REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission[...]

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) In its conclusions of 11 November 2020 on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial design system in the Union29, the Council called on the Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Directive 98/71/EC. The purpose of that revision should be to modernise the protection systems relating to industrial designs in the Union and to make design protection more attractive for individual designers and businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

(3) In its conclusions of 11 November 2020 on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial design system in the Union, the Council called on the Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Directive 98/71/EC, an invitation which was echoed by the European Parliament in its resolution of 11 November 2021 on an action plan for intellectual property29a. The purpose of that revision should be to modernise the protection systems relating to industrial designs in the Union and to make design protection more attractive for individual designers and businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

__________________

__________________

29Council conclusions on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial designs system in the Union 2020/C 379 I/01 (OJ C 379I, 10.11.2020, p. 1).

29Council conclusions on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial designs system in the Union 2020/C 379 I/01 (OJ C 379I, 10.11.2020, p. 1).

29aEuropean Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU's recovery and resilience (2021/2007(INI)) (OJ C 205, 20.5.2022, p. 26).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4a) In its resolution of 11 November 20211 a, the European Parliament pointed out that the current EU design protection system was set up 20 years ago and should be reviewed, highlighting the need for the provisions of the Regulation to be updated in order to ensure greater legal certainty;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) While the Commission's evaluation of the Union's legislation on design protection confirmed that it is still largely fit for purpose, it announced in its communication 'Making the most of the EU's innovative potential - An intellectual property action plan to support the EU's recovery and resilience'30of 25 November 2020 that following the successful reform of the EU trade mark legislation, among others, it will revise the Union legislation on design protection with a view to improving the accessibility and affordability of design protection in the Union.

(6) While the Commission's evaluation of the Union's legislation on design protection confirmed that it is still largely fit for purpose, it announced in its communication 'Making the most of the EU's innovative potential - An intellectual property action plan to support the EU's recovery and resilience'30of 25 November 2020 that following the successful reform of the EU trade mark legislation, among others, it will revise the Union legislation on design protection with a view to improving the accessibility, efficiency and streamlining, and with a view to updating the regulatory framework in line with the evolution ofnew technologies on the market.

_________________

_________________

30Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Making the most of the EU's innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU's recovery and resilience (COM/2020/760 final).

30Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Making the most of the EU's innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU's recovery and resilience (COM/2020/760 final).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) In order to ensure legal certainty, it is appropriate to clarify that protection is conferred upon the right holder for those design features of a product, in whole or in part, which are shown visibly in an application for a registered EU design and made available to the public by way of publication or consultation of the relevant file. While otherwisedesign features of a given product do notneed to be visible at any particular timeor in anyparticular situation of usein order to attract designprotection, an exception should apply to the design protection of component parts of a complex product that need to remain visible during normal use of that product.

(10) In order to ensure legal certainty, it is appropriate to clarify that protection is conferred upon the right holder for those design features of a product, in whole or in part, which are shown visibly in an application for a registered EU design and made available to the public by way of publication or consultation of the relevant file. While design features need to be visible to benefit from designprotection, it is not necessary for these characteristics to be visible at all timesor in aparticular situation in order tobenefit from this protection. However,an exception should apply to the design protection of component parts of a complex product that need to remain visible during normal use of that product.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10a) Technological innovation should not be hampered by granting design protection to designs consisting exclusively of features or the arrangement of features dictated solely by a technical function. It is understood that this does not entail that a design must have an aesthetic quality and that designs with a technical function are not excluded from design protection. Likewise, the interoperability of products of different makes should not be hindered by extending protection to the design of mechanical fittings. Features of a design which are excluded from protection for these reasons should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing whether other features of the design fulfil the requirements for protection.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) The use of 3D printing technologies in different areas of industry is growing, which results in challenges for design right holders to effectively prevent illegitimate copying of their protected designs. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the creation, downloading, copying and making available of any medium or software recording the design for the purpose of reproducing a product that infringes the design, amounts to use of the design being subject to the right holder's authorisation.

(11) The use of artificial intelligence and3D printing technologies in different areas of industry is growing, which results in challenges for design right holders to effectively prevent illegitimate copying of their protected designs.In this context, there should be clarity when it comes to the protection of 3D printing files and the limitations to the private use of designs.Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the creation, downloading, copying and making available of any medium or software recording the design for the purpose of reproducing a product that infringes the design, amounts to use of the design being subject to the right holder's authorisation.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) To that effect, it should be permissible for holders of registered EU designs to prevent entry of infringing products and their placement in all customs situations, also when such products are not intended to be placed on the market of the Union. In performing customs controls, the customs authorities should make use of the powers and procedures laid down in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council32, including at the request of the right holders. In particular, the customs authorities should carry out the relevant controls on the basis of risk analysis criteria.

(13) To that effect, it should be permissible for holders of registered EU designs to prevent entry of infringing products and their placement in all customs situations. In performing customs controls, the customs authorities should make use of the powers and procedures laid down in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council32, including at the request of the right holders. In particular, the customs authorities should carry out the relevant controls on the basis of risk analysis criteria.

_________________

_________________

32Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 (OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 15).

32Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 (OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 15).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Directive (EU) [xxx] harmonises the laws of the Member States with regard to the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, where the design is applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product upon whose appearance the protected design is dependent. Accordingly, the current transitional repair clause contained in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 should be converted into a permanent provision. As the intended effect of that provision is to make registered and unregistered Community design rights unenforceable where the design of the component part of a complex product is used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, the repair clause should be placed among the available defences to EU design right infringement under Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. Furthermore, for the sake of coherence with the repair clause inserted into Directive (EU) [XXX], and in order to ensure that the scope of design protection is only restricted to prevent design right holders from actually being granted product monopolies, it is necessary to explicitly limit the application of the repair clause set out in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to component parts of a complex product upon whose appearance the protected design is dependent. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are not mislead but are able to make an informed decision between competing products that can be used for the repair, it should also be made explicit in the law that the repair clause cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or theseller of a component part who have failed to duly inform consumers about the origin of the product to be used for the purpose of repair of the complex product.

(16) Directive (EU) [xxx] harmonises the laws of the Member States with regard to the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, where the design is applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product upon whose appearance the protected design is dependent. Accordingly, the current transitional repair clause contained in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 should be converted into a permanent provision. As the intended effect of that provision is to make registered and unregistered Community design rights unenforceable where the design of the component part of a complex product is used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, the repair clause should be placed among the available defences to EU design right infringement under Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. Furthermore, for the sake of coherence with the repair clause inserted into Directive (EU) [XXX], and in order to ensure that the scope of design protection is only restricted to prevent design right holders from actually being granted product monopolies, it is necessary to explicitly limit the application of the repair clause set out in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to component parts of a complex product. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are not mislead but are able to make an informed decision between competing products that can be used for the repair, it should also be made explicit in the law that the repair clause cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or seller of a component part who have failed to duly inform consumers with detailed informationabout the origin and the identity of the manufacturerof the product to be used for the purpose of repair of the complex product.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) In view of the insignificant number of EU design applications filed at the central industrial property offices of the Member States and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, and in order to align the system for EU design applications to the system set out in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, it should henceforth only be possible to file an EU design application at the Office.

(18) In view of the insignificant number of EU design applications filed at the central industrial property offices of the Member States and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, and in order to align the system for EU design applications to the system set out in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, it should henceforth only be possible to file an EU design application at the Office. However, Member States should establish a 'one-stop shop' through which applicants can receive guidance, legal and technical support.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18a) It is desirable that Member States' central industrial property offices and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property cooperate with each other and with the EUIPO in all fields of design registration and administration in order to promote convergence of practices and tools, such as the creation and updating of common or connected databases and portals for consultation and search purposes. The Member States should further ensure that their central industrial property offices and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property cooperate with each other and with the EUIPO in all other areas of their activities which are relevant for the protection of designs in the Union.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Both technological advancement and the experience gained in the application of the current EU design registration system has revealed the need for improvement ofcertain aspects of procedure. Consequently, certain measures should be taken to update, simplify and speed up procedures where appropriate and to enhance legal certainty and predictability where required.

(19) Technological advancement, artificial intelligence evolution,and the experience gained in the application of the current EU design registration system has revealed the need to improve and streamlinecertain aspects of procedure. Consequently, certain measures should be taken to update, simplify and speed up procedures where appropriate and to enhance legal certainty and predictability where required.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) For reasons of efficiency and to streamline proceedings, the means of notifications and communications should be electroniconly.

(22) For reasons of efficiency and to streamline proceedings, the means of notifications and communications should primarilybe electronic.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) Given the essential importance of the amounts of fees payable to the Office for the functioning of the EU design protection system and its complementary relationship as regards national design systems, and in order to align the legislative approach with Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, it is appropriate to set those fee amounts directly in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in the form of an annex. The amounts of the fees should be fixed at a level which ensures both that the revenue they produce is in principle sufficient for the budget of the Office to be balanced and that there is coexistence and complementarity between the EU design and the national design systems, also taking into account the size of the market covered by the EU design and the needs of SMEs.

(24) Given the impact andessential importance of the amounts of fees payable to the Office for the functioning of the EU design protection system and its complementary relationship as regards national design systems, and in order to align the legislative approach with Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, it is appropriate to set those fee amounts directly in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in the form of an annex. The amounts of the fees should be fixed at a level which ensures both that the revenue they produce is in principle sufficient for the budget of the Office to be balanced and that there is coexistence and complementarity between the EU design and the national design systems, also taking into account the size of the market covered by the EU design and the needs and minimal impact of these fees on SMEs accessing the industrial design protection system in the Union. A sufficient level of flexibility shall be given on the amounts of the fees to take into account the inflation and ensure stable level of resources for the Office.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The European Union Intellectual Property Office ('the Office'), established by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council*, shall carry out the tasks entrusted to it by this Regulation.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office ('the Office'), established by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council*, shall carry out the tasks entrusted to it by this Regulation. The Office shall communicate publically often and clearly about these tasks, in order to raise awareness and promote the possibilities of registering an EU design.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3a) 'manufacturer' means manufacturer as defined in Article 3, point (8), of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a.

_____________

1aRegulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on general product safety, amending Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 87/357/EEC (OJ L 135, 23.5.2023, p. 1).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. Paragraph 2 shall also apply if the design has been made available to the public as a consequence of an abuse in relation to the designer or his successor in title or copying of the protected design.

Present text

Amendment

(10a) Article 11(2) is replaced by the following:

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, a design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public within theCommunityif it has been published, exhibited, used in trade or otherwise disclosed in such a way that, in the normal course of business, these events could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within theCommunity. The design shall not, however, be deemed to have been made available to the public for the sole reason that it has been disclosed to a third person under explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality.

"2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, a design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public within the Unionif it has been published, exhibited, used in trade or otherwise disclosed in such a way that, in the normal course of business, these events could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Union. A design shall not, however, be deemed to have been made available to the public ifit has been onlydisclosed to a third person under explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality."

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Protection shall not be conferred on an EUdesign which constitutes a component part of a complex product, upon whose appearance the design of the component part is dependent, andwhich is used within the meaning of Article 19(1) for the sole purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance.

1. Protection shall not be conferred on a registereddesign which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used within the meaning of Article 16(1) for the sole purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance. The use of that component part of a complex product for the purpose of enabling that complex product to be repaired will be presumed.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to rims, covers and similar parts of a complex product the shape of which is not determined by the appearance of the complex product.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Paragraph 1 cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or the seller of a component part of a complex product who have failed to duly inform consumers, through a clear and visible indication on the product or in another appropriate form, about theoriginof the product to be used for the purpose of the repair of the complex product, so that they can make an informed choice between competing products that can be used for the repair.

2. Paragraph 1 cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or the seller of a component part of a complex product who have failed to duly inform consumers, through a clear and visible indication on the product or in another appropriate form, about theidentity of the manufacturerof the product to be used for the exclusivepurpose of the repair of the complex product, so that they can make an informed choice between competing products that can be used for the repair. That indication of the manufacturer's identity shall include at least the name of the manufacturer, the geographical address of its registered place of business and, where applicable, its telephone number or email address.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The holder of a registered EU design may inform the public that the design is registered by displaying on the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied the letter Denclosed within a circle. Such design notice may be accompanied by the registration number of the design or hyperlinked to the entry of the design in the Register.';

The holder of a registered EU design may inform the public that the design is registered by displaying on the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied the letter Renclosed within a circle. Such design notice may be accompanied by the registration number of the design or hyperlinked to the entry of the design in the Register.'; Any misuse of this indication may lead to legal proceedings.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1a. Member States shall establish a 'one-stop shop' through which applicants can receive guidance, legal and technical support.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Executive Director may determine that the documentation to be provided by the applicant in support of the priority claim may consist of less than the documentation required under the implementing acts adopted pursuant to Article 42a, provided that the information required is available to the Office from other sources.';

2. The Executive Director may determine that the documentation to be provided by the applicant in support of the priority claim may consist of less than the documentation required under the implementing acts adopted pursuant to Article 42a, subject to compliance with the principle of equal treatment between applicants andprovided that the information required is available to the Office from other sources.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The applicant may at any time amend the representation of the EU design applied for in immaterial details.;

2. The applicant may at any time amend the representation of the EU design applied for in immaterial details, which merely remedy a lack of precision, certainty or clarity regarding the design for which EU design registration is sought.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The representation of the registered EU design shall not be altered in the Register during the period of registration or on renewal thereof except in immaterial details.

1. The representation of the registered EU design shall not be altered in the Register during the period of registration or on renewal thereof except in immaterial details, which merely remedy a lack of precision, certainty or clarity regarding the design for which EU design registration is sought.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 109a to supplement this Regulation by specifying thedetails of appeal proceedings under this Regulation.

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 109a to supplement this Regulation by specifying the formal content of the notice of appeal and the proceedings for lodging and examining anappeal.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The Executive Director shall determine the amounts of expenses to be paid, including advances, as regards the costs of taking of evidence as referred to in this Article.

5. The Executive Director shall determine the amounts of expenses to be paid, including advances, to coverthe costs of taking of evidence as referred to in this Article.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Notification shall be effected by electronic means. The details regarding electronic means shall be determined by the Executive Director.

2. Notification shall be mainlyeffected by electronic means. The details regarding electronic means shall be determined by the Executive Director. The Office shall designate an official address for official communication with the Office.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Executive Director shall determine the conditions of access to the database and the manner in which the contents, other than the personal data referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article but including the data listed in Article 72, may be made available in machine-readable form, including the charges for such access.

3. The Executive Director shall determine the conditions of access to the database and the manner in which the contents, other than the personal data referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article but including the data listed in Article 72, may be made available in machine-readable form, including the charges for such access if it is not free of charge. Any fees to be paid for accessing the database shall in no case exceed the actual cost of the costs directly incurred as a result of such access.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the entitlement referred to in the first subparagraph, point (c), is not conditional upon the requirement of special professional qualifications, the person applying to be entered on the list who acts in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office shall have habitually so actedfor at least five years. However, persons whose professional qualification to represent natural or legal persons in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office is officially recognised in accordance with the regulations laid down by the State concerned shall not be required to have exercised the profession.

Where the entitlement referred to in the first subparagraph, point (c), is not conditional upon the requirement of special professional qualifications, the person applying to be entered on the list who acts in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office shall have gained professional experience in the field of designsfor at least five years. However, persons whose professional qualification to represent natural or legal persons in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office is officially recognised in accordance with the regulations laid down by the State concerned shall not be required to have exercised the profession.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. On all matters not covered by this Regulation, an EU design court shall apply the applicable national law.;

2. On all designmatters not covered by this Regulation, an EU design court shall apply the applicable national law.;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) any other unit or person appointed by the Executive Director to that effect.

(e) any other unit or person appointed by the Executive Director to that effect, provided that each of the persons so appointed has sufficient professional experience to enable him or her to make an effective contribution to the protection of designs.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Office may, however, in so far as is possiblewithin the time remaining before the end of the period for payment, give the person making the payment the opportunity to pay the amount lacking or, where this is considered justified, overlook any small amounts lacking, without prejudice to the rights of the person making the payment.

2. The Office shall, however, within the time remaining before the end of the period for payment, give the person making the payment the opportunity to pay the amount lacking or, where this is considered justified, overlook any small amounts lacking, without prejudice to the rights of the person making the payment.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where an excessive sum is paid to cover a fee or a charge, the excess shallnot be refundedif the amount is insignificant and the party concerned has not expressly requested a refund.

Where an excessive sum is paid to cover a fee or a charge, the excess shall be refunded.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

With the consent of the Budget Committee, the Executive Director may determine the amount below which an excessive sum paid to cover a fee or a charge shall not be refunded.

deleted

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Determinations pursuant to the second subparagraph shall be published in the Official Journal of the Office.';

deleted

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. By [OP please complete: please insert the date = the first day of the month following 84months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation.

1. By [OP please complete: please insert the date = the first day of the month following 60months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Application fee referred to in Article 36(4):

1. Application fee referred to in Article 36(4):

EUR 250.

EUR 350.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Renewal fee referred to in Article 50d(1), (3) and (9):

1. Renewal fee referred to in Article 50d(1), (3) and (9):

(a) for the first period of renewal: EUR 70per design;

(a) for the first period of renewal: EUR 250per design;

(b) for the second period of renewal: EUR 140per design;

(b) for the second period of renewal: EUR 250per design;

(c) for the third period of renewal: EUR 280per design;

(c) for the third period of renewal: EUR 700per design;

(d) for the fourth period of renewal: EUR 560per design.

(d) for the fourth period of renewal: EUR 1400per design.

Title

Amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002

References

COM(2022)0666 - C9-0394/2022 - 2022/0391(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

28.11.2022

Committee responsible:

Date announced in plenary

JURI

12.12.2022

Committees asked for opinions

Date announced in plenary

ECON

12.12.2022

IMCO

12.12.2022

Not delivering opinions

The date when a decision was taken;

ECON

25.1.2023

IMCO

24.1.2023

Rapporteurs

Date appointed

Gilles Lebreton

28.2.2023

Discussed in committee

25.4.2023

3.7.2023

7.9.2023

Date adopted

24.10.2023

Result of final vote

+:

-:

0:

15

2

6

Members present for the final vote

Pascal Arimont, Ibán García Del Blanco, Pierre Karleskind, Gilles Lebreton, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques, Sabrina Pignedoli, Jiří Pospíšil, Franco Roberti, Raffaele Stancanelli, Axel Voss, Marion Walsmann

Substitutes present for the final vote

Alessandra Basso, Caterina Chinnici, Heidi Hautala, Antonius Manders, Catharina Rinzema, Kosma Złotowski

Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote

Andrus Ansip, Jonás Fernández, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Katrin Langensiepen, Philippe Olivier, Anne-Sophie Pelletier

Date tabled

6.11.2023

15

+

ECR

Raffaele Stancanelli, Kosma Złotowski

ID

Alessandra Basso, Gilles Lebreton, Philippe Olivier

NI

Sabrina Pignedoli

PPE

Pascal Arimont, Caterina Chinnici, Antonius Manders, Jiří Pospíšil, Axel Voss, Marion Walsmann

Renew

Andrus Ansip, Pierre Karleskind, Catharina Rinzema

2

-

The Greens/EFA

Heidi Hautala, Katrin Langensiepen

6

0

S&D

Jonás Fernández, Ibán García Del Blanco, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques, Franco Roberti

The Left

Anne-Sophie Pelletier