REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept

9.12.2025 - (COM(2025)0259 – C10‑0088/2025 – 2025/0132(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Lena Düpont

Amendments

• 001-012 (PDF - 111 KB)
• 001-012 (DOC - 31 KB)
• 013-013 (PDF - 150 KB)
• 013-013 (DOC - 57 KB)
• 014-014 (PDF - 87 KB)
• 014-014 (DOC - 19 KB)
• 015-015 (PDF - 88 KB)
• 015-015 (DOC - 19 KB)
• 016-016 (PDF - 89 KB)
• 016-016 (DOC - 19 KB)

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept

(COM(2025)0259 – C10‑0088/2025 – 2025/0132(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2025)0259),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 78(2), point (d), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10‑0088/2025),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 October 2025[1],

– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A10-0255/2025),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

 

 

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) The existence of a connection between the applicant and the safe third country is not required by international refugee law, notably the Geneva Convention, or international human rights law, notably the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, Member States should have the possibility to apply the concept of safe third country where no connection can be established between the applicant and the safe third country concerned, provided that an agreement or arrangement with the third country concerned requires the examination of the merits of requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.	(2) The existence of a connection between the applicant and the safe third country is not required by international refugee law, notably the Geneva Convention, or international human rights law, notably the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, Member States should have the possibility to apply the concept of safe third country where no connection can be established between the applicant and the safe third country concerned, provided that an agreement or arrangement concluded in writing, in a legally certain and transparent manner, either by the Union or by one or more Member States with the third country concerned requires the examination of the merits of requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(2a) In order to ensure uniform application of Union law and to avoid divergent practices among Member States, the use of agreements or arrangements concluded by the Union with third countries is encouraged. Such Union-level instruments provide a common legal and procedural framework for cooperation on asylum and migration, ensure compliance with Union law and standards, and reinforce mutual trust between Member States in the application of the safe third country concept.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(3) Member States should have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept on the basis of a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, by which it would be reasonable for the applicant to go to that third country.	(3) Member States should have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept on the basis of a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, by which it would be reasonable for the applicant to go to that third country. The connection between the applicant and the safe third country could be considered established in particular where members of the applicant’s family are present in that country or where the applicant has settled or stayed in that country, or where the applicant has other links with that country, such as the same or similar language, or other economic, cultural, religious, or geographical links.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) Member States should also have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept to applicants who transited through the territory of a third country before entering the Union, as it is reasonable to expect that a person seeking international protection could have applied for protection in a safe third country through which that person transited. Previous transit through a safe third country provides an objective link between the applicant and the third country concerned.	(4) Member States should also have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept to applicants who transited through the territory of a third country before entering the Union, as it is reasonable to expect that a person seeking international protection could have requested effective protection in a safe third country through which that person transited. Previous transit through a safe third country provides an objective link between the applicant and the third country concerned.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4a) In order to preserve the effectiveness of the safe third country concept and to ensure a coherent application across the Union, Member States applying that concept can make full use of the grounds set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 before examining an application for international protection on its merits. They can therefore assess, in a comprehensive manner, whether the conditions relating to a connection, transit, or an existing agreement or arrangement with the third country concerned can be effectively applied.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(5) In view of the situation of vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and of the need for targeted support, the concept of safe third country should be applied to unaccompanied minors only where a connection or transit can be established with the third country concerned can be established and the conditions of Article 59(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council are fulfilled. Member States should ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions concerning minors.	(5) In view of the situation of vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and of the need for targeted support, the concept of safe third country should be applied to unaccompanied minors only in the limited circumstances set out in this Regulation and where the conditions of Article 59(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 are fulfilled. Where the concept is being applied to applicants in accordance with an agreement or arrangement concluded with a third country, it should not, as a rule, be applied to unaccompanied minors unless there are reasonable grounds to consider that the unaccompanied minor represents a danger to national security or public order. In all cases, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration for the Member States in all decisions concerning minors.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) It is necessary to enhance transparency regarding the conclusion by Member States of agreements and arrangements with safe third countries, to support Member States and the Commission in establishing a comprehensive approach on the external dimension of migration, and in coordinating their efforts towards third countries for applying the safe third country concept. This would also allow for monitoring whether agreements or arrangements with third countries fulfil the conditions set by this Regulation. It should also enable a more consistent and coherent application of the safe third country concept across the Union and contribute to the overall well-functioning of the Common European Asylum System. To this end, Member States should be required to inform the Commission and other Member States prior to the conclusion of agreements or arrangements with third countries.	(6) It is necessary to enhance transparency regarding the conclusion by the Union or Member States of agreements and arrangements with safe third countries that fulfil the criteria set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, to support Member States and the Commission in establishing a comprehensive approach on the external dimension of migration, and in coordinating their efforts towards third countries for applying the safe third country concept. This would also allow for monitoring whether agreements or arrangements between the Union or one or more Member States with third countries fulfil the conditions set by that Regulation. It should also enable a more consistent and coherent application of the safe third country concept across the Union and contribute to the overall well-functioning of the Common European Asylum System.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6a) The Member States and the European Parliament must be informed when negotiations are opened on behalf of the Union and, prior to the conclusion of any agreements or arrangements with third countries related to the safe third country concept, of the outcome of such negotiations.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6b) Member States should be required to inform the Commission and other Member States prior to the conclusion of agreements or arrangements with third countries related to the safe third country concept.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(7) Member States should be able to take the necessary measures to address the risk that applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied abscond, including by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , or detaining the applicant concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, in order to assess the admissibility of applications.	(7) Member States should be able to take all the necessary measures to prevent the risk of absconding of applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied, including by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council2, or, as a measure of last resort, detaining the applicant concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, in order to assess the admissibility of applications.
__________________	__________________
2 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj).	2 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj).

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 59 – paragraph 5 – point b – point iii

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
iii) there is an agreement or an arrangement with the third country concerned requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.	iii) there is an agreement or an arrangement concluded by the Union or one or more Member States with the third country concerned requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 59 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In the application of the first paragraph, point (b), the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. The first paragraph, point (b)(iii), shall not apply where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor.	In the application of the first paragraph, point (b), the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. The first paragraph, point (b)(iii), shall not apply where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, unless there are reasonable grounds to consider that the unaccompanied minor represents a danger to national security or public order under national law.

 

 

 

 

 

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Commission’s proposal to amend Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union as regards the application of the “safe third country” concept is a timely and targeted step to ensure that the Common European Asylum System becomes both credible and workable. It addresses long-standing inconsistencies in the way Member States have applied the concept and responds to calls from national authorities for greater flexibility and legal clarity.

 

The safe third country concept remains an essential part of international protection policy. It reflects a fundamental principle: those in need of protection should receive it, but not necessarily in the European Union when they could receive effective protection in a third country that is considered safe for them. Over the past decade, however, the practical use of this tool has been hindered by procedural complexity and by diverging interpretations among Member States, particularly concerning the requirement for a “connection” between the applicant and the third country and the automatic suspensive effect of appeals. Both institutional analyses and independent expert assessments conclude that the necessary adjustments can be made without compromising international or Union law.

 

The first improvement concerns the connection criterion. As recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and confirmed by legal scholarship, international law does not impose a requirement that a personal link exist between an applicant and the country considered safe. While the presence of a connection may facilitate practical cooperation, it is not a precondition for legality. The Commission therefore rightly proposes to make this element optional, thereby granting Member States the flexibility to determine whether and how to apply it, depending on operational circumstances and the existence of cooperation frameworks or arrangements with partner countries.

 

It must also be borne in mind that the proposal also requires Member States to inform the Commission and other Member States before concluding agreements or arrangements with safe third countries, which will ensure greater transparency, mutual awareness, and ultimately reinforce coordination and coherence in the Union’s external migration management efforts.

 

This change does not weaken fundamental rights or lower protection standards. On the contrary, it reflects the reality that “connection” has often become an administrative obstacle rather than a safeguard. By maintaining the principle of individual assessment, we make sure that each case will still be examined to confirm that the person concerned can receive effective protection in the third country, including respect for non-refoulement and access to fair procedures. What changes is not the level of protection, but the ability of the Member States to apply the concept consistently and efficiently.

 

The second improvement concerns the suspensive effect of appeals. Under current rules, an appeal against an inadmissibility decision based on the safe third country concept automatically suspends transfer until a final judgment is delivered. While this safeguard aimed to protect applicants from any risk of refoulement, it has also led to protracted litigation and inconsistent practice across the Union. Removing the automatic suspensive effect, while guaranteeing the applicant’s right to request suspension before a court or tribunal, is intended to put an end to this practice. The judicial authority remains empowered to grant suspensive effect whenever there is a credible risk of refoulement or other irreparable harm.

This balanced approach fully respects Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case-law of both the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Human rights jurisprudence makes clear that the right to an effective remedy does not require automatic suspension in all cases, only that the remedy be capable of producing a suspensive effect when necessary. The proposal thus upholds judicial protection while restoring procedural efficiency. It also prevents situations of legal limbo that have in the past left applicants stranded for months or years in uncertainty, undermining confidence in asylum systems and creating unnecessary administrative burden for Member States.

 

We need to strengthen coherence between asylum and return procedures, contributing to a more seamless system. By clarifying and streamlining the rules we reinforce partnership-based cooperation with third countries, ensuring that Safe Third Country agreements and arrangements are mutually beneficial, uphold responsibility-sharing principles, and fully respect fundamental rights. It complements the Union’s broader external migration policy, including future return hubs and tailored readmission arrangements, where the concept of effective protection remains central.

 

The Commission’s proposal stays well within the boundaries of international law and the Geneva Convention. It does not remove safeguards but brings EU law back into proportion. Several elements of the current framework go beyond international requirements (“gold-plating”), and we want to achieve with this revision to simply realign them with the actual legal obligations.

 

From a political perspective, this draft report represents a concrete contribution to the implementation the Pact on Migration and Asylum. It demonstrates that the Union can act swiftly to remove procedural bottlenecks that have prevented the proper functioning of its asylum system. This is precisely what a firm and fair migration policy requires: procedures that are fast and enforceable, but also legally sound and respectful of fundamental rights.

 

We want to enhance credibility both internally and externally. We give Member States the tools to manage asylum more effectively while sending a clear message that the EU remains committed to protection needs and ensuring compliance with international obligations to international protection but is determined to curb the misuse of the asylum system and lengthy procedural delay. We also enable faster cooperation with safe partner countries and encourages shared responsibility through structured arrangements.

 

Our aim is to contribute to the long-term objective of a sustainable European asylum architecture built on solidarity, trust, and predictability. We therefore need this pragmatic correction rather than a conceptual overhaul, ensuring that the safe third country mechanism functions as originally intended, to provide swift, fair, and lawful outcomes for all parties involved.

 

This is not a lowering of standards but an affirmation of Europe’s capacity to combine principle with practicality. A functioning and credible asylum system is indispensable to maintain public confidence and solidarity among Member States. The safe third country reform represents a concrete step towards that goal and a clear signal that the European Union is able to protect its borders, uphold its values, and deliver results.

 

In light of the above, the rapporteur considers that the Commission’s proposal requires only targeted refinements to ensure full legal clarity and operational coherence.

 

When assessing whether a third country qualifies as a safe third country, Member States could take into account the fact that this country is already listed as a safe country of origin at Union or national level. This circumstance can serve as an indicator of the country’s overall stability and respect for human rights.

 

To ensure that the safe third country concept is applied consistently and effectively, Member States should first consider all available grounds - such as connection, transit or an existing arrangement - before examining an asylum claim on its merits. Only if none of these apply should the procedure continue within the Union.

 

To ensure consistent application of Union law and avoid divergent practices, the use of EU-level agreements or arrangements with third countries should be encouraged, as they provide a common framework, uphold Union standards, and strengthen mutual trust among Member States.

 

Unaccompanied minors are exempt from the application of the safe third country concept where it is applied on the basis of an agreement or an arrangement with a safe third country. However, Member States should be allowed to apply the concept on such a basis where there are reasonable grounds to consider that the minor poses a danger to national security or public order. This maintains the balance between protection and security and ensures coherence with existing rules in the border procedure.

 

Given that uncontrolled risks of absconding would undermine the application of the safe third country concept, Member States should take all necessary measures to prevent such absconding.

 

Finally, we propose to refine the rules on suspensive effect by clarifying that enforcement may be suspended only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement. This ensures full respect for fundamental rights while avoiding unnecessary procedural delays.

 

The rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s initiative and supports its swift adoption, with limited clarifications aimed at reinforcing legal certainty and transparency. By embracing flexibility on the connection criterion and endorsing the revised rules on suspensive effect, the European Parliament can help complete a coherent framework that serves both protection and efficiency.

 

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not include in her report input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register[2], or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

 

MINORITY POSITION

pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure

Cecilia Strada, Birgit Sippel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Marina Kaljurand, Krzysztof Šmiszek, Murielle Laurent, Alessandro Zan, Matjaž Nemec, Saskia Bricmont, Leoluca Orlando, Jaume Assens Llodrà, Catarina Vieira, Ilaria Salis, Damien Carême, Estrella Galán, Pernando Barrena, Giuseppe Antoci

 

 

By offering the Member States the option of not applying the connection criterion when using the “safe third country concept”, and by replacing that criterion with legally non-binding, opaque and unaccountable arrangements with third countries, this proposal reopens the Pact on Asylum and Migration to allow Member States to unilaterally disapply the right to asylum by deeming all applications inadmissible, on the grounds that the applicants should have sought protection elsewhere.

 

In our view, this is clearly contrary to Article 78 TFEU which requires “the Union to develop a common policy on asylum ...  with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection”, and to Article 18 of the Charter which guarantees the right to asylum in the Union.

 

By outsourcing our asylum policy to third countries, under the umbrella of the safe third country concept, we are entering into a new age of trade in people, where migrants are deported against their wishes in exchange for money. Moreover, this is a geopolitical mistake at a time when the Union sorely needs to build alliances based on common values, and a rebuke to the idea that we defend our European values.

 

 

MINORITY POSITION

 

pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure

Fabienne Keller, Raquel García-Hermida van der Walle, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Nikola Minchev, Irena Joveva

 

The proposal for the application of the “safe third country” concept raises serious concerns.

 

The removal of the connection link between an applicant and a third country is particularly problematic. This connection link, maintained in the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), adopted in April 2024, is essential to ensure that any asylum seeker is transferred only to a country with which they have a meaningful and legitimate link. Eliminating this criterion would allow transfers based solely on transit or ad-hoc arrangements, creating a risk of instrumentalization by third countries. Moreover, such transfers are unlikely to be sustainable and will not reduce subsequent attempts to come back to the Union.

 

The introduction of arrangements with third countries further exacerbates these concerns. Arrangements mean legal uncertainty and the absence of EU-level oversight. They would dilute Member States’ responsibility for examining asylum claims, weaken judicial scrutiny, and expose applicants to conditions that do not meet EU or international standards.

 

The proposal also risks fragmenting the comprehensive framework established by the Pact on Migration and Asylum. Externalisation cannot substitute an effective European asylum system. Efforts must focus on implementing the Pact, ensuring fair asylum procedures and effective border management, and strengthening efficient return procedures.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Title	Amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept
References	COM(2025)0259 – C10-0088/2025 – 2025/0132(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	20.5.2025
Committee(s) responsible  Date announced in plenary	LIBE 10.7.2025
Rapporteurs  Date appointed	Lena Düpont 22.9.2025
Discussed in committee	11.11.2025
Date adopted	3.12.2025
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	40 32 0
Members present for the final vote	Abir Al-Sahlani, Giuseppe Antoci, Jaume Asens Llodrà, Pernando Barrena Arza, Nikola Bartůšek, François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Saskia Bricmont, Jaroslav Bžoch, Damien Carême, Susanna Ceccardi, Caterina Chinnici, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Alessandro Ciriani, Lena Düpont, Marieke Ehlers, Estrella Galán, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Paolo Inselvini, Irena Joveva, Erik Kaliňák, Marina Kaljurand, Mariusz Kamiński, Fabienne Keller, Mary Khan, Alice Kuhnke, Murielle Laurent, Fabrice Leggeri, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Michael McNamara, Ana Catarina Mendes, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Matjaž Nemec, Ana Miguel Pedro, Ilaria Salis, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Petra Steger, Cecilia Strada, Georgiana Teodorescu, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Milan Uhrík, Tom Vandendriessche, Kristian Vigenin, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, Alessandro Zan, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
Substitutes present for the final vote	Katarina Barley, Anna Maria Cisint, Markéta Gregorová, Monika Hohlmeier, Nikola Minchev, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Leoluca Orlando, Oliver Schenk, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alexandre Varaut, Maciej Wąsik
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote	Stefano Cavedagna, José Cepeda, Pietro Fiocchi, Andrey Kovatchev, Marcos Ros Sempere, Michał Szczerba, Catarina Vieira
Date tabled	9.12.2025

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

 

40	+
ECR	Stefano Cavedagna, Alessandro Ciriani, Pietro Fiocchi, Paolo Inselvini, Mariusz Kamiński, Georgiana Teodorescu, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Maciej Wąsik
ESN	Mary Khan, Milan Uhrík, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik
NI	Erik Kaliňák
PPE	François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Caterina Chinnici, Lena Düpont, Monika Hohlmeier, Andrey Kovatchev, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Ana Miguel Pedro, Oliver Schenk, Michał Szczerba, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
PfE	Nikola Bartůšek, Jaroslav Bžoch, Susanna Ceccardi, Anna Maria Cisint, Marieke Ehlers, Fabrice Leggeri, Petra Steger, Tom Vandendriessche, Alexandre Varaut

 

32	-
Renew	Abir Al-Sahlani, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Irena Joveva, Fabienne Keller, Michael McNamara, Nikola Minchev, Jan-Christoph Oetjen
S&D	Katarina Barley, José Cepeda, Marina Kaljurand, Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Matjaž Nemec, Marcos Ros Sempere, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Cecilia Strada, Kristian Vigenin, Alessandro Zan
The Left	Giuseppe Antoci, Pernando Barrena Arza, Damien Carême, Estrella Galán, Ilaria Salis
Verts/ALE	Jaume Asens Llodrà, Saskia Bricmont, Markéta Gregorová, Alice Kuhnke, Leoluca Orlando, Catarina Vieira

 

0	0

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

• [1] Not yet published in the Official Journal.
   
• [2] Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (OJ L 207, 11.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2021/611/oj).