16 Amendments of Francesca BARRACCIU related to 2013/0000(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2012 on Evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean1, –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Texts adopted P7_TA(2012)0269.
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
- having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee INT/653 of 26 March 2013 on the internal market and state aid for the regions,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard the Communication of the Commission of 1998 to the Member States on the links between regional and competition policy – reinforcing concentration and mutual consistency (COM(98)0673),
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
K a. whereas the absence of any reference to Member States’ financial capacity may further unlevel the playing field across the EU;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recalls that achieving consistency between regional policy and competition policy has been largely recommended by the Commission inviting all EU institutions and Member States to share such responsibility when designing the various instruments in order to converge on the common goal of UE economic, social and territorial cohesion for a strong single market;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that the geographical zoning of the new Guidelines on Regional State Aid 2014-2020 (RSAG) should not be reduced, and that decreasing the aid intensity should be reconsidered, taking into account the political, economic and social situation in the Member States; points out that, in the global context, the EU economy could be placed at a disadvantage relative to third countries benefitting from looser employment schemes or lower costdisadvantaged areas of the EU, necessary balance sheet adjustments in the private sector and economic uncertainty are undermining investments and access to finance, thus increasing disparities across regions; invites the Commission to introduce safeguards against the “deep pocket distortions” that may arise among Member States, like financial caps to be fine-tuned to the different fiscal capacities of Member States;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses that as part of the wider modernisation process, regional State aid should be updated in line with the dynamics and pace of the post-crisis economy, which bring a need for greater flexibility when determining regional disadvantages; considers that, to that end, the selection of disadvantaged areas under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU exemption should not be conditioned by a mere mathematical subtraction of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU population from the total EU assisted population covered, but Member States should be allowed to use a broad set of parameters for determining the actual regional disadvantages; reminds the Commission that in full line with the objectives of the Treaty, particular attention shall be paid not only to the disadvantages deriving from low population density, but also from the economic complexity of mountain and insular regions, from closeness to borders as well as from natural disasters;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out to the restrictive impact of new rules on investment and growth of regions as they move from the less developed to the more developed category; is aware that certain regions eligible for State aid under the current system will not meet the zoning criteria of the RSAG in the future period; believes that these regions as well as regions severely hit by the crisis for which the public funding under Cohesion Policy and regional State Aid might be the only source of investment, should have a special safety regime, similar to that for transition regions under the Cohesion Policy, allowing them to cope with their new situation;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the role of State aid in economies which have been particularly hard hit by the crisis and for which the public funding under the Cohesion Policy might be the only source of investment; points out that the adverse economic situation is not yet reflected by the data for the 2008-2010 period, to be used by the Commission as a basis of State aid eligibility; welcomes the Commission’s intention to perform a mid-term review of the regional maps in 2016; at the same time invites the Commission to take into consideration the possibility to notify specific interventions under the regional derogations also outside the regional aid map to allow Member States to tackle the backlashes of the crisis which may arise throughout the programming period 2014-2020, as well as the long term repercussions on the real economy of the natural disasters, which may remain invisible to the statistic database used for the ex ante mapping the assisted areas;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Highlights that “isolation” (i.e. low population density) is the only geographical disadvantage which is relevant for the derogation under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU; believes that geographical disadvantages such as insularity, closeness to the border and natural disasters should also be made relevant;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls the Commission to include all NUTS 2 level regions consisting solely of an island or of several islands in the list of ‘predefined “c” areas’ covered by Article 107(3)(c) TFEU;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Calls the Commission to authorise all NUTS 2 level regions consisting solely of an island or of several islands to implement operating aid to cover the additional costs of transport;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its call on the Commission to provide promptly for clear guidance for assessing what is State aid under the definition of Article 107 (1) TFEU and what is not, as well as for detailed criteria for distinguishing between important and less important State aid cases as announced in the SAM road map;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Urges the Commission to adopt measures, such as an increase in the threshold for de minimis aid for islands, with special reference to the agriculture, transport and fishery sectors, that contribute to making island territories equally competitive with the mainland territories so as to reduce the gap between different levels of development among European regions and ensure their effective integration in the single market;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is of the opinion that excluding large enterprises companies from State aid rules in areas covered by Article 107(3)(c) TFEU is not justified given their contribution to employment, the supply- chains that they create with SMEs, their common involvement in research and development, and the role they play in the economic crisis; takes the view that the presence of large undertakings is often key to the success of SMEs that benefit from clusters led by large companies and from their sub-contracting activities; reminds that the Commission itself recognised the knock-on effects and access to world markets brought by the investment of large companies; underlines that such a decision may lead to job losses and reduced economic activity in the regions and to the relocation of companies to other regions either within and outside the EU;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Stresses that regional State aid must be fine-tuned to ensure it does not encourage businesses to move or relocate, in "subsidy races" caused by high differentials in aid in neighbouring and bordering regions which fragment the single market; highlights that such negative externalities may affect regions sharing a land or maritime border as well as proximity areas;