The outcome of the vote (of a total of 57 amendments) was somehow unclear for both sides, which caused the majority of PSE to abstain and the PPE voting against after some discussion in the meeting itself.

Despite many really bad points voted by the PPE (sometimes with the PSE, sometimes with the Liberals), Greens/EFA voted (discontendedly) in favour because of the mandatory requirement of insurance and financial reserves having been voted.

From Alain’s 8 amendments 3 were adopted (am 16 on definition of operator ; am 38 on reducing the burden of civil responsibility for operators obeying to applicable laws ; am 4 requesting compulsory coverage by and insurance or other means of financial security of enterprises against liablitilty for envirnonmental damage). A large majority has adopted the first two amendments, while the latter was only 19:16 with PSE and Liberals voting with us.

The amendments rejected were am 1 and 2 on deletion of the Commission’s proposal to exempt from liability "activities which were not considered harmful according to the "state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the emission was released" (here PPE and PSE voted against Alain’s amendments, while Liberals and GUE voted with us). Concerning am 42, which tried to force Member States to provide for clear rules on collective/proportianate responsibility of joined operators, am 41 of PPE (Purvis) was adopted, which can be seen as a compromise (opens the way for MS to require the costs to be borne jointly and severally by the operators).

Amendments by PPE (Karas) on deleting the part on biodiversity (am 6 and 23) , diluting the status of NGO (am 8 9 and 18) and shifting the focus of the whole Directive away from environmental liability (am 11) have been adopted, which we criticise. We deeply regret the rejection (PSE and majority of PPE voting together) of am 25 by PPE (Karas), which aimed at deleting the exemption for nuclear risks (Karas, Liberals and us voting for deletion).