Skip to content
PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

Netherlands · Motion · Motie

2011Z21340

Motie Gesthuizen/Dibi over gebruiken van de discretionaire bevoegdheid door de minister

rejectedNetherlands· House of Representatives· NL

Introduced

27 October 2011

Last action

1 November 2011 · Rejected

Status

Afgedaan · Stemmen - verworpen · Niet beschikbaar bij moties en/of amendementen vóór 1 april 2019

Sponsors

Sharon Gesthuizen, Tofik Dibi

Subjects

Discovery layer

Source updated

19 February 2024

Summary

Motie Gesthuizen/Dibi over gebruiken van de discretionaire bevoegdheid door de minister

This text is taken from the official record. PoliticalRepo does not editorialize.

Timeline

  1. 26 October 2011

    Vote

    Aangehouden

    Source: Stemmen - aangehouden

  2. 26 October 2011

    Motie

    Motie Gesthuizen/Dibi over gebruiken van de discretionaire bevoegdheid door de minister

    Source: Motie

  3. 26 October 2011

    Introduced

    Motie Gesthuizen/Dibi over gebruiken van de discretionaire bevoegdheid door de minister

    Source: Motie

  4. 27 October 2011

    Vote

    Aangehouden

    Source: Stemmen - aangehouden

  5. 1 November 2011

    Rejected

    Verworpen (72-78)

    Source: Stemmen - verworpen

Votes

1 November 2011 · rejected · Stemmen - verworpen

Yes 1354 · No 1982 · Abstain 0 · Absent/not voting 0

Showing the first 4 recorded positions. Vote totals above are complete.

Versions

  • v3 · 2 November 2011
  • 2011D52366 · 26 October 2011
  • 2011D52366 · 26 October 2011

Documents

1 official file

Motie Gesthuizen/Dibi over gebruiken van de discretionaire bevoegdheid door de minister

View fileDownload file

Reading translation

Translate this document into your language. PoliticalRepo does not store a separate copy per EU language.

On-demand whole-document translation with a downloadable PDF (logo + link to the official source). The official file stays authoritative.

Sponsors

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.

Sources

PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.