BETA


2015/2353(INI) Preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament's input ahead of the Commission's proposal

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead BUDG OLBRYCHT Jan (icon: PPE PPE), THOMAS Isabelle (icon: S&D S&D) ASHWORTH Richard (icon: ECR ECR), DEPREZ Gérard (icon: ALDE ALDE), NÍ RIADA Liadh (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), OMARJEE Younous (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), MARAGALL Ernest (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), ZANNI Marco (icon: EFDD EFDD), ŻÓŁTEK Stanisław (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion AFET GILL Neena (icon: S&D S&D) Arnaud DANJEAN (icon: PPE PPE), Sabine LÖSING (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), Tamás MESZERICS (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion DEVE RÜBIG Paul (icon: PPE PPE) Nirj DEVA (icon: ECR ECR), Arne LIETZ (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion INTA BÖGE Reimer (icon: PPE PPE) David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN (icon: ECR ECR), Marietje SCHAAKE (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion EMPL PIRINSKI Georgi (icon: S&D S&D) Laura AGEA (icon: EFDD EFDD), Marian HARKIN (icon: ALDE ALDE), João PIMENTA LOPES (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), Claude ROLIN (icon: PPE PPE), Ulrike TREBESIUS (icon: ECR ECR)
Committee Opinion ENVI GAMBÚS Francesc (icon: PPE PPE) Stefan ECK (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), Julie GIRLING (icon: ECR ECR), Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion ITRE LEWANDOWSKI Janusz (icon: PPE PPE) Barbara KAPPEL (icon: ENF ENF), Clare MOODY (icon: S&D S&D), Sofia SAKORAFA (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion TRAN MARINESCU Marian-Jean (icon: PPE PPE) José Inácio FARIA (icon: ALDE ALDE), Georgi PIRINSKI (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion REGI KREHL Constanze (icon: S&D S&D) Andrew LEWER (icon: ECR ECR), Iskra MIHAYLOVA (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion AGRI JAHR Peter (icon: PPE PPE) Clara AGUILERA (icon: S&D S&D), Jean ARTHUIS (icon: ALDE ALDE), Miguel VIEGAS (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion CULT ZDROJEWSKI Bogdan Andrzej (icon: PPE PPE) Nikolaos CHOUNTIS (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), Mircea DIACONU (icon: ALDE ALDE), Andrew LEWER (icon: ECR ECR), Luigi MORGANO (icon: S&D S&D), Helga TRÜPEL (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion LIBE AGEA Laura (icon: EFDD EFDD) Kostas CHRYSOGONOS (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), Daniele VIOTTI (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion AFCO SILVA PEREIRA Pedro (icon: S&D S&D) Morten MESSERSCHMIDT (icon: ECR ECR), György SCHÖPFLIN (icon: PPE PPE)
Committee Opinion FEMM MOODY Clare (icon: S&D S&D) Eleonora FORENZA (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), Barbara MATERA (icon: PPE PPE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2016/07/06
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2016/07/06
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 451 votes to 193 with 65 abstentions, a resolution on the preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal.

Parliament recalled that in accordance with the MFF Regulation , the Commission must present a compulsory review of the functioning of the MFF before the end of 2016, taking full account of the economic situation at that time as well as of the latest macroeconomic projections, and that this review must be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation.

The resolution aims to analyse the purely budgetary aspects of the functioning of the MFF and make policy recommendations prior to the Commission proposal to review the EU MFF for the period 2014-2020.

1) Assessing the first years: Members considered that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption. In this context, they recalled the main events and challenges:

the migration and refugee crisis , which has led to a major financial response on the EU’s part and, hence, has had a significant impact on the EU budget, notably on headings 3 (Security and Citizenship) and 4 (Global Europe); low level of investment : the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new investment in the real economy, the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI being covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget; youth unemployment , which represents one of the most pressing and serious problems that the EU is currently facing ( 4.4 million young persons under 25 were unemployed across the Union in February 2016); internal security: more European action, and therefore more funding, will be needed in this area to provide an adequate response to the threats that materialized in France and Belgium; environmental challenges : following the COP 21 climate agreement reached in Paris in 2015, Parliament points to the significant need of financing for climate action, biodiversity protection and the sustainable use of natural resources, which will be further heightened by the effects of the ongoing global warming; crises in the agricultural sector , most notably in the dairy, pig meat, beef and fruits and vegetables sectors, and the long-term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products; economic, social and territorial cohesion : Members called for a clear earmarking of resources for the climate-related actions and for the social objectives, especially to fight the increased poverty, including child poverty, inequalities and social exclusion, and to stimulate employment; growing pressure on development and neighbourhood policies : upward pressure on global needs for humanitarian aid and disaster risk reduction stem from the effects of conflicts and wars; gender mainstreaming should take place across policy areas; payments backlog : Members noted the build-up over the previous (2007-2013) MFF of a backlog of unpaid bills, which has spilled over into the current (2014-2020) MFF, reaching an unprecedented peak of EUR 24.7 billion at the end of 2014.

Recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms: stressing that over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits, Parliament observed that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary , as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings.

The special instruments were mobilised to tackle the refugee and migration crisis, the payments shortage problem, and the financing of the EFSI Guarantee Fund.

With regard to the migration crisis, the EU has had to set up ad hoc, ‘satellite’ instruments, jointly financed by the Member States, the EU budget and the European Development Fund, namely the EU trust funds (the Madad Trust Fund and the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, with an estimated initial budgetary impact of EUR 570 million and EUR 405 million respectively), and the Refugee Facility for Turkey, for which EUR 1 billion is to be funded from the EU budget.

Parliament highlighted that the multiplication of such instruments creates a problem of accountability and democratic control in the EU which needs to be addressed; deplores, furthermore, the fact that Member States have failed by far to deliver their expected contributions to the trust funds, thus undermining the success of those funds. It suggested examining other possibilities regarding flexibility for emerging problems.

2) Parliament’s demands for the second half of the MFF: Parliament was convinced that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF, is absolutely i ndispensable if the Union is to effectively confront a number of challenges while fulfilling its political objectives. Delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget. Parliament called on the Commission to provide the budgetary authority with all relevant information on possible budgetary implications resulting from the UK referendum of 23 June 2016.

-Commitments: while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, Members felt that the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies.

The resolution suggested:

the same level in commitment appropriations for Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) until the end of the current MFF as the one allocated annually to the programme during the first two years of this period (6 billion EUR frontloaded in 2014-2015), that the overall budgetary allocation and pre-allocated national envelopes for the Common Agricultural Policy , including direct payment appropriations, remain untouched during the MFF revision; drawing up as soon as possible an updated projection of the budget required until the end of the current MFF, to meet all challenges in the fields relating to the refugee and crisis and reinforced action at EU level for internal security in the EU and for the fight against terrorism. increased financial support to the three European programmes that directly concern citizens – Creative Europe , Europe for Citizens and Erasmus+.

-Payments: Parliament stressed the need to act to prevent a new payment crisis occurring towards the end of the current MFF and that every effort should be made to avoid building up a backlog of unpaid bills like the one that was observed during the previous period. They considered moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF. A joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be binding, developed and agreed between the three institutions.

-Flexibility provisions and special instruments : Parliament stressed its long-standing position that flexibility should allow for a maximum use of the global MFF ceilings for commitments and payments . Members believed, therefore, that the mid-term revision of the MFF Regulation should provide for the lifting of a number of constraints and limitations that were imposed by the Council on the flexibility provisions at the time of adoption of the MFF.

Members called for a substantial increase in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 2 billion.

They pointed to the role of the Emergency Aid Reserve in providing a rapid response to specific aid requirements for third countries for unforeseen events. They called for a substantial increase in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 1 billion .

-Simplification: Members believed that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment and evaluation of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, as well as the operation of the MFF flexibility provisions and special instruments. They invited the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve and rationalise the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF , in order to ensure the most efficient use of scarce financial resources and to reduce the administrative burden for the beneficiaries. Budgeting should be performance based with the budget focused on results.

-Environmental changes : Parliament stressed that any funding for the possible measures originating from COP 21 should be additional to the current spending on climate actions, and called on the Commission to present its implementation strategy and first evaluation of the possible impact of the COP 21 agreement on the EU budget in due time for the revision.

3) The post-2020 MFF: Parliament considered that the key priorities to be addressed must include: (i) adjustments to the duration of the MFF, (ii) a thorough reform of the own resources system, (iii) a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and (iv) more budgetary flexibility . It was, furthermore, convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy.

It underlined that the Union should be able to react quickly to developing crises, such as the current migration crisis, the report called, in addition to the already existing MFF special instruments, for the establishment of a permanent EU crisis reserve within the Union budget in order to avoid ad hoc solutions like the setting-up of trust funds.

Documents
2016/07/06
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2016/07/05
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2016/06/30
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Budgets adopted the own-initiative report by Isabelle THOMAS (S&D, FR) and Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL) on the preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal.

Members recalled that in accordance with the MFF Regulation , the Commission must present a compulsory review of the functioning of the MFF before the end of 2016, taking full account of the economic situation at that time as well as of the latest macroeconomic projections, and that this review must be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation.

The aim of this report is to analyse the purely budgetary aspects of the functioning of the MFF and make policy recommendations prior to the Commission proposal to review the EU MFF for the period 2014-2020.

Assessing the first years: Members considered that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption. In this context, they recalled the main events and challenges:

the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the payment crisis in the EU budget, the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, as well as poverty and social exclusion; the recent international agreement on climate change, and the growing pressure on the development policy.

Recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms: stressing that over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits, Members observed that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary , as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings.

The special instruments were mobilised to tackle the refugee and migration crisis, the payments shortage problem, and the financing of the EFSI Guarantee Fund.

With regard to the migration crisis, the EU has had to set up ad hoc, ‘satellite’ instruments, jointly financed by the Member States, the EU budget and the European Development Fund, namely the EU trust funds (the Madad Trust Fund and the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa) and the Refugee Facility for Turkey.

The committee highlighted that the multiplication of such instruments creates a problem of accountability and democratic control in the EU which needs to be addressed; deplores, furthermore, the fact that Member States have failed by far to deliver their expected contributions to the trust funds, thus undermining the success of those funds. It suggested examining other possibilities regarding flexibility for emerging problems.

Parliament’s demands for the second half of the MFF: Members are convinced that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF, is absolutely i ndispensable if the Union is to effectively confront a number of challenges while fulfilling its political objectives. Delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget;

Commitments: while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, Members felt that the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies.

The report suggested:

the same level in commitment appropriations for Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) until the end of the current MFF as the one allocated annually to the programme during the first two years of this period (6 billion EUR frontloaded in 2014-2015), that the overall budgetary allocation and pre-allocated national envelopes for the Common Agricultural Policy , including direct payment appropriations, remain untouched during the MFF revision; drawing up as soon as possible an updated projection of the budget required until the end of the current MFF, to meet all challenges in the fields relating to the refugee and crisis and reinforced action at EU level for internal security in the EU and for the fight against terrorism.

Payments: Members stressed the need to act to prevent a new payment crisis occurring towards the end of the current MFF and that every effort should be made to avoid building up a backlog of unpaid bills like the one that was observed during the previous period. They considered moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF. A joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be binding, developed and agreed between the three institutions.

Flexibility provisions and special instruments : the report underlined that the mere frequency and level of mobilisation of the MFF special instruments over the past two years prove beyond any doubt the worth of the flexibility provisions and mechanisms enshrined in the MFF Regulation. It stressed the long-standing position of Parliament that flexibility should allow for a maximum use of the global MFF ceilings for commitments and payments . Members believed, therefore, that the mid-term revision of the MFF Regulation should provide for the lifting of a number of constraints and limitations that were imposed by the Council on the flexibility provisions at the time of adoption of the MFF.

They pointed to the role of the Emergency Aid Reserve in providing a rapid response to specific aid requirements for third countries for unforeseen events, and stressed its particular importance in the current context. They called for a substantial increase in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 1 billion .

Simplification: Members believed that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment and evaluation of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, as well as the operation of the MFF flexibility provisions and special instruments. They invited the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve and rationalise the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF , in order to ensure the most efficient use of scarce financial resources and to reduce the administrative burden for the beneficiaries.

The Commission was asked to conduct, in the course of the mid-term review/revision, an in-depth analysis of the use of the financial instruments since the beginning of the current programming period.

The post-2020 MFF: Members considered that the key priorities to be addressed must include: (i) adjustments to the duration of the MFF, (ii) a thorough reform of the own resources system, (iii) a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and (iv) more budgetary flexibility . They were furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy.

They underlined that the Union should be able to react quickly to developing crises, such as the current migration crisis, the report called, in addition to the already existing MFF special instruments, for the establishment of a permanent EU crisis reserve within the Union budget in order to avoid ad hoc solutions like the setting-up of trust funds.

Documents
2016/06/29
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2016/06/08
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/06/03
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/31
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/31
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/30
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/27
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/25
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/25
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/25
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/25
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/05/13
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2016/05/13
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2016/05/02
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/04/27
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/04/11
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2016/04/04
   EP - Committee Opinion
2016/03/29
   EP - Committee Opinion
2016/03/09
   EP - Committee Opinion
2016/02/22
   EP - Committee Opinion
2016/02/18
   EP - Committee Opinion
2016/01/27
   EP - Committee Opinion
2016/01/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2016/01/20
   EP - Committee Opinion
2015/12/16
   EP - Committee Opinion
2015/12/16
   EP - Committee Opinion
2015/12/16
   EP - Committee Opinion
2015/12/10
   EP - Committee Opinion
2015/12/07
   EP - Committee Opinion
2015/12/01
   EP - Committee Opinion
2015/11/24
   EP - Responsible Committee

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0224/2016 - Jan Olbrycht et Isabelle Thomas - § 6/2

2016/07/06 Outcome: +: 634, 0: 45, -: 24
DE IT ES FR GB PL RO HU PT CZ BG BE EL SE SK FI LT IE DK NL HR AT LV SI LU EE MT CY
Total
90
71
52
73
64
47
29
21
20
20
16
18
20
14
12
13
10
10
13
25
9
17
8
8
6
6
6
5
icon: PPE PPE
202

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
178

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1
3

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
64

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

2
2

Lithuania ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
67

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
52

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
43

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
16

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

Italy NI

For (1)

1

France NI

3

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

1

Poland NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
34

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Poland ENF

Against (1)

1

Romania ENF

1

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

A8-0224/2016 - Jan Olbrycht et Isabelle Thomas - Am 1

2016/07/06 Outcome: -: 380, +: 253, 0: 75
PL FR HU SK SI LV RO EL AT LU BG CY HR LT FI CZ EE IE MT PT DK SE BE NL ES DE GB IT
Total
48
73
20
12
8
8
28
20
18
6
17
5
9
10
13
21
6
10
6
20
13
14
19
25
52
91
65
71
icon: PPE PPE
203

Luxembourg PPE

3

Cyprus PPE

1

Finland PPE

Against (1)

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

Against (2)

4

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Belgium PPE

Abstain (1)

4
icon: ENF ENF
34

Poland ENF

1

Romania ENF

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
65

Slovakia ECR

Against (1)

2

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

2

Cyprus ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Finland ECR

Abstain (1)

2

Czechia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Italy ECR

2
icon: NI NI
16

Poland NI

1

France NI

Against (1)

3

Germany NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

1

Italy NI

Against (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
43

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

For (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

Against (1)

1

Germany EFDD

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
52

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3
4

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
66

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

2

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
182

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Czechia S&D

4

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

3
3

Netherlands S&D

3

A8-0224/2016 - Jan Olbrycht et Isabelle Thomas - Am 4

2016/07/06 Outcome: -: 505, +: 152, 0: 51
EL CY MT EE LU AT IE FI SI LV SE HR HU LT DK FR PT BE SK CZ NL BG IT RO ES GB DE PL
Total
20
5
6
6
6
18
10
13
8
8
14
9
20
11
13
73
20
18
12
21
25
17
70
29
52
64
92
48
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

2

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
52

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

4

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
34

Austria ENF

Abstain (1)

4

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Romania ENF

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Poland ENF

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
42

Sweden EFDD

1

Lithuania EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

France EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
16

France NI

Against (1)

3

Italy NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1

Germany NI

2

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
65

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

2

Czechia ECR

Against (1)

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Italy ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
67

Estonia ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Croatia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

2

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
181

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

For (1)

Against (2)

3

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Finland S&D

Against (1)

2

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

2
3

Belgium S&D

4

Czechia S&D

4

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: PPE PPE
204

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Finland PPE

3

Croatia PPE

3

Lithuania PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

A8-0224/2016 - Jan Olbrycht et Isabelle Thomas - Am 11

2016/07/06 Outcome: -: 506, +: 160, 0: 43
CY EL IE LU EE MT AT SI LV HR SE DK FI LT NL CZ FR HU SK PT BE BG ES PL RO GB IT DE
Total
5
20
10
6
6
6
18
8
8
9
14
13
13
11
24
20
73
21
11
20
19
17
52
48
29
65
71
92
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
52

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: ENF ENF
34

Austria ENF

Abstain (1)

4

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Poland ENF

1

Romania ENF

1

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
43

Sweden EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

Against (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

France EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
16

France NI

Against (1)

3

Poland NI

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

Against (1)

1

Germany NI

2
icon: ECR ECR
63

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Czechia ECR

1

Slovakia ECR

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
68

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

2

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
182

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

1

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

Against (1)

Abstain (2)

3

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2
3

Finland S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

4
icon: PPE PPE
204

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

Against (2)

Abstain (1)

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Croatia PPE

3

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

2

A8-0224/2016 - Jan Olbrycht et Isabelle Thomas - § 20

2016/07/06 Outcome: +: 639, -: 47, 0: 24
DE IT ES PL GB FR RO HU PT CZ AT BG BE NL FI SE SK LT DK IE EL HR LV SI LU EE MT CY
Total
92
70
52
48
64
73
29
21
20
21
18
17
19
25
13
14
12
11
13
10
20
9
8
8
6
6
6
5
icon: PPE PPE
205

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
181

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Croatia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
68

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE