Vote in the European Parliament
Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions, establishing an Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards for Members of Institutions and advisory bodies mentioned in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union
Overall Result
Adopted- 301 For
- 216 Against
- 23 Abstention
- 165 Did not vote
How we count
- Yes, No and Abstention come from the European Parliament's roll-call voting protocol.
- “Did not vote” is derived: MEPs with a mandate on the voting day for whom no vote was recorded. Abstentions do not count towards this.
- Subsequent vote corrections are shown but do not change the official result.
- Each vote (overall vote, amendment, partial vote) counts separately. Therefore totals may differ from pages that count differently.
Status and procedure
Outcome as recorded by the European Parliament.
- Vote held on
- Latest recorded step
- Plenary · (935 days ago)
- Next scheduled step
- No further step is scheduled in the source.
Procedure timeline
2024/2008(ACI) · ACI
Recorded procedure activities. These do not establish whether a law has entered into force.
- Recorded: Committee stage
- Recorded: Referral
- Recorded: Committee stage
- Latest recorded: Plenary
Recorded activities (7)
- Committee report tabled
- Referral to committee
- Committee report adopted
- Tabling for plenary
- Plenary debate
- Plenary vote
- Plenary vote results
Scheduled activities (not confirmation of completion)
- Plenary debate
- Plenary vote
Procedure file (OEIL) · European Parliament data
Retrieved:
Sources
Data: EP Open Data API
What is this about?
- Establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body for EU bodies.
- Aim: Enhance transparency and integrity in EU institutions.
- Criticism of insufficient legal basis and power balance.
Amendment history (10)
Wording as published by the EP, in English.
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Tabled by Leila Chaibi, Manon Aubry, Nikolaj Villumsen +1 · The Left
Added: 1a. Reiterates that negotiations on transparency and ethics must themselves be conducted with exemplary transparency; deeply regrets, in that regard, that all political groups were not represented in the negotiating team, as is usually done, and that no reporting from the negotiating team was done at any point throughout the whole inter-institutional negotiations;
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Tabled by Leila Chaibi, Manon Aubry, Nikolaj Villumsen +1 · The Left
Added: 2a. Considers that Parliament should continue to improve its internal rules on ethics, based on the highest standards, in particular when it comes to the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members ; considers that the Advisory Committee should play a proactive role, including with the ability to act on its own initiative, deal with complaints directly and, most importantly, decide on sanctions;
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Tabled by Leila Chaibi, Manon Aubry, Nikolaj Villumsen · The Left
Added: 2b. Calls for the establishment, at the start of the upcoming legislature, of a special committee dedicated to examining and improving applicable rules and enforcement mechanisms for the integrity of European institutions;
Paragraph 7
Tabled by Leila Chaibi, Manon Aubry, Nikolaj Villumsen +1 · The Left
… and experience in high-level functions in European, national, or international public organisations; Added: considers that, in order to ensure the consistent application of ethical standards and predictability, advice by the experts should be binding;
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Tabled by Leila Chaibi, Manon Aubry, Nikolaj Villumsen +2 · The Left
Added: 9a. Stresses that the European Parliament should lead by example; calls, in order to limit potential conflicts of interest, for a ban on Members of the European Parliament performing paid side jobs or activities on behalf of organisations or individuals covered by the scope of the Transparency Register, in particular as managers or consultants, or as members or directors of the boards of directors or advisory boards of publicly listed companies;
Paragraph 9
Tabled by Antonio Maria Rinaldi, Gerolf Annemans, Gilles Lebreton · ID
9. Believes
Removed: the body should rely on the existing powers of institutions to ask their members for information or on the agreement of national authorities to share information; believes that the independent experts should be able to exchange information with national authorities where necessary for the performance of their tasks, while treating such information with the same confidentiality as the originating authority did; stresses in this regard that the independent experts should have access to the administrative documents of participating parties, especially the party consulting them on a case,Added: that, in order toRemoved: allow them to carry out well-reasoned and well-documented assessments;Added: prevent the repetition of episodes such as Qatargate, there is no need for an ethics body such as the one being proposed, but rather for the proper application of the Institution's internal rules and compliance with the law; recalls that, in any case, the conduct concerned was criminal and not merely "unethical" in nature and, therefore, the presence of an ethics body would not have prevented its occurrence; reiterates, for this reason, the need to establish a committee of inquiry to shed light on the political responsibilities resulting from the corruption affair and from the involvement of political figures in this Parliament;Paragraph 15
Tabled by Antonio Maria Rinaldi, Gerolf Annemans, Gilles Lebreton · ID
15.
Removed: Recalls its position that the body should be able to investigate on its own initiative alleged breaches of ethical rules by officials and staff of EU institutions and to conduct on-the-spot and records-based investigations using the information that it has collected or that it has received from third parties;Added: Emphasises that safeguarding the independence of Parliament and parliamentarians is crucial, and something which a third-party body, called upon to set rules intended for the European Parliament and institutions in general, could jeopardise; believes that, as conceived, the Ethics Body represents more a new waste of public resources than real added value;- Amendment 81 · Annex: AgreementRejected
Draft agreement – Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Tabled by Sven Simon · PPE
Added: (ba) the Members of the Council of the European Union, when acting in the exercise of their European mandate;
Paragraph 16
Tabled by Antonio Maria Rinaldi, Gerolf Annemans, Gilles Lebreton · ID
16.
Removed: ApprovesAdded: Calls for a postponement of the conclusion of the AgreementRemoved: annexed hereto;Added: to the next term, so that a new and more legitimised Parliament can take a decision on this;- Amendment 86 · Annex: AgreementRejected
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Tabled by Sven Simon · PPE
Removed: 1.Added: 2. The European Parliament,Removed: the Council of the European Union,the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the …
Vote by political group
How the political groups voted
- 63For
- 66Against
- 6Abstention
- 49Did not vote
- 30For
- 0Against
- 0Abstention
- 3Did not vote
- 84For
- 0Against
- 6Abstention
- 12Did not vote
- 97For
- 4Against
- 1Abstention
- 38Did not vote
- 20For
- 107Against
- 9Abstention
- 41Did not vote
- 7For
- 0Against
- 0Abstention
- 6Did not vote
- 0For
- 20Against
- 1Abstention
- 10Did not vote
- 0For
- 19Against
- 0Abstention
- 6Did not vote
Members
Showing 10 of 705
| Name | Country | Group | Vote Position |
|---|---|---|---|
For | |||
For | |||
For | |||
For | |||
For | |||
For | |||
For | |||
For | |||
For | |||
For |