In synthesis
On 9 July 2026, a proposal to reject the Council's position received 314 votes in favour, 276 against and 17 abstentions. Rejection won among participating MEPs but failed to reach the absolute majority required at second reading. Parliament also adopted amendments intended to exclude end-to-end encrypted communications, so the text still had to return to the Council.
Questions this translation answers
- 1What did the European Parliament vote on in July 2026?
- 2Why were 314 votes insufficient to reject the Council position?
- 3What changed for end-to-end encryption?
- 4Did Parliament approve the permanent Chat Control 2.0 regulation?
- 5What happens next in the EU legislative process?
What happened
On 9 July 2026, the European Parliament examined at second reading the Council's position on reinstating the temporary ePrivacy derogation. The measure would allow certain providers to resume voluntary detection, reporting and removal of online child sexual abuse material while negotiations over permanent legislation continued.
A proposal to reject the Council position received 314 votes in favour, 276 against and 17 abstentions. More participating MEPs therefore supported rejection than opposed it.
Why 314 votes did not reject the position
At second reading, rejection required an absolute majority of Parliament's component members, not a simple majority of votes cast. The 314 votes did not meet that threshold.
Absent MEPs did not vote in favour. Their absence nevertheless made the rejection threshold harder to reach because the legal test counted the full membership of Parliament.
What changed for encryption
Parliament adopted amendments intended to exclude end-to-end encrypted communications from the temporary regime. That safeguard matters for services such as WhatsApp and Signal because it separates voluntary detection rules from authority to inspect E2EE communications.
The amendments also meant that the text did not automatically become final. The Council still had to accept Parliament's changes or the institutions would have to enter conciliation.
What the vote did not approve
The vote did not finally adopt the permanent Chat Control 2.0 proposal, also known as the CSAR. That is a separate legislative file with a broader architecture for risk assessment, mitigation, enforcement and institutional cooperation.
It is also inaccurate to say that the vote simply authorised officials to read every message. The core legal concern is large-scale automated analysis of files and communications belonging to people who are not individually suspected of wrongdoing.
What to watch next
The immediate question is whether the Council will accept the E2EE safeguard and Parliament's other amendments. If it does not, conciliation may follow.
The temporary file must also be kept separate from negotiations on the permanent CSAR. Any accurate update should identify the instrument, institution, procedural stage and date instead of saying merely that Chat Control was approved or rejected.
Key takeaways
- Rejection won among participating MEPs but did not reach the absolute-majority threshold.
- Parliament adopted amendments intended to exclude end-to-end encrypted communications from the temporary regime.
- The amended text did not automatically become final law and still required a Council response.
- The vote concerned a temporary extension, not final adoption of the permanent CSAR.
Translation note
English news adaptation of the Portuguese event-focused update. It intentionally summarizes the July 2026 vote and points readers to the separate long-form legal analysis.