BETA


2016/2147(INI) Assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ITRE CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad (icon: S&D S&D) KUDRYCKA Barbara (icon: PPE PPE), VAN BOSSUYT Anneleen (icon: ECR ECR), WIERINCK Lieve (icon: ALDE ALDE), MATIAS Marisa (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), DALUNDE Jakop (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), BORRELLI David (icon: EFDD EFDD), BAY Nicolas (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion BUDG TORVALDS Nils (icon: ALDE ALDE) Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), Sophie MONTEL (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion REGI VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs (icon: ALDE ALDE) Elena GENTILE (icon: S&D S&D), Davor ŠKRLEC (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion FEMM BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ Vilija (icon: S&D S&D) Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ (icon: PPE PPE), Florent MARCELLESI (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), Angelika MLINAR (icon: ALDE ALDE), Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI (icon: ENF ENF), Jana ŽITŇANSKÁ (icon: ECR ECR)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2017/11/20
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2017/06/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2017/06/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 523 votes to 65, with 81 abstentions, a resolution on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal.

Members considered that, more than three years after the launch of Horizon 2020, it is time for Parliament to develop its position on its interim evaluation and a vision of the future FP9.

The main conclusions of the assessments are as follows:

Implementation of Horizon 2020 : Parliament stressed that the evaluation of FP7 and monitoring of Horizon 2020 show that the EU FP for research and innovation is a success and brings clear added value to the EU . The reasons for its success are the multidisciplinary and collaborative setting and the excellence and impact requirements.

Noting that the FP intends to incentivise industry participation in order to increase R&D spending by industry, Members called on the Commission to assess the European added value and relevance to the public of funding for industry-driven instruments such as Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), as well as the coherence, openness and transparency of all joint initiatives.

Given that the programme budget, management and implementation is spread over 20 different EU bodies, Members queried whether this results in excessive coordination efforts, administrative complexity and duplication. The Commission should work towards streamlining and simplifying this .

Budget : the resolution noted that the current alarmingly low success rate of less than 14 % represents a negative trend compared to FP7. Oversubscription makes it impossible to make funding available for a large number of very high-quality projects and that the cuts inflicted by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) have deepened this problem. The Commission is called on to avoid making further cuts to the Horizon 2020 budget.

Horizon 2020 must be primarily grant-based and geared towards funding fundamental and collaborative research . Research may be a high risk investment for investors and that funding research through grants is a necessity. Financial instruments should be available for high Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), close to market activities as part of InnovFin financial instruments.

Evaluation : confirming that ‘excellence’ should remain the essential evaluation criterion across all three pillars of the FP, Parliament called for better and more transparent evaluation and quality assurance by the evaluators and the need to improve the feedback given to participants throughout the evaluation process.

The Commission is called on to publish, in conjunction with the call for proposals, detailed evaluation criteria, to provide participants with more detailed and informative Evaluation Summary Reports (ESRs).

The participant portal should be more readily available and the network of National Contact Points extended and be provided with more resources.

Cross-cutting issues : Parliament recommended, inter alia :

enhancing the societal challenges approach; continuing efforts to simplify administration, in particular through the Commission’s proposal to introduce lump sum payments; encouraging synergies between funds to make investments more effective, for example by strengthening research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3), which are an important tool to catalyse synergies setting out national and regional frameworks for investment in research, development and innovation; revising the state aid rules and to allow R&D structural fund projects to be justifiable within the FP rules of procedure; coming forward with clear rules enabling the full implementation of the Seal of Excellence scheme and to explore funding synergies; reviewing the terms of international cooperation in the framework programme which fell from 5 % in FP7 to 2.8 % in Horizon 2020; providing adequate funding for activities related to social sciences and humanities; designing new policies to maximise research results and the amount of scientific data available; designing mechanisms to better include SMEs in larger interdisciplinary FP9 projects in order to harness their full potential; keeping KICs in the current EIT structure, stressing the importance of transparency and extensive stakeholder involvement, and to analyse how the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and KICs may interact with the European Innovation Council (EIC); encouraging venture capital investments in Europe.

Members also welcomed efforts to secure better links between the European Research Area (ERA) and the European Higher Education Area , with a view to facilitating ways of training the next generation of researchers.

The importance of closer cooperation between industry and the university and scientific establishment has been stressed.

FP 9 recommendations : Parliament called for the following:

an increased overall budget of EUR 120 billion for FP9; providing in Pillar 3 a balanced and flexible set of instruments responding to the dynamic nature of emerging problems; enhanced synergies between FP9 and other dedicated European funds for research and innovation; separate defence research from civil research in the next MFF, providing two different programmes with two separate budgets that do not affect the budgetary ambitions of civilian research of FP9; address the potential problem of too many applications and low success rates in the Horizon 2020 programme; prioritise funding for climate change research and climate data collection infrastructure; need for new higher excellence centres and regions and the importance of continuing to develop the ERA; provide increased levels of support in FP9 for young researchers .

The next FP will have to take into consideration the UK’s departure from the EU and its implications.

Documents
2017/06/13
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2017/06/12
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2017/06/06
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy adopted the own-initiative report by Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ (S&D, ES) on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal.

Members considered that, more than three years after the launch of Horizon 2020, it is time for Parliament to develop its position on its interim evaluation and a vision of the future FP9.

The main conclusions of the assessments are as follows:

Implementation of Horizon 2020 : Members stressed that the evaluation of FP7 and monitoring of Horizon 2020 show that the EU FP for research and innovation is a success and brings clear added value to the EU. However, the report noted that there are still possibilities to improve the FP and future programmes. They considered that the reasons for its success are the multidisciplinary and collaborative setting and the excellence and impact requirements.

Noting that the FP intends to incentivise industry participation in order to increase R&D spending by industry, Members called on the Commission to assess the European added value and relevance to the public of funding for industry-driven instruments such as Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), as well as the coherence, openness and transparency of all joint initiatives.

Given that the programme budget, management and implementation is spread over 20 different EU bodies, Members queried whether this results in excessive coordination efforts, administrative complexity and duplication. The Commission should work towards streamlining and simplifying this.

Budget : Members noted that the current alarmingly low success rate of less than 14 % represents a negative trend compared to FP7. Oversubscription makes it impossible to make funding available for a large number of very high-quality projects and that the cuts inflicted by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) have deepened this problem. The Commission is called on to avoid making further cuts to the Horizon 2020 budget.

Evaluation : the report called for better and more transparent evaluation and quality assurance by the evaluators and the need to improve the feedback given to participants throughout the evaluation process.

The Commission is called on to publish, in conjunction with the call for proposals, detailed evaluation criteria , to provide participants with more detailed and informative Evaluation Summary Reports (ESRs).

The participant portal should be more readily available and the network of National Contact Points extended and be provided with more resources.

Cross-cutting issues : Members noted that synergies between funds are crucial to make investments more effective. They stressed that RIS3 are an important tool to catalyse synergies setting out national and regional frameworks for R&D&I investments and, as such, should be promoted and reinforced. They regretted the presence of substantial barriers to making synergies fully operational and sought an alignment of rules and procedures for R&D&I projects under ESIF and FP.

They called on the Commission to earmark part of ESIF for Research and Innovation Strategies (RIS3) synergies with Horizon 2020 and to revise the State Aid rules and to allow R&D structural fund projects to be justifiable within the FP rules of procedure.

Members also welcomed efforts to secure better links between the ERA and the European Higher Education Area, with a view to facilitating ways of training the next generation of researchers.

The importance of closer cooperation between industry and the university and scientific establishment has been stressed.

The Commission is called upon to:

review the terms of international cooperation in FP and to establish concrete, immediate measures and a long-term strategic vision and structure to support this objective; welcomes, in this regard, initiatives such as BONUS and PRIMA; design mechanisms to better include SMEs in larger interdisciplinary FP9 projects in order to harness their full potential; keep KICs in the current EIT structure, stressing the importance of transparency and extensive stakeholder involvement, and to analyse how the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and KICs may interact with the European Innovation Council (EIC); encourage venture capital investments in Europe;

FP 9 recommendations : the report called for the following:

an increased overall budget of EUR 120 billion for FP9; providing in Pillar 3 a balanced and flexible set of instruments responding to the dynamic nature of emerging problems; enhanced synergies between FP9 and other dedicated European funds for research and innovation; separate defence research from civil research in the next MFF, providing two different programmes with two separate budgets that do not affect the budgetary ambitions of civilian research of FP9; prioritise funding for climate change research and climate data collection infrastructure; need for new higher excellence centres and regions and the importance of continuing to develop the ERA; provide increased levels of support in FP9 for young researchers; the next FP will have to take into consideration the UK’s departure from the EU and its implications.

Documents
2017/05/30
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2017/05/03
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/04/26
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/04/04
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/04/04
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/03/30
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/03/06
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2016/09/15
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2016/07/13
   EP - VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2016/07/07
   EP - BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ Vilija (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in FEMM
2016/06/15
   EP - TORVALDS Nils (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2016/05/24
   EP - CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in ITRE

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0209/2017 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz - § 46

2017/06/13 Outcome: +: 505, -: 135, 0: 27
PL FR DE IT RO ES BE BG PT HU CZ SK GB HR DK EE SI LT NL LV AT LU MT IE FI ?? CY SE EL
Total
49
60
89
66
28
49
19
14
20
19
20
12
60
10
11
6
6
9
23
7
16
6
5
9
9
1
5
19
19
icon: PPE PPE
195

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

2

Finland PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
173

Croatia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

Abstain (1)

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

1

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
67

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

1

Czechia ECR

2

Slovakia ECR

2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Finland ECR

1

Cyprus ECR

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1
2

Latvia ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

For (1)

3

ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
29

Poland ENF

2

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3
icon: NI NI
16

Poland NI

1

France NI

2

Germany NI

2
3

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
38

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

1

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

Italy GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

France Verts/ALE

5

Italy Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Croatia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

A8-0209/2017 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz - § 48/1

2017/06/13 Outcome: +: 591, -: 47, 0: 23
DE IT ES FR PL RO GB PT HU NL BE SE BG CZ AT HR SK LT IE FI EL LV LU SI EE DK CY MT ??
Total
89
64
47
60
49
30
60
19
19
23
19
19
14
19
16
10
12
9
9
9
18
7
6
6
5
11
5
5
1
icon: PPE PPE
196

Finland PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Malta PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
174

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Czechia ALDE

Against (1)

4

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1
2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Latvia ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
66

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Czechia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Lithuania ECR

1

Finland ECR

1

Greece ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
37

Italy GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
16

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

France NI

Abstain (1)

2

Poland NI

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
37

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
29

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

A8-0209/2017 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz - § 48/2

2017/06/13 Outcome: -: 505, +: 145, 0: 13
SE FI IE CY ?? SI LU DK LT LV EE MT BE SK HU HR PT AT NL EL CZ BG FR ES RO IT DE PL GB
Total
19
9
9
5
1
6
6
10
9
7
5
5
19
12
19
10
20
15
23
19
20
14
60
49
30
66
86
49
60
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
42

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Italy GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ENF ENF
29

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
38

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
16
3

France NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Germany NI

2

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
59

Sweden ALDE

3

Finland ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Croatia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
67

Finland ECR

1

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

2

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Italy ECR

2
icon: S&D S&D
172

Finland S&D

Against (1)

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1
3

Lithuania S&D

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Belgium S&D

Against (1)

4
4

Croatia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

4
icon: PPE PPE
196

Finland PPE

Against (1)

2

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

For (1)

4

Luxembourg PPE

Against (2)

Abstain (1)

3

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Belgium PPE

Abstain (1)

4

Austria PPE

3

A8-0209/2017 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz - § 48/3

2017/06/13 Outcome: -: 489, +: 166, 0: 11
IE AT LU CY FI MT ?? LT SI EE SE DK HU LV BE EL HR PT NL CZ SK BG FR IT ES RO DE PL GB
Total
9
15
6
5
9
5
1
9
6
6
19
11
19
7
19
19
10
20
23
20
12
14
59
66
49
30
88
49
60
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
42

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ENF ENF
29

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
16

France NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Germany NI

2

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
38

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
59

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Finland ALDE

3

ALDE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

3

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: ECR ECR
67

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Czechia ECR

2

Slovakia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
173

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

Against (1)

1

Finland S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Lithuania S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1
3
4

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Belgium S&D

Against (1)

4

Croatia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

4
icon: PPE PPE
196

Luxembourg PPE

Against (1)

3

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

1

Finland PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Lithuania PPE

3
4

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE

3

Belgium PPE

Abstain (1)

4

A8-0209/2017 - Soledad Cabezón Ruiz - Résolution

2017/06/13 Outcome: +: 523, 0: 81, -: 65
DE IT PL ES RO FR PT HU CZ BE BG GB NL SK SE HR AT DK LT FI LV SI LU EE MT IE CY EL ??
Total
90
66
49
49
30
60
20
19
20
19
14
60
23
12
19
10
16
11
9
9
7
6
6
6
5
9
5
18
1
icon: PPE PPE
196

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
175

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

1

Finland S&D

1

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

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
60

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1
2
3

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
67

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Slovakia ECR

2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Finland ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
42

Italy GUE/NGL

3

France GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Italy Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

France Verts/ALE

5

Hungary Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Croatia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
16

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

1

France NI

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
38

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
29

Poland ENF

2

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3
AmendmentsDossier
542 2016/2147(INI)
2017/02/14 REGI 77 amendments...