Sittings · Document

OPINION (COM(2025)0081 – C100037/2025 – 2025/0045(COD)) 2025-07-18

On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements

Committee on Foreign Affairs · Rapporteur: Barry Andrews

PA_Legam

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The European Commission published a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements on 26 of February 2025.

As a reminder, the European Commission’s proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) ((EU) 2022/2464) formed part of its commitment to a European Green Deal and strengthened the foundations for sustainable investment. The European Commission’s proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) ((EU) 2024/1760) put forward and detailed mandatory due diligence processes for companies to fulfil their responsibilities and to be held liable for failures to do so, codifying already existing international standards.

DROI adopted opinions on both proposals.

CSRD established the extension of sustainability reporting requirements to all large companies and listed companies (except micro-enterprises) and more detailed reporting requirements, particularly on areas relating to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights, according to mandatory EU sustainability reporting standards.

CSDDD contributed to fostering positive behavioural change by companies towards identification, prevention and mitigation of harmful impacts of their operations and relationships in their global value chains.

The rapporteur welcomes the spirit of the new proposal to simplify and reduce the burden on European Union enterprises. Nevertheless, this goal should not put into question the European Union responsibilities in the defence of human rights including their defenders.

Human rights reporting is very much an area in development and guidance and clarity of process and definitions need more time to bear their results.

The CSDDD has given the EU an opportunity to assert itself as a global normative power by showing leadership in addressing the serious sustainable development challenge faced by societies collectively and globally. The Directive should not be reviewed just after its adoption - as it punishes those companies who have already started working towards future implementation - and if so, it should be done rather limitedly and based on extensive consultation.

The EU had established a policy coherence and complementarity forming a meaningful ensemble with all these Directives that are now under revision. The rapporteur agrees on eliminating an unnecessary extra burden on companies in case it is identified but not at the cost of human rights standards and their promotion.

The CSDDD presents an unparalleled occasion for the EU to integrate human and environmental sustainability into business and corporate practices and to drive change on the global level. Therefore, to review it now could endanger this approach in a current world situation in which human rights standards are increasingly challenged. Furthermore, many EU companies implement already on a voluntary basis these due diligence standards.

To this end, the following elements that are in the current legislation could be kept:

- ensuring that the definition of stakeholders remains adequately wide, in order to ensure that all relevant voices are heard, at the different stages of the due diligence process;

- ensuring that companies do not carry out due diligence efforts solely with their direct business partners, but based on the risk of adverse impacts determined by their sector of activity and the context of their operations;

- requiring companies to meaningfully engage with stakeholders with the aim of informing and improving their corporate decisions and due diligence practices, as well as to ensure protection and safety of all stakeholders from retaliation and reprisal for their participation;

- requiring Member States to provide an option for companies to suspend a business relationship for a defined period of time

- ensuring liability of companies and guaranteeing access to justice and legal remedies for victims of harm linked to violations of due diligence obligations.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Affairs submits the following to the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible:

Amendment 1

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) In the context of the Commission’s commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 , whilst maintaining the policy objectives of the European Green Deal7 , and the Sustainable Finance Action Plan8 in line with the profound transformation of the EU's economic and structural policies proposed by the Draghi and Letta Reports, and respecting its obligations on the protection of human rights.

__________________

3 Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 87, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/43/oj).

4 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

5 Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (OJ L 322, 16.12.2022, p. 15, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/oj).

6 Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 (OJ L, 2024/1760, 5.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj).

7 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 December 2019, ‘The European Green Deal’, COM/2019/640 final.

8 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 8 March 2018, ‘Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth’, COM/2018/097 final.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To reduce burdens on companies that have to comply with that obligation, the required due diligence should, as a general rule, be limited to the company’s own operations, those of its subsidiaries and those of its direct business partners (‘tier 1’). Consequently, when it comes to business relationships, companies should, after having mapped their chains of activities, be required to carry out in-depth assessments as regards direct business partners only. Companies should, however, look beyond their direct business relationships where they have plausible information that suggests an adverse impact at the level of an indirect business partner. Plausible information means information of an objective character that allows the company to conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that the information is true. This may be the case where the company concerned has received a complaint or is in the possession of information, for example through credible media or NGO reports, reports of recent incidents, or through recurring problems at certain locations about likely or actual harmful activities at the level of an indirect business partner. Where the company has such information, it should carry out an in-depth assessment. Companies should also carry out in-depth assessments with respect to adverse impacts arising beyond their direct business partner where the structure of this business relationship lacks economic rationale and suggests that it was chosen to remove an otherwise direct supplier with harmful activities from the purview of the company. Where the in-depth assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, it should then be deemed to be identified. In addition, companies should seek to ensure that their code of conduct – which is part of their due diligence policy and sets out the expectations as to how to protect human, including labour, rights and the environment in business operations – is followed throughout the chain of activities in accordance with contractual cascading and SME support.

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To ensure effectiveness, based on relevant, factual and reliable information reasonably available to the company, including geographical and sectoral risk factors, companies should perform an initial general assessment of its own operations, those of its subsidiaries and those of its business partners. Companies should carry out further assessments of the relevant business partner or the area in their chains of activities where adverse impacts were identified to be most likely to occur and most severe. Companies shall be able to prioritise assessing direct business partners, consistent with severity and likelihood of the adverse impacts, following a risk-based approach.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) To reduce burdens on companies and make stakeholder engagement more proportionate, companies should only have to engage with workers, their representatives including trade unions, and individuals and communities whose rights or interests are or could be directly affected by the products, services and operations of the company, its subsidiaries and its business partners, and that have a link to the specific stage of the due diligence process being carried out. That includes individuals or communities in the neighbourhood of plants operated by business partners where those individuals or communities are directly affected by pollution, or indigenous people whose right to lands or resources are directly affected by how a business partner acquires, develops or otherwise uses land, forests or waters. Moreover, stakeholder engagement should only be required for certain parts of the due diligence process, namely at the identification stage, for the development of (enhanced) action plans and when designing remediation measures.

(24) To reduce burdens on companies and to ensure effective and thorough stakeholder engagement, companies should have to engage with workers, their representatives including trade unions, and individuals and communities whose rights or interests are or could be affected by the adverse impacts on human rights and the environment that stem from the products, services and operations of the company, its subsidiaries and its business partners, and that have a link to the specific stage of the due diligence process being carried out. That includes individuals or communities in the neighbourhood of plants operated by business partners where those individuals or communities are affected by the adverse impact of pollution, or indigenous people whose right to lands or resources are affected by the adverse impact on how a business partner acquires, develops or otherwise uses land, forests or waters.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) To limit possible litigation risks linked to the harmonised civil liability regime of Directive (EU) 2024/1760, the specific, Union-wide liability regime currently provided for in Article 29(1) of that Directive should be removed. At the same time, as a matter of both international and Union law, Member States should be required to ensure that victims of adverse impacts have effective access to justice and to guarantee their right to an effective remedy, as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Member States should therefore ensure that, in case a company is held liable for a failure to comply with the due diligence requirements laid down in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, and that where such failure caused damage, victims are able to receive full compensation, which should be granted in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, while balancing this through safeguards should prevent against overcompensation. In view of the different rules and traditions that exist at national level when it comes to allowing representative actions, the specific requirement in that regard in Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be deleted. Such deletion is without prejudice to any provision of the applicable national law allowing a trade union, non-governmental human rights or environmental organisation, other non-governmental organisation or a national human rights institution to bring actions to enforce the rights of the alleged injured party, or to support such actions brought directly by such party. Furthermore, for the same reason, the requirement for Member States to ensure that the liability rules are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of the Member State should be deleted. That deletion does not restrict the possibility for Member States to provide that the provisions of national law transposing Article 29 of Directive EU 2024/1760 are of overriding mandatory application in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of a Member State.

(28) As a matter of both international and Union law, Member States should be required to ensure that victims of adverse impacts have effective access to justice and to guarantee their right to an effective remedy, as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Member States should therefore ensure that, in case a company is held liable for a failure to comply with the due diligence requirements laid down in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, and that where such failure caused damage, victims are able to receive full compensation, which should be granted in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, while balancing this through safeguards should prevent against overcompensation. This Directive is without prejudice to any provision of the applicable national law allowing a trade union, non-governmental human rights or environmental organisation, other non-governmental organisation or a national human rights institution to bring actions to enforce the rights of the alleged injured party, or to support such actions brought directly by such party.

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29a) In order to facilitate compliance by companies with reporting and due diligence obligations under Union law, and to enhance the accessibility and usability of sustainability-related information, the Commission should establish a dedicated digital reporting portal. That portal should serve as a one-stop shop, providing companies, free of charge, with tailored access to templates, reporting requirements, and information on funding and tendering opportunities. To ensure the effective functioning of the portal, the Commission should promote the interoperability of existing data platforms, enabling seamless transmission, exchange and analysis of data. Furthermore, and in view of the rapid technological developments, the Commission should assess the potential of technological solutions, including the use of trustworthy artificial intelligence in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, to support the digitalisation of reporting and improve the quality and accessibility of sustainability-related data.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point (n)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(n) ‘stakeholders’ means the company’s employees, the employees of its subsidiaries and of its business partners, and their trade unions and workers’ representatives, and individuals or communities whose rights or interests are or could be directly affected by the products, services and operations of the company, its subsidiaries and its business partners and the legitimate representatives of those individuals or communities;;

(n) ‘stakeholders’ means the company’s employees, the employees of its subsidiaries and of its business partners, and their trade unions and workers’ representatives, individuals or communities whose rights or interests are or could be affected by the adverse impacts on human rights and the environment that stem from the products, services and operations of the company, its subsidiaries and its business partners, including, where relevant, civil society organisations whose purposes include the protection of human rights and the environment and the legitimate representatives of those individuals or communities;;

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) based on the results of the mapping as referred to in point (a), carry out and in-depth assessment of their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their direct business partners, in the areas where adverse impacts were identified to be most likely to occur and most severe.;

(b) based on the results of the scoping as referred to in point (a), and where, on the basis of relevant, factual and reliable information, the company has grounds to believe that adverse impacts have arisen or may arise, carry out a further assessment of the relevant business partner or the area in their chains of activities where adverse impacts were identified to be most likely to occur and most severe. Companies shall be able to prioritise assessing direct business partners, consistent with severity and likelihood of the adverse impacts, following a risk-based approach.;

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 8 – paragraph 2a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the following paragraph 2a is inserted:

deleted

‘2a. Where a company has plausible information that suggests that adverse impacts at the level of the operations of an indirect business partner have arisen or may arise, it shall carry out an in-depth assessment. The company shall always carry out such an assessment where the indirect, rather than direct, nature of the relationship with the business partner is the result of an artificial arrangement that does not reflect economic reality but points to a circumvention of paragraph 2, point (b). Where the assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, it is deemed to have been identified.

The first subparagraph is without prejudice to the company considering available information about indirect business partners and whether those business partners can follow the rules and principles set out in the company’s code of conduct when selecting a direct business partner.

Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, irrespective of whether plausible information is available about indirect business partners, a company shall seek contractual assurances from a direct business partner that that business partner will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct by establishing corresponding contractual assurances from its business partners. Article 10(2), points (b) and (e) shall apply accordingly.’;

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

As regards actual adverse impacts as referred to in paragraph 1 that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated by the measures set out in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, the company shall, as a last resort:

As regards actual adverse impacts as referred to in paragraph 1 that could not be brought to an end or the extent of which could not be minimised by the measures set out in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, the company shall, temporarily, and as a last resort:

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) where the law governing its relation with the business partner concerned so entitles it, adopt and implement an enhanced prevention action plan for the specific adverse impact without undue delay, provided that there is a reasonable expectation that those efforts will succeed, and

(b) where the law governing its relation with the business partner concerned so entitles it, adopt and implement an enhanced corrective action plan for the specific adverse impact as soon as feasibly possible, provided that there is a reasonable expectation that those efforts will succeed, and

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

As long as there is a reasonable expectation that the enhanced prevention action plan will succeed, the mere fact of continuing to engage with the business partner shall not trigger the company’s liability.

As long as there is a reasonable expectation that the enhanced corrective action plan will succeed, the mere fact of continuing to engage with the business partner shall not expose the company to penalties pursuant to the Article 27 or to liability under Article 29.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Prior to suspending a business relationship, the company shall assess whether the adverse impacts from doing so can be reasonably expected to be manifestly more severe than the adverse impact that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated. Should that be the case, the company shall not be required to suspend the business relationship and shall be in a position to report to the competent supervisory authority about the duly justified reasons for such decision.

Prior to suspending a business relationship, the company shall assess, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, whether no available alternative to that business relationship, that provides a raw material, product or service essential to the company’s production of goods or provision of services, exists and the suspension would cause substantial prejudice to the company or whether the adverse impacts from doing so can be reasonably expected to be manifestly more severe than the adverse impact that could not be prevented, brought to an end or adequately mitigated. Should that be the case, provided that the adverse impacts do not amount to serious violations of international human rights law, the company shall not be required to suspend the business relationship and shall refer to the competent supervisory authority to receive guidance on the course of action to take.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall provide for an option to suspend the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws in accordance with the first subparagraph, except for contracts where the parties are obliged by law to enter into them.

Member States shall provide for an option to temporarily suspend, for a defined period of time, the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws in accordance with the first subparagraph, except for contracts where the parties are obliged by law to enter into them.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the company decides to suspend the business relationship, it shall take steps to prevent, mitigate or bring to an end the impacts of the suspension, shall provide reasonable notice to the business partner concerned and shall keep that decision under review.

Where the company decides to temporarily suspend the business relationship, it shall take steps to prevent, mitigate or bring to an end the impacts of the suspension, shall provide reasonable notice to the business partner concerned and shall keep that decision under review to restore the relationship at the earliest possible opportunity. In case of suspension, it shall provide a clear end date, which is reasonable and does not jeopardise the viability of the business partner.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the company decides not to suspend the business relationship pursuant to this Article, it shall monitor the potential adverse impact and periodically assess its decision and whether further appropriate measures are available.;

Where the company decides not to suspend the business relationship pursuant to this Article, it shall monitor the actual adverse impact and periodically assess its decision and whether further appropriate measures are available.;

Amendment 16

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – points c and d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) points (c) and (e) are deleted;

(b) point (c) is replaced by:

‘(c) when deciding to suspend a business relationship pursuant to Article 10(6) and Article 11(7);’ ;

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive (EU) 2024/1760

Article 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Such assessments shall be based, where appropriate, on qualitative and quantitative indicators and be carried out without undue delay after a significant change occurs, but at least every 5 years and whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that the measures are no longer adequate or effective or that new risks of the occurrence of those adverse impacts may arise.;

Such assessments shall be based, where appropriate, on qualitative and quantitative indicators and be carried out without undue delay after a significant change occurs, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, and whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that the measures are no longer adequate or effective or that new risks of the occurrence of those adverse impacts may arise; where appropriate, the due diligence policy, the adverse impacts identified and the appropriate measures that derived shall be updated in accordance with the outcome of such assessments and on a voluntary basis with due consideration of relevant information from stakeholders.;

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for opinion declares that he included in his opinion input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the opinion, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register

IBEC

Christian Aid Ireland

World Benchmarking Alliance

BusinessEurope

Fairtrade Advocacy

Banking & Payments Federation Ireland

European Coalition for Corporate Justice

Clean Clothes Campaign

European Central Bank

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Tony’s Chocolonely

Nestlé

2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Title

Amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements

References

COM(2025)0081 – C10-0037/2025 – 2025/0045(COD)

Committee(s) responsible

Date announced in plenary

JURI

31.3.2025

Opinion by

Date announced in plenary

AFET

31.3.2025

Rapporteur for the opinion

Date appointed

Barry Andrews

10.4.2025

Discussed in committee

26.6.2025

Date adopted

15.7.2025

Result of final vote

–:

Members present for the final vote

Mika Aaltola, Lucia Annunziata, Petras Auštrevičius, Jordan Bardella, Wouter Beke, Robert Biedroń, Adam Bielan, Marc Botenga, Danilo Della Valle, Elio Di Rupo, Loucas Fourlas, Michael Gahler, Kinga Gál, Alberico Gambino, Giorgos Georgiou, Rasa Juknevičienė, Łukasz Kohut, Ondřej Kolář, Rihards Kols, Andrey Kovatchev, Nathalie Loiseau, Reinhold Lopatka, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Jaak Madison, David McAllister, Sven Mikser, Francisco José Millán Mon, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Hannah Neumann, Leoluca Orlando, Urmas Paet, Kostas Papadakis, Tonino Picula, Thijs Reuten, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Mounir Satouri, Andreas Schieder, Alexander Sell, Villy Søvndal, Sebastiaan Stöteler, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Michał Szczerba, António Tânger Corrêa, Marta Temido, Cristian Terheş, Riho Terras, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Roberto Vannacci

Substitutes present for the final vote

Krzysztof Brejza, Jaroslav Bžoch, Sandra Gómez López, Mircea-Gheorghe Hava, Merja Kyllönen, Yannis Maniatis, Matjaž Nemec, Ana Miguel Pedro, Chloé Ridel, Marjan Šarec, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Matej Tonin, Petar Volgin, Michael von der Schulenburg, Thomas Waitz, Milan Zver

Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

Barry Andrews, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Eugen Tomac, Dimitris Tsiodras, Catarina Vieira

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Key to symbols: