13 Amendments of Gunnar BECK related to 2020/2223(INI)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
- having regard to Commissioner Vestager´s comments in Handelsblatt of 1 December 2020, "EU-Kommission bremst bei Staatshilfen für die Deutsche Bahn",
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 b (new)
Citation 18 b (new)
- having regard to General Court rulings T-778/16 and T-892/16 regarding the Commission´s tax package,
Amendment 33 #
D a. whereas a State intervention can only be considered state aid when it meets all the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that excessive tax burdens may stifle innovation and jeopardise the contestability of markets, especially for SMEs; calls on the Commission to scrutinize the distortive effects of high taxation with the same vigour as the distortive effects of low taxation;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesTakes note of the adoption of a Temporary Framework for State aid measures established in response to the COVID-19 crisis;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for reflecan in-depth investigation inton possible distortions of competition arising from (i) the European Central Bank’s pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP) and corporate sector purchasing programme (CSPP); (ii) the European Central Bank´s public sector purchasing programme (PSPP), especially deviations from the capital key for the distribution of bonds purchases and its disproportionate effects across Member States; (iii) disproportionate benefits to certain banks in certain Member States from negative interest rates on TLTRO loans;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Expresses concern about the interest rates applied by the Commission to the payments for the Next Generation EU debt-financed programme, estimated at EUR 17.4 billion; recalls that the Commission's interest rates reflect a gradual return of the EU’s borrowing costs from their current levels to their averages before the recent decline in interest rates observable since the beginning of 2019; seriously questions whether it is prudent to set an interest rate at Q1 2019 levels under the current monetary and economic circumstances; calls on the Commission to investigate whether such yields are equitable and whether they could distort the bond market;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that Parliament should play an active role in the political debate on competition policy, including through organising a public hearing with the CEOs or CFOs of GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple);
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Recalls EU General Court rulings T-778/16 and T-892/16 regarding the Commission´s tax package; notes that the Court ruled that the incomplete and occasionally inconsistent nature of tax rules are not, in themselves, sufficient proof of the existence of an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU; underlines that the Commission did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard that there was an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Regrets Commissioner Vestager's comments in Handelsblatt of 1 December 2020, attacking German budgetary policies; underlines that bad budgetary policies in other Member States should not affect the discretion of Member States with sound budgetary policies to provide State Aid;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Recalls that Member States can legally suspend the short selling of shares to protect a certain company or sector against speculation; argues that the suspension of short selling prevents these concerns from being valued in the market, and prevents investors from reassessing the real value of the firm they invest in; by suspending the company’s operations, the state therefore intervened and prevented the company from losing any further capital during and after the suspension period, which could therefore mean that State aid was provided; regrets that benefits from short selling suspensions fall outside the definition of State Aid1a; calls on the Commission to provide an impact assessment of bringing such benefits under the definition of State Aid and the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU; _________________ 1aAsnwer to written Question E- 003800/2020, 21 August 2020.