The change of the clock, that is the European Parliament's decision

The change of the clock every spring and every fall will soon be a thing of the past after the European Parliament voted a few days in favour of holding the same time throughout the year. However, the resolution is not binding.

The adopted resolution includes the study of the European Research Service of October 2017, not reaching any final outcome anyway but indicating the existence of negative effects on human health.

A number of civic initiatives had also highlighted citizens' concerns about changing the clock that takes place every end of March and late October.
The resolution also stresses that it is crucial to maintain a unified EU time regime.

Therefore, he called on the European Commission to conduct a full assessment of summer-time agreements and, if necessary, come up with a proposal for its revision.

MEP spokesman Sean Kelly, who has campaigned for change, told the media: “I am very pleased that after years of discussion, our proposal was debated and voted in parliament today and that parliament accepted our proposal to ask the European Commission to submit a recommendation that we would end the change of”.

He said the change came during World War I and was meant to help with energy savings, but indicators suggest that such savings have not occurred and that change has a negative effect on humans but also on animals.
Member states would be free to decide; they could choose to keep summer time or end it.

The summertime reduction will result in first place throughout the year (winter age), which by definition includes dark evenings in spring and summer.
To win throughout the year, member states technically have to change the time zone.

However, uncoordinated national time arrangements could have negative consequences on the domestic market (BE)”.

The European Commission has so far provided an unrecognizable answer, if not a refusal.

Transport Commissioner Violet Bulc said the benefits for human health resulting from the longest day must be taken into consideration and that appetite in the EU national capitals to change current legislation was limited.