EU Open Data Portal
26 results
European Commission – Service for Foreign Policy Instruments – PI Annual Action Programme 2017 ,
Information on actions planned by the Partnership Instrument (PI) in 2017. PI succeeded the Instrument for Industrialised Countries (ICI) in 2014. Information include title and description of actions and data on total cost, EU budget contribution, country(ies)/region, duration, method of implementation, objectives, expected results and main activities. ,The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments supports the EU to achieve its foreign and security policy objectives, in particular with regards to peace and conflict prevention, and to project the EU's interests and image in the world. Working in a wide range of areas with various partners and stakeholders FPI contributes to the achievement of the general objective of the EU to become 'a stronger global actor'. ,To achieve its objective FPI is responsible for the operational and financial management of the budgets for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Partnership Instrument (PI), Election Observation Missions (EOMs), Press and Public Diplomacy (PPD) as well as the implementation of Foreign Policy Regulatory Instruments (sanctions, the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds and the Anti-Torture Regulation). ,FPI delivers on its objectives in an open and accountable fashion.
European Commission – Service for Foreign Policy Instruments – Management Plan 2015 ,
Information on the planned actions, outputs and resources of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) in 2015. Data cover both operational and horizontal activities and include: ,The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments supports the EU to achieve its foreign and security policy objectives, in particular with regards to peace and conflict prevention, and to project the EU's interests and image in the world. Working in a wide range of areas with various partners and stakeholders FPI contributes to the achievement of the general objective of the EU to become 'a stronger global actor'. ,To achieve its objective FPI is responsible for the operational and financial management of the budgets for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Partnership Instrument (PI), Election Observation Missions (EOMs), Press and Public Diplomacy (PPD) as well as the implementation of Foreign Policy Regulatory Instruments (sanctions, the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds and the Anti-Torture Regulation). ,FPI delivers on its objectives in an open and accountable fashion.
European Commission – Service for Foreign Policy Instruments – ICI Annual Action Programme 2013 ,
Information on actions planned by the Instrument for Industrialised Countries (ICI) in 2013. Starting in 2014 ICI is followed by the Partnership Instrument (PI). Information include actions, projects and programmes in three priority areas (Public diplomacy, Business cooperation, People-to-people links) and data on objectives, country(ies)/regions, budget and financial management. ,The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments supports the EU to achieve its foreign and security policy objectives, in particular with regards to peace and conflict prevention, and to project the EU's interests and image in the world. Working in a wide range of areas with various partners and stakeholders FPI contributes to the achievement of the general objective of the EU to become 'a stronger global actor'. ,To achieve its objective FPI is responsible for the operational and financial management of the budgets for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Partnership Instrument (PI), Election Observation Missions (EOMs), Press and Public Diplomacy (PPD) as well as the implementation of Foreign Policy Regulatory Instruments (sanctions, the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds and the Anti-Torture Regulation). ,FPI delivers on its objectives in an open and accountable fashion.
European Commission – Service for Foreign Policy Instruments – Management Plan 2016 ,
Information on the planned actions, outputs and resources of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) in 2016. Data cover both operational and horizontal activities and include: ,The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments supports the EU to achieve its foreign and security policy objectives, in particular with regards to peace and conflict prevention, and to project the EU's interests and image in the world. Working in a wide range of areas with various partners and stakeholders FPI contributes to the achievement of the general objective of the EU to become 'a stronger global actor'. ,To achieve its objective FPI is responsible for the operational and financial management of the budgets for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Partnership Instrument (PI), Election Observation Missions (EOMs), Press and Public Diplomacy (PPD) as well as the implementation of Foreign Policy Regulatory Instruments (sanctions, the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds and the Anti-Torture Regulation). ,FPI delivers on its objectives in an open and accountable fashion.
European Commission – Service for Foreign Policy Instruments – Annual Activity Report 2016 ,
Information on the work, results and achievements of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) in 2016 as well as financial and human resources spent. Data include: ,The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments supports the EU to achieve its foreign and security policy objectives, in particular with regards to peace and conflict prevention, and to project the EU's interests and image in the world. Working in a wide range of areas with various partners and stakeholders FPI contributes to the achievement of the general objective of the EU to become 'a stronger global actor'. ,To achieve its objective, FPI is responsible for the operational and financial management of the budgets for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Partnership Instrument (PI), Election Observation Missions (EOMs), Press and Public Diplomacy (PPD) as well as the implementation of Foreign Policy Regulatory Instruments (sanctions, the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds and the Anti-Torture Regulation). ,FPI delivers on its objectives in an open and accountable fashion.
2012 - Eurobarometer Survey - Two years to go to the 2014 European Elections ,
Now that the 2014 European elections are within sight, it seemed appropriate to carry out a large-scale survey of Europeans’ perceptions of the European Union, their knowledge of the institutions and their expectations in this time of crisis. ,The fieldwork for this Eurobarometer / European Parliament survey was carried out between 2 and 17 June 2012. The survey was carried out face to face with 26 622 citizens by TNS opinion in 27 EU countries. ,Main findings : ,The image of the EU is improving in the eyes of the majority of Europeans. Furthermore, and for the first time, an absolute majority says that membership of the EU is ‘a good thing’. ,However, it must be stressed that the majority of the people questioned still think that their voice ‘does not count in the EU’, although there is a marked increase in those who think, on the contrary, that their voice does matter in the EU. When questioned about European identity, Europeans believe that the ‘values of democracy and freedom’ and ‘the single currency, the euro’ are its main components, far ahead of all the others. As in previous surveys, the fight against poverty and social exclusion is easily first in the list of priorities that Europeans would like to see defended by the European Parliament. And, more specifically on action to fight the crisis, they cite employment and combating unemployment more than anything else. On the basis of the results, it is certainly not putting it too strongly to speak of lack of knowledge on the institutions. First of all, Europeans know only ‘very little’ about the functioning of the EU and its institutions. More than a third of them cannot name three of the European institutions. Against this background of lack of knowledge, however, it is noteworthy that the European Parliament is the institution most often mentioned by respondents. More than half of them named the European Parliament first, nearly a third the European Central Bank and a quarter the European Commission. To this can be added the fact that more than an absolute majority of Europeans believe that the European Parliament is the institution that ‘best represents the European Union’. For more than an absolute majority of respondents, voting in the European elections constitutes the best way to make one's voice heard by the decision-makers of the EU. A quarter of Europeans already know the date of the next European elections – June 2014. In this connection, a fundamental innovation made by the Lisbon Treaty was tested in the survey – the new way of electing the President of the European Commission. ,Would Europeans be more inclined to vote than they are today if the ‘major European political groupings put forward, on the basis of a common programme, one candidate each for the post of President of the European Commission’? ,It comes as a surprise that more than one in two respondents would indeed feel more inclined to vote in June 2014 if this were the case. It would give them a sense of being involved, if only indirectly, in electing the President of the European Commission.
At the mid-term 2009-2014, this new Parlemeter reviews the perception of Europeans on the European Parliament, policies and values they wish to see promoted and defended. ,The fieldwork was led by TNS opinion between 3 and 20 November 2011, in a particularly difficult European context: let us remember, amongst others, the failed referendum in Greece, the change of Prime minister in this country as well as in Italy, the increase in the interest rate of the sovereign debts in several countries of the Euro zone, the general elections in Spain, the G20 summit, etc. ,The main findings of this analysis are: ,Regarding the priority policies that Europeans want to see promoted by the European Parliament, tackling poverty and social exclusion remains the first concern (49%) Given the current crisis, it is the coordination of the economic, budgetary and fiscal policies that ranks second with a sharp increase of responses within the euro zone (37%) ,However, all policies that are not directly related to the current crisis have for some experienced a significant decline: combating climate change, the agricultural policy, combating terrorism, immigration policy. ,Concerning values, the number of responses in which each of them figures is decreasing. The protection of Human Rights comes in first position (56 %), followed by the gender equity man/woman (33 %) and of the freedom of expression (32 %). ,As for the role that respondents attributed to the European Parliament, it is important to note the large augmentation of those who want it to play a similar role. On the contrary, as for those who want the European Parliament to play either a more important or a less important role, they are decreasing. ,In this context of crisis, the image of the European Parliament does not evolve positively. Neither does the image of the other European institutions, the parliaments and the national governments. ,In what concerns the powers of the European Parliament, the election of MEPs and the allocated number of MEP's by Member state, a majority of respondents gave a positive answer.
2009 - Survey - The EP and the expectations of European citizens ,
The results of this survey on the elections should be considered in the context of the current international situation. In fact, the survey's fieldwork (January/February) coincides with highly-charged international events: the inauguration of Barack Obama, the launch of his first recovery plan, the situation in Gaza, etc. ,There are a number of important trends to note: ,Campaign issues: unemployment is by far the campaign issue which Europeans wish to see tackled as a priority during the European electoral debate. This result confirms the enormous concern of Europeans in the face of the present situation and that which is to come, especially as regards their personal situation. ,Level of awareness of the elections: the increase in awareness of the date is confirmed in comparison with the last two surveys. On the other hand, interest in the elections is not increasing and the likelihood of voting or not voting remains the same. The factors influencing the voter's choice in the election (candidates' experience both in the European and national domains, electoral program etc.) as well as the factors which cause them to abstain from voting are practically the same as those which were analysed in the EB/PE69 (Spring 2008). ,The role of the EP: opinion is polarising gradually as we get closer to the election. Practically half of Europeans want to see it play a more important role while one sixth states the contrary. The number of "don't know" answers is decreasing. ,Media recall of the EP: it is decreasing because of the international context as previously mentioned. ,The EP and the expectations of European citizens: ,The demand for greater protection of the consumer and of public health as well as a better coordination of economic, budgetary and fiscal policies are the issues citizens most want to see addressed as a priority by the EP. As unemployment is the priority campaign issue, it is absolutely clear that it is the areas associated with the daily and personal life of Europeans which are paramount. This leads to a demand for greater protection at EU level in the face of a crisis, the end of which no-one currently knows. In parallel, we note from these results that the international role of the EU is perceived as less important for European citizens. There is currently an increase in those who would like the Union to address, as a priority, their everyday problems. ,As regards values, the protection of human rights in the world is still in first place with a jump of 4 percentage points. The international context, marked by an intensification of certain conflicts and by increasing repression in many regions of the world, undoubtedly has a bearing on this. It is also presumably the reason why the defence of freedom of expression, evaluated for the first time, is found in 4th place (30%) of the values which the Parliament should defend as a priority.
2009 - Results of European Parliament elections ,
The dataset principally contains the results of the elections to the European Parliament held between 4 and 7 June 2009. ,You can find data on the composition of the European Parliament; the number of national parties in the European Parliament; voter turnout; results per Member State. ,For comparison, some data go back 35 years to the first direct elections to the European Parliament. ,You can visualise the results according to theme, using interactive charts. It is also possible to reuse HTML code to post the widget with the final results on your website.
2014 - Survey - Post Election ,
This post-election field survey was carried out by TNS Opinion in the wake of the European elections in May 2014. Its aim is to improve understanding of the reasons why EU voters took part in or abstained from voting. ,Key findings ,The results of this survey show that divisions are becoming more marked. Indeed, the gap between male turnout (45%) and female turnout (41%) is getting wider. As in 2009, it was managers and the self-employed who were the most mobilised. However, increased mobilisation was noted among students and the unemployed. The greatest abstainers in the European elections, meanwhile, were young people (18-24 year-olds), despite the fact that it is they who generally express the most positive feelings about the EU. As in 2009, the main reasons given by citizens who went to the polls were: to do their duty as a citizen; because they always voted; or to support a political party to which they felt close. These 'traditional' reasons were immediately followed by specifically European reasons: to show their support for the EU; because they felt like European citizens; or because they felt they could make things change by voting in the European elections. Regarding the reasons given by non-voters, as in 2009 they related to a lack of trust and interest in politics in general, or to the feeling that their vote had no consequences. For those who went to the polls in the European elections, unemployment was the main issue which made people vote. This was followed by economic growth and immigration. When questioned about their attitudes to the EU, an absolute majority of respondents considered EU membership to be 'a good thing' and said they felt they were 'citizens of the EU', even though this feeling had been substantially reduced in the countries most severely affected by the crisis. A broad majority of both voters and non-voters felt attached to the EU, however. Lastly, an absolute majority of respondents thought they had 'all the necessary information' in order to choose who to vote for in the elections. As in 2009, more than six Europeans out of ten remembered seeing ‘a campaign encouraging people to vote’.