MaximHere is the list of amendments to be voted on today: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sedcms/votingList/(A10-0040_2026)_Sippel.pdf
You can find the amendments here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040_EN.html (click the Amendments dropdown).
There are different amendments that are quite similar, limiting the collection to necessary data (30, 31) or protecting (30) or even banning application to E2EE (36), 2 identical limitations to 1 year (33 and 31).
There are a fair bit of other topics to be voted on before the vote on chatcontrol starts. Livestream: https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/plenary-session_20260326-0900-PLENARY
Today's agenda: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/agenda/weekly-agenda/2026-13#agenda-day20260326
Birgit Sippel taking the floor (11:13:25 if anyone wants to check the recording later) after some technical issues with the microphones.
Mentions the vote two weeks ago, says it was based on 5 years of experience. Supports the position of two weeks ago, accuses Council of having left the negotiation table. Supports scanning of known material, rejects scanning unknown material, asks for the same decision again. Protests against disinformation in the last days.
The Proposal was rejected!
Here's the votes on the Comission Proposal. In favor 228. Against: 311. No extension of chatcontrol 1.0 for now, meaning the legislation will expire soon by April 3rd, making it effectively illegal to keep scanning voluntarily!
If someone is interested in the votes on the amendments (not really relevant anymore since the proposal was rejected), here are my notes.
Format is number, approval status, note & link to the text
30 rejected limited to strictly necessary data, protect E2EE https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-030-031_EN.pdf#page=1
34 edit: rejected! limited to strictly necessary data, no E2EE protection https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-034-036_EN.pdf#page=1
35 rejected targeted to people suspected/linked to abuse material https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-034-036_EN.pdf#page=3
1/2
36 approved ban application to E2EE https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-034-036_EN.pdf#page=4
33 rejected limit 1 year only https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-032-033_EN.pdf#page=2
31 rejected limit 1 year only https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-030-031_EN.pdf#page=3
29 approved don't care (subparagraph -> paragraph) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-029-029_EN.pdf
32 rejected lip service to E2EE by right-wingers https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-032-033_EN.pdf#page=1
Commission proposal: rejected
2/2
Update: While in the livestream amendment 34 (which would limit data collection) was announced to pass, the vote was extremely close, 307 in favor, 306 against (livestream 11:16:30).
One of the MEPs in favor seems to have changed their vote afterwards, so it's 306 vs 306,: https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=189574
Luckily, changing their vote later doesn't impact the adoption of the amendment (as per https://eupolicy.social/@je5perl/116295542757738903 ), and the Commission proposal as a whole was rejected anyway.
3/2
Jesper Lundmepwatch has the list of votes, so you can now check how the people who are supposed to represent you voted!
For the vote on the Commission Proposal: https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=189270
For all other votes, see the list you get when you click on the first entry here: https://mepwatch.eu/10/?&q=2021/1232
m4963@maxim
I don't get why so many MEPs from the EPP Group voted against Chat Control 1.0. Weren't they the ones pushing for it?
kellerkindt@maxim thanks for keeping us updated, but what do you mean with
36 approved ban application to E2EE
For me this reads as "approved the ban for applications to use end to end encryption". I must be mistaken... Right?
@kellerkindt I understand how that might be confusing.
The amendment that was approved does ban E2EE communication from being scanned. (no ("ban") application of scanning E2EE communication)
However, given that the Commission proposal was rejected as a whole, the amendments are pretty much irrelevant anyway.
@maxim thanks for the clarification
Hashira@maxim @kellerkindt
So the previous parliament vote adopted the good amendments and then adopted the proposal as a whole, then EPP pushed for a re-vote which is today and now the parliament rejects the proposal as a whole? Is that what's happening?
So the previous parliament vote adopted the good amendments and then adopted the proposal as a whole, then EPP pushed for a re-vote which is today and now the parliament rejects the proposal as a whole? Is that what's happening?
@Hashira Yea, pretty much.
Council & Commission didn't like the results of the first vote so, the trilogue negotiations failed.
In an effort to salvage this situation, there was a second vote today, but it just resulted in the proposal being rejected as a whole.
@Hashira Yes, however, this was the first reading.
Going by this infographic, point 32: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/infographic/legislative-procedure/index_en.html#step2-completetext
That seems to mean that if the Commission refuses to withdraw the proposal, it will be discussed again in the Committee responsible.
I'm not sure 100% sure, though. EU lawmaking is rather complex. Maybe @khaleesicodes could help out here?
Now, even if the Commission could keep pushing this, will it? It seems unlikely to pass and the deadline (3rd of April) seems too close to reach.
titaniumbiscuit@maxim Where can we see the detailed vote results of each MEP?
@titaniumbiscuit mepwatch has these since a few minutes apparently :)
Here is the vote on the Commission proposal:
@maxim On that page it shows that Birgit Sippel did vote *for* the proposal. Isn't that strange given her rejection of the Commission's approach in her speech earlier? Or is there something I'm misunderstanding?
@titaniumbiscuit It seems the parliament's position was quite close to the previous one.
The amendments for limiting to strictly necessary data & a ban on scanning of E2EE communication were re-approved, the difference would have been that the scanning wouldn't have necessarily been targeted & the duration would've been 2 years (Commission proposal) instead of 1 year (previous vote).
She might've felt the difference to be too small for her to change her vote to reject.
dch 
Matti Järvinen
propapanda 
Digol