BETA


2013/2277(INI) Enquiry report on the role and operations of the Troika (ECB, Commission and IMF) with regard to the euro area programme countries

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ECON KARAS Othmar (icon: PPE PPE), HOANG NGOC Liem (icon: S&D S&D) GOULARD Sylvie (icon: ALDE ALDE), TORVALDS Nils (icon: ALDE ALDE), LAMBERTS Philippe (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), EPPINK Derk Jan (icon: ECR ECR), KLUTE Jürgen (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion CONT THEURER Michael (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion EMPL
Committee Opinion AFCO SCHOLZ Helmut (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL) Elmar BROK (icon: PPE PPE), Ashley FOX (icon: ECR ECR), Morten MESSERSCHMIDT (icon: ECR ECR)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052

Events

2014/08/11
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2014/03/13
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 448 votes to 140 with 27 abstentions, a resolution on the enquiry on the role and operations of the Troika (ECB, Commission and IMF) with regard to the euro area programme countries.

The Troika, consisting of the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), originated in the decision of 25 March 2010 by euro area Heads of State and Government to establish a joint programme and to provide conditional bilateral loans to Greece, thereby also building on recommendations from the Ecofin Council. It has also been operational in Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus.

Within the Troika , the Commission, acting as an agent of the Eurogroup, is entrusted with negotiating the conditions for financial assistance for euro area Member States ‘in liaison with the ECB’, and, ’wherever possible together with the IMF’, the EU-IMF financial assistance. The Council is politically responsible for approving the macroeconomic adjustment programmes.

This resolution was to evaluate the functioning of the Troika in the ongoing programmes in the four countries which are Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus. Parliament recognised that the immediate objective of avoiding chaotic payment defaults had been met and that the challenges faced by the Troika had been considerable. However, it underlined many weaknesses and recommended improvements , urgent and longer term.

The Troika: the institutional dimension and democratic legitimacy : because of the evolving nature of the EU’s response to the crisis, the unclear role of the ECB in the Troika and the nature of the Troika decision-making process, Parliament noted that the Troika’s mandate has been perceived as being unclear and lacking in transparency and democratic oversight , which has bred Euroscepticism.

Members, pointing out that the rescue mechanisms and the Troika are of an ad hoc nature, regretted that there was no appropriate legal basis available for setting up the Troika on the basis of Union primary law, which has led to the establishment of intergovernmental mechanisms in the form of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), and eventually the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). They asked that any future solution be based on Union primary law , which might lead to the need for a Treaty change.

Parliament questioned several points:

· the dual role of the Commission in the Troika as both an agent of Member States and an EU institution; a potential conflict of interest existed within the Commission between its role in the Troika and its responsibility as guardian of the Treaties and the acquis communautaire;

· the potential conflict of interest between the current role of the ECB in the Troika as ‘technical advisor’ and its position as creditor of the four Member States;

· the fact that the IMF because of its statutes, cannot appear formally before or report in writing to national parliaments or the European Parliament. It was stressed that the IMF’s involvement as lender of last resort providing up to one third of the funding places the institution in a minority role.

Members regretted that the troika is lacking, because of its structure, the means of democratic legitimacy at EU level. They also deplored the way EU institutions were being portrayed as the scapegoat for adverse effects in Member States’ macroeconomic adjustment, when it is the Member States’ finance ministers who bear the political responsibility for the Troika and its operations. They therefore demanded that the Eurogroup, the Council and the European Council assume full responsibility for the operations of the Troika.

Proposals and recommendations :

1) In the short to medium term , the resolution called for: i) the establishment of clear, transparent and binding rules of procedure for the interaction between the institutions within the Troika and the allocation of tasks and responsibility therein; ii) the development of an improved communication strategy for ongoing and future financial assistance programmes.

Members recalled that the position adopted by the Parliament on Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 entailed introducing provisions requiring the macroeconomic adjustment programmes to include contingency plans in case baseline forecast scenarios should not materialise and in case of slippage due to circumstances outside the control of the Member State under assistance, such as unexpected international economic shocks. Members stressed that such plans were a prerequisite for prudent policymaking, given the fragility and poor reliability of economic models underpinning programme forecasts.

Parliament also demanded that pursuing economic and financial stability in the Member States and the Union as a whole must not undermine social stability, the European social model or the social rights of EU citizens . It called for the necessary involvement of the social partners in the design and implementation of current and future adjustment programmes.

The Commission was invited to start interinstitutional negotiations with Parliament in order to define a common procedure for informing the competent committee of Parliament on the conclusions drawn from the monitoring of the macroeconomic adjustment programme, as well as the progress made in the preparation of the draft macroeconomic adjustment programme.

Members proposed that for each programme country the Commission set up a ‘growth task force’ consisting inter alia of experts from (inter alia) the Member States and the EIB, in association with representatives of the private sector and civil society in order to suggest options to promote growth which would complement fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.

By the end of 2015, the Commission should present a detailed study of the economic and social consequences of the adjustment programmes in the four countries.

Parliament also called for: i) a reassessment of the decision-making process of the Eurogroup so as to include appropriate democratic accountability at both national and European levels; ii) the integration of the ESM in the Union's legal framework so that it becomes a Community-based mechanism.

2) In the longer term, the resolution recommended clarifying the respective roles and tasks of each participant in the Troika in the following ways:

· The creation of a European Monetary Fund (EMF) , which would combine the financial means of the ESM and the human resources that the Commission has acquired over the last few years, would take over the Commission's role, allowing the latter to act in conformity with Article 17 of the TEU and in particular to act as guardian of the Treaties;

· the ECB would participate as a silent observer during the negotiation process , in order to enable it to raise strong concerns in its advising role to the Commission, and later to the European Monetary Fund if appropriate;

· the IMF, should its involvement be strictly necessary, would be a marginal lender and therefore could leave the programme if in disagreement.

The next Parliament was invited to pursue the work of this resolution.

Documents
2014/03/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2014/03/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2014/03/13
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2014/03/12
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2014/02/28
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted an own-initiative report by Othmar KARAS (EPP, AT) and Liem HOANG NGOC (S&D, FR) on the enquiry on the role and operations of the Troika (European Central Bank (ECB), Commission and International Monetary Fund (IMF)) with regard to the euro area programme countries.

The report is to evaluate the functioning of the Troika in the ongoing programmes in the four countries: Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus .

The Troika: the institutional dimension and democratic legitimacy : because of the evolving nature of the EU’s response to the crisis, the unclear role of the ECB in the Troika and the nature of the Troika decision-making process, the report noted that the Troika’s mandate has been perceived as being unclear and lacking in transparency and democratic oversight .

Members pointed out that the rescue mechanisms and the Troika are of an ad hoc nature, and regretted that there was no appropriate legal basis available for setting up the Troika on the basis of Union primary law, which has led to the establishment of intergovernmental mechanisms in the form of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), and eventually the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). They asked that any future solution be based on Union primary law , which might lead to the need for a Treaty change.

The report questioned the dual role of the Commission in the Troika as both an agent of Member States and an EU institution and asserted that there is a potential conflict of interest within the Commission between its role in the Troika and its responsibility as guardian of the Treaties and the acquis communautaire. It pointed equally to the potential conflict of interest between the current role of the ECB in the Troika as ‘technical advisor’ and its position as creditor of the four Member States. Furthermore, it regretted the fact that by reason of its statutes, the IMF cannot appear formally before or report in writing to national parliaments or the European Parliament . It stressed that the IMF’s involvement as lender of last resort providing up to one third of the funding places the institution in a minority role.

Members regretted that the troika is lacking, because of its structure, the means of democratic legitimacy at EU level. They deplored the way EU institutions are being portrayed as the scapegoat for adverse effects in Member States' macroeconomic adjustment, when it is the Member States' finance ministers who bear the political responsibility for the Troika and its operations. It is therefore demanded that the Eurogroup, the Council and the European Council assume full responsibility for the operations of the Troika.

Proposals and recommendations :

1) In the short to medium term , the report called for: i) the establishment of clear, transparent and binding rules of procedure for the interaction between the institutions within the Troika and the allocation of tasks and responsibility therein; ii) the development of an improved communication strategy for ongoing and future financial assistance programmes.

Members recalled that the position adopted by the Parliament on Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 entailed introducing provisions requiring the macroeconomic adjustment programmes to include contingency plans in case baseline forecast scenarios should not materialise and in case of slippage due to circumstances outside the control of the Member State under assistance, such as unexpected international economic shocks. The report stressed that such plans are a prerequisite for prudent policymaking, given the fragility and poor reliability of economic models underpinning programme forecasts.

The report also stressed that pursuing economic and financial stability in the Member States and the Union as a whole must not undermine social stability, the European social model or the social rights of EU citizens . It called for the necessary involvement of the social partners in the design and implementation of current and future adjustment programmes.

The Commission is invited to start interinstitutional negotiations with Parliament in order to define a common procedure for informing the competent committee of Parliament on the conclusions drawn from the monitoring of the macroeconomic adjustment programme, as well as the progress made in the preparation of the draft macroeconomic adjustment programme.

Members proposed that for each programme country the Commission should set up a ‘ growth task force ’ consisting inter alia of experts from (inter alia) the Member States and the EIB, in association with representatives of the private sector and civil society in order to suggest options to promote growth which would complement fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.

By the end of 2015, the Commission should present a detailed study of the economic and social consequences of the adjustment programmes in the four countries.

The report also called for: i) a reassessment of the decision-making process of the Eurogroup so as to include appropriate democratic accountability at both national and European levels; ii) the integration of the ESM in the Union's legal framework so that it becomes a Community-based mechanism.

2) In the longer term, the report recommended clarifying the respective roles and tasks of each participant in the Troika in the following ways:

· The creation of a European Monetary Fund (EMF) , which would combine the financial means of the ESM and the human resources that the Commission has acquired over the last few years, would take over the Commission's role, allowing the latter to act in conformity with Article 17 of the TEU and, in particular, to act as ‘guardian of the Treaties’;

· the ECB would participate as a silent observer during the negotiation process , in order to enable it to raise strong concerns in its advising role to the Commission, and later to the European Monetary Fund if appropriate;

· the IMF, should its involvement be strictly necessary, would be a marginal lender and therefore could leave the programme if in disagreement.

The next Parliament would be invited to pursue the work of this report.

Documents
2014/02/24
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2014/02/11
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2014/02/06
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2014/02/03
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2014/02/03
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2014/02/03
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2013/12/17
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2013/12/17
   EP - SCHOLZ Helmut (GUE/NGL) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
2013/12/02
   EP - THEURER Michael (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2013/11/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2013/10/08
   EP - KARAS Othmar (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in ECON
2013/10/08
   EP - HOANG NGOC Liem (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in ECON

Documents

Votes

A7-0149/2014 - Othmar Karas et Liem Hoang Ngoc - § 2/2

2014/03/13 Outcome: +: 318, 0: 143, -: 79
PL GB DE IT RO ES HU FR BG IE NL PT SI AT HR SK LT SE LU EE CZ FI DK MT LV BE CY EL
Total
35
51
72
42
26
41
15
53
15
10
20
17
7
16
12
7
5
18
6
6
12
6
6
4
7
12
5
14
icon: PPE PPE
199

Netherlands PPE

Against (1)

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Belgium PPE

2
2
icon: ALDE ALDE
54

Italy ALDE

Against (1)

2

Spain ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Belgium ALDE

1
icon: ECR ECR
39

Italy ECR

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
15

Poland EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

1
icon: NI NI
25

Italy NI

2

Spain NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

France NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Ireland NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
139

Hungary S&D

2

Ireland S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

Abstain (1)

1
3

Slovakia S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Estonia S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia S&D

3

Finland S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Germany GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1
4

Croatia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
44

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

A7-0149/2014 - Othmar Karas et Liem Hoang Ngoc - § 5

2014/03/13 Outcome: +: 497, -: 47, 0: 17
DE GB FR ES PL RO IT SE BG HU NL AT IE FI BE CZ HR PT SK SI LT LU EE DK MT LV CY EL
Total
75
56
53
43
36
26
42
18
15
15
19
16
11
9
13
15
11
17
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
7
5
14
icon: PPE PPE
201

Belgium PPE

3

Czechia PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
144

Hungary S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

1

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

For (1)

1

Slovakia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

Italy ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Belgium ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Spain Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Greece Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
38

Italy ECR

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

4

France NI

2

Spain NI

1

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Ireland NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

Poland EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
27

Germany GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

5

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Croatia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
4

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

A7-0149/2014 - Othmar Karas et Liem Hoang Ngoc - § 12/2

2014/03/13 Outcome: +: 538, -: 22, 0: 20
DE FR GB IT ES PL RO AT SE NL BG BE HU HR PT IE SK FI CZ SI LV EL LT LU EE DK MT CY
Total
77
58
57
42
43
38
26
17
18
20
15
13
15
12
17
12
10
9
15
7
7
14
8
6
6
7
5
5
icon: PPE PPE
205

Belgium PPE

3

Czechia PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
151

Netherlands S&D

2

Hungary S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2
3

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

Italy ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Belgium ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
41

Italy ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

France NI

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

4

Italy NI

2

Spain NI

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Ireland NI

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
21

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
28

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

Abstain (1)

4

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

A7-0149/2014 - Othmar Karas et Liem Hoang Ngoc - Am 8

2014/03/13 Outcome: -: 321, +: 235, 0: 27
EL IE FR AT DK LU ES MT BE LT HR CZ LV CY SE PT EE FI BG DE SI SK NL RO HU IT GB PL
Total
15
12
57
18
6
6
43
5
13
8
12
13
7
5
18
17
6
10
15
77
7
11
20
26
15
42
59
39
icon: S&D S&D
150

Ireland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Cyprus S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1
3

Netherlands S&D

2

Hungary S&D

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

4

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

4

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
26

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

France NI

2

Spain NI

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

Against (1)

2
3

Italy NI

2

United Kingdom NI

4
icon: EFD EFD
21

Greece EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
43

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
62

Greece ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

4

Austria ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Belgium ALDE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1
3

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Romania ALDE

3

Italy ALDE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2
icon: PPE PPE
207

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

Against (1)

3

Malta PPE

2

Belgium PPE

3

Czechia PPE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

2

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

A7-0149/2014 - Othmar Karas et Liem Hoang Ngoc - § 13

2014/03/13 Outcome: +: 489, 0: 51, -: 42
DE FR ES IT RO PL GB SE PT AT IE HU BG SK HR EL CZ BE LT DK FI SI LU NL EE MT LV CY
Total
79
57
41
42
26
40
56
18
17
18
12
16
15
11
11
14
15
13
8
7
10
7
6
19
6
5
6
6
icon: PPE PPE
205

Czechia PPE

1

Belgium PPE

3

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

Abstain (1)

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Netherlands PPE

Against (1)

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
151

Ireland S&D

2
3

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
62

Italy ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Belgium ALDE

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
27

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

4

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: EFD EFD
21

Poland EFD

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

1

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
25

France NI

2

Spain NI

1

Italy NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

3

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
42

Italy ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

A7-0149/2014 - Othmar Karas et Liem Hoang Ngoc - Am 11

2014/03/13 Outcome: -: 520, +: 62, 0: 15
CY LT LV MT DK IE LU EE CZ SI EL AT BE PT NL HR FI SK HU BG SE RO IT ES PL FR GB DE
Total
5
7
7
5
8
12
6
6
15
7
16
18
14
19
20
12
10
11
16
15
18
26
41
44
40
59
58
81
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
28

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

Against (1)

3

Bulgaria NI

1
2

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Spain NI

Against (1)

1

France NI

2

United Kingdom NI

4
icon: EFD EFD
19

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

Against (1)

1

Belgium EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

Abstain (1)

3

United Kingdom EFD

Against (1)

4
icon: ECR ECR
44

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
50

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

3

Portugal Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

4

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Greece ALDE

Against (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Belgium ALDE

Against (1)

1
3

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Romania ALDE

3

Italy ALDE

2
icon: S&D S&D
154

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

2

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

3

Hungary S&D

3
icon: PPE PPE
210

Cyprus PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PPE

Against (1)

1

Belgium PPE

3

A7-0149/2014 - Othmar Karas et Liem Hoang Ngoc - § 21/2

2014/03/13 Outcome: +: 542, -: 36, 0: 23
DE FR GB ES PL IT RO AT BG SE BE HU SK PT FI CZ HR IE NL SI EL LT DK EE MT LV LU CY
Total
82
59
58
43
40
42
26
18
15
18
14
16
11
19
10
16
12
12
20
7
16
8
8
6
5
7
6
6
icon: PPE PPE
211

Belgium PPE

3

Czechia PPE

1