Skip to content
10 Resolutions & reports ·decision 10 of 11 on Tuesday, 20 October 2026

Combating VAT fraud – the effectiveness of cross-border cooperation when it comes to VAT fraud and its impact on the EU budget

Committee report by Ondřej Knotek · voted at 13:28

Non-binding texts in which Parliament states its position on a topic. They carry political weight but do not create law.

Adopted by a small majority 357 for · 274 against · 31 abstained (54 % in favour) Climate & environmentAgriculture, food & fisheriesEmissions & carbon pricing

What Parliament decided

Adopted Adopted by a small majority

Parliament adopted the text as its official position.

For 357 Against 274 Abstained 31

Final vote — text as a whole at 13:28 · 54% 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 PPE, ECR and PfE; opposed by The Left, Verts/ALE, S&D and Renew; ESN mostly abstained.

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

The report concerns value added tax (VAT) fraud, in particular cross-border carousel fraud, and how well cooperation between member states and EU anti-fraud bodies works against it. Parliament adopted the text as its official position, so it now states Parliament's view on strengthening the EU anti-fraud framework and on closer cooperation and information exchange between the bodies involved. The report calls for a more coherent EU anti-fraud architecture in the context of the post-2027 multiannual financial framework, with concrete legislative proposals addressing identified weaknesses.

How the vote unfolded · 4 ballots

Before the final vote, MEPs decided on 1 amendment (1 rejected) and 2 parts of the text voted on separately (1 adopted, 1 rejected).

Roll call requested by PfE · separate votes by Members.

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 4 ballots in voting order
1. Amendment 2 to paragraph 22 13:28 A10-0213/2026 – Ondřej Knotek – § 22 – Am 2 requested by PfE
Rejected
2. Separate vote on paragraph 25 requested by Members
— no individual positions recorded
Adopted
3. Separate vote on recital N
— no individual positions recorded
Rejected
4. Final vote — text as a whole 13:28 A10-0213/2026 – Ondřej Knotek – Motion for a resolution (as a whole)
Adopted

Part of the sitting of Tuesday, 20 October 2026. The vote was taken on Report A-10-2026-0213 in procedure 2025/2121.

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