BETA


Events

2017/04/28
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2017/02/02
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2017/02/02
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 497 votes to 39, with 60 abstentions, a resolution on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC.

In general, Members welcomed the programme’s high educational, societal, political and economic relevance which is reflected in the budget increase of 40 % for the programme period, and in the commitment rate of the budget provided for, which has reached nearly 100 % because of a high number of applications.

In this regard, Members recalled that Erasmus+ plays a vital role in fostering European identity and integration, solidarity, inclusive and sustainable growth, quality employment, competitiveness, social cohesion and youth labour mobility by making a positive contribution to the improvement of European education and training systems, lifelong learning, active European citizenship, and better prospects for employment, by providing Europeans with an opportunity to acquire transversal and transferable sets of personal and professional skills .

Parliament recalled that at a time of particular crisis with regard to the fundamental values of the EU, the Erasmus+ instrument can provide a fundamental opportunity to promote integration, understanding and solidarity among young people.

Parliament made the following finding and recommendations:

Slow first phase of the programme : Parliament recognised that, according to reports from stakeholders at all levels, while the first two and a half years of programme implementation were difficult and challenging . Improvements have been made in the meantime, however, having fewer bureaucratic obstacles would lead to a wider and more accessible programme. Therefore, it called for further efforts to be made to reduce bureaucracy across the project cycle and to set the costs appropriately and in relation to the budget or type of project.

Visibility of the programme : Parliament underlined that although the overall programme is more visible than its predecessor, the different sectorial programmes still lack visibility . It emphasised that sector-specific formats such as Grundtvig Workshops and national youth initiatives open to informal groups should be reintroduced, and transnational youth initiatives should be more easily accessible. It stressed that the youth chapter of the programme is the one most affected by European citizens’ increasing interest in Erasmus+. At present, 36 % of all Erasmus+ submissions are in the field of youth, with a 60 % increase in submissions between 2014 and 2016 .

Brands : Parliament considered that the long-standing brand names (Comenius, Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig and Youth in Action) and their logos to be important tools in promoting the variety of the programme. It noted that the name of "Erasmus+" is becoming the best known, especially for newcomers. They emphasised that the programme should defend its new name “Erasmus+” and for the name "Erasmus+" to be added to the individual programmes (so they will be "Erasmus+ Comenius", "Erasmus+ Mundus", "Erasmus+ Leonardo da Vinci", "Erasmus+ Grundtvig" and "Erasmus+ Youth In Action").

School dimension of the programme : Parliament called on the Commission to strengthen the school education dimension of the programme , allowing for more mobility of pupils, simplification of funding and administrative procedures for schools and for non-formal education providers, thereby taking advantage of the general intention of Erasmus+ to foster cross-sectoral cooperation , and with a view to encouraging non-formal education providers to become involved with partnerships with schools. It recommended that subsidy amounts in the school cooperation sector be reduced to the benefit of the number of subsidised projects , in order to subsidise school exchanges directly and thus make more personal encounters between people of different cultures and languages possible. It underlined the significance of personal experiences with people of different cultural backgrounds with regard to the promotion of a European identity and the basic idea of European integration, and recommended attempts be made to let the greatest possible number of people participate .

Budget : Parliament recalled that despite the programme’s significant overall budget increase, only a limited increase for the first half of the programme period has been provided for in the MFF, which has led, unfortunately, to the rejection of many high-quality projects. It welcomed the increase in funds available for the Erasmus+ programme for the year 2017 by almost EUR 300 million compared to 2016 .

Parliament not only called for the current budget level to be secured for the next programme generation under the new MFF, but considered a further budget increase that ensures a level of annual funding for the next programme generation of at least the same level as the last year of implementation of the current framework to be an absolutely essential precondition for the continued success of the programme. It pointed out that greater flexibility in mobility grants and administrative costs in favour of longer stays abroad should be made possible for the national agencies.

Moreover, it stressed that grants to support the mobility of individuals within the Erasmus+ programme should be exempted from taxation and social levies .

Small-sized organisations : Parliament expressed regret that, owing to the high administrative burden, Erasmus+ funding can be unattainable for smaller organisations . It called on the Commission to significantly simplify the application procedure, and to transform the programme guide and make it more user-oriented.

It also regretted that organisations representing amateur sportspeople, and disabled sportspeople in particular, at local level are highly underrepresented as project participants in the implementation of grassroots sports projects. Members welcomed the introduction of Small Collaborative Partnerships with reduced administrative requirements and noted that the practice should be extended to other sectors of the Erasmus+ project funding, especially for volunteer organisations.

The Commission is called upon to take relevant steps to make volunteering eligible as a source of own contributions to the project budget, as this facilitates the participation of smaller organisations, especially in sport.

Recognition of international qualifications : Parliament stressed that although progress has been made in recognising study periods, credits, competences and skills through non-formal and informal learning gained abroad, these challenges remain. According to Parliament, the recognition of international qualifications is essential to mobility and forms the foundation for further cooperation in the European Higher Education Area.

Refugees : Parliament recalled that the Commission has shown flexibility and taken innovative steps to target new challenges, such as a proposal for refugees, and to foster civic values within the incentives Erasmus+ offers, towards a more active and participative intercultural dialogue. It called on the Commission to recognise the special nature of projects and mobilities involving people with special needs and people from disadvantaged backgrounds and asked that their access thereto be facilitated .

Cross-sectoral cooperation : Parliament asked the Commission to fully exploit the lifelong learning dimension of the programme by fostering and encouraging cross-sectoral cooperation under Erasmus+, which is much higher than under the predecessor programmes, and to evaluate cross-sectoral cooperation in the programme’s midterm evaluation presented at the end of 2017. It called for educational mobility to become part of any higher or vocational education programmes in order to improve the quality of higher education and the VET system. Parliament pointed to Erasmus+ as an important instrument for improving the quality of VET across the EU. It highlighted the fact that inclusive quality VET and VET mobility play a vital economic and social role in Europe, a rapidly changing labour market, as a means of providing young people and adults with the professional and life skills needed for a transition from education and training to work.

Administrative simplification : Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to increase efforts to simplify procedures and reduce the high administrative burden for students, institutions and for host companies involved in Erasmus+ projects . It called on the Commission and the national agencies to standardise the access criteria with a view to ensuring access for the highest number of applicants possible and to encourage the national agencies to make the available budgets per key action and per sector easily accessible following each application round in order to allow applicants to strategically plan their future actions. The Commission and the Member States are also called on to ensure that large institutions are not favoured over their smaller less well-established counterparts, in terms of programme applicants.

While welcoming the simplification introduced by the use of lump-sum and flat-rate funding , Parliament encouraged the Commission to look for ways to further improve the complicated administrative procedure for the applicants in different sectors of the programme.

Harmonisation : lastly, Parliament suggested that the priority should be to refrain from further harmonisation and major changes in the structure of the programme, and instead to safeguard and consolidate achievements and make incremental improvements where necessary. It called on the Commission in this respect to involve relevant stakeholders in the work on the next funding programming period, and in the introduction of possible improvements, in order to ensure the programme's further success and added value.

Documents
2017/02/02
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2017/02/01
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2017/01/18
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Culture and Education adopted the own-initiative report by Milan ZVER (EPP, SI) on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC.

Members recalled that Erasmus+ is one of the most successful Union programmes and the major tool to support activities in the fields of education, training, youth and sport giving the opportunity to more than four million Europeans to study, train and volunteer in another country over the period 2014-2020.

They noted that the programme's high educational, societal, political and economic relevance is reflected in the budget increase of 40 % for the programme period, and in the commitment rate of the budget provided for, which has reached nearly 100 % because of a high number of applications.

Members recalled that at a time of particular crisis with regard to the fundamental values of the EU, the Erasmus+ instrument can provide a fundamental opportunity to promote integration, understanding and solidarity among young people.

Members made the following finding and recommendations:

Slow first phase of the programme : Members recognised that, according to reports from stakeholders at all levels, while the first two and a half years of programme implementation were difficult and challenging . Improvements have been made in the meantime, however, having fewer bureaucratic obstacles would lead to a wider and more accessible programme. Therefore, Members called for further efforts to be made to reduce bureaucracy across the project cycle and to set the costs appropriately and in relation to the budget or type of project.

Visibility of the programme : Members underlined that although the overall programme is more visible than its predecessor, the different sectorial programmes still lack visibility . They emphasised that sector-specific formats such as Grundtvig Workshops and national youth initiatives open to informal groups should be reintroduced, and transnational youth initiatives should be more easily accessible. They stressed that the youth chapter of the programme is the one most affected by European citizens’ increasing interest in Erasmus+. They noted that, at present, 36 % of all Erasmus+ submissions are in the field of youth, with a 60 % increase in submissions between 2014 and 2016 .

Brands : Members considered that the long-standing brand names (Comenius, Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig and Youth in Action) and their logos to be important tools in promoting the variety of the programme. They noted that the name of "Erasmus+" is becoming the best known, especially for newcomers. They emphasised that the programme should defend its new name ‘Erasmus+’ and for the name "Erasmus+" to be added to the individual programmes (so they will be "Erasmus+ Comenius", "Erasmus+ Mundus", "Erasmus+ Leonardo da Vinci", "Erasmus+ Grundtvig" and "Erasmus+ Youth In Action").

School dimension of the programme : Members called on the Commission to strengthen the school education dimension of the programme , allowing for more mobility of pupils, simplification of funding and administrative procedures for schools and for non-formal education providers, thereby taking advantage of the general intention of Erasmus+ to foster cross-sectoral cooperation, and with a view to encouraging non-formal education providers to become involved with partnerships with schools.

They recommended that subsidy amounts in the school cooperation sector be reduced to the benefit of the number of subsidised projects, in order to subsidise school exchanges directly and thus make more personal encounters between people of different cultures and languages possible.

Budget : Members recalled that despite the programme’s significant overall budget increase, only a limited increase for the first half of the programme period has been provided for in the MFF, which has led, unfortunately, to the rejection of many high-quality projects. They welcomed the increase in funds available for the Erasmus+ programme for the year 2017 by almost EUR 300 million compared to 2016 .

Members not only call for the current budget level to be secured for the next programme generation under the new MFF, but considered a further budget increase that ensures a level of annual funding for the next programme generation of at least the same level as the last year of implementation of the current framework to be an absolutely essential precondition for the continued success of the programme. They pointed out that greater flexibility in mobility grants and administrative costs in favour of longer stays abroad should be made possible for the national agencies.

Moreover, they stressed that grants to support the mobility of individuals within the Erasmus+ programme should be exempted from taxation and social levies .

Small-sized organisations : Members expressed regret that, owing to the high administrative burden, Erasmus+ funding can be unattainable for smaller organisations . They called on the Commission to significantly simplify the application procedure, and to transform the programme guide and make it more user-oriented.

They also regretted that organisations representing amateur sportspeople, and disabled sportspeople in particular, at local level are highly underrepresented as project participants in the implementation of grassroots sports projects. They welcomed the introduction of Small Collaborative Partnerships with reduced administrative requirements and noted that the practice should be extended to other sectors of the Erasmus+ project funding, especially for volunteer organisations.

The Commission is called upon to take relevant steps to make volunteering eligible as a source of own contributions to the project budget, as this facilitates the participation of smaller organisations, especially in sport.

Recognition of international qualifications : Members stressed that although progress has been made in recognising study periods, credits, competences and skills through non-formal and informal learning gained abroad, these challenges remain. According to Members, the recognition of international qualifications is essential to mobility and forms the foundation for further cooperation in the European Higher Education Area.

Cross-sectoral cooperation : Members asked the Commission to fully exploit the lifelong learning dimension of the programme by fostering and encouraging cross-sectoral cooperation under Erasmus+, which is much higher than under the predecessor programmes, and to evaluate cross-sectoral cooperation in the programme’s midterm evaluation presented at the end of 2017. They called for educational mobility to become part of any higher or vocational education programmes in order to improve the quality of higher education and the VET system, to help individuals upgrade their professional skills, competences and career development, as well as to strengthen awareness of competences gained during mobility in all targeted sectors.

Administrative simplification : Members called on the Commission and the Member States to increase efforts to simplify procedures and reduce the high administrative burden for students, institutions and for host companies involved in Erasmus+ projects . They called on the Commission and the national agencies to standardise the access criteria with a view to ensuring access for the highest number of applicants possible and to encourage the national agencies to make the available budgets per key action and per sector easily accessible following each application round in order to allow applicants to strategically plan their future actions. The Commission and the Member States are also called on to ensure that large institutions are not favoured over their smaller less well-established counterparts, in terms of programme applicants.

While welcoming the simplification introduced by the use of lump-sum and flat-rate funding , Members encouraged the Commission to look for ways to further improve the complicated administrative procedure for the applicants in different sectors of the programme.

Harmonisation : lastly, Members suggested that the priority should be to refrain from further harmonisation and major changes in the structure of the programme, and instead to safeguard and consolidate achievements and make incremental improvements where necessary. They called on the Commission in this respect to involve relevant stakeholders in the work on the next funding programming period, and in the introduction of possible improvements, in order to ensure the programme's further success and added value.

Documents
2016/12/05
   EP - Vote in committee
2016/11/17
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/11/10
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/10/24
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2016/09/21
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2015/12/16
   EP - PAVEL Emilian (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in EMPL
2015/12/03
   EP - NOVAKOV Andrey (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2015/11/26
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2015/09/14
   EP - ZVER Milan (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in CULT

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0389/2016 - Milan Zver - Am 25S #

2017/02/02 Outcome: -: 486, +: 87, 0: 69
IE CY MT LU FI SI LT EE LV HR DK AT EL BE GB CZ SK BG NL HU SE PT PL FR RO IT ES DE
Total
8
6
5
4
8
5
9
6
7
7
12
16
16
21
59
20
12
15
23
16
18
19
50
60
28
63
47
81
icon: ENF ENF
31

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3
2

Germany ENF

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
33

Czechia EFDD

For (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
12

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Hungary NI

For (1)

1

Poland NI

1

France NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Italy NI

For (1)

1

Germany NI

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
64

Cyprus ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia ECR

Against (1)

3

Bulgaria ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

2

Germany ECR

Against (1)

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Italy GUE/NGL

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

6

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Italy Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Spain Verts/ALE

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Finland ALDE

Abstain (1)

2

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1
3

Bulgaria ALDE

For (1)

4

Portugal ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Germany ALDE

3
icon: S&D S&D
162

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Malta S&D

For (1)

3

Finland S&D

Against (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

2

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2
3

Czechia S&D

For (1)

4
3

Bulgaria S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: PPE PPE
189

Ireland PPE

3

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

Against (2)

2

Finland PPE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Lithuania PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Croatia PPE

3

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Sweden PPE

2

A8-0389/2016 - Milan Zver - § 76 #

2017/02/02 Outcome: +: 502, 0: 86, -: 49
DE ES IT FR RO PL PT SE GB CZ BE HU BG NL AT SK EL LT IE LV HR FI EE DK CY MT LU SI
Total
79
47
63
60
27
48
19
18
59
19
21
16
15
23
16
11
17
9
8
7
7
9
6
12
6
5
4
5
icon: PPE PPE
186

Lithuania PPE

2

Ireland PPE

3
3

Finland PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

Against (1)

3
icon: S&D S&D
162

Bulgaria S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Croatia S&D

2

Finland S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
62

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Finland ALDE

Abstain (1)

3

Estonia ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Spain Verts/ALE

3

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (1)

6

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
33

France EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
12

Germany NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

For (1)

1

France NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (2)

Abstain (1)

3

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
61

Italy ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Slovakia ECR

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Cyprus ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
32

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Austria ENF

For (1)

4

A8-0389/2016 - Milan Zver - Considérant B #

2017/02/02 Outcome: +: 490, -: 120, 0: 32
DE ES IT FR RO PT BE SE HU CZ BG NL IE EL LT LV HR AT EE DK FI SI MT SK LU CY PL GB
Total
80
47
63
61
28
19
21
18
16
20
15
23
8
18
9
7
7
15
6
12
9
5
5
11
4
6
50
58
icon: PPE PPE
188

Ireland PPE

3

Lithuania PPE

2
3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
161

Bulgaria S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Croatia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
62

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Spain Verts/ALE

3

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
14

Germany NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

For (1)

1

France NI

2

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
32

France EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: ENF ENF
32

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
64

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

A8-0389/2016 - Milan Zver - Résolution #

2017/02/02 Outcome: +: 497, 0: 60, -: 39
DE IT FR ES RO PL BE GB CZ PT AT BG HU SE SK DK LT FI NL HR EL LV EE SI MT IE CY LU
Total
73
59
56
40
28
48
19
53
20
18
15
14
15
16
11
11
9
9
22
6
18
5
5
5
5
7
6
2
icon: PPE PPE
169

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

2

Finland PPE

For (1)

1
3

Latvia PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Ireland PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1

Luxembourg PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
153

Belgium S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

2

Finland S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
54

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

2

Croatia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

France Verts/ALE

4

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
61

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

1

Finland ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
41

Italy GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: ENF ENF
32

Germany ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Poland ENF

2

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
33

France EFDD

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2
icon: NI NI
14

Germany NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

For (1)

1

France NI

Abstain (1)

2

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
420 2015/2327(INI)
2016/10/03 EMPL 148 amendments...
source: 589.405
2016/10/17 BUDG 34 amendments...
source: 592.251
2016/10/24 CULT 238 amendments...