Oral explanations of vote

Report: Diana Wallis (A7-0343/2011)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ADR (alternative dispute resolution) in civil, commercial and family matters is a valid alternative to the traditional confrontational approach between parties, offering an effective, inexpensive solution to disputes. I therefore support Ms Wallis’s horizontal approach, which extends the benefits of ADR to business-to-business civil and commercial transactions and to family disputes.

That said, I hope that the Commission’s forthcoming legislative proposal will satisfy the key points highlighted by this Parliament: above all, the need to ensure a high level of impartiality and transparency of the systems, the application of ADR to electronic commerce by means of an online multilingual platform, and the promotion of ADR as a valid, cost-effective alternative to forms of collective redress.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work. Indeed, wherever possible, alternative dispute resolution is an excellent solution which reduces the length of proceedings and cuts administrative costs with full respect for the wishes of the parties to the dispute.

With regard to family law, too, where both parties are willing, mediation may be helpful in finding amicable common ground and points of agreement, in order to avoid, especially for children, upset and frustration caused by the uncertainty and slowness of proceedings, which, unfortunately, do not always take the best interests of the child into account.

As European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction, I can testify that when the parents are willing to find a solution, this guarantees a swift resolution that respects all the parties.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Ms Wallis’s report. Although it does not prejudice the usual means to access justice, I am persuaded that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) constitutes a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation.

Apart from being an effective instrument for small and medium-sized enterprises, ADR has considerable development potential, including in an online context, when it comes to the settlement of smaller claims. Therefore, through a joint action with the Member States, we need to encourage the creation of a harmonised legal framework which, by strengthening citizens’ faith in the internal market, can help boost Europe’s economy.

Report: Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0328/2011)

  Jens Geier (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to issue an explanation of vote on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. The question of the granting of discharge for the Council by the European Parliament has been an institutional bone of contention for years. The Council and Parliament have not yet managed to resolve this issue amicably.

The European Parliament bases its argument for its right to grant discharge on Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the corresponding articles in the Financial Regulation. It goes without saying that the S&D Group shares this position. We insist on Parliament’s right to monitor and evaluate the proper use of taxpayers’ money by the Council.

So far, the Council has not been in agreement with this view. At present, the Council argues that it is granted discharge along with the Commission budget. The S&D Group does not share this view. We want to see a clear and balanced procedure that has been negotiated with the Council and that sets out the rights and obligations of the institutions. We are convinced that we should take the negotiated route first. This is because the non-granting of discharge to the Council will have no impact, as the EU Treaty does not provide for any consequences for such an occurrence. However, since the non-granting of discharge remains legally without consequence, the S&D Group decided to abstain.

Report: Salvatore Tatarella (A7-0282/2011)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for Mr Tatarella’s report, which seeks to postpone by three years the entry into force of Stage IIIB for the placing on the market of more efficient tractors for the reduction of CO2 and pollutant gases.

In the case of tractors, a number of reasons led to the parameters laid down by Directive 2005/13/EC being revised: the sudden fall in sales caused by the current economic crisis and the lack of technical solutions capable of limiting CO2 emissions. It will be particularly important to transpose the amended directive rapidly so that it may be applied without delay.

I hope that the European Commission will take into account the European Parliament’s call for it to examine in advance whether the technology available will be capable of meeting the requirements of Stage IV, scheduled for 2014.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on provisions for tractors placed on the market under the flexibility scheme, for which we voted in favour, is based on a measured, realistic approach which, on the one hand, has refrained from laying down impractical requirements that are impossible to meet, and on the other, has provided for a so-called flexibility scheme. By laying down stages and corresponding quantitative limits of permitted emissions, this scheme provides for the placing on the market of a pre-established annual quota of tractors meeting certain characteristics, and thereby enables the manufacturing and industrial sectors concerned to adapt to the pre-established standards gradually, without causing them disruption.

Mr Tatarella has produced an important piece of work and has managed to strike a careful balance between the requirements arising from the major challenges which the EU needs to tackle at this time, and the requirements relating to environmental protection and the present economic crisis.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of this motion and believe that this is also a typical example of the fact that there is often a major difference between having good intentions and actually achieving or – as the saying beautifully puts it – between theory and practice. We should seize the opportunity to re-consider whether, in this field, we really need such a depth of regulation, or whether normal scientific and technical progress would not, in any case, offer methods of resolution without the distress and without the time pressure. Therefore, I will reiterate that we should reconsider whether we will not still find a solution for this area. Furthermore, it would also be a small help to the population, to the people of the European Union, to put in place a confidence-building measure and not to regulate everything that can be regulated at European level, but only what is necessary.

Report: Sirpa Pietikäinen (A7-0080/2011)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, although it is important to reduce the emission of gaseous pollutants and pollutants produced by internal combustion engines in non-road mobile machinery, we cannot turn a blind eye to the current situation in which manufacturers find themselves.

Since 2008, the financial and economic crisis has hit the non-road mobile machinery sector hard. It was essential for us to further extend the flexibility scheme for the transition from Stage III A to Stage III B. The increase in the number of engines used for application in land-based machines under the flexibility scheme, from 20% to 37.5%, is, in my opinion, an unsatisfactory result for European industry in this sector.

However, given the situation and Parliament’s continual delays, manufacturers were demanding a rapid response. I would like to specify that it is for this reason alone that I decided to support the report with my vote.

Report: Ádám Kósa (A7-0263/2011)

  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, today we adopted the report on the way this Parliament believes we should work within the European Disability Strategy. This is great news because it represents the first effort towards coordination and approval of actions to bring about equality for people with disabilities within the European Union. We adopted it with its three goals: to bring about full social inclusion through education and the labour market integration of people with disabilities; to combat the double discrimination faced by those who are young and disabled, female and disabled, or disabled in a rural or urban environment; and to move towards Europe-wide approval of what should be the fourth pillar of the welfare state, at a time when we are debating the sustainability of the welfare state as a whole.

However, what is most important is that we are calling upon all countries to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, especially, to unblock the directive on discrimination within the Commission itself, because Europe cannot employ, and it cannot apply, a piecemeal policy on discrimination against people who are today on the fringes of public efforts: what we need is a comprehensive and integrated policy.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, in order for people with disabilities to be fully included in society, the Member States must, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, invest in accessibility – both in terms of means of transport and modern, state-of-the-art infrastructure – to provide mobility that will guarantee the full and effective inclusion and participation of people with disabilities, on a footing of equal dignity.

In the context of a new European disability strategy, with particular reference to the tourism sector, it is important to provide people with disabilities with access not only to means of transport, but also to accommodation, catering and to all tourist services in general.

Moreover, we should remember that it is vital to provide information in formats accessible to people with sensory disabilities, an aspect which must be given increasing importance in rules on the rights of passengers and tourists. This is even more important in view of Europe’s 80 million or so potential disabled tourists – and the resulting economic activities – who must be put in a position to travel and must be considered tourists for all intents and purposes. This is why I voted in favour of the Kósa report.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, in order to evaluate the report adopted today, we need to start by extrapolating two fundamental facts: the fact that the number of dependent people with disabilities will supposedly double by 2050, and the fact that, at the moment, we do not have a sufficient amount of data to gauge the severity of the problem.

The challenge being addressed by means of this Disability Strategy 2010-2020 is to allow people with disabilities not only to enjoy human rights, just like everyone else, but also to ensure that those rights can be put into practice effectively. It is therefore essential to bring out disabled people’s full potential by encouraging them to train, providing them with freedom of movement and enabling them to access the labour market: by so doing, we will also be able to combat one of the biggest problems that adds to the misfortune of these people, namely, poverty.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, there are still many obstacles hindering the full social inclusion of the 80 million people with disabilities. I hope that the Member States and the Commission will heed the call to prepare legislative acts that facilitate their inclusion.

The Member States have not yet signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Despite this time of economic crisis, I hope that the national governments will prove capable of protecting them by putting in place policies in line with the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020.

I welcome and endorse the report tabled by Mr Kósa, who, by drawing on his own experience, has managed to give heartfelt, practical suggestions in order to offer people with disabilities non-discriminatory access to social protection and to health and education services.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, we are already familiar with the statistics, but perhaps it is worthwhile recalling them: 80 million people in the European Union have disabilities – over 15% of the population – and one European in four has a disabled relative.

People with disabilities are three to four times more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. People with disabilities have 50% less chance of reaching university-level education than able-bodied people. Half of disabled people have never taken part in leisure activities or a sport, and one third of all people with disabilities have never travelled abroad, or even been on a day trip, owing to the inaccessibility of structures and services.

Europe must genuinely commit to doing more to eliminate the discrimination which, unfortunately, creates first and second class citizens. I would therefore like to sincerely thank the rapporteur for his work.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, it gave me great pleasure to vote for this report today and I want to say that I totally support the Commission’s 10-year European Disability Strategy. It aims to increase to 75% the proportion of working-age people across Europe in employment by 2020. This increase simply cannot be achieved without inclusive and specially adapted training programmes. Last week, you and I hosted the signing of the Microsoft and Workability International Education Alliance. This is an exciting initiative and an example of a step towards realising our common vision of changing public and industrial perceptions of people with disabilities.

This partnership will help people with disabilities to break out of their previous confinement to blue-collar jobs and to realise their full potential through the provision of technology courses aligned with industry and industry’s hiring needs. The technologies are practical and they will be made to work, but ultimately, they will work only if Member States adopt and implement them.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, many initiatives have been undertaken, but hitherto, we have not been able to achieve equality of treatment for people with disabilities. We have only to look at the statistics on unemployment, poverty, work and education.

It also seems to me regrettable that the Communication on the European Disability Strategy does not include a women’s perspective, when women are doubly discriminated against within this group. Integrating them will give them an independent life and dignity, but it will bring innovation and quality new jobs to the European Union.

In order to go forward, we need to apply existing legislation and I thought that the only way to do this was to take action against those States which do not comply with this legislation. That is why I voted for Amendment 1, which was not adopted.

That was what people with disabilities were expecting from us. I think we have failed them, but we must continue our work in the future.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, not only do I wish to congratulate Mr Kósa, but I would like to thank him for his work and for this splendid report. Each of us carries with them their life baggage, made up of different personal experiences and lifestyles; every person is unique and special, and therefore different. This is how we should view diversity: as a resource in terms of growth and enrichment for society as a whole, and a heritage of culture and skills.

Acknowledging a disability does not mean doing a good deed, but recognising the true value of a person’s being. Unfortunately, the barriers still in place today are not just architectural, but mainly mental. We must eliminate all the obstacles which society continues to put up so that we can finally move from a culture of handicap to one of normality. While on the one hand, the States intervene with specific laws, on the other, society is not always ready to accept them fully and spontaneously apply them. With this report, the European Parliament is sending its own message: people with disabilities are one of society’s resources and must play an active part in society on an equal footing with the rest of us.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the report by my colleague, Mr Ádám Kósa, has many valid points. I would like to focus on one of these points, namely, the issue of equal opportunities. The report states that equal opportunities do not mean that we provide the same opportunities for everyone, because opportunities can be considered equal if the same amount of effort leads to similar results for everyone.

For example, in the case of indigenous ethnic minorities, whose language is different from the official language of their Member State, we can only speak of equal opportunities if they have the same conditions as the majority ethnic group, meaning that they can study in their mother tongue and also use it to succeed later in life.

Women with disabilities and the elderly suffer from multiple disadvantages, but the same goes for people with disabilities who belong to one of the indigenous ethnic minorities. Equal opportunities therefore also mean positive discrimination for those who would suffer disadvantages under equal conditions.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the rapporteur has come to grips with an important problem in this report. It goes without saying that people with disabilities in the European Union should have the same opportunities as everyone else. It is true that we have a lot of catching up to do in this area and the rapporteur has rightly recognised and explained this.

Nevertheless, against the background of proportionality, I would like us to consider how we can clarify and resolve the situation, naturally while making efficient use of funding. What do I mean by this? I have one bad example from Germany. Over recent years, we have made a huge effort, and rightly so, to give disabled people barrier-free access to public buildings. No one disputes that this is the right thing to do. However, it has resulted in small primary schools with fewer than 100 pupils having to install a lift at a cost of EUR 150 000, despite the fact that these schools have never had a disabled pupil since they were established. This is not going to change. I do not regard this as proportionality. I am sure that the rapporteur also sees things in the same way and will take this into consideration.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, last year saw the adoption of the European Disability Strategy. Accessibility and health are among this strategy’s priority strands. Every time, we adopt new measures giving disabled people more opportunities to use general infrastructure. However, the tempo of work being carried out by Member States to improve infrastructure is still too slow for disabled people to be sufficiently included in the labour market and for them to obtain the health care services they need. Above all, the Member States must therefore take more intensive measures and, by enhancing and implementing various infrastructure projects, ensure that when new infrastructure is built and existing infrastructure is renovated, disabled people are guaranteed real opportunities to use that infrastructure, regardless of whether the builder is a private or public entity.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I naturally voted in favour of Mr Kósa’s report. It is very important that we discuss the mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities in Europe, and that there should be a specific strategy for that issue.

Of course, we in the European Union have already agreed on common rules for disabled people, so that they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. That was ten years ago when Directive 2000/78/EC was passed. The basic principle must be that human rights apply to everyone. Unfortunately, not all Member States of the European Union have applied this fine principle. Instead, we have various measures in place which allow us to discriminate against the disabled. That is evident with employment, for example.

I hope that this strategy does not simply remain a strategy, left to gather dust on a bookshelf or in an archive, but that it is also put into practice at grassroots level. In this way, we can actually show that we are acting in accordance with this strategy and that we are treating our fellow disabled human beings as genuine fellow human beings, conferring on them all human rights.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was also delighted to support this report and I would like to praise my friend, Mr Kósa, who is sitting in front of me, for the good work he has done as rapporteur.

It is, of course, very important that we treat all people equally. Unfortunately, people with disabilities have suffered more than most as a result of the economic recession, especially in terms of employment opportunities. Hopefully, that can be addressed as we come out of recession.

In relation to facilities, I think we should be utilising particularly the structural funds to ensure that facilities are up to the required standard so that everybody can have access to buildings, etc.

Thirdly, I would like to highlight the role that sport is playing in helping people with disabilities, particularly movements like the Paralympics and the Special Olympics, which are helping to highlight people’s abilities – as opposed to their disabilities – and giving them a new lease of life.

Report: Heide Rühle (A7-0326/2011)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, public procurement can play a decisive role for the EU budget: indeed, public expenditure on works, goods and services accounts for roughly 17% of EU GDP and almost a fifth of this expenditure – approximately EUR 420 billion – falls within the scope of the EU directives on public procurement.

I would therefore congratulate Ms Rühle for setting out what I believe to be the red lines of the forthcoming reform of the directive on public procurement: in particular, I am referring to the criterion of lowest price, which can no longer be the determining one for the award of contracts and should be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits.

Similarly, I agree entirely with the urgent need to simplify the rules in order to make procurement procedures simpler, less cumbersome and more in line with the needs of SMEs and small contracting authorities.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I, too, fully agree with the general approach of Ms Rühle’s report, and I therefore voted in favour. I am convinced that the measures adopted will provide legal certainty, on the one hand, and clearer rules and more flexible procedures for public procurement, on the other.

I endorse Ms Rühle’s view that it is the public procurement directives themselves which are the main impediment to involving public contracting authorities in the pursuit of general social aims: the criterion of the lowest price cannot carry the same weight as that of the most economically advantageous tender. It must be stipulated that contracts are to be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender. Only then will the criteria for selecting what is most economically advantageous be easier to implement.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on the Green Paper on the modernisation of public procurement policy for two reasons in particular.

Firstly, identification of the most economically advantageous tender which takes into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, works or services and therefore not just the lowest price – a common, widespread consideration in all countries and all contracting authorities – which will improve quality, and, at the same time, place greater emphasis on the environmental and social sustainability of goods and services.

Secondly, simplification, which will be achieved through greater flexibility, and which will allow for simpler procedures and offer small and medium-sized enterprises greater opportunities in the awarding of contracts. I would add, in particular, that in this regard, we should promote electronic procurement, which currently accounts for less than five per cent of all public procurement in the EU, and that the publication of calls for tender, divided into lots, will enable greater transparency when it comes to participation in tenders.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, there is no question that this text on the modernisation of public procurement is an important element in order to strengthen the efficiency and sustainability of the economic system. Indeed, the existence of streamlined, flexible and simplified procedures undoubtedly offers an objective yardstick for gauging the efficiency and practicality of public procurement.

The passage on the economically most advantageous tender being used to select the contractor is important and recourse to online procedures and to electronic procurement is appropriate, while simplified access for small and medium-sized enterprises will undoubtedly provide an opportunity to make the most of such an important sector.

Within the Committee on International Trade, we envisaged and specified that businesses and firms convicted of mafia association by a final court judgment should be excluded, whichever Member State they were convicted in. We hope that this measure will be included in the revision of the resulting directive.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union’s policy in the field of public procurement must be something which stimulates economic growth, especially in the case of small businesses. However, no growth will occur unless the principle of competitiveness, which forms the basis for economic development, is observed. In a time of crisis and mass bankruptcy, only a public procurement policy that is simple, clear and unambiguous can bring about the intended effect. Any other action will increase bureaucracy which will, in turn, stifle business activity. The only way to maintain this process is to provide the general public with full access to the relevant information. Therefore, reform of the system must come from within the Council and the Commission themselves, as they are blocking access to information and are even contravening the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, with today’s vote, we have laid the foundations for the future revision of the Procurement Directive. Simpler bureaucratic procedures and principles for participation in public tenders are a fundamental means of speeding up implementation processes and ensuring the full realisation of contracts between public authorities and the private sector. The increased use of information and communication technologies would allow businesses and public authorities to save money and time, and would provide greater transparency and accessibility.

I would like to stress that the criterion of the lowest price should no longer be the determining factor when awarding contracts: it should really be replaced by the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender, in order to draw economic, social and environmental benefits.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I wanted to speak yesterday during the catch-the-eye procedure, but unfortunately, there was no opportunity to do so. The debate yesterday and the resolution today on the report have strongly encouraged me to believe that we are on the right track. A huge amount of trouble is being caused in two respects. Firstly, we are increasingly hearing complaints from medium-sized companies that the amount of red tape involved in public procurement is so great that they are no longer taking part in the process for that very reason. This is why it is very important to reduce the levels of bureaucracy.

Secondly, it is essential that the organisations which issue the calls for tenders are not obliged to choose the cheapest quotation. Instead, they should be allowed to select the most cost-effective quotation. I would like to suggest that there should be a precise definition of what the most cost-effective quotation is, because it is important to remember that the other party, which fails to win the contract, can submit a complaint. For this reason, we need clear guidelines and clear definitions.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, the modernisation and harmonisation of the current public procurement system throughout the European Union is an integral part of the future of a proper European Union. The modernisation challenges put forward by the Commission include increasing transparency and administrative clarity, thereby opening up opportunities for small business and increasing the efficiency of procurement and saving time and money. Then there is also the environment and the more widespread use of energy-efficient measures. I welcome this complex approach and call on the Member States to prepare to implement the amendments proposed by the Commission now, without waiting for the completion of the reform, and to begin to apply the principles of modern public procurement.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the simplification of European law on public procurement is undoubtedly in the interests of all Member States. It will be conducive to the sustained growth of employment, to innovation and to the development of research projects. The economic crisis has, to a large extent, resulted in the prioritisation of financial criteria over quality criteria during the process of selecting offers.

An interesting solution, therefore, could be the proposal to introduce an obligation to award contracts to the most economically advantageous offers, thus ensuring the optimum use of funds. The guarantee of transparency, non-discrimination and competitiveness is a core principle underlying public procurement regulations. The Commission’s support for the process of awarding public contracts by way of promoting tried and tested procedures and methods and organising the exchange of experience and training programmes could also contribute to increasing the quality of public contracts. Worthy of note are the proposals to simplify the procedures in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises, such as the rule which will require original documents from successful tenderers only. Assuming that online public procurement will also increase, I have voted to adopt the report.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Mr President, I am happy to have voted for this report, as it gives us the opportunity to make sure that greater emphasis is put on social and environmental standards when Member States award contracts under public procurement rules. In my constituency of the East Midlands, the UK Government has recently chosen to award a major train-building contract to the lowest cost supplier, using the procurement rules to justify this.

The decision means that 1 400 people at the Bombardier site in my constituency will become redundant. Indirectly, many thousands more will lose their jobs. This is a clear illustration of why the directive needs reform. We want all procurement rules to drive up standards and encourage sustainable, inclusive growth. To achieve that, the lowest-cost-only option needs to be the exception to the rule and social, economic and environmental criteria must become the norm. New legislation alone is not enough.

The Commission is failing to make sure that public authorities make full use of this legislation. I have asked the Commission to confirm that EU rules did not oblige the UK Government to make the choice that it did and they have failed to reply to me, although the deadline for response was over two weeks ago. The Commission must do more to make public authorities aware of the full extent of what they can do under EU legislation.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, we had a very good debate on this subject last night and again this morning, it came up in the questions to the Commissioners. And it is a good thing that we adopted the report in the voting this morning.

There are just two points I want to emphasise. Firstly, I think the emphasis on SMEs is absolutely vital. They are the future of Europe to a large degree and, particularly in relation to public procurement, we can do a great deal to make matters easier for them. I look forward in particular to my proposal regarding the procurement passport for SMEs becoming a reality as soon as possible.

Secondly, as has been mentioned by the previous speaker and others, it is absolutely vital that we get away from the lowest cost tender. This has come up in many discussions I have had in this regard – only this morning with some American business people – because we have to put the 2020 strategy first. Particular issues, like energy conservation and also the overall aspect of employment, etc. have to be taken into consideration when we are looking into these matters.

Report: Traian Ungureanu (A7-0258/2011)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I wholeheartedly supported Mr Ungureanu’s report and voted for it because, as I also stated during the hearing which we organised last week on this subject, the free movement of workers from the Member States which joined in 2004 and 2007 has not caused imbalances on the labour market at the end of the first stage of the transition, according to the European Commission communication in 2008. This is why there are no economic grounds for some Member States to maintain the restrictions; this is based purely on political reasons.

There is a variety of obstacles currently preventing mobility, ranging from psychological and cultural barriers, sometimes caused by stereotypes, to red tape. While the former are more difficult to deal with, the latter group can be re-examined and resolved.

Another barrier preventing mobility is recognition of professional qualifications.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I have once again voted in favour, but we are confronted with constant infringement of the directive by certain Member States, and this affects workers’ ability to move freely.

The Commission must enforce compliance with this legislation, but it needs to back this up with a long-term and comprehensive strategy, and also with coherent and effective policies, in order to be able to eliminate all the legal and practical obstacles. It also needs coordination at European, state, regional and local levels.

I believe that these measures would enable us to see the positive effects of free movement, to eliminate continuing discrimination and the stereotypes that still exist, and thereby integrate these people into their host countries.

This is the challenge that confronts us, and I hope we are ready to face up to it.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, recently, the proper functioning of the free movement of workers as one of the fundamental principles of the European Union has unfortunately been having a negative impact on the demographic situation in certain economically weaker Member States such as Lithuania. While respecting this principle and our citizens who have decided to exploit its benefits, we must ensure that in the European Union, there is no discrimination against workers from any of the Member States. Workers arriving in some Member States still face disproportionate and often discriminatory interference, both when accessing the labour market and when it comes to them or their family members taking advantage of social guarantees. I am convinced that if they have chosen to work somewhere other than in their native Member State, European Union citizens must be treated equally in all EU Member States. Both the Commission and the Member States therefore still have a lot to do to truly guarantee such equality.

Report: Małgorzata Handzlik (A7-0324/2011)

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the Services Directive plays a leading role in the formation and operation of the single market in services in the European Union. The freedom to provide services remains one of its chief principles. As practice shows, the provision of cross-border services continues to be an enormous problem. It is therefore important to intensify cooperation between the Commission and individual Member States in order to establish an efficient operating mechanism for this aspect of the Services Directive.

The European Parliament must also be informed in full about the progress of this work. The mutual evaluation process itself seems to be playing a positive role. I agree, however, with the need to make the provisions more precise, and with the call for the mutual evaluation to take place following full implementation of the directive. I also regard as beneficial the proposal to extend the use of the mutual evaluation method to other framework directives. It could prove to be an important tool for monitoring the implementation of provisions in individual Member States. I therefore support the report.

Report: Gunnar Hökmark (A7-0323/2011)

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, in recent years, the current global economic crisis, which is even worse than the Great Depression, has caused unsustainable imbalances in international economies. The commercial disparities between countries, financial markets lacking common rules, and the instability of the banking system all constitute a potential threat to financial and economic stability.

This resolution, which I support, stresses the urgent need for total reform, with new rules and global economic coordination. The economy needs a system of global governance, open markets, high economic and social standards, a more responsible monetary policy and more stringent supervisory policies; decision-making bodies and international economic bodies must be the main stakeholders driving this new approach.

In particular, Europe needs a clear and transparent framework to reduce the instability that has been aggravated by, among other things, globalisation, and to guarantee wide-ranging reforms aimed at fostering growth and reducing the debt of individual Member States. This is the demand that the current resolution highlights to all the countries.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, many of our problems today in the world are global, not local, and the solutions therefore need to be global as well. There is not much point in Europe introducing measures which may be right in themselves but which are actually going to disadvantage the eurozone area or the European Union. They have to be global solutions, particularly in relation to things like transaction tax. I think, too, that we, as the European Union, need to demand a seat on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund governing bodies.

The IMF needs to be far more democratic than it is currently. Its managing director needs to be elected on a merit-based system, and transitional developing countries also need greater voting rights. These measures are worth aiming for, and if we can get them, we will have a better system for dealing with the problems we face at the moment and ensuring those problems do not occur again in the future.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0317/2011)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, five per cent of women are single mothers, and they make up 85% of single-parent families: this is truly alarming data, not least because it is a trend that is, worryingly, on the increase, and because it concerns a social group at high risk of poverty.

The situation of single mothers with dependent children often forces these women to make choices in which they have no say, to work part-time, interrupt their studies, be underpaid, live in poverty and suffer unacceptable discrimination. Furthermore, let us not forget that there are also many women, single mothers, with disabled, dependent children. For this reason, we need to adopt concrete and effective measures in support of these single mothers, and thus I thank the rapporteur for her insight and for the excellent work she has done.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, nowadays, the idea of the family has changed. More and more women are deciding to be single mothers, but this group is broader because it includes widows and very young women. Therefore, some of them are more vulnerable and at risk of poverty and social exclusion. This requires improved conditions to encourage them all into the labour market and into training, as well setting up good-quality services to help them find a balance between work and family life.

I regret that the report does not include the amendments which referred to the situation of men who may find themselves in similar positions, particularly in view of the fact that the law in many Member States allows people of the same sex to marry and adopt children; this would be a response to the existence of such groups and to equality of treatment within Europe.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, I voted for Ms Matera’s report on the situation of single mothers, but I want to make a few very significant points which I believe are important to consider for the future.

First of all, a common definition must be found for the concept of a single mother because, at the moment, I think that there are many cases where women who are not married live with the fathers of their children. However, as the definition of a single mother is based on marriage, these women acquire this status and obtain social rights.

This is why I very much agree with the idea suggested in Ms Matera’s report, which was aimed rather at acquiring more social rights, providing greater protection in labour legislation and getting rid of discrimination. I am going to state my position clearly: I am firmly against granting direct financial or material assistance as an incentive to commit fraud and describe women as single mothers who essentially are not.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, with the adoption of this report, the European Parliament is once again demonstrating its support for women who find themselves alone in the delicate task of raising a child. All too often, in fact, these mothers are forgotten by institutions and hastily labelled as a minority of irresponsible young people, forced to pay a high price for their mistakes.

However, the reality is much different and, as my colleague, Ms Angelilli, has also just underlined, single mothers today make up five per cent of Europe’s entire female population. It is therefore essential to explode the myth about their average age once and for all: 85% are, in fact, between the ages of 25 and 64. Continuing to ignore this fact only worsens their situation.

I am particularly in favour of the adoption of paragraph 29, which seeks to promote a better work-life balance, encouraging flexible working hours and creating workplace child care facilities. I do hope, however, that all of these are not just empty promises but concrete undertakings that will soon be put into practice.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Ms Matera’s report reviewing the situation of single mothers, who today make up more than five per cent of the EU population, as others have said. Thus, the EU has a moral obligation to protect them, and the text approved today advocates policies that can provide genuine support to these women in the shape of, for example, health-care benefits, flexible working arrangements that allow for a better work-life balance, priority access to affordable housing, and special unemployment benefits.

Only by adopting these measures can we respond to the needs of a group which is continuing to grow across all developed and industrialised countries.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, the report, which is based on a principle with which I fully agree, namely, that single mothers are at a disadvantage compared with mothers in a normal family situation, does not anticipate how to prevent fraudulent behaviour.

Allow me to explain: if a woman in a cohabitating couple declares herself to be a single mother, she gains de facto advantages compared with other women who are legally married or who declare that they are cohabiting. In Italy, and I think it is also the case in other Member States, there is no legal requirement to register cohabitation, even if the set-up is the same as that of a normal family. Thus, it is clear that laws favourable to women who declare themselves single mothers could encourage a couple to choose not to register their cohabitation, going against the creation of stable families.

For these reasons, we abstained from the vote on this report.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, last night, when this debate was taking place, I was there and it was said that it was a pity that no man spoke. Since the title applies to women or mothers, and not to fathers, I suppose that was the reason. But now, three men have spoken – I and two others – to support this report.

So in relation to this topic, obviously where there are genuine situations of single mothers, or indeed single fathers, they have to be treated with respect and given every opportunity to further both themselves and their child. Especially we have to ensure that they do not fall into the poverty trap or suffer from social exclusion. They are measures that I think we would certainly support. I think it should also be established whether they are genuine cases and that they are supported when they are genuine. When they are not, obviously this causes a dilemma.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the report and also of recital M, because I believe it is right that young women should be informed about the law and about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Families in which every member takes responsibility for the others represent the ideal framework for all generations.

However, we are not here today to discuss the pros and cons of single parenthood. It is a fact that single-parent households in Europe are at risk of falling into poverty and that 85% of single parents are women. Ms Matera’s report lists the positive measures: the introduction of flexitime or working from home, the provision of child care centres and nurseries, and the necessary financial support.

Alongside all the measures, campaigns and financial support, we must continue to promote social acceptance and recognise and respect single parents. Children are precious both in themselves and to society. They must not put the people who bring them up at risk of poverty.

Report: Sonia Alfano (A7-0333/2011)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, today, Europe has taken an important step in recognising the fact that organised crime is a European problem that has been underestimated for too long and traced back to local situations or individual Member States.

I fully support the content of the report and hope that a legislative proposal will soon be presented, one which leads to the creation of a European anti-mafia committee able to expertly review and fight the phenomenon of organised crime through the institutions. Culture, education, development and work in Europe are defences capable of preventing criminal organisations from recruiting young people.

I would like to thank Mr Crocetta, shadow rapporteur of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, who has always been at the forefront of the fight against the Mafia and who made a significant contribution to the improvement of the text.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, it is important for Europe to spearhead the fight against all forms of organised crime and against all mafias. I would really like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work she has done. I wish to mention some of the key points in this report: more stringent rules to impede access to public funds and to criminal organisations or mafia-style groups; new laws to prevent companies linked to organised crime from taking part in public tenders; seizure and confiscation of goods; and the adoption of new rules to ensure persons convicted of offences relating to organised crime are unable to stand for election to the European Parliament.

We must continue our work to ensure that a European area of freedom and justice is finally established. We owe it to our citizens and also to the many victims of organised crime and their families.

Report: Cristian Dan Preda (A7-0313/2011)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Europe is one of the main providers of development funds and we must maintain this characteristic despite the crisis, because no country in difficulty would be able to recover were it not for the help of the international community.

However, this assistance must follow a strategic development plan, especially in view of the 2015 deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, promoting the democratic ownership of development aid policies and policies to assist with development projects and measures through constant engagement with, and also accountability to, all development stakeholders. It is important to reiterate that this assistance is only a temporary measure, a source of inclusive and sustainable growth, albeit achieved through clear and measurable objectives aimed at fostering a sense of responsibility amongst recipient countries.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Helga Trüpel (A7-0346/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because an institution can seek the approval of an amending budget during the financial year every time there is a new high-level post created or appointment made. I agree that some changes should be requested through this amending budget, so as to facilitate recruitment by the Member States and to achieve the goal set out in the Council decision that personnel from the Member States should represent at least one third of the total at grade AD in the European External Action Service (EEAS), and that temporary posts should be converted into permanent ones. In fact, the European Parliament has consistently supported the adequate financing of the EEAS. Its personnel policy, however, raises a series of questions, especially concerning the significant number of high-ranking posts created: it should show a level of restraint in this area.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Its importance means that the European External Action Service (EEAS) deserves to be allocated an adequate budget that enables it to carry out its activities satisfactorily. Unless that is properly secured, the smooth working of European foreign policy and the Union’s actual ability to have a presence in various parts of the world will come under threat. However, doubts persist as to the suitability of its organisational structure to the challenges that it faces. I hope that this situation can be changed in the future, and that the EEAS will be able to become an effective service that is increasingly suited to doing what is required of it.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Trüpel, concerns Draft amending budget No 5/2011 of the European Union (EU) for the financial year 2011, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and Section X – European External Action Service (EEAS). Given that what is at stake is the mobility of an EU official, whose appointment represents ‘an exceptional circumstance for the EDPS’, I am voting for this draft amending budget, since I agree with the rapporteur’s recommendation that the Council’s position should be amended by restoring the 2011 establishment plan of the EDPS. The purpose of this would be to make it possible to appoint an official to the level immediately above, so complying with the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We know that creating the European External Action Service (EEAS) was a key element of deepening the capitalist, federalist and militarist integration of the European Union. The EEAS includes embassies in more than 120 countries and almost 6 000 officials. However, despite our opposition to the existence of this institution, the labour rights of its officials should be protected. This report raises the issue of correcting the EEAS budget with the purpose of facilitating recruitment, professional reclassification and the conversion of temporary jobs into permanent ones.

We cannot oppose the allocation of different categories and posts to jobs currently being carried out if all the legal requirements are met. In this case, the majority of jobs are being reclassified into a higher category. We welcome the conversion of 40 temporary posts into permanent ones. The EU should set an example by promoting job stability and should avoid taking on officials on temporary contracts.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Draft amending budget No 5/2011 to the general budget for 2011 covers the modification of the establishment plans of two institutions – the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS). The establishment of the EEAS in 2010 was guided by the principles of budget neutrality and sound and efficient management, while fully taking into account the impact of the economic crisis on public finances and the need for budgetary stringency. It has been clear from the start that a gradual build-up of the service will be called for, and that resources should be made available according to the progress of the institution’s set-up and current absorption capacity. According to the Commission’s proposal, the EDPS Budget shall be amended by deleting an AD 14 post and creating an AD 15 post in the establishment plan of Section IX.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Parliament has consistently supported adequate financing of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The personnel policy of the EEAS, however, raises a series of questions, notably that of the significant creation of high-ranking posts. The main concern – that this approach was a result of Member States’ pressure on the EEAS to create sufficiently high-ranking posts for national civil servants within it – proved, following reception of detailed information from the EEAS on its personnel policy, to be unfounded. I therefore followed the rapporteur’s recommendation of approving the Council’s position with regard to the EEAS establishment plan but calling, at the same time, on the EEAS to show restraint in relation to possible future plans for creating additional high-ranking posts.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons set out by the rapporteur regarding the amendments to the Council’s position, both with reference to the European Data Protection Supervisor and with reference to the European External Action Service.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the recommendations for improving the Council’s position with regard to the European External Action Service (EEAS) establishment plan, and the calls on the EEAS to show restraint in relation to possible future plans for the creation of additional high-ranking posts. I supported this report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report already states that it is in favour of providing the sum of EUR 1.4 million in 2012 to the imperialist service headed by Baroness Ashton, but is against the appointment of an official at a higher grade during the year in the service responsible for protecting personal data within the Union. I do not share this sense of priority. I voted against.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – It is known that Draft amending budget (DAB) 5/2011 covers the modifications to the establishment plans of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), both without any additional budgetary requests. The Council adopted its position on DAB 5/2011on 12 September 2011. The purpose of the change to the EEAS establishment plan is to allow the EEAS to comply in 2011 with the statutory promotion rates set out in the Staff Regulations and to permit further progress towards the objective that staff from national diplomatic services should represent at least one third of the Service’s staff at AD level. The purpose of the change to the EDPS establishment plan is to delete an AD 14 post and to create an AD 15 post (upgrading) to fulfil obligations under the Staff Regulations in relation to the promotion of a newly appointed director. I support the rapporteur on both issues and I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour. The European External Action Service (EEAS) has been operational for less than a year, and it is understandable that there may be unforeseen cases that require an amending budget. Although we hear criticisms in the press about difficult working conditions in the EEAS, I believe that the European Parliament, having actively supported the idea and setting-up of the EEAS, should support it through this period, particularly because the proposed modifications to the establishment plan will not require additional spending, but will facilitate the implementation of the obligation of at least one third of the staff at Administrator (AD) level coming from the Member States at any given time. As for the amending budget requested by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), it is rather odd that the European Parliament had to decide to establish a higher category of post in order to promote a specific person. I believe that the solution proposed by the rapporteur is appropriate at this stage. I trust that the Commission and the relevant institutions will answer all the questions raised by this case.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report, adopted by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on Budgets, concludes that the personnel policy of the European External Action Service (EEAS) as regards nominating a large number of high-level posts was not determined by pressure from the Member States to create excessive numbers of high-level posts simply so as to promote officials from national governments. That issue was the main concern associated with this report and, as it has been resolved, I voted in favour. I agree with the rapporteur’s call to the EEAS to seek restraint in creating new high-level posts.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The amendment to the establishment plans for the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) is a significant staff adjustment and an admirable response to the improved financial management of these bodies. It is in this regard that I confidently voted in favour of this proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of Draft amending budget No 5 is firstly to modify the establishment plan of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and secondly of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The intention as far as the first point is concerned is to appoint a new member of the EDPS. As far as this is concerned, we should follow the rapporteur’s position that to consider the appointment of a new member under the definition of an exceptional circumstance, which justifies the request for an amending budget, is excessive. As regards the EEAS, a reformulation of its establishment plan has also been requested. Following the European Parliament’s consultations, the information collected has not confirmed the suspicion that high-level posts were being created for members from national administrations. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This Draft amending budget (DAB) No 5 for the year 2011 covers the following: a modification to the establishment plan of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS); a modification to the establishment plan of the European External Action Service (EEAS). Concerning the two points of Draft amending budget No 5/2010 and the Council’s position on it, Parliament considers that, if the appointment represented ‘an exceptional circumstance for the EDPS’, then an institution could seek the adoption of an amending budget during the course of the budget year every time that a new post is being created or an appointment has been made in a higher grade. Therefore, your rapporteur recommends to amend the Council’s position by restoring the 2011 establishment plan of the EDPS.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission’s draft amending budgets for the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) have been adopted by the Council, which thought changes necessary with regard to recruitment, to jobs and to promotions in the EEAS. This will have an annual cost implication of EUR 1.4 million. However, given that this will only be in force during part of 2011, there will be no need for additional appropriations for the purpose, since the draft budget will already take this situation into account from 2012. These proposals have been accepted by the European Parliament committee, which recommends a level of restraint when creating new posts in future. The required changes for the EDPS proposed by the Council in order to promote a post for a higher level on the basis of ‘an exceptional circumstance’ have been rejected by the European Parliament, with the intention of preventing such changes being possible every year purely and simply on the basis of this reason. I voted for the European Parliament proposal for the reasons that I have given.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the two proposals made by Ms Trüpel in the cases of the modification of the establishment plans of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and of the European External Action Service (EEAS). According to the Commission proposal, the EDPS budget should be amended by deleting an AD 14 post and, at the same time, creating an AD 15 post in the establishment plan of Section IX. At a time when the EU budget is overstretched and far-reaching austerity measures have been introduced in the Member States, it was important for us to oppose this proposal. In the case of the EEAS, there has been a request to turn 40 temporary posts into permanent posts over time.

This is the implementation of a Council Decision which requires staff from Member States to represent at least one third of all EEAS staff and temporary posts to be gradually transformed into permanent posts. The Committee on Budgets monitors increases in the staffing levels of the EEAS very closely and always takes a highly critical approach. However, it is worth noting that the creation of a completely new organisation of this size within the EU will result in changes to the establishment plan which need to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I have also voted in favour of this proposal.

Report: Georgios Stravrakakis (A7-0330/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft report as I support the discharge procedures.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report, in which the European Parliament approved granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2009 and the closure of the accounts of the College for the financial year 2009. According to information provided to the European Parliament, since Parliament decided on 10 May 2011 to postpone its decision on granting the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its 2009 budget, one positive point is that the new administration and management of the College have taken measures to eliminate its deficiencies in response to Parliament’s request for action over the serious irregularities in the implementation of the 2009 budget. Since 2010, the College has increased its financial discipline and internal control. The College has developed and implemented its procurement manual for internal use as requested by Parliament in previous discharges in respect of the implementation of the budget. The College has also established an organisational risk register as part of its ongoing budget management to mitigate its risk of under-spending. In its report on the College’s Multiannual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014, the Court of Auditors stated that the College is progressing according to the milestones established in its MAP.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report granting discharge to the European Police College (CEPOL). The appointment of the new director and the recent measures taken at the request of the European Parliament have highlighted the efforts made by the new CEPOL administration to get its situation sorted out.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the delay in discharge of the accounts of the European Police College in April, Parliament is now discharging them, in recognition of the measures taken to correct the deficiencies and severe irregularities found in the implementation of the 2009 budget.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Stavrakakis, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College (CEPOL) for the financial year 2009. This process was submitted to the European Parliament in April 2010, but its discharge was postponed because serious deficiencies and irregularities were detected. Since the doubts raised have been satisfactorily cleared up by CEPOL’s new management and governance, I am voting for closure of CEPOL’s annual accounts for the financial year 2009. I also welcome the revision of the Financial Regulation of the College and the efforts to reduce CEPOL’s financial costs.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the framework Financial Regulation for agencies. The Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2009, qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, and the European Parliament subsequently decided to postpone its decision on granting the Director of the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009. However, the new report submitted now proposes granting the discharge, and there are no motions for amendment preventing this. Despite the fact that the description in the progress report on the implementation of the College’s Multiannual Action Plan remains fairly general, it gives a clear overview of the status of the different milestones and should thereby serve as a satisfactory basis for informing different stakeholders. The enhanced transparency provided by the current Director and his management team has led to an improved understanding of the challenges the College is facing and has fostered the necessary changes.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) In its Decision of 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009. The new administration and management of the College have taken measures to tackle its deficiencies in response to Parliament’s request for action, following the serious irregularities in the implementation of the budget for 2009. Action was taken in time to respond to Parliament’s requests. I therefore approved the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Since the refusal to grant discharge for the 2008 financial year, several restructuring measures have been implemented within the European Police College. The regular debates in the Committee on Budgetary Control, to which the new Director and representatives of the College have been invited, and the reports on the progress of the measures taken, leave me optimistic. However, it is essential that further developments are followed very closely. I therefore voted in favour of the discharge.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to explain why I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Police College (CEPOL). As a Member of the Committee on Budgets and a shadow rapporteur with responsibility for agencies, I welcome the solutions proposed by CEPOL’s new management, which contribute to the effective implementation of the Multiannual Action Plan, increasing transparency and lowering the cost of managing the College. In my opinion, the correct approach has been taken with the introduction of procedural changes, such as the exclusion for tender with regard to the selection of educational experts, as they contribute to the improved execution of the agency’s tasks as well as the rationalisation of expenditure. I hope that the evaluation of the Court of Auditors regarding the application of the Procurement Manual will be positive, and that the management of CEPOL will do their utmost to respond positively to the expectations of the European Parliament.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the assessment of the measures adopted by the new management and governance of the European Police College, Parliament decided today to grant discharge in respect of the 2009 financial year, a matter on which, in May, it had postponed its decision following the qualified opinion expressed by the Court of Auditors. I believe that we can indeed be satisfied by the timely provisions taken by the College to meet Parliament’s demands in May upon the first application for discharge, which was refused.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – There were serious irregularities in the implementation of the European Police College budget for the financial year 2009. However, I voted in favour of granting it discharge, primarily due to the new management and governance of the College, which displayed a commitment to tackle its deficiencies and to implement measures required by the European Parliament, in particular, the revision of the Financial Regulation of the College, the application of the procurement manual and the decision of its governing board to grant voting rights to the Commission. The fulfilment of these commitments will be closely monitored during the 2010 discharge procedure. I call for CEPOL to be merged into Europol in order to reduce expenditure and increase efficiency.

This is why I called on the Court of Auditors to prepare a special report, during 2012, setting out the costs and benefits in financial and operational terms of merging the College’s responsibilities with those of Europol. As rapporteur for the 2010 discharge of the EU agencies, I strongly believe that the rationalisation of EU agencies is both necessary and relevant.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the European Police College, which acknowledges the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College to tackle its deficiencies.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the proposal to grant budgetary discharge to the European Police College (CEPOL) for I believe the information received and the actions undertaken are enough to grant discharge to its Executive Director and approve the closing of the accounts for the 2009 financial year. In October 2010, I proposed that Parliament refuse to grant CEPOL discharge for the 2008 financial year because of significant and repeated failings on the part of the College. At the same time that Parliament was working on the 2008 and 2009 discharges, Mr Banfi was appointed as College director in February 2010. He has actively sought to correct the shortcomings and irregularities in the finances and the budget and to refocus the College’s management so that it is more effective. His work seems to be bearing fruit and I welcome, in particular, the structural efforts adopted by the College, such as the decision to abolish all the committees of the Governing Board by 2012 and to analyse in a critical way all the working groups of the Board.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report for discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Police College’s general budget for the 2009 financial year. My colleague, Mr Stavrakakis, has carefully and thoroughly analysed the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College in order to tackle its deficiencies.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College, in response to Parliament’s previous requests for action, to tackle its deficiencies. In the light of the improvements made, I support Parliament’s decision to grant discharge to the College in respect of the agency’s budget for the 2009 financial year.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – After postponement earlier this year of the 2009 budget discharge for the European Police College, the new draft report proposes to grant discharge, and there are no amendments tabled to refuse it. The draft report generally recognises the big improvements made in the college’s management over the past two years. Two amendments were passed, asking for the College’s relocation and for its merger with Europol in The Hague for efficiency reasons – going beyond the remit of the Committee on Budgetary Control, as decisions on the location of agencies and other bodies are made by the Member States. I agree with the rapporteur and I voted in favour.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The modernisation and, in particular, the improved efficiency of public procurement is a key issue at present, especially as we are in a period of crisis. It is clear that price should not be the only determining factor – social aspects and the issue of sustainable job creation are now extremely important. In the Slovak Republic, for example, unemployment is now at a six year high. The unemployment rate in Slovakia has risen to 13.73%, and the situation will probably not improve next year, due to the expected slowdown in economic growth. One of the problems of public procurement is the large number of subcontractors, which ultimately causes confusion and a lack of transparency. It is therefore necessary for procurement bodies to be notified in advance of all details relating to the use of subcontractors. We must therefore approach this modernisation in a systematic way, putting the emphasis on sustainable development.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is based on another by the Committee on Budgetary Control, a majority of which has adopted the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, despite having a number of observations regarding expenditure. The aforementioned committee concludes that there are serious signs of a spending restraint. In fact, efforts to cut spending were demonstrated by CEPOL at its 25th governing board meeting in June 2011, during which it was decided to abolish all its committees by 2012 and to critically analyse all its working groups. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am satisfied with the work that has been carried out and with the results obtained; I therefore voted in favour of granting the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget for the 2009 financial year and approval of the European Police College end-of-year accounts for the 2009 financial year.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) After certain reservations were expressed about the accounts of the European Police College in previous financial years, its efforts to strengthen mechanisms guaranteeing the transparency of its activities should be stressed. This is a point that the European Parliament has always considered crucial when exercising the budgetary oversight activities assigned to it under the Treaties. In this light, given the efforts made recently, I voted to grant discharge to the implementation of the 2009 budget.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. The report now states that the College has improved its accounting system and that the new rules on procurement and the procurement manual are now finalised. There is a better internal control system compared to 2009. In short, progress has been made, illegal contracts have been terminated, and recovery of unduly paid private expenditure has been finalised. But we are still very critical of the way in which the Police College handles its finances and would prefer to attach the whole agency, which is providing police training on a European level, to a larger and better run entity, namely Europol.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Police College (CEPOL) was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the Framework Financial Regulation for Agencies. In the report on CEPOL’s accounts for the period 2008-2009, the Court of Auditors expressed reservations about the legality and regularity of transactions, leading the European Parliament to postpone the decision to discharge the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2009. In response to the request drafted by Parliament, CEPOL’s management adopted new measures with a view to correcting its budgetary deficiencies, thereby bringing it into line with this decision to grant the Director of CEPOL discharge for its budget for the financial year 2009. I should also like to take this opportunity to stress that the new procurement procedures, the rules governing expenditure on courses, and the analysis of appropriations used to finance private expenditure, will make the management of the CEPOL budget more rigorous.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) On 10 May 2011, the European Parliament decided to postpone the discharge decision for the financial year 2009 and called for further investigations and answers on the budget management of the European Police College. Comprehensive investigations have since been carried out, with some external help. The European Police College has now largely fulfilled Parliament’s specific requirements and its ongoing compliance will be constantly monitored. The previous management team of the College has also been replaced.

For these reasons, Mr Stavrakakis is now proposing to grant the new Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the college’s budget for the financial year 2009. The future development of the college will be subject to strict requirements. It will be constantly monitored and Parliament will be kept permanently informed of the situation. I have voted in favour of this.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I would like to comment on budget implementation by the European Police College. The College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body. This gave Parliament and the Court of Auditors additional powers to assess the College’s budget. In their analyses, the Court of Auditors and Parliament qualify their opinion with regard to implementation of the budget by the Police College, the College tries to take account of this, and the same happens every year. I think the key lies in another solution. The Police College should be amalgamated with Europol. Only this solution would give tangible operational effects, reduce costs and bring financial benefits.

Report: Georgios Stravrakakis (A7-0329/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft report as I support the discharge procedures.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report, in which the European Parliament granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009 and approved the closure of the agency’s accounts for the financial year 2009. On the basis of information provided to the European Parliament, one positive point is that the agency has taken actions to address its serious weaknesses disclosed by the reports for 2009 from both the Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service, as a result of which, on 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009. In the second half of 2011, the agency submitted a report to Parliament on the level of implementation of the IAS recommendations, stating that, a significant proportion of the ‘very important’ recommendations on human resources management, administrative procedures relating to selection and internal control standards had already been implemented or were being implemented. Moreover, the agency has begun to develop an action plan on improving procurement procedures. It has also rectified the deficiencies identified by the IAS concerning contract agent selection. I agree with the rapporteur that Parliament must continue to carefully monitor the level of implementation of the measures undertaken to address the agency’s serious weaknesses.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which recommends granting discharge to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the 2009 financial year. I support the rapporteur’s approach, which entails introducing the need to inform the discharge authority every three months of the measures taken to remedy the shortcomings previously identified.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the delay in discharge of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in April, Parliament is now discharging them, in recognition of the measures taken to correct the deficiencies of 2009, and in accordance with the letter from the Chair of the EMA’s Management Board of 17 June 2011. I re-emphasise, in any case, that persistent breaches of the Financial Regulation should and shall not be tolerated. Previous resolutions that accompanied other postponement decisions and the resulting adoption of discharges urgently need to be respected.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Medicines Agency (EMA) was established by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 31 March 2004, and is covered by the Framework Financial Regulation created by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of the Commission, of 19 November 2002. This report, by Mr Stavrakakis, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the EMA for the financial year 2009. On 10 May 2011, Parliament agreed to postpone the decision to grant the Executive Director of the EMA discharge for the financial year 2009, since the report by the Court of Auditors expressed reservations about the legality and regularity of compliance with the Financial Regulation as regards underlying transactions. Given that the Management Board of the EMA sent a letter to the European Parliament on 17 June 2011 on the measures taken to correct the irregularities, and in view of the 10 August 2011 letter from the Executive Director, following the questions raised during the debate on discharge to the EMA for 2009 at the 13 July 2011 meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for the report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Since the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009, qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, Parliament decided, in its decision of 10 May 2011, to postpone its decision on granting the Executive Director of the agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009. The discharge authority subsequently received replies from the agency following Parliament’s resolution of 10 May 2011, and in its replies, the agency provided updated information on the implementation of recommendations. In light of the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency was granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009

The discharge authority shall continue to carefully monitor, during the upcoming discharge procedures, the level of implementation of the measures undertaken to address the agency’s serious weaknesses disclosed by the reports from both the Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service. It is therefore desirable for the agency to continue informing the discharge authority of the measures implemented and their results, and always to submit the requested documents on time.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) In its decision of 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009. The European Parliament received replies from the agency following the abovementioned decision and the agency provided updated information on the level of implementation of the IAS recommendations, which, according to the information given, is improving. I believe that the agency should continue to inform the discharge authority on the results of the actions requested by the discharge authority. I welcomed the European Parliament’s position to grant the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In my statement, I would like to refer to one aspect of the document drafted by Mr Stavrakakis, namely, the building of a positive image for this agency, as well as for other agencies. The problems experienced by CEPOL and the European Medicines Agency in obtaining discharge have had a decidedly negative impact on the way that these agencies are perceived by us, the Members of the European Parliament, and also by European citizens. In my opinion, in order to regain public confidence, the European Medicines Agency should comply with all of the recommendations of the Court of Auditors.

At the same time, I would like to congratulate the agency on the efforts that it has made to improve its operations, namely, the implementation of the three recommendations resulting from the 2009 audit by the Internal Audit Service on Human Resources Management. These examples of the agency’s actions convinced me to vote in favour of the adoption of the report, and thus to grant discharge to the European Medicines Agency.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With today’s vote, Parliament has granted the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the financial year 2009. The decision follows on from the first postponement, which was essentially due to concerns expressed by the Court of Auditors mainly relating to the management of procurement processes and the criteria applied when hiring staff. Today, following the letter from the Chair of the agency’s Management Board of 17 June 2011, in which it is stated that the agency has taken actions to address the 2009 shortcomings, and other documents received by the agency in response to questions raised by the resolution voted on in May, we grant discharge, despite the fact that not all the information requested has yet been submitted.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – The discharge for 2009 was granted today to the European Medicines Agency. However, I would like to point out that the agency failed to provide Parliament with the action plan on public procurement, its timetable for implementation and the updated documents on the management and prevention of conflicts of interests, as requested in May 2011 when the discharge was postponed. These areas will be closely monitored. These were part of the amendments which I tabled and were adopted during the vote in the Committee on Budgetary Control and integrated in the final report voted on today by the Plenary. As Parliament’s rapporteur for the 2010 discharge of the EU Agencies’ budgets, I will closely monitor the European Medicines Agency and look, in particular, at conflicts of interests and cost-efficiency criteria in each and every EU agency. These issues will bear considerable weight in the decision on discharge.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report which insists, but also warns the European Medicines Agency, that all the actions mentioned in the respective audit reports, including the one for the year 2010, should be fully implemented before the start of the next discharge procedure.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), although I regret that some of the requested information was not provided. As a result, we are expecting the agency to inform the discharge authority of the actions implemented and their results, in particular, with a view to overcoming deficiencies in public procurement and managing conflicts of interest which its personnel and experts are exposed to. On this last point, the agency undertook to adopt an approach based on risk and to concentrate verifications on staff members who declare interest. Furthermore, we are asking the agency to be willing to act with regard to carryovers, and we expect to receive confirmation on this from the Court of Auditors. With regard to revenue from fees, the report notes that the agency has invested in software in order to clear the backlog with the recovery orders. Finally, we acknowledge the fact that the agency has revised its cash-flow policy so as to limit risks resulting from fluctuating exchange rates.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I also voted for Mr Stavrakakis’s second report. I agree with the observations contained in the resolutions concerning the granting of discharge to the European Medicines Agency in respect of the financial year 2009. It is very important that the agency should continue to inform the discharge authority every three months on the results of the actions requested by the latter.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I support this report and welcome the measures taken by the European Medicines Agency to address its shortcomings in 2009. I support calls for the agency to continue to inform the discharge authority, on a three-monthly basis, about the results of actions requested. The agency is also called upon to proceed promptly with the adoption of an action plan to remedy the shortcomings in procurement procedures.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Medicines Agency bears a heavy responsibility in the Mediator tragedy. A few electronic forms are not going to assure us that this agency will no longer endanger the health of our fellow citizens through negligence or conflicts of interest. It needs a complete overhaul and to be open to public debate. I refuse to vote for a report which endorses unfocused and dangerous management by an agency that is still not meeting all the demands of this Parliament.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Budget discharge for the European Medicines Agency for 2009 had been postponed because considerable concern had been expressed about weaknesses in the agency’s procurement systems and also in relation to the prevention of conflicts of interest. The committee voted to grant discharge and close the accounts, approving our rapporteur’s amendments (members of the ENVI Committee from all groups had been active in securing support for this position). A number of quite critical amendments were passed, including some calling for very detailed reporting to Parliament in future, so these issues are likely to be discussed again in the discharge procedures for future years. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report in which the European Parliament grants discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) budget for the financial year 2009. I agree with the rapporteur’s warning to the EMA that all points mentioned in the auditor’s report should be entirely corrected prior to the start of the next discharge procedure, including that relating to 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am satisfied with the work carried out and the result achieved, and I voted in favour of discharge being granted to the director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2009 and of closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted to grant the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2009 because I believe the various prerequisites have been met. I am, however, bound to stress the need for all the EMA’s activities to be guided by the principle of transparency, particularly public procurement processes. Indeed, the observation of the Court of Auditors that the EMA did not undertake the necessary checks to reduce the risk of error relating to calls for proposals under a given range of circumstances elicits a degree of suspicion. As such, I hope that, from now on, the necessary efforts will be made to reduce conflict of interest situations so that, at the very least, guarantees of consumer protection will not be threatened.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. An important issue which caused the postponement of the 2009 discharge was the fact that experts and staff were not checked on their independence or on possible conflicts of interest, which led to a lack of impartiality. They have improved on paper (for the time being) the procedures on compliance with the respective codes of conduct. A large majority on the Committee on Budgetary Control is in favour of granting discharge. But we have tabled in committee a number of amendments (which were adopted) to ensure that, if they receive discharge for 2009, the Committee on Budgetary Control will keep a close eye on developments, and also to take full account of the lack of progress made in the decision on next year’s discharge. We should not grant discharge to this agency, and we should make it clear that a lot still has to be done to tackle problems which might also harm the health of European citizens.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Founded in 1995, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is a decentralised European body whose purpose is to protect and promote human and animal health, by evaluating and supervising medicines for human and veterinary use. The EMA is the agency responsible for the scientific analysis of requests to authorise the bringing onto the market of medicines introduced at EU level. In 2009, the EMA budget was EUR 194 million, with 18.52% financed by the European Union and the remainder obtained through fees paid by pharmaceutical companies for services provided. In the report on the EMA’s accounts for the 2009 period, the Court of Auditors expressed reservations about the legality and regularity of transactions, leading the European Parliament to postpone the decision to discharge the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2009. I agree with the decision to grant the Director of the EMA discharge on the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2009, and I support the closure of the accounts for the financial year 2009, given that the EMA has provided the discharge authority with up-to-date information on the level of application of the Internal Audit Service’s recommendations.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The discharge decision for the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009 was also postponed in May. The agency is partially financed from the Union’s annual budget, but the contribution decreased by 9.2% between 2008 and 2009. On 17 May, the agency informed Parliament about the actions it had taken to address the problems identified in 2009 and the Court of Auditors qualified its opinion. I have voted in favour.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – The European Medicines Agency, which is based in my home constituency of London, does valuable work in helping to protect public health across the European Union. However, there are concerns about a lack of transparency in the agency, which sometimes keeps doctors and patients in the dark.

On the issue of the budget, regretfully, I had to vote against the discharge today. My constituents are feeling the pinch of the economic crisis and I therefore cannot countenance suspect procurement procedures which may have cost the taxpayer EUR 30 million. Conflicts of interest also need to be eliminated. It is wholly unacceptable that the agency’s former director took up well-paid consultancy jobs advising pharmaceutical companies within weeks of leaving his post.

Report: Antonio López-Istúriz White (A7-0349/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. Taking into account the interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for the official codification of legislative texts and, in particular, point 4 thereof, the Consultative Working Party, consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, has stated without dissent that this proposal is limited to the straightforward codification of the texts in question without any change in their substance, and I agree.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the López-Istúriz White report on the draft directive relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to the fitting thereof. Tyres are subject to European rules that are part of a process to harmonise national approval procedures.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in the current directives of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting, a few minor errors were made in the text. The main errors are to be found in Annex II and Annex V. In Annex II in the English language version, the figure ‘330’ should have been used instead of the figure ‘305’ and some acronyms should also be added. In Annex V, there were several errors as regards the marking of expressions – they should have been identified with markers. The Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission has agreed that these proposed corrections do not in any way change the substance of the existing text, but only make it more accurate and precise. I believe that it is important to take such errors into account, because even a single word or figure can change an awful lot and give those to whom legislation is addressed a lot of additional concerns.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The acquis communautaire is often complex, is hard to interpret, and is not always easy to fully grasp. The intelligibility of legislation is a constant concern of the various European institutions, which I, as a lawyer, am bound to share. This resolution concerns the codification of pieces of legislation without amending any of them, so there are no reservations or controversy about it. I therefore voted in favour.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The interinstitutional agreement concluded on 20 December 1994 recommended the use of an accelerated method of working for the official codification of the legislative texts of the European Community. This report, drafted by Mr López-Istúriz White, concerns a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, and to their fitting. Given that this proposal exclusively concerns the straightforward codification of the texts in question, without any change in their substance – which is of legal value and has been adopted by various European institutions – in line with the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, I fully support this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The submitted proposal follows the codification of Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting. The new directive replaces a number of legal acts comprising the subject of the codification; the proposal retains the full content of the codified legal acts and focuses exclusively on simplifying them into one legal act, with the formal amendments not going beyond the essential purpose of codification. The directive in question has repeatedly been amended in a fundamental way. I firmly believe that this directive should be codified, in the interests of clarity and transparency. It is one of the independent directives of the EC type approval system established by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles and laying down the technical regulations which motor vehicles and their trailers must fulfil, and also applying, among other things, to tyres.

These technical requirements relate to the approximation of Member State legislation in order to allow the application of the EC type approval process laid down by the directive in question for every type of motor vehicle and trailer. The directive should not, however, affect the obligations of Member States regarding the deadline for transposition into national law.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution codifying the legislation on tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which calls on Parliament and the Council to issue a directive relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, and to the fitting thereof.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting. The new directive will supersede the various acts now incorporated into it. This proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together, with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal presented because it contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. The provisions of the directive will thus be clear and transparent, as well as more accessible to citizens.

It should be noted that the common requirements laid down in the rules applying to tyres should concern not only their characteristics but also the fitting of tyres and should be adapted to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the purpose of this report is the straightforward codification of existing texts, without any change in their substance, which is why I voted in favour.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council codifying Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting contains some inaccuracies, such as the absence of appropriate adaptation markers for acronyms, expressions and introductory wording, I voted in favour of a re-codification of existing texts.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the purpose of this directive is the codification of various earlier texts, with benefits in terms of the accessibility and comprehensibility of the legislation, without any changes to their substance, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The European Parliament, A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, 1. Adopts its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, and to their fitting, is in line with the goal of codifying European Union legislative texts in order to simplify EU law, and to ensure it is clear and transparent. This report brings together the various texts on this issue in their entirety, fully preserving the content of the codified acts. As such, the purpose of the techniques imposed on the tyres of motor vehicles and their trailers is to bring the laws of the Member States relating to approval processes closer together. This makes Union law more accessible and comprehensible to the European public, enabling them to make full use of their rights.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The proposal is simply a codification of the existing acts, without any changes to their content. For this reason, I have voted in favour.

Report: Diana Wallis (A7-0343/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because an area of freedom, security and justice, as laid down in the Treaties, must meet the needs of citizens and businesses, for example, by creating clearer and simpler procedures, whilst enhancing access to justice. This will suitably safeguard individuals’ substantive rights and settle disputes between parties. I would stress that any approach to alternative dispute resolution should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in civil, commercial and family matters.

I welcome the recent Commission consultation on ADR. Compared to courts, ADR schemes are cheaper, quicker and less formal, offering practical solutions. As ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors, we, Members of the European Parliament, believe that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include disputes about business-to-business, civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, as well as family disputes and cases of defamation or cases involving parties whose legal status differs.

Moreover, on-line shopping is increasing and ADR could play a more relevant role here because the scope for judicial action is sometimes limited when dealing with new technologies. Parliament stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially in the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. I support the rapporteur’s position that the use of ADR systems affords a higher level of protection of consumer rights, while also promoting cross-border trade and increased prosperity for all operators in the EU market.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to settle their disputes through the intervention of a mediator or arbitrator.

I welcome the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift and effective, do not incur high costs, and offer the possibility of establishing and maintaining high-quality commercial, economic, social and neighbourly relations on the basis of mutual trust. The aim is to help raise the level of consumer protection in a ‘win-win’ situation, offering more benefits to both sides than current judicial practice.

I think that existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR methods in Europe must be urgently rectified. I encourage the introduction of an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer contracts to operate across the European Union.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Sensitive to the issue of the protection of consumers and their rights, I voted in favour of the Wallis report. This report advocates establishing alternative methods of dispute settlement outside the traditional judicial system. For the consumer, these alternative methods have the advantage of being less costly and faster, whilst respecting the principles of impartiality, transparency and effectiveness.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Alternative dispute resolution methods avoid recourse to the courts, so helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party, mediator or arbitrator, and constituting a quick and economically advantageous alternative to legal action. This report calls on the Commission to run, in cooperation with the Member States, information campaigns intended to raise awareness of the benefits of using alternative dispute resolution methods amongst consumers and businesses. It also suggests that the Commission create a multilingual European portal for alternative dispute resolution methods on the Internet, in which consumers can find out about how it works, their rights, and their responsibilities. Finally, it stresses the crucial role that they play in family disputes, since they can help the parties to resume dialogue by reducing psychological damage, thereby helping to ensure the protection of children. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Having alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms available is one of the key factors for increasing the confidence not only of consumers but also of European companies in the single market. At present, a huge number of consumers and companies are hesitating about carrying out cross-border transactions due to being afraid that they will not be able to resolve adequately any disputes they have. However, this reluctance to carry out cross-border transactions is depriving consumers and companies of the benefits of a competitive internal market. We need dispute resolution mechanisms to be quick, efficient, independent and, most of all, as cost-effective as possible. This would give them a real advantage over judicial proceedings, which are long and costly. Furthermore, promoting ADR will also help streamline the operation of the judicial system as some cases will be resolved through mediation or arbitration. The prerequisite for achieving this is obviously that these alternative mechanisms are promoted in the appropriate manner by informing consumers and companies about them, so that they are used more widely. Therefore, I think that it would be desirable for us to have a legislative proposal from the Commission as soon as possible which complies with the guidelines in this report, so that all EU citizens can have access to ADR mechanisms.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There can only be a genuine area of freedom, security and justice if the fundamental right of access to justice is properly safeguarded, specifically through clear and simple procedures that are accessible to all. It seems to me that alternative dispute resolution methods could constitute a rapid and economically advantageous alternative to current legal practice. It is important to reinforce public confidence in the internal market, and in the application of laws in case of international dispute, by adopting the necessary legislative measures for ensuring the uniform development of these systems throughout the EU. An approach that balances the use and flexibility of alternative dispute resolution systems must be ensured, on the one hand, and the guarantee of protection of consumer rights and their access to fair, confidential, impartial, transparent, quick and effective procedures, on the other: this will undoubtedly bring benefits to the EU economy. It is also important to ensure periodic monitoring and assessment of alternative dispute resolution bodies by independent evaluators. At the same time, public information campaigns and pilot projects must also be undertaken, ensuring that businesses and consumers in general are provided with adequate information.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) At a time when, in some Member States such as Romania, the courts are overwhelmed by the volume of cases pending, I support the European Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution methods.

There are more than 138 500 cases pending in the Romanian courts dating back more than a year, according to the monitoring report from the Judicial Inspection attached to the Superior Council of Magistracy. Of these, 4 001 cases are 5-10 years old and 586 are more than 10 years old.

Therefore, I believe that a set of rules is required to regulate dispute resolution by a mediator or arbitrator. However, when these people are being appointed, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising must be avoided, and the experts in this area must have the necessary professional expertise and impartiality. The general public also needs to be given more information about how the mechanism works and about the advantages of resorting to alternative dispute resolution.

Last but not least, this mechanism for achieving an amicable, out-of-court settlement must remain optional so as not to prejudice access to justice.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament supported the European Commission in its desire to ensure European consumers have access to justice by developing and promoting alternative methods of settling disputes for national cases, but also cross-border ones. With these new alternative methods of dispute settlement, the enforcement of rights in civil, commercial and family matters will be swifter, cheaper and more conciliatory, since the independence and impartiality of the mediators obviously need to be ensured. For this new right to mediation to become effective, all consumers will need to know who to contact in practice. It will therefore be the responsibility of the Member States to organise information campaigns.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this own-initiative report for, at a time when we are using a wider range of purchasing methods within the single market, it is essential to strengthen consumer protection in the event of litigation. The use of new methods for settling disputes should make it possible to avoid placing an additional burden on the judicial authorities as a result of the increasing number of disputes, and should prove to be simpler, faster and cheaper for consumers.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Anyone who knows the courts in the Member States knows about the increasing difficulties they have been having in ensuring the timely resolution of disputes that come before them. The complexity of procedural law and the number of cases being heard has been overloading judges, magistrates, lawyers and legal officials who, despite their skill and dedication, are finding it impossible to deal with all the disputes within the proper timeframe. Many of these issues presently inundating the courts are of no particular legal complexity or financial significance, and could be settled using alternative dispute resolution methods that are more effective and less complex. There are various examples of these types of methods in operation throughout the Union. I believe we should not seek to impose models on the Member States as regards these mechanisms, but instead provide them with information about each country’s practices and experiences, so that they might improve their own mechanisms.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Sustainable economic growth that brings an end to the economic and financial crisis with which the European Union is struggling has been one of the Commission’s main goals. In response to Parliament’s request that it table a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the European Union by the end of 2011, the Commission has included it in its Work Programme 2011 and in the 13 April 2011 communication as ‘one of the twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, with the aim of consumer empowerment’. This report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters includes a series of proposals whose purpose is for European citizens to be able to access a faster, more accessible and cheaper form of justice by means of a conciliation process. In addition to their cross-border nature, alternative methods of dispute resolution should be undertaken on-line, since Internet purchases are increasing exponentially. I am pleased to note the prospect of extending alternative methods of dispute resolution to small and medium-sized enterprises. I welcome the adoption of this report, and hope that all the Member States will very soon be able to transpose the framework directives on alternative dispute resolution into national law.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report voted on today on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters includes an analysis of alternative dispute resolution methods, especially at cross-border level, which we welcome, given the scarce information on types of legal intervention in this area. These alternative methods could enable the parties to avoid drawn-out and generally costly recourse to the courts. They are means of mediation and arbitration that, in many cases, are related to commercial, consumer and environmental matters, or family disputes.

As such, they can include processes and methods involving another party – a mediator or arbitrator – that are quick and beneficial alternatives to legal action for conflict resolution. Given that in many countries, the public authorities, including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities, play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes without recourse to legal means, this seems like a positive way forward to us.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Access to justice is a fundamental right. The concepts of freedom, security and justice also need to meet the requirements of citizens and businesses through a simpler and more comprehensible form of application, thereby also improving access to justice. The aim of alternative means of dispute resolution is to strive for the restoration of legal peace or the resolution of disputes between parties. Alternative dispute resolution helps consumers and businesses to resolve conflicts through a third party by an out-of-court route, and thus becomes an effective alternative to the judicial process, particularly in terms of cost. It is a sad fact, however, that Member State citizens are relatively unaware of the existence of alternative systems for dispute resolution. Moreover, only a small percentage of citizens know how to submit an actual complaint to an alternative dispute resolution body.

In my opinion, we must try to educate and inform the public about the possibility of resolving disputes through alternative mechanisms to judicial proceedings. These also offer the possibility of avoiding a directly confrontational approach and, at the same time, provide a possibility for dispute resolution that is advantageous to both parties. However, we absolutely must strive for an approach which takes account of the scope of alternative dispute resolution system powers, on the one hand, and of fair procedures and proceedings in relation to the parties involved, on the other.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I am pleased that the European Parliament has adopted yet another initiative regarding alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in civil, commercial and family matters. During the September part-session, I emphasised the benefits arising from the directive on mediation, and today, I would once again like to stress the importance of these undervalued, but very effective, tools in the out-of-court settlement of disputes. Citizens should have guaranteed access to justice, but, at the same time, they have to be properly informed and encouraged to use alternative solutions, which are not only much cheaper, but also significantly faster.

Great Britain is currently the European leader in the use of ADR methods. Since March 2001, all government agencies have been required to use ADR in all relevant matters, if the other party agrees to take part. In its published report for 2002-2003, the Department for Constitutional Affairs states that the use of ADR by government agencies rose by over 1 200%.

Therefore, I encourage the Member States to follow the example of Great Britain. At the same time, I appeal for clear steps to be taken in order to evaluate ADR bodies, to improve information programmes, and to conduct campaigns promoting this method of dispute settlement to consumers. I agree with the rapporteur’s position regarding the minimum standards of ADR and the use of best practice models, as well as greater transparency of proceedings and their promotion by European Union information bodies.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the Wallis report because the creation of a more streamlined system of ADR across the board has never been more important in order to ensure that citizens are provided with affordable, expedient and accessible out-of-court mechanisms through which they can seek redress and safeguard their rights. It is a fact that ADR systems like the SOLVIT network have proven successful in solving problems affecting citizens. Nevertheless, the ADR landscape of Europe remains largely fragmented. I am convinced that any future Commission action plan in this respect should secure a new citizen-based ADR structure built on the principles of transparency and proportionality. It is also possible for us to work with the existing structures we currently have at our disposal, such as the ECC-Network and FIN-Network centres. Additionally, the usage of small claims tribunals in various Member States remains significantly low and therefore, this aspect must be taken into account by the Commission when formulating its proposal on ADR. It is vital to note that for any final EU-wide ADR package to be endorsed by the European citizen, this must factor in the existence of an EU-wide collective redress system, and therefore I urge the Commission to firmly put in place this mechanism by 2012.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) I supported this resolution because, in recent decades, a trend has been identified globally, which is how difficult it is to have access to justice, caused by the steady rise in the number of court cases and their exorbitant cost, by serious regulatory shortcomings and the limitations of legal proceedings, as well as by the difficulty in implementing constantly changing legislation.

In view of this, there has been renewed interest in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) triggered, on the one hand, by the crisis and, on the other, by the benefits of these methods for resolving conflicts on an out-of-court basis and, above, all, for their consensual nature. I share the view that the use of ADR mechanisms needs to extend beyond consumer disputes to include civil and commercial agreements between companies, as well as family disputes and defamation cases. I support the need for legislative measures with this objective.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because judicial procedures for resolving such disputes are more complex, expensive and lengthy. I believe that legislative measures adopted at EU level will facilitate the implementation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and encourage natural and legal persons to use it more often, especially in relation to cross-border disputes. The Commission is therefore urged to submit a legislative proposal on the use of ADR in the EU by the end of 2011 and it is emphasised that it is important to adopt this proposal swiftly. I am convinced that it is necessary to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution which are accessible, easy to use, effective and cheap, and which make it possible to establish and maintain quality and trust-based commercial, economic, social and neighbourly relations and to contribute to a high level of consumer protection in a win-win situation, with benefits for both sides as compared to current judicial practice. On the basis of the data collected and a solid impact assessment in compliance with the improved regulation rules, the Commission must explore laying down minimum standards of ADR across sectors, while developing existing schemes and encouraging Member States to also increase funding in sectors covered by schemes, bearing in mind that, although it provides parties with a low cost alternative, ADR must not be ‘justice on the cheap’.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions. However, I believe that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors and take the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Access to justice is a fundamental right: our task must be to create simpler and clearer procedures to meet the needs of European citizens and businesses. The judicial process and alternative means of dispute settlement seek to restore legal peace between parties in dispute, to suitably safeguard individuals’ substantive rights, and to settle disputes between parties.

Alternative dispute resolution, which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is certainly capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative, a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator). We have seen that in many countries, public authorities (ombudsmen and regulatory authorities) play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes, thus helping to strengthen citizens’ confidence and trust in the enforcement of law.

Therefore, we think it appropriate to take legislative measures aimed at raising awareness and encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution systems in civil, commercial and family matters, especially in relation to cross-border disputes, bearing in mind that judicial procedures for resolving such disputes are more complex, expensive and lengthy.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The lack of even development of alternative means of dispute resolution throughout the EU is a major obstacle to their use. I therefore agree fully with the rapporteur on the fact that there is the need for a system which is operational across the EU.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Consumer protection and confidence have become increasingly important for the effective functioning of the single market, which can be strengthened through adequate law enforcement and by paving the way for more effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR schemes are quicker and more informal and offer practical solutions. It is vital that these schemes go beyond consumer disputes, that they are completely transparent, and that they are independently monitored. I support this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report, prepared in enhanced cooperation with the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, examines options for alternative dispute resolution (i.e. resolving disputes out of court) in advance of the Commission’s proposal on the subject, which is expected in the next month. Whilst people’s access to justice must continue to be guaranteed, there are many types of dispute that can be resolved easily and relatively cheaply out of court – for example, customer complaints, divorce proceedings, etc. – and this report looks at ways to encourage that. I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal presented because it is essential to develop the scope of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Above all, this method must be used to resolve civil, commercial and family matters. Consequently, I welcome the proposal calling on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of ADR in the EU by the end of 2011 and to also set out minimum standards of ADR across sectors.

It should be noted that ADR must be used as a flexible, effective and, at the same time, relatively fair means of settling disputes, and sufficient funding should therefore be allocated to the implementation of this method across sectors, so that such dispute resolution does not become ‘justice on the cheap’.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Having practised as a lawyer and having faced encumbrances and delays in the dispensation of justice in almost all civil and commercial cases brought before the Greek courts, I cannot but vote in favour of the present report. Civil and commercial law are governed by the principle of private initiative, by the initiative of the litigants, meaning that these sectors are ideal for alternative dispute resolution, given that parties want a fast resolution to their dispute for the sake of security of law, planning and competitiveness. Alternative dispute resolution, in the way in which and for the disputes for which it is proposed, aims to optimise the efficient dispensation of justice, harmonise the rules of alternative dispute resolution in the common market, for the benefit of parties at European level, and speed up proceedings. Of course, as the proposed changes are implemented and national rules converge, the specificities of each Member State’s legal system will need to be taken into account and particular attention will need to be paid to technical details during their application and to ensuring that the results are transparent. However, the report is a step in the right direction.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that alternative dispute resolution methods enabling the parties to avoid traditional means of arbitration could constitute a rapid and economically advantageous alternative to legal action, so I voted in favour. I support the Commission’s intention of encouraging the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift, effective and cheap, with benefits for both sides as compared to current judicial practice.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the principle that access to justice is a fundamental right, and I therefore consider that the promotion and knowledge by EU citizens of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes is an essential priority in order to guarantee adequate protection in disputes between interested parties, and to ensure that citizens have faith in the internal market, thus boosting its economy. I voted in favour of the motion tabled in committee with the aim of facilitating the application of ADR and encouraging natural and legal persons to use it more often.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. Out-of-court dispute settlement is an effective, accessible and simple means of restoring legal peace between parties, and it can be more widely used if we promote better awareness and understanding of the relevant mechanisms.

Justice is a fundamental right, and expedient access to it across the EU Member States’ borders is essential in order to consolidate undertakings’ and consumers’ trust in the internal market as a safe environment in which to do business and to shop. However, in contrast to the approach taken in the Commission’s consultation, our contention is that the scope of alternative dispute resolution should not be confined to commercial matters. Our constituents are citizens, not merely consumers. Other civil matters, including family disputes, increasingly extend beyond the borders of individual Member States, as our citizens enjoy the dividends of European integration. Common standards for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, especially as regards impartiality, transparency, fairness and confidentiality, are key to establishing easy and trusted access to justice across the EU, and they need to be underpinned by cross-border enforceability.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) From the EU’s point of view, it is indispensable that the institutions of justice work properly if the public is to have confidence in the single market. As such, the EU has been seeking for a long time to prevent the emergence of cases of accountability vacuum resulting from the existence of legal systems that are very different from each other: such vacuums contribute, in the end, to exacerbating the lack of trust between the citizens of the various Member States. These problems have also been exacerbated by the volume of cases passing through the courts in all the Member States. Put simply, in addition to our being confronted with very different legal systems, on the one hand, the legal systems themselves have been functioning increasingly less efficiently, on the other. Alternative means of dispute resolution could therefore play an important role: at a time when court involvement is resulting from such diverse demands, it is right that the public justice system should offer means that manage to ensure the stability and security of the various relationships and legal peace between stakeholders on a case-by-case basis. I believe these dispute resolution methods contribute to public confidence in the justice system, so I voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in the House, we voted on Ms Wallis’s report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. The report is a response to the consultation process carried out by the European Commission into the possibility of introducing a common legislative measure on alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator).

More specifically, the text adopted highlights some basic prerequisites for ADR procedures, such as the impartiality of third parties and the need to safeguard the diverse nature of procedures. Finally, it emphasises the importance of ADR as a preventive tool for resolving multiple disputes, and a useful tool for avoiding collective redress action before the courts.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) By adopting this report, the European Parliament is sending a strong message to the European Commission in favour of supporting improvement to cross-border access to justice for European citizens and companies, by developing and promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in the EU. Two elements of this report seem essential to me. Firstly, the text issues guiding principles to be respected in the area of the ADR systems introduced in Europe. Among them, the independence and impartiality of the mediators, their competence, as well as the guarantee of a very reasonable cost – or even no cost at all – for the consumer who uses this system, are fundamental points in my view. Furthermore, the development of these systems only has meaning if, at the same time, citizens are more aware of their existence. The report also stresses the need to devise communication campaigns around ADR. To my mind, this is vital. Finally, the text points out that ADR and collective redress, far from being mutually exclusive, complement each other. Given how committed I am to the implementation of collective redress at European level, I am glad that this idea is mentioned in the report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Non-controversial issue. It is simply a call for improving information about rights and their enforcement and information on alternative dispute resolution schemes targeted, in particular, at citizens and SMEs.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I voted for the adoption of the report. The advantages of alternative dispute resolution are clear, consisting mainly of simplicity, low cost and shorter time compared to court proceedings. For the entire system to be fit for purpose, however, we must not only guarantee European citizens access to this option, but above all – and this is absolutely vital, in my view – inform them sufficiently about the actual essence and possibilities of out-of-court dispute resolution. Lack of awareness among citizens, consumers and businesses is one of the main reasons behind the frequent shortfalls in the use and efficiency of this instrument in various EU Member States.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has voted today on the report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters, in response to the consultation launched by the European Commission on this issue to analyse the possibility of developing a harmonised legal framework for these areas, whilst retaining the currently existing structures. I believe that alternative models for dispute resolution are an option to be considered and that their potential has still not been fully explored. In addition, on-line transactions demand effective and adequate dispute resolution, so they deserve particular attention in the implementation of alternative methods. Such dispute resolution alternatives are less costly, are quicker, and offer practical solutions with fewer formalities, making them more attractive to the public. Such measures are of enormous importance to the smooth operation of the European internal market, specifically as regards consumer protection, since they enable rules to be properly implemented, so earning the confidence of consumers and businesses.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The aim of creating simple, clear procedures is to meet the needs of citizens and businesses. Since the citizens of the EU are not fully aware of the alternative dispute resolution procedures, they are, unfortunately, not being used to their full extent, despite the fact that this is often the most cost-effective option. Therefore, it is essential to publicise these procedures more widely. Some measures also need to be taken with regard to the legislation. The main obstacle to the use of the procedures is that the existing mechanisms have become distorted because of a lack of even development. These loopholes must be closed as quickly as possible. I have voted in favour of this report.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The report on alternative dispute resolution is another document on alternative dispute resolution methods, following the document on the implementation of the directive on mediation that we voted on during the last part-session. It is a step in the direction of suggesting non-judicial alternatives for claiming rights and resolving conflicts. Notwithstanding the existence of various instruments in the legal systems of the Members States, which often enable a dispute to be resolved in a less costly, more timely and less stressful manner for both parties, European citizens and businesses have no confidence in these mechanisms. Arbitration, mediation and all types of out-of-court negotiation are still not very well known, and therefore do not enjoy the confidence of the public. The opinion that a settlement reached in this way will not be legally binding is widespread, which also mitigates against more extensive use of these instruments. Consensual dispute resolution is, in my opinion, an appropriate alternative for a whole variety of conflicts, including the very sensitive area of family law.

I agree with the proposal included in the report regarding the setting out of minimum standards which would provide the framework for alternative dispute resolution in the Member States. These proposals, however, cannot undermine the diversity of the system and the need to safeguard the principle of flexibility in responding to citizens’ problems. This flexibility is the greatest benefit of all methods of consensual dispute resolution.

Report: Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0328/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft report as I support the discharge procedures.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The EU is an institutional triangle. Each of the institutions has its own interest. The Council must learn to respect Parliament, the only institution elected by universal suffrage and which has the responsibility of representing the European people. Consequently, it is up to Parliament to grant budgetary discharge to the Council. The latter should therefore play along and provide the necessary information for this procedure to run smoothly. Today, we are rejecting the Council’s discharge, for we believe that the ground rules are not being abided by. Indeed, the Council is refusing to respond to questions and therefore to provide the information that the budgetary authority is asking for.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the European Parliament report refusing discharge to the Council in respect of the implementation of the 2009 budget. As the only elected institution of the European Union, the European Parliament has the powers to verify and, if it deems appropriate, to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union and, hence, of all its individual bodies, with the aim of providing comprehensive and fully transparent information to European citizens and of guaranteeing democratic scrutiny and political appraisal of its fiscal management. The important documents submitted by the Council are a constructive step towards ensuring the democratic accountability of the Council’s administrative budget.

However, Parliament feels that it has not received satisfactory replies to outstanding questions and the administration of the Council has refused to meet with the competent parliamentary committee. The report therefore rightly refuses discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget until such time as Parliament has been provided with all the necessary documents and has performed the corresponding checks.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Council was refused the vote of its discharge for implementing its 2009 budget. According to the Treaty, the European Parliament is the budgetary control authority and has sole authority to grant discharge. Thus, the Council must provide Parliament with any information it deems necessary. By refusing to answer our questions, the Council is, in fact, refusing to inform the European citizens on the way it manages the money that European taxpayers have entrusted to it. To grant discharge, we must have access to the accounts. As long as the Council refuses to comply, the European Parliament will not be able to grant discharge. This is the very principle of democratic control that our Parliament must exercise.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Ms Rivellini’s position, which is to refuse the 2009 discharge, for it is up to the European Parliament to control the European budget in complete transparency. As the rapporteur points out, discharge to the Council cannot be granted unless there is transparency over how the allotted budget is used. What is at stake is our citizens’ confidence in the European institutions and ensuring that public funds are being well spent.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the proposal on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council. I regret the fact that Parliament, as the institution responsible for deciding on the discharge of the implementation of the European Union general budget, has not received all the necessary information, and I think there is a need to step up interinstitutional cooperation in this area if we are to have greater transparency of the public accounts.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Once again, Parliament is forced to refuse the Secretary-General of the Council discharge of the implementation of the Council budget for the 2009 financial year. The decision that has just been adopted once again reflects the Council’s persistent failure to cooperate as regards the implementation and transparency of its budget. In the name of transparency and rigour, which the public needs, I do not consider the Council exonerated from its responsibility to publicly account for the funds made available to it.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the European Transparency Initiative, European citizens have the right to know how taxpayers’ money is being spent and how the power entrusted to political authorities is exercised. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Parliament exercises political oversight on the institutions of the European Union, by granting discharge according to reports drafted by the Court of Auditors. This report, drafted by Mr Rivellini, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council, and its tabling has already been postponed once because Parliament had not received a series of answers to previously asked questions. As the requested issues have been clarified and the Council’s spending examined in the same way as that of the other European institutions, I am voting for this motion for a resolution of the European Parliament, which includes observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the EU general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) For the second time, Parliament is refusing to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009. The basis for this refusal is a dispute between the Council and Parliament, in which Parliament has repeatedly blamed the Council for not receiving the information necessary for fully exercising its power of overseeing budgetary implementation. Parliament believes the Council’s spending should be examined in the same way as that of the other institutions, but the Council has not provided the elements necessary for a rigorous examination, so the necessary transparency of budgetary implementation is at risk.

At the time of the first debate in plenary, the Council submitted the additional documents requested by Parliament, and the Presidency of the Council participated in the debate on discharge in respect of implementation for the financial year 2009. However, the decision on discharge was postponed because Parliament had not received answers to certain unresolved issues. Following this formal refusal, it is to be hoped that the Council will now agree to provide all the information and supply all the requested documents.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Council administration should bow to democratic accountability and the EU’s citizens as far as use of the EU’s financial resources is concerned. Parliament is the only directly elected institution of the EU, and it grants discharge for fulfilment of the EU’s general budget. It is pleasing that the Council submitted the requested documents to Parliament, and that the Presidency of the Council then took part in the discussion in the plenary on granting discharge for 2009. Parliament postponed the discharge, however, as it had not received any responses to a number of pending issues concerning the 2009 Council discharge.

In my opinion, a distinction must be maintained in respect of the different roles of Parliament and the Council in the discharge procedure and the Council administration (its General Secretariat), as with the other administrations of Union institutions, including the Parliament administration itself, should be subject to the control of the Court of Auditors and, via the discharge procedure set out in the TFEU, should be fully accountable to Union citizens for the implementation of their respective budgets. In light of the other two reports, among other things, the Committee on Budgetary Control refuses to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the position of the European Parliament not to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009 because there are a number of outstanding questions. The discharge was postponed as Parliament had not received any responses to a number of these. The Council administration has not accepted any invitation to meet the Parliament Committee responsible for the discharge procedure in order to discuss matters concerning execution of the Council budget for 2009. Parliament has not received from the Council administration the information and documents requested, the main elements of the Council’s discharge. I am convinced and agree that the expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of the other institutions, and the fundamental elements of such scrutiny should include a formal meeting to be held between representatives of the Council and the Parliament Committee responsible for the discharge procedure, possibly ‘in camera’, in order to answer committee members’ questions. In addition, as indicated in its resolution of 16 June 2010 concerning the 2008 Council discharge procedure, the discharge should be based on the following written documents submitted by all institutions: accounts of the preceding financial year relating to the implementation of their budgets, a financial statement of their assets and liabilities, the Annual Activity Report on their budget and financial management, and the annual report of their internal auditor.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we are refusing to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009. The decision has been made necessary in view of the difficulties encountered in the discharge procedures for the financial years 2007-2009. The purpose of Parliament having the right to grant discharge is to submit the entire budget of the European Union to Parliamentary control, without exception. This Parliament has expressed its concerns about the behaviour of the Council in several resolutions. Despite some progress towards democratic accountability having been made, in particular, through the receipt of a letter from the Secretary-General of the Council containing a series of documents relating to the discharge procedure for the financial year 2009, we cannot yet grant discharge while information required to make the decision has still not been received.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which reminds the Court of Auditors of Parliament’s suggestion to perform an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments it performed on the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in the course of preparing the Court of Auditors’ annual report concerning the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s second report, which refuses to grant budgetary discharge to the Council for implementing the 2009 budget. Indeed, Parliament is the only institution authorised to grant budgetary discharge and has not received from the Council all the documents and information it requested. Neither did Council representatives accept the invitation from members of the Committee on Budgetary Control to the Committee meeting of 22 September 2011. Since they have the discharge authority, it is incumbent on MEPs to be accountable to citizens for the way in which taxpayers’ money is spent. If we do not have sufficient information from the Council to ensure that its budget is properly managed, then we should not grant discharge to that institution.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council. I agree, in particular, with the clarifications regarding Parliament’s right to grant discharge.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Council asserts that it received budget discharge when the Commission budget discharge was granted in May 2011: it bases this on the Treaty specification that only the Commission has to be granted budget discharge. The Council considers that ‘separate negotiations on the Council discharge 2009 after closure of the accounts had no legal basis’. On the other hand, Parliament’s legal view is that ‘closure of accounts does not mean that discharge is granted’. Parliament, in its role as budget discharge authority, has to be satisfied that EU funds have been correctly used by all institutions, including the Council. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The right to parliamentary control and scrutiny of the sections of the EU budget is enshrined in the EU Treaties. We need to put a stop to the practice of transferring individual discharge decisions to all institutions. The responsibility for implementing the budget rests with the institution concerned and should not be shifted onto the Commission. In particular, outstanding questions that are raised by the European Parliament during the discharge procedure – as was the case in the procedure for 2009 – should actually be answered by the Council. Moreover, the refusal of the Council to answer these questions contravenes the agreed reciprocity with regard to the transmission of documents and the answering of questions.

Control by the Court of Auditors is also separated from those institutions by the Commission, and discharge can only be granted by the European Parliament. It is precisely this democratic accountability that must be retained in the interests of the citizens, all the more so since there has, for many years, been a trend to outsource responsibilities to EU agencies. I voted against the report on account of this outsourcing trend.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, in which Parliament refuses to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009, since there are still documents that need to be submitted. I agree with the need to improve transparency in the implementation of Union legislation, and with the right of European citizens to be better informed. I agree with the desire expressed by the European Parliament to reach an agreement with the Council as quickly as possible on the frameworks for correspondence when discharging implementation of the European Union general budget. Scrutiny of the accounts of all the European institutions is crucial to the credibility of all of its bodies.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The implementation of the EU budget is, as it should be, subject to the oversight of the European Parliament, as the assembly of the representatives of the European public. This requires more than merely a passive posture from the European institutions; quite the contrary. It presupposes a climate of cooperation, in which the European Parliament assumes a leading role because of its direct democratic legitimacy. Failure to grant discharge is therefore justified until a series of questions judged essential to the granting of discharge have been answered. I therefore voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in the House, we voted on the refusal to grant discharge to the Council of the European Union. The impossibility of obtaining the necessary documentation, the lack of cooperation shown by the Council to Parliament, and the decision not to acknowledge the latter’s legitimacy as discharge authority, are the main reasons justifying the extremely negative opinion of the expenditure of the institution that brings together the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States.

According to the Treaties, Parliament has the right and duty to check the expenditure of the European Union institutions, in order to guarantee its legitimacy and control on behalf of citizens. In recent months, there has been all kinds of pressure claiming lese-majestie to a gentlemen’s agreement whereby Parliament was reduced to being a ‘spare wheel’ for the other institutions. Parliament is a representative institution, not a self-referential one. It is the expression of the will of European citizens, and has the right to check the accounts of the other institutions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In fact, it has almost the same content as the first report, but with some stronger formulations because the Council did not move at all in providing the requested information and refused to show up at meetings of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Furthermore, it is updated, taking account of the opinions of the Parliament and Council Legal Services. A large majority of the Committee on Budgetary Control are in favour of not granting discharge. The non-cooperative attitude of the Council leaves us and all other groups no other choice than to refuse discharge.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Transparency Initiative stresses that ‘citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled’, so it is clear that the European institutions should improve transparency in the implementation of Union legislation. Pursuant to Articles 316, 317 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Parliament has granted discharge in respect of all the Union accounts for the financial year 2009, including those of the Council. I agree with the proposal to refuse to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009, since a formal meeting needs to be held between the representatives of the Council and the parliamentary committee responsible for the discharge process. The Council must also send all the documentation required by the European Parliament, since that is the only way it will be possible to undertake a rigorous and transparent analysis of the aforementioned accounts. I also believe the European Parliament should carry out a political assessment of the institution’s financial management during the year under examination, thereby guaranteeing the public that public money is properly managed and spent.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I was pleased to vote in favour of this proposal for a decision. As the Council has constantly refused to disclose its budget for 2009, Parliament has rightly refused to grant discharge in respect of the budget. As the body responsible for monitoring budgets, Parliament must be able to investigate whether the Council’s spending is legitimate, in the interests of the citizens of Europe. In its role of budget authority, Parliament is also responsible for the Council budget. The ongoing refusal of the Council to disclose details of its budget is damaging the reputation of the whole of Europe. It gives rise to the suspicion that the Council has something to hide.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – By voting in favour of the Rivellini report, I voted against granting discharge to the Council’s 2009 budget. I felt this should not be signed off until Parliament received all the budgetary information it had requested. Only in this way can MEPs properly scrutinise the expenditure. I believe that the overall EU budget should be reduced and therefore the budgets of all the EU institutions need to be cut. Our think-tank, New Direction, has, for example, just published a report on cutting the costs of Parliament. Similar strictures need to be imposed on the Council secretariat.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Parliament has refused to grant discharge in respect of the Council budget for 2009, as too many of Parliament’s questions have still not been answered by the Council. It must be possible to inform citizens about the use to which their taxes are being put and the Council is obliged to follow the same rules as other EU bodies. I have voted in favour of this report.

Report: Salvatore Tatarella (A7-0282/2011)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Tatarella’s report relates to the reduction in emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants by narrow-track tractors. These reductions are governed by a system of stages. At each stage, there is a maximum emission level that must not be exceeded and the installation of more efficient technological systems. Although the reduction in emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants is vital, I agree with Mr Tatarella, who highlights the difficulties manufacturers will have in complying with the technological requirements, despite the introduction date of the various stages being postponed. Sometimes, it is better to let well alone.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) This proposal is aimed at amending Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors. The objective of this directive is to guarantee the free movement of agricultural and forestry tractors whilst reducing permissible exhaust emission levels of engines in order to protect the health and wellbeing of citizens and the environment. The directive sets emission limit values which are gradually reduced. Independent experts and stakeholders concur that the limits for the agricultural tractor types covered by the proposed amendment are not technically feasible. Severe disruption to the internal market and to the agricultural sectors using those tractors would thus result if entry into force were not delayed. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to postpone by three years the date of the introduction of the requirements for tractors in the relevant categories.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Directive 2000/25/EC lays down the conditions for the commissioning of tractors with regard to harmful exhaust emissions and sets increasingly ambitious objectives via progressive stages which limit exhaust emissions. The report in question looks at the application of specific emission stages for narrow-track tractors, that is to say, those used in orchards and vineyards. Given that the size and manoeuvrability of these tractors are determined by the layout of the crops, an increase in their size or reduction in their manoeuvrability would, in my view, risk depriving the most advanced and productive area of European farming of its main mechanisation tool.

I therefore agree with this report when it recognises the technical impossibility of installing compliant engines in narrow-track tractors, especially in stages IIIB and IV of Directive 2000/25/EC, because this would alter their operational functionality. I furthermore welcome the rapporteur’s request that the industry should be given more time to bring itself into line with the new engine standards. Finally, I hope the directive being debated will be swiftly adopted in order to clarify the mandatory machinery requirements for the industry in question.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because transport and emissions from transport are some of the main sources of air pollution. There are limits on emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates and, in future, this will be regulated by several directives which will enter into force on 1 January 2012 and on 1 January 2014. The directives on emissions limitations apply to agricultural tractor engines as regards limiting the amount of emissions they produce. Currently, one of the biggest problems is the fact that if tractor manufacturers installed after-treatment systems in engines, then they would not be able to ensure that the vehicles would meet the operational requirements in terms of size and manoeuvrability. This document therefore requests that narrow-track tractors be either completely exempted from the scope of the requirements of the new directives or that their entry into force be postponed for at least five years. The consolidation of an exemption would be a better solution because the directive on limitations on transport emissions that will come into force would thus help to reduce atmospheric and noise pollution.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The exhaust emission limits for agricultural and forestry tractors were changed in 2005. When that change was introduced, the requirements were also applied in full to agricultural tractor engines without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. However, there have clearly been difficulties in applying the measure to tractors – generically called ‘narrow-track tractors’ – used for automated cultivation procedures on terrain which presents certain distinctive features, such as orchards and vineyards.

The technical impossibility of installing compliant engines, whilst maintaining the tractors’ operational functionality and manoeuvrability, if not corrected, would cause serious difficulties to some of the most advanced and productive agricultural sectors, further exacerbating the effects of the ongoing economic crisis. In complete compliance with the European policy to fight for emission reduction, which needs to be developed, the current unusual situation in the economy in general, and the sector in particular, fully justifies the decision to postpone the application of the standards for three years. This will allow the parallel development of the essential design and technology necessary for the application, also to narrow-track tractors, of after-treatment systems able to guarantee compliance with emission restrictions, without compromising operational requirements.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the application of emission stages for narrow-track tractors, since independent studies and Commission statistics show that more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that meet the requirements of Directive 2000/25/EC. I welcome the introduction of a requirement that the Commission must submit annual progress reports to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the development of technical solutions, with a view to compliance with the EU’s policy of reducing emissions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Everyone is responsible for protecting the environment, and any political agenda wishing to be responsible has to prioritise it. I support reducing emissions of toxic gases into the atmosphere wherever possible, and I want us to be able to move towards industrial production, and the use of vehicles, technologies and machines that pollute ever less. However, changes that are too rapid and requirements that are too stringent in relation to how machines and vehicles are operated could threaten jobs and the viability of numerous companies and farms. We therefore need to seek a fair balance between conflicting interests, bearing in mind that people and the continuation of their activities cannot be taken in isolation from their surroundings. In this case, this balance has been sought by granting manufacturers more time to develop systems that are more environmentally adequate.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a Commission proposal to postpone deadlines included in Directive 2000/52/EC on compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. This directive sets the limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates. The directive lays down progressively lower limit values for the successive stages corresponding to the various dates set for the adaptation of maximum emission levels for exhaust gases and particulates. The next stages laid down are Stage IIIB, which begins on 1 January 2011, and Stage IV, which begins on 1 January 2014. In light of independent studies and statistics compiled by the Commission showing that more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that comply with Stage IV, I understand the need to postpone by three years the date for the entry into force of Stages IIIB and IV for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1. I am also bound to express my support for the EU’s policy of reducing emissions and for Directive 2000/25/EC.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This directive concerns compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. Its purpose is to set limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates, which were changed in 2005 without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. In order to comply with these limits, after-treatment systems need to be installed in the engine compartment, which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself, meaning that they cause technical problems and that there is no guarantee of the tractor working properly. The Commission believes more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that comply, so it is proposing to postpone for three years the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1. The proposal is reasonable. There is no doubt that reducing air emission levels so as to improve air quality is an important ambition, and one for which we have fought. Measures for achieving this involve technological research and development, but also incentives for the agricultural sector to change to and acquire up-to-date technologies as regards lower emissions, in particular, small and medium-sized farmers.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The directive that is the subject of this report concerns compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. Its purpose is to set limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates, which were changed in 2005 without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. In order to comply with these limits, after-treatment systems need to be installed in the engine compartment, which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself, meaning that they pose technical problems and that there is no guarantee of the tractor working properly. As such, the Commission believes more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that comply, so it is suggesting the postponement by three years of the obligation to comply with the proposed requirements.

The proposal is reasonable. There is no doubt that reducing air emission levels into the atmosphere so as to improve air quality is an important ambition, and one for which we have fought. Measures for achieving this involve technological research and development, but also incentives for the agricultural sector to change to and acquire up-to-date technologies relating to lower emissions, in particular, small and medium-sized farmers.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The proposal includes an amendment to the directive on action to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors. Its aim is to ensure the free movement of this farm machinery, while, at the same time, reducing the permitted level of engine exhaust gas emissions in order to protect the health and quality of life of people and the environment. The directive lays down progressively lower limit values for the successive stages corresponding to the various dates set for adaptation to maximum emission levels for exhaust gases and particulates. Technical studies carried out in 2007, 2009 and 2010, and confirmed by an impact assessment carried out by the Commission, showed that it was not technically feasible for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1 to meet the requirements of stages IIIB and IV within the set deadlines.

In order to prevent the establishment, through Union legislation, of technical requirements that cannot be met, and to prevent a situation where tractors in the previously mentioned category could not be type approved and placed on the market or put into service, it is necessary to establish a transitional period of three years, within which these tractors can still be type approved and placed on the market or put into service. In my opinion, Directive 2000/25/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this proposal for a directive, which was approved at first reading. The action taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors has been very satisfactory.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because this proposal to amend Directive 2000/25/EC would postpone for three years the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1. This directive concerns compression ignition engines intended for agricultural or forestry tractors. The directive sets limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates. The directive lays down progressively lower limit values for the successive stages corresponding to the various dates set for the adaptation of maximum emission levels for exhaust gases and particulates. The stringent requirements laid down for Stages IIIB and IV include the installation in the engine compartment of after-treatment systems which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself. Furthermore, the possibility of installing such systems is seriously restricted by the engine’s operational requirements. While the same kind of engines are used for narrow-track tractors as for other tractors, there is one major difference: the small size of the engine compartment, and the restricted space around it. Tractor manufacturers cannot install engines equipped with after-treatment systems while, at the same time, ensuring the vehicles meet the operational requirements, in terms of size and manoeuvrability, which are the essential elements of such vehicles’ design. It should be noted that such were also the conclusions reached in various studies commissioned by the Commission, which recommended either that narrow-track tractors should be completely exempted from the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements, or that the obligation to comply be postponed for at least five years.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) As a farmer, I fully appreciate how important – and indeed essential – a tractor is as a tool in the day-to-day work of a farm. In recent decades, development of the motor industry has allowed the production of increasingly advanced models of these vehicles, as well as the manufacture of special-purpose tractors intended for work with specific crops on specific terrain, such as vineyards, for example. Tractors in these categories – T2, C2 and T4.1 – are called narrow-track tractors. In view of their construction, the installation of after-treatment systems in the engine compartment is made particularly difficult. Manufacturers need more time to develop new technological solutions which will allow the use of exhaust-reduction systems without affecting the safety and efficiency of these tractors. In relation to this, I fully endorse the proposal of the European Commission to postpone the date of the introduction of Stage IIIB and Stage IV of Directive 2000/25/EC for narrow-track tractors.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I fully endorse the EU’s policy of reducing emissions and support Directive 2000/25/EC. However, independent studies and the data compiled by the Commission show that more time is required to enable manufacturers to develop Stage IIIB-compliant systems. I therefore support the Commission’s proposal to postpone by three years the date of the introduction of Stage IIIB and Stage IV for tractors in categories T2, T4.1, C2.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In 2005, emission limits were applied to agricultural tractor engines without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. Therefore, it is right that the Commission has granted a three-year delay. I voted in favour of Mr Tatarella’s report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted against this resolution because I believe that it is appropriate to apply stringent requirements to the installation of after-treatment systems in the engine compartment of narrow-track tractors.

Above all, we must set out requirements that would promote the reduction of emissions from engines intended for agricultural and forestry tractors in order to guarantee a high level of environmental protection and wellbeing for European citizens.

It should be noted that narrow-track tractors currently used cause heavy pollution and pose a risk to the safety of workers. Consequently, the industrial sector should endeavour to replace old polluting tractors with modern technology as soon as possible, as this would guarantee lower emissions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of emission stages for narrow-track tractors. I support the EU’s policy of reducing emissions. However, in light of independent studies and statistics compiled by the Commission showing that more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop new systems, I agree with the Commission proposal of postponing by three years the date for the entry into force of the new obligations regarding emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal for a directive amending Directive 2000/25/EC concerning the emissions of agricultural tractors with compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW provides for the gradual, phased reduction of emissions, laying down progressively lower limit values for the various stages. The next stages, already laid down, are for 1 January 2011 (Stage IIIB) and 1 January 2014 (Stage IV) and will involve the installation in the engine compartment of after-treatment systems which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself. This will make it impossible to ensure that the tractors classified as category T2, C2 and T4.1 (under the generic name of ‘narrow-track tractors’) meet the operational requirements, in terms of size and manoeuvrability. The restricted possibility of installing such systems does not guarantee the engine’s operational requirements as proven by various studies carried out or commissioned by the Commission, and, as a result, narrow-track tractors should be exempted from the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements, or the obligation to comply should be postponed for at least five years.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – Directive 2000/25/EC reduces the permissible levels of exhaust (gaseous and particle) emissions from engines in agricultural and forestry tractors. An amendment in 2005 introducing ambitious reduction targets in PM and NOx values provided for a possibility for the Commission to conduct a technical review in order to examine the available technology, with a view to confirming Stage IIIB and IV limit values, and evaluate the possible need for additional flexibilities, exemptions or later introduction dates for certain types of equipment or engines. The Commission conducted this review and came to the conclusion that for engine categories T2, C2, and T4.1, it was appropriate to postpone for 3 years the introduction of Category IIIB and IV for narrow-track tractors with a maximum width of 1.15 m, as relevant data confirmed that more time is required to enable manufacturers to develop Stage IIIB-compliant systems. I strongly support the proposal, which asks the Commission to present the EP, on a yearly basis, with a progress report on the development of technical solutions for Stage IV.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Directive 2000/52/EC sets the limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates from compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. However, following the process of implementing the directive itself, it has emerged that the tractor manufacturers are still not able to meet all the requirements for Stages IIIB and IV. The extension of the deadline for adaptation by three years is therefore justified. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Commission proposal amends existing legislation on limits to pollutant emissions from engines intended to power agricultural and forestry tractors. The existing legislation provides for current Stage III A limits to be replaced by more stringent Stage IIIB limits, entering into force progressively from 1 January 2011 with regard to placing on the market, and from 1 January 2010 as regards the type approval for those engines. Directive 2000/25/EC provides for a review clause in order to take into account the specificities of tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C.2 called narrow-track tractors (maximum width less than 1.15 m). As a result of technical studies carried out in 2007, 2009 and 2010, the Commission has established that it is not technically feasible for tractors classified within the categories T2, C2 and T4.1 to meet the requirements of stages IIIB and IV by the dates set out in the directive. A delay of 3 years for Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements is proposed by the Commission.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this text because it sets new limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates for agricultural and forestry ‘narrow-track’ tractors. This is a natural choice, which aims to step up the reduction in pollutant emissions for this particular category of vehicle as well. Furthermore, in order to accommodate the needs of the main manufacturers, who are requesting more time to be able to develop systems able to meet these objectives, I consider the Commission’s proposal to postpone the date for introducing the last two most restrictive maximum emission levels to be a balanced one.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Commission has proposed to exempt 50% of the tractors manufactured in the EU in the last five years because of the technological development time lag, which makes it impossible – unless an enormous amount of money is spent – to carry out the mechanical modifications necessary to move on the next stage, and hence because of the economic crisis affecting the tractor market, which has seen a 20% annual fall in its turnover since 2008. We expressed our support for the exemption and the rapporteur was also in favour, since the impact on emissions is truly negligible.

Unfortunately, the European left wing took the opposite view due purely to matters of principle, completely ignoring the risk that would be run if this exemption was rejected: our factories would close down and jobs would be lost as a result.

Following the trialogues, the first reading agreement is for a 40% exemption for the tractors. It should be borne in mind that the new common agricultural policy (CAP) includes funding for farmers who reduce emissions on their farms. I hope that many farmers will use this opportunity to buy new, low emission, agricultural machinery.

While we may not be satisfied, we will vote in favour of the directive on account of the extremely tight deadlines: exceeding them would render the directives meaningless.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Directive 2000/52/EC sets, by stages, the limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates for agricultural and/or forestry tractors. However, this imposition should take into account the specific nature of each model of tractor. The requirements laid down for Stages IIB and IV call into question the size of the vehicle and, consequently, its ability to be operational. This report, therefore, meets the need to postpone the implementation of these two stages over three years, so as to give time for a more in-depth evaluation of this directive’s impact, as well as of technological development in this area. Clarity and adjustment in European Union law will mean that there is better quality legislation when it is transposed by the Member States, that it will be better implemented, and also that the European public will understand it better.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) While I support the ambitious objectives on exhaust emissions set out in Directive 2000/25/EC on the commissioning of tractors with regard to harmful exhaust emissions, it is important not to underestimate the incredible economic crisis afflicting the European Union.

At this particular moment in time, an increase in the size or reduction in the manoeuvrability of tractors through implementation of the aforementioned directive would deprive European farming of its main mechanisation tool. I therefore voted in favour of the text by Mr Tatarella, which not only postpones application by three years, but also expresses hope for another technical review on the possibility of installing stage III-compliant engines to narrow-track tractors.

Report: Sirpa Pietikäinen (A7-0080/2011)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the context of the European policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Union saw fit to set emission limits for engines of non-road mobile machinery (locomotives, boats, heavy vehicles, etc.) along with implementation stages, and to introduce a ‘flexibility scheme’. This scheme allows for the temporary marketing of non-road mobile machinery that does not comply with these limits in order to ensure greater flexibility in the implementation, particularly in the current context of the crisis. I voted in favour of Sirpa Pietikäinen’s report, which recommends increasing the flexibility scheme percentage from 20% to nearly 40% of annual sales in order to ease the burden on businesses.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates must be limited in vehicles. The directive on emissions currently in force and the procedures it sets out will be tightened from 2012 (with a transition period until 2013). These limitations will apply to around 1 500 companies in the European Union, and the machinery covered by them includes various kinds of land-based machinery intended for construction, forestry and agriculture, for example. The purpose of this directive is to reduce emissions in vehicles whose benchmarks are very high. This directive would also enable us to combat unfair competition with manufacturers in third countries whose manufacturing processes are not yet subject to such strict limitations.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully support the objectives laid down by the directive. Talking about flexibility for engines placed on the market means introducing a necessary, though not entirely sufficient, condition for improving our collective wellbeing. This is an issue on which we cannot improvise. The reference regarding emission limits for atmospheric pollutants, for example, shows the importance of organising ourselves and following the approach that we adopted when we defined our policies in relation to human health and the environment. At the same time, we need alignment of Member State legislation to harmonise emission limits and type approval procedures as far as possible.

That is why I also welcomed approval of the priorities identified by the amendment on Original Equipment Manufacturers, especially the reference to the economic estimates, because I believe they are crucial to optimising market flexibility. Given the long-term strategic importance of this matter, the decision not to burden small and medium-sized enterprises excessively, thus giving major manufacturers too much of an advantage, and hence to pursue our general interests, is crucial.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme, which provides for a temporary increase in this scheme, because I believe environmental legislation should be consistent with the EU’s medium- and long-term environmental goals, but that the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises and recovery from the economic crisis should also be supported in the short term.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The use of non-road mobile machinery with engines involves the emission of gaseous pollutants that should be reduced, so as to protect the environment and ensure better living conditions for the citizens of the Member States. Despite this objective, we must take into account the needs of their manufacturers, particularly those of these machines’ engines. We must also seek to increase the flexibility of transition schemes that threaten the survival of businesses and jobs by being too demanding. This flexibility must keep in mind the specific situation of the sector.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a Commission proposal to increase the flexibility of Directive 97/68/EC, setting the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery. This report contests the Commission’s idea that manufacturers lose their competitiveness should they need to comply with stricter environmental legislation. Green innovations and low emission technologies can only spring up with the help of a supportive legislative framework. That is the only way to hit the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets and enable the move towards a low-carbon society. Steps must be taken forwards, not backwards. As such, I agree that ‘A global financial and economic crisis cannot serve as a reason to water down environmental standards. Investments in environmentally friendly technologies are important for the promotion of future growth, jobs and health security’. I therefore think that this report takes account of the protection of the environment, and of the safeguarding, the development and the competitiveness of industry, and that it constitutes a balanced proposal intended to alleviate, as far as is possible, the impact of the current economic crisis on manufacturers of engines and machinery.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The directive in question (97/68/EC) sets the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery. Machinery covered by the directive includes various kinds of land-based machinery intended, inter alia, for construction, for forestry and agriculture, for rail transport, including locomotives and railcars, and for inland waterway vessels. It should be recalled that PM and NOx emissions from this type of machine represent 7% and 16% of the total, respectively. With a view to compliance in stages with the limits laid down in this directive, a flexibility scheme has been created enabling manufacturers to replace engines gradually. As the rapporteur says, the engines in question are only produced by a small number of large companies.

The European Commission is now proposing to extend the flexibility scheme, giving these companies more time to make the necessary replacements. The rapporteur completely opposes this, citing environmental and public health reasons, and has proposed a much stricter scheme. It has been possible to reach a consensus in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety which, while more flexible than the rapporteur’s initial position, is close to it, restricting the room for manoeuvre created by the European Commission. We think this is a fair solution, so we voted for it.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This directive sets the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery. Machinery covered by the directive includes various kinds of land-based machinery intended, inter alia, for construction, for forestry and agriculture, for rail transport, including locomotives and railcars, and for inland waterway vessels. It should be recalled that PM and NOx emissions from this type of machine represent 7% and 16% of the total, respectively. In order to enable compliance in stages with the limits laid down in this directive, a flexibility scheme has been created enabling manufacturers to replace engines gradually. As the rapporteur says, the engines in question are only produced by a small number of large companies. The European Commission is now proposing to extend the flexibility scheme, giving these companies more time to make the necessary replacements. The rapporteur completely opposes this, citing environmental and public health reasons, and has proposed a much stricter scheme. The consensus reached in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is more flexible than the rapporteur’s initial position, restricting the room for manoeuvre created by the European Commission. We therefore voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates from non-road mobile machinery diesel engines are set out in Directive 97/68/EC. A revision of the directive in 2004 (2004/26/EC) introduced the current limits for exhaust emissions for the current stage, and set deadlines and limit values for the next stage. Application of these stricter limits began in January 2011. The machinery to which the directive applies includes various types of machinery used, for example, in construction, forestry and agriculture. It also applies, however, to locomotives, railway vehicles and inland waterway transport vessels. The 2004 directive also introduced a flexible system allowing producers to place on the market, between two consecutive stages of exhaust gas emission limit values, a limited number of machines fitted with engines which still conform to the exhaust gas emission limits of the previous stage.

The limit is established either as 20% of the machines from the total annual sales of a producer, calculated on the basis of a five-year average of the producer’s total sales, or as a fixed set number of machines. The option of a fixed set number is intended for smaller producers. The directive is an important component of the EU’s current environmental legislation, is of major benefit in terms of emission reduction, and in revising the directive, we should try, in my opinion, to achieve a balance between the relevant requirements and the legislation.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Thanks to today’s vote, it will be possible to reduce the costs to Europe’s industries of adapting engines to the new exhaust emission limits imposed by the entry into force of Stage IIIB of Directive 97/68/EC.

At a particularly critical time for the industry, the legislation on emissions – and Stage IIIB in particular – makes it mandatory for non-road mobile machinery manufacturers to partly or completely redesign their products in order to accommodate the new engines.

We have had to deal with an emergency situation in order to give planning guarantees to around 1 500 manufacturers of these machines, which vary considerably, and which have to meet specific technical requirements in order to comply with European legislation on the subject.