Member

Ufuk KÂHYA

Greens · Netherlands

Group: Greens Verts/ALE
Country: Netherlands
Roll-call participation: 98.3 %ⓘ of 645 roll calls in office · chamber median 90.2 % · whole term, roll calls
With majority line: 99.1 %ⓘ of 634 votes where the group had a line · Greens median 97.1 %

More facts (5)

National party: PRO Progressief Nederland
In office: Since 30 Jun 2026
Against clear line: 3 of 623 votesⓘ
Committees: ECON, ENVI (substitute)
Member id: 278815

National party: PRO Progressief Nederland
In office: Since 30 Jun 2026
Against clear line: 3 of 623 votesⓘ
Committees: ECON, ENVI (substitute)
Member id: 278815

Cite this page

EP profile

Link to this page

Record

The member’s figures against the median of their group and of the chamber. Each vote counts the member in the group they belonged to that day.

Period Whole term 2024 (from July)2025 2026

Custom dates

Votes Final votes620 All roll calls5 928

Roll-call participation ⓘ

98.3 %

634 of 645 roll calls while in office

Greens median: 92.2 % (+6.1 pts)

Chamber median: 90.2 %

With majority line ⓘ

99.1 %

628 of 634 votes where their group had a line

Greens median: 97.1 % (+2.0 pts)

Against clear line ⓘ

0.5 %

3 of 623 votes where their group had a clear line

1 opposite (for ↔ against), 2 abstained against the line

Abstention ⓘ

3.0 %

19 of 634 votes cast

Participation 98.3 % — Greens median 92.2 %, 54 members.ⓘ

Data as a table

Participation among the 54 members of the Greens with enough votes.
Figure	Participation
Ufuk KÂHYA	98.3 %
Greens median	92.2 %
Lowest in the group	48.0 %
Highest in the group	99.6 %
Members	54

With majority line 99.1 % — Greens median 97.1 %, 54 members.ⓘ

Data as a table

With majority line among the 54 members of the Greens with enough votes.
Figure	With majority line
Ufuk KÂHYA	99.1 %
Greens median	97.1 %
Lowest in the group	87.9 %
Highest in the group	99.4 %
Members	54

Whole term, 5 928 roll-call votes. The dots are the other members of Greens; no ranks.
“No vote recorded” is not the same as absent: leave, illness and chairing the sitting look the same.
A group’s line is inferred from its members’ votes — Parliament publishes no whip.

Votes, 645

Export

Every roll-call vote of the term with the member’s position, newest first.

Show Final votes All roll calls

Result: for–against–abstained. Majority line: how most of the member’s group voted that day (“Tie” when no position won). ≠ group marks a vote otherwise than a clear line (at least two thirds, with at least 10 members voting) of their group.
Date	Decision and vote	Result	Position	Majority line
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Final vote — text as a whole	Adopted 339 for, 225 against, 16 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	Strengthening global health resilience in partner countries Final vote — text as a whole	Adopted 319 for, 142 against, 19 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 73, adding text after recital H	181 for, 399 against, 2 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 16, adding text after recital G	252 for, 326 against, 8 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Recital F — part 3	381 for, 190 against, 4 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Recital F — part 2	338 for, 233 against, 9 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Recital F — part 1	524 for, 48 against, 5 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 58 to recital E	84 for, 484 against, 8 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 57, adding text after recital D	193 for, 389 against, 4 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 56 to recital D	89 for, 494 against, 3 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendments 14 + 59 (voted as one), adding text after recital C	204 for, 381 against, 9 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 61, adding text after recital C	215 for, 366 against, 7 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 60, adding text after recital C	209 for, 378 against, 6 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 55 to recital C	95 for, 486 against, 11 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 72, adding text after recital B	345 for, 242 against, 5 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Separate vote on recital A	459 for, 120 against, 10 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 42, adding text after citation 5	439 for, 128 against, 30 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 40, adding text after citation 1	392 for, 132 against, 62 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 79, adding text after paragraph 15	448 for, 137 against, 5 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 1, adding text after paragraph 14 — part 2	297 for, 267 against, 21 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 1, adding text after paragraph 14 — part 1	304 for, 268 against, 21 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 71 to paragraph 14	92 for, 496 against, 6 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 77, adding text after paragraph 13	330 for, 250 against, 16 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 70, adding text after paragraph 13	93 for, 493 against, 5 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 39, adding text after paragraph 13	257 for, 331 against, 7 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 13 — part 2	351 for, 232 against, 3 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 69 to paragraph 13	195 for, 392 against, 6 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 53, adding text after paragraph 12	390 for, 143 against, 64 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 12 — part 4	441 for, 147 against, 7 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 12 — part 3	427 for, 166 against, 7 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 36 to paragraph 12	231 for, 355 against, 12 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 34, adding text after paragraph 11	261 for, 335 against, 4 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 52 to paragraph 11	259 for, 336 against, 7 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 10 to paragraph 11	208 for, 382 against, 5 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 68 to paragraph 11	235 for, 358 against, 9 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 51, adding text after paragraph 10	277 for, 321 against, 5 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 10 — part 3	353 for, 240 against, 5 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 10 — part 2	363 for, 231 against, 7 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Paragraph 10 — part 1	390 for, 205 against, 4 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 67, adding text after paragraph 9	203 for, 392 against, 5 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 6, adding text after paragraph 9	266 for, 295 against, 37 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 50, adding text after paragraph 8	215 for, 335 against, 54 abstained	Position: Abstained	Majority line: Abstained
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 48 to paragraph 8	261 for, 316 against, 27 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 78, adding text after paragraph 7	395 for, 204 against, 5 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 76, adding text after paragraph 7	177 for, 418 against, 13 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 66, adding text after paragraph 7	204 for, 395 against, 5 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 5, adding text after paragraph 7	202 for, 380 against, 18 abstained	Position: Against	Majority line: Against
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 30 to paragraph 7	253 for, 329 against, 22 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 65 to paragraph 7	91 for, 503 against, 9 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For
17 Sept 2026	The recent hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta and the need for a coordinated response to protect EU’s external borders Amendment 29 to paragraph 6	261 for, 340 against, 6 abstained	Position: For	Majority line: For

Show all 50 votes on this page

Roll-call participation

One cell per sitting while in office, shaded by the share of that day’s roll calls the member voted in. The official attendance register is kept separately by Parliament.

No vote recorded on 0 of 8 sittings with roll calls.

"No vote recorded" is not the same as absent: leave, illness and chairing the sitting look the same.

Data as a table

Roll calls held at each sitting while in office and how many of them the member voted in.
Sitting	Roll calls	Voted in
6 Jul 2026	2	2
7 Jul 2026	72	70
8 Jul 2026	144	140
9 Jul 2026	67	66
14 Sept 2026	1	1
15 Sept 2026	155	152
16 Sept 2026	80	80
17 Sept 2026	124	123

Voting neighbours

Members who voted the same way most often in the roll calls they both took part in, within and outside the member’s group (group at the date of each vote), over all roll calls of the term.

Work

Seats in committees, delegations and intergroups, and the dossiers the member leads, shadows or negotiates.

Seats

Body: the committee, delegation or intergroup, with its kind. Role: the member’s role in it. From, To: the dates of the seat (“now” while it lasts).
Body	Role	From	To
Committee on Economic and Monetary AffairsECON Committee	Member	6 Jul 2026	now
Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food SafetyENVI Committee	Substitute	2 Jul 2026	now
Subcommittee on Tax MattersFISC Subcommittee	Substitute	2 Jul 2026	now
Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of ChinaD-CN Delegation	Substitute	2 Jul 2026	now
Delegation for relations with the United StatesD-US Delegation	Substitute	2 Jul 2026	now

Show all 5 seats

Dossiers

Dossier: the procedure the declaration names (“No dossier named” for a delegation without one). Role: rapporteur, shadow rapporteur, negotiator or delegation. Committee: the committee that appointed them. Date: of the declaration.
Dossier	Role	Committee	Date
No dossier named	Official delegation	FISC	16 Sept 2026

Topics they work on (model-assigned)

Counts: dossiers they spoke on, led or amended, and their questions and motions.

In the chamber

Speeches and statements in plenary debates, newest first; the verbatim report is on Parliament’s site.

No speech or statement in plenary recorded this term.

Questions and motions, 1

Parliamentary questions and motions for resolutions the member authored or co-signed, newest first.

Date: tabled. Title: the question or motion, with its id. Kind: written question or motion for a resolution, with the number of co-authors. Answer: the date of the answer to a question.
Date	Title	Kind	Answer
27 Aug 2026	PFAS contamination and the protection of mothers E-10-2026-003354	Written question	Not yet answered

Amendments tabled in committee, 0

Committee amendment documents that carry amendments by the member, with how many are theirs.

No committee amendment by this member found this term.

Connections

Dossiers they lead or shadow, committees, party, delegation and other related pages.

Political group

Group Greens / European Free Alliance Greens · Centre-left · green politics, regionalism

National delegation

Delegation Netherlands National delegation

Sources & citation

Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.

Permalink: https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/278815?period=term&vscope=all
Official source: Member’s profile, European Parliament
Data source: EP Open Data: member record
Licensed CC BY 4.0.
Data version: data version f37e5638cded (25 Sept 2026) · methods: group-at-date v1, participation v1, abstention v1, loyalty v1, against-clear v1, cohesion v1, agreement v1, group-agreement v1, winning-side v1, similar-votes v1, scope v1, data-version v1 · methods
Retrieved: 25 September 2026

Cite as

EU Parl Watch Research (2026). “Ufuk KÂHYA”. Member record. memberId 278815. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/278815?period=term&vscope=all (retrieved 25 September 2026). Official source: Member’s profile, European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/278815. Data: EP Open Data: member record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/meps/278815?format=application%2Fld%2Bjson (CC BY 4.0); data version f37e5638cded (25 Sept 2026) · methods: group-at-date v1, participation v1, abstention v1, loyalty v1, against-clear v1, cohesion v1, agreement v1, group-agreement v1, winning-side v1, similar-votes v1, scope v1, data-version v1.

BibTeX

@misc{epw-member-278815,
  author = {{EU Parl Watch Research}},
  title = {{Ufuk KÂHYA}},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/278815?period=term&vscope=all}},
  url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/members/278815?period=term&vscope=all},
  urldate = {2026-09-25},
  publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
  note = {Member record. memberId 278815. Official source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/278815. Data: EP Open Data: member record (CC BY 4.0); data version f37e5638cded (25 Sept 2026) · methods: group-at-date v1, participation v1, abstention v1, loyalty v1, against-clear v1, cohesion v1, agreement v1, group-agreement v1, winning-side v1, similar-votes v1, scope v1, data-version v1}
}

Ufuk KÂHYA

Record

Votes, 645

Roll-call participation

Voting neighbours

Within Greens

Outside the group

Work

Seats

Dossiers

Topics they work on (model-assigned)

In the chamber

Questions and motions, 1

Amendments tabled in committee, 0

Connections

Political group

National delegation

Sources & citation

Cite as