10. The additional Member State concerned shall refuse to authorise the clinical trial if it disagrees with the conclusion of the reporting Member State as regards Part I of the assessment report on any of the grounds referred to in second subparagraph of paragraph 4, or if it finds, on duly justified grounds, that the aspects addressed in Part II of the assessment report are not complied with, or where an ethics committee has issued a negative opinion which, in accordance with the law of the additional Member State concerned, is valid for that entire additional Member State.

10. The additional Member State concerned shall refuse to authorise the clinical trial if it disagrees with the conclusion of the reporting Member State as regards Part I of the assessment report on any of the grounds referred to in second subparagraph of paragraph 4, or if it finds, on duly justified grounds, that the aspects addressed in Part II of the assessment report are not complied with, or where an ethics committee has issued a negative opinion which, in accordance with the law of the additional Member State concerned, is valid for that entire additional Member State.

4. A Member State concerned shall refuse to authorise a clinical trial if it disagrees with the conclusion of the reporting Member State as regards Part I of the assessment report on any of the grounds referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, or if it finds, on duly justified grounds, that the aspects addressed in Part II of the assessment report are not complied with, or where an ethics committee has issued a negative opinion which in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned is valid for that entire Member State.

4. A Member State concerned shall refuse to authorise a substantial modification if it disagrees with the conclusion of the reporting Member State as regards the substantial modification of aspects covered by Part I of the assessment report on any of the grounds referred to in second subparagraph of paragraph 2, or if it finds, on duly justified grounds, that the aspects covered by Part II of the assessment report are not complied with, or where an ethics committee has issued a negative opinion which in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned, is valid for that entire Member State.

In this report, the outcome of the assessments made on the conservation status of a habitat or species is presented in one of four categories: ‘favourable’ (green), ‘unfavourable inadequate’ (amber), ‘unfavourable bad’ (red) or ‘unknown’ (grey).

Compared to the main competitor, the United States, the return on investment remains very unfavourable, and Europe must determine to what extent it wishes to increase its investment in the space field.