REPORT on relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments
27.3.2014 - (2013/2185(INI))
Committee on Constitutional Affairs
Rapporteur: Carlo Casini
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular the preamble thereto and Articles 4(3) (sincere cooperation between the Union and Member States), 5 (conferral of competences and subsidiarity), 10(1) (representative democracy), 10(2) (representation of EU citizens) and 12 (role of national parliaments) thereof,
– having regard to Protocol No 1 on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, in particular the preamble thereto and Title II, on interparliamentary cooperation, thereof, and to Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiary and proportionality, annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon,
– having regard to its resolutions of 12 June 1997 on relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments[1], of 7 February 2002 on relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments in European integration[2], and of 7 May 2009 on the development of the relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon[3],
– having regard to its resolution of 4 February 2014 on ‘EU Regulatory Fitness and Subsidiarity and Proportionality – 19th report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2011’[4],
– having regard to the final recommendations of 20 December 2011 of the steering group on relations with national parliaments under the Lisbon Treaty,
– having regard to the Commission’s annual reports on relations between the European Commission and national parliaments, in particular the report for 2012 (COM(2013)0565),
– having regard to the conclusions adopted by the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments (the EU Speakers’ Conference) at its meetings since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty[5], in particular those held in Warsaw in 2012 and in Nicosia in 2013,
– having regard to the contributions to, and conclusions of, the meetings of the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in particular the L COSAC meeting in Vilnius in 2013, and to COSAC’s biannual reports[6],
– having regard to COSAC’s 20th biannual report, in particular the sections on democratic legitimacy in the EU and the role of parliaments and on political dialogue and the European elections in 2014,
– having regard to the contribution from the national parliaments to the meeting of COSAC chairpersons held at the Greek Parliament in Athens on 26 and 27 January 2014,
– having regard to the guidelines on interparliamentary cooperation adopted by the EU Speakers’ Conference at its meeting of 21 July 2008 in Lisbon,
– having regard to the conclusions of the Ιnterparliamentary Conferences for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of 9 and 10 September 2012 in Paphos (Cyprus), of 24 to 26 March 2013 in Dublin (Ireland) and of 4 to 6 September 2013 in Vilnius (Lithuania), and to the contribution of the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance of the EU held under Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG) on 16 and 17 October 2013 in Vilnius (Lithuania),
– having regard to its resolutions of 12 December 2013 on constitutional problems of a multitier governance in the European Union[7] and on relations between the European Parliament and the institutions representing the national governments[8],
– having regard to the report entitled ‘Towards a genuine economic and monetary union’, presented on 5 December 2012 by Presidents Van Rompuy, Juncker, Barroso and Draghi,
– having regard to the conclusions of the European Council meetings of 13 and 14 December 2012, of 24 and 25 October 2013 and of 19 and 20 December 2013,
– having regard to Rule 130 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2014 on the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon with respect to the European Parliament[9],
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0255/2014),
A. whereas, in accordance with the TEU, the European Union’s current institutional set-up must be viewed as a stage in the process of creating an ever closer union, which was begun when the European Communities were established;
B. whereas under the principle of sincere cooperation the Union and its Member States assist each other, in full mutual respect, in carrying out tasks flowing from the Treaties, and whereas the Member States facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measures that could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives;
C. whereas Article 12 of the TEU, covering the activities of the national parliaments, fleshes out the principle of sincere cooperation by stating that the national parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union;
D. whereas the principle of conferral defines the competences of the Union, which are exercised in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and whereas all the EU institutions, together with the national parliaments, seek to ensure that legislative acts comply with the subsidiarity principle;
E. whereas democratic legitimacy and accountability must be ensured at all levels at which decisions are taken and implemented, and also in the mutual interactions between those levels;
F. whereas the Union operates on the basis of representative democracy and a twofold democratic legitimacy stemming from the European Parliament, directly elected by the citizens, and the Member States, as represented in the Council by their governments, which are in turn democratically accountable to their national parliaments and citizens;
G. whereas the European Parliament and the national parliaments are, in their respective spheres, the pillars of the Union’s twofold democratic legitimacy, the former as the institution in which EU citizens are directly represented and the latter as the national institutions to which the governments represented in the Council are directly accountable;
H. whereas, accordingly, the national parliaments do not form a 'third chamber' of the EU's legislature, but instead serve to hold to account the Union's second chamber, the Council;
I. whereas the national parliaments’ powers in connection with the subsidiarity principle are used by most of those parliaments more as a means of engaging in ‘political dialogue’ with the European institutions;
J. whereas it is therefore appropriate to accept this constructive approach from the national parliaments, which is expressed in the communication of such contributions;
K. whereas the national parliaments should develop strong and coherent EU-related structures with the aim of enhancing links with the European institutions and gaining further expertise on issues pertaining to European affairs;
L. whereas, at the current stage of integration, the national parliaments have their own special role to play in bolstering ‘European awareness’ in the Member States and bringing citizens closer to the EU;
M. whereas interparliamentary cooperation can play an essential role in driving the European integration process forward by allowing exchanges of information, joint examination of issues, mutually beneficial dialogue and smoother transposition of EU legislation into national law;
N. whereas following the establishment of the Interparliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and of the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic Governance, as well as the consolidation of the role of interparliamentary committee meetings as the preferred channel for cooperation, COSAC should remain the forum for a regular exchange of views, information and best practice regarding the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny, and focus in particular on discussing the general state of the integration process;
O. whereas the European Parliament should be more closely involved in the ‘political dialogue’ – in particular the enhanced version engaged in as part of the European semester for economic policy coordination – that the Commission has established with the national parliaments, above all in view of the interdependence between the decisions of the European Parliament and those of the national parliaments;
P. whereas the yellow card procedure has been triggered on two occasions to date, in relation to the Monti II and European Public Prosecutor proposals respectively;
Q. whereas the changes made to its Rules of Procedure have taken into account the Lisbon Treaty provisions on the role of the national parliaments in the EU;
R. whereas the role played by the EU Speakers’ Conference in interparliamentary cooperation at the current stage should be noted;
S. whereas, almost five years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and with a view to future Conventions, relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments need to be continually developed in the light of new challenges; whereas this makes it necessary to engage in reflection on the experience drawn from the different forms of cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments with a view to giving ever greater democratic legitimacy to the European integration process and ensuring that democratic scrutiny is exercised in a timely manner and at the level at which decisions are taken and implemented, and that all parties in the legislative process receive the information they require;
T. whereas this reflection should be carried out after the forthcoming European elections, in close cooperation with the national parliaments;
I. National parliaments and the Union’s democratic legitimacy
1. Welcomes the Treaty provisions giving the national parliaments a range of rights and duties allowing them to contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union; sees these rights and duties as covering:
(a) active involvement in EU affairs (Treaty ratification powers, participation in Conventions under Article 48 of the TEU, scrutiny of national governments, scrutiny of subsidiarity, ability to oppose legislation under exceptional circumstances, transposition of EU legislation into national law);
(b) political dialogue (interparliamentary cooperation and mutual exchange of information with the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament);
2. Points out that the twofold democratic legitimacy of the Union, as a union of citizens and of Member States, is embodied, in the EU legislative process, by the European Parliament and the Council; believes that, if the Member States are to be represented in a unitary, fully democratic manner in the EU, the stances taken by national governments in the Council should take due account of the views of their national parliaments, thereby reinforcing the democratic nature of the Council;
3. Stresses that proper legitimacy and accountability must be ensured at national and EU level by the national parliaments and the European Parliament respectively; recalls the principle, set out in the conclusions of the December 2012 European Council meeting, that 'throughout the process, the general objective remains to ensure democratic legitimacy and accountability at the level at which decisions are taken and implemented';
4. Commends the national parliaments for taking steps to:
(a) improve their guidance and scrutiny procedures with a view to achieving greater consistency;
(b) provide ministers and national governments with prior guidance on their work within the Council and the European Council, in accordance with their national constitutional framework;
(c) scrutinise the stances taken by ministers and national governments within the Council and the European Council, in accordance with their national constitutional framework;
(d) play an effective role in providing guidance on and scrutinising the implementation of directives and regulations;
(e) encourage the Council to improve the transparency of its deliberations on legislative acts, in particular during the preparatory stage of the legislative process, in order to reduce the information asymmetry between the European Parliament and the Council;
(f) appraise the relations between the committees of the European Parliament and those of the national parliaments;
5. Recognises the role played by the committees of the European Parliament and those of the national parliaments throughout the EU legislative process;
6. Deplores, therefore, the lack of transparency of such deliberations and the lack of balance in the flow of information between the European Parliament and the Council; calls on the Council to apply the same standards of transparency as Parliament, in particular during the drafting of legislative acts;
7. Believes that the lack of transparency of Council deliberations, in particular regarding legislative acts, makes it difficult for governments to be genuinely accountable to their national parliaments;
8. Notes that the thresholds provided for in Article 7(3) of Protocol No 2 have been reached twice to date in the subsidiarity scrutiny process; recalls that the purpose of the early warning mechanism is not to block the European decision-making process, but to improve the quality of EU legislation by ensuring, in particular, that the EU operates within its competences;
9. Takes the view, therefore, that the monitoring of compliance with the subsidiarity principle by the national parliaments and the European institutions should be seen not as an undue restriction, but as a mechanism for guaranteeing the competences of the national parliaments. in that it helps to mould the form and substance of beneficial EU legislative activity;
10. Believes that the early warning mechanism should be viewed and used as one of the tools for ensuring effective cooperation between European and national institutions;
11. Welcomes the fact that in practice this mechanism is also being used as a channel for consultation and cooperative dialogue between the various institutions within the EU’s multilevel system;
12. Believes that reasoned opinions delivered by the national parliaments should be viewed by the institutions not least as an opportunity to gain a clearer picture of how best to achieve the objectives set for legislative acts, and calls on the Commission to reply promptly and fully to reasoned opinions and contributions sent in by the national parliaments;
II. Interparliamentary relations and the European integration process
13. Reiterates that EU interparliamentary cooperation does not take the place of the normal parliamentary scrutiny exercised by the European Parliament in accordance with the competences conferred on it by the Treaties and by the national parliaments over their governments’ EU-related activities; believes that its aim is to:
(a) foster the exchange of information and best practice between the national parliaments and the European Parliament, with a view to enabling all of them to exercise more effective scrutiny and contribute more fully, without undermining their respective competences;
(b) ensure that parliaments are able to exercise their powers in respect of EU matters to the full;
(c) foster the emergence of a genuinely European parliamentary and political culture;
14. Views interparliamentary meetings as places where EU and national policies come together and feed off each other, to the benefit of both; believes that a key function of such meetings is to allow the national parliaments to take account of the European perspective in national debates, and the European Parliament to take account of the national perspective in European debates;
15. Draws attention to the fact that the novel European interparliamentary system is still taking shape and needs to reflect a consensus-based approach in accordance with Title II, Article 9 of Protocol No 1 to the Lisbon Treaty, under which both the European Parliament and the national parliaments are jointly tasked with determining by consensus the organisation and promotion of interparliamentary cooperation within the Union, although any attempt to devise a common framework for interparliamentary cooperation is still premature;
16. Welcomes the actions that have been taken – in accordance with the recommendations of the steering group on relations with the national parliaments – since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon to intensify cooperation between the national parliaments and the European Parliament, in particular as regards the planning of interparliamentary committee meetings, the increase in the number of such meetings (50 since 2010), the forwarding to members of the national parliaments and relevant political bodies of national parliament submissions (reasoned opinions and contributions), the introduction of videoconferences, the promotion of bilateral visits, technical improvements to the InterParliamentary EU information eXchange (IPEX), the increase in the number of collaborative projects carried out under the aegis of the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD), visits by administrative officials and the exchange of information and of best practice; believes that these actions help to make interparliamentary relations more efficient and more focused, while contributing to parliamentary democratisation;
17. Stresses that interparliamentary meetings need to be organised in close cooperation with the national parliaments in order to enhance their effectiveness and quality; recommends, therefore, their inclusion at the earliest stage possible in drafting the agenda for interparliamentary meetings;
18. Believes that the development of interparliamentary meetings should be based on practical arrangements allowing for the special features of each type of meeting;
19. Calls, with a view to avoiding duplication, cutting costs and increasing effectiveness, for greater internal and external coordination between the programme put forward by the parliament of the Member State holding the Council Presidency and the work programmes of the European Parliament’s committees;
20. Takes note of the role of the EU Speakers' Conference in interparliamentary cooperation;
21. Commends the effectiveness of interparliamentary committee meetings and calls for closer cooperation between rapporteurs on specific legislative issues;
22. Welcomes the effective meetings between political groups and European political parties as part of the arrangements for EU interparliamentary cooperation; calls for further endorsement of these meetings as an effective means of developing an authentic European political consciousness;
23. Believes that, not least in the light of the new interparliamentary conferences on the CFSP/CSDP and economic governance, COSAC could serve as a forum for discussion of the general state of the integration process;
24. Welcomes the role played by IPEX, above all as a platform for the exchange of information on parliamentary scrutiny procedures, notwithstanding the language-related difficulties that may arise; calls, with a view to making the dialogue between parliaments as effective as possible, for the national parliaments to pay particular attention to the principle of multilingualism;
25. Stresses that interparliamentary cooperation must be open and inclusive, and voices its concern about restricted interparliamentary meetings, to which some parliaments are not invited, being organised without proper consultation in order to adopt positions on EU affairs which are not consensus-based;
26. Notes that the 'political dialogue', set up under the Barroso Initiative in 2006, and the early warning mechanism are two sides of the same coin; notes the development of wide‑ranging relations between the national parliaments and the Commission and the establishment of 'enhanced political dialogue' as part of the European semester for economic policy coordination;
III. Developments and proposals
27. Proposes that an understanding be developed between the national parliaments and the European Parliament, which could form the basis for efficient cooperation pursuant to Article 9 of Protocol No 1 to the Lisbon Treaty and Rule 130 of its own Rules of Procedure;
28. Calls for regular, thematically structured and effective meetings between political groups and European political parties to be held in the framework of EU interparliamentary cooperation;
29. Stresses that interparliamentary cooperation must seek at all times to bring the right people together at the right time to address the right issues in a meaningful way, so as to ensure that the decisions taken in the various areas of responsibility benefit from the ‘added value’ brought by real dialogue and proper debate;
30. Believes that COSAC should remain the forum for a regular exchange of views, information and best practice regarding practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny;
31. Proposes that COSAC take a detailed look at the difficulties experienced by the national parliaments in exercising the prerogatives conferred on them by the Lisbon Treaty; recalls that the work of the European Parliament and of the national parliaments in COSAC should be complementary;
32. Recalls that with respect to the conference on economic governance, which is based on Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, an agreement reached by the EU Speakers at their conference in Nicosia in April 2013 provides for a number of arrangements for that conference and for a review of these arrangements, to be completed in 2015 at the Rome EU Speakers' Conference; takes the view, therefore, that any procedure for the adoption of practical arrangements for the conference on economic governance prior to that review would be premature and should therefore be avoided;
33. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
- [1] Texts adopted, T4-0319/1997.
- [2] OJ C 284 E, 21.11.2002, p. 322.
- [3] OJ C 212 E, 5.8.2010, p. 94.
- [4] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0061.
- [5] http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/euspeakers/getspeakers.do
- [6] http://www.cosac.eu/
- [7] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0598.
- [8] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0599.
- [9] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0249.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
This report seeks to focus attention on a key aspect of the journey towards greater EU integration, the undeniable need to forge new links between the citizens and Europe. What can be done by the institutions to achieve this? The European institutions must be taken to include the parliaments of the EU Member States as part of a 'European parliamentary system' and they could indeed be described as having not only a national, but also an EU dimension, their role being to ensure a fully democratic Council, which could be regarded as the EU's second chamber, as well as 'bringing citizens closer to Europe'.
In its bid to address concerns regarding alleged 'democratic deficit' in the EU and assure itself of stalwart allies in its mission to raise European awareness, the European Parliament has been devoting particular attention to the role of the national parliaments. A few days after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a Steering Group on relations with the national Parliaments was set up. The EP has already considered the question on three separate occasions in the past, resulting in the Neyts-Uyttebroeck report in 1997, the Napolitano report in 2002 and the Brok report in 2009. During the current electoral term, numerous COSAC meetings have also been devoted to the role of national parliaments. The questionnaire drawn up for the 21st biannual report to be tabled at the next COSAC meeting in Athens in June 2014 contains a section specifically devoted to cooperation between the national parliaments and the European Parliament.
In the wider context of relations between the EP and the national parliaments, this report has been drawn up at a time of crisis when Europe is regarded with distrust by its citizens. Greater 'Europeanization' of the national parliaments therefore appears to be a matter of urgency.
This gives rise to the basic question of the extent to which the Lisbon Treaty is being implemented as regards the role of the national parliaments, what needs to be corrected, what more needs to be done and, above all, how the national parliaments should be orchestrated at European institutional level.
The idea of a 'European parliamentary system' appears feasible in the light of the introduction to Article 12 TEU, which states that 'national parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union', not to mention Protocol (No 1), which recognises an active role for the national parliaments in the European integration process, indicating that the High Contracting Parties are seeking to 'encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union'. Naturally the role attributed to the national parliaments in this context greatly depends on what is meant by European integration. If, as stated in Article 1 TEU, current EU legal instruments simply define a 'stage' in the current process rather than a goal that has been achieved, the active role played by the national parliaments should be perceived as a contribution to the process of 'creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe' (Article 1 TEU). If, in addition, EU construction is regarded as a grand political project essential to 'promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples' (Article 3, TEU), then it is not misplaced to speak of the need for a European dimension to all parliamentary activities. At the same time, the relationship between the European Parliament and national parliaments must be one of collaboration rather than competition or opposition.
In its famous judgment of 30 June 2009, opening the way to ratification by Germany of the Lisbon Treaty, the German Constitutional Court ruled that the Member States permanently remain 'the masters of the Treaties'. This is a reasonable point of view. However, if national parliaments are required to have a European dimension, their contribution to national sovereignty with the adoption of new treaties as a necessary step along the path leading to integration requires involvement over and above their unaltered powers in the context of ratification. This means that they must be represented at the Convention referred to in Article 48 TEU, giving them the specific right to prior notification of any applications for accession to the Union.
However, these changes to the original powers of the Member State parliaments as national assemblies referred to in Article 12(d) and (e) TEU would not appear to make them into European assemblies in the broadest sense. Conversely, the preamble to Protocol (No 1) clearly identifies two tasks allocated to the national parliaments within the EU context: to scrutinise their governments and express their views.
Verification of whether and how the first principle is being put into practice is of major importance for what is already emerging as an EU bicameral structure, with the EP representing the people, alongside the Council, a collegial body representing the Member States. However, if the Member States are to be represented in their unitary and democratic colours, the positions adopted by the governments must reflect the views of their parliaments, which must accordingly liaise with the ministers concerned before and after each Council meeting. This is not only an internal requirement of the individual Member States, but also a condition for the creation of a genuinely European dimension. It must therefore be stressed once again that the national parliaments do not constitute a third chamber within the European constitutional structure but bestow upon the second chamber, the Council, its democratic credentials.
However, the national parliaments would appear to be endowed with a degree of self-determination, with direct legal effect in verifying compliance with the principles of subsidiarity. At the same time, this may be interpreted not as an instrument of restraint or restriction, albeit subject to the numerous conditions set out in Protocol (No 2), but rather as an opportunity for fruitful and active collaboration, even if this is in an advisory rather than decision-making capacity. On closer reflection, it becomes clear that subsidiarity is in fact the essence of the EU and not a restriction. The EU exists because Member States alone are unable to achieve the objectives of peace and prosperity set out in Article 2 TEU. In this spirit, 'reasoned opinions' should perhaps be regarded not as negative indications of what the EU must not do, but rather as positive suggestions as to what it must do.
In the context of what is referred to as an 'advisory function' but what could possibly be more accurately defined as 'political dialogue', the relationship between the EP and the national parliaments is particularly close and should perhaps be regulated in greater detail, the basic philosophy being enhancement of the EP's political and legislative activity rather than the development of alternative or additional decision-making powers. This is the spirit behind interparliamentary cooperation referred to in Article 12(f) and set out in in greater detail in Protocol (No 1), in particular Articles 9 and 10 thereof.
The number of interparliamentary conferences has progressively increased at both plenary and committee level. The principal new development has been the holding of regular meetings devoted to common foreign and security policy and economic and financial governance under Article 13 of the TSCG Fiscal Compact, while the idea of a regular interparliamentary conference on the monitoring of Europol has already been launched.
Such plethora of meetings makes it necessary to simplify proceedings in order to avoid duplication and produce concrete results. It is therefore reasonable to ask what, if any, are the residual functions of COSAC. Meetings on a specific subject would appear preferable, in that they are always useful for facilitating mutual understanding between legislators and exchanges of ideas on good parliamentary practice. However, effective cooperation, as called for in Article 2 of Protocol (No 1), requires a great deal more. It is necessary to issue opinions on specific legislative proposals or political choices, for which purpose committees, with their enhanced democratic credentials could vouch for greater depth and breadth of pre-legislative deliberation and would thus appear to be the preferred option.
Article 9 of Protocol (No 1) TEU seeks to achieve this through 'interparliamentary cooperation', while Article 130 of the EP Rules of Procedure, as suitably amended, expressly provides for this. It is this as yet unimplemented provision of the Lisbon Treaty that must be considered during the next electoral term.
The next biannual report to be tabled to COSAC in June will concern the future of COSAC itself. The conferences on CFSP/CSDP and on economic and financial governance are proceeding well. However, it would be a mistake to imagine that COSAC therefore no longer serves any purpose. If the EU in its current form is not a goal that has been achieved, but a stage towards integration, regular progress checks must be carried out by the appropriate body and COSAC should be considered as the suitable forum for discussion of the state of the Union.
It is also necessary to appreciate the significance behind the increasingly intensive and institutional contacts between the EP and the national parliaments. Clearly, the resulting exchange of information is enabling the national parliaments to provide the EP with sounder evaluations and the EP to adopt decisions on the basis of broad consensus, which ought to make it easier for European provisions to be transposed into national law rapidly and effectively by the national parliaments. However, another purpose of this intense data networking is to ensure 'European mainstreaming' within the national parliaments as a form of 'reverse subsidiarity', European awareness being achieved much more effectively by the national parliaments than by the European Parliament. With the approach of the next European elections, which could prove to be decisive for the future of the EU, the message imparted by national politicians to their constituents will have a major impact. In view of this, the formation of truly European political parties is of the essence.
ROLL CALL FOR FINAL VOTE
|
Members in favour : 13 |
ALDE : Andrew Duff, Stanimir Ilchev
PPE : Zdravka Bušić, Carlo Casini, Marietta Giannakou, Constance Le Grip, Andrej Plenković, Tadeusz Ross, Algirdas Saudargas, György Schöpflin, Rainer Wieland
Verts/ALE : Gerald Häfner, Indrek Tarand |
|
|
Members against : 4 |
ECR : Ashley Fox, Daniel Hannan
EFD : Morten Messerschmidt
NI : Andrew Henry William Brons |
|
|
Members abstained : 7 |
GUE/NGL : Helmut Scholz
S&D : Marino Baldini, Roberto Gualtieri, Enrique Guerrero Salom, David Martin, Sandra Petrović Jakovina, Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García |
|
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
18.3.2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
13 4 7 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Andrew Henry William Brons, Zdravka Bušić, Carlo Casini, Andrew Duff, Ashley Fox, Roberto Gualtieri, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Gerald Häfner, Daniel Hannan, Stanimir Ilchev, Constance Le Grip, David Martin, Morten Messerschmidt, Sandra Petrović Jakovina, Tadeusz Ross, Algirdas Saudargas, Indrek Tarand, Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García |
||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Marino Baldini, Marietta Giannakou, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Andrej Plenković, Helmut Scholz, György Schöpflin, Rainer Wieland |
||||