Combating VAT fraud - the effectiveness of cross-border cooperation when it comes to VAT fraud and its impact on the EU budget
Adopted 357 for · 274 against · 31 abstentions · 57 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 | 165 | 4 | 0 | 16 | 98% |
| S&D | 7 | 0 | 123 | 5 | 95% |
| PfE | 80 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 100% |
| ECR | 76 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 100% |
| Renew | 5 | 4 | 64 | 5 | 88% |
| Greens/EFA | 2 | 0 | 46 | 5 | 96% |
| The Left | 1 | 4 | 36 | 4 | 88% |
| ESN | 4 | 16 | 1 | 6 | 76% |
| NI | 17 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 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.
Decisive: EPP. Without the votes of this group on the winning side, the result would have flipped.
By country
About this vote
Reference: A10-0213/2026
Procedure: 2025/2121(INI)
Committee: CONT
20 October 2026, 12:28 · 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.