EuropeScopeEU
← Votes·2020-01-15

EC/Iceland/Norway Agreement: criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway regarding the access to Eurodac for law enforcement purposes. Protocol

Migration & Asylum66%
Confidence: 66%
Assigned by: rule-based classifier
Evidence:
  • title/description contains "asylum"
Reviewed: no
Methodology: topic-rules-v0.1
View all votes on Migration & Asylum
Vote ID 111141Source: official EP roll-call records
29
/ 100

Importance Score

Low importance

Why this vote stands out:

  • Procedural or paragraph vote
  • High-interest topic: Migration
  • Some political group division
  • High participation
Show full breakdown
Topic importance+12 / 15
Turnout+4 / 5
Vote type+3 / 25
Close vote+0 / 15
Legislative+0 / 15
Rebel votes+0 / 10
Group division+10 / 15
Country division+0 / 15

Methodology: importance-v0.1 · The Importance Score is a prioritisation indicator. It does not judge whether a vote is good or bad.

What was this vote about?

This vote concerned “EC/Iceland/Norway Agreement: criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway regarding the access to Eurodac for law enforcement purposes. Protocol”. EPP, S&D, Renew, PfE, Greens-EFA, ECR, NI and ESN voted mostly in favour, while Left voted mostly against. The motion was adopted by a comfortable margin (521 for, 23 against, 0 abstentions).

Automated summary generated from official vote metadata and observed voting patterns. Not a legal interpretation.

Why it matters

This is a procedural vote — it concerns how Parliament organises its work rather than a substantive policy decision. It is generally of lower public-interest weight, though procedural votes can still signal political alignments.

Result analysis

For
521
Against
23
Abstain
0
Margin of victory
498 votes
Turnout (cast)
544
Absent
132
Participation rate
80.5%
This was not a close vote — the margin was comfortable.

By political group

EPP172 MEPs
For 144Against 0Abstain 0Absent 28
S&D132 MEPs
For 101Against 0Abstain 0Absent 31
Renew96 MEPs
For 81Against 0Abstain 0Absent 15
PfE64 MEPs
For 58Against 0Abstain 0Absent 6
Greens/EFA67 MEPs
For 51Against 0Abstain 0Absent 16
ECR59 MEPs
For 49Against 0Abstain 0Absent 10
NI42 MEPs
For 29Against 2Abstain 0Absent 11
The Left37 MEPs
For 4Against 21Abstain 0Absent 12
ESN4 MEPs
For 2Against 0Abstain 0Absent 2

Country angle

Most in favour
  • Germany76
  • Italy58
  • France57
  • Poland39
  • Spain38
Most against

None.

Divided delegations

None notably divided.

Full breakdown by all countries
Austria17 MEPs
For 17Against 0Abstain 0Absent 0
Belgium21 MEPs
For 16Against 1Abstain 0Absent 4
Bulgaria17 MEPs
For 14Against 0Abstain 0Absent 3
Croatia11 MEPs
For 8Against 0Abstain 0Absent 3
Cyprus6 MEPs
For 3Against 0Abstain 0Absent 3
Czech Republic21 MEPs
For 21Against 0Abstain 0Absent 0
Denmark13 MEPs
For 9Against 0Abstain 0Absent 4
Estonia6 MEPs
For 5Against 0Abstain 0Absent 1
Finland13 MEPs
For 5Against 0Abstain 0Absent 8
France74 MEPs
For 57Against 4Abstain 0Absent 13
Germany96 MEPs
For 76Against 3Abstain 0Absent 17
Greece21 MEPs
For 12Against 3Abstain 0Absent 6
Hungary21 MEPs
For 17Against 0Abstain 0Absent 4
Ireland11 MEPs
For 6Against 3Abstain 0Absent 2
Italy73 MEPs
For 58Against 0Abstain 0Absent 15
Latvia8 MEPs
For 6Against 0Abstain 0Absent 2
Lithuania11 MEPs
For 11Against 0Abstain 0Absent 0
Luxembourg6 MEPs
For 5Against 0Abstain 0Absent 1
Malta6 MEPs
For 5Against 0Abstain 0Absent 1
Netherlands26 MEPs
For 21Against 1Abstain 0Absent 4
Poland51 MEPs
For 39Against 0Abstain 0Absent 12
Portugal21 MEPs
For 14Against 4Abstain 0Absent 3
Romania32 MEPs
For 27Against 0Abstain 0Absent 5
Slovakia13 MEPs
For 8Against 0Abstain 0Absent 5
Slovenia8 MEPs
For 8Against 0Abstain 0Absent 0
Spain53 MEPs
For 38Against 3Abstain 0Absent 12
Sweden20 MEPs
For 15Against 1Abstain 0Absent 4

Individual MEP positions

Loading individual positions…

Download & share