Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3), and Rule 115(4)(c): Maximum residue levels for carbendazim and thiophanate-methyl
Importance Score
High importanceWhy this vote stands out:
- ✓Main vote
- ✓Legislative procedure
- ✓Strong political group division
- ✓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 115(2) and (3), and Rule 115(4)(c): Maximum residue levels for carbendazim and thiophanate-methyl”. S&D, ECR, PfE, Renew, Greens-EFA, Left and NI voted mostly in favour, while EPP voted mostly against. ESN mostly abstained. The motion was adopted by a comfortable margin (516 for, 129 against, 27 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.
Result analysis
By political group
Country angle
- France78
- Italy70
- Germany43
- Spain35
- Poland29
None.
- Cyprus
- Estonia
- Finland
- Germany
- Netherlands
- Poland
- Spain
- Sweden
Full breakdown by all countries
Individual MEP positions
Loading individual positions…