European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) and European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF): access to VAT information at Union level
Adopted 549 for · 33 against · 84 abstentions · 53 did not vote
Details
The whole chamber
Seating as in the European Parliament chamber, in this order: The Left, S&D, Greens/EFA, Renew, EPP, ECR, PfE, ESN and the non-attached members.
How each group voted
| Group | For | Abst. | Against | Did not vote | Cohesion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPP | 169 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 100% |
| S&D | 126 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 100% |
| PfE | 13 | 59 | 6 | 7 | 76% |
| ECR | 60 | 17 | 1 | 4 | 77% |
| Renew | 71 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 100% |
| Greens/EFA | 46 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 100% |
| The Left | 43 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 98% |
| ESN | 1 | 4 | 21 | 1 | 81% |
| NI | 20 | 3 | 5 | 1 | n/a |
Source: European Parliament roll-call votes, via HowTheyVote (ODbL). Collected 8 November 2026.
How each country voted
Click a country to see its MEPsSource: European Parliament roll-call votes, via HowTheyVote (ODbL). Collected 8 November 2026.
Winning majority
The winning side was For. Each group's position is the option chosen by most of its members who voted.
By country
About this vote
Reference: A10-0159/2026
Procedure: 2025/0348(CNS)
Committee: ECON
17 June 2026, 13:03 · Strasbourg plenary
Method
Cohesion is the share of the group's voting members who followed the group position, the option chosen by most of them. Off the group line: an MEP who voted differently from their group's position. Prepared with AI tools and reviewed by a person before publishing. Report an error: radar@parleon.eu.