerns of citizens and business, and I agree with the guidelines she has put forward. I would like to call on the Council in particular to commit itself to an agreement on the package of measures contained in the Single Market Act I, so that they can be implemented as quickly as possible.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe we need to relaunch the single market, through which we can restore the confidence of European citizens and consumers in the European project. Therefore, we need to avoid the fragmentation caused by the protectionist tendencies of certain Member States. The right to freedom of movement, which is one of the fundamental freedoms of the single market, must be guaranteed within the European Union. The lifting of employment restrictions for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens would bring only benefits in the current context of economic crisis, in which worker mobility should be encouraged, not inhibited.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I believe that citizens’ awareness of taxation within the European Union urgently needs to be improved and that the tax barriers faced by cross-border workers and employers must be reduced to facilitate their mobility and to promote cross-border economic initiatives, while also removing any possibility of tax evasion or fraud.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The single market represents our greatest potential for growth. We have an obligation to do everything we can to remove the barriers to it, which are still too numerous. This means identifying them, first of all, hence we have highlighted the 20 main concerns of citizens and business. I therefore voted in favour of the report, which is the necessary first step towards identifying the obstacles so that we can tackle them.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The creation of a large single market based on four fundamental freedoms (movement of goods, capital, people and services) is a major step towards EU integration. However, a gap still exists between the expectations of European citizens and the reality of the single market. EU citizens and businesses still face too many obstacles, often in their day-to-day lives, in exercising their rights. For example, this might be the financial costs linked to registering a vehicle, being unable to open a bank account abroad, or even difficulties with the recognition of professional qualifications. It is essential, therefore, that the Union’s institutions find swift and concrete solutions to the remaining gaps, in order to respond effectively to the main concerns of EU citizens.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which improves the governance of the European single market and proposes to improve information and communication on EU law and its application. These measures are aimed at improving the day-to-day lives of European citizens so that they can make the most of what the European single market has to offer.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The internal market, together with its related policies, has enabled European citizens and business to have access to markets, products and information that are essential for their development and to ensure competitiveness and growth. However, the internal market is not a static reality, it is dynamic, a changing reality within a globalised world. Its development and implementation need to be permanently completed by means of concrete policies and strategies. This is why the recent launch of the package of measures (Single Market Act II) to develop the single market and fully explore its potential as a driver for growth is highly positive.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) First and foremost, I would like to congratulate my colleague Regina Bastos on her excellent report on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market, the driver for major changes in the lives of Europeans. When problems occur within the Union, the ‘prophets of doom’, otherwise known as ‘Eurosceptics’, jump at the opportunity to belittle the image of the European institutions and turn a blind eye to all the benefits of this project. We are all aware that the single market, one of the main pillars of the European project alongside the free movement of people and goods, has not been exploited to its full potential. It is therefore necessary to solve the issues preventing it from being used optimally, such as the problem of recognising professional qualifications in a straightforward, efficient and non-cumbersome way, or other barriers such as social security, tax, access to finance, online shopping, pensions, etc. This is the only way we will have more mobility so we can have more Europe. In the current context of economic and financial crisis, the single market is fundamental to overcoming this situation, which is why I voted in favour of this report and I hope that everyone can join forces so that the main concerns of citizens and business can be rapidly addressed.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Coming on the 20th anniversary of the single market, this report criticises the barriers hampering the smooth functioning of the single market, referring to the need to eliminate these barriers and highlighting the fact that the Member States need to bring forward, develop and improve the application of legislation on the single market. It is another example of the habitual propaganda that always goes hand in hand with emotional statements on the single market. The report maintains that the single market is a driver for the mobility of qualified labour that ‘can contribute to making Europe more competitive’. This will surely force a general devaluation of the workforce by a levelling down of working conditions – this is the type of mobility advocated. Moreover, it also advocates the completion of the internal energy market and a competitive digital single market, the liberalisation of public procurement and the rail sector, implementation of the cross-border healthcare directive, and coordinating education systems with the needs of the labour market. In other words, more progress in the market for public services and, in general, in all areas of life where the process of capitalist accumulation can be carried on, even if this means jeopardising rights such as education, health, water and sanitation, and social security, to name but a few. Needless to say, we voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) In the words of the Commission, there is still a gap between expectations and reality regarding the single market. This gap arises from interconnected shortcomings, which include the following: lack of information – frequently people do not know or do not sufficiently understand their rights; application gaps – in many areas there is a gulf between the EU legal framework and the way in which legislation is applied; legislative vacuum – in certain areas the EU legal framework does not meet the expectations of citizens and businesses. Under these circumstances, I firmly believe that it is desirable for all institutions involved to endeavour to make appropriate efforts to strengthen mutual cooperation on the issue of the functioning of the single market, particularly for the benefit of citizens.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The European Union is currently experiencing its worst economic crisis since it was established. Regrettably, we have to say that in certain cases this crisis threatens the very foundations of the European economy. I would like to emphasise, however, that the single market is still the best tool we have available to revive economic growth in Member State economies, and therefore it is extremely important that we treat each and every issue associated with the single market as a priority. I welcome the efforts of the European Commission in this area so far, but I feel that more commitment is needed in future to implementing European legislation. I am delighted that many mechanisms have been developed in recent years to help the single market grow, and to measure the contributions of individual Member States towards achieving this objective. The Internal Market Scoreboard is one such mechanism, which encourages Member States to improve the quality and speed of transposing internal market directives. The question is, then, what further action is required. I personally vote for more decisive, yet realistic, transposition and implementation deadlines. Therefore we must strive to achieve the lowest transposition deficit, the shortest transposition delays and the highest quality of transposition. The report by Ms Bastos highlights the concerns of our citizens and enterprises; now it is our responsibility to react to this and remedy the problems as soon as possible. I voted in favour of the report.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) This report falls far short of meeting the expectations of people in border areas. Whether those crossing the borders are students, employees or employers, on many issues Europe is the solution for them, not the problem many are presenting it as today. A single market will never convince citizens if we do not attempt to establish a coherent economic, fiscal and social policy. Most countries are pursuing a short-sighted national or even regional policy in this area. We are constantly weakening the single market with 87 different rules where a single rule would be appropriate, by huge differences – for instance, tax havens like Luxembourg – which completely distort the economic and social structure of the surrounding regions. As long as Europe ignores its citizens’ most elementary questions, it feeds the eurosceptics’ fire and becomes totally implausible.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) During the inauguration of Single Market Week I had occasion to hear that citizens are unaware of the benefits the market offers them. This year’s 20th anniversary of the single market is an excellent opportunity to reflect on how best to inform citizens of these benefits and what else we need to do to free up the full potential of the internal market, in particular to support economic growth or create jobs. I am pleased that the report emphasises the need for Europeans to be better informed about the internal market. Defining the problems that citizens and businesses encounter in the single market is certainly an important step along the road towards creating a fully functioning single market. I supported the report because I consider that specifying these obstacles and the fears of Europeans is the key to adopting suitable provisions that will be an effective response to those problems which have been identified. Obviously simply creating a right is not good enough, as there is also a need for that right to be implemented by Member States. It is only then that it will be able to be effective and bring citizens measurable benefits. I am also pleased to see that the report calls for future monitoring of these identified concerns and problems on the part of citizens and businesses in the internal market, with a view to updating them. It is consequently citizens who remain the centre of attention for the EU, and I am pleased that in this report we are once again giving expression to that.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. Completed in 1992, the single market was born with the objective of strengthening the ties between citizens and Member States, and is characterised as an area without internal borders where people, goods, services and capital can move freely. The single market is an essential element for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and its goals of sustainable, smart and inclusive growth. In this respect, revitalising and strengthening the efficiency of the single market, consisting of over 500 million consumers and economic activities in excess of EUR 11 billion, is essential to enable Europe to achieve economic growth and employment, as well as to win the confidence of its citizens. In the year in which we celebrate its 20th birthday, it is sad to see that there is still a gap between expectations and reality regarding the single market. In other words, European citizens and businesses continue to be obstructed in exercising their rights under the single market.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) During the plenary I supported the report by Ms Bastos, which was adopted by a large majority. I applaud this. As we celebrate 20 years of the single market, the Bastos report has helped to highlight the numerous failings of the internal market. Specifically, it reminds us of the need to remove obstacles to the smooth functioning of the internal market, such as the lack of information for consumers and businesses, difficulties with the application of legislation, and the problem with the legislative vacuum. Nevertheless, despite these continuing shortcomings, the Bastos report commends the Commission’s proactive attitude in numerous areas, particularly the recognition of professional qualifications, the reform of public procurement contracts, and even the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for consumers.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. − (LV) In order to overcome the current crisis, it is essential to abolish obstacles in the single market. This could contribute to stronger economic growth, but would not require additional resources for the establishment of rescue and growth funds. It would thus contribute to innovation, growth, the promotion of competitiveness, job creation and increased market confidence. However, European citizens still encounter a range of impediments and discriminatory demands in the single market. Examples are difficulties in opening bank accounts and an inability, in practice, to change their energy supplier, because of a lack of clear and comparable information. Changing internet service provider is still in many cases complicated and expensive, and the digital market is not currently a reality in the European Union. Many more items could be added to this list. What is most important now, however, is to give a fresh impetus to the development of the single market. I therefore support the rapporteur’s recommendations in relation to governance, information, the transposition of legislation and progress on specific legislation.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − Since 1992, the single market has been strengthening the ties between citizens and Member States. Its essence is the embodiment of an area without internal borders where people, goods, services and capital can move freely. Many citizens of the EU, including many citizens of Poland, have benefited from these freedoms. Unfortunately, many individuals feel that there is a lack of information, and frequently people do not know – or do not sufficiently understand – their rights. They do not know how to obtain the required answers or assistance. This is something that the EU must try to fix. I believe that involving local and regional authorities in the process of informing citizens about their rights within the Single Market would be a good start. I completely agree that EU action is necessary and should be targeted and focused on the day-to-day problems faced by citizens. In addition, we have to review of all regulations which negatively impact SMEs, because they are the backbone of our economy.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) This year the single market celebrates its 20th birthday. This important milestone shows the importance of the single market but also demands a review of its merits and defects. The single market has undoubtedly simplified some aspects of communication, information, and access to trade and trade relations between EU citizens. However, there is still a lot to do: as explained in the report, abolishing the remaining obstacles is as necessary as it has ever been, and perhaps more so given the current context of economic crisis. I therefore support the recommendations of the Commission, which is calling among other things for measures to modernise the system for recognition of professional qualifications and to improve access to public procurement contracts.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As part of the preparations for the Single Market Act II, the Commission has produced a working document addressing the concerns of European businesses and citizens. The European Parliament’s contribution to this process is the report by Ms Bastos on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market. I note that improvements to the system of recognition of professional qualifications again ranks top of the list of concerns of European citizens, and that the European Parliament has rightly pushed hard for the increased simplification and effectiveness of these procedures, mainly through the creation of a European Professional Card.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. − (DA) I am voting in favour of the report because it points in the right direction for the full implementation of the single market. Since the Commission’s report on the 20 main concerns in 2011, it has become clear that there is a need for an initiative that is directly aimed at the concerns of European citizens and companies in connection with the single market. Much has already been done in the form of assistance for companies through the SOLVIT network, which is able to offer help if companies experience problems associated with Directives that are implemented in different ways in the different Member States. We are also helping to ensure that consumers have access to consumer complaints boards throughout Europe, in addition to electronic access via the internet. There is also more in the pipeline. Earlier this month, the Commission published the ‘Single Market Act II’, which focuses on the implementation of the Digital single market, as this is where the greatest untapped growth potential lies. There are still many areas to address before we can declare that the single market has been fully implemented; however, the foundations have long been laid, and the report on the 20 main concerns provides us with a clear vision of where improvements can be made. Therefore, this is an important report, which I have chosen to support.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. − (RO) In achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objective of sustainable and inclusive growth, we must focus all our efforts on ensuring that the single market operates as an essential factor in gaining the full confidence of citizens and also giving them a sense of belonging to the European Union project. In the context of the current technological advances, I also believe that one extremely important aspect is the consolidation of the European digital single market, in which the internet plays an essential role. In this proposal, however, there is little mention of the European digital single market, which is why I believe that in future we must speed up its uniform regulation, which will bring significant benefits for both citizens and businesses and facilitate access to new markets and opportunities for economic growth.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which among other things expresses its concern over the fraudulent employment agencies that engage in the exploitation of labour throughout the EU, thus undermining the proper functioning of the free movement of workers, and calls on the Commission and Council to draw up an action plan to address this issue, for example by closer cooperation between national labour inspectorates.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As we celebrate 20 years of the single market, we need to examine the specific concerns of European citizens and businesses in order to strengthen the single market. There are still too many obstacles that prevent them from benefiting fully from it. For example, the procedure for the recognition of professional qualifications or the portability of pensions is still too long. We must also endeavour to create a genuine digital single market.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In this time of severe crisis the EU needs to step up its efforts to eliminate barriers to the smooth functioning of the single market, in particular in sectors which can act as drivers of sustainable growth, such as cross-border business and entrepreneurial activities, service provision, mobility, access to finance and financial literacy. I voted in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Like the Commission report on which it is based, this text recognises that European citizens (which both refer to as ‘consumers’) make up the internal market. It has to be said that recent surveys by Eurobarometer leave no room for doubt. However, ironically, these two reports have another point in common: they draw no conclusions from the repudiation of the neoliberal experience. On the contrary, they call for increased competition, greater flexibility of ‘labour’ and the complete liberalisation of the energy market. This is a perfect example of the inability to listen of the liberal majority, which holds the reins of the European institutions. I voted against the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The single market is an essential element for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and its goals of sustainable, smart and inclusive growth. The new paradigm for political thinking on relaunching the single market should focus on citizens, on consumers, and on businesses, particularly SMEs. There are still too many obstacles preventing Europeans from taking full advantage of the existence of the single market, thus hindering the development of a sense of belonging to the same community. There is an urgent need to resolve these difficulties in order to allow Europeans to benefit fully from their right to freedom of movement and the advantages resulting from membership of the European Union.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted against this report as it does not reflect the real concerns of European citizens. The single market has provided benefits for large European companies, but it has also brought with it detrimental consequences for small and medium-sized enterprises, such as bankruptcy and closure. Small and medium-sized enterprises are responsible for the majority of employment in Europe, and are therefore of vital importance. I believe that the concerns set out in the report – difficulties opening a new account or using a technical service in another country – do not reflect the true reality of the vast majority of European citizens today, who have bigger problems such as unemployment, casualisation or losing rights.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The economic, financial and social crisis that has affected Europe since 2008 has had a strong impact on the single market, causing citizens to take a negative view of it while the European institutions and the Member States have become aware that the single market has not been fully exploited. This document highlights the 20 most common concerns that European Union citizens and businesses experience when travelling or working abroad. The European Commission document addresses issues such as professional qualifications, social security, tax obstacles, access to finance, on-line purchasing, pension portability, etc. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The liberalisation of the capital market envisaged by the Treaty of Maastricht under the motto of market self-regulation has brought about the current bank/euro/economic crisis. Still the EU does not realise that its strength lies in the variety of its different economic cultures existing side by side. Despite this, we are hell-bent on centralisation and standardisation – the so-called harmonisation. It may prove dangerous to see one of the contributing causes of the current crisis as a way out of it. Even if some parts of the EU single market are thoroughly to be welcomed, for the above reasons I cannot vote for the report as a whole.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution which is a good interpretation of citizens’ concerns: the European internal market is a single area that consists of economic activities in excess of EUR 11 billion, where goods can circulate freely. In the 20 years since it was completed – in 1992 – the internal market has guaranteed competitiveness for businesses and benefits for consumers, who are nevertheless expressing 20 major concerns about it now. Above all there is a gap between expectations and reality with regard to the single market. This gap is due to a number of interconnected shortcomings such as a lack of information (people frequently do not know their rights), gaps in application (in many areas there is a gulf between the EU legal framework and the ways in which legislation is applied in practice), and a legislative vacuum (in certain areas the EU legal framework does not meet the expectations of citizens and businesses).

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This is the 20th year since the single market came into being, creating an area without borders within which people, goods, services and capital can circulate freely. The benefits, economic and social, are obvious. However, in the light of experience and the economic crisis, it can be seen that there are weaknesses. This own-initiative report presents an overall picture of the practical obstacles (information, implementation, legislative gaps). The single market needs to be a modern market, and on this assumption, this report, which I voted for, emphasises the need to create a digital single market that functions correctly and safely for consumers and businesses. It is also obvious that better shared governance is an essential condition for creating it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I am voting in favour, welcoming the work my colleague Regina Bastos has done on this dossier, in which she outlines the European Parliament’s position on the Commission working document ‘The Single Market through the lens of the people: A snapshot of citizens’ and businesses’ 20 main concerns’.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Completed in 1992, the single market was born with the objective of strengthening the ties between citizens and Member States, and is characterised as an area without internal borders where people, goods, services and capital can move freely. The single market is essential for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and its goals of sustainable, smart and inclusive growth. However, the economic, financial and social crisis that has affected Europe since 2008 has had a strong impact on the single market, causing citizens to take a negative view of it while the European institutions and the Member States have become aware that the single market has not been fully exploited. With the objective of relaunching the single market and increasing citizens’ confidence in this market, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I congratulate Ms Bastos on the work she has done. In view of Professor Mario Monti’s report to the Commission on the relaunch of the single market, I call on the Commission to present ‘concrete actions and feasible proposals’ to tackle the 20 main concerns of citizens and businesses. In particular, Parliament underlines both the fact that 30 million European citizens are being prevented from opening a bank account by the banks themselves, thus impeding mobility within the single market, and the fact that the introduction of a European Professional Card is essential to speed up the recognition of professional qualifications, and therefore facilitate the mobility of workers between Member States. Finally, there is also a need for the Commission, the Member States, regional and local authorities, and civil society representatives to launch regular European information and dialogue campaigns with citizens on the single market.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This year, as we celebrate 20 years of the single market, it has to be acknowledged that citizens and businesses are still not reaping the full benefits of it. They face three types of obstacle: a lack of information on existing rules, gaps in the transposition of European legislation into national law, and an absence of legislation. With this resolution, we urge the Commission to take certain measures to overcome these obstacles. At a time when Europe is suffering from both an economic and a legitimacy crisis, it seems more critical than ever to ensure that citizens and businesses make the most of what the single market has to offer. In the run-up to this text, I specifically stressed the importance of overcoming the lack of information for citizens on their rights within the EU. I was therefore particularly pleased that the text adopted reminds the Commission and the Member States of the need to raise the profile of the ‘Europe Direct’ service among citizens. I was also glad to see that it mentions the need for information campaigns that address citizens’ concerns, since this aspect seems crucial to me.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The report recognises that many citizens encounter difficulties regarding the achievement of the Single Market and its consequences and calls for concrete actions to resolve '20 main concerns'. It emphasises in particular the need to make progress regarding the following aspects: the mobility of qualified labour makes it necessary to progress towards a modern framework for recognising professional qualifications; Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution schemes are needed in particular to reinforce citizens' confidence in the digital market; the choice of energy suppliers by consumers must be enhanced; and the lack of information for citizens and businesses and among public authorities must be addressed by instruments such as the 'Your Europe' portal and the Internal Market Information System and through a better involvement of local and regional authorities. Particularly important for our group was that the report keep a good balance between the focus on the concerns of citizens and of businesses: regarding citizens' concerns, we paid particular attention to the recognition of professional qualifications and the access of young people to labour, and regarding businesses' concerns, we emphasised particularly the place of SMEs.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) There are still too many obstacles preventing Europeans from taking full advantage of the single market, in a year when we are celebrating its 20th anniversary. This is the conclusion reached by the European Commission in its working document identifying the 20 main concerns of citizens and businesses on the functioning of the single market. I agree completely with the analysis presented in the resolution adopted today, namely that these concerns are due to three gaps: the first relating to information, the second relating to application and the third to the legal vacuum. I welcome the proposal that invites Member States to set up a one-stop shop for all mobile people in the EU, enabling them to handle their work- and home-related administrative matters and to be informed about their rights and obligations at a single location in the host country. Not only does it facilitate the day-to-day lives of expatriate citizens, but it also encourages the mobility of all citizens and the exchange of best practice between all national administrations. To my mind, this type of initiative fosters a genuine connection between all Europeans.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) The single market, which was completed in 1992, was created to strengthen the ties between Member States. The economic, financial and social crisis which has afflicted Europe since 2008 has had significant repercussions on the single market. I voted for Ms Bastos’s report because it provides the European Commission and the Member States with guidelines/recommendations for overcoming the gaps identified in the operation of the single market, and thus contributes towards an upturn in the European economy.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I hardly need to say that the single market has certainly benefited citizens and businesses. For this reason I voted in favour. The problem, however, is that, unlike our competitors such as the US, the trade policy pursued by the European Commission with third countries does not put us in a position to protect our interests. Similarly, the single market cannot be invoked as the solution to every problem in Europe. Often it is actually poorly conceived directives, like the Services Directive, that give our workers and businesses enormous problems. Bring on the single market, but let it not be an instrument designed solely around the needs of multinationals.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European single market, set up in order to facilitate the free movement of people, goods, services and capital, is now considered a favoured instrument for overcoming the economic and financial crisis. Furthermore, the European single market is a key element in realising the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. This is despite a significant lack of information available to European citizens about the single market, making it almost impossible to surmount the obstacles to accessing the benefits it brings. I believe we need to change our approach to the existing system, to prioritise practical solutions that enable citizens to view the EU’s projects and activities with greater familiarity. Relaunching the single market should be our priority in order to utilise fully its potential and win back the confidence of citizens and businesses. For these reasons I voted in favour.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text and would like to emphasise in particular the urgent need for the Commission to carry out, with the Member States and regional and local authorities, periodic information campaigns in the national, regional and local media to strengthen the dialogue with citizens on the advantages of the single market. In addition, I strongly support the calls for the Commission to develop, jointly with the Member States, a competitive digital single market benefiting European consumers and able to deliver socio-economic advantages for all European consumers. Finally, I would like to stress the urgent need for the Commission and Member States to see to it that legislation on passengers’ rights is correctly implemented and that European citizens are aware of their rights, as well as the means at their disposal to enforce them.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The single market came into being with the objective of strengthening ties between citizens and Member States, and is characterised as an area without internal borders where people, goods, services and capital can move freely. The single market is an essential element for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, much remains to be done to make it more effective. It is therefore important in the year we celebrate its 20th anniversary that we highlight the main concerns of European citizens and business as regards its functioning. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the report in the European Parliament.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on the 20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single Market as it is an essential element for achieving the objectives of sustainable growth, job creation and social inclusion.

Freedom of movement is a fundamental right which workers must be able to exercise without discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment. I am in favour of supporting the EURES system and its effective interconnectedness with national work placement systems, as one of the means of combating unemployment in the EU. In addition, in order for a genuine European digital single market to be created, consumer confidence and security need to be increased, by guaranteeing the protection of consumers’ personal data and the security of digital signatures, improving dispute resolution mechanisms, and enhancing confidence and security regarding the means of payment used.

The Commission, together with the Member States, regional and local authorities and civil society representatives, must launch regular European information campaigns, strengthening the dialogue with citizens on the benefits of the single market and citizens’ rights and responsibilities.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The report talks about the ‘almost’ complete single market, which was created in 1992 with the aim of creating closer ties between citizens and the Member States – an area without borders, in which people, goods and capital could move freely. The single market is an essential tool for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and for sustainable, intelligent and inclusive growth. However, on the 20th anniversary of the single market there are, unfortunately, still gaps between expectations and reality (awareness of rights); a lack of information (citizens do not know or do not sufficiently understand their rights and do not know how to obtain the required answers or assistance); a lack of application of the law (gulf between the EU legal framework and the way it is applied); and a legal vacuum (in some areas the EU legal framework, not citizens, makes the rules). There are several recommendations for addressing these shortcomings, putting the emphasis on citizens.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Pursuing the subject matter of the above task further, it is pleasing to see that the number of committees giving opinions has elevated this task to a special level. Each of them has made an in-depth analysis of the threats that may accompany the appearance of a restored single market. This subject is so broad that it is not easy to pick out any one thread to emphasise. The very wide range of issues, starting with vehicle registration and ending with the needs of the disabled, demonstrates the need for continuous updating of acts and regulations. Citizens’ concerns have been raised by three loopholes relating to the functioning of the single market, namely: lack of information, loopholes to do with application and legal loopholes. Sharing these concerns, I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The single market was born with the objective of strengthening the ties between citizens and Member States by creating an area without internal borders where people, goods, services and capital can move freely. In the year in which we are celebrating its 20th anniversary, it is sad to see that there is still a gap between expectations and reality: businesses and citizens continue to be obstructed in exercising their rights, and the economic and social crisis that has affected Europe since 2008 has certainly not made things any easier. This is why it has been necessary to draw up proposals for modernising the recognition of professional qualifications and access to public procurement contracts in order to relaunch the idea of a ‘single market’ and increase the trust of European citizens.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The main aim of creating a single European market was meant to be the establishment of closer bonds between citizens and Member States of the EU through the functioning of a borderless space for the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. Today, after 20 years with a functioning single market, besides the many significant benefits that have arisen from it, we can see that there are some discrepancies in the treatment of citizens and businesses, which to some extent rightly serves as a cause for their many concerns. This chiefly concerns the implementation of rights in the area of occupational qualifications, transfer of pension and social security rights and obstacles of a fiscal nature. We should give recognition to the European Commission’s actions hitherto raised to stimulate economic growth and strengthen trust in and the competitiveness of the single market. There is, however, still much to be done, especially where adapting the EU’s legal framework to existing economic and social conditions and the expectations of citizens and businesses is concerned, as well as full harmonisation of EU law with the law of Member States or the need to provide citizens with more complete information on the rights which are their due. To this end we need to strengthen cooperation between Parliament, the Council, the Commission and Member States. This would appear to be the only way to make it possible, under the conditions of economic, financial and social crisis that are prevailing in Europe, to surmount the obstacles standing in the way of innovation, economic growth, promotion of competitiveness and creation of new jobs, as well as creating trust in the single market among Europe’s citizens.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Whilst we celebrate 20 years of the single market, this report criticises the obstacles hindering the ‘smooth functioning’ of the single market, referring to the need to eliminate these obstacles and highlighting the fact that the Member States need to promote, develop and improve the application of legislation on the single market. Moreover, it also advocates the completion of the internal energy market and a competitive digital single market, the liberalisation of public procurement and the rail sector, implementation of the cross-border healthcare directive, and coordinating education systems with the needs of the labour market. For the more economically vulnerable countries, the internal market, that is to say, policies of liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation of the economy, has meant that their productive capacity has been destroyed, their exports have declined, and their imports in sectors like energy and food have risen, leaving them extremely dependent on other countries, as is the case with Portugal. This commemoration is therefore against the interests of the peoples and workers of Europe.

- Report: Sharon Bowles (A7-0348/2012)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This appointment has crystallised the issues of gender parity within the European Union, particularly with regard to the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB), which currently has no female members. This is why the European Parliament advised the Council of Ministers of the European Union to reject the appointment of Yves Mersch as a Member of the Executive Board of the ECB. Despite being an ardent supporter of gender parity, I have decided to vote in favour of his appointment as I believe the ECB must be fully operational, particularly in view of the current economic crisis.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report delivers a negative opinion on the Council recommendation to appoint Yves Mersch as a Member of the Executive Board of the ECB and asks the Council to withdraw its recommendation and submit a new proposal. The justification for this stance is based on the premise that this appointment does not respect the gender balance in the ECB, jeopardising gender equality and diversity on this body’s Executive Board, the composition of which cannot be changed until 2018. Taking into account the stance adopted in this report, I am voting against it, given that there is broad consensus as to the fact that the candidate possesses recognised competence, in addition to the qualifications and professional experience in the monetary and banking domains necessary to be a member of the ECB’s Executive Board. This being the case, and taking into consideration the nominee’s quality, he is the best choice for the position in question and should not be ruled out for gender equality reasons.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Gender parity is not an optional extra that we can choose to have or not, as we see fit. No, it is a question of civilisation. The European Union has always been at the forefront of this issue. The unaccountable reluctance and prevarication of the Council and members of the European Central Bank are therefore simply appalling. Promoting women to positions of responsibility is a question of external credibility, not to mention being an internal issue. The lack of diversity in these roles largely explains why the elite, particularly in the financial sector, are out of touch with reality. It is time we learned from the lessons of the past. With this vote, carried by a narrow majority, the European Parliament has shown that it was right to send such a firm message to the Council. We now expect action to be taken.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted against the appointment of Mr Mersch, not because his skills are not sufficient but because not even one woman has been nominated for the post. In the 21st century we should have equal opportunities and not waste the opportunity to have at least one woman on the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, as we have done so far.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. I backed the appointment of Yves Mersch, who was a highly qualified candidate for the role; however, I understand the debate triggered by this report in view of the desire for parity of the nominations. However, it seems a real shame to have sacrificed Yves Mersch when the procedure would have been much simpler if the recruitment process had been exemplary and the ECB had put forward female candidates who were just as highly qualified.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the appointment of Yves Mersch to the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. Although I understand the arguments on gender non-discrimination which were put forward within both my political group and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to motivate a rejection of his candidacy, I decided to vote against this line. Mr Mersch’s professional experience recommends him for this post. I agree that we must bring about gender balance in all institutional management bodies, but these decisions are taken at another level. To penalise Mr Mersch on the basis of gender criteria may itself lead to discrimination.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) What a crying shame that the European Parliament has rejected in plenary a candidate for the European Central Bank’s Executive Board of such quality and with such a CV solely for gender equality reasons!

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The message is clear: as MEPs, we would like the Executive Board of the ECB to have at least one female member. It is not Mr Mersch’s expertise we are questioning by voting against his appointment. Simply, it is inconceivable that in 2012 we should be taking such a backward step. The European Union – and the European Parliament in particular – has always been particularly active in advocating women’s rights, gender equality and the utmost respect for parity in our public institutions and companies. We cannot preach this to others and yet fail to apply it ourselves. The European Council can no longer ignore the will of the European people. As their representatives, we ask it to nominate a female candidate without further delay.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union must lead the way in gender parity, in real terms and not just hypothetically. This objective must be implemented within the EU, even while it strongly advocates that third countries follow suit. The principle of parity must effectively be applied within European decision-making bodies, and therefore on the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. The EU cannot act as an ardent campaigner for equal opportunities without guaranteeing access for women to management positions, otherwise what legitimacy will it have when it champions women’s rights inside and outside the EU?

  Nirj Deva (ECR), in writing. − I believe that Mr Yves Mersch is an excellent candidate, more than qualified to serve on the board of the ECB. In particular I have been deeply impressed with Mr Mersch’s foresight on the current economic crisis and his recognition that our economic recovery demands continued commitment to austerity measures combined with further structural reforms of the eurozone economies. I am also of the belief that his doubts concerning the efficacy of a financial transaction tax are well considered and strongly agree that such a tax would simply serve to deliver added pressure to banks and financial institutions trying to improve their capital position. However, I do have some reservations concerning the selection procedure that resulted in no female candidates and recognise that if Mr Mersch is appointed the ECB board will be all male up until 2018. This is no reflection on Mr Mersch himself, who I believe to be more than qualified for this position.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) At a time when the European Central Bank is being called upon to play a particularly attentive and interventionist role in monitoring the sovereign debt crisis, the stability of the euro and the economic recovery, I can but consider it symptomatic that this Parliament prefers to focus this debate on gender issues.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) By letter of 13 July 2012, received on 18 July 2012, the European Council consulted Parliament on the appointment of Yves Mersch as a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) for a term of office of eight years. Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee; it subsequently held a hearing with the nominee at which he made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the committee. From the creation of the ECB, until the departure of Ms Tumpel-Gugerell, there had always been a female member of the Executive Board of the ECB. By letter of 19 September, the President of the European Parliament, following a meeting of the Conference of Presidents, requested that the President of the European Council make a commitment to ensure that all of the Union’s institutions under his responsibility should implement concrete measures to ensure gender balance. Ultimately, Parliament did not agree to the Council recommendation to appoint Yves Mersch as a Member of the Executive Board of the ECB and requests that the recommendation be withdrawn and that a new one be submitted to Parliament.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Of 754 MEPs, 325 voted against Mr Mersch’s appointment to the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, while 300 MEPs voted for him. Since only 674 MEPs took part in the vote, there was no qualified majority against Yves Mersch. Therefore, the parliamentary vote carries even less weight, since, according to the Treaty, Parliament may only issue an opinion. The ECB is the central bank of the euro area, which is made up of 17 countries represented in Parliament by 481 MEPs, while 273 MEPs are from countries that are not part of the euro area. These MEPs also took part in the vote, which actually concerns only the euro area. Many of these 273 MEPs are anti-European and voted against Mr Mersch, the scapegoat not only for pseudo-feminists, but also for the enemies of Europe and of the euro in particular. Faced with a unanimous proposal from finance ministers and a positive opinion from the Governing Council of the ECB, the opinion of the European Parliament carries little weight. The European Council must carry on regardless and appoint Mr Mersch without further ado to the ECB Executive Board, which has had a vacant seat since last May.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It should have been possible to reconcile the appointment of Yves Mersch with respect for the principle of non-discrimination against women. If this did not happen, it was because of the disappointing attitude of the President of the European Council in his two statements of position in connection with this affair. We had a right to expect a degree of pragmatism from him. I would like to refer to my proposal of 13 September 2012, published in Le Jeudi, calling on the relevant authorities to look beyond the six members of the Executive Board of the ECB and consider the economic, financial and monetary aspect of the EU as a whole. There was a real prospect of a high-level solution: the European Council needed only to agree to prioritise the appointment of women to senior posts in the near future. With this compromise, no one would have lost face, and the provisions of the Treaty on non-discrimination would have been upheld.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Ms Bowles was rejected by 325 votes to 300, with 49 abstentions. For the first time, the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank – namely Yves Mersch, a Luxembourg national – was rejected by the European Parliament. The reason for this rejection was to denounce the absence of women on the Executive Board. In addition, the lack of diversity and representativeness within the European Central Bank was also highlighted.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has failed to ratify – in an advisory capacity – the appointment of Yves Mersch to the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. My fellow members voted against this in the interests of gender parity and the promotion of women to high-level posts. Personally I voted in favour of Mr Mersch’s appointment, because I believe that expertise must come first. Naturally I am in favour of gender parity, but a person’s gender should not be an overriding factor in the selection process. The refusal to appoint Mr Mersch based purely on the fact that he is a man creates a precedent that runs counter to what we are trying to promote. Ability alone should count. It seems to me that, with this vote, MEPs have deprived the European Central Bank of a highly talented individual.

  Svetoslav Hristov Malinov (PPE), in writing. − (BG) After the vote which led to the rejection of the candidature of Yves Mersch as a Member of the ECB Board, the left of the Chamber burst into applause. Many MEPs, including myself, were unprepared for this ‘offensive’. I was very surprised that a candidate with an impeccable reputation and undisputed professional qualities could be rejected on the last stretch before the finish line, and in this very Chamber. There was only one objection against him: that he was male. I cannot believe it! At the height of the debt crisis in the euro area, this Chamber has become a place for exercises in gender politics. I find this demeaning and irresponsible. We can, however, also detect some unspoken motives: Mr Mersch has conservative fiscal views, is against the taxation of financial transactions, and is Governor of the central bank of the small country of Luxembourg. Well, how can one not reject him! To top it all, he is male! I myself have advocated a number of measures to reduce the gender imbalance in the European institutions. I never imagined that their underlying principles could be applied in such a grotesque manner. Without expressing any solidarity with my fellow Members on the left of this Chamber, I sincerely hope that, even if it is done over the head of Parliament, today’s injustice will be corrected.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I found this a difficult report because on the one hand I favour the appointment of women to the Executive Board of the European Central Bank but on the other am very critical that Parliament only found its voice against the appointment of a man when the nominee was from a very small country.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the appointment of Yves Mersch to the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. The issue of parity on the Executive Board is a real cause for concern, and one that the Council cannot simply ignore, although Mr Mersch is a competent candidate. In this time of crisis we need the central bank, and we simply cannot block the appointment of a new member to its Executive Board.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I object to the current statutes of the European Central Bank. This in itself is reason enough to oppose the appointment of any new member to its Executive Board, unless that member is in favour of amending them. The fact that the Executive Board is proposing to appoint a man to replace its only female member is yet another reason to oppose it. Gender parity must be the rule even in European institutions. However, the problem with Yves Mersch is that, not only is he a man and unwilling to amend the statutes of the ECB, but he is also a militant neoliberal. I voted against this appointment.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European institutions have to be served by the best. In the case under review, the nominee Yves Mersch boasts an unblemished CV and was approved with distinction at the hearing in the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. However, his nomination has been rejected by the European Parliament for gender reasons. In spite of the tradition of always having a woman on the European Central Bank’s Executive Board, I find it regrettable that this nomination has not been accepted because he is not a woman. We can be sure that we will have a future opportunity to respond to the fact that there has always been a female representative on the ECB’s Executive Board.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Although the S&D Group decided to vote against the appointment of Yves Mersch I voted in favour because the gender of an official cannot be considered as a main condition for taking up a post.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted against the appointment of this new Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. I have no quarrel with Mr Mersch’s skills and qualifications, but I continue to find the way in which these representatives are chosen very puzzling. The European Parliament, the only institution democratically elected by EU citizens, is in the position of simply having to approve or reject an appointment that descends from the Council on high. Instead, I think we should have a wider choice, perhaps even a shortlist of names, from which to choose. There have also been criticisms of this appointment on the grounds that it would mean there were no women on the ECB’s Executive Board. I am not a supporter of quotas for women because I think they are counterproductive and can also be humiliating for very capable women. However, while not wishing to get into any feminist battles, whether tokenistic or not, it is a fact that a gender imbalance like this is out of step with the times.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I did not support the appointment of Yves Mersch because all the current Members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank are male. The Members of the Executive Board of the ECB are appointed for a period of eight years and the term of office of the next Board Member expires only five years from now. I consistently support equality and I am convinced that improving gender equality in the Executive Board of the ECB would contribute to better decisions being made to overcome the financial crisis.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report gives a negative opinion on the Council recommendation to appoint Yves Mersch as a Member of the Executive Board of the ECB and asks the Council to withdraw its recommendation and submit a new proposal. The justification for this stance is based on the premise that this appointment does not respect the gender balance in the ECB, jeopardising gender equality and diversity on this body’s Executive Board, the composition of which cannot be changed until 2018. Taking into account the stance adopted in this report, I am voting against it, given that there is broad consensus as to the fact that the candidate possesses recognised competence, in addition to the qualifications and professional experience in the monetary and banking domains necessary to be a member of the ECB’s Executive Board. This being the case, and taking into consideration the nominee’s quality, which makes him the best choice for the position in question, he should not be sacrificed and ruled out for supposedly gender equality reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Whereas, by letter of 13 July 2012, received on 18 July 2012, the European Council consulted Parliament on the appointment of Yves Mersch as a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) for a term of office of eight years, and whereas Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in the light of the need for full independence of the ECB in the area of monetary policy pursuant to Article 130 TFEU, and whereas in carrying out this evaluation, the committee received a curriculum vitae from the candidate as well as his replies to the written questionnaire that had been sent to him, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) Against. Today Parliament took a clear stand against the exclusion of women from decision-making bodies in the euro area. Although not binding, this vote sends out a clear political signal about the legitimate concerns that governments in European countries cannot ignore. No women have been a member of the Executive Board of the ECB since 2011, a situation made worse by the absence of female governors within the euro area’s central banks. The lack of representation of women in the highest decision-making bodies during the current euro crisis is a woeful state of affairs and confirms the impression of an ‘old boys’ network’. Unfortunately, and despite assurances from the President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, that both male and female candidates would be considered to replace Mr González-Páramo, no female candidate was selected. Yet there is no shortage of qualified candidates: the appointment by the Greens of Karoline Linnert (Bremen) and Monika Heinold (Schleswig-Holstein) as finance ministers in two regions of Germany shows that gender diversity is predominantly a question of political will. The failure to consider any female candidates, despite these assurances, has left MEPs with no alternative.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted against this proposal and I am pleased that there was a majority of MEPs who shared my position. The relevant committee for this matter asked the Council to present a female candidate and, having been ignored, reacted negatively to the recommendation to appoint Yves Mersch as a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB). I do not have sufficient information to say whether Mr Mersch deserves this post or not, but I cannot fail to take into consideration the fact that appointing a man would mean that there would be no women on the ECB’s Executive Board until 2018. I am also very sceptical of the procedure used. It is degrading for Parliament merely to have to ratify decisions made elsewhere.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Despite the proven expertise of Yves Mersch, I voted against his appointment as a member of the Executive Board of the ECB. Had he been appointed, the 23 members of the Governing Council would have effectively excluded women until 2018. It is a shame that the Council did not consider this, since numerous other candidates would have been equally qualified for the role. It is not the man himself I object to, nor his ideas or nationality, but a lack of consistency among Council members who on the one hand advocate gender parity, and on the other show a blatant disregard for this principle in their choice of candidate. This sends out a disastrous political message for all those – of either gender – who campaign for the increased representation of women in senior management. I trust the Council will never present us with this type of dilemma again, so that our candidate is never again the unwitting accomplice of old-fashioned sexism.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted against this report because I believe it to be wrong to rule out a candidate who has proved both his academic and professional competence to fulfil the duties of a member of the ECB’s Executive Board. At this time of economic crisis that is ravaging Europe, it is essential that the ECB’s Executive Board have a competent team that can respond to the role that the current crisis demands of this institution.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Taking all aspects of the matter into consideration, as well as the views of the Commission, I decided to remain neutral in this vote. Looking at the candidate’s qualifications, one cannot doubt that he meets the requirements to be a member of the ECB board. However, taking on board the views of the Commission, which stresses the importance of promoting gender diversity in management bodies, and remembering the Council conclusions on the European Pact for gender equality for the period 2011-2020, I decided as stated above.

- Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0243/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of this report, which adopts the Commission proposal amending the basic Antidumping Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by simplified procedure, i.e. without amendments. The Regulation urgently needed to be adapted to reflect the European Court of Justice’s decision in its recent judgment in the Brosmann Case. However, in order to guarantee legal certainty and in line with the Council’s position and in agreement with the Commission, the Committee on International Trade tabled an amendment to ensure that investigations of dumping practices take place within a defined time period, or in other words ‘normally within seven months, but not later than eight months after the initiation of the investigation’. I therefore agree with the provisions of this report and am voting in favour of the suggested measures.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This text, adopted by the European Parliament by a large majority, and which I too supported, seeks to strengthen the powers of the European Union in view of the dumping practices of certain countries with which we trade. By enforcing a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, this decision will enable us to improve the sampling procedure during audits of trading practices and the related products.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report, which aims to change the regulations on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, having taken into consideration the ruling by the Court of Justice on duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the anti-dumping right is a particularly important one. I believe that the decision to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of producers by using samples needs to be clarified. At the same time, there is a need for clarification with regard to the anti-dumping duty applied to imports originating from producers who have not been included in the investigation. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the desired changes must be put into effect as soon as possible and must apply to all categories of investigations, both new and current. In addition, I believe that the three-month time limit for determination cannot be used in many anti-dumping procedures. For that reason, I too support its elimination. Amending the regulation has an important role to play in ensuring legal certainty.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the report on protection against dumped imports from countries that are not members of the European Union, supporting the Commission’s proposal but asking it to consult Parliament again if it proposes to substantially amend or replace its proposal, taking into account Parliament’s capacity as co-legislator.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While I sincerely oppose dumping imports to or from third countries and believe it is an issue the international community should be compelled to tackle, I cannot sanction the extension of powers to the European Commission.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with bolstering the EU’s defences against dumped imports.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because I believe, in the interest of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration, it is necessary to provide that these amendments should apply as soon as possible to all new and pending investigations. It is therefore appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, particularly as regards the three-month time limit allowed by the Commission to make a determination on claims of market economy conditions. I therefore hope for a reduction in the use of anti-dumping, let alone the zero and de minimis margins. It is for these reasons that the Committee on International Trade adopted the draft resolution in simplified procedure. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Moreira on the work he has done in examining the draft regulation so carefully.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this Recommendation as I believe that the agreement will allow for mutual protection of Geographical Indications (GI) of agricultural products and foodstuffs for both parties, as well as helping bring the legislation of countries neighbouring the EU closer. I endorse the rapporteur’s position that the EU’s interests are well safeguarded by this agreement. Moreover, I underscore the fact that this agreement stimulates stronger EU/Moldova trade relations. Moldova is, after Ukraine, the EU’s next partner to the east to sign a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU in the context of an Association Agreement with the EU.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which strengthens protection of the European economy against social and economic dumping by some EU partner countries. At this time of crisis, it is essential to protect Europe against all unfair competition from our economic partners. That is why we must open up our markets on a reciprocal basis so as not to put our own businesses at risk.

  Richard Falbr (S&D), in writing. - (CS) I fail to understand how it is possible that the European Union does not prevent dumped imports, which could destroy entire industries. A cautionary example of this is the gradual liquidation of the textile industry owing to cheap imports from China. I accept the existence of the World Trade Organisation and its rules, but this does not change the fact that the United States, for example, considered it appropriate to protect its steel industry. The constant repetition of slogans against protectionism is no solution.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Anti-dumping duties result from an investigation carried out by the Commission from a tip-off from one or several EU producers, where they suspect certain countries/businesses of dumping practices. When, as the result of an investigation, the Commission finds dumping exists and that it causes damage to the EU, definitive anti-dumping duties are adopted, normally for a period of five years. However, the measures can be amended or even cancelled during this period. The sampling technique for individual treatment or market economy treatment claims has been deemed inapplicable by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This decision must be taken into account and the related legislation amended accordingly. The Union’s action and the positions it takes on international trade relations should be guided by the need to protect the European economy from unfair practices that might distort competition. When doing so, this need must be kept in mind.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Union (EU) is an area where approximately 500 million consumers live, making this area a desirable market for the major economic powers, particularly the ‘BRICs’ (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Many of the products that flood European markets seek to trick their way through customs checks and avoid recognition and certification processes. The European Parliament adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 to prevent European consumers from being duped. The report under consideration debates the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. Pursuant to Article 1(2) of the aforementioned Regulation, ‘A product is to be considered as being dumped if its export price to the Community is less than a comparable price for the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, as established for the exporting country’. As I believe it is crucial that we increase legal certainty as regards defending products from the Member States against imports and taking into account the opinion of the Committee on International Trade, I am voting in favour.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report aims to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. The proposal to amend this regulation stems from a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-249/10 P – Brosmann Footwear (HK) and others v Council of the European Union, which annulled Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam. In that judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 could not be applied in that case, and concluded that the cooperating producers that were not part of the sample were entitled to have their market economy treatment claim examined, regardless of whether an individual dumping margin needed to be calculated for those companies not included in the sample. In the Commission’s understanding, this decision would engender a disproportionate administrative burden for those responsible for the investigation. It therefore deemed it necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, particularly as regards the three-month time limit. We are not facing the introduction (at this point) of any anti-dumping duties. Instead, it is an attempt to change the form, that is to say, the procedural part of application of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) In case C-249/10 P European Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community may not be applied for the purposes of determination of claims of individual market economy treatment made under Article 2(7)(c). The ruling by the European Court of Justice would require that the Commission examine all applications for market economy treatment filed by cooperating producers who are not part of the sample, irrespective of whether the number of cooperating producers is high. However, such a practice would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on the investigating authorities of the Union. For that reason, it is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. In the interest of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration, it is necessary to provide that these amendments should apply as soon as possible to all new and pending investigations.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. − (PL) Having analysed the ‘Brosmann’ case against the Council, in which, on 2 February 2012, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a sentence establishing a precedent, the Committee on International Trade has taken the right decision to accept the Commission’s proposal altering the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. This was a matter of urgency, because following the ECJ’s ruling this regulation had ceased to be valid as regards its use for the purposes of the determination of claims of individual market economy treatment made under Article 2(7)(c). The ECJ’s verdict proved that there is a need to introduce a provision clarifying that the decision to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of producers by using samples on the basis of Article 17 of the regulation also applies to the parties subject to a market economy treatment examination, in accordance with Article 3(7)(b) and (c). I also agree with the position taken by the Committee on International Trade that there is a need to introduce legal certainty and to unify the regulation with the Court’s guidelines, and also to add an amendment stipulating the time for investigation in dumping cases, which must be more realistic. I therefore support the proposal to introduce a seven-month investigation period with the potential for it to be extended by a further month in important documented instances.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the Moneira report in plenary, which was adopted by a large majority: 625 votes to 13, with no abstentions. I welcome that. The purpose of that report was to clarify the sampling technique for examining claims of market economy treatment. That report was adopted by the Committee on International Trade under the simplified procedure.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted for the amendment to the regulation, since it is essential to secure legal certainty for enterprises. The large vote in favour by Parliament shows how important this issue is – the amendment was passed by 652 votes to 13.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − On 2 February 2012, the European Court of Justice in case C-249/10 P - Brosmann and others v. Council annulled Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear originating in China and Vietnam. In its judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 may not be applied for the purposes of determining claims of individual market economy treatment made under Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation. It should also be noted that the use of the sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Regulation 1225/2009 for the purposes of determining claims of market economy treatment to be made under Article 2(7)(c) is not in breach of the Union’s obligations under World Trade Organisation rules. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to introduce a provision clarifying that the decision to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of producers, by using samples on the basis of Article 17 of Regulation 1225/2009, also applies to the parties subject to a market economy treatment examination, in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) and (c).

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report enables us to adapt European legislation to the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-249/10 – Brosmann and others v. Council. It is a matter of making it clear that the decision to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of producers by using samples on the basis of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 also applies to the parties subject to examination to determine claims of market economy treatment.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on measures against dumping by third-country companies could have been the chance for Parliament to revisit the list of criteria taken into account when measuring such dumping. The practice of artificially low wages compared to wealth generated and to European wages (wage dumping), the existence of tax exemptions or reduced taxes for companies (tax dumping) and the danger to the ecosystem (environmental dumping) are all criteria that should have been used to determine whether or not dumping is taking place. Instead, the Committee on International Trade contented itself with approving the Commission’s proposal that it could judge, more arbitrarily and without having to respect deadlines, which undertaking merited ‘market economy treatment’. Is the Commission the only judge of the market? Who judges the Commission, then? The market? I vote against this inept text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Combating all types of dumping should always be at the forefront of the European Parliament’s concerns. At a time of crisis like the one we are experiencing, we have to protect our industry and agriculture. We all know that there are countries that do not respect the most basic environmental, social and human rules, and then offer their products at prices that cannot be beaten by EU producers. We therefore have to do our utmost to limit these types of practices as far as possible.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that goods produced in the EU should be protected from unfair competition. The argument used by the European Court of Justice and mentioned in the report maintained that it was impossible to conduct adequate anti-dumping proceedings due to the short three-month period imposed by the legislation. I therefore think it is positive that this report is now seeking to amend that legislation so that anti-dumping proceedings may be conducted effectively by the authorities. The protection of European industry was my reason for voting in favour of this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It was urgent that the regulation be brought into conformity with the decision by the European Court in its recent ruling in the Brossman case. Nonetheless, in order to ensure legal certainty and in line with the Council’s position and in agreement with the Commission, the Committee on International Trade will table an amendment to ensure that the investigation for dumped goods takes place in a defined timeframe, normally within seven months but not later than eight months of the initiation of the investigation. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Protection against dumped imports is an important tool for protecting the EU domestic market. For that reason it should work as efficiently as possible and correspond to the fundamental provisions of EU law. I agree that the acts that regulate this protection should be updated based on comments made by the Court of Justice.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report in the interest of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration, as it is necessary for these amendments to apply as soon as possible to all new and pending investigations in possible dumping cases.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Whereas on 2 February 2012, the European Court of Justice, in case C-249/10 P - Brosmann and others v Council annulled Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, and ruled that the sampling technique laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 may not be applied for the purposes of the determination of claims of individual market economy treatment, it is considered appropriate to introduce a provision clarifying that the decision to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of producers by using samples on the basis of Article 17 of the aforementioned Regulation also applies to the parties subject to a market economy treatment examination. In the hope that these amendments will apply as soon as possible to all new and pending investigations, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The INTA Chair Mr Moreira was very, very upset at this hiccough in the Council, and since conjugal relations between the two legislators are in no healthy shape anyway after 2.5 years of camping together on Lisbon Street, he proposed – in his inexplicable wisdom – to play hard-ball this time. Hence, no first reading agreement, we would stick to the Commission proposal, and then the Council would need to come back, and then maybe in the end there would be conciliation, if possible still in this good old seventh legislative term. But the Greens looked down on Lisbon Street with a pardoning smile, forgiving everyone their very unusual behaviour, at least once, notwithstanding any prerogatives of relative powers, and suggested tabling a plenary amendment that took over exactly the wording of the Council proposal.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this provision. Some European Court of Justice rulings and the strict rules imposed by the World Trade Organisation severely restrict our freedom to legislate to protect European industry and workers against counterfeit goods and goods produced without respect for social and environmental standards. For this reason I hope that the European institutions’ agenda of work on this sensitive subject will no longer be controlled by the rulings or dictates of globalisation, but by a serious trade and industrial policy.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Following the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, by the European Court of Justice, the sampling techniques laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 may not be applied for the purposes of the determination of claims of individual market economy treatment. I feel that the introduction of a limit on these investigations on the basis of Article 17 to a reasonable number of producers by using the sampling procedures laid down in Article 17, is appropriate. I welcome the proposal to simplify the procedure in the interest of the principles of legal certainty and sound administration. For these reasons I voted in favour.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the Council amending Regulation No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. Regulation No 1225/2009 needs to be amended in the interests of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 2 February 2012 on case C-249/101 P – Brosmann and others v. Council.

The Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 may not be applied for the purposes of the determination of claims of individual market economy treatment made under Article 2(7)(c). The Court found that the cooperating producers which are not part of the sample are entitled to have their claim of individual market economy treatment examined, regardless of whether an individual dumping margin was to be calculated for those companies outside the sample. The Court also underlined that the determination pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) must occur within three months of initiation of the investigation.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) I was definitely in favour of the amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports. The threat that comes from such disreputable practices may blight economic relations between countries that are working together. The setting of anti-dumping duty and the use of samples will stifle the inclinations of dishonest manufacturers. With the principle of good governance in mind, these amendments should be introduced as quickly as possible (simplified procedure).

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report aims to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. The proposal to amend this regulation stems from a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-249/10 P – Brosmann Footwear (HK) and others v Council of the European Union, which annulled Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam. In that judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 could not be applied in that case, and concluded that the cooperating producers that were not part of the sample were entitled to have their market economy treatment claim examined. We are not facing the introduction (at this point) of any anti-dumping duties. Instead, it is an attempt to change the form, that is to say the procedural part of application of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

- Motion for a resolution: EU trade negotiations with Japan (B7-0462/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I endorse this report, which stems from the proposal from the European Commission to the Member States on 18 July 2012 to start negotiations with Japan towards a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). Priority in the negotiations will be accorded to removing non-tariff barriers to trade on the Japanese market, together with access to Japan’s public procurement market. I welcome the report as it supports launching the EU-Japan FTA negotiations under a strict mandate, agreeing that the FTA must be comprehensive and ambitious and should cover goods, services, investment, intellectual property rights and public procurement, where special attention must be given to removing non-tariff barriers. There needs to be a related review clause within a year of the launch of negotiations to assess the climate of EU-Japan relations and gauge if clear results have been achieved.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this important resolution on negotiations on the EU-Japan free trade agreement. I am pleased that the European Parliament has adopted this resolution by a large majority, which shows how important it is to develop trade between Japan and the EU, the potential of which has not yet been realised to the benefit of EU businesses, workers and consumers, mainly due to the impact of Japanese non-tariff barriers on market access opportunities for European businesses. If this policy was implemented successfully, the European Union would gain about 420 000 new jobs, while European exports to Japan would rise by 30 %. This is particularly urgent in the light of high unemployment rates and poor growth projections in the EU. I agree with the rapporteur that the Japanese Government should reconfirm at the onset of formal negotiations of an EU-Japan FTA its commitments with regard to removing non-tariff barriers to trade (NTBs). It is important to ensure that if, during the negotiations, Japan does not demonstrate sufficient ambition in meeting the EU’s priority demands, the Commission should suspend negotiations after consultations with Parliament and the Council.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution because I think that, in the light of the ongoing economic crisis, for the EU it is crucial to deepen its trade relationship with a major global economy such as Japan in order to maximise jobs creation and growth potential. I believe that the Free Trade Agreement with Japan could lead to genuine market openness and trade facilitation on the ground, rather than just a hypothetical, legal openness. For this reason, with this text we ask the Commission to periodically update Parliament and the Council on the state of play of the negotiations and on the progress made on dismantling non-tariff barriers to trade on the Japanese market.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report seeks to start negotiations with a view to a possible global trade agreement between the European Union and Japan. Representing one of the most ambitious goals of EU trade strategy, it will require success in removing numerous technical obstacles and overcoming pointless differences and excessively rigid regulatory standards between these two parts of the world. While remaining highly vigilant about the negotiations to come, and without prejudging the final outcome, I have given my agreement to discussions being launched.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of launching negotiations with Japan on the free trade agreement. It is crucial for the EU to comprehensively deepen its economic and trade relationship with this country, which is one of the most economically influential in the world. This cooperation is particularly urgent in the light of the ongoing economic crisis, high unemployment rates and poor growth projections in the EU. Bilateral trading volume with Japan is dramatically lower than with other partners such as the USA, China and Russia. A free trade agreement would create favourable conditions for trade, and once non-tariff barriers are removed, EU exports to Japan could rise by about 70 %. In order to take advantage of the huge potential of the EU-Japanese commercial relationship, it is important for the Japanese Government to commit to dismantling non-tariff trade barriers. I also support the proposals for concessions on public procurement that would guarantee market access for European companies in strategic Japanese sectors. I agree that an effective dispute resolution mechanism should be established to combat the development of new non-tariff trade barriers and obstacles to market access in public procurement in Japan.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of the resolution because entering into the free trade agreement entails countless benefits for both parties. Europe would be able to increase its exports and therefore create new jobs. Hungary, for its part, is particularly interested in the start of free trade negotiations as this would greatly facilitate Hungarian agricultural exports to countries in the Far East. The agreement could prompt the Japanese car industry to invest more in Europe and in Hungary, and thus create new jobs.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Without falling into the trap of protectionism, which would clearly lead us straight back into recession, Europe has manifestly failed in its duty to ensure the elementary principle of reciprocity in its trade agreements with third countries. While one cannot talk about Europe being a ‘pushover’, or having a gap in its ‘fence’, it is nevertheless certain that we need to take a firmer tone with all of our partners to be sure that our agreements are viable. Japan is a major test in this context. It is a great industrial and trade power, an undisputed world power in Asia, and the European Union has everything to gain by increasing its trade partnership. Nevertheless, this partnership should be concluded on a healthy and reciprocal basis, which, at this stage in the negotiations, is not always the case.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the EU trade negotiations with Japan as the latter has a similar approach to the EU to the new challenges of the globalised world. It is essential that we deepen all aspects of economic and trade relations with Japan in the interests of concluding a free trade agreement.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) After the EU-Korea agreement, which caused a considerable stir two years ago, Parliament gave its approval for the EU to start free trade negotiations with Japan. While it is true that increased trade could bring considerable benefits in terms of growth and jobs, Parliament wanted to make it clear that negotiations should be suspended if Japan refused to lift the barriers in key sectors, in particular the automotive sector. We also sought a binding clause concerning review within a time limit of one year from the start of negotiations, in order to assess whether Japan has achieved tangible results in eliminating non-tariff barriers. Equally, the EU can no longer allow itself to negotiate trade agreements without gaining reciprocity in term of market access to public procurement. Only proportionate and reciprocal trade will make it possible to restore growth and create jobs in Europe and the world.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) It is essential that the EU explore all the possibilities for advantageous business which could offset the economic crisis. The EU and Japan together account for more than a third of global GDP and more than 20 % of world trade. Although bilateral EU-Japan trade is considerably smaller in size than with other countries such as the USA, China and Russia, we can deduce that it is far from reaching its potential. In one of the initial negotiating rounds of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the Commission should eliminate non-tariff barriers (NTB) whilst at the same time ensure that an impact study is completed a year after negotiations begin to gauge the noteworthy progress made in cooperation. Assuming that Japan will abolish NTBs and barriers to access to the public procurement market, this FTA should be ambitious and compatible with all trading determinations. If, at any moment, Japan demonstrates a lack of ambition or like-mindedness with regard to the EU’s priorities, the Commission should consult Parliament and the Council so they may suspend the negotiations. I therefore support a trading relationship between the EU and Japan, and am sure that it will have a positive economic impact for both economies.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Concluding a free trade agreement with Japan may be beneficial to the EU, its businesses and its workers. I am therefore very pleased that Parliament has given its accord to the launch of negotiations. In order for these to be successful it is, however, essential that the negotiators ensure that concessions are made on the Japanese side, notably with regard to lifting of non-tariff barriers and public procurement (particularly for postal services and transport). That is why Parliament is seeking to make it possible to suspend negotiations automatically if Japan does not make the necessary efforts.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union and Japan, two of the main global economic powers, owe it to themselves to maintain balanced trading relations. EU-Japan trade must therefore be based on principles of reciprocity and fairness so that both parties gain mutual benefits. That makes it essential that the Japanese authorities demonstrate a willingness to eliminate non-tariff barriers in their markets, particularly in the pharmaceutical and automotive sectors. European businesses must be able to invest in Japanese markets under the same market access conditions as Japanese businesses in European markets. If Japan does not quickly produce tangible results on eliminating tariff barriers in its markets, the European Union could then suspend negotiations on possible conclusion of a free trade agreement. In fact, no one in Europe would understand if principles of balance and reciprocity were not applied between Japan and the EU, which are at comparable levels of development.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The crisis the European Union (EU) faces obliges the European institutions to take advantage of all investment opportunities that promote Europe’s economic growth and help create more jobs. With this in mind, the trading potential of a country like Japan cannot be underestimated, as it is necessary to develop and strengthen bilateral trade relations. The potential for trade relations between the EU and Japan is enormous and is underexploited. Nevertheless, this Free Trade Agreement (FTA) must safeguard the interests of the European economy, chiefly with regard to certain sectors that could be affected. In return, we must demand that Japan should eliminate non-tariff barriers, allow European businesses to bid for public contracts and undertake to respect the values of the EU as regards human rights. The Parties have agreed on a timetable and a roadmap with stages to be fulfilled. The conditions are therefore met for starting negotiations with great prospects of success. I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution on the FTA with Japan as it represents a major opportunity to help the EU’s economy to develop.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This resolution seeks to set out Parliament’s priorities regarding the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement and calls on the Council to authorise the Commission to launch negotiations for this agreement. In Parliament’s view, Japan must eliminate non-tariff barriers (NTB) and this argument should be used as a bartering tool towards concluding the agreement. It stipulates the inclusion of a binding review clause to assess Japan’s progress in this area. It emphasises the fact that concluding this agreement would be to the benefit ‘of EU businesses, workers and consumers’. In other words, the usual rhetoric. There are contradictions that have already emerged that need to be highlighted and which could well influence how the negotiations pan out. These are the ‘offensive’ and especially ‘defensive’ interests of the German car industry that are in question in this case, given the size and importance of the Japanese industry in this sector. Let us face the facts – these are much more powerful interests than those represented, for example, by the Portuguese textile sector, which was hit so hard in previous liberalisations negotiated by the high and mighty of this EU, or other low to medium technological intensity sectors – which have faced the subsequent destruction of manufacturing and job losses.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) On 18 July 2012 the European Commission submitted a proposal for Member States to launch negotiations with Japan on a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). The priority in the discussions will be the elimination of non-tariff trade barriers preventing access to the Japanese market, whilst another of the set commitments should be market access to public procurement in Japan.

This report supports the launching of negotiations on the free trade agreement between the European Union and Japan. The FTA should be comprehensive and ambitious. It should cover and include goods, services, investment, intellectual property rights and public procurement. At the same time, I believe that special attention should be paid to the aforementioned elimination of non-tariff trade barriers.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Japan is one of the world’s largest economies and the European Union’s third most important trading partner. Entering into a free trade agreement would imply many benefits for both sides. Europe would be able to increase its exports and therefore create new jobs. Hungary is particularly interested in the start of free trade negotiations as this would greatly facilitate Hungarian agricultural exports to countries in the Far East. The agreement could prompt the Japanese car industry to invest more in Europe and in Hungary, and thus create new jobs. The Suzuki factory in Esztergom could gain access to car components manufactured in Japan by paying lower customs duties, if indeed they have to pay at all, thereby boosting their competitiveness versus other carmakers. For all of these reasons I voted in favour of the report.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this resolution because reciprocity in trade between the European Union and Japan is not respected. That is particularly true with regard to railways and public transport, where European undertakings have great difficulty in gaining access to Japanese public procurement. At the same time, Japanese undertakings are able to submit public procurement tenders in European territory, which is unacceptable. Lastly, I am concerned about the effects of this trade agreement on the French automotive market, which is already seriously disrupted.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this proposal. The EU and Japan represent together more than a third of world GDP and more than 20 % of world trade. It is important to consider Japan as a political ally, with a similar approach to the EU when facing the new challenges of a globalised world. It is crucial for the EU to comprehensively deepen its economic and trade relationships with major global economies such as Japan in order to maximise the jobs and growth potential under the EU 2020 strategy. This is particularly urgent in the light of the ongoing economic crisis, high unemployment rates and poor growth projections in the EU.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The resolution on EU trade negotiations with Japan was adopted by a large majority. The purpose of this resolution was to debate the appropriateness of launching negotiations on a free trade agreement with Japan. Faced with the new challenges presented by globalisation, most MEPs consider it essential for the EU to deepen its trade relations with the major world economies, in particular Japan, in order to make maximum use of jobs and growth potential under the Europe 2020 strategy. However, I very much regret that negotiations on a free trade agreement have been opened now. In my view, we are still going too fast. Furthermore, like the negotiations with India and Mercosur, these negotiations may never lead anywhere. Japan is, it is true, a major trading partner for the European Union but the question is whether we may completely trust it. Before launching ourselves into such negotiations, we should have waited for concrete signs of goodwill on the Japanese side. It must be noted that it has still not done away with a significant number of non-tariff barriers and technical obstacles to trade that make its market difficult to penetrate.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − (PL) In my view, the all-important question for the EU is a multilateral enhancement of economic and trade relations with Japan. Today’s data leave a lot to be desired: in 2011 the total amount of bilateral trade in goods between the EU and Japan was worth only EUR 116.4 billion, in contrast to EUR 444.7 billion for EU-USA, EUR 428.3 billion for EU-China and EUR 306.6 billion for EU-Russia. I am convinced that an EU-Japan free trade agreement could bring benefits for both economies. We would also like our partners in Japan to ensure that non-tariff barriers are effectively removed, in order to do away with the significant percentage of barriers making trade between the EU and Japan difficult. I am thinking here of non-tariff trade barriers in the automotive sector, such as the regulations relating to development planning and other restrictions that do not promote competition, and the procedure where electric and hybrid vehicles are concerned.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) My colleagues and I voted in favour of starting free trade negotiations with Japan. Increased trade with that country, which is one of the world’s most significant trading blocs, could bring significant benefits in terms of growth and jobs. However, the European Union must show firmness and suspend negotiations if Japan refuses to lift obstacles in the key sectors, particularly concerning the automotive industry or the embargo on European beef, in force since the BSE crisis. Reciprocity must be the watchword. A binding clause was, moreover, added by the rapporteur, Mr Kazak, in order to assess progress in the discussions over one year. Adoption of this text is important from a commercial viewpoint, given the economic weight of our Japanese partner. In 2011 Japan’s trade surplus with the European Union was EUR 18.5 billion, out of a total EUR 116.4 billion of trade, and there is scope for it to increase significantly. By way of comparison, trade between the EU and the United States amounted to EUR 444.7 billion in the same year.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I approved the resolution on trade relations between the European Union and Japan and on the appropriateness of launching negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA). The purpose of any free trade agreement would be to encourage Japan to remove non-tariff barriers and other obstacles to trade. However, we, the Members of the European Parliament, in the resolution adopted, urge the Council to insert a clause into the mandate it gives the Commission providing for automatic review after one year, in order to be able to suspend negotiations if Japan does not show more willingness to open up.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. − Following a resolution adopted by the EP in June, the INTA Committee adopted a resolution to contribute to the debate before the Council authorises the mandate and launches negotiations with Japan on a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The report supports the launch of the EU-Japan FTA negotiations under a strict mandate. The FTA should be comprehensive and ambitious and it should cover goods, services, investment, IPRs and public procurement. Special attention should be paid to the removal of NTBs. In this context, I fully support the further advances towards a reasonable EU-Japan trade agreement.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this Resolution which calls on the Council to authorise the Commission to start negotiations for a free trade agreement with Japan on the basis of the outcome of the scoping exercise and clear targets.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Japan is pursuing its interest in other major free trade agreements such as the potential Japan-China-South Korea FTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as negotiating several other bilateral agreements. We should draw on experience with the EU-South Korea FTA to achieve comparable market access penetration in negotiations with Japan. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The EU and Japan together account for more than a third of global GDP and more than 20 % of world trade. In 2011 the total amount of bilateral trade in goods between the EU and Japan was worth only EUR 116.4 billion, in contrast to the EUR 444.7 billion for EU-USA trade, EUR 428.3 billion for EU-China trade and EUR 306.6 billion for EU-Russia trade. There is a great deal we can improve as regards increasing trade relations between the EU and Japan, which we hope these negotiations can achieve. At this time of economic crisis, it is crucial to achieve significant improvements in the EU’s relations with Japan. That is why I have voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It is crucial for the EU to comprehensively deepen its economic and trade relationships with major global economies such as Japan in order to maximise the jobs and growth potential under the EU 2020 strategy. The EU’s bilateral trading volume with Japan is dramatically lower than with other partners. The huge potential of the EU-Japanese commercial relationship has not yet been realised to the benefit of EU businesses, workers and consumers. Therefore I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Japan is not merely an important trading partner for the EU, it is also a technological leader and exports many essential high-tech components. On the other hand, since Fukushima, many goods, such as rice, have been over the permissible limit. The rising tension between Japan and China, which may escalate into a trade war, also needs to be taken into account. Japanese exports fell in September this year to the lowest level since the tsunami. The reduction in trade with the euro countries in crisis and – owing to the call for a boycott – with China was especially drastic. It is questionable whether now is the right time to start the negotiations on a free trade agreement that have been planned for a long time now. In addition, the text emphasises that the advantages and disadvantages have not yet been assessed. Therefore, I voted against the motion.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I support the European Parliament’s resolution calling on the Council to start negotiations for a free trade agreement with Japan on the basis of the outcome of the scoping exercise and clear targets. It is essential to take advantage of the existing bilateral trade potential that could benefit the economies of both the EU and Japan, both of which are currently experiencing difficult times. Preliminary estimates show that if tariffs and non-tariff barriers were reduced to the fullest possible extent, EU exports to Japan could increase by 71 %, while Japanese exports to the EU could increase by 61 %. Naturally, in future negotiations on a free trade agreement, the problems raised in the European Parliament’s resolution, including environmental protection, must be taken into consideration.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution on EU trade negotiations with Japan. From the resolution text, I would like to point out that serious divergences remain between the EU and Japan on issues related to the management of fisheries and whaling, notably Japan’s whaling under the guise of scientific research and I would like to reiterate the call for broader discussions on the abolition of whale hunting and of trade in whale products.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Whereas the EU and Japan together represent more than a third of world GDP and more than 20 % of world trade; and whereas Parliament, the Council and the Commission have noted that Japan’s capacity to remove non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and obstacles to market access in public procurement is a precondition for launching negotiations on the EU-Japan free trade agreement (FTA) and believing that the importance of Japan as a political ally, with a similar approach to the EU when facing the new challenges of a globalised world should be taken into consideration, I voted in favour of the motion.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. − (SL) The single market agreement is a significant step towards a more comprehensive economic and political partnership between the European Union and Japan. The single market agreement will help to reinforce the economic growth of both partners, and also to improve the trade balance between the EU and Japan. I support the clarity and determination of the resolution regarding both the removal of non-tariff barriers – in the field of public procurement as well – and proposals for the sequence of urgent actions, monitoring and timetables. This resolution will contribute to the atmosphere required for the Council to give its green light for starting negotiations soon.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I applaud Mr Moreira and Mr Kazak for the work they have done. Having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements, with the adoption of this text Parliament is showing how a free trade agreement between the EU and Japan can lead to a win-win situation, beneficial for both economies, and that a deeper degree of integration through an economic integration agreement would multiply the gains to both economies considerably. In particular the resolution underlines that such a free trade agreement must be comprehensive, ambitious and fully binding in all its commercial provisions, and above all it stresses that an FTA must lead to genuine market openness, and trade facilitation on the ground, rather than just a hypothetical, legal openness.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted against. Greens from the outset have a different perspective on NTBs. Many NTBs have their rationale in a specific culture and are enacted through democratic political decisions, thus should be abolished only by a democratic procedure. Night flight bans or incentives to buy small cars (though key cars have no explicit ecological features) should not be threatened through trade agreements. Moreover, we do not find it ethically or politically correct to demand unilateral concessions before you even start negotiations. While certain NTBs are indeed administrative decisions of questionable motivation and prohibit fair reciprocal market access, they ought to be tackled within the framework of negotiations for a trade agreement.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) While I support most of its conclusions, in particular the one stating that negotiations must lead to genuine market openness and trade facilitation on the ground, rather than just a hypothetical legal openness, I nevertheless abstained from voting on this resolution on possible launching of trade negotiations with Japan. Set up in the 1990s, the EU-Japan High Level Group given the task of harmonising our rules has only managed to make progress on three texts; Japanese non-tariff barriers are still too numerous and public procurement markets too closed. Good intentions and media headlines are not enough; they must be matched by a lot of work and strong political will. Yet, for now, such political will does not seem to be emerging on the Japanese side. I expect the same lucidity and the same pragmatism from the European Commission, and I hope it does not start negotiations until it is sure that an agreement will be genuinely profitable for both parties.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted for the joint motion for a resolution because I consider it vitally important that the EU should deepen its economic and commercial ties with the world’s largest economies in order to maximise the potential for employment and growth.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted against this resolution, despite the fact that the Committee on International Trade has produced an interesting text that picks up on many of the most important issues in relations between the EU and Japan. My concern is that a free trade agreement with Japan could damage our industry and repeat what happened with South Korea. My opposition to an agreement that removes tariffs between Europe and Japan is total and unconditional.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) There is no doubt that the commencement of a parallel negotiation process on the subject of a binding understanding covering global political cooperation, and particularly as regards a free trade agreement between EU Member States and Japan, was a significant event for the European Union in 2011.

After China and the USA, the European Union is the third-largest trading partner of Japan, whereas Japan is the sixth-largest trading partner for the EU. The value of the bilateral trade turnover for the first 10 months of 2011 was around USD 145.2 billion. The EU is also the second-largest investor in Japan (USD 175 billion), whereas Japan is the third-largest investor in the EU (USD 75 billion). There are some 3 300 companies operating in the EU with some involvement of Japanese capital, and these provide employment for around 400 000 people.

With the above data in mind, I am convinced that the potential for cooperation between Japan and the EU in the trade and investment sphere continues to be under-utilised, particularly since, when all is said and done, this trade between the two markets should be a factor stimulating waning economic growth, and not the opposite. Attention should therefore be focussed both on factors that could currently retard commercial and economic cooperation between the two countries, and on factors which could stimulate such commercial exchange.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Union and Japan together represent more than a third of world GDP and more than 20 % of world trade. At the joint summit on 28 May 2011 the decision was taken to launch a scoping exercise to investigate the feasibility and shared ambition towards launching negotiations for a free trade agreement. Now that the scoping exercise is complete, negotiations can begin on the agreement, drawing on experience with the agreement with South Korea. In that particular case, while there were advantages for service companies, damage was done to the European automotive industry. Any future agreement with Japan must make distinctions between different sectors to prevent damage to industries that provide work for thousands of people and that are an important part of the real economy as opposed to finance and service companies, which produce capital that is not distributed throughout the population.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, but I allow myself a number of reservations, which, I hope, will be taken into account at the time of voting on the trade agreement. Firstly, I would like to avoid the unpleasant surprise experienced on reading the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada (CETA Agreement), which contained numerous paragraphs taken from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade (ACTA) Agreement rejected by Parliament. I would therefore like trade agreements to deal only with trade. Next, the Japanese system still does not allow all of our products to be exported. I therefore ask that access conditions be entirely reciprocal. Lastly, while I will never be one of those advocating backward-looking protectionism, I would like a debate to begin on the impact of the Korean and Japanese trade agreements on the European automotive sector.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Both the EU and Japan have shown a desire to open trade negotiations that step up the economic integration between both parties. Japan has revealed its intention to remove non-tariff barriers in the automotive sector and in public procurement. The desire of the two blocks to establish a free trade agreement was reaffirmed at the 2011 EU-Japan Summit. According to the Commission’s data, a trade agreement with Japan would have a major economic impact on the EU, with the potential for 420 000 new jobs and a potential increase of some 23.5 % in European exports. However, if non-tariff barriers to trade were reduced as far as possible, there could be a possible 71 % increase in EU exports to Japan and a 61 % increase in Japan’s exports to the EU. Together, the EU and Japan currently account for more than a third of global GDP and more than 20 % of world trade. I am therefore voting in favour of opening trade negotiations with Japan, given the socio-economic benefits that the signing of a trade agreement between the two blocks will entail.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on EU trade negotiations with Japan as the EU and Japan represent together more than a third of world GDP and more than 20 % of world trade.

Japan’s capacity to remove non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and obstacles to market access in public procurement is a precondition for launching negotiations on the EU-Japan free trade agreement (FTA). We underline that the free trade agreement must be comprehensive, ambitious and fully binding in all its commercial provisions, as it must lead to genuine market openness.

For an FTA to be truly advantageous to the EU’s economy, the Council should establish a clear timetable and include the following aspects in the Commission’s negotiating directives: significant concessions on public procurement guaranteeing market access for European companies in strategic Japanese sectors including railways and urban transport and the same degree of openness as that of the EU’s public procurement markets, and the removal of barriers that inhibit market access for European SMEs. At the same time, in the light of the March 2011 disaster, heavy emphasis must be placed on energy cooperation and enhanced market access in environmental goods and services.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) In view of the fact that the EU and Japan are responsible between them for more than a third of the world’s GDP, yet despite that the value of bilateral trade was only EUR 116 billion, firm negotiations on free trade and bilateral agreements should be entered into. Taking the experience gained from the agreement on free trade between the EU and South Korea as a model, we should raise the volume of trade with Japan by a significant amount. Furthermore, in terms of globalisation in its wider sense, having Japan as a political ally might not be a bad thing. The main objective of the EU is to strengthen economic and trade relations with the world’s most important economies, such as Japan, in order to maximise the potential for job creation. This is why I voted in favour of holding negotiations with Japan.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the potential launch of negotiations for a free trade agreement between the EU and Japan, which could be beneficial for European industry and the European economy. A number of proposals were put forward by the European Parliament, and these include: the establishment of a clear and ambitious timetable so that concrete results can be measured in terms of the openness of the Japanese market, especially as regards public procurement and the automotive sector; linking tariff concessions by Europe to this; the introduction of effective bilateral safeguard measures to prevent potential harm from massive increases in imports, especially in sensitive sectors such as the automotive and electronics industries; and protecting Geographical Indications for agricultural and foodstuff products, including wines and spirits.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This resolution seeks to set out Parliament’s priorities regarding the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement and calls on the Council to authorise the Commission to open negotiations for this agreement. Parliament agrees that Japan must eliminate the non-tariff barriers (NTB) for this agreement to happen. Yet we are aware that at stake here are the interests of the German automotive industry, given the size and importance of the Japanese industry in the same sector. This very logic of liberalisation was what sounded the death knell for the Portuguese textile industry, its manufacturing activity and its jobs.

- Report: Birgit Schnieber-Jastram (A7-0302/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I agree with this report and would refer to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which sets out the reduction and eradication of poverty as the EU’s main objectives in development policy, and that the EU should take into account development cooperation objectives in the policies it implements and which are likely to affect developing countries. It is therefore crucial that synergies be created between the EU’s policies, as Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) presents an opportunity for the EU to forge equal and sustainable partnerships with developing countries that go beyond development cooperation. The report also highlights the fact that Parliament, as co-legislator, has a key responsibility for translating the commitments into concrete policies. I also agree with the fact that the reports calls on the Member States and their national parliaments to promote PCD through a specific working programme with binding timetables and the fact that it calls for the introduction of structured annual meetings between representatives of the EU’s national parliaments. Lastly, I fully agree with the way the report is orientated in including specific recommendations in the five areas of focus: trade, agricultural and fisheries policy, climate change, energy security and migration.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) The European Union’s development policy and the way in which the Union provides humanitarian or political aid are essential not only to overcome many of the global or regional problems we face, but also as a tool for the organisation of international society on new foundations. At the same time, the European Union must offer states experiencing economic problems the prospect of their own growth and development. An important institutional item on the European Union’s agenda is greater efficiency for these foreign policy tools and mechanisms. In the absence of closer and more coherent coordination between different sectoral policies, we are in danger of losing resources and failing to achieve primary objectives. Boosting institutional cooperation within the European Union is equally important. I support the idea of holding regular meetings, according to a clearly structured formula, which will bring together the representatives of EU Member States and those of the European Parliament to ensure that these initiatives are financed consistently. I voted in favour of this report.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report because it clearly underlines the need for the EU to take into account the objectives of development cooperation in all the policies that it implements and which are likely to affect developing countries. It is a matter of fact that there are clear inconsistencies in the EU’s trade, agriculture, fisheries, climate, intellectual property rights, migration, finance, arms trade and raw materials policies. For this reason, the Policy Coherence for Development should contribute to finding fundamental synergies among EU policies and strategies. I believe that it is also important to stress that the PCD is not merely a technical issue, but primarily a political responsibility.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text because it seeks to strengthen EU Policy Coherence for Development. The European Union is one of the world’s foremost donors and its development policy must not simply be limited to humanitarian support but must, on the contrary, incorporate other technical and political elements such as climate change, as well as consideration of local stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations or local parliaments. The aim is to move from a donor relationship to one of equals, leading to a way out of poverty for these countries.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. It is estimated that by 2030, the demand for energy and water will rise by 40 % and the demand for food by 50 %. Population growth, together with a rising middle class in emerging and developing nations, will put huge pressure on natural resources. For these reasons, EU development policy should consider the fulfilment of developing countries’ needs. I agree that EU trade agreements with third countries should include appropriate provisions on social standards to allow a contribution to be made to the sustainable development of those countries in the future.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that one of the European Union’s main development aid objectives is the eradication of poverty and hunger around the world. However, for these objectives to be achieved, there needs to be better coordination between the European Union’s policies in this field. The synergy between commercial, agricultural, migration and security policies needs to be as great as possible for development policies to yield maximum benefits.

As the world’s biggest aid donor, the European Union must ensure that this aid is channelled and used as efficiently as possible. This is why I believe it is also necessary to create consolidated mechanisms to oversee the way in which the aid distributed by the European Union is used.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. − (PL) The European Union remains one of the main stimulators of world development. In implementing interests and mutual contacts on all continents, it should show a balanced position in individual matters. The basis is therefore for suitable programmes to be drafted between institutions and Member States which envisage specific areas – such as trade, safety or migration policy – and monitoring of these. Economic partnership agreements and free trade agreements promoting and supporting development in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states should receive particular attention. They are based on mutual economic benefits. Obviously strategies relating to agricultural and food policy and energy policy are not unimportant, or actions to protect human rights. Unfortunately the present resolution also contains references to reproductive rights, and, in a way that gives me some doubts, it makes reference to the question of evening out the situation of men and women in society, and I have therefore abstained from voting.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour of the report on policy coherence for development, although I did not agree with my group regarding its insistence that the EU oppose Transferable Fishing Concessions schemes in Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. This is a point that is being debated in the reform of the common fisheries policy, where the majority is in favour of Transferable Fishing Concessions being voluntary in nature.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the report because I support the EU trade and investment policy for those countries most in need as well as commitments to support small producers and promote fair, organic and ethical trade initiatives. It is also very important to highlight the EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development, and the encouragement to monitor and implement gender mainstreaming in EU-funded projects.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Parliament adopting the Schnieber-Jastram Report on Policy Coherence for Development. As Vice-Chair of the Committee on Fisheries, I paid particular attention to the paragraph linking EU fisheries and development policies. The report clearly states that the European Union should oppose the introduction of Transferable Fishing Concessions schemes by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). I am very pleased, therefore, that this report has been adopted, sending an excellent signal in the context of the current discussions on the Common Fisheries Policy. I am, in fact, firmly opposed to the Transferable Fishing Concessions scheme, which would give rise to concentration of fishing rights and monetarisation of the scheme.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree with various points it makes especially those referring to climate change and energy.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I want to congratulate the rapporteur on the adoption of her resolution on the Commission’s report on policy coherence for development in 2011. All EU policies that affect developing countries must take account of EU development aims. I am also pleased to see this report adopted because I served as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the first of many such reports and opinions I hope to do in the EP. I welcome the fact that paragraphs 108 to 116 take up my Committee’s comments and suggestions in full, including those on ensuring that the social clauses in EU trade agreements are implemented and monitored; on the importance of agreeing binding Corporate Social Responsibility obligations; on mainstreaming social policy in the work of the EEAS; and on ensuring that the Commission examines the social implications for developing countries when conducting impact assessments of EU proposals. We must remember that the Social Clause (Article 9, TFEU) applies both within the EU and ‘externally’. We now need a strong political commitment from the Commission and from the European Council to policy coherence for development, promoted by the Member States through specific work programmes, with binding timetables.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I fully concur with the proposal to set up transnational twinning partnerships between Natura 2000 areas and similar agricultural ecological management areas in developing countries with the aim of exchanging know-how on management of such areas by local authorities, local leaders and local farming communities; I also support the establishment of a transnational twinning centre for learning and development of know-how between Natura 2000 areas and similar areas in third countries.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report, even though I regret the absence of a European strategy for each organisation the Member States or the EU are part of, and believe that there is still some road to travel towards credibility, coherence and visibility in the EU’s external action. The complexity of the international system means that the actions and commitments of the Member States – bilaterally and between the Member States and the EU – are coordinated in the different platforms where we interact. This is why we adopted the Lisbon Treaty! Over the years, the EU, the largest Development Aid donor, has supported developing countries politically, financially and even militarily so as to afford these countries the necessary stability and peace for them to develop and to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. There is therefore an urgent need to continue down this road, creating conditions for the adoption of a more comprehensive approach to poverty eradication and sustainable development and leveraging policy coherence for development. On a final note, as a European citizen, congratulations on the Nobel Peace Prize recently awarded to the EU for 60 years of working for peace and development on the European continent and in the world.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union is a major development player in the world. That is why it must coordinate its various programmes as well as possible by giving itself a clear and precise roadmap that enables it to draw up its short- and medium-term priorities, such as support for the poorest countries or establishment of a timetable for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. It is also important for European external policies, whether on trade, agriculture or environmental protection, to be conducted coherently, and for all EU action to be more readily understandable. Lastly, the economic crisis should not be an obstacle to Member States contributing to official development assistance.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The world is evolving at lightning speed if we look at the demographic changes: in less than 10 years the earth’s population has grown by 1 billion, and could reach 9 billion by 2030. However, the more rapid growth in the global population is smothering the slower economic growth. The phenomenon of globalisation is contributing to this, and while the forces and powers between states are balancing out, the chasms within countries between the rich and the poor is becoming ever deeper. This is best illustrated by the development of Brazil, China and India. The changes underway in Africa are promising; a growing number of countries are holding free elections and are more open to the principle of political rotation. The African Union is devoting significant efforts to managing problems at regional level, but it already appears that the Millennium Development Goals set in 2000 will not be accomplished by 2015. Europe, then, as the largest sponsor of the ‘Agenda for Change’ programme, is obliged to accelerate the implementation of the programme and enhance its efficiency. This is because the most pressing problem for some emerging markets is not producing goods but distributing them fairly. The five main objectives in the proposal are principally aimed at supporting the fight against poverty, in view of the new players such as China and India, or new phenomena like the extremely high birth rates.

  Nirj Deva (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report and would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her work. While there are certain paragraphs my Group and I voted against, we are firmly convinced of the importance of policy coherence and, more importantly, we believe in ensuring it works. We must continue to work towards achieving better coordination, increased burden sharing, greater efficiency and better results. Parliament has currently no oversight capacity when it comes to the EDF, no real measure of how the money is spent and very few audit mechanisms in place. EUR 6 billion are lost annually due to the fragmentation and lack of coordination between the Member States’ management of the EDF. Having a coherent and coordinated system in place, as in the case of the DCI, which is monitored by Parliament, could save taxpayers’ money. We have to make sure our outcomes are consistent with the promises we make to our taxpayers. In these tough economic times it is vital that every pound we spend on foreign aid goes to the right place and achieves the right result.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) is writ large in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which calls for the reduction, and, in the long term, the total eradication of poverty as the primary objective of European Development Policy. PCD thus has a political and human value in addition to its legal value. It is therefore imperative that PCD is instituted through accountable, transparent, inclusive and human-rights-based policies. By doing this, the EU will not only be contributing towards reducing poverty, but will also be encouraging developing countries to set up their own market structures, creating jobs, and to be able to compete as trading partners for the EU in the long term.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report under examination, by Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, focuses on the European Union (EU) report on Policy Coherence for Development. The objective of development policies is to eradicate instances of poverty throughout the world so that all peoples enjoy a life with a minimum level of quality, both in terms of safety and comfort. For this reason, various positions and measures have been taken to address instances of poverty that should shame so-called modern societies. The Millennium Development Goals, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, more recently, the Europe 2020 strategy enshrine as a priority the reduction and long-term eradication of poverty which, as we know, essentially affect the more disadvantaged classes, children and women. Bearing in mind the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I am voting in favour of this report and hope that the recommendations it contains will be duly taken into consideration.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Many times we have called Parliament’s attention to the issue of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD). We emphatically denounce the inconsistency of the EU’s sectoral policies with the objectives declared in the area of development cooperation. This report highlights several important aspects which we value, such as: insufficient health funding; the failure of a substantial proportion of the Fisheries Agreements, in particular the poor results obtained in areas of scientific and technological cooperation and sustainable development of the sector (an aspect that we underscored in the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries, for which we were the rapporteurs); the importance of policies promoting equality between men and women; and the recognition of the right of each country to define by democratic means its own policies, priorities and strategies. Regrettably, other aspects have been overlooked or not appropriately addressed. The ‘brain drain’ issue (without calling into question the effects of the Blue Card on developing countries); the continued existence of tax havens and the flight of capital and economic crime which they usher in; the question of access to raw materials from developing countries with no regard for local development and poverty eradication goals. These are but a few examples. We therefore abstain.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. - (SK) Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty, as defined in the European Consensus on Development, as the primary objective of EU development policy. It is important for the Union to take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements and which are likely to affect developing countries. Unfortunately, there are clear inconsistencies in the EU's trade, agriculture, fisheries, climate, intellectual property rights, migration, finance, arms and raw materials policies which affect development goals. The fact that policy coherence for development has the potential to contribute to poverty reduction by finding fundamental synergies among EU policies is important. A post-2015 international framework for development cooperation has the potential to play a catalytic role in addressing important development and other global challenges and could help to fulfil individuals’ rights and needs. I believe it is important to strive to achieve, inter alia, transparency in all areas of the issue, as it is instrumental in achieving policy coherence for development.

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because it has the merit of sending a strong political signal that calls on the EU and all Member States to ensure Policy Coherence for Development in an effective and intelligent way. This report stresses the importance of building sustainable partnerships based on equality, human rights, equal opportunities and respect for the environment. In addition, as a framework for EU development policy, policy coherence for development requires transparency in all areas of development aid, particularly aid to local and smallholder producers, aid for countries in conflict or post-conflict situations, promotion of fundamental rights, migration and human mobility. Moreover, the report suggests complementing the concept of aid effectiveness with the concept of development effectiveness, which promotes open and comprehensive dialogue between partners. Lastly, it is essential that the European External Action Service (EEAS), Member States and all relevant stakeholders, that is to say, national parliaments, civil society and international organisations, give themselves sufficient resources to ensure that these proposals are implemented rather than going unheeded.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The European Union plays a crucial role in development policy, where the main objective is reducing poverty and eliminating it in the long run; this goal would be greatly facilitated if the EU made efficient use of the fundamental synergies between Union policies. In the field of development cooperation, the action taken by the European Union is based on collaboration between Member States and international bodies, creating harmony between European policies and development objectives, and on the principle of aid efficiency. I personally agree with the part of the draft report which states that the 3.4 % of the Commission development aid budget allocated to direct nutrition intervention is insufficient, especially with malnutrition causing the death of around 2.6 million children each year. I am delighted that the report highlights the corporate social responsibility obligations of enterprises, to encourage employers to apply social standards which are more ambitious than is currently the case. In agreement with the rapporteur I also find it unsatisfactory that – despite a promise from the Commission – there was no proposed extension of the powers of scrutiny of the European Regional Development Fund to Parliament. If the proposals in the report are implemented I believe we can make more effective progress in ensuring policies are coherent for development purposes, and therefore I voted in favour.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) has become a very important subject in the debate on EU development policy. The Treaty of Lisbon makes eradication of poverty an overall goal of EU development policy (Article 21) and, with the aim of achieving this goal, states the need for a coherent approach in terms of EU external action, covering trade, agriculture, fisheries, climate change and tax havens (Article 208). Unfortunately, the report in question is not an evaluation of implementation of PCD or its weaknesses. Rather, it is a report on what PCD should be. There are positive elements in the report, such as recognition of the right of developing countries to define their own policies by democratic means and to protect their economy. However, I could not allow myself, in the name, indeed, of genuine Policy Coherence for Development, to vote in favour of a resolution that encourages the expansion of agri-fuels in developing countries and supports agro-industry. That contributes towards land grabbing and runs wholly contrary to the notion of food sovereignty.