13 Budget & emergency funds ·decision 13 of 20 on Wednesday, 7 May 2025

Discharge 2023: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Committee report by Tomáš Zdechovský · voted 13:53–13:56

Budget decisions: the annual budget, amending budgets, solidarity and adjustment funds, and discharge (approving how a budget was spent).

Adopted by a large majority 481 for · 157 against · 24 abstained (73 % in favour) EU budget & funds Discharge & spending control

The vote ✦ In short Full text Procedure

What Parliament decided

Adopted Discharge decision adopted by a large majority

Parliament voted on its discharge decision for this budget; whether discharge was granted, refused or postponed is set out in the report.

For 481 Against 157 Abstained 24

Final vote at 13:53 · 73% of votes cast in favour · every MEP’s position →

Who backed it

The Left ✓
Verts/ALE ✓
S&D ✓
Renew ✓
PPE ✓
ECR ✗
PfE ✗
ESN ✗
NI ✓

Backed by The Left, Verts/ALE, S&D, Renew and PPE; opposed by ECR, PfE and ESN.

✦ What this vote decides · AI summary, based on the text voted on

Parliament granted discharge to the Administrative Director of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for implementing its 2023 budget, approving the spending. It also approved the closure of the office’s accounts for the 2023 financial year. The resolution accompanying the discharge welcomes the Court of Auditors’ positive opinion on the accounts and the legality of transactions.

How the vote unfolded · 23 ballots

Before the final vote, MEPs decided on 8 amendments (4 adopted, 4 rejected) and 13 parts of the text voted on separately (10 adopted, 3 rejected).

Roll calls requested by The Left, Verts/ALE, S&D, ECR, PfE, ESN · split votes by Renew, PfE (4) · separate votes by PfE.

adopted rejected lapsed square = amendment circle = part of the text decisive vote Solid = roll call (click for every MEP’s vote); faded = no individual positions

All 23 ballots in voting order

1. Final vote 13:53 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – Proposal for a decision

Adopted

2. Amendment 2, adding text after paragraph 3 13:53 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – After § 3 – Am 2 requested by ECR

Rejected

3. Amendment 3, adding text after paragraph 3 13:53 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – After § 3 – Am 3 requested by ECR, Verts/ALE, S&D

Rejected

4. Separate vote on paragraph 8 requested by PfE

— no individual positions recorded

Adopted

5. Paragraph 8 — part 2 13:53 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 8/2 Part 2: ‘calls on the Hungarian government, as the sole remaining Member State that has not yet joined the EPPO, despite the absence of any legal or constitutional impediment, to join the EPPO without further delay;’ requested by PfE requested by PfE

Adopted

6. Separate vote on paragraph 18 requested by PfE

— no individual positions recorded

Adopted

7. Paragraph 18 — part 2 13:54 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 18/2 Part 2: ‘notes with concern that in several instances Member States have been declaring criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union as national cases, which are within the competence of the EPPO;’ requested by PfE

Adopted

8. Paragraph 18 — part 3 13:54 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 18/3 Part 3: ‘and points out that this is against the spirit of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, which provides that, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the provision on conflicts of competence between the EPPO and national authorities;’ requested by PfE

Adopted

9. Vote on text inserted after paragraph 87

— no individual positions recorded

Rejected

10. Vote on text inserted after paragraph 87

— no individual positions recorded

Rejected

11. Separate vote on paragraph 93 requested by PfE

— no individual positions recorded

Adopted

12. Paragraph 93 — part 2 13:54 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 93/2 Part 2: ‘calls on the Hungarian government to join the EPPO without further delay; recalls the collection of 680 000 signatures in favour of joining the EPPO, underscoring a strong societal demand for enhanced legal safeguards against fraud and corruption affecting the Union’s financial interests;’ requested by PfE requested by PfE

Adopted

13. Separate vote on paragraph 95 requested by PfE

— no individual positions recorded

Adopted

14. Paragraph 95 — part 2 13:55 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 95/2 Part 2: ‘calls on the Commission to closely monitor Member States’ level of cooperation with the EPPO and urges the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against any Member State that systematically obstructs EPPO-led investigations; takes the view that membership of the EPPO should be a precondition for receiving Union funds;’ requested by PfE requested by PfE

Adopted

15. Separate vote on paragraph 96 requested by PfE

— no individual positions recorded

Adopted

16. Amendment 5, adding text after paragraph 96 13:55 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – After § 96 – Am 5 requested by ESN

Rejected

17. Vote on text inserted after paragraph 96

— no individual positions recorded

Rejected

18. Amendment 1, adding text after paragraph 96 13:55 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – After § 96 – Am 1 requested by ECR

Adopted

19. Amendment 6, adding text after paragraph 96 13:55 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – After § 96 – Am 6 requested by ESN

Rejected

20. Amendment 4 to paragraph 102 — part 1 13:55 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 102 – Am 4/1 Part 1: ‘Recalls that EPPO competences extend to EU funds even when used in third countries; believes that the working arrangements with the Ukrainian competent authorities could effectively enhance the level of protection of the Union’s financial interests following the relevant commitments undertaken to support Ukraine and its population;’ requested by Renew requested by The Left

Adopted

21. Amendment 4 to paragraph 102 — part 2 13:56 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 102 – Am 4/2 Part 2: ‘welcomes the efforts undertaken by the Ukrainian authorities on anti-corruption measures,’ requested by Renew requested by The Left

Adopted

22. Amendment 4 to paragraph 102 — part 3 13:56 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – § 102 – Am 4/3 Part 3: ‘but recalls that the country is still subject to high rate of corruption and fraud, demanding extra precaution to be taken and further anti-corruption measure in order to successfully reach transparency goals;’ requested by Renew requested by The Left

Adopted

23. Final vote — text as a whole 13:56 A10-0051/2025 – Tomáš Zdechovský – Motion for a resolution (as a whole)

Adopted

Part of the sitting of Wednesday, 7 May 2025. The vote was taken on Report A-10-2025-0051 in procedure 2024/2029.

New here? How plenary voting works

A sitting: One day of voting in plenary. Each subject is a report, resolution, agreement or objection; they are grouped by kind of decision, and each group says what “adopted” means there.
The ballots: Members vote on amendments and on parts of the text first, then on the text as a whole. That final, decisive vote is the result shown at the top of each subject.
Who voted how: Only roll-call votes record each Member’s vote — open one for every name and the breakdown by group. A show of hands records the outcome only.
Document & procedure: Each subject rests on a document (a committee report, a motion, a Council or Commission text) and belongs to a procedure, the whole file that can span years.
Group badges: How most of a group voted: ✓ For · ✗ Against · – Abstained · ~ Split (no majority).

Codes in ballot labels

Am 27 — amendment 27
§ 5 — paragraph 5
§ 5/2, part 2 — a , taken in parts
Am 3= 7= — identical amendments voted together
***I — ; *** — ; * —
Lapsed —
A10-… — committee report; B10-… — motion
RC-B10-… — joint motion of several groups

All the terms used on this site