Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Certain uses of chromium trioxide
Importance Score
Key voteWhy this vote stands out:
- ✓Main vote
- ✓Legislative procedure
- ✓Some political group division
- ✓Significant national delegation divergence
- ✓Very close result
- ✓High participation
- ✓Many MEPs voted against their group
Show full breakdown
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 “Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Certain uses of chromium trioxide”. S&D, Renew, Greens-EFA, NI and Left voted mostly in favour, while EPP, PfE, ECR and ESN voted mostly against. The motion was rejected by a narrow margin (325 for, 325 against, 35 abstentions).
Automated summary generated from official vote metadata and observed voting patterns. Not a legal interpretation.
Why it matters
This is a main (final) vote on a dossier — the decisive moment where the European Parliament adopts or rejects a legislative or political text. These are the votes that most directly shape EU law and policy, and the ones citizens and journalists should watch most closely. The outcome was close, which makes individual choices and absences especially consequential.
Result analysis
Close vote analysis
The margin was 0 votes. 19 MEPs did not vote.
Absences larger than the margin are numerically significant but do NOT imply the outcome would have changed. That would require modelling how each absent member would have voted, which this analysis does not do.
By political group
Country angle
- France45
- Italy39
- Romania15
- Greece14
- Portugal13
- Germany46
- Poland43
- Spain34
- Netherlands14
- Hungary12
- Austria
- Belgium
- Bulgaria
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Finland
- France
- Germany
Full breakdown by all countries
Individual MEP positions
Loading individual positions…