Activities of Sampo TERHO
Plenary speeches (29)
European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2015 - European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2015 - Single market governance within the European Semester 2015 (debate) FI
Programme of activities of the Latvian Presidency (debate) FI
European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2014 priorities (debate) FI
Interchange fees for card-based payment transactions - Payment services in the internal market (debate)
Role and operations of the Troika with regard to the euro area programme countries - Employment and social aspects of the role and operations of the Troika (debate)
Information accompanying transfers of funds - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (debate)
Use of armed drones (debate)
Uniform rules and procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Bank Resolution Fund: outcome of the negotiations (debate)
Need for the quick adoption of a broad-based Financial Transaction Tax (debate)
Call for a measurable and tangible commitment against tax evasion and tax avoidance in the EU (debate)
Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy - European defence technological and industrial base (debate)
Location of the seats of the European Union's institutions (debate)
Implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax (debate)
Preparations for the European Council meeting (22 May 2013) - Fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax havens - Annual tax report: how to free the EU potential for economic growth (debate)
Debate on the future of the European Union - Statement by Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister of Finland (debate)
European Central Bank annual report (2011) (debate)
Feasibility of introducing stability bonds (debate)
Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union (debate)
Card, internet and mobile payments (short presentation)
Sulphur content of marine fuels (debate)
2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
Explanations of vote
Economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area - Monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area (debate)
Technical requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros (debate)
Common security and defence policy (Article 36 TEU) - Impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector (debate)
Explanations of vote
EU research and innovation funding (debate)
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) (debate)
Main aspects of the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy - Situation in Syria and in Camp Ashraf - Report: Albertini - Annual report from the Council to Parliament on the main aspects of CFSP in 2009 - Report: Gualtieri - Development of CSDP following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty - Report: Muñiz De Urquiza - The EU as a global actor: its role in multilateral organisations (debate)
Reports (3)
REPORT on an anti-missile shield for Europe and its political and strategic implications PDF (141 KB) DOC (64 KB)
REPORT on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters PDF (151 KB) DOC (68 KB)
REPORT on ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’ PDF (230 KB) DOC (143 KB)
Shadow reports (12)
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2013/36/EU and 2009/110/EC and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC PDF (1 MB) DOC (771 KB)
REPORT on the Annual Tax Report PDF (195 KB) DOC (128 KB)
REPORT on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2015 PDF (185 KB) DOC (128 KB)
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions PDF (630 KB) DOC (175 KB)
REPORT on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2014 priorities PDF (289 KB) DOC (233 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2013/36/EU and 2009/110/EC and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC PDF (661 KB) DOC (792 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions PDF (385 KB) DOC (502 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features PDF (585 KB) DOC (462 KB)
REPORT on the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base PDF (275 KB) DOC (139 KB)
REPORT on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (based on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy) PDF (242 KB) DOC (165 KB)
REPORT on Cyber Security and Defence PDF (178 KB) DOC (107 KB)
REPORT on the European dimension in sport PDF (346 KB) DOC (291 KB)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation and exploitation of European satellite navigation systems
Shadow opinions (3)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing "ERASMUS FOR ALL" The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport
OPINION on the General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections
OPINION on the implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC
Written questions (1)
Consumer information on tyre gripping performance on ice PDF (102 KB) DOC (25 KB)
Amendments (271)
Amendment 87 #
2014/2256(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that protection of copyright and related rights must respect technological neutrality; and be respected both online and offline
Amendment 115 #
2014/2256(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing user-created content on the internet when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a fair balance between protecting IPR and fostering aage of creative works on user generated content and social media platforms on the internet that benefit remarkably from public´s access to those works without remunerating their creators, when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a way to address this transfer of value to fairly remunerate creators to foster a more dynamic and creative internet.
Amendment 10 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the EU has a role to play in supporting national policies aimed at achieving multifunctional and sustainable forest management,Questions the need for a EU wide forest strategy except in cases where EU added value is of benefit to the sector such as in strengthening cooperation in the face of increased cross-border threats such as forest fires, illegal logging and pests, and in ensuring coherence on forest-related issues across EU policies such as those relating to agriculture, biodiversity, renewable energy, water and soil;
Amendment 36 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the objective included in the EU Forest Strategy of enhancing the contribution of forests and the forest sector to rural development, growth and job creation must take full account of the economic, social, cultural and environmental goods and services sourced from forests, in particular the important role that foressuccessful forest management and wood-based products play in reducing CO2 emissions, which is an important element of EU climate policy;
Amendment 49 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Supports thetresses the need for carrying out of a cost assessment of all EU legislation affecting the value chains of forest-based industries, with a view to cutting out all unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy and increasing the industry’s long-term competitiveness in a sustainable manner.;
Amendment 58 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the benefits of sharing best practices and existing knowledge on forests between the member states, but stresses that such activity should not result in increased demand on budgetary resources;
Amendment 8 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the economic recovery in the EU slowed down considerably in the course of 2014 but, according to the European Commission, has a prospect of catching up in 2015 and of doing even better in 2016;
Amendment 23 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that growth in 2014 is more broadly based than in previous years; believes, however, that the recovery is still fragile and should be enhanced if it is to deliver substantially more growth and jobs in the medium term;
Amendment 29 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey 2015, which endeavours to promote a return to higher growth levels and to strengthen the recovery; supports the three main pillars approach (boosting investment, accelerating structural reforms and pursuing responsible growth friendly fiscal consolidation) as the right way to achieve these goals; welcomes the Commission’s suggestions for improving the European Semester by simplifying procedures and increasing national ownership as needed, considering that only 10-15 % of the Country Specific Recommendations are fully implemented by the Members States;.
Amendment 55 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that the lack of investment is caused by a lack of competitiveness, low confidence, high indebtedness, slow deleveraging and subdued expectations of demand;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesNotes that the Investment Plan for Europe, which is an important instrument for increasing private and public investment; not might trigger additional investment, develop new projects, attract investors and increase confidence. However, it is far too early to meaningfully assess that the plan is meant to trigger additional investment, develop new projects, attract ine actual impact of the plan. Warns that boosting investment should not be seen as an alternatives tors and restore confidence; reforms
Amendment 68 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that the implementation of the Commission investment plan is key in order for it to carry the desired added value; emphasises that the investment projects need to be carefully selected to avoid the plan failing to deliver sustainable jobs and growth in Europe; reminds that the results of the Commission investment plan should be rigorously judged, especially on how the investment fund will select and prioritise projects, and avoid privatising profits or nationalising losses;
Amendment 77 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Members States actively to support the Investment Plan, and to contribute to the European Fund for Strategic Investment, supplementing the amounts provided through the EU budget and by the EIB, in order to guide and encourage the private sector to invest; welcomes the principle of using public money to leverage and attract additional private capital; urges to avoid the socialisation of losses and the privatisation of gains in the establishment of the fund
Amendment 81 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Emphasises that whilst well-targeted public investment is necessary for example to improve education standards and develop infrastructure where needed, long-term growth is not achieved by only increasing public expenditure which would necessitate increasing the tax burden on already hard-pressed individuals and businesses or by making more debts which affects the financial fragility of already highly indebted MS;
Amendment 93 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that a lack of access to finance, particularly for SMEs, is one of the greatest obstacles to growth in the EU; believes that alternatives to bank financing are needed, especially by improving the business environment for venture capital and peer to peer funds, but also, more broadly, by improving the efficient allocation of capital through capital markets; calls on the Commission in this respect to prioritise work on alternative sources of financing for SMEs, in particular through private sources;
Amendment 114 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the ambitious structural reforms implemented by those Member States most affected by the crisis; welcomes as well the fact that those Member States that have successfully implemented adjustment programmes or financial sector programmes have been able to return to the capital markets, where they now access capital at low interest rates; Points out, that important reason behind this return were the actions taken by ECB.
Amendment 121 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls onStates that the Member States to makeare likely to benefit if they choose to reform their labour markets to become more efficient, to and modernise their social protection systems, including pensions, and toif they improve and streamline the legal and administrative environment for business investment; stresses that structural reforms need to be complemented by well- targeted, longer- term investments in education, research and development, innovation, infrastructure, ICT and sustainable energy;
Amendment 139 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that EU financial assistance to certainthe Member States, provided on terms combining solidarity with conditionality, has proved to be most successful when there was a strong ownership and commitment to reform; reminds the Commission and the Member States that they need to explore ways of bringing the financial assistance under the EU framework; is to be avoided; calls on the MS to commit themselves to economic reform.
Amendment 153 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for urgent action to be taken by the Commission to fight tax fraud and tax evasion; calls for a tax system that is simple and transparent; reiterates its call on the Member States to shift taxes from labour to consumption; Notes, that the measures to fight tax fraud and tax evasion should not undermine the prerogatives of the Member States. Welcomes, however, effective cooperation of tax arrangements at the European level;
Amendment 169 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines the fact that the absence of a well-functioning internal labour market and of a balanced approach to immigration is hampering growth in the EU;
Amendment 197 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Agrees with the Commission that most Member States need, would benefit if they choose to continue to pursue growth- friendly fiscal consolidation; invites Member States with sufficient fiscal space to consider reducing taxes and social security contributions with a view to stimulating private investment;.
Amendment 216 #
2014/2221(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes the Commission assessment of the Member States’ draft budgetary plans; stresses that the examination of draft budgetary plans should aim at sustainable finance; insists on the strict application of fiscal rules and on respect for the equal treatment principle; is concerned, however, that the Commission decided permitted additional time for certain member states to further examine their draft budgetary plans;
Amendment 26 #
2014/2208(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Calls for the Commission to respect the principles of better regulation, keeping good proven practices in place by simplifying EU legislation where needed and to ensure better implementation. Considers that clear definitions, one common calculation method based on evidence-based data and minimum requirements for EPR schemes are key in this regard;
Amendment 27 #
2014/2208(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Highlights that the EU has an open economy, with both imports and exports, which is functioning in a global competitive market. Calls on the Commission to take this into account when refining the model of the circular economy;
Amendment 41 #
2014/2208(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the CEP to establish, in line with the recommendations of the European Resource Efficiency Platform5 [1], a comprehensive policy framework which includes concrete policy objectives and better integrates and streamlines existing policy tools; insists that tools and measures must ensure real opportunities for, and active participation of, SMEs in the circular economy without burdening them with disproportionate administrative requirements; __________________ 5 European Resource Efficiency Platform (EREP) Manifesto and Policy Recommendations, March 2014:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/reso urce_efficiency/documents/erep_manifesto _and_policy_recommendations_31-03- 2014.pdf
Amendment 4 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 39 a (new)
Citation 39 a (new)
- having regard to the Statement by the Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager on tax state aid investigations of 6 November 2014,
Amendment 8 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas an estimated EUR 1 trillion of potential tax revenue is lost every year in the EU due to tax fraud and tax avoidance21 ; whereas this loss is a major risk to the efficiency and fairness of the EU tax systems, and facilitates socially detrimental profiteering which leads to growing inequality among EU citizens it raises the tax burden on all bona fide citizens and companies; __________________ 21 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxati on/tax_fraud_evasion/a_huge_problem/ind ex_en.htm
Amendment 12 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the publication of the so- called "LuxLeaks" documents by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists calls for a thorough and independent investigation of Member States' tax rulings practices and their compliance with EU state aid control rules;
Amendment 24 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas individuals and corporate bodies have the right within the law to minimise their tax payments, keeping in mind the principle that taxes should be paid in line with the relevant legislation to the tax authority which has jurisdiction for the location of the taxable economic activity;
Amendment 31 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the European Semester plays an essential role inis a mechanism for coordinating economic and fiscal policies in the Member States (MSs);
Amendment 63 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that increased tax policy harmonisObserves that taxation policy still remains a national competence and that the different tax systems of the Member States have to be respected; notes that the transfer of competences in the area of taxation from the national to the Union level requires a change in the Treaty; welcomes, however, effective cooperation of tax arrangements at the European level; highlights that effective tax policy cooperation would ensure that Member States’' tax policies support wider EU policy objectives as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 102 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Takes note of the joint statement of 6 May 2014 by 10 MSs on enhanced cooperation on the FTT and the progress of its implementaat the debate has not provided any workable solution; calls on participating MSs to reach an agreement including derivative transactions by the end of 2014; emphasises that the possible agreement on closer coordination on FTT has to respect Articles 327 and 332 of TFEU;
Amendment 122 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on MSs to agree to a compulsoryNotes the desire of certain MSs to agree on CCCTB as a comprehensive and long- term solution to tackle company tax obstacles in the Single Market;
Amendment 181 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. RegretNotes that national reforms in in the public sector have resulted in inadequate staffing anddeclining resource allocation to national tax administrations and tax audit authorities in some MSs;
Amendment 202 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for authorities to suspend or revoke the banking licences ofcommence rigorous and through investigations, and put forward consistent sanctions for financial institutions if they have committed actions assist ing tax fraud;
Amendment 280 #
2014/2144(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission and the MSs to reflect on new and innovative tax formmeasures; stresses that the debate on the FTT is crucialhas failed to produce any workable solution;
Amendment 12 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 19 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the European Semester plays an essential ris a consultative toole in coordinating economic and budgetary policies in the Member States;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the fact that economic recoverydevelopment in the EU is under way; reiterates, however, that this recovery is fragile and uneven, and mustfragile and unbalanced; emphasises that a starting recovery in some countries is counterbalanced by slackening economic developments in other countries as well as by deflationary tendencies; notes that economic recovery should be sustained in order to deliver more growth and jobs in the medium term;
Amendment 71 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the ambitious structural reforms implemented by Member States under the macroeconomic adjustment programmes; stresses that structural reforms fall under the core prerogatives of the Member States; finds it regrettable that the Member States in the rest of the euro area are less ambitious in modernising their economies, which is one of the reasons for the low growth prospects in the medium and long term;
Amendment 90 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses, therefore, the importance of continuing the process of deep and sustainable structural reforms to deliver on growth and jobs; reiterates, in this connection, the fact that the EU cannot compete on costs alone, but that its member states needs to invest more in research and development, education and skills, and resource efficiency, both at national and European level;
Amendment 111 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the fact that the EMU is far from complete and reminds the Commission of its obligations and commitments tocurrently not enhanceing economic convergence and strengthen competitiveness in the EU; welcomes, in this respect, the commitment by the next President-elect of the Commission to deliver on the roadmap set out the report of 5 December 2012 entitled ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’growth and competitiveness in the euro area; reminds the Commission of its commitments to enhance competitiveness in the EU;
Amendment 120 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 129 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the European Semester process by, inter alia, making sure that sufficient time and resources are allocated to the design and follow-up to the recommendations, thereby making the recommendations as relevant as possible for EU- and national-level economic policy-making; reiterates, in this connection, that the role of European Semester process is consultative;
Amendment 153 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls, however, that Member States’' track record of implementing the CSRs is very low; believes that there is an inconsistency between European commitment and national implementation of the CSRs by Member States; stresses the importance of ‘'national ownership’' by the relevant governments of EU-level commitmentthe European Semester process;
Amendment 166 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines the fact that theat voluntary implementation of CSRs is a precondition for achieving economic convergence in the EMU, which is key to the proper functioning thereof, allowcan be beneficial for achieving for financial and economic stabilitystability in the EMU that is conducive to growth and jobs;
Amendment 171 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 178 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 189 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Requests thatInvites the Commission to report on a quarterlyregular basis in Parliament’'s competent committee on the measures taken to ensure progress on the implementation of the CSRs and on the progress achieved thus far; invites Member States to explain the reasons for nshould be given the opportunity to voluntarily participate in an exchange of views on- compliance with the CRSRs in Parliament’'s competent committee;
Amendment 237 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Points out that the absence of a well- functioning internal labour market and of a positive approach to immigration hampers growth in the EU; calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a common labour market and a modern immigration policy;
Amendment 319 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Calls on the Commission urgently to propose measures to complete the internal market for capital to improve the allocation of capital to businesses in order to revitalise the real economy; believes that further alternatives to bank financing are needed, particularly by improving the conditions for financing through the capital marketin this respect to prioritise work on alternative sources of financing for SMEs, in particular through private sources such as venture funds, peer to peer or equity funds;
Amendment 325 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 342 #
2014/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Stresses the fact that the European Semester must in no way jeopardise the prerogatives of the European Parliament or those of the national parliaments; underlines the fact that there should be a clear division between EU and national competences, and that European Parliament is the seat of accountability at Union level;, whereas national parliaments are the seats of accountability at the level of the Member States
Amendment 179 #
2014/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) for making legitimate use of the right to freedom of expression and information; except in cases where such freedom is limited with a secrecy obligation following from an employment relationship;
Amendment 191 #
2014/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) for the purpose of revealing an applicant’'s misconduct, wrongdoing or illegal activity, provided that the alleged acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secret was necessary for such revelation and that the respondent acted in the public interest;illegal activity to the competent authority.
Amendment 251 #
2014/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7
Article 7
Member States shall ensure that actions for the application of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this Directive may be brought within at least one year but not more than two years after the date on which the applicant became aware, or had reason to become aware, of the last fact giving rise to the action.
Amendment 274 #
2014/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) to restrict access to any document containing trade secrets submitted by the parties or third parties, in whole or in part;, on the understanding that there is no limitation to the access of each party involved or its representative.
Amendment 227 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(g a) to refute any market assumption that large credit institutions benefit from an implicit government subsidy.
Amendment 238 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) the introduction of a liquidity transfer pricing mechanism to eliminate cross subsidisation of trading activities by deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU1a; __________________ 1aDirective 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit-guarantee schemes. OJ L 173, 12.06.2014, p.149
Amendment 242 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) any credit institution or an EU parent, including all its branches and subsidiaries irrespective of where they are located, when it or its EU parent is identified as a global systemically important institution (G-SIIs) in application of Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU;
Amendment 265 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) EU branches of credit institutions established in third countries or financial holding companies or subsidiaries of credit institutions established in third countries if they are subject to a legal framework deemed equivalent in accordance with Article 27(1);
Amendment 274 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4
4. ‘proprietary trading’ means using own capital or borrowed money to take positions inenter into any type of transaction to purchase, sell or otherwise acquire or dispose of any financial instrument or commodities for the sole purpose of making a profit for own account, and without any connection to actual or anticipated client activity or for the purpose of hedging the entity’s risk as result of actual or anticipated client activity, through the use of desks, units, divisions or individual traders specifically dedicated to such position taking and profit making, including through dedicated web- based proprietary trading platforms;
Amendment 289 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 16
16. ‘core credit institution’ means a credit institution that at the minimum takes deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 94/19/EC33 ; __________________ 33Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, OJ L 135, 31.05.1994 pages 0005 to 0014.qualifying deposits;
Amendment 291 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)
16 a. "qualifying deposits" are deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU1a, excluding deposits from individuals who have held assets to the value of at least €250,000 for a period of at least 12 months and excluding deposits from large undertakings with income of not less than €6.5m, a balance sheet not less than €3.25m, or not less than 50 employees. __________________ 1aDirective 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit-guarantee schemes. OJ L 173, 12.06.2014, p.149
Amendment 342 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The restrictions laid down in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall not apply with regard to closed-ended and unAIFs, which are not significantly leveraged AIFs as defined in Directive 2011/61/EU where those AIFs are established in the Union or, if they are not established in the Union, they are marketed in the Union according to Articles 35 or 40 of Directive 2011/61/EU ,and Article 111 of the Regulation 231/2013 to qualifying venture capital funds as defined in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) No 345/2013, to qualifying social entrepreneurship funds as defined in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) No 346/2013, and to AIFs authorized as ELTIFs in accordance with Regulation (EU) No [XXX/XXXX].
Amendment 355 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
Article 7
Amendment 372 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) taking deposits that are eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council40 ; __________________ 40Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ L 135, 31/05/1994, pages 0005 to 0014).qualifying deposits;
Amendment 425 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the competent authority may decide not to review the activities of any credit institution for the purposes of this Chapter, provided that: (a) the core credit institution shall be statutorily prevented from engaging in the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal and holding trading assets, with limited exceptions to allow the core credit institution to undertake risk-mitigating activities for the purpose of prudently managing its capital, liquidity and funding and to provide limited risk management services to customers; or (b) if the core credit institution belongs to a group, it shall be legally separated from group entities that engage in the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal or hold trading assets and meets the following conditions: (i) it is able to make decisions independently of other group entities; (ii) it has a management body that is independent of other group entities and independent of the credit institution itself; (iii)it is subject to capital and liquidity requirements in its own right; (iv) it may not enter into contracts or transactions with other group entities other than on terms similar to those referred to in Article 13(7). Separation or restrictions under national legislation must be achieved on a timetable comparable to separation under this Regulation.
Amendment 526 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Unless the core credit institution demonstrates, within the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that the reasons leading to the conclusions are not justified, the competent authority shall adopt a decision addressing the core credit institution and, requiring it to not to carry out the trading activities specified in those conclusions. TIf a decision by the competent authority shall state the reasons for its decision and publicly disclose itdoes not include a requirement to stop certain activities, the core credit institution shall implement measures necessary to protect retail depositors eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49//EU by addressing any cross- subsidisation of risky trading activity through the introduction of a liquidity transfer pricing mechanism according to next subparagraph.
Amendment 527 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
The liquidity transfer pricing mechanism must ensure the full and fair remuneration of deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU used to fund trading activities. The mechanism shall ensure the fair allocation of specific liquidity costs to trading activities as far as is possible at an individual transaction level. The mechanism shall ensure the full and fair remuneration of deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU based on the prevailing market rates for wholesale funding and terms of funding transactions between third party entities.
Amendment 528 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 b (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 b (new)
The mechanism shall be developed and administered by an area of the credit institution independent of the trading function. The competent authority shall review and monitor the operation of the liquidity transfer mechanism to ensure all liquidity costs, benefits and risks are properly captured.
Amendment 575 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Amendment 687 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) take deposits that are eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 94/19/EC except where the said deposit relates to the exchange of collateral relating to trading activities;qualifying deposits
Amendment 694 #
Amendment 772 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Amendment 779 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
When the subsidiary of an EU parent is established in another Member State and supervised by a different supervisor than the EU parent and when the subsidiary is significant in accordance with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, the consolidating supervisor shall consult endeavour to reach agreement with the competent authority of the home Member State of the significant subsidiary with regard to any decision to be made by the consolidating supervisor pursuapursuant to this Regulation. Where it is not possible to reach such agreement, the decisions on the EU parent and the subsidiary shall be taken independently. Where it is not possible to reach such agreement, to this Regulationhe decisions on the EU parent and the subsidiary shall be taken independently.
Amendment 783 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
This Regulation shall not extend the powers of the ECB beyond the limits established in Regulation 1024/2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, either in respect of territories covered, institutions within scope, or otherwise.
Amendment 4 #
2013/2277(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Amendment 451 #
2013/2277(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that adequate economic models are necessary in order to produce credible and efficient adjustment programmes; deplores that adequate statistics and information were not always available; points out that in Greece large- scale fraud was happening in this respect in the years preceding the setting up of the programme; observes that the failure to detect such large-scale fraud indicates negligence on the part, inter alia, of the EU;
Amendment 470 #
2013/2277(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that financial assistance achieved in the short run the avoidance of a disorderly default on sovereign debt that would have had extremely severe economic and social consequences, as well as spill-over effects for other countries of an incalculable magnitude, and possibly the forced exit of countries from the euro area; further notstresses that there is no guarantee this will be avoided in the long run; also notstresses that the financial assistance and adjustment programme in Greece have not prevented an orderly default nor contagion of the crisis to other Member States; deplores the economic and social downturn which became evident when the fiscal and macroeconomic corrections were put into place;
Amendment 621 #
2013/2277(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Notes the temporary nature of the Troika and calls on the European Commission to investigate when or under what circumstances it is intended that the Troika’s activity should cease;
Amendment 726 #
2013/2277(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Reiterates its call for all decisions related to the strengthening of the EMU to be taken on the basis of the Treaty on European Union; takes the view that any departure from the Community method and increased use of intergovernmental agreements would divide and weaken the Union, including the euro area;Does not apply to the English version.
Amendment 788 #
2013/2277(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
Amendment 848 #
2013/2277(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Is concerned, in particular, to improve and clarify the accountability of the Commission when it acts in its capacity as a member of the Troika; requests that the Commission representative(s) in the Troika should be heard in the European Parliament before taking up their duties and should be subject to regular reporting to the European Parliament;
Amendment 14 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas AMD is not only a leading symbol of the USA’s commitment to the EU and to its Eastern European Member States but also of allied solidarity, even if the system is not specifically intended to shield the particular country in which it is basedthe effectiveness of the decision taken in November 2010 in the NATO Lisbon summit to establish a joint missile defence system to protect against long-range ballistic missile attack with weapons of mass destruction, would require a broader cooperation between EU and its neighbours as well as a better assessment of the future threats posed to NATO territory by such weapons;
Amendment 24 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that nuclear proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a grave danger to the survival of humankind. Even a nuclear strike confined to a to specific area using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons would be constitute a global catastrophe, resulting in a major system shock at global level. The cost of such an event, both human and financial, would be extremely high;
Amendment 29 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the latest phase in the deployment ofat the project is still in its early stages, but in its later phase NATO’'s anti-missile shield (AMS), whichystem aimsing to annihilate ballistic missiles before they reach their targetsupon re-entry into the final stage of their trajectory upon re- entry into the atmosphereatmosphere, before they reach their targets, will face greater restrictions than was previously anticipated. It will provide protection to key NATO assets, but contrary to previous plans, it will not, in its current format this stage, provide sufficient coverage for the whole European population from the limited number of short and medium range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in existence. This unforeseen development has raised support for a European AMS which would supplement to NATO’'s system;
Amendment 34 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, Europe has no choice but to take on greater responsibility for its own security but due to the financial crisis and budget cuts, not enough resources are being used to maintain sufficient defence capabilities, thereby leading to the reduction of the EU’s military capdedicated to defence capabilities which renders political support for missile defence dependant on US financing the system; in this respect, it should be reminded that the US House of Representatives called on Europeans to pick up part of the cost for estabilities and industrial capacityshing the Alliance missile defence system;
Amendment 38 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Argues that the legitimate grounds for an anti-missile shield originate in the threat of a nuclear attackattack conducted by weapons of mass destruction and potentially orchestrated by actors who do not subscribe to traditional understandings of rationality. In real terms, certain ‘rogue’ states or state-like actors could be prepared to attack, even in cases where doing so would ultimately result in their inevitable self-destruction;
Amendment 45 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that convincing evidence exists that a number of ‘rogue’ states are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons; notes, furthermore, some of these states have stated their preparedness to use these weapons should their interests be jeopardised; recalls, in this connection, the vast arsenal of nuclear weapons already in the possession of highly unstable states;
Amendment 49 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that it is extremely difficult to evaluate the current and future risks of such developments, and that even if some of these countries have the capacity to develop a nuclear bombweapons of mass destruction, this does not necessarily mean that they are capable of developing ICBMDs in the near future;
Amendment 55 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that a potential nuclear, chemical, or biological attack and the manifold unpredictable effects likely to result therefrom constitute an existential threat; highlights, however, that regardless of the gravity of such a risk, it is but one risk among many others; argues, therefore, that the proportional reduction of the existential risk should serve as a baseline for the evaluation of the feasibility of the ABMS;
Amendment 72 #
2013/2170(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Proposes that should the AMS turn out to be a feasible and cost-effective means of reducing the risk of a nuclear attack, the European Union should consider its development and construction, preferably at EuropeanConsiders that, on the basis of an evaluation of the financial burden the NATO European allies would be called upon to assume and the probability and immediacy of a missile attack, it might be judicious for the development as well as the construction of an anti-missile defence system to be undertaken at EU level;
Amendment 5 #
2013/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Draws attention to the changing strategic global landscape, reduced defence budgets, the quickening pace of technological development and the fact that European defence companies are adjusting to this situation by putting an emphasis on exports to third countries, at the cost of transferring sensitive technologies, and intellectual property rights, and moving production outside the EU; is concerned about the reductions in defence investment which will increasingly expose the EDTIB to the risk of being controlled and constrained in its activities by third powers with different strategic interests;
Amendment 43 #
2013/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the EDA and the Commission to submit a joint non-dependency strategy on critical technologies, in particular as regards unlimited access to and availability of civilian and military (dual-use) emerging and key enabling technologies, such as cutting-edge micro-/nano- electronics, artificial intelligence and photonics, which must be considered as critical to CSDP missions;
Amendment 29 #
2013/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises in this regard the possibility of establishing permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) among Member States (Article 46.6 TEU), of entrusting CSDP missions and operations in particular to that group of Member States (Articles 42.5 and 44.1 TEU), and of establishing a start-up fund for preparatory activities for missions which are not charged to the Union budget (Article 41.3 TEU); highlights in this context the importance of leveraging those EU policies which have an impact on security and defence, like industrial training, research, and innovation, market, trade and space policies, in order to support those Member States which are engaged in further strengthening the CSDP;
Amendment 69 #
2013/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Highlights the fact that successful military operations require a clearn effective chain of command and control function; reiterates therefore its call for the establishment of a permanent military operational headquarters; notes with regret the lack of progress on this issue and the strong resistance by some Member States; stresses further that an effective CSDP requires adequate early warning and intelligence support; considers, therefore, that these headquarters should include cells for intelligence gathering and for early warning/situational awareness;
Amendment 74 #
2013/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Deplores the fact that EU battlegroups have never yet been deployed in EU military operations; considers that the effectiveness and operational capability of the forces in a real situation are difficult to gauge when they have no practical experience; considers that their existence will be difficult to justify over time if the forces are never deployed; stresses nonetheless that they constitute an important tool for timely force generation and rapid reaction; welcomes the decision to address this issue during the December Summit; is convinced that the EU should dispose of high- readiness standing battle forces, with land, air, naval and special forces components and a high level of ambition; favours a more flexible and targeted approach to enhance the response and adaptability to different crisis situations, and to improve modularity in order to close gaps during the initial phases of the launch of CSDP operations without, however, compromising the operational capacity of the battlegroup as a whole;
Amendment 93 #
2013/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Requests that the European Council reconfirm the importance of space, which underpins the strategic autonomy of the EU and its Member States and the potential to gain autonomous access to space by developing launchers and satellites; reiterates the importance of gathering precise intelligence for both civil and military CSDP missions and operations; emphasises in particular the role of space- based assets in the field of conflict prevention and crisis management before, during and after a crisis; invites the Commission to develop a specific policy to support the development of multiple-use space assets and foster conditions enabling private space industry to operate within the EU;
Amendment 114 #
2013/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Echoes concerns that further cuts in national defence budgets will make it impossible to maintain critical military capabilities and will result in the irreversible loss of know-how and technologies; notes that the shortfalls in Member States’ capabilities became apparent during the operations in Libya and Mali and that the economic crisis has exacerbated existing structural problems; reiterates its view, however, that the problem is less of a budgetary nature than of a political one; maintains that sacrificing technological capability to short-term savings will prove very costly in the long term;
Amendment 43 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
(fa) Recovery boilers in installation for the production of pulp
Amendment 62 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 19 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 19 a (new)
(19a) 'net total fuel utilisation' means the ratio between produced energy (electricity, hot water, steam, mechanical energy) and fuel energy input (as the fuel lower heating value) at combustion plant boundaries.
Amendment 84 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Member States may exempt existing medium combustion plants which do not operate more than 1500 operating hours per year as a rolling average over a period of five years from compliance with the emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex II. In that case, for plants firing solid fuels, an emission limit value for particulate matter of 200 mg/Nm³ shall apply.
Amendment 92 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Until 1 January 2030 existing medium combustion plant with a rated thermal input above 5 MW may be exempted from compliance with the emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex II provided that at least 50% of the useful heat production of the plant, as a rolling average over a period of 5 years, is delivered in the form of steam or hot water to a public network for district heating, or provided that the net total fuel utilisation of the plant is at least 80%, as a rolling average over a period of 5 years.
Amendment 99 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Member States may exempt new medium combustion plants which do not operate more than 1500 operating hours per year as a rolling average over a period of 5 years from compliance with the emission limit values set out in Part 2 of Annex II. In that case, for plants firing solid fuels, an emission limit value for particulate matter of 100 mg/Nm³ shall apply.
Amendment 117 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a End of lifetime 1. Member States may exempt existing medium combustion plants from compliance with the limit values set out in Annex II and the monitoring and reporting requirements set out in Article 6 and Annex IV for 5 years from the applicable dates set out in Article 5(2) provided that the operator of the medium combustion plant with a rated thermal input of 5 MW or less undertakes, in a written declaration submitted to the competent authority by 1 January 2029, the operation of the plant will end no later than 31 December 2034, and the operator of the medium combustion plant with a rated thermal input above 5 MW undertakes, in a written declaration submitted to the competent authority by 1 January 2024, the operation of the plant will end no later than 31 December 2029. 2. Within 1 year after the end of operation of the medium combustion plant according to the written declaration referred to in paragraph 1 the competent authority shall perform an inspection. 3. If the medium combustion plant with a rated thermal input of 5 MW or less is still in operation after 31 December 2034, or the medium combustion plant with a rated thermal input above 5MW is still in operation after 31 December 2029, it shall be considered as a new plant.
Amendment 151 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Pollutant Solid biomass Other solid Liquid fuels Heavy fuel oil Natural gas Gaseous fuels and fuels other than other than derivatives heavy fuel oil natural gas (bio oils) SO2 200 400 170 350 - 35 NOX 650 650 200 650 200 250 (1) Particulate 30(1) 30 30 30 - - matter __________________ (1) 45 mg/Nm3 for plants with a thermal input below or equal to 5 MW.
Amendment 153 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Pollutant Solid biomass Other solid Liquid fuels Heavy fuel oil Natural gas Gaseous fuels fuels other than other than heavy fuel oil natural gas SO2 200 400 170 350 - 35 NOX 650 650 200 650 200 250 (1) Particulate 30(1)50 30 30 30 - - - matter __________________ (1) 45 mg/Nm3 for plants with a thermal input below or equal to 5 MW.
Amendment 156 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Pollutant Solid biomass Other solid Liquid fuels Heavy fuel oil Natural gas Gaseous fuels fuels other than other than heavy fuel oil natural gas SO2 200 400 170 350 - 35 NOX 650 650 200 650 200 250 Particulate 30(1) 30 30 30 - - matter __________________ (1) 45 200 mg/Nm3 for plants with a thermal input below or equal to 510 MW.
Amendment 158 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Pollutant Solid biomass Other solid Liquid fuels Heavy fuel oil Natural gas Gaseous fuels fuels other than other than heavy fuel oil natural gas SO2 200 400 (-1a) 170 350 - 35 NOX 650 650 200 650 200 250 Particulate 30(1) 30 30 30 - - matter __________________ (1) 45 mg/Nm3 for plants with a thermal input below or equal to 5 MW. (-1a) 500mg/ Nm3 when using peat.
Amendment 170 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – part 2 – table 1
Annex II – part 2 – table 1
1. Emission limit values (mg/Nm³) for medium combustion plants other than engines and gas turbines Pollutant Solid Other solid Liquid Heavy fuel Natural Gaseous biomass fuels fuels other oil gas fuels other and than heavy than derivatives fuel oil natural gas (bio oils) SO2 200 400 170 350 - 35 NOX 300 300 200 300 100 200 1.1 Particulate 20(1) 20 20 20 - - matter __________________ (1) 25 mg/Nm3 for plants with a thermal input below or equal to 5 MW.
Amendment 172 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – part 2 – table 1
Annex II – part 2 – table 1
Amendment 86 #
2013/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive lays down rules on the protection against the unlawful acquisition, disclosure and use of trade secrets. Member States may provide for higher protection against the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets.
Amendment 99 #
2013/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive lays down rules on the protection against the unlawful acquisition, disclosure and use of trade secrets. Member States may provide for higher protection against the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets.
Amendment 177 #
2013/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) for making legitimate use of the right to freedom of expression and information, except in cases where such freedom is limited with a secrecy obligation following from an employment relationship;
Amendment 179 #
2013/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) for the purpose of revealing an applicant’s misconduct, wrongdoing or illegal activity, provided that the alleged acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secret was necessary for such revelation and that the respondent acted in the public interestillegal activity to the competent authority;
Amendment 197 #
2013/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that actions for the application of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this Directive may be brought within at least one year but not more than two years after the date on which the applicant became aware, or had reason to become aware, of the last fact giving rise to the action.
Amendment 209 #
2013/0402(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) to restrict access to any document containing trade secrets submitted by the parties or third parties, in whole or in part, on the understanding that there is no limitations to the access of each party involved or its representative;
Amendment 89 #
2013/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation lays down uniform technical and business requirements for payment card and digital wallet transactions carried out within the Union, where both the payer's payment service provider and the payee's payment service provider are established therein.
Amendment 144 #
2013/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15
(15) ‘three party payment card scheme’ means (a) a payment card scheme in which payments are made from a payment account held by the sccomposed exclusively of payment service providers belonging to a group composed of entities linked by capital whemre on behalf of the cardholder to a payment account held by the scheme on behalf of the payee, and card based tre of the linked entities enjoys effective control over the other linked entities; or (b) a payment card scheme where a sole payment service provider (whether as a single entity or as a group): - acts or cans actions based on the same structure. When a three party payment card scheme as the payment service provider for both the payer and the payee and is exclusively responsible for the management of the scheme, and - licenses other payment service providers for the issuanceto participate in the scheme, and/or the acquiring of payment cards, it is considered as a four party payment card schemelatter have no right to negotiate fees between or amongst themselves in relation to the scheme although they may establish their own pricing in relation to payers and payees;
Amendment 152 #
2013/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 a (new)
Amendment 155 #
2013/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 b (new)
(25b) 'average', in relation to interchange fees, means the total amount of credit card or debit card interchange fees paid, divided by the total amount of related transactions over the same time period.
Amendment 167 #
2013/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. With effect from two months after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for cross-border debit card transactions with a debit card a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of, on average, more than 0,2 % of the value of the transaction.
Amendment 179 #
2013/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. With effect from two months after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for cross-border credit card transactions with a credit card a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of, on average, more than 0,3 % of the value of the transaction.
Amendment 191 #
2013/0265(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Article 4
Amendment 264 #
2013/0264(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 32
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 32
32. ‘payment initiation service’ means a payment service enablingservice based on access to a payment account provided by a third party payment service provider, where upon request and express consent by the payer, whereby either the payer can be activedirectly involved in the payment initiation, or the payment order is transmitted by the third party payment service provider’s software, or where payment instruments can be used by the payer or the payee to transmit the payer’s credentials to the account servicing payment service provider;
Amendment 222 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive lays down rules concerning the transparency and comparability of fees charged to consumers on their payment accounts held within the European Union and provided by payment service providers located in the Union and rules concerning the switching of payment accounts within the Uniona Member State.
Amendment 253 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities referred to in Article 20, determine a provisional list of at least 20list of payment services accounting for at least 80% of the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level. The list shall contain terms and definitions for each of the services identified.
Amendment 261 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 264 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall notify to the Commission the provisional lists referred to in paragraph 1 within 6 monthsone year of the entry into force of this Directive.
Amendment 267 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Amendment 274 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Amendment 313 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 7
Article 4 – paragraph 7
Amendment 328 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that payment service providers provide upon request by the consumer with a statement of all fees incurred on their payment account at least annually. The statement may be provided or made available electronically.
Amendment 349 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts pursuant to Article 26 to define the format of the statement of fees, its common symbol and the order in which the servicMember States shall define the format of the statement of fees referred to in paragraph 51 of Article 3 shall be presented in the statement of fees.
Amendment 363 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Payment service providers may use brand names to designate their services in their contractual and commercial information, subject to the condition that they identify, where relevant, the corresponding term in the list referred to in Article 3, paragraph 5. Payment service providers shall not use brand names in the fee information document or the statement of fees1.
Amendment 410 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that the transferring and receiving payment service providers located in the Union provide a switching service within the same Member State as described in Article 10, or equivalent, to any consumer who holds a payment account with a payment service provider located in the Union.
Amendment 433 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Within onthree business days from the receipt of the authorisation referred to in paragraph 2, the receiving payment service provider shall request the transferring payment service provider to carry out the following tasks:
Amendment 459 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) set up within seven calendarbusiness days the standing orders for credit transfers requested by the consumer and execute them from the date specified in the authorisation;
Amendment 474 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point a
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point a
(a) send the receiving payment service provider the information indicated in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 within seven calendarbusiness days of receiving the request, the time limit starting from the point after the transferring payment service provider received the consumer's verification;
Amendment 492 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 8
Article 10 – paragraph 8
Amendment 496 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 9
Article 10 – paragraph 9
Amendment 503 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that fees, if any, applied by the transferring or the receiving payment service provider to the consumer for any service provided under Article 10, other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3, shall be appropriate and in line with the actual costs of that payment service provider.
Amendment 508 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any financial losfees and charges incurred by the consumer resulting from the non-complianceerrors of a payment service provider involved in the switching process with its obligations under Article 10 isare refunded by that payment service provider.
Amendment 510 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Amendment 576 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b a-b (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b a-b (new)
(ba) where there are weighty grounds for the refusal; (bb) the weighty grounds shall be linked to the consumer or his/her earlier behaviour. Such grounds may relate for instance to (a) criminal offences such as fraud committed by the consumer; (b) false and misleading information provided by the consumer resulting to an unjustified access to a payment account with basic features; (c) a risk for the payment service provider of supporting criminal activities; (d) essential and persistent breaches of contract; or (e) any other grounds being similar to ones listed in paragraph 2, points (a) to (d).
Amendment 589 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that, in the cases indicated in paragraph 3, the payment service provider immediately informs the consumer of the refusal, in writing and free of charge, unless such disclosure would be contrary to the objectives of national security or public policy or the relevant Union or national legislation.
Amendment 598 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that a payment account with basic features includes the followingessential payment services. Member States shall take into consideration the Recommendation 2011/442/EU when determining which payment services: are essential.
Amendment 664 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the consumer deliberately used or abused the account for criminal activitiillegal purposes;
Amendment 665 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 679 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) the consumer provided false or misleading information which is essential for the contractual relationship;
Amendment 681 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point d b (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point d b (new)
(db) the consumer perpetrated essential breach of the contract;
Amendment 684 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In these or similar cases, the payment service provider has right to terminate the contract immediately or as soon as possible.
Amendment 691 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3
Article 18 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that where the payment service provider terminates the contract of a payment account with basic features, it informs the consumer of the grounds and the justification for the termination at least 2 months before the termination enters into force, in writing and free of charge unless otherwise provided by the relevant Union or national legislation.
Amendment 710 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 23
Article 23
Amendment 733 #
2013/0139(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by [onetwo years after entry into force of this Directive] at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 192 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point f
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point f
(f) providers of gambling services. With the exception of casinos and online gambling Member states may exclude specific types of gambling services where the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is neglectable due to low stakes and the ways by which the gambling services are provided.
Amendment 293 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) for providers of gambling services, when carrying out occasional transactions amounting to EUR 2 000 or more, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked. Member States may exclude from due diligence measures certain types of gambling services where the risk of money laundering is minimal due to the low stakes used and the means by which these gambling services are provided making them an impractical and inefficient method for laundering money;
Amendment 300 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) for providers of gambling services, when carrying out occasional transactions amounting to EUR 2 3000 or more, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked;
Amendment 25 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas tax fraud and tax evasion constitute an illegal activity of evading tax liabilities, while, on the other hand, tax avoidance is the legal but improper utilisation of the tax regime to reduce or avoid tax liabilities, and whereas tax competition should remain permitted in future too;
Amendment 66 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the EU should lead the discussions and should assistencourage non-EU countries into subscribing to the EU principles ofe to transparency, exchange of information and abolition of harmful tax measures;
Amendment 74 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers it of paramount importance that the Commission deal with non-EU countries on behalf of the EU without leaving the initiative exclusively to MS to individually engage in bilateral agreements;
Amendment 101 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on Member States to commit to an ambitious but realistic target of halving the tax gap by 2020, since this would gradually generate new tax revenue without raising tax rates and could thus even enable the tax rate to be reduced in some Member States;
Amendment 110 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that a strong commitment to reducing the tax gap would contribute to the necessary stabilisation of financial markets, help with fiscal consolidation while easing its austerity effects, increase public investment resources or alternatively enable the tax rate to be reduced, improve the efficiency and fairness of national tax systems, and raise general tax compliance levels;
Amendment 128 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on Member States to agree and implement a compulsory Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base;
Amendment 9 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas arms exports can have inter alia a considerable impact not only on security, but also on development,an impact on human security and must therefore be at the very least embedded within a strict arms control system operating with maximum effectivenessansparent and effective arms control system;
Amendment 25 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas Article 10 of the Common Position clearly states that compliance with the eight criteria takes precedence over anywhile Member States may take into account the interest of proposed exports from the economic, social, commercial or, and industrial pointerests of Member States of view, such considerations must not affect the application of the criteria underlying the Common Position;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the Common Position containannual reports nto democraticallybe produced aund binding list, together with reasons,er the Common Position contain no list identifying countries arms exports to which would violate one or more of the eight criteria;
Amendment 47 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas measures on trafficking of small arms and light weapons have been adopted in recent years, with an updated List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies under the Wassenaar Arrangement being adopted in February 2012, and areas such as control of arms brokering, licensed production outside the EU and end-user control have been put on the agenda and, to some extent, incorporated into the Common Position itself, but many products, in particular in the field of dual- use goods, are still not covered by a legally binding arms exports control system; whereas the EU legislation on dual-use goods regulates the export, transfer, brokering, and transit of such goods;
Amendment 61 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas the industry is calling for an expansion in arms exports in order to offset the forecast slackening in demand within the EU, and whereas that call is being backed by many politicians and political parties as a contribution towards strengthening the Europe’s arms industry basean defence industry, technological know-how, security of supply, and preparedness;
Amendment 63 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas there has been a process of actively involving committed Member States, NGOs, national parliaments and the European Parliament, too, to varying degrees, in assessing, harmonising, carrying through and monitoring compliance with the Common Position is slow and is not being vigorously pursued; whereas civil society, researchers, and NGOs have been working to bring shortcomings to light;
Amendment 72 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. AcknowledgNotes that the EU is the only union of states to have a legally binding framework, unique in the world, through which arms export control is being improved, including in crisis regions and countries with a questionable human rights record, and welcomes the fact, in this connection, that European and non- European third countries have joined the arms exports control system on the basis of the Common Position; notes with concern, however, that the eight criteria are not being applied and interpreted with varying degrees of rigourconsistently in the EU Member States; calls therefore for a standard, uniformly strict interpretation and full implementation of the Common Position with all its obligationby the Member States;
Amendment 77 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that, because of the negative impact of arms spending on arms spending may be incompatible with the development prospectaims of poorer recipient countries, criterion 8 should be upgraded by making denial of export licences automatic if they are incompatible with development;
Amendment 82 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that, in the interests of transparency, the Common Position should be complemented by a regularly updated, publicly accessible list, with detailed reasons, providing information on the extent to which exports to particular recipient countries are, or are not, in keeping with the eight criteria; considers that the above list should be managed by an independent body, for example the European External Action Service;
Amendment 93 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists, in the light of the Common Position review process, that support should be voiced for powerful,the Common Position be made clearer and more unambiguous wording in the Common Position in order to preventduce the criteria from being interpreted and applied differently; insists in particular that Article 10 of the Common Position be acted on and that, accordingly, application of the critsk of divergent interpretations; insists that Article 10 of the Common Position be acted on and that, accordingly, Member States be allowed to consider proposed exports from the point of view of their economic, social, commercia not be neul, and industrialised or stopped because of political, economic or geostrategic interests interests, with the explicit proviso, however, that application of the criteria laid down in the Common Position must not be neutralised on that account;
Amendment 101 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regrets the fact that there is no possibility of having compliance with the eight criteria independently verified, that there are no mechanisms for sanctionconsequences for violation of the eight criteria by a Member State, and that there are no plans to that effect; takes the view that ways and means of carrying out independent verification and mechanisms for sanctions forof violations of the Common Position should be provided for;
Amendment 113 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls furthermore for the eight criteria to be extended and applied also to the transfer of military, security and police personnel, to arms-exports-related services, know-how and training, and to private military and securityProposes that the eight criteria be applied also to arms-exports-related services; calls for it to be made mandatory – where security technology and, in general, dual- use goods are to be exported – for compatibility with the eight criteria to be verified;
Amendment 129 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that the Directive simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community has made arms exports within Europe considerably easier; calls in this connection for the COARM annual report also to include detailed information on arms exports within Europe which violate one or more of the eight criteria;
Amendment 157 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the UN Member States to adopt additional binding criteria, as international standards, for guiding arms export decision-makers and, in the process, to take account of, in particular, the destination country’s situation as regards human rights, the impact on the country’s socio- economic development and the preservation of regional peace and security;
Amendment 164 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. TStresses that disarmament is not the object of the Common Position, but takes the view that the European Union shouldmust meet its increasedgrowing responsibility for peace and security in Europe and in the world by means of further arms limitation and disarmament initiatives and that,and act as a responsible global player, it should lead the way, i.e. that it should play an active role in the areas of non-n the areas of preventing the illegal proliferation of arms, and promoting global disarmament and arms transfer controls;
Amendment 168 #
2012/2303(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 111 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas Union and national policy makers should continuously explain to their citizens the benefitsimpact of a single currency, including on the ecosts and risks linked to a break upnomy of the euro area;
Amendment 114 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
Amendment 134 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas restoring confidence also requires those Heads of State and Government and their Ministers to defend loyalspeak openly in their Member States about the policy decisions they agreed upon at Union level and to explain that they subscribed to those policies in the belief that they will safeguard the future of their own citizens; whereas by imputing unpopular decisions to the Union, a particularly dangerous game of perception is being played which risks eroding the Union from below, undermining solidarity and ultimately damaging the European project as a wholeheir consequences;
Amendment 156 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas it is beyond doubt that the European integration is an irreversible and progressive procesEuropean integration should be a democratic process in which the opinions of citizens of the Union are genuinely and fully taken into account; whereas the opinions of citizens iof Member States meticulously honour their European engagementsthe Union should be taken into account by means of referendums before deeper European integration takes place;
Amendment 194 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AE
Recital AE
AE. whereas the ambitionobjective should be that allfor Member States jointly take steps forward towards greater European integrationto enter into cooperation on a voluntary basis to tackle the crisis; whereas decisions that only apply to the euro area might be needed where required or justified on the basis of the specificity of the euro area, not excluding opt-ins for other Member States;
Amendment 451 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital BZ
Recital BZ
Amendment 464 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital CA
Recital CA
Amendment 479 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital CB
Recital CB
CB. whereas, it must be kept in minf economic and monetary union leads to common issuance of debt, it should be noted that the introduction in a hasty or not credible way of instruments for common issuance of debt may lead to uncontrollable consequences and the loss of long-term trust in the euro area's capacity to act decisively;
Amendment 566 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital CM
Recital CM
CM. whereas due to the ongoing crisis the debate has grown not only on the governance of EMU but also on the democratic nature of the decision making within EMU; whereas the opinions of citizens of the Union should be taken into account by organising a referendum on the deepening of economic and monetary union;
Amendment 576 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital CN
Recital CN
CN. whereas the European Council has acted responsibly for the past years in the management of the crisis, formulating numerous proposals to find a way out of the crisiformulated numerous crisis management proposals in recent years for which in the Treaties not always a clear competence to the Union has been assigned; whereas such proposals ought not to be adopted without the clear approval of citizens of the Union’s Member States, which should be demonstrated by means of a direct referendum;
Amendment 768 #
2012/2151(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – part 2 – point 2.3 – paragraph 1
Annex – part 2 – point 2.3 – paragraph 1
Amendment 7 #
2012/2092(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. BelievStresses that the EU budget should not be exempt from reflect the austerity measures and other efforts oftaken by many Member States to bring public spending under control and return public finances to sustainability;
Amendment 14 #
2012/2092(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. EncouragesCalls for a priority driven approach to budget 2013 with any budget line increase accompanied by a corresponding budget line cut;
Amendment 19 #
Amendment 34 #
2012/2092(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. BelievEmphasises that when the ESAs are given additional tasks in the future there should be a cost assessment made at a suitable stage during the legislative process, such as during trilogue negotiations, in order for MEPs and Member States to fully understand the cost consequences of the proposals they are making;
Amendment 34 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that each payment method has its costs; asks the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost of cash payments compared to other payment methods; asks the Commission also to take into consideration the societal impacts of different payment methods; recalls that all Europeans should have an access to basic banking services;
Amendment 51 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Supports the involvement of all the parties concerned in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; notes that these parties may include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the European Payments Council (EPC), consumer organisations, the European Banking Authority, the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) Council, the Commission, experts in various fields, non- banking payment service providers and representatives of mobile, internet and card payment providers; considers that the SEPA Council should be the key player in defining the framework and future guidelines for a more integrated market on card, internet and mobile payments;
Amendment 63 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that further standardisation is needed to promote cross-border acquiring, an arrangement which would increase competition and the choices available for merchants and could result in more cost- efficient payment methods for customers; believes that merchants should be better informed about the cross-border acquiring possibilities;
Amendment 90 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that a maximum level for MIFs should not be imposed by regulation at EU level as this could cause the currently low MIFs available in some Member States to rise closer to the maximum level allowed; stresses that legal clarity and certainty are needed regarding the MIFs;
Amendment 111 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that the customer and the issuing PSP should mutually agree on co- badging and that it should not be made mandatory, while the choice of brand should be left to the customer;
Amendment 136 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that the security of face-to- face card payments is already high and the gradual change from magnetic cards to chip cards will improve the level of security even further;
Amendment 138 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that providing third parties with data on the availability of funds in bank accounts entails risks; notes that one of the risks is that consumers may not be fully aware of who has access to their account information and which operator is responsible for the payment services the consumer is using; stresses that the data protection may not be compromised at any stage;
Amendment 142 #
2012/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information before secure systems are developed, built and thoroughly tested; notes that in any future regulation special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights; considers, in particular, that it should be clearly specified which parties can have access to which information and under which conditions the data can be stored; stresses that a clear distinction between access to information on the availability of funds for a given transaction and access to a customer's account information in general should be made when establishing a regulatory framework for third-party access;
Amendment 696 #
2012/0061(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 57 #
2011/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the fact that the priorities set up within the Bologna process represent the conditions necessary to guarantee that every student enrolled in a European university has the right to graduate and to see his qualification recognised in any EU country, with the goal of creating a genuine European University Citizenship;
Amendment 204 #
2011/2180(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Encourages the establishment of an effective Euro-Mediterranean Higher Education Area, following the example of the Bologna ProcessConsiders the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) created by the Bologna Process to be progressive; calls therefore for a Euro-Mediterranean Higher Education Area to be incorporated into this existing structure; calls on the European Commission to support the Euro- Mediterranean University (EMUNI);
Amendment 35 #
2011/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that ESL is more common among boys than girls and is more common in certain minority groups such as Roma;
Amendment 125 #
2011/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Encourages Member States to invest in teacher training and generally in qualified and well-trained staff for both preschool and compulsory education; suggests that teaching assistants be employed in schools to work with struggling pupils and to assist classroom teachers in their work;
Amendment 135 #
2011/2088(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Highlights the importance of appropriate class and group sizes and a stimulating learning environment for young people;
Amendment 74 #
2011/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of encouraging participation in sports activities in schools and universitieseducational institutions; points out the significance of sport in curriculum planning;
Amendment 132 #
2011/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Encourages Member States to take account of the experience of former sportspeople when they wish to become trainers, and to establish specificsupport dual career paths for high-level athletes who decide to pursue a course of higher education and provide tutors for them;
Amendment 322 #
2011/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – indent 4
Paragraph 25 – indent 4
– to set up atrengthen existing mobility programme fors by taking into account young athletes, to enable them to learn new training methods and develop their European awareness and to encourage intercultural dialogue;
Amendment 332 #
2011/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Proposes that the European flag should be flown at major international sports events held on EU territory and suggests that it should be displayed on the clothing of athletes from Member States;
Amendment 90 #
2011/0438(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Other categories of services continue by their very nature to have a limited cross- border dimension, namely what are known as services to the person, such as certain social, health and educational services. These services are provided within a particular context that varies widely amongst Member States, due to different cultural traditions. A specific regime should therefore be established for public contracts for these services, with a higher threshold of EUR 500 000. Services to the person with values below this threshold will typically not be of interest to providers from other Member States, unless there are concrete indications to the contrary, such as Union financing for transborder projects. Contracts for services to the person above this threshold should be subject to Union-wide transparency. Given the importance of the cultural context and, the sensitivity of these services, Member States should be githe subsidiarity principle, Protocol 26 on Services of general interest, Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Member States haven wide discretion to organise the choice of the service providers in the way they consider most appropriate, as closely as possible to the needs of the users, and taking into account the differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from different geographical, social or cultural situations, and to ensure universal access, continuity and availability of the services in all territories of the Union. The rules of this directive take account of that imperative, imposing only observance of basic principles of transparency and equal treatment and making sure that contracting authorities are able to apply specific quality criteria for the choice of service providers, such as the criteria set out in the voluntary European Quality Framework for Social Services of the European Union's Social Protection Committee, which are designed to ensure a high level of quality, continuity, accessibility, availability and comprehensiveness of the services, the specific needs of different categories of users, the involvement and empowerment of users, their satisfaction, social inclusion and, where relevant, innovation. Member States and/or public authorities remain free to provide these services themselves or to organise social services in a way that does not entail the conclusion of public contracts, for example through the mere financing of such services or by granting licences or authorisations to all economic operators meeting the conditions established beforehand by the contracting authority, without any limits or quotas, provided such a system ensures sufficient advertising and complies with the principles of transparency and non- discrimination.
Amendment 358 #
2011/0438(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 76 – paragraph 2
Article 76 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that contracting authorities may take into account the need to ensure high quality, continuity, accessibility, affordability, availability and comprehensiveness of the services, the specific needs of different categories of users, the involvement and empowerment of users and innovation. Member States may also provide that the choice of the service provider shall not be mad, their satisfaction, social inclusion and, where relevant, innovation. When drawing up quality criteria, contracting authorities may refer to the criteria set out in the svolely on the basis of the price for the provision of the suntary European Quality Framework for Social Services.
Amendment 15 #
2011/0392(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) The Council, in its Conclusions on Common Security and Defence Policy of 1 December 2011, emphasised the growing demand for the European Union to become a more capable, coherent and strategic global actor, reiterated the continuing need for a comprehensive approach and underlined the importance of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) which needs to be underpinned by sufficient and adequate capabilities – in terms of personnel, assets and intelligence analytical support. Moreover, the Council welcomed Member States' commitments in specific concrete projects, facilitated by the European Defence Agency (EDA) like in the fields of: Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance including Space Situational Awareness and Military Satellite Communications, and stated that it looked forward to the concrete definition of these projects as soon as possible, as well as the development of other pooling projects on the basis of existing initiatives, such as: maritime surveillance and Satellite Communication.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0392(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
Recital 4 b (new)
(4b) The Council, in its 7th Space Council Resolution of 25 November 2010, invited the European Commission, the European Council, assisted by EDA, together with Member States and the European Space Agency (ESA), to explore ways to support current and future capability needs for crisis management through cost-effective access to robust, secure and reactive space assets and services (integrating global satellite communications, Earth observation, positioning and timing), taking full advantage of dual-use synergies as appropriate. Accordingly, it welcomed the growing support of the EU Satellite Centre (EUSC) to EU missions and operations and recommended the setting up of appropriate arrangements to improve the effectiveness of EUSC service provision to EU missions and operations, and to facilitate access to national programme imagery. In addition, the Council acknowledged the increasing dependence of the European economy and policies, in particular the Common Foreign and Security Policy, on space assets and the critical nature of space infrastructures for autonomous European decision-making, and the need to define and introduce appropriate measures to monitor and protect these assets, including at the outset of their development.
Amendment 21 #
2011/0392(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to optimise the use of the services provided, the systems, networks and services emerging from the Galileo and EGNOS programmes must be compatible and interoperable with one another and, insofar as possible, with other satellite navigation systems and conventional means of radio navigation. Interoperability should be in line with the objective of strategic independence of the systems.
Amendment 35 #
2011/0392(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4 – point d
Article 1 – paragraph 4 – point d
(d) to offer a public regulated service (PRS) restricted to government-authorised users, for sensitive applications with sensitive content or of strategic importance which require a high level of service continuity; this service uses strong, encrypted signals;
Amendment 28 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensumay require that statutory auditors and audit firms comply with international auditing standards when carrying out statutory audits as long as those standards are in conformity with the requirements of this Directive and of Regulation XX/XX.
Amendment 30 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States may impose audit procedures or requirements in addition to the international auditing standards only if those audit procedures or requirements stem from specific national legal requirements relating to the scope of statutory audits. Member States shall ensure that those audit procedures or requirements comply with the following conditions:also stipulate in more detail about the application of the international auditing standards.
Amendment 31 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Amendment 32 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 33 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 37 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point b
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 32 – paragraph 3
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. The competent authority may allow non- practitioners who are knowledgeable in the areas relevant to statutory audit to be involved in the governance of the public oversight system, provided that they are selected in accordance with an independent and transparent nomination procedure. Practitioners shall not be allowedMember States may, however, allow a minority of practitioners to be involved in the governance of the public oversight system.
Amendment 99 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) To support mobility, equity and study excellence, the Union should establish a European loan guarantee facility to enablncourage students, regardless of their social background, to take their Masters degree in another participating country. This facility should be available to financial institutions which agree to offer loans for Masters' studies in other participating countries on favourable terms for the students.
Amendment 111 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Improved transparency of qualifications and competences and extended acceptance of Union tools should facilitate mobility throughout Europe for lifelong learning purposes, therefore contributing to the development of quality education and training, and will facilitate mobility for occupational purposes, between countries as well as across sectors. Opening up access for young students (including vocational and education training students) tolifelong learning methods, practices and technologies used in other countries will help to improve their employability in a global economy; it can also help making jobs with an international profile more attractive.
Amendment 153 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 28 a (new)
28a. "Grassroots sport" means organised sport practised at local level, often characterised by voluntary work.
Amendment 251 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) to promote social inclusion, equal opportunities and health-enhancing physical activity through voluntary activities and increased participation in sport.
Amendment 254 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 403 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – point d – introductory part
Article 5 – point d – introductory part
(d) To enhance the international dimension of education, and training and youth notably in higher education by increasing the attractiveness of the Union higher education, notably through cooperation between Union and third country institutions and supporting the Union external action, including its development objectives through the promotion of mobility and cooperation between EU and third country higher education institutions and targeted capacity building in third countriesfield of VET and in higher education.
Amendment 672 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) to promote voluntary activities in sport, as well as social inclusion, equal opportunities and health-enhancing physical activity through increased participation in sport.
Amendment 771 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 798 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission in cooperation with Member States shall ensure the dissemination of information, publicity and follow-up with regard to all actions and activities supported underby the Programme, as well as the dissemination of the results of the previous Lifelong Learning, Erasmus Mundus and Youth in Action Programmes.
Amendment 68 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The credit rating market shows that, traditionally, credit rating agencies and rated entities enter into long-lasting relationships. This raises the threat of familiarity, as the credit rating agency may become too sympathetic to the desires of the rated entity. In those circumstances, the impartiality of credit rating agencies over time could become questionable. Indeed, credit rating agencies mandated and paid by a corporate issuer are incentivised to issue overly favourable ratings on that rated entity or its debt instruments in order to maintain the business relationship with such an issuer. Issuers are also subject to incentives that favour long-lasting relationships, such as the lock-in effect: an issuer may refrain from changing credit rating agency as this may raise concerns of investors regarding the issuer’s creditworthiness. This problem was already identified in Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, which required credit rating agencies to apply a rotation mechanism providing for gradual changes in analytical teams and credit rating committees so that the independence of the rating analysts and persons approving credit ratings would not be compromised. The success of those rules, however, was highly dependant on a behavioural solution internal to the credit rating agency: the actual independence and professionalism of the employees of the credit rating agency vis-à-vis the commercial interests of the credit rating agency itself. These rules were not designed to provide sufficient guarantee towards third parties that the conflicts of interest arising from the long-lasting relationship would effectively be mitigated or avoided. It therefore appears necessary to provide for a structural resposupport meanse having a higher impact on third parties. This could be achieved effectively by limitingdone by giving encouragement to shorten the period during which a credit rating agency can continuously provides credit ratings on the same issuer or its debt instruments. Setting out a maximum duration ofhortening the business relationship between the issuer which is rated or which issued the rated debt instruments and the credit rating agency shcould remove thduce incentives for issuing favourable ratings on that issuer. Additionally, requiring the rotation of credit rating agencies as a normal and regular market practice should also effectively addressShorter business relationships might serve to eliminate the lock-in effect, where an issuer refrains from changing credit rating agency as this would raise concerns of investors regarding the issuer’s creditworthiness. Finally, tThe rotation of credit rating agencies shcould have positive effects on the rating market asif it would facilitated new market entries and offered existing credit rating agencies the opportunity to extend their business to new areas. Laying down a binding maximum duration rule is not the way to increase competition in this sector.
Amendment 76 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Regular rotation of credit rating agencies issuing credit ratings on an issuer or its debt instruments should bring more diversity to the evaluation of the creditworthiness of the issuer that selects and pays that credit rating agency. Multiple and different views, perspectives and methodologies applied by credit rating agencies should produce more diverse credit ratings and ultimately improve the assessment of the creditworthiness of the issuers. For this diversity to play a role and to avoid complacency of both issuers and credit rating agencies, the maximum durationshortening of the business relationship between the credit rating agency and the issuer paying must be restricted to a level guaranteeing regular fresh looks at the creditworthiness of issuers. Therefore, a time period of three years would seem appropriate, also considering the need to provide certain continuity within the credit ratings. The risk of conflict of interest increases in situations where the credit rating agency frequently issues credit ratings on debt instruments of the same issuer within a short period of time. In those cases, the maximum duration of the business relationship should be shorter to guarantee similar results. Hence, the business relationship should stop after a credit rating has rated ten debt instruments of the same issuer. However, in order to avoid imposing a disproportionate burden on issuers and credit rating agencies, no requirement to change credit rating agency within the first 12 months of the business relationship should be imposed. Where an issuer mandates more than one credit rating agency, either because as an issuer of structured finance instruments he is obliged to do so, or on a voluntary basis, it should be sufficient that the strict rotation periods only apply to one of the credit rating agencies. However, also in this case, the business relationship between the issuer and the additional credit rating agencies should not exceed a period of six yearsshould be encouraged where appropriate, provided that the accuracy of ratings would not be undermined.
Amendment 84 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 94 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The change of credit rating agency inevitably increases the risk that knowledge about the rated entity acquired by the outgoing rating agency is lost. As a result, the incoming credit rating agency would have to make considerable efforts to acquire the knowledge necessary to carry out its work. However,This is one reason why it may be difficult for an issuer to change agencies. To facilitate the change, the possibility of a smooth transition should be ensured by establishing a requirement on the outgoing credit rating agency to transfer relevant information on the rated entity or instruments to the incoming credit rating agency.
Amendment 101 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Requiring issuers to regularly change the credit rating agency they mandate to issue credit ratings is proportionate to the objective pursued. This requirement only applies to certain regulated institutions (registered credit rating agencies) which provide a service affecting the public interest (credit ratings that can be used for regulatory purposes) under certain conditions (issuer-pays model). The privilege of having its services recognised as playing an important role in the regulation of the financial services market and being approved to carry out this function, entails the need to respect certain obligations in order to guarantee independence and the perception of independence in all circumstances. A credit rating agency which is prevented from providing credit rating services to a particular issuer would still be allowed to provide credit ratings to other issuers. In a market context where the rotation rule applies to all players, business opportunities will arise since all issuers would need to change credit rating agency. Moreover, credit rating agencies may always issue unsolicited credit ratings on the same issuer, capitalising on their experience. Unsolicited ratings are not constrained by the issuer-pays model and therefore are less affected by potential conflicts of interests. For issuers, the maximum duration of the business relationship with a credit rating agency or the rule on the employment of more than one credit rating agency also represents a restriction on their freedom to conduct their own business. However, this restriction is necessary on public- interest grounds considering the interference of the issuer-pays model with the necessary independence of credit rating agencies to guarantee independent credit ratings that can be used by investors for regulatory purposes. At the same time, these restrictions do not go beyond what is necessary and should rather be seen as an element increasing the issuer’s creditworthiness towards other parties, and ultimately the marketIssuers should not be required to regularly change the credit rating agency they mandate to issue credit ratings, but the possibility to change agencies should be made easier and more attractive.
Amendment 117 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 131 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The new rules limitingBy offering incentives to shorten the duration of the business relationship between an issuer and the credit rating agency would significantly reshape the credit rating market in the Union, which today remains largely concentrat, in cases where it would be appropriate to do so, credit rating market concentration could be reduced. New market opportunities wouldmight arise for small and mid-size credit rating agencies, which would need to develop to take up those challenges in the first years following the entry into force of the new rules. Those developments ar. Those developments would be likely to bring new diversity into the market. The objectives and the effectiveness of the new rumarket will not become less would, however, be largely jeopardised if, during these initial years,concentrated if large established credit rating agencies would prevent their competitors from developing credible alternatives by acquiring them. Further consolidation in the credit rating market driven by large established players would result in a reduction of the number of available registered credit rating agencies, thus creating selection difficulties for issuers at the moment in which they regularly need to appoint one or more new credit rating agencies and disturbing the smooth functioning of the new rules. More importantly, further consolidation driven by large established credit rating agencies would particularly prevent the emergence of more diversity in the market.
Amendment 137 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 231 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 8
Article 1 – point 8
Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009
Article 6a and 6b
Article 6a and 6b
Amendment 422 #
2011/0361(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – point 1 – point b
Annex III – point 1 – point b
Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009
Annex III – Part I – points 26a to 26 f
Annex III – Part I – points 26a to 26 f
Amendment 23 #
2011/0261(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The recent financial crisis has led to debates at all levels about a possible additional tax on the financial sector and in particular a financial transactions tax (FTT). This debate stems from the desire to ensure the financial sector contributes to covering the costs of the crisis and that it is taxed in a fair way vis-à-vis other sectors for the future; to dis-incentivise excessively risky activities by financial institutions; to complement regulatory measures aimed at avoiding future crises and to generate additional revenue for general budgets or specific policy purposes. The power to decide on the use of this additional revenue is vested in the Member States.
Amendment 175 #
2011/0261(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
In that report the Commission shall, at least, examine the impact of the FTTcosts and revenues of the FTT and its impact on the proper functioning of the internal market, the financial markets and the real economy and it shall take into account the progress on taxation of the financial sector in the international context.
Amendment 37 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The revised Annex VI to MARPOL introduces, inter alia, stricter sulphur limits for marine fuel in SECAs (1.00% as of 1 July 2010 and 0.10% as of 1 January 2015) as well as in sea areas outside SECAs (3.5% as of 1 January 2012 and, in principle, 0.50% as of 1 January 2020). Most Member States are obliged to require ships to use fuel with maximum 1.00% sulphur content in SECAs as of 1 July 2010 based onunder their international commitments. In order to ensure coherence with international law as well as to secure proper enforcement of new globally established sulphur standards in the Union, the provisions of Directive 1999/32/EC should be aligned with the revised Annex VI to MARPOL. In order to ensure a minimum quality of fuel used by ships either for fuel- or technology -based compliance, marine fuel the sulphur content of which exceeds the general standard of 3.5 % by mass should not be allowed for use or placing on the market in the Union.
Amendment 66 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Complying with the low fuel sulphur limits, particularly in SECAs, can result in a significant increase in the price of marine fuels, at least in the short term, and can have a negative effect for the competitiveness of short sea shipping in comparison with other transport modes as well as for the competitiveness of the industries in the countries bordering SECAs. Suitable solutions are necessary in order to reduce compliance costs for the affected industries, such as allowing for alternative, more cost-effective methods of compliance than fuel-based compliance and providing support, where necessary. The Commission will, on the basedis inter alia onf reports from Member States, closely monitor the impacts of the shipping sector’s compliance with the new fuel quality standards, particularly with respect to possible modal backshift from sea to land based transport-based transport. The Commission should allow the possibility of deferral at national level, taking into account the Member States’ specific geographical features and the importance of sea transport for their trade.
Amendment 71 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) In view of the economic situation and possible adverse effects of this Directive, the Commission should propose specific support measures for the sectors concerned before the Directive enters into force.
Amendment 73 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 b (new)
Recital 11 b (new)
(11b) The Commission should allow the possibility of vessel-related deferral if the continued operation of a given older seagoing ship under the new standards is manifestly and with good reason not economically viable.
Amendment 110 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point b
Article 1 – point 6 – point b
Directive 1999/32/EC
Article 4 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 4 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) 0.10% as from 1 January 201520.
Amendment 93 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point 1
(1) Works pPublished in the form of books, journals, newspapers, magazines or other writings, andworks and sound recordings which are contained in the collections of publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives, or
Amendment 101 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. A work or a sound recording shall be considered an orphan work if the rightholder in the work is not identified or, even if identified, is not located after a diligent search for the rightholder has been carried out and recorded in accordance with Article 3.
Amendment 105 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. Where a work or a sound recording has more than one rightholder, and one of the rightholders has been identified and located, that work shall not be considered an orphan work.
Amendment 108 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of establishing whether a work is anor a sound recording is orphan work, the organisations referred to in Article 1(1) shall ensure that a diligent search is carried out for each work, by consulting the appropriate sources for the category of works in question.
Amendment 114 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The sources that are appropriate for each category of works or sound recordings shall be determined by each Member State, in consultation with rightholders and users, and include, the sources listed in the Annex.
Amendment 125 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4
Article 4
A work or a sound recording which is considered an orphan work according to Article 2 in a Member State shall be considered an orphan work in all Member States.
Amendment 130 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5
Article 5
Member States shall ensure that a rightholder in a work or a sound recording considered to be orphan has, at any time, the possibility of putting an end to the orphan status.
Amendment 134 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that the organisations referred to in Article 1(1) are permitted to use an orphan work or a sound recording in the following ways:
Amendment 135 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) by making the orphan work or the sound recording available, within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC;
Amendment 139 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. However, unless otherwise provided in Article 7, the organisations referred to in Article 1(1) may not use orphan works or sound recordings in order to achieve aims other than their public interest missions, notably preservation, restoration and the provision of cultural and educational access to works contained in their collections.
Amendment 144 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the organisations referred to in Article 1(1), when using orphan works or sound recordings in accordance with paragraph 1, maintain records of their diligent search and publicly accessible records of use.
Amendment 150 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States may authorise the organisations referred to in Article 1(1) to use an orphan work or a sound recording for purposes other than those referred to in Article 6(2), provided that:
Amendment 151 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) the organisations maintain publicly accessible records of their use of orphan works or sound recordings;
Amendment 152 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) in the case of an orphan work or a sound recording where a rightholder has been identified but not located, the name of the rightholder is indicated in any use of the work or the sound recording;
Amendment 156 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) rightholders which put an end to the orphan status of the work, within the meaning of Article 5, are remunerated for the use that has been made of the work or the sound recording by the organisations referred to in Article 1(1);
Amendment 165 #
2011/0136(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The provisions of this Directive shall apply in respect of all works or sound recordings referred to in Article 1 which are, on [transposition date], protected by the Member States' legislation in the field of copyright.
Amendment 2 #
2010/2308(INI)
3. Highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to an EU security strategy, based on a holistic concept of human security anchored on the promotion ofin human rights, freedom, democracy, peace and stabilitythe rule of law, good governance and peace;
Amendment 9 #
2010/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to an EU security strategy, based on a holistic concept of human security anchored on the promotion of human rights, freedom, democracy, peace and stability;
Amendment 12 #
2010/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the need for the EU to integrate a wide-ranging human security perspective into its relationships with third countries, particularly on border management, migration, fighting organised crime and smuggling, state failure and underdevelopment;