Defence of the principle of subsidiarity - Display of religious and cultural symbols in public places (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Commission (B7-0238/2009) by Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, on defence of the principle of subsidiarity;
the oral question to the Commission (B7-0239/2009) by Antonio Cancian, Mario Mauro, Fiorello Provera, Elisabetta Gardini, Salvatore Iacolino, Crescenzio Rivellini, Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris, Aldo Patriciello, Paolo Bartolozzi, Cristiana Muscardini, Mara Bizzotto, Barbara Matera, Lara Comi, Antonello Antinoro, Lorenzo Fontana, Roberta Angelilli, Amalia Sartori, Iva Zanicchi, Licia Ronzulli, Giovanni Collino, Marco Scurria, Giancarlo Scotta', Potito Salatto, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Raffaele Baldassarre, Pilar Ayuso, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Santiago Fisas Ayxela, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Esther Herranz García, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Veronica Lope Fontagné, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Salvatore Tatarella, Magdi Cristiano Allam, Mirosław Piotrowski and Konrad Szymański, on the display of religious and cultural symbols in public places.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the position of the group that I represent, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, is crystal clear: with this oral question, we are asking the Commission to challenge the implementation of the ruling against crucifixes in school classrooms, handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which, I would emphasise, is not an EU institution.
In our view, this decision, and I want this to be absolutely clear, is an unacceptable breach of the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is a mainstay of the European Union as well as a guarantee of the rights of the peoples and of the Member States. The European Union, as we conceive and support it, would be unthinkable without the support and grounding of the principle of subsidiarity.
I will start with a general remark: obviously nobody - let us look first at the substance of this ruling - could consider the removal of someone and something which was already there to be an act of democracy and freedom, as some have claimed, but rather an action of the thought police, an anti-democratic act. If a crucifix is hanging on a school wall and it is torn down, that wall is not a secular wall but an empty wall, with the void intended as a confessional symbol, an act of negative education, the worst kind imaginable, which can be viewed as one of the many signs of the cultural and spiritual suicide of the West.
The ruling of the Strasbourg Court presupposes a concept of religious freedom which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would go so far as to ensure, to impose a sense of predominance over each citizen, required to live in an environment in keeping with the Court's beliefs. I do not believe that this is religious freedom: this distorts the true sense of religious freedom; we are dealing with a negative right, or rather the right to be free of the obligation to perform religious practices. There must be no misunderstandings when we speak of religious freedom: we are not talking about something vague by any means.
We are dealing with something quite different here: displaying a crucifix is not just a matter of faith in our culture, but something much more important, something with a universal value. The symbol of the cross, the symbolism of the cross conveys a message that is universal in scope; a message, moreover, of peace and fraternity, as taught to us by René Guénon, the great metaphysicist, to mention just one name. From the traditional point of view of these great scholars of traditional culture, this value is extremely clear but, at the same time, it is just as clear that with this ruling, we are dealing with the expression of anti-traditional views which encourage everyone to think in the same way. This is something that runs counter to the true spirit of the European Union, and this is what is astonishing.
It is almost as if there is the intention to turn the peoples away from any reminder of values and symbols that express verticality and spirituality. Leaving aside the historical facts, the link to a specific religion, this is, I repeat, a universal symbol. The European Union, on the other hand, must safeguard the right of the peoples to continue using symbols, starting with the symbol of the cross.
Europe must be bold enough to take a metahistorical perspective on these fundamental questions, and resume its role as a cradle and centre, including in spiritual terms. It must return to the European peoples the freedom to keep and venerate the symbols of their identity in accordance with a cardinal principle of the legal and political structure of the European Union: the principle of subsidiarity. The whole question turns precisely on this aspect, on the fundamental nature of the principle of subsidiarity.
In conclusion, this issue enables us to reflect on and to debate a key question: what does religious freedom mean for Europe? Well, I would like to say that it is precisely the ruling of the Strasbourg Court that is riding roughshod over the fundamental right to religious freedom, and which wants to prevent a people such as the Italians from keeping the symbol of the cross in classrooms as an indispensable reminder of their Christian roots.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 3 November 2009, the European Court of Human Rights approved an application from an Italo-Finnish citizen seeking to remove crucifixes from classrooms. Similar episodes had occurred in the past in Spain, Germany, France and also in Italy where, in 1988, the Council of State established that the crucifix is not just a Christian symbol but that it also has a value unrelated to that specific religion. The Italian Council of State, expressing its opinion again in 2006, specified that the principle of secularity of the state cannot disregard a people's cultural identity and its civilisation.
With our question, we wanted to highlight the most secular aspect of this matter, not least by pointing out that the next step could even be to take before the Strasbourg Court Catholic symbols which are part of the common traditions of the Member States, as well as the artistic and cultural portrayals found throughout our cities. Even the flag of the European Union, created for the Council of Europe, was inspired by Marian iconography according to its designer.
The decision of the Court of Human Rights seeks to impose from above - so much for subsidiarity - a secular model which many Member States cannot identify with or, worse still, seeks to lead us to nihilism: there you have the empty wall which Mr Borghezio just mentioned. The ruling calls into question our very identity, our European values of peace, love and civil harmony, of equality and freedom, and the ruling therefore undermines freedom and equal rights.
The EU institutions are champions of the prerogatives of freedom. Displaying religious and cultural symbols with which peoples identity is an expression of the freedom of thought - and the Sakharov Prize will be awarded in this very Chamber tomorrow - and should be safeguarded as such by the EU institutions themselves and by international organisations founded on democratic principles.
Madam President, I would have been only too happy to have listened to Mr Mauro, but he will be able to take the floor after me.
I am obliged to adhere to a number of rules of law. The Commission is very committed to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as laid down in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, it is true that the Commission can act only within the context of applying EU law. The fact is, within the EU, national laws on religious symbols in public buildings come under the domestic legal system of the Member States.
The principle of subsidiarity is to be applied within the context of the Union. It is true that this principle of subsidiarity does not apply to the implementation of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, the international court in charge of enforcing the European Convention on Human Rights. It is true that the responsibility for implementing European Court of Human Rights judgments lies with the Council of Europe. It is also true that the implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments is mandatory for all States that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and Italy, like any other party involved in this case, has the right, under Article 43 of the Convention, to request a transfer of proceedings to the Grand Chamber within three months of the date of the judgment. According to the information we have - the information we have read in the press - the Italian State is using its right to appeal before the Grand Chamber.
Those are the points that I wanted to clear up. With regard, once again, to European Union law, we are dealing in this case with the domestic legal system of the Member States. That being said, I cannot answer for the Council of Europe or for the European Court of Human Rights, which have issued a decision that I understand may raise some issues for Parliament.
That is what I can honestly say, but I am going to listen carefully to the speeches that follow.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for his clarity of judgment which effectively puts the power to regulate this area back in the hands of the Member States.
I must say that I am convinced, more than most, of the need for our institutions to be secular and just as convinced that religion is not the solution to any political problem. At the same time, we cannot solve political issues by waging war on religions.
It is precisely for this reason that I will explain my thinking by means of a paradox: what would happen if we applied the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, that is, if, at the same time, we applied the reasoning which obliges us to remove crucifixes from Italian classrooms to all places where crosses are displayed on the grounds of public interest? What should be done about this flag, the flag of Sweden, and what should be done about this flag, the flag of Finland, and the flag of the Slovak Republic, and the flag of Malta, and the flag of Denmark, and the flag of Greece, and the flag of the United Kingdom which has three crosses, no less?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why these crosses appear on these flags is no different from the reason why crucifixes are displayed in Italian classrooms, and it is not a religious reason but rather a cultural and traditional one. Let us therefore leave it to the Member States to judge, on a case by case basis, the suitability of solutions in line with the sensitivities of their peoples, in keeping with their religious freedom and the secular nature of the institutions.
This is all we are asking and we are doing so because, above and beyond anything else, it is not the abstract concept of the law which must be upheld, but every individual's personal truth and desire for the infinite.
Madam President, as a lawyer and a Member of the European Parliament, I am sure that there are many citizens following our debate who share my feeling that it lacks focus. We are therefore going to try to clarify a few things.
Firstly, we are talking about a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not a European Union institution but rather a court - one that is part of a concentric circle of the European Union, but is separate - which is committed to the Rule of Law, representative democracy and human rights.
Secondly, we are talking about a judicial resolution, and no resolution by Parliament can revoke or amend any resolution passed down by a court of justice.
Thirdly, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is highly respectful of religious freedom and its corollary, which is religious pluralism. Religious freedom is part of our common constitutional traditions and of the constitutional law of the Member States, and it is also a fundamental right protected by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The judgment therefore gives reasons, with a solid legal basis, for the protection of religious freedom. It does not deny it at all. What is more, it is done unanimously by a prestigious court that has influenced the formation of the culture of human rights for almost sixty years.
Ultimately, however, and this is important, we need to remember that no judgment of the European Court of Human Rights means that the legislation of any Member State that has signed up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights has to be amended, because the judgment recognises a right in response to an infringement in a specific case.
It is only on that basis that it is up to the Member States to make the appropriate decisions about amendments to legislation or policies that might be inspired by the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights, but under no circumstances are they obliged or compelled to do so by any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
There is therefore no reason for any Member State to be concerned. None of them are obliged to amend their legislation or its public policies as a result of a specific judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, neither Italy nor any other country has any reason to adopt any general rules as a result of this judgment.
Lastly, however, subsidiarity has been invoked. We have to say that subsidiarity is a rule of European law that has no application in this case, because its concept and applications have nothing to do with this case.
I even think that a rule of European law could be invoked that allows a vote to be postponed if there are doubts as to the relevance of a vote that has nothing to do with affairs that concern the European Parliament, which, in my view, is the case here.
I therefore think that although this debate is legitimate, it is definitely lacking in focus and does not require an urgent pronouncement, and even less a protest or a revocation of a judgment that was passed down by a court of justice that is not a European Union institution.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the somewhat misleading title of today's debate includes the word 'subsidiarity'. Subsidiarity, as I understand it, means taking decisions at the level closest to the citizen, and that level is the citizen - the individual citizen. What you are saying in your resolutions is that the rights of a national state are above the rights of individual citizens. It is our job in this House to protect the rights of citizens, not the rights of states.
Secondly, if we consider - as you claim - that this is not a matter for the European Union, I would like to understand why these matters are included in the Copenhagen criteria, and why we demand from candidate countries that they respect the separation of church and state when we cannot demand that of our own Member States.
Thirdly, colleagues, if you say that the European Parliament is not competent to talk about these matters, I wonder why we are competent to discuss matters like the shape of cucumbers but not the fundamental rights of our citizens.
As to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court ruling, we are now two weeks after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which requires that the EU accede to the Convention on Human Rights. Would it not be incomprehensible if we, at the same time, refused to accept the authority of the Court of Strasbourg? We cannot explain that to our citizens.
Secondly, I think - and this has been said by Mr López before - politicians have no business interfering in Court rulings. Let the judges do their jobs. We may have an opinion - we may like the ruling or we may not like it - but we should not interfere in their work. My group, the ALDE Group - the European Liberals - is the champion of a Europe that is for all citizens. ALDE believes in a Europe of diversity, where everybody has the right to their own conscience, their own religion and even the freedom from religion.
I will now conclude. The states - not the courts, the states - must ensure an environment where all citizens can live freely, according to their own conscience. They should be protected by the state, and I think the situation is very serious if they feel the need to go to court in order to defend themselves from the states. Colleagues, reject the EPP and ECR resolutions.
Madam President, in view of the historical fact that the founding fathers of the European Union were Christian Democrats: Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, who based what they built on Christian values and symbols, I will remind you that the flag adopted by the European Union, which shows a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background, and which is hanging behind you, Madam President, refers to the 12 stars upon the head of the Holy Virgin Mary - the Revelation of St John, chapter 12.
Over half a century on, it is worth asking if the philosophy of the founding fathers is still relevant. In the context of the scandalous judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which ordered crosses to be removed from an Italian school, it should be stated emphatically that no group of judges appointed by politicians, not even the Council of Europe, can order the removal of a cross, which has universal and religious significance. This verdict tramples underfoot freedom of religion and the cultural heritage of Europe.
In this connection, I would like to ask the Commissioner: do you not think that an attack on Christian symbols is also the destruction of the basis of the European Union? Could you not, on behalf of the Commission, start a debate on the role and significance of Christian symbols in the European Union?
(DE) Madam President, I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. Mr López Aguilar referred to the fact that in his opinion, as a lawyer, we are not responsible. I am not speaking as a lawyer, but as a politician. Millions of people in Europe are affected by this judgment by the judges in Strasbourg. This is why it is a good thing that we are discussing it here.
The relationship between church and state in Europe has always been disputed and has led to bloody conflicts. It is right and proper that the European Union has managed to separate the state from religion. This is a good thing. However, we have a wide range of different models in Europe. France is clearly a non-religious state, while in Great Britain, the Head of State, the Queen, is also the head of the church. We have different models of how the relationship between church and state has developed. For this reason, I believe it is a good thing that we are calling for subsidiarity in this area and that every country can go its own way.
I would even like to take things a step further. I do not want to talk about subsidiarity, but about the basic issue that, from my perspective, the European values of solidarity, subsidiarity and freedom are unthinkable without a foundation in Christianity and in the Judaeo-Christian understanding of religion. Why do we not find these values in China or in the Middle East? This is because they are based on our culture and our religions. It is possible to mention this without forcing anyone to accept the same faith. We are proud of our religious freedom.
There is religious freedom in the sense that it is possible for me to decide to be an atheist. That is acceptable and legitimate and we have fought for this. However, there is also the right to have a faith. In my region, where more than one million people live, over 80% are Catholics. Just as atheists call for others to show them tolerance, so the Catholics who make up more than 80% of the population are calling for non-believers to be tolerant of their faith. They want to be able to show their faith in public, to represent it and to have Christian symbols accepted by the minority in this majority society. This is also legitimate in terms of religious freedom.
Anyone who calls for tolerance must also show tolerance to those who practise a Christian faith.
(PL) Madam President, the European Court of Human Rights has rightly ruled that hanging crosses in school classrooms violates the religious freedom of pupils and the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own convictions. The judges decided unanimously that a cross at school breaks the European Convention on Human Rights.
The decision is simple, clear and universally comprehensible. This is why it has evoked such fury and aggression among the clergy and Right-wing politicians. They pretend they do not understand, and demand explanations from the Commission and that Parliament adopt an official position. This is unlawful. EU institutions are not empowered to evaluate that judgment, or indeed any other. Let us not forget that there is a tri-partite division of power, and that the Court is a body of the Council of Europe, and not of the European Union.
I will answer the questioners, since they have such doubts: the judgment about crosses does not violate the principle of subsidiarity. Quite the opposite, it gives help in observing the law to those European states which have forgotten that in their constitution, there is a provision, if not about the division of church and state, then at least about neutrality of worldview. The judgment of the Court helps national authorities and courts which are subject to the church to realise the fundamental rights of citizens which are being broken as a result of the clericalisation of social life. The citizens of church states cannot defend their rights before national courts. It is a good thing that they can turn to the Court of Human Rights and obtain justice.
The judgment accords with respect for the national identity of Member States and should be implemented. It does not concern a ban on displaying religious symbols in public, but only in a very small section of public space, in state schools. No one is calling for the removal of crosses from churches, squares or flags, as one fellow Member rashly said.
It is not interference in church-state relations, but only defence of citizens whose rights are being violated. In my country, too, advancing clericalisation is restricting the fundamental rights of Poles. I cannot imagine that the European Parliament and the Commission would prevent my fellow Poles from pursuing their just rights before the Court in Strasbourg. A critical position of the Commission and Parliament concerning this judgment would be unauthorised interference, and would, in addition, expose us to ridicule. I must warn you of this.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights has upset not only worshippers but also everyone who, for centuries, has viewed the crucifix as a sign of hope and solidarity, something providing solace and freedom from fear and pain.
We hope that that decision will be modified by the Grand Chamber since it is clearly irrational. Should we do away with the very name of the Red Cross? Should we remove the huge crucifixes on mountain tops which tower over cities and valleys? Will it be prohibited for the Queen of England, as has already been mentioned, to be the head of the Anglican Church?
Nevertheless, the case invites a very important reflection from a civil and political point of view: are human rights merely the rights of individuals, as parties isolated from a social environment, or is the right to express a specific form of piety also a right of the peoples? Do tradition, history, intelligence and art count for nothing when, for millennia, they have characterised a people's identity?
Furthermore, the question also rightly concerns the relationship between subsidiarity and human rights, and I note that the latter, aside from certain fundamental principles which must be considered universal and irrefutable, may be interpreted in different ways, and human rights may even conflict with each other. Why should a state be denied the chance, through its laws, to resolve these conflicts and to interpret and implement human rights according to the ethical views of its people? The issue therefore goes beyond the question of crucifixes.
On other occasions, the European Court has recognised, with regard to the right to life, the exclusive power of the States to decide on the most controversial matters, such as the regulation of abortion and euthanasia. Now, the Treaty of Lisbon requires us to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and consequently, as the European Union, also to respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
Therefore, we ought to think about the new and different direction currently being taken by the Court. It would be a serious matter if a supranational power, especially if exercised by a limited number of people and not as the democratic expression of popular will, were to become repressive and demeaning, insensitive to people's feelings and hearts and therefore ultimately opposed to freedom. This is why I hope that the resolution tabled by the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) will be adopted with the votes of a large number of Members.
(SK) The history of Europe, its individual states and therefore also the EU is, like it nor not, closely connected with the Christian heritage. Consequently, even the constitutions of many states contain a reference to Christian traditions. Even the Treaty on European Union in its preamble draws inspiration, inter alia, from Europe's religious heritage, from which universal values have developed.
Fundamental rights in the EU are today guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms but, above all, they arise from constitutional traditions common to the Member States which have developed over centuries. I therefore believe that the EU must fully respect national history, culture and traditions and resolutely refuse to penalise Member States who defend their right to their own special make-up and character, including the Christian heritage and Christian symbols. In conclusion, I would merely like to add that neither the Charter nor the European Convention enlarge the powers of the Union.
(ES) Madam President, I would like to start by asking to borrow some words that I am going to make my own. The crucifix is not a sign of imposition. It is a symbol that represents positive values, which are part of our history, our culture and a society that dates back more than 2 000 years. We cannot claim to protect fundamental rights by denying the very values that created them.
Democracy works through freedom and respect, facilitating the exercise of rights, not through imposition or limitation. Yes of course, the principle of subsidiarity must be respected and recognised by all European institutions, organisations and courts, especially freedom, whether it is freedom of opinion or freedom of belief.
The authority of the Member States to display religious symbols in public places as a symbol that represents the traditions and identity of their peoples should not and cannot be infringed. Freedom is an essential element of our society and the basic pillar on which the single area of freedom, security and justice is built. If it were to be limited or censored, the very foundations of the European Union would collapse.
(EL) Madam President, I, too, consider that the Court is wrong to find that having a crucifix in schoolrooms is tantamount to disrespect for other people's religious faith. The issue we are debating today is a social rather than a legal issue. Obviously we must abide by the principle of subsidiarity. The presence of religious symbols is not a sign of religious discrimination or coercion. It is a result of the tradition and history of every country and often of its Constitution, as is the case in my country, Greece.
In Greece, we have religious icons in schoolrooms, not in order to impose some specific religion on pupils, but because it forms part of our tradition and is directly connected to the values and structures of our society, directly connected to four centuries of persecution and religious oppression by the Ottoman Empire.
(SK) I would like to respond briefly to three points. On this evening at the close of the year and in the run-up to Christmas, before midnight on a Tuesday, almost sixty years after the founding of the European Union, we are still discussing one of the pillars of European integration. We are discussing the principle of subsidiarity.
Secondly, the question of Mr Borghezio relates to the decision of the European Court in Strasbourg that the presence of crosses in Italian schools is a breach of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights. This decision has provoked fears in many states. The Slovak parliament last week passed a resolution in which it stated that this decision is in conflict with the cultural heritage and Christian history of Europe.
And finally, I did not feel entirely comfortable during the reading of the draft joint resolution on which we will vote on Thursday. I am disappointed that we lack the courage to include in a resolution that talks about subsidiarity those points from the Lisbon Treaty that are directly connected to the programme that has been passed.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if we consider that hardly anyone is here right now to talk about the question of crucifixes, given that to discuss crucifixes we must invoke the question of subsidiarity, the only logical conclusion is that we find ourselves in a Europe which is ashamed of the historical truth of its own Judeo-Christian roots and the historical truth of Christianity which, as Goethe said, is the common language of Europe.
Within the European Parliament, there are 23 official languages which demonstrate that there is nothing that unites Europe if not Christianity. I would like to ask Mr Barrot a question: why, after a popular referendum in Switzerland said 'no' to minarets, did the European Commission, the European Union, the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference all rally round to condemn the outcome of that referendum - even though Switzerland is not a member of the European Union - yet today, you are taking a neutral position over a question which concerns our roots, our identity and our soul?
(HU) As a Protestant clergyman, whose tradition regards the eight-pointed star and not the cross as the most important symbol, allow me to make a brief contribution to this debate. I am actually from an electoral constituency where 99% of the electorate are Catholic. My four children go to school with Catholic children. The cross does not bother us. I would like to make a distinction here - if I may, on a technical point - between the crucifix and the cross. We must be aware, even though it does not bother me personally, that there are people who are bothered by the cross or crucifix because the cross or crucifix reminds them of the Inquisition.
I feel that this is appropriate in those countries where the practice has developed because of the Catholic tradition of having a cross in schools, especially in faith schools. However, Parliament should not be discussing these matters, but rather poverty, the economic crisis or how Eastern Europe is going to catch up. This is an unproductive debate we are having. We need to look at who it was who protested in that Italian school and why. We should have examined this one-off case rather than discuss a matter here which is already something from the past.
I want, of course, to emphasise once again that I have nothing against the cross as I, too, live everyday looking at the cross, which does not bother me. We must create the right living conditions in Italy or Romania so that this does not become a subject of debate.
Madam President, in recent years, we have witnessed an ongoing campaign to suppress freedom of religious expression. Christian nurses have been disciplined for offering to pray with patients and, only today, Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar who was told to perform civil partnerships or face dismissal, has lost her case for religious discrimination at the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom.
Equality laws have failed to protect Christians - indeed, quite the opposite. An amendment to the Equality Bill to protect the religious liberty of churches was voted down in the House of Commons two weeks ago, amid accusations of interference from the EU Commission. The Commission, in their reasoned opinion, argued that the UK needs to narrow the religious liberty safeguard in its employment laws. I say: shame on the Commission. There must be a recognition that people have faith and have the right to express that faith. Christians ought to be protected, and not punished, by the law.
Madam President, the country with which I am most familiar has seen some harsh confrontations on these subjects, and I would like very simply, but on a personal level, to express the wish that the European Parliament's policy remains one of mutual tolerance and respect.
There are, in fact, families that wish to follow a Christian tradition. There are families that may question that tradition. This religious and cultural diversity is what makes us, is what makes Europe. I believe that we must remain very prudent when dealing with an issue such as this. I take the liberty of saying this quite simply because I myself have suffered, in the country with which I am most familiar, from extremes on both sides.
That being said, I am a lawyer and, quite honestly, I do not see how this debate can be held here, when it should have been held first at the Assembly of the Council of Europe and in our national parliaments. That is where I believe this debate should really take place. Moreover, we are obliged - I am obliged, on behalf of the Commission - to say that the Commission is certainly very committed to respect for the principle of religious freedom and that it would obviously be compelled to react against any form of discrimination against persons belonging to a particular religion.
Having said that, the Commission may not act outside the legal framework laid down by the treaties. Moreover, it may not intervene as guardian of the treaties on issues concerning a Member State when those issues do not relate to European Union law. I am obliged to say this, quite simply. The Commission can only note the various positions that have been expressed in this House, but it cannot express an opinion on an issue that does not come under European law. Once again, these issues come under the domestic legal system of the Member States. That is what I can say for my part, as a lawyer.
Nonetheless, I believe that this debate is useful and that it was interesting, of course, even though I would quite simply encourage all those who have taken part in this debate to keep a necessary sense of proportion and to allow the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in turn to usefully debate the interpretations that could be given to a European Declaration of Human Rights. Quite honestly, however, as guardians of the treaties we cannot intervene in a debate that essentially concerns the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.
I apologise for not being able to give you a better answer this evening, but I am obliged, in all honesty and in accordance with the law, to respond in this way. I honestly believe that we are talking about problems that are dealt with today in the Union within the framework of the domestic legal system of each Member State.
I have received six motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure,.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 December 2009.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - (DE) The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is the expression of an aggressive secularism and gives authority to those who want the public domain to be religion-free. In so doing, they are overlooking the fact that our continent cannot exist without Christianity. Christianity has defined Europe, its people, culture and art and its way of thinking to the extent that the continent would lose its identity if all traces of Christianity were to be removed. It is certainly not about calling into question the freedom of religion. The separation of the Church and the State is a supreme benefit of our democracy and I would like us to take care to ensure that both carry out their own tasks with mutual respect for one another. However, this respect is exactly what it is all about. The Christian Church must not demand that everyone subscribe to its beliefs, but it is entitled to demand to be respected by everyone.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what does freedom of religion actually mean? The answer is quite simple. It is the freedom to practise religion. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion but the freedom to have religion. Freedom of religion does not create a religion-free society, but rather gives people the right to practice their religion openly within society. A crucifix in the classroom does not force anyone to believe, or not to believe. Therefore, it does not violate the freedom of religion. Nor have I ever heard of a right entitling someone not to be confronted with religious symbols. If this were the case, we would, in fact, immediately have to prohibit all crosses on gravestones and all church spires. The crucifix ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is therefore not only an attack on the principle of subsidiarity, but it also violates the right to religious freedom itself. We, the European Parliament, cannot and must not accept this ruling. The European Court of Human Rights should administer justice and not become a puppet for ideological and anti-Christian interests. Otherwise, we will have to seriously consider whether this Court actually still has a purpose at all.
In my opinion, the ruling of the Court has nothing to do with protecting freedom of religion. The presence of a cross in a classroom does not, on its own, exert pressure on a person's worldview and does not violate the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own convictions, just as that right is not violated by wearing clothes which testify to the profession of a particular faith. A mutual understanding and openness to others lies at the foundation of a common, united Europe, as does respect for cultural differences between countries and the roots and traditions of the nations which make up the European Union. It is no secret that the sources of our European identity derive directly from the Christian tradition. Therefore, for a clear majority of Europeans, a cross is a religious symbol and, at the same time, a symbol which represents their values. I do not imagine that the mutual dialogue which we conduct with each other every day should be devoid of the values which we hold. Neither do I imagine that, in the name of religious freedom, we should be forced to deny what is, for us, an important and sacred symbol, irrespective of whether it be a cross, a Star of David or a crescent moon. Just as no one has the right to force anyone to adhere to a particular religion or value system, so also no one has the right to compel, in the name of freedom, anyone to remove symbols which are important for the whole of humanity. By its ruling, the Court of Human Rights is not, in fact, upholding religious freedom, but is discriminating against all those in whose lives symbols of faith have significant meaning.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
The Minutes of 9 September 2010 have been distributed. Are there any comments?
(FR) Mr President, I should like to speak under Rule 172 with regard to point 5.2 of the minutes of the 9 September sitting and, at the same time, although I will combine both elements of my speech, under Rule 145, to make a personal statement.
Mr President, a very important resolution condemning the French Government for its policy of destroying illegal travellers' camps has been voted on. Despite the importance of this vote, those groups that were able to fulfil the obligation of requesting a roll-call vote rather strangely chose not to do so.
Now, it so happens that, while my colleagues and I are clearly part of the minority which voted against this resolution condemning the French Government - we numbered amongst the minority of 245 Members who voted against - some Members, in particular, Mr Audy and Mrs Mathieu, claimed that we voted in favour. What might have been a simple mistake became an official lie when it was repeated by the Secretary of State for European Affairs, Mr Pierre Lellouche, and by the Chair of the UMP Group in the French National Assembly, Mr Jean-François Copé.
However, my speech in the debate, my explanation of vote, my attempt to oppose Mr Swoboda's socialist amendment, was perfectly clear. Why was there no roll-call vote? Ignoring all our usual customs, it was clearly an attempt on the part of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) to hide - I have almost finished, Mr President - the defections in its own ranks and discredit an opponent whose votes it covets. This is pathetic political manoeuvring.
I understand your comment related to the Minutes, but that was also a personal remark. That is how I intend to treat it. You were referring to your personal statement. Are there any other comments on the Minutes?
(The Minutes of the previous sitting were approved)


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Approval by the Council of Parliament's positions adopted at first reading (Rule 66): see Minutes


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)
Mr President, on a point of order, I think you would find that if you took the first vote at 12.00, people would then sit down and participate, rather than waiting for them to sit down and participate and then taking the vote.
(Applause)
I am very considerate.
(IT) Mr President, I apologise for this intervention but as an MEP elected in Italy, I consider it my duty to offer, from this Chamber, a respectful and deferential greeting to my country's President, Giorgio Napolitano, custodian of Italy's constitutional values and national unity.
In this Chamber, the Italian President should only ever be referred to with respect and deference.
(Applause)
We shall now proceed to the vote.


1. Conference on Biological Diversity - Nagoya 2010 (vote)
- Before the vote:
(FR) Mr President, I will be very brief. I should like to express through this short point of order both my admiration for the great musician Beethoven and my disapproval of the fact that we are regularly subjected to a European anthem which has disappeared into ...
(Protests)
(The President cut off the speaker)
(FR) Mr President, I am outraged by those statements.
(Applause)
Out of respect for freedom, peace and for what our citizens suffered, I simply request, if these gentlemen wish to be respectable and respected by myself, that they no longer accept the salary of an MEP, paid for by Europe.
(Applause)
Mr Gollnisch, I am a very nice and patient man. You do not have the floor. This is not a point of order. If you continue shouting, you will be taken out of this room politely.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you to consider that the exact and original wording of paragraph 35 of the resolution, which is put to the vote and which stresses that corporate social responsibility should include biodiversity, is the French version, and that that should be the version used. Moreover, the word 'social', which has disappeared from the English version, should be reinserted and the version corrected.
(FR) Mr President, you invited us to vote for the original text of paragraph 16. However, there was a separate vote beforehand, and paragraph 16 was amended. There were two separate votes. Therefore, we voted for the original text but not for the amendment.
Mr President, before we take the final vote - and although I am very happy with the fact that we adopted Amendment 1 - I think that Ms Bélier of the Greens is right. In fact, you called out to vote on the original paragraph.
On the screens, we then saw that we voted on Amendment 1. To be fair to the Greens, I think we should take the vote on Amendment 1 again.
If Amendment 1 is adopted, the original paragraph falls.
It may have been because I speak Greek, which is not a particularly well-known language, and I speak it fast in order to help everyone here. I believe - I may be wrong - that I first put Amendment 1 to the vote by roll-call vote and that I then put to the vote ...
(Objections)
OK, I will trust the House. My guess is, if my recollection is correct, that Amendment 1 will be rejected and then the original text will be adopted, but I will do it.
I will go back to Amendment 1 by roll-call vote. The vote is open.
(Amendment 1 was adopted by roll-call vote)


Statements by the President
Ladies and gentlemen, in opening today's plenary session, I should like to say a few words about the referendum which took place last Friday. I am very pleased with the result. It was a great day for Ireland and a great day for Europe.
(Applause)
I would like to say that when the result was announced, I was at the other end of Europe, in Sicily, and there the result was received just as you have received it - with applause. In many other places throughout Europe, people were also delighted with the Irish result. The Irish have sent a clear signal that they want to continue to be at the heart of a united continent. Míle buíochas do mhuintir na hÉireann. A thousand thanks, and congratulations on the result of the referendum. I said it in Irish, perhaps not very accurately, but that is more or less how it sounds.
The European Union has demonstrated that it can listen to the justified fears of its citizens and respond appropriately. The guarantees given to Ireland proved to be satisfactory, and convinced the voters that the Treaty of Lisbon will benefit their country. It was a victory for civil society, and is a good argument in the continuing debate in other Member States.
I would like to underline the large role played by employers, trades unions, farmers' and fishermen's organisations, and also by the Church and social leaders. This helped to win the referendum.
I would also like to congratulate the Irish Government and opposition, and also one of my predecessors, Pat Cox, who led the 'Ireland for Europe' campaign. Congratulations to Pat Cox!
(Applause)
I am confident that the process of ratification will be continued and will end with success in the two remaining Member States. I have received an assurance from the President of Poland, that now, when the Irish referendum has returned a positive result, he will sign the Treaty of Lisbon without delay.
(Applause)
I hope that President Václav Klaus will do the same as soon as the Czech Constitutional Court resolves all remaining doubts.
The objective of the Treaty of Lisbon is to prepare the European Union for the challenges of the 21st century. We have to face up to the fears of our citizens about energy issues, rising unemployment, immigration and climate change. We will have to act together, just as we have done many times in the past, and we must not forget that the key to success is the principle of European solidarity.
There is much work before us, but we now have the essential tools, so let us not hesitate to use them.
I would like to make one more important comment on the Irish referendum. We cannot forget those who voted 'No'. It has become our tradition to think about all Europeans, respecting their views and their right to a different opinion. Those who voted 'No' also want to tell us something. They want to convince us of something, and, most important of all, they want to warn us about something. We take that warning on board, and we will also take their vote into account, but we are extremely pleased that the decided majority of the Irish people said 'Yes', and that they support a common Europe. I myself am determined to work hard at helping you to feel that our common Europe is also your Europe - and we will write the story of Europe's future together.
I would like to move on to two other matters. They are sad matters.
I should like to recall a great tragedy, and in this way commemorate the victims of the mudslides in the vicinity of Messina in Sicily. I have already issued a statement on behalf of the European Parliament, expressing our condolences to the families and friends. I was in Italy at the time, and offered condolences publicly to our friends, partners and all Italians.
Before we begin, I would also like to recall the fact that today marks the third anniversary of the death of the Russian human rights campaigner, journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Her murderers have still not been brought to justice. Anna is not, however, the only victim. Let us, on this occasion, also remember other social activists who have been murdered in the last three years.
Mr President, when you spoke to us presenting your candidacy as President of the European Parliament, you said that you were going to be a very objective figure and an objective chair. I have to say that you have just made a speech on the Irish referendum - I did stand up when you were speaking, but you were locked into your text - that was one of the most subjective, partisan speeches I have ever heard, and inappropriate from an objective chairman.
(Mixed reactions)
You probably did not listen to the whole of my speech!
(Applause)


Documents received: see Minutes


8. Restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (


Derivatives Markets: Future policy actions (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Werner Langen, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on derivatives markets: future policy actions -.
Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank my fellow Members who helped me to draw up a very wide-ranging report following the Commission communication for their willingness to compromise and for the fact that we did not simply agree on a minimum-level solution, but on workable compromises.
However, I would also like to thank Commissioner Barnier for the fact that he now wants to do something practical in this regard. Mr McCreevy - your predecessor, Mr Barnier - needed to be goaded into action. In your case, we are certain that you will submit proposals for the regulation of the financial markets quickly, reliably and correctly and be able to implement them together with us. All I can say to you is that you are doing the right thing by not waiting for the last one in the convoy or the disruptive influences in the Council. You have Parliament fully on your side with a clear and fair regulation of the derivatives markets.
We adopted the report in committee with a broad majority - 43 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention - and some of the professional observers from other Member States were surprised that, following the controversial debate, a regulation was produced that received such a high level of support. Everyone tried to find suitable compromises, even with regard to the two points that up to now had been contentious: governance, the conditions for the clearing houses and, secondly, the wording concerning the third states regulation, on which we have had intensive and contentious debates. You have today set in motion a public consultation procedure with regard to two sub-areas - the documents have been available since this afternoon - these areas being, firstly, short selling and, secondly, derivatives and market infrastructures. I believe that we need more stringent rules in this regulation and, now that the first part of the financial market crisis has to some degree been overcome and the second part is before us, that we should not allow an enormous market encompassing twelve times the gross world product to remain unregulated. This includes the OTC derivatives, but it also includes other points, and we all know that this is only part of the financial market regulation, not all of it.
A financial market crisis and derivatives that are not traded on the stock exchange have doubtless made the crisis worse. The accounting rules from the United States and the netting in internal banking operations have obstructed transparency, and the credit default insurance on government bonds, in particular, has fallen into disrepute.
In the case of Greece, too, there is no proof that credit default swaps have caused the crisis. On the contrary, it is quite clear that it is not speculators, but the debt problems of the Member States that are the primary cause. Thus, we will only be able to solve the problem if we solve the debt problems.
We have identified another problem from the experiences of the past few years, and that is that the market power of the six largest institutes is a problem. These six largest institutes - of which three are from Europe and three from the United States - are responsible for 80% of the derivatives market. We remember the experience of 1992 when there was speculation against the British pound and when, under the name of Soros, the accession of the British pound to the euro was prevented, and also the past experience of individual campaigners, who noticed at that time that some central banks had to use up all of their resources.
The market needs rules. It must be strictly regulated and the decisions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs comprise a total of 48 individual points: standardisation of derivatives, trade repositories, the establishment of central counterparty clearing houses, use of organised trading venues, enhancement of market integrity and market oversight, derivatives for companies and end users must be regulated separately and we need the aforementioned ownership rules.
Finally, I would like to assure you, Commissioner, of the unconditional support of Parliament with a broad majority. Do not sit at the back and follow everyone else, but be at the forefront and you will have us at your side.
Madam President, I welcome Mr Langen's report as part of the difficult path towards effective regulation of derivative products. It has been clearly shown that the lack of transparency in this field can cause the build-up of unknown risk in our financial system. However, Mr Langen's report also recognises that derivative products also serve the opposite purpose of dispersing risks for businesses, small and large, which are going to be the foundation of economic recovery in Europe.
I am glad that Parliament has clearly voiced its opinion that many end users should be exempt not just from clearing, but from collateralisation and capital requirements as well. Although I do not agree with everything in Mr Langen's final report, particularly with regard to the banning of certain types of products, as I believe this needs considerably more research to avoid the financial innovators finding simple way of rebranding or engineering even more complex products to get around overly prescriptive rules, I am, however, confident that the process of European and global law-making continues and that we will come up with a workable and effective solution for derivative instruments.
(RO) I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Langen for all his efforts on this report. Derivatives are considered to be one of the basic causes which helped trigger the financial crisis. With the aim of preventing new crises, the proposals drafted by the Commission on the derivatives market will reduce the risk these instruments pose to the European economy.
In order to restore confidence in the financial markets, a legislative framework is required which will help increase transparency and help the market players make an accurate assessment of the risks involved. In the short term, reducing counterparty risk is an important objective. This can be achieved by using central counterparty clearing houses more frequently. Transactions need to be centralised through a central counterparty in order to increase transparency. In this respect, central counterparties help preserve the integrity of the stock market.
Madam President, honourable Members, first let me express my thanks to Mr Langen for this report, and to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This is a timely report that is of a high quality and that is economically and politically important. Mr Langen has asked all the right questions - which, knowing him as I do, does not surprise me - and has adopted and proposed an ambitious point of view. I believe that this is indeed the right approach to this issue, given its financial and economic importance.
Honourable Members, you are all aware that, when discussing the derivatives market, we are talking about a market worth USD 600 trillion, and about products that are used daily by banks, but also by businesses, to cover potential fluctuations in exchange rates and interest rates, or volatility of oil prices.
As Mrs Swinburne said, these products are useful to our economies but, at the same time, they can be a source of risk and currently fall outside any form of transparency or registration. That is what we need to change and what you, Mr Langen, propose in your report. It is also the approach that the Commission announced in its communication on the derivatives markets in October 2009, and which I personally confirmed to Parliament on 13 January 2010, as you may remember. This proves, Mr Langen, that I intend, as I said on 13 January, to be in the driving seat and not in the passenger seat.
Precisely with that aim in mind, I would like to confirm my intention to submit a legislative proposal on over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives this summer - at the beginning of September to be precise. The objectives are clear: we want to increase transparency, establish a general standardisation process, and strengthen the markets.
However, we must also do all of this swiftly, effectively, and without improvising. Parliament's assessment is on the table; my services have been working for several months and have maintained a constant dialogue with all the parties involved. In fact today we launched a public consultation to finalise our proposals on some specific aspects. I would like to mention, for example, the criteria that must be adopted in order to make derivatives clearing mandatory; not all derivatives can be standardised.
Secondly, the type and level of prudential risk management requirements, which we have to have with regard to clearing houses; Mrs Băsescu rightly raised this issue. These clearing houses should enable us to reduce systemic risks, and we must be very careful to ensure that they can succeed by establishing all the conditions they require to perform that role.
Thirdly, the conditions under which clearing houses in third countries can offer these services in Europe. Another issue is the potential interoperability between clearing houses and the issue of trade repositories; these are key infrastructures, since they will compile all information on transactions. How should we regulate them? Should we demand that they be established in the European Union? These are all questions to which we will pay close attention, and we should be mindful of the answers that we will be given. We will also take into account the results of this consultation in our impact assessment and in the legislative proposal.
I should like to highlight a few more specific points from the Langen report. Firstly, I have taken note of Parliament's concerns over the ownership of clearing houses and the risk of excessive control of these clearing houses on the part of their users. I, like you, Mr Langen, want to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest but, at the same time, we must consider the fundamental European Union rules in the area of freedom of investment, and these rules do not sit well with the regulation of clearing house ownership. However, we will continue to work on this issue.
This is a sensitive matter and one that I do not wish to avoid; I raised this question in consultation and, in any event, we need strict governance mechanisms in order to minimise any potential conflicts of interest.
I have also noted your preference for clearing houses and central repositories to be located in Europe. Personally, Mr Langen, I am in favour of such an approach. That is why we presented three different options with regard to trade repositories in our consultation.
However, if these facilities are to be located partly in Europe and partly elsewhere, the challenge is to ensure that all these entities are indeed subject to the same rules and that our competent authorities have direct, immediate and unconditional access to the information they need.
The report also expresses a preference for giving the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) a powerful role in authorising the supervision of clearing houses and in registering and monitoring trade repositories. This is also a very important issue on which we must continue to work. Mr Langen, responsibility in the areas of supervision and authorisation is linked to tax liability.
Granting supervisory responsibility to ESMA would mean that, in theory, ESMA would also assume budgetary responsibility, which is difficult to envisage at this stage, but we have not yet taken a final decision on this point.
I also share your concerns about the volatility of the commodity derivatives markets; I am currently working on that very issue of volatility and, as I told Parliament, on controlling all risks of speculation and hyper-speculation, controlling what I consider to be scandalous transactions in the area of agricultural commodities. Here too we must strive for general transparency in these markets and establish tools to combat their excessive volatility.
Finally, the Commission wants to find a solution to the problems observed recently in the derivatives markets, particularly in respect of sovereign debt. Ladies and gentlemen, today I also began a consultation on short selling, which also covers sovereign credit default swaps (CDS). We will also present a legislative proposal in September.
For these reasons, I sincerely believe and am happy to tell you personally that the Langen report demonstrates the necessary level of commitment to these extremely serious issues in order to help define and implement a strategy for the OTC derivatives market, so that it may become more secure, more transparent and more efficient. Moreover, in many respects, this report represents for our governments and for the Commission a very useful and very important incentive, and for that I thank you.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday 15 June 2010).


9. Budgetary surveillance in euro area (
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I can confirm to you that the Commission statement is accurately reproduced in Amendment 11, but as it is a very important statement I would like to read this for you to make sure: 'Before the end of 2011, the Commission intends to present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the setting up of a system of common issuance of European sovereign bonds (eurosecurities) under joint and several liability, in line with Article 8a(5) of the regulation on the enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area'. These euro securities would aim to strengthen fiscal discipline and increase stability in the euro area through markets as well as by taking advantage of the increase in liquidity, ensuring that Member States enjoying the highest credit standards would not suffer from higher interest rates. The report will, if appropriate, be accompanied by legislative proposals.
In the context of its first report to the Parliament and Council on the application of this regulation as foreseen in Article 8a, the Commission intends to review the functioning of any successor mechanism to the European Financial Stability Mechanism and the European Financial Stabilisation Facility during the period covered by the report. This review will assess the contribution of this mechanism to the preservation of the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, to the reinforcement of budgetary discipline among Member States and to the improvement of economic governance and coordination at EU level. It will also assess the effectiveness of the institutional arrangements which govern the aforementioned mechanism and evaluate the possible benefits in terms of the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of different institutional arrangements.


6. Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and Bosnia and Herzegovina (
- On paragraph 22
draftsman. - (DE) Mr President, I have an oral amendment to paragraph 22, which I have agreed with other fellow Members. We must correct the text because it does not exactly represent the truth. After the Missing Persons Institute and following the semi-colon, we should change the sentence. I will read the change out in English now:
- 'urges the corresponding urgencies at the entity level to support the work of the state-level bodies by forwarding to them all the relevant information they gather;'.
(DE) That is paragraph 22. I do not see any opposition, so we will vote on it.
(The oral amendment was accepted)


27. 2008 discharge: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights


5. Improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (
(SV) There are several translation errors in the Swedish version of this report. Among other things, there is confusion between the terms barnledighet (parental leave) and mammaledighet (maternity leave). However, in Amendment 125 in particular, there is a very serious translation error. The Swedish version of Amendment 125 states that paternity leave should be on full pay. It does not say this in other versions. This means that there is no difference between Amendment 50 and Amendment 125 in the Swedish version. It would be good if this could be corrected.


5. Transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers of securities (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)
- Report: Pervenche Berès


30. Defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Bruno Gollnisch (
(FR) Madam President, I shall speak for just two minutes, if I may, since there is no debate or oral explanation of vote, which I find rather astonishing in this kind of procedure. What are we talking about here? We are talking about a political expression, in respect of which legal action is being taken by ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
I am sorry but we must proceed to the vote. You have already had the chance to state your views, Mr Gollnisch.
(FR) Until now these two objective criteria ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr Gollnisch, you spoke only yesterday. In any case, it is not permitted under the Rules of Procedure. I am sorry, we are proceeding to the vote.


1. 2007 discharge: European Parliament (


Adjournment of the session
I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament.
(The sitting closed at 16:35)


5. Sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield (vote)
Fraga Estévez report


7. International carriage of goods by road (recast) (


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)