[ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1309/20131 does not fully reflect the agreement reached between the Parliament and the Council to reintroduce the crisis mobilisation criterion, to increase Union financial contribution to 60 % of the total estimated cost of proposed measures; insists that the Commission did not duly analyse the effectiveness of the use of the crisis derogation criterion, especially taking into account that those EGF cases were not duly considered in the EGF framework review; regrets that the results did not arrive in time to feed into the discussion on the new regulation for the EGF in 2014-2020, especially regarding the effectiveness of the use of the crisis derogation criterion; believes, nonetheless, that this should be taken into account for the future evaluation of the EGF; calls on the co-legislators to consider the full reintroduction of this measure without delay, especially in the context of the social emergency situations in several Member States, ____________________ 1 Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014- 2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855).deleted

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

Siegfried MUREŞAN

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. welcomes the extension of the objectives and criteria of the EGF Regulation introduced in December 2013, in order to integrate and facilitate applications from regions and countries with a smaller demographic density; deeply regrets that this has an exceptional character and is limited to a threshold of a maximum of 15 % of the maximum annual amount of the EGF, while these regions are suffering a much higher impact of the global social, economic and financial crisis,

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

Siegfried MUREŞAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Agrees with the Commission decision that the application for EGF financial contribution on 19 December 2013 submitted by Belgium is entitled to a financial contribution under Article 2(c), which requires exceptional circumstances to be demonstrated, despite the fact that the conditions set out in Articles 2(a) and 2(b) of the EGF Regulation are not met; underlines however that invoking Article 2(c) should be assessed on a case-by-case situation and should not become a prerequisite for the mobilisation of the EGF when basic conditions are not met;

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

Siegfried MUREŞAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the EGF is a special instrument that allows the Union to react to specified unforeseen circumstances and should maintain its main purpose, that is to provide support in case where, during a reference period, a large number of workers (minimum 500) are made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and global financial and economic crises; stresses that the EGF must not become a substitute for other European Structural and Investment Funds, such as the European Social Fund, and must be used to complement such funds; emphasises that the exceptional circumstances which allow for the mobilisation of the EGF must not divert from the above-mentioned scope;

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

Siegfried MUREŞAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that the Belgian authorities submitted the application for EGF financial contribution on 19 December 2013 under Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, which does not cap the time for instruction and that its assessment was made available by the Commission on 21 January 2014; regrets the insufficient information given in respect of the exceptional circumstances invoked; underlines that such exceptional circumstances must be duly assessed in order to obtain a derogation from the conditions set out in Articles 2(a) and 2(b) of the EGF Regulation;

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

Siegfried MUREŞAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the co-legislators to introduce special provisions to facilitate the mobilisation of the EGF in Member States and in particular in regions which are facing particularly serious social, economic and financial constraints; insists that the fund would increase its effectiveness and produce a much higher impact if the general threshold was placed at 200 workers, instead of 500;deleted

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

Siegfried MUREŞAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Following the extension of the objectives, criteria and eligible beneficiaries of the EGF, insists on the need to increase the level of appropriations available for the EGF, both in commitments and in payments, to at least the 2013 level, that is to say, to at least EUR 500 million; furthermore, reminds the Council of Parliament's position to consider the integration of the EGF in the Union budget in the framework of the 2014-2020 MFF review, in accordance with the principle of budgetary unity;deleted

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

Siegfried MUREŞAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes that the coordinated package of personalised services to be co-funded includes the following measures for the reintegration of the 2507 redundant workers into employment (grouped by category): (1) individual job-search assistance, case management and general information services, (2) training and retraining and (3) promotion of entrepreneurship;

2015/02/16
Committee: BUDG

8 Amendments of Siegfried MUREŞAN related to 2015/2017(BUD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024