Progress: Procedure lapsed or withdrawn
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
CONT | ANDREASEN Marta ( ) | FJELLNER Christofer ( ), GEIER Jens ( ), STAES Bart ( ), CZARNECKI Ryszard ( ), SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo ( ), EHRENHAUSER Martin ( ) | |
PECH | MILANA Guido ( ) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 99
Legal Basis:
RoP 99Subjects
Events
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Marta ANDREASEN (EFD, UK)
On the Special report No 12/2011 (2011 discharge): “Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?”
Members note that the special reports of the Court of Auditors provide information on issues of concern related to the implementation of expenditure, and are thus a tool for Parliament in the exercise of its role as the discharge authority. They note its damning appraisal of the measures undertaken by both the Commission and Member States.
Members take note that , in spite of the reduction of fishing, overcapacity has been a recurrent theme in previous reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and that the expensive measures taken to date to reduce fishing overcapacity by adapting the fishing fleet to fishing resources have been unsuccessful.
They recognises that, as from 1995, the trend for Union fish catches has been declining and that this decline is largely due to overfishing and forms part of a vicious circle involving fishing overcapacity and low economic performance of the fishing fleet.
In particular, they note that, since the last reform of the CFP in 2002, fish catches have declined by 1 million tonnes and jobs in the fishing sector have declined from 421 000 to 351 000.
Members therefore call for:
more relevant and robust measures to facilitate actions to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities ; a report to be drafted urgently containing the data on existing overcapacity in the Union, broken down by fishery and country; given both the technological advances and the capacity of today’s fishing fleets (which has increased with an average of 3% per year during the last decade), the updating of the fleet registers in the Member States, and the introduction of an obligation to report on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities.
The committee also calls for:
the adaptation of fleets to existing fishing opportunities; the application of measures and programmes to decommission fishing vessels that are designed to have a positive impact on the sustainability of the targeted fish stocks; the setting of effective fishing fleet capacity ceilings; a reform of the CFP is needed to that regionalises its implementation and the management of its programmes and measures.
Improved monitoring: Members also express concern at the problem of the scrapping of fishing vessels. The scrapping schemes have, in part, been badly implemented, with examples of tax payers' money being used for the scrapping of already inactive vessels or even being used indirectly for building new vessels. They stress the need for strict safeguards when using scrapping schemes, as a way of reducing overcapacity in order to avoid abuse. Members also want the Commission to call on the national authorities to enforce stricter checks before deciding on the funding of projects of investments on board.
Court recommendations: lastly, Members endorse the Court’s recommendations made in the conclusions of the Special Report, which are also their own conclusions:
actions should be developed to effectively reduce overcapacity of the fishing fleet and to better define and measure fishing capacity and fishing overcapacity; the aid scheme for modernising vessels should be reconsidered and the role of fishing right transfer schemes clarified; clear selection rules should be established for fishing vessel decommissioning schemes; Member States should implement the EFF on time and that any publicly funded investments on board should not have an increased fishing ability as a result; the fleet register should be correctly updated, and Member State reports should contain the required information and be of suitable quality.
Lastly, Members highlight the fact that the EFF and CFP are currently an ineffective use of our common resources; they therefore call for the re-structuring of the fisheries programmes to be done in such as way as to ensure that they are as efficient as possible.
PURPOSE: to present special report No 12/2011 from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on whether EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of EU fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities.
CONTENT: the report recalls that the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) aims to promote sustainable fishing by achieving a balance between fish resources and fishing fleets in order to avoid overexploitation of fish stocks . The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) provides € 4.3 billion for the programming period 2007 – 2013 to support the CFP.
This European Court of Auditors’ (ECA) performance audit assessed whether EU measures effectively contributed to adapting the capacity of the fleets to available fishing opportunities.
The Court examined two main questions:
is the framework for the reduction of fleet capacity clear;
are specific measures well defined and implemented?
The audit was carried out at the Commission and in seven Member States (Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the UK) selected on the basis of the size of their fishing fleets and the resources available for adapting their fishing fleets under the EFF.
Court of Auditor’s conclusions : the audit concluded that overcapacity of the fishing fleet continues to be one of the main reasons for the failure of the CFP in assuring a sustainable fishing activity. The ECA has previously issued 2 special reports (No 3/1993 and No 7/2007) stressing the problem of overcapacity .
Although the reduction of fishing overcapacity has been a recurrent theme in previous reforms of the CFP, current measures have failed.
The ECA found important weaknesses in the framework :
the framework, design and implementation of measures to balance fishing capacity with available fishing opportunities is unsatisfactory; the existing definitions of fishing capacity no longer adequately reflect the ability of fishing vessels to catch fish; ceilings do not impose real restrictions on fishing capacity ; although the alignment of fishing capacity to fishing opportunities is one of the cornerstones of the CFP and the EFF, fishing overcapacity has not been defined or quantified; Member States have not done their part under the CFP to put effective measures in place to match fishing capacity with opportunities; four of the seven Member States examined had set inadequate targets for reducing fishing capacity.
Court’s recommendations : the ECA makes a series of recommendations to address overcapacity and the sustainability of the fishing sector:
the Commission should better define fishing capacity and overcapacity and consider more relevant robust measures to facilitate actions balancing fishing capacity with fishing opportunities; set effective limits for fishing fleet capacity; clarify whether fishing right transfer schemes have a role in reducing fishing overcapacity; Member States have to ensure that any measures to aid investments on board are strictly applied and do not increase fishing ability; and ensure that selection criteria for fishing vessel decommissioning schemes are designed to have a positive impact on the sustainability of the targeted fish stocks and avoid providing public aid for decommissioning inactive fishing vessels.
PURPOSE: to present special report No 12/2011 from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on whether EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of EU fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities.
CONTENT: the report recalls that the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) aims to promote sustainable fishing by achieving a balance between fish resources and fishing fleets in order to avoid overexploitation of fish stocks . The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) provides € 4.3 billion for the programming period 2007 – 2013 to support the CFP.
This European Court of Auditors’ (ECA) performance audit assessed whether EU measures effectively contributed to adapting the capacity of the fleets to available fishing opportunities.
The Court examined two main questions:
is the framework for the reduction of fleet capacity clear;
are specific measures well defined and implemented?
The audit was carried out at the Commission and in seven Member States (Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the UK) selected on the basis of the size of their fishing fleets and the resources available for adapting their fishing fleets under the EFF.
Court of Auditor’s conclusions : the audit concluded that overcapacity of the fishing fleet continues to be one of the main reasons for the failure of the CFP in assuring a sustainable fishing activity. The ECA has previously issued 2 special reports (No 3/1993 and No 7/2007) stressing the problem of overcapacity .
Although the reduction of fishing overcapacity has been a recurrent theme in previous reforms of the CFP, current measures have failed.
The ECA found important weaknesses in the framework :
the framework, design and implementation of measures to balance fishing capacity with available fishing opportunities is unsatisfactory; the existing definitions of fishing capacity no longer adequately reflect the ability of fishing vessels to catch fish; ceilings do not impose real restrictions on fishing capacity ; although the alignment of fishing capacity to fishing opportunities is one of the cornerstones of the CFP and the EFF, fishing overcapacity has not been defined or quantified; Member States have not done their part under the CFP to put effective measures in place to match fishing capacity with opportunities; four of the seven Member States examined had set inadequate targets for reducing fishing capacity.
Court’s recommendations : the ECA makes a series of recommendations to address overcapacity and the sustainability of the fishing sector:
the Commission should better define fishing capacity and overcapacity and consider more relevant robust measures to facilitate actions balancing fishing capacity with fishing opportunities; set effective limits for fishing fleet capacity; clarify whether fishing right transfer schemes have a role in reducing fishing overcapacity; Member States have to ensure that any measures to aid investments on board are strictly applied and do not increase fishing ability; and ensure that selection criteria for fishing vessel decommissioning schemes are designed to have a positive impact on the sustainability of the targeted fish stocks and avoid providing public aid for decommissioning inactive fishing vessels.
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0228/2012
- Committee draft report: PE489.373
- Non-legislative basic document: N7-0003/2012
- Non-legislative basic document published: N7-0003/2012
- Non-legislative basic document: N7-0003/2012
- Committee draft report: PE489.373
Amendments | Dossier |
87 |
2012/2009(DEC)
2012/06/04
PECH
59 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Welcomes the special report by the Court of Auditors that scrutinizes the economical and ecological impact the implementation of the CFP and the EFF has had on the Union fishing sector. Notes that, in its report, the Court of Auditors:
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (aa) indicates other instruments of the common fisheries policy as possible ways of reducing fishing capacity and, purely by way of example, analyses transferable fishing concessions without identifying beneficial effects in them;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (aa) indicates clearly that withdrawing the licence or capacity of a vessel does not affect the fishing quotas, nor therefore the preservation of the resource (paragraph 27);
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a b (new) (ab) states that there is no clear link between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities and that this therefore 'complicates the identification of suitable policies to reduce fishing overcapacity' and 'makes it difficult to assess the performance of those policies' (paragraph 73);
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a c (new) (ac) expresses scepticism about a fishing rights transfer scheme and calls on the Commission to explain what role transferable fishing rights could have in reducing capacity (paragraph 77);
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a d (new) (ad) recommends that Member States should fulfil their obligation to keep the fishing fleet registers up to date so that the Commission may find a balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities, which is currently impossible (paragraph 77);
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point b Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point b Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point b a (new) (ba) Notes that the total catches in the Union have decreased with over 1 million tonnes over the last decade;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – points -a to -ae (new) (-a) found that the CFP does not have adequate rules for key issues related to overcapacity of the fishing fleet; (-ab) found that the Member States have not fulfilled their obligation under the CFP of putting in place effective measures to match fishing capacity to fishing opportunities, and the Commission's monitoring and supervision of the Member States did not prevent significant implementation problems; (-ac) found that the investments on board fishing vessels funded by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) could increase the ability of individual vessels to catch fish; -ad) found that the Union fishing fleet register was not correctly updated with details of fishing vessels scrapped with public aid; (-ae) found that the reporting of efforts to reduce fishing overcapacity was inadequate.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point c (c) has ignored the fact that a multi-species fishing system, like that in the Mediterranean and Sole Bank, cannot be founded on catch quotas.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca) considers that overcapacity continues to be one of the main reasons of the failure of the CFP aiming at assuring sustainable fisheries;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca) denounces the inadequacy of the information supplied by Member States and the consequent difficulties in identifying policies which can reduce fishing over-capacity and in assessing the results of such policies.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that the data available on the actual capacity of the Union fishing fleet are not reliable, because technological development has not been taken into account and the Member States failed to accurately report on the fleet capacities.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Considers that the fleet capacity ceilings don't reflect the fishing effort and have become irrelevant since the fleet is well below the ceiling due to the decreased amount of gross tonnage and engine size. At the same time, points out that, due to the technological advances, the fishing capacity of the fleets has increased with an average of 3 % per year during the last decade.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Believes that it is essential that the Commission urgently draft a report containing the data on existing overcapacity in the Union, broken down by fishery and country.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recommends that the Member States: (a) design and implement measures to adapt their fleet to fishing opportunities and ensure that the fleet register is correctly updated, and that reports on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities provide the required infor-mation and are of suitable quality; (b) ensure that any measures to aid investments on board are strictly applied and do not increase fishing ability; (c) ensure that selection criteria for fishing vessel decommissioning schemes are designed to have a positive impact on the sustainability of the targeted fish stocks and avoid providing public aid for decommissioning in-active fishing vessels.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that although there is no official definition of overcapacity, declined catches and lost jobs caused by overfished fish stocks demonstrates a de facto overcapacity. Therefore, calls on the Commission to define overcapacity and consider more relevant and robust measures to facilitate actions to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities.
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point a Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point a (a) the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund makes no provision for compensation to fishermen who lose their jobs owing to the scrapping of vessels, or to women who are affected by a stoppage of fishing activity;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – points a a and a b (new) (aa) the report by the Court of Auditors should not pass political judgment nor prejudge the methods for distributing fishing opportunities or fleet management tools that would be used to achieve the CFP objectives, which should be decided by the legislator; (ab) the recommendations based on the concept of overcapacity, which is not defined, are contradictory;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point b Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point b Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point b (b) in the interest of reducing fleet size, it is essential to
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point b (b)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point b (b) in the interest of reducing fleet size, it is essential to allow for an adequate transitional period before the final withdrawal of public funds for scrappage, by providing support measures for crews and for those women whose jobs are linked to the activity of each vessel;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point c Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point c (c)
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point c (c) fishing effort and fishing capacity are two distinct concepts; for this reason, reducing fishing capacity is only one of the parameters for achieving a genuine reduction in fishing effort.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – introductory part 4.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – introductory part 4. Takes the view that, in order to achieve the objective of a real reduction in fishing effort, provision should be made for the following
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point -a (new) (-a) making available the funding needed for the proper implementation of the multiannual management plans and the achievement of the MSY;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point b (b) stepping up
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point c Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point c (c) encouraging additional, complementary sources of income for fishermen in order to improve their living and working conditions while ensuring the sustainability of resources;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point d (d) encouraging specific funding for the use of more selective and environmentally friendly fishing equipment, in particular under the framework of specific programmes supporting artisanal fishing, traditional aquaculture and small-scale fishing, including shellfish gathering and mussel breeding in the natural environment.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point d a (new) (da) reducing industrial fishing and increasing small-scale fishing.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point d a (new) (da) collecting data, for which purpose it is desirable to increase the rate of EU cofinancing;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point d a (new) (da) ensuring widespread application of multiannual management plans;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point d b (new) (db) planning targeted scrapping per area.
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point d b (new) (db) improving the checks and respecting the capacity ceilings that are in place;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to set effective fishing fleet capacity ceilings.
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers that a reform of the CFP is needed to regionalise its implementation and the management of its programmes and measures.
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Calls on the Commission to clarify how fishing concessions should be treated if fishing vessels are decommissioned with public aid.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Calls on the Commission to enforce Member State’s obligation to correctly update their fleet register and to establish the obligation to report on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a (a)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a (a) considers that transferable fishing concessions are not the only possible solution to the problem of overcapacity, for which there is as yet no precise definition;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (aa) states that a very significant number of jobs has been lost in the European fishing industry over the past decade because of the poor state of fish stocks and technological advances have increased fishing capacity;
source: PE-491.084
2012/06/11
CONT
28 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Takes note that, although the reduction of fishing overcapacity has been a recurrent theme in previous reforms of the CFP and has been addressed in the Court's Special Reports No 3/1993 and No 7/2007, the expensive measures taken to date to reduce fishing overcapacity by adapting the fishing fleet to fishing resources
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Considers that it is for all responsible actors in the Member States - notably the fishermen themselves - to adequately define how to measure “capacity” and “overcapacity”; notes that the CFP measures vessel capacity in terms of power (kilowatt) and size (gross tonnage) and that, however, these measures do not take into account technological progress in fishing methods, which complicates setting appropriate targets for its reduction;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. C
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Calls on the Commission to enforce Member States’ obligation to correctly update their fleet register, and to establish the obligation to report on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Notes that, in terms of reducing fishing capacity, the Commission's new proposal for the CFP is founded on a new, market-based approach (schemes for granting transferable fishing rights), since the Commission has reached the conclusion that these schemes have a positive role to play in reducing fishing overcapacity;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Notes that whereas paragraph 36 of the Special Report says that by the end of 2010, implementation of the EFF in terms of expenditure certified by Member States amounted to EUR 645 million, or 15 % of the amount available from 2007 to 2013, that most of this amount was declared in 2010 and that EUR 292 million was still not paid by the Commission as at 31 December 2010,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Takes note that, although the reduction of fishing overcapacity has been a recurrent theme in previous reforms of the CFP and has been addressed in the Court's Special Reports No 3/1993 and No 7/2007, the expe
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – indent 2 – it should be established whether or not the aid scheme for modernising vessels should be re
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – indent 2 a (new) – clear selection rules should be established for fishing vessel decommissioning schemes;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 – indent 4 – the fleet register should be correctly updated, and Member State reports should contain the required information and be of suitable quality;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF and CFP provide no value added, further disrupt the fishing industry in Europe and should therefore be
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF and CFP
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF and CFP provide no value added, further disrupt the fishing industry in Europe and should therefore be discontinued in order to avoid further waste of taxpayers' money; further takes the view that the EFF and CFP should be re-nationalised and brought back within the sphere of competence of the Member States;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF and CFP
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is concerned, furthermore, that fleet capacity ceilings, as a measure to restrict the size of the fishing fleet, have become irrelevant as the actual fleet size is well under the ceilings and could be even 200 000 tonnes bigger, while still complying with the rules;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is concerned that fleet capacity ceilings, as a measure to restrict the size of the fishing fleet, have become irrelevant as the actual fleet size is well under the ceilings and could be even 200 000 tonnes bigger, while still complying with the rules; stresses that, at the same time, due to technological advances, fishing capacity of the fleets has increased with an average of 3 % per year during the last decade;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
source: PE-491.178
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/0 |
|
events/0/date |
Old
2011-12-12T00:00:00New
2011-12-11T00:00:00 |
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.373New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-489373_EN.html |
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/3 |
|
events/3 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-228&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0228_EN.html |
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 159 |
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 99
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 93
|
activities |
|
commission |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
CONT/7/08662New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 93
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 093
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
procedure/title |
Old
Special report 12/2011 (2011 discharge): Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?New
Special report 12/2011 (2011 discharge): Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|