722 Amendments of Oldřich VLASÁK
Amendment 8 #
2013/2176(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. States that it is of the utmost importance for the EU's social cohesion to tackle the high unemployment rates, in particular among young people, in the EU by boosting regional competitiveness and employment; calls, therefore, foron the Member States to use the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds to focus on creating jobs by providing a hospitable environment for small enterprises, businesses and start-ups;
Amendment 12 #
2013/2176(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the ESI Funds provide support for authorities and stakeholders at the local and regional levels to foster research, development and innovation and improve the competitiveness of SMEs, and thereby to tfackle the current economic challenges, in particular the high unemployment rate;
Amendment 14 #
2013/2176(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that efforts to support growth in a sustainable economy must ensure ashould take account of balances between economic and social requirements and impose, take account of safety and health standards, in order to provide decent, well- and lead to adequately paid jobs in all regions of the EU;
Amendment 18 #
2013/2176(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the ESI Funds have an important role to play in supporting concrete projects aimed at enhancing the entrepreneurial skills of young peopleand creative skills of people, including the young ones, and underlines the need for all Member States and regions to make full use of this opportunity in order to tackle youth unemployment;
Amendment 29 #
2013/2176(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that the provisions of the regulations for the new cohesion policy period (2014-2020) willshould reduce the administrative burden on SMEs, thereby contributing to better conditions for job creation; calls on the Member States to use every opportunity to simplify their national rules that will lead to better implementation of the ESI funds for SMEs.
Amendment 9 #
2013/2175(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Draws attention to the situation in many Member States where commercial banks continue to attach unduly tough conditions to investment financing for SMEs; stresses the importance of ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of the proposed and adopted legislation aiming at helping SMEs get access to financing;
Amendment 6 #
2013/2134(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is strongly concerned by the sharp downfall in public and private investment in the productive economy and especially at the local and regional level; Is of the opinion that decisive measures are needed to reform product and labour markets, adopt cautious wage policies and base the future growth model on innovation and shift production towards high value-added activities; Expresses its firm belief that the Structural and Investment Funds are essential in order to prevent and mitigate any shortfall in the aforementioned respects; and for boosting public investments; points out to opportunities which could be used in the Member States to support public investments from the Structural Funds by providing certain flexibility to the financial procedures of these funds, e.g. by increasing the co- financing rates of the states which enter into an adjustment programme and receive the EU financial assistance or by prolonging the decommitment rule by one year for all Member States in the programming period 2007 - 2013 (as will be the case in the programming period 2014 - 2020).
Amendment 6 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes a paradigm shift for the regions in the way energy is produced and consumed, moving from an inflexible traditional model, which functions on a ‘base load logic’, to variable,Understands that in order to preserve sustainable development and to meet the requirements of the future demands new models of energy production and consumption based on decentralised and local production should be promoted, integrating a high share of small-scale renewable energy with flexible and responsive demand and distributed storage; stresses that a smart grid is essential for such a paradigm shift and that smart grid implementation mustshould be embedded in a cross-sectoral approach to regional development in order to maximise benefits for the regions;
Amendment 13 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on Member States and the regions to invest as early as possiblethoroughly consider an investment into local smart grids by using the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), including financial instruments to leverage private investment, taking into account the environmental, economic, social and territorial needs of the specific region, as there is no single solution for all regions; calls for a flexible approach at local and regional level to reduce the barriers to combining measures for energy production, storage and efficiency, and to work with other sectors such as the information and communication technology (ICT) and transport sectors;
Amendment 18 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the deployment of smart grids requires a stable, long-term planning and policy framework; calls on the Commission to propose ambitious, binding targets for 2030 for energy efficiency and renewable energies as well as for greenhouse gas emissions, in order to give future certainty to investors and interconnected industries and to facilitate a smart energy system;
Amendment 24 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that for smart grids to be successfully implemented, Europe must pursue a ‘smart energy system’a strategy for regions and local communities aimed at "smart energy system" should be developed, with smart grids becoming part of the regional energy system and integrating a high share of energy from renewable sources, including decentralised generation capacities, combined with demand-side management, energy efficiency measures, the increase of energy savings, and smart storage solutions, the transport sector (e- transport) and increased exchange with neighbouring networks;
Amendment 27 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission, and its Smart Grid Task Force, to update and expand its existing definition of smart grids to include the smart energy system; calls on local and regional authorities to adoptwork on adoption of regional strategies based around a smart energy system;
Amendment 35 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Strongly eEncourages all regions to consider investment in smart energy systems as a potential source of local and sustainable jobs; highlights that the construction industry is one of the main areas where jobs will be created, not only through direct investments in smart energy grids, but also through investments in energy efficiency measures and renovations, for instance in the housing sector;
Amendment 43 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on all regions to consider investments into skills and training for these new jobs, taking into account that a significant number of new local jobs can also be created in the ICT services, the transport sector and sectors that supply smart equipment and services, for instance for new installations;
Amendment 59 #
2013/2128(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Highlights that under the new ESIF regulations for the period 2014-2020, Member States are obligated to concentrate ESIF resources on investments for a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe; welcomesnotes that the minimum share towill be set out for regions to concentrate, depending on their level of economic development, up to 20 % of ERDF resources on the production and distribution of energy derived from renewable sourceshould be dedicated to energy savings, energy efficiency as well as smart grids at the distribution level; points out that the Cohesion Fund also allows for investment in this area and; calls on the Member States to make best use of this new opportunity;
Amendment 2 #
2013/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph A
Paragraph A
A. whereas regional quality branding will popularise rural districts and stimulate their economies and the development of sustainable tourism, thus benefiting the inhabitants and also conserving the natural and cultural heritageis important for regions and for the rural economy, as it emphasises the links between products and services and the specific, unique areas in which they originate, and therefore may contribute to the development of sustainable tourism and improve the competitiveness of those regions;
Amendment 4 #
2013/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph B
Paragraph B
B. whereas popularising the products and services of local firms will make a region more attractive to tourists, form its character and; whereas this will have a positive influence on perceptions of the region as a whole;
Amendment 10 #
2013/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers it important to identify specific features at regional level and to organise cooperationassist in organising cooperation at regional level with all parties concerned in the further development of these aspectsregional branding;
Amendment 28 #
2013/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that in order to provide for the increased success of regional quality brands, the exchange of experience, networking and partnerships are essential; recognises the role of representative bodies, such as associations, at local, regional, national and European level which provide for the promotion of regional quality brands and enhance their visibility; Calls on Member States to promote the establishment of platforms for cooperation and to promote existing support forthe exchange of experience and know-how to develop regional quality branding and local products and services of interest to tourists;
Amendment 34 #
2013/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that thisese platforms should provide all parties concerned with informative and educational explanations of the role of tourism andregional quality brands and their contribution to tourism and other sectors, a database containing examples of good practice from all over Europe, as well as specific offers aimed at particular target groups and at popularising regional quality branding;
Amendment 35 #
2013/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Is of the opinion that in order to be successful, regional quality brands need a necessary critical mass of professionals and funding, and that they should, therefore, be better supported in a horizontal and targeted manner by the European Structural and Investment Funds and other European instruments;
Amendment 36 #
2013/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Is of the opinion that it is essential to draw a clearer distinction between regional quality brands, protected geographical indications and protected designations of origin, since these systems are founded according to different principles and deal with different areas, and to use specific instruments to support these systems;
Amendment 15 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the improvements made to the regulation that will introduce a stronger and more integrated approach to cohesion policy funding through the Common Strategic Framework; recognises that this it is vital to ensuring that projects have a greater impact and produce tangible results; calls on the Member States to introduce even more measures simplifying the bureaucracy and administration of the programmes that would lead to smother implementation and drawing of the funds;
Amendment 22 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights the fact that, while conditionality measures already exist in cohesion policy, the next programming period will be aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of funding by making funding conditional on compliance with certain criteria; is of the opinion that the Cohesion Policy is a policy in support of cohesion between regions that should not serve as a guarantee of other EU policies aimed at macroeconomic reforms of the EU states;
Amendment 23 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that advanced preparations are dependent on the relevant authorities and organisations having sufficient capacity to invest time and money in preparations and to release sufficient number of personnel at an early stage;
Amendment 31 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Points out that some Member States are planning to change the content of their OPs, including a; welcomes that certain Member States decided to make changes towards multi- funded programmes or a reduction in the number of OPs at regional level;
Amendment 39 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that there is evidence that Member States composed of powerful regional representations are potentially slower in their preparations; highlights the fact that these Member States often have a high number of OPs at regional level, which adds to the bureaucracy and, requires stronger control by the central government and is more demanding as regards coordination of respective authorities on the national, regional and local level;
Amendment 43 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Highlights the fact that a federal Member State or a Member State with elected regional governments could benefit from a more succinct, flexible and joined-up approach to OPs; stresses, with this in mind, that having a single OP, where previously there were individual OPs for each province/federation, brings many benefits by enabling priorities to be aligned more easily with national objectives;
Amendment 47 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Recognises that a reduction in OPs would initially involve a substantial management and organisational change and might bring with it an increased risk of delay due to the changes caused by the complexity of implementing OPs alongside programming at different national and regional levels; recognises also that the political structures in federal Member States or in Member States with elected regional governments might constitute an obstacle to achieving a single OP;
Amendment 50 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Calls on the Commission to make the preparedness of Member States´ Partnership Agreements public by means of e.g. a summary per Member State so that the other Member States and authorities may learn from good practices and approaches;
Amendment 53 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Recognises that common problems identified in the previous programming period included having priorities that were too broadly defined; calls, therefore, for a more strategic and streamlined approach to priorities in the future, with fewer priorities targeted at specific objectives; is of the opinion that certain flexibility of priorities is essential in order to reflect individual needs of the Member States, their regions and local authorities;
Amendment 62 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial Investments and Joint Action Plans; understands that there is, however, a mixed response to the new instruments and that evidence shows; is aware that CLLD is being more widely implemented than ITIs due to its much longer existence and due to the fact that ITIs are a new instrument that will need some time to be properly put into practice; recognises that it remains to be seen how the initial preparations will translate into these instruments being fully implemented;
Amendment 71 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Points out that a simplified application process for beneficiaries was identified by many Member States as an important aspect of preparations for the next programming period; welcomes this as a way of ensuring that the preparation and implementation of projects run smoothly, with reduced bureaucracy for applicants; calls on the Member States to identify and simplify also measures on the level of controls and auditing;
Amendment 27 #
2013/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Encourages the regions to invest in cross-industry and cross-technology activities which can generate cross-cutting links throughout the regional economy so that as many businesses as possible, including SMEs and various sectors, such as creative industries, can benefit from them;
Amendment 43 #
2013/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Makes it clear that, in the process, for developing a shared vision, it is important that universities, research and innovation centres and, businesses and local and regional policy-makers be as closely networked as possible;
Amendment 6 #
2013/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas in the EU, investment has acted as an adjustment variable in two out of three countries, partly owing to efforts made in 2009 to combat the crises; whereas direct investment dropped in 2011 compared to 2010 in 17 Member States, of which by more than 10% in eightten countries, including Greece, Portugal Spain, Italy and Ireland 2011 (Austria, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Greece, Hungary and Spain); whereas the drop in investment which began in 2010 (investment grants by central governments plunged by - 8.7%) is continuing and seems to be entering a negative spiral;
Amendment 7 #
2013/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas the level of indebtedness of sub-national governments is well below the level of indebtedness of national actors;
Amendment 12 #
2013/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with great concern the clear pattern of rising regional inequality in the EU today, with many relatively poor regions in the New Member States and Southern Europe and majority of rich regions in Central and Northern Europe;
Amendment 22 #
2013/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that as regards the regulations for the European Structural and Investment Funds the VAT qualification, an adequate rate of the European co-financing as well as the level of initial pre-financing amount increased at least to the level of 2,5% compared to the original proposal of the European Commission would in future contribute significantly to the financial capacity of regional and local authorities to invest in their development and struggle with budgetary constrains;
Amendment 30 #
2013/2042(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines the need to carry out an impact assessment of all legislative proposals proposed by the Commission which would include assessment of financial impact of the proposed act on the sub-national structures;
Amendment 41 #
2013/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that the local and regional authorities must have adequate competences and responsibilities relating to the implementation of the energy efficiency objectives as well as energy supply and use;
Amendment 82 #
2013/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Stresses that excessive specification and binding targets as regards the implementation of the energy efficiency objectives may increase expenditures of regional and local authorities on implementing these measures and impose additional costs for costumers;
Amendment 97 #
2013/2038(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Member States to follow up on the Commission's recommendations and to increase capacity building, using technical assistance budgets, in order that local, regional and civil society actors can participate in regional climate change adaptation and mitigationand local energy strategies ;
Amendment 1 #
2013/2017(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the strategic role a robust, results-oriented Cohesion Policy plays in generating jobs and growth throughout the Union; emphasises that sthe European Structural and cohesion fInvestment Funds are significant components of public investments in the Member States and, their regions and local governments;
Amendment 5 #
2013/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. Whereas cohesion policy will continue to be the main source of EU public funding in the context of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, and whereas cohesion policy new framework is putting all the emphasis on the need to concentrate investment in those few areas deemed to be most important, such as employment (in particular youth employment) and labour mobility, training and education, SMEs, innovation, energy, environment, andresearch, technological development and innovation, ICT, sustainable transport and bottlenecks removal, energy, environment, promotion of institutional capacity of public authorities and efficient public administration, urban development and cities;
Amendment 17 #
2013/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that – evidence notwithstanding that local and regional authorities are being involved in the preparation of Partnership Agreements – further action must be taken to reinforce the territorial dimension of the governance system of cohesion policy, the Europe 2020 strategy and the European Semester, by ensuring real coordination and complementarity among the different levels of governance, on one hand, and consistency of the priorities established at those levels with the needs and specificities identified at national, regional and local levels, on the other, while still allowing, where appropriate and necessary, some policy issues to be dealt with in a top- down manner; it stresses the importance to ensure that municipalities and regions are duly engaged in establishing national strategies as they introduce non-mediated view on problems and challenges faced;
Amendment 33 #
2013/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is concerned that, although it is clearUnderstands that evaluation has an essential role to play in the policy debate and learning, the lack of data – and the impossibility, in many instances, of aggregating it – makes it impossible to monitor in a proper manner progress made at regional and local level towards the established targets, and considers it a priority to broaden and update regional statistics and improve the quality of data and therefore it is necessary to monitor in a proper manner progress made; it points, however, out that the authorities at regional and local level are already overloaded by their own agenda and such monitoring must not bring them any additional burden;
Amendment 25 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The Fund should contribute to the restoration of infrastructure to working order or to a state in which it will be better able to withstand natural disasters, including relocation, to the cleaning up of disaster- stricken zones and to the costs of the rescue services and for temporary accommodation for the population concerned during the whole implementation period. The time-span during which the accommodation of people made homeless by the disaster may be considered temporary should also be defined.
Amendment 31 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) It should also be specified that eligible operations should notmay include expenditure for technical assistance.
Amendment 33 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) CFor certain types of natural disaster, such as droughts, that are developing over a longer period of time before their disastrous effects are felt. P, or floods or severe frost that are in the nature of sustained disasters, provisions should be made to allow the use of the Fund also in such cases.
Amendment 46 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Article 2 – point 3
Article 2 – point 3
For the purposes of this Regulation, a ‘regional natural disaster’ shall mean any natural disaster resulting, in a region of a Member State or a country involved in accession negotiations with the Union at NUTS 2 level, or at the level of several directly neighbouring NUTS 3 regions that together form an area possessing the minimum characteristics of a NUTS 2 region, in direct damage in excess of 1,50 % of the region’s gross domestic product (GDP). Regional natural disaster shall also include any crossborder natural disaster at the level of directly neighbouring NUTS 3 regions of Member States or countries involved in accession negotiations with the Union, that together form an area possessing the minimum characteristics of a NUTS 2 region. Where the disaster concerns several regions at NUTS 2 or NUTS 3 level, the threshold shall be applied to the weighted average GDP of those regions.
Amendment 50 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Article 2 – point 4
Article 2 – point 4
Assistance from the Fund may also be mobilised for any natural disaster in an eligible State which is a major natural disaster or a regional natural disaster in a neighbouring Member State or a country involved in accession negotiations with the Union.
Amendment 65 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 74 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Article 4 – paragraph 1a a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1a a (new)
In the event of a sustained natural disaster (such as flooding), the ten-week application deadline referred to in paragraph 1 shall run from the date at which the public authorities of the eligible State have officially terminated the threat of natural disaster (by, for example, repealing the state of emergency declared by the Member State or regional authority, etc.).
Amendment 84 #
2013/0248(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
The contribution from the Fund shall be used within onetwo years from the date on which the Commission has disbursed the full amount of the assistance. Any part of the contribution remaining unused by that deadline or found to be used for ineligible operations shall be recovered by the Commission from the beneficiary State.
Amendment 15 #
2013/0241(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The Joint Technology Initiative on Bio-based Industries should mitigate the different types of market failures that discourage private investment into pre- competitive research, demonstration and deployment activities for bio-based industries in Europe. In particular, it should ascertain the availability of reliable biomass supply taking into account other competing social and environmental demands, and support the development of advanced processing technologies, large scale demonstration activities and policy instruments, thus reducing the risk for private research and innovation investment in the development of sustainable and competitive bio-based products and biofuels and enabling all stakeholders including those from rural areas to profit from such an initiative.
Amendment 12 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) It is essential that the statistical production necessary for the performance of the activities of the Union should only be based on reliable data. In the production of MIP relevant data, which is an essential input for the detection of macroeconomic imbalances as well as the prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances within the Union, unreliable data can have a significant impact on the interest of the Union. Additional measures to make the enforcement of the production, provision and quality monitoring of MIP relevant data more effective are necessary for the performance of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure. Those measures should enhance the credibility of the underlying statistical information as well as of the provision and quality monitoring of the MIP relevant data. In order to deter against misrepresentation, whether intentional or due to serious negligence, of MIP relevant data, a mechanism of financial sanctions should be established, which will also serve the purpose of ensuring due diligence in the production of MIP relevant data.
Amendment 13 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) It is essential that the statistical production necessary for the performance of the activities of the Union should only be based on reliable data. In the production of MIP relevant data, which is an essential input for the detection of macroeconomic imbalances as well as the prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances within the Union, unreliable data can have a significant impact on the interest of the Union. Additional measures to make the enforcement of the production, provision and quality monitoring of MIP relevant data more effective are necessary for the performance of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure. Those measures should enhance the credibility of the underlying statistical information as well as of the provision and quality monitoring of the MIP relevant data. In order to deter against misrepresentation, whether intentional or due to serious negligence, of MIP relevant data, a mechanism of financial sanctions applied to the Eurozone Member States should be established, which will also serve the purpose of ensuring due diligence in the production of MIP relevant data.
Amendment 14 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 34 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Amendment 35 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The Council, acting on a proposal by the Commission, may decide to impose a fine on a Eurozone Member State that intentionally or by serious negligence misrepresents the MIP relevant data.
Amendment 36 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Amendment 38 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The fine referred to in paragraph 1 shall be effective, dissuasive and proportionate to the nature, seriousness and duration of the misrepresentation. The amount of the fine shall not exceed 0.025% of the GDP of the Member State concerned.
Amendment 40 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 41 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Amendment 42 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5
Article 9 – paragraph 5
Amendment 43 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
Article 10
Amendment 44 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 45 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Amendment 46 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Amendment 47 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Amendment 48 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Amendment 49 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Amendment 50 #
2013/0181(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 187 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) exchanged in kind between persons other than professional operators.;
Amendment 206 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d j (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d j (new)
(dj) produced and used exclusively for personal usage.
Amendment 609 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) it is made available on the market in small quantities by persons other than professional operators, or by professional operators employing no more than ten persons andby professional operators whose annual turnover or balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million;
Amendment 619 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) it fulfils the conditions set out in Title III of this regulation.
Amendment 627 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Article 36 – paragraph 2
Amendment 631 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 3
Article 36 – paragraph 3
Amendment 792 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 57 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) in case the variety had been previously not registered in a national variety register or in the Union variety register and plant reproductive material belonging to that variety has been made available on the market before the entry into force of this Regulation;
Amendment 815 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 828 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3
Article 57 – paragraph 3
Amendment 834 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4 – point a
Article 57 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) it is based, where available, on information from growers themselves, plant genetic resources authorities or from organisations recognised for that purpose by the Member States; and
Amendment 1036 #
2013/0137(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 89 – paragraph 2
Article 89 – paragraph 2
2. Applicants employing fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million shall be exempted from the payment of the fees provided for in Article 87 and Article 88.
Amendment 98 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Using alternative engines that no longer rely only on fossil fuels and are therefore non-polluting or less polluting, such as electric or hybrid engines for heavy-duty vehicles or buses (mainly in urban or suburban environments) generates extra weight which should not be counted at the expense of the eff, helps the European Union to attain energy independence and to achieve the objective loads of the vehicle so that the road transport sector is not penalised in economic terms'Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system' white paper.
Amendment 162 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Transport operations shall be considered to not significantly affect international competition in the transport sector if they take place on the territory of a Member State or, for a cross-border operation, between only two neighbouring Member States who have both adopted measures taken in application of this paragraph, and if one of the conditions under (a) and (b) is fulfilled:. In the case of transport operations on the territory of a single Member State, as well as in the case of the aforementioned cross-border operations, the Member States affected may restrict such operations – in a non-discriminatory manner – to only the selected infrastructure. The Member States shall, in such a case, be obliged to inform carriers of such restrictions adequately and as far in advance as possible.
Amendment 214 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Amendment 246 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
The requirements set out in paragraph 2 are adopted in accordance with paragraph 5 below. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts concerning the requirements which the new tractor cabs must meet in accordance with Article 16. These take the form of technical characteristics, minimum levels of performance, design constraints, and procedures for the establishment of the test certificate indicating the increase in aerodynamic performance referred to in paragraph 3. The Commission shall adopt the aforementioned delegated acts no later than one year after the entry into force of this Directive.
Amendment 255 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 10a – paragraph 1
Article 10a – paragraph 1
The maximum weights of vehicles with hybrid propulsion or fully electric propulsalternative propulsion, which do not exclusively use fossil fuels and which therefore produce no pollution or produce only minor amounts of pollution, shall be those set out in Annex I, point 2.3.1.
Amendment 302 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – point ii
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – point ii
Amendment 304 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – point iii
Article 12 – paragraph 5 – point iii
Amendment 307 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Article 12 – paragraph 6
In accordance with paragraph 1, Member States shallmay encourage the equipment of vehicles and vehicle combinations with onboard weighing devices (total weight and axle load) to enable the weight data to be communicated at any time from a moving vehicle to an authority carrying out roadside inspections or responsible for regulating the transport of goods. This communication shall be through the interface defined by the CEN DSRC13 standards EN 12253, EN 12795, EN 12834, EN 13372 and ISO 14906. __________________ 13 DSRC: Dedicated Short-Range Communications
Amendment 312 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 7
Article 12 – paragraph 7
Amendment 318 #
Amendment 327 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new)
Directive 96/53/EC
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 349 #
2013/0105(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 – point c
Directive 96/53/EC
Annex I – point 2.3.1 – indent 2
Annex I – point 2.3.1 – indent 2
two-axle motor vehicles other than buses, and with hybrid or electric propulsion: 198 tonnes
Amendment 30 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2012/34/UE
Article 7 b (new) – paragraph 7
Article 7 b (new) – paragraph 7
The members of the supervisory or management boards and senior staff of the infrastructure manager, as well as employees thereof with access to confidential information, shall hold no interest in or receive any financial benefit, directly or indirectly, from any other legal entities within the vertically integrated undertaking. Performance-based elements of their remuneration shall not depend on the business results of any other legal entities within the vertically integrated undertaking or any legal entities under its control, but exclusively on those of the infrastructure manager.
Amendment 33 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2012/34/UE
Article 7 d (new) – paragraph 3
Article 7 d (new) – paragraph 3
The Coordination Committee shall draw up rules of procedure that include, in particular, rules on participation in and frequency of meetings which shall be at least quarterly, as well as rules on regular consultations – to take place at least once a year – with the representatives of freight and passenger transport service users. A report of the Coordination Committee’s discussions shall be submitted annually to the infrastructure manager, the Member State, the regulatory body concerned and the Commission with an indication of the respective positions taken by the Committee members.
Amendment 46 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The completion of the opening of the Union railway market shall be seen as essential so that the railway could become a credible alternative to other modes of transport in terms of price and quality.
Amendment 69 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order to ensure equal access to the infrastructure, any conflicts of interest resulting from integrated structures encompassing infrastructure management and transport activities should be removed. Removing incentives to discriminate against competitors is the only way to guarantee equal access to the railway infrastructure. It is a requirement for the successful opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail. This should also remove the potential for cross-subsidisation, which exists in such integrated structures, and which also leads to market distortions, as well as staff remuneration and other benefits which might cause preferential treatment with regard to one of the competitors.
Amendment 110 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Despite the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing independence vertically integrated undertakings could abuse of their structure to provide undue competitive advantages for railway operators belonging to such undertakings, For this reason, without prejudice to Art 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission should verify, upon request of a Member State or on its own initiative, that these safeguards are effectively implemented and that any remaining distortions of competition are removed. In case the Commission is not in a position to confirm that this has been achieved, all Member States should have the possibility to limit or revoke access rights of the integrated operators concerned. Moreover, all Member States should have the possibility to limit or revoke access rights of the integrated operators concerned, in case the Member States are not allowed by EU institutions to choose freely between the independence of the infrastructure manager from railway transport undertakings and the vertically integrated undertaking.
Amendment 116 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Regulatory bodies should assesOn its own initiative or following a request made by interested parties, regulatory bodies should assess on the basis of an objective economic analysis the potential economic impact of domestic passenger services provided under open access conditions on existing public service contracts following a request made by interested parties and on the basis of an objective economic analysis.
Amendment 227 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. For the implementation of this Article, where the person referred to in paragraph 2 is a Member State or another public body, a responsible public body or its section, two public authorities which are separate and legally distinctd from each other and which are exercising control or other rights mentioned in paragraph 2 over the infrastructure manager, on the one hand, and the railway undertaking, on the other hand, shall be deemed not to be the same person or persons.
Amendment 263 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 7 a – paragraph 2
Article 7 a – paragraph 2
2. Legal entities within the vertically integrated undertaking that are active in railway transport services markets shall not have any direct or indirect shareholding in the infrastructure manager. NMor shalleover, the infrastructure manager shall neither have any direct or indirect shareholding in any legal entities within the vertically integrated undertaking active in railway transport services markets, nor shall have any direct or indirect interest in the operating profit of these entities.
Amendment 346 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 7 b – paragraph 7
Article 7 b – paragraph 7
7. The members of the supervisory or management boards and, senior staff as well as employees of the infrastructure manager with access to inside information shall hold no interest in or receive any financial benefit, directly or indirectly, from any other legal entities within the vertically integrated undertaking. Performance-based elements of their remuneration shall not depend on the business results of any other legal entities within the vertically integrated undertaking or any legal entities under its control, but exclusively on those of the infrastructure manager.
Amendment 375 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
3a. All Member States should have the possibility to limit or revoke access rights of the integrated operators referred to in the article 10, in case the Member States are not allowed by EU institutions to choose freely between the independence of the infrastructure manager from railway transport undertakings and the vertically integrated undertaking.
Amendment 399 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 7 d – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point fa (new)
Article 7 d – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point fa (new)
(fa) issues faced by users of rail freight and passenger transport services, such as service performance or the transparency of prices of rail services;
Amendment 406 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 7d – paragraph 3
Article 7d – paragraph 3
3. The Coordination Committee shall draw up rules of procedure that include, in particular, rules on participation in and frequency of meetings, which shall be at least quarterly and in case of regular consultations with representatives of users of rail freight and passenger transport services at least annually. A report of the Coordination Committee's discussions shall be submitted annually to the infrastructure manager, the Member State, the regulatory body as well as users of rail freight and passenger transport services concerned and the Commission with an indication of the respective positions taken by the Committee members.
Amendment 431 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 7 e – paragraph 2
Article 7 e – paragraph 2
2. The Network shall participate in the market monitoring activities referred to in Article 15 and benchmark the efficiency of infrastructure managers on the basis of common indicators and quality criteria, such as the reliability, capacity, availability, punctuality and safety of their networks, asset quality and utilisation, maintenance, renewals, enhancements, investments and, financial efficiency as well as transparency of the charging framework and charging rules.
Amendment 521 #
2013/0029(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 8 c (new)
Article 1 – point 8 c (new)
Directive 2012/34/EU
Article 56 – paragraph 1 - point ga (new)
Article 56 – paragraph 1 - point ga (new)
In Article 56, paragraph 1, the following point is added: (ga) scheduled or unscheduled maintenance work.
Amendment 7 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Over the past decade, the growth of passenger traffic by rail has been insufficient to increase its modal share in comparison to cars and aviation. The 6% modal share of passenger transport for rail in the European Union has remained fairly stable. Rail passenger services have not kept pace with evolving needsthe evolution of other modes of transport in terms of availability, price and quality.
Amendment 8 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) To facilitate the preparation of tenders, and hence enhance competition competent authorities need to ensure that all public service operators interested in making such a submission receive certain information on the transport services and infrastructure covered by the public service contract to the extent that they are not placed at a disadvantage with regard to other competitors by the contracting authority.
Amendment 10 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Where the market does not ensure it under suitable economic and non- discriminatory conditions, the competent authorities should facilitate public service operators' access to rail rolling stock needs to be facilitated by competent authorities through adequate and effective measure. However, in such matters they must proceed in such a way as not to favour one operator at the expense of others.
Amendment 14 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Regulation 1370/2007/EC
Article 2 – point c
Article 2 – point c
(c) ‘competent local authority’ means any competent authority whose geographical area of competence is not national and which covers the transport needs of a specific local area, e.g. a village, a town, an urban agglomeration or a rural district;
Amendment 17 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation 1370/2007/EC
Article 2 a (new) – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
Article 2 a (new) – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
1. Competent authorities shall establish and regularly update multiannual public passenger transport plans covering all relevant transport modes for the territory for which they are responsible. These public transport plans shall define the objectives of public transport policy and the means to implement them covering all relevant transport modes for the territory for which they are responsible. They shall at least include:
Amendment 24 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Regulation 1370/2007/EC
Article 5 a (new) - paragraph 1
Article 5 a (new) - paragraph 1
1. Member States shall in compliance with State aid rules take the necessary measures to ensure effectivequal conditions and non- discriminatory access to suitable rolling stock for public passenger transport by rail for operators wishing to provide public passenger transport services by rail under public service contract.
Amendment 47 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The completion of the opening of the Union railway market shall be seen as essential so that the railway could become a credible alternative to other modes of transport in terms of price and quality.
Amendment 59 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) To facilitate the preparation of tenders, and hence enhance competition competent authorities need to ensure that all public service operators interested in making such a submission receive certain information on the transport services and infrastructure covered by the public service contract. to the extent that they cannot be deemed as discriminated by the contracting authority with regard to other competitors.
Amendment 86 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Where the market does not ensure it under suitable economic and non- discriminatory conditions, competent authorities may facilitate public service operators' access to rail rolling stock needs to be facilitated by competent authorities through adequate and effective measures, but this must be done in ways which do not discriminate one operator against the other.
Amendment 118 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 2 – point c
Article 2 – point c
Amendment 145 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 2 a (new) – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 a (new) – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Competent authorities shall establish and regularly update multiannual public passenger transport plans covering all relevant transport modes for the territory for which they are responsible. These public transport plans shall define the objectives of public transport policy and the means to implement them covering all relevant transport modes for the territory for which they are responsible. They shall at least include:
Amendment 237 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 2 a (new) – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 2 a (new) – paragraph 6 – introductory part
For public passenger transport by rail with the exception of other track based modes such as metro and tramways:
Amendment 337 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 4 – point b
Article 1 – point 4 – point b
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 5 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The following subparagraph is added to paragraph 6: “In case of necessity to align the duration of separate public service contracts arising from tendering, competent public authorities may decide to make direct awards of interim public service contracts whose maximal duration, including possible extensions or repeated conclusions, shall in total not exceed 3 years.”
Amendment 346 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 point 5
Article 1 point 5
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 1
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 1
Member States shall in compliance with State aid rules take the necessary measures to ensure effectivelevel playing field and non- discriminatory access to suitable rolling stock for public passenger transport by rail for operators wishing to provide public passenger transport services by rail under public service contract.
Amendment 353 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 point 5
Article 1 point 5
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where rolling stock leasing companies which provide for the leasing of rolling stock referred to in paragraph 1 under non- discriminatory and commercially viable conditions to all of the public rail passenger transport operators concerned do not exist in the relevantEU market, Member States shall ensure that the residual value risk of the rolling stock is borne by the competent authority in compliance with State aid rules, when operators intending and able to participate in tendering procedures for public service contracts so request in order to be able to participate in tendering procedures.
Amendment 359 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 point 5
Article 1 point 5
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 374 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 point 5
Article 1 point 5
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 377 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 point 5
Article 1 point 5
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 3
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 3
Amendment 382 #
2013/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 point 5
Article 1 point 5
Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 4
Article 5 a (new) – paragraph 4
Amendment 95 #
Amendment 96 #
2013/0014(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. The Agency shall be a body of the Union with legal personality based at a central location which: (a) enables travel time and costs for the representatives of the NSAs and stakeholders from the railway sector to be minimized; (b) offers a good qualified staff-running costs ratio.
Amendment 103 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Electricity is a clean fuel particularly attractive for deployment of electric vehicles and electric two-wheelers in urban agglomerations which can contribute to improving air quality and reducing noise. Member States should ensdeavoure that recharging points for electric vehicles are built up with sufficient coverage, at least twice the number of vehicles, and 10% of them publicly accessible,taking into consideration geographical and socioeconomic aspects and focussing in particular on urban agglomerations. Private owners of electric vehicles depend to a large extent on access to recharging points in collective parking lots, such as in appartment blocks, office and business locations. Regulatory provisions should be set up by public authorities, assisting citizens by ensuring that the appropriate infrastructure with sufficient electric vehicle recharging points is provided by the site developers and managers.
Amendment 214 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a minimum number ofset a national target of public recharging points for electric vehicles are put into place, at least the number. Moreover, they shall endeavour that an indicative number of public and private recharging points given in the table in Annex II, are put into place by 31 December 2020 at the latest.
Amendment 222 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Amendment 239 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Member States shall consider granting compensation to users of electric vehicles with different standards of charging than those set out in Annex III.1.1. and Annex III.1.2.
Amendment 266 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 8
Article 4 – paragraph 8
Amendment 285 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States on the territory of which exist already at the day of the entry into force of this Directive hydrogen refuelling points shall ensdeavoure that a sufficient number of publicly accessible refuelling points are available, with distances not exceeding 300 km,in order to allow the circulation of hydrogen vehicles within the entire national territory by 31 December 2020 at the latest.
Amendment 354 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – introductory part
Annex I – introductory part
The National Policy Framework shallould contain at leastin particular the following elements:
Amendment 367 #
2013/0012(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – title
Annex II – title
Amendment 14 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas, according to the Commission, the purpose of its Regional Aid Guidelines is to promote a competitive and coherent single market, while at the same time ensuring that the distortive effects of the aid are kept to a minimum;
Amendment 82 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Recalls the position of the European Council who has instructed the Commission to ensure that the particular situation of regions bordering convergence regions is accommodated for; reminds the Commission that regions sharing common borders with regions from other Member States are most exposed to the economic developments brought about by the accession of new Member States; highlights therefore the importance of a balanced approach to the allocation of so-called 'a' and 'c' areas with a view to minimising the disparities in aid intensity between regions from different Member States sharing the same border;
Amendment 85 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Urges the Commission to prevent inappropriate differences in aid intensity at national borders, by providing Member States with regions adjacent to 'a' areas of another Member State with a specific allocation of 'c' coverage; takes the view that the specific allocation should be assigned to NUTS 3 regions or parts thereof, which border on an 'a' area of another Member State and are not predefined 'c' areas; considers that this allocation should, by way of derogation from the overall coverage ceiling, be assigned to the Member States in addition to the allocation of predefined and non- predefined 'c' areas;
Amendment 102 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that the general ex-ante conditionality on State aid within the Cohesion Policy requires that the Commission applies a more pro-active approach to State aid cases, in particular if the size and scope of aid exempt from notification increases; endorses the Court of Auditors’ view that the Commission should raise awareness about the obligation to notify, promote best practices, provide targeted information on the different types of notification, and either provide for the publication of a regularly updated section addressing frequently asked questions on the Commission’ competition website orand set up a help desk addressing questions regarding the interpretation of the guidelines;
Amendment 109 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that certain, newly proposed rules in the draft RSAG for 2014-2020 – such as counterfactual scenarios, clear evidence that the aid has an impact on the investment choice, or the condition that work on the project must not start before a decision to award aid is taken by public authorities – which the Commission would like to impose in the coming period – both on companies applying for incentives and on the Member States and their sub- national government structures – go against the principle of simplification and ‘debureaucratisation’ as promoted in the Cohesion Policy and other EU and national policies; reiterates that such rules may mean that certain projects will be excluded from investment aid or will neveer get a chance to be commenced;
Amendment 113 #
2013/0000(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses the importance of the rules for regional as well as sector-specific State aid for attracting foreign direct investment to the EU and its regions and for ensuring their global competitiveness;
Amendment 13 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11
Citation 11
– having regard to Rules 5.3, 29, 41, 48 and 74a of its Rules of Procedure,
Amendment 14 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Citation 12 a (new)
– having regard to the parliament's vote on 23 October 2012, which saw a majority of 78% of Members call on EU governments to revise the issue of parliament's official seat; Strasbourg;
Amendment 83 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q a (new)
Recital Q a (new)
Qa. whereas Members have repeatedly requested up-to-date breakdowns of the financial, environmental and social costs of the parliament's working arrangements, because the Administration has yet to produce a consistent and coherent set of figures;
Amendment 115 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges that any future decision by Parliament on its working arrangements must allow sufficient time for debate and reflection, as well as for an orderly transition; requests a study into the one- off cost of moving all parliament's activities to a single working location;
Amendment 122 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Asks the Administration to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for our budget if the parliament had only one place of work, in Brussels; asks that this analysis includes the budgetary aspects and the ancillary costs such as savings made as a result of loss of working time and efficiency;
Amendment 123 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Asks the Administration to procure that EMAS or suitable external consultants provide an analysis of the environmental aspects if the parliament held all its plenary sessions in Brussels;
Amendment 124 #
2012/2308(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Asks the Administration to procure that the parliament's Medical Service provide an analysis of the health effects of the monthly session in Strasbourg on Members, staff and assistants;
Amendment 6 #
2012/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that the cultural and creative industries should become a part of EU and national socio-economic strategies; underlines the need for further coordination of various policies, including industrial, educational and innovative policies, policies of tourism, regional, urban, local and spatial development; stresses that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, local and regional authorities should be encouraged to include their visions of creativity in their long-term strategies and policy delivery;.
Amendment 16 #
2012/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the cultural and creative industries, as a source of potential in terms of more and better jobs in the regions, are able to contribute to social and territorial integration; is concerned that these aspects of cultural and creative industries are not sufficiently analysed and supported; stresses that the collection of statistical data in this sector is inadequate at all levels, with the worst situation being at regional and local level;
Amendment 20 #
2012/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that creative people, products and services should be the basis of a strong single European market and well developed regions; calls for better use of the cultural and creative industries in attracting new investment and varied talent to Europe; calls on the Member States adopt adequate social and fiscal measures to support the creative economy; calls on the Member States to support business models adapted to the limited European market which would enable the mobility of artists and people working in the cultural and creative industries and help them to overcome obstacles relating to different tax or social systems or language barriers;
Amendment 23 #
2012/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that different competencies covered by these industries and interaction between creators and technologies should be supported by establishing local and regional platforms that would foster synergies and help seek mechanisms to finance creativity and innovation;
Amendment 27 #
2012/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points to the fact that the cultural and creative industries contribute to maintaining Europe's immense cultural, historical and architectural heritage; stresses the importance of movable cultural heritage, i. e. artefacts as a product of human creativity since deep- ancient history until now; highlights that the cultural and creative sectors are of huge interest to tourists from both the EU and non-EU countries; believes that, in view of this added value, the cultural and creative sectors should be strongly supported by the future EU budget as they bring with them important economic opportunities;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2302(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights the importance of educational schemes for promoting creativity from early childhood on; stresses that since local and regional authorities are often responsible for pre-school and primary education, they may play an important role in this process; underlines the importance of non-formal training for abilities of adults to adapt to a constantly changing labour market.
Amendment 6 #
2012/2296(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. In the light of the latest data on sales volumes, provided by the Commission - based on which the market has been undergoing a triple downward dip and EU light vehicle sales fell from nearly 17 million below 12 million between December 2006 and December 2012 - calls on the Commission to review its partial, and sometimes contradictory goals, in order to focus primarily on market recovery and employment growth;
Amendment 14 #
2012/2296(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes in the necessity to significantly improve safety on EU roads; appreciates in this context the prioritization of in-car technologies that support driving behaviour and the enforcement of road rules such as intelligent speed management devices;
Amendment 24 #
2012/2296(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that binding emissions targets should not be set before 2017, since the impact assessment has not yet been fully evaluated; calls on the Commission to abandon legislating on how to meet emissions targets and other partial goals, in order not to limit the diversity of products or private research activity. Therefore, calls to coordinate the review of the Directive 96/53/EC on maximum weights and dimensions of road vehicles with relevant parties including representatives of automobile manufacturers;
Amendment 34 #
2012/2296(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Supports standardization of alternative fuels infrastructure in coordination with the USA;
Amendment 43 #
2012/2296(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
– the immediate launch of both ex-ante impact assessment on proposed legislation and ex-post assessment of adopted legislation to ensure competitiveness proofing - including the legislation on CO2 and noise emissions,
Amendment 48 #
2012/2296(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Emphasizes supportive measures conducted by several member states such as speeded tax deduction or VAT deduction by company as well as green cars;
Amendment 51 #
2012/2296(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Ascertains that support of company schools - especially in case of apprenticeships – might contribute to the skilled human capital needed.
Amendment 15 #
2012/2293(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Commission's proposals for a regulation laying down common provisions (COM(2012)0496), a regulation on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (COM(2011)0614) and a regulation on the European Social Fund (ESF) (COM(2011)0607 final/2), which make full provision for priority investment in energy-efficiency improvements, the promotion of renewable energy sources, integrated sustainable urban and territorial development measures and action to combat exclusion by providing marginalised communities with access to high-quality housing and social services at affordable prices;
Amendment 21 #
2012/2293(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Encourages the Member States to cooperate with local and regional authorities, or their representing organisations, in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance, to establish priorities and methods of using – on a joint basis, wherever possible – the ERDF, the ESF, and, in the case of social housing in rural areas and small and medium-sized towns, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); considers that greater integration of the Structural Funds could encourage the sustainable development of disadvantaged areas, thus avoiding the pernicious effects of segregation and promoting social homogeneity and cohesion; hopes that technical assistance programmes and specialised funds will be maintained and extended;
Amendment 28 #
2012/2259(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. whereas the most of the current arrangements for energy generation from renewable sources take no account of geographical plant location criteria and fail to exploit cost advantages, thereby making the European energy turnaround unnecessarily costly;
Amendment 39 #
2012/2259(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that, in many Member States, RES already account for more than 20% of the energy market, while national rules on feed-in tariffs and preferential treatment are leading to distortions of competition;
Amendment 42 #
2012/2259(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls for national exemptions from the EU prohibition on state aid for renewable energies to be abolished in view of the distortions of the market which have arisen in countries where RES account for over 20% of the energy market; also takes a critical view of preferential feed-in arrangements for RES when their market share exceeds a certain level, which can have the effect of destabilising the grid and distorting competition;
Amendment 52 #
2012/2259(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for a review of the capacity payments envisaged or in place in some countries for conventional power stations to maintain baseload capacity, which may conflict with European competition rules; calls on Member States and energy producers, instead, to organise baseload groupings in cooperation with RES inside the internal market on the basis of free- market principles; asks the Commission to draw up a legal framework for the setting up of local groupings to secure baseload power;
Amendment 21 #
2012/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the success of such an industrial renewal, coupled with regional development, depends on the existence of effective policies in areas such as cohesion policy, economic governance, competitiveness, research and innovation, energy, the digital agenda, new qualifications and jobs, internal market and state aid rules, etc.;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that the strengthening of the industrial basis of the economy is necessary for achieving the EU 2020 targets, and; believes that the industrial heritage and, expertise availablnd the regional economy represented by companies on place in old industrialised regions can form an irreplaceable basis for this; assumes that the process of modernisation of regional state aid and the cohesion policy rules should carefully consider the role of SMEs and non-SMEs and their support from the EU or national schemes;
Amendment 35 #
2012/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points to the fact that attention should be given to industrial areas not only because of their economic potential or opportunities for entrepreneurship but also because they hide immense cultural, historical and architectural heritage, which should be preserved and handled carefully and because they are a part of the regional and national cultural memory;
Amendment 47 #
2012/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights the fact that regions' characteristics have to be taken into consideration when planning regional development strategies; points, in this context, to the fact that bottom-up urban and rural (LEADER) development strategies exist for rural areas and could be an option to consider for urban areas as well;
Amendment 31 #
2012/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses, however, that the cohesion policy programmes should not be seen as a replacement for the proper funding of European energy policy proposals; stresses that cohesion policy can support actions, such as energy efficiency measures or cross-border energy transferability measures, as an additional source of funding, but only when these programmes promote the cohesion policy objectives;
Amendment 62 #
2012/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that initiatives supporting local and regional capacities to deal with energy savings should be supported, among others by ERDF and ESF investments;
Amendment 98 #
2012/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that cohesion policy funds should be available to educateprovide information to local and regional authorities, SMEs and individuals on national renewable energy schemes in a structured way; notes that this is especially needed in those Member States where a ‘certificate of origin’ system has been adopted;
Amendment 118 #
2012/2099(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Points out that the cohesion policy should contribute to a balance of energy flows across borders of Member States in order to avoid possible threat of black- outs (by means of e.g. transformers);
Amendment 129 #
2012/2092(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraphs 77 a, b, c, d, e, f, g (new)
Paragraphs 77 a, b, c, d, e, f, g (new)
Amendment 4 #
2012/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United Arab Emirates and Vanuatu should not come into force until bilateral agreements on visa waiver between the Union and the countries concerned have been concluded in order to ensure full reciprocity.
Amendment 6 #
2012/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) in point 1, the references to Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United Arab Emirates and Vanuatu are deleted and a reference to South-Sudan is inserted;
Amendment 7 #
2012/0309(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2 – point a – two last references
Article 1 – point 2 – point a – two last references
"Tuvalu*", "United Arab Emirates*" and "Vanuatu*"
Amendment 203 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point h
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point h
(h) a description of the measures taken to involve the competent regional, and local anduthorities, their representative organisations, other public authorities as well as bodies representing civil society and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination in the preparation of the operational programme;
Amendment 207 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. Operational programmes shall be drawn up by Member States or any authority designated by them in cooperation with the competent regional, and local anduthorities, their representing bodies, other public authorities as well as bodies representing civil society and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination.
Amendment 212 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Member State may, subject to a decision of a monitoring committee, submit a request for amendment of the operational programme. It shall be accompanied by the revised operational programme and the justification for the amendment.
Amendment 215 #
Amendment 216 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 218 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 227 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
The Commission shall examine the final implementation report and inform the Member State of its observations within fivthree months of receipt of the final report.
Amendment 232 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 8
Article 11 – paragraph 8
8. The managing authority shall make public a summary of the contents of each annual and final implementation report.
Amendment 242 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11a Monitoring committee 1. Within three months of the date of notification to the Member State of the decision adopting a programme, the Member State shall set up a committee to monitor implementation of the programme, in agreement with the managing authority. The monitoring committee shall draw up and adopt its rules of procedure. 2. The monitoring committee shall meet at least annually and be composed of representatives of the managing authority and intermediate bodies and of representatives of the partners. Each member of the monitoring committee shall have a voting right. 3. The Commission shall participate in the work of the monitoring committee in an advisory capacity. 4. The monitoring committee shall be chaired by a representative of the managing authority. 5. The monitoring committee shall examine in detail all issues that affect the performance of the programme. It shall be consulted and issue an opinion on amendments of the programme proposed by the managing authority, or issue recommendations to the managing authority regarding implementation of the programme and its evaluation. It shall monitor actions taken as a result of its recommendations. It shall also approve reports submitted to the Commission by the managing authority.
Amendment 249 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The list of operations shall be updated at least every twelvesix months.
Amendment 305 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall reimburse as interim payments 9100% of the amount resulting from applying the co-financing rate laid down in the decision adopting the operational programme corresponding to the public eligible expenditure included in the payment application. It shall determine the annual balance in accordance with Article 47(2).
Amendment 350 #
2012/0295(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 59 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The delegated acts shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 24 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
Amendment 34 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Roadworthiness testing is a part of a wider regime ensuring that vehicles are kept in a condition which complies with the existing safety and environmentally acceptable condition during their use legislative framework. This regime should cover periodic roadworthiness tests for all vehicles and roadside technical inspection for vehicles used for commercial road transport activities as well as provisions on a vehicle registration procedure to ensure that vehicles which constitute an immediate risk to road safety are not used on roads.
Amendment 37 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 44 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 48 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to allow a monitoring of the roadside inspection regime implemented in the Union Member States should communicate on a biannual basisbefore 31 March of every second year to the Commission the results of the roadside inspections performed. The Commission should report the data collected to the European Parliament.
Amendment 84 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Each Member State shall carry out in every calendar year a total number of initial roadside inspections, corresponding to at least 53% of the total number of vehicles referred to in Article 3(1) that are registered in its territory.
Amendment 89 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 91 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 92 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 103 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Amendment 128 #
2012/0186(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. A more detailed roadside inspection shall be carried out using a mobile inspection unit, or in a testing centre as referred to in Regulation (EU) NO XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council of [date] on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and for their trailers. In the case of an inspection carried out in a testing centre, controllers shall book in advance a free capacity in the centre so that periodic inspections already scheduled will not be affected.
Amendment 51 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) A large fraction of total emissions of road transport, in particular CO2 emissions, is due to a minority of vehicles with malfunctioning emission control systems. It is estimated that 5% of the vehicle fleet causes 25% of all pollutant emissions. This also applies to an increase in particulates and NOx emissions from modern engine designs which require a more comprehensive emission test, including check by operation using an electronic control device of the integrity and functionality of the vehicle's own on- board diagnostic (OBD) system, verified by existing tailpipe testing to ensure a complete emission system test, as OBD only is not reliable. Therefore, a periodic regime of roadworthiness tests would also contribute to improve the environment through the reduction of the average vehicle emissions.
Amendment 139 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 2
– It is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce theWhich is preserved and maintained in a historical components of the vehiclerrect condition;
Amendment 142 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 3
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 3
Amendment 148 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 4
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 4
Amendment 191 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 1
– Vehicles of categories L1e, L2e, L3e, L4e, L5e, L6e and L7e: four: six years after the date on which the vehicle was first registered, then two years and thereafter annually and thereafter every four years;
Amendment 202 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 2
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 2
– Vehicles of category M1, N1, O2, L5e, L6e and O2L7e: four years after the date on which the vehicle was first registered, then two years and thereafter annuallyevery two years;
Amendment 214 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Amendment 342 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – Item 8.2.1.2 – column 2
Annex II – Item 8.2.1.2 – column 2
8.2.1.2 Gaseous emissions Measurement using an exhaust gas analyser in accordance with the requirements(1). Even Alternatively, for vehicles equipped combined with OBD, this tailpipe testing shall be the default method of the exhaust emission assessment. For vehicles equipped with suitable on-board board diagnostic systems, the the proper functioning of the the emission system can be be checked by appropriate reading of the OBD device and checks on the proper functioning of the OBD system in place of emission measurements at engine idle in accordance with the manufacturer’s conditioning recommendations and other requirements(1).
Amendment 347 #
2012/0184(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – Item 8.2.2.2
Annex II – Item 8.2.2.2
Amendment 1 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the EU's cohesion policy makes an important contribution to the European economy and is the Community's largest source of investment providing targeted assistance for addressing priority needs and lacking behind areas with growth potential both in public and private sectors;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that in mostthe European countriesUnion, large firms generate a substantive part of the business sector value addedare responsible for 42.3 % of business sector value added, 32.6 % of persons employed and more than 50 % of total exports, although they represent a small share of the business population, and insists that for geographically targeted support, the size of the enterprise should not matter as the only criterion should be the quality and required sustainability of the project;
Amendment 28 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that in the world of global competition and growing internationalisation of world trade, an option of cohesion policy support provides added value for companies when deciding in which world region to develop their operation capacities and where to transfer their knowhow;
Amendment 35 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Endorses the economic rationale of a local/regional place-based development policy rooted in the fundamental logic that the interest of the Union's less-developed regions is likely to increase, should they be able to offer competitive comparative advantages (adequate infrastructure, skilled human resources, etc.) as well as firm sets of incentives; in this context requests the Commission to support Member States and regions to pursue their own investment incentives policies;
Amendment 42 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that high taxes and public debt are among the key concerns identified by companies investing in Europe; would be particularly concerned by any effort to harmonise corporation tax conditions inevitably giving rise to higher fiscal burden in some Member States, and would deny more localised approach allowing individual regions to remain fiscally competitive cultivating their local innovative and entrepreneurial potential;
Amendment 50 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that the EU has an enormous strength in its cities, and that major urban infrastructure projects, and innovative business parks, provide the strongest appeal for investment; urges the Member States to provide large-scale investments in infrastructure and technology in order to enhance the liveability and competitiveness of Europe's cities whilst preserving and building upon their traditional virtues.
Amendment 86 #
2011/2195(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 111 #
2011/2195(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 153 #
2011/2195(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. NotesPoints to the role of the Outermost Regions while they form the borders of the EU withRs as EU borders with the rest of the world and argues fordvocates an approach that recognises its neighbourly relations with third party countries and withtheir closeness to third countries and to the countries with which they have special culturally and historically privileged related countrie links; draws attention to their integration problems in their respective geographical areas, for the impact of the international trade agreements and for the purposes the external application of some European policies;
Amendment 162 #
2011/2195(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for the continuation of the territorial cooperation programmes in the ORs and advocates increased funding for programmes, greater investment in transnational cooperation and the removal, in the case of the ORs, of the 150km criterion in cross-border cooperationutermost Regions;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2157(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the territorial cooperation principles apply also to external borders and are a key tool to improve EU economic development as well as the EU’s overall ENP political goals, including the promotion of democracy; takes the view that these targets can only be achieved with the cooperation of both civil society and regional and local authorities, thereby taking account of the diversity of territorial situations within the ENP countries and promoting the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance; underlines that the Commission should extend its integrated approach in order to clearly support the local and regional authorities as one of its pillars and guarantors of the general interest;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2096(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes that more attention needs to be paid to the utilization of the transport infrastructure (measured by volumes of traffic) supported from the European funds, is of the opinion that in the future not only new projects or modernization transport infrastructure projects should be supported from European funds but also repairs of existing key transport highways that are in adverse condition, are subject to frequent damages and accidents and cause major bottlenecks in European transport system;
Amendment 10 #
2011/2096(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points to the role that cohesion policy plays in developing transport infrastructure; draws attention to the lack of financial resources in several Member States; takes the view that new financing instruments are necessary for the transport sector; calls on Member States to ensure sufficient national funding in their budgetary planning and sufficient project planning and implementation capacities;
Amendment 19 #
2011/2096(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Opposes the establishment of the Connecting Europe facility in its proposed form; considers the cohesion policy to be a tried-and-tested tool for the financing of infrastructure projects in the EU's less developed Member States; believes that the financing of key infrastructure projects must remain the primary responsibility of Member States, or rather of the market with the involvement of the private sector;
Amendment 27 #
2011/2051(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the direct payments scheme should be retainedcontinue until 2020, but not forever into the future beyond this date, in order to continue to ensure competitiveness, economic stability, decent farm incomes and the sustainable development of the EU farm sector, as well as EU food and environmental security, thus ensuring that other policies and strategies, including the Europe 2020 strategy, may be properly implemented; considers, in this connection, that objective and transparent criteria need to be drawn up to ensure the provision of an appropriate level of direct support throughout the EU and to move away from the criteria used to date for allocating funding under the direct payments scheme;
Amendment 35 #
2011/2051(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Considers that in the future, direct payments should exist only until the market conditions are such that farmers can survive on their income from the market alone, and that this should be an ultimate long-term goal of CAP direct payments;
Amendment 45 #
2011/2051(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Whereas rural development as a horizontal issue is an inevitable part of the CAP and whereas the new programmes should be geared even more strongly to the priority objectives of rural development (employment, the agricultural environment, water, climate change, innovation and education);
Amendment 47 #
2011/2051(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Amendment 48 #
2011/2051(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Welcomes contribution of the second pillar to exercising the partnership principle and calls on the member states to pay greater attention to this principle and its wider application when introducing targeted measures under the second pillar;
Amendment 49 #
2011/2051(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Stresses the importance of simplification of the administrative burden and interconnection of the administrative and implementing rules across the EU funds (e.g. VAT eligibility); calls for simplification and a review of the cross-compliance rules for the second pillar, considers simplification of the current indicator system to be necessary and takes a critical view of the introduction of quantitative targets;
Amendment 64 #
2011/2051(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the current rules for the allocation of second-pillar funding were agreed on the basis of the cohesion criterion, i.e. the agricultural and rural development disparities existing between individual Member States and regions; believes, in view of the fact that those disparities still exist, that the current criteria and funding arrangements for rural development should be retained, in particular in the context of expanding the second pillar to take account of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives; points out that this will require appropriate coordination and distribution of tasks betweenwelcomes greater coordination at EU level of EU funds; and calls for this coordination to be substantially shown up in mechanisms for drawing on the EU funds, namely in measures financed from the second pillar targeted at rural development support; recommends therefore that the Funds in support of the Common Agricultural Policy become a part of the Common Strategic Framework as only specific targeting of the public funds from the CAPEU and cohesion policy. ordination of the European policies will bring results on the ground.
Amendment 158 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas the agricultural sector as well as farmers have, besides providing for food security, also other multifunctional functions lying in maintenance of landscape, affecting biodiversity, the environment, water management or influences of climate; whereas their social function and their role in creating social values in rural areas should be taken into account,
Amendment 169 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas rural development ias an important instrumen horizontal issue is an inevitable part of the CAP and whereas the new programmes should be geared even more strongly to the priority objectives of rural development and of farmers (employment, the agricultural environment, water, climate change, innovation and education),
Amendment 183 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas activities in rural areas must be diversified for agriculture to become more efficient and competitive; whereas economic activities in rural areas should be spread so that rural areas do not suffer from depopulation,
Amendment 586 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to submit by 30 June 2016 a report setting out comprehensively how livestock farming in Europe can be safeguarded in the long term with regard to multifunctionality and regional aspects (such as mountain areas, Nordic regions and, extremely remote areas and border areas) and also dealing with the question of how far the aims of the CAP can be realised in a more efficient, targeted way by means of decoupled, indirect support, e.g. premiums for extensive grassland or pasture land;
Amendment 690 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Considers therefore that any environmental advantages can be attained more effectively and directly by means of second-pillar measures adopted by the Member States, which should ideally build on existing agrienvironmental measures or should supplement measures which take into account climatic and geographical differences in the Member States; observes that resource protection programmes should be pursued everywhere by means of a priority catalogue of area-based measures in the second pillar which are subject to basic requirements, particularly in the fields of climate, environment and innovation (Annex I), and are 100% EU- financed; regards the greening of direct payments in the first pillar as lying in the fact that any recipient of direct payments in the EU must implement at least two priority area-based resource protection programmes in order to be eligible for the complete farm payment; believes that the administration involved in these measures can be minimised by managing them in accordance with the system of the existing agrienvironmental programmes, thus avoiding duplication of monitoring and additional application and administration procedures;
Amendment 712 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls for the resources allocated to greening to be reserved mostly for recipients of direct payments and onmostly disbursed in connection with greening;
Amendment 1063 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the importancEmphasises the horizontal role of the second pillar, in view of its environmental, modernisation and structural improvement achievements, but also for attaining political objectives, which should also benefit for agriculture, balanced territorial development and attaining political objectives for inhabitants living in rural areas as well as farmers; calls therefore for second- pillar measures to be better suited to their objectives, so that the effectiveness of growth, employment and climate measures and measures for the benefit of rural areas can be increased; considers that, in this context, particular attention should be devoted to assisting young farmers;
Amendment 1095 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48 a. Calls for a strong, well-equipped second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy that will reflex the current needs of rural development;
Amendment 1114 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Advocates therefore introducing targeted measures, to be decided by the Member States in the second pillar, to attain priority objectives of the EU (2020 Strategy); observes that these measures should be applied in addition to the basic programmes for greening of direct payments in the first pillar and that a reducedthe national co-financing rate of 25% should applshould be in compliance with co-financing rates of other EU funds within the cohesion policy;
Amendment 1123 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49 a. Welcomes the contribution of the second pillar to exercising the partnership principle and calls on the Member States to pay greater attention to this principle and its wider application when introducing targeted measures under the second pillar;
Amendment 1139 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Advocates in this connection that the compensatory allowance for disadvantaged areas be retained in the second pillar; considers that it should be ascertained what cofinancing rate appears to be appropriate; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantaged areasConsiders that it should be ascertained what cofinancing rate appears to be appropriate in all areas of support of the second pillar;
Amendment 1219 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. CStresses the importance of simplification of the administrative burden and interconnection of the administrative and implementing rules across the EU funds (e.g. VAT eligibility); calls for simplification and a review of the cross-compliance rules for the second pillar, considers simplification of the current indicator system to be necessary and takes a critical view of the introduction of quantitative targets;
Amendment 1229 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes greater coordination at EU level of EU funds; advocates, however, thatnd calls for this coordination to be substantially shown up in mechanisms for drawing on the EU funds be preserved as politically autonomous instruments, namely in measures financed from the second pillar targeted at rural development support;
Amendment 1237 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 a (new)
Paragraph 56 a (new)
56 a. Recommends therefore that the Funds in support of the Common Agricultural Policy become a part of the Common Strategic Framework as only specific targeting of the public funds from the EU and coordination of the European policies will bring results on the ground;
Amendment 22 #
2011/2048(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to step up efforts to develop the required expertise among the contracting authorities of local and regional authorities in order to implement innovative procurement;
Amendment 45 #
2011/2048(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to develop a best practice guide for pre-commercial procurement, including a handbook of practical examples of how innovative procurement can be done under procurement rules, in order to help smaller local and regional authorities to understand the process and to see how it can benefit them.
Amendment 48 #
2011/2048(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers it vital for innovation and growth in Europe’s regions that an emphasis should be placed on the role of e-public procurement, operating on a transparent basis, easily accessible to smaller local and regional applicants with a single contact point, and with the results of selection procedures published online.
Amendment 72 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at regionnational, regional and local level contribute to the achievement of pan- European objectives in the fields of economic growth, research, environmental protection, resource management, demographic change, energy supply sustainability, social cohesion or cross- border development and this would not have been realised without the European stimulus;
Amendment 99 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply, provided they are effective and bring European added value, in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions);
Amendment 155 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits; is particularly aware, in relation to such programmes, of the absence of political bodies (including democratically elected bodies) with a sufficiently wide- ranging remit to implement them; calls instead for closer coordination of macroregional or natural- environment strategies at inter- governmental levels;
Amendment 174 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Rejects the use of quotas in particular for national allocations under ESF/ERDF programmes, for urban development, for the countryside or otherwise according to categorisation on the basis of population density or territorial function; also regards as questionable the requirement to specify already at operational programme level which urban and otherterritorial areas are to be eligible for support, and calls for the Member States and regions to be allowed to organise competitive selection procedures in this respect as well;
Amendment 279 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 356 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Supports retention of the operational programmes as the most important tool for implementation of the strategy papers in terms of concrete investment priorities; calls for clear and measurable objectives to be set in this respect and at the same time emphasises that it is necessary to abandon the principle of creating projects in response to declared challenges in favour of matching resources to specific projects;
Amendment 362 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regions and of representatives of local authorities in drawing up development partnerships and operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the structural fund regulations;
Amendment 376 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these to cover innovation, infrastructure and resource management and to be tailored in each case to regions’ specific needs; stresses that it must be possible to suggest and pursue additional priorities on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for suggested priority areas to include energy, education and training, and combating poverty;
Amendment 398 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships not to be made conditional on the implementation of reformguarantees by the Member States, in order to ensure that it is used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reformrejects the imposition of conditions which would require Member States to undertake fundamental economic and social reform and to transfer further responsibilities to EU level in violation of the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 434 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 75%, otherwise applications will be driven less by the case for the projects than by the prospect of the funding they can attract; calls for it to be made easier for regions to use private co- financing and market-oriented credit options to cover their share of project financing;
Amendment 508 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Calls on the Member States/regionpublic authorities to designate authorities that will assume exclusive responsibility for the proper administration of monies from the structural funds;
Amendment 531 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
Amendment 539 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
Amendment 78 #
2011/0461(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. In order to ensure an effective cooperationand coherent approach to disaster prevention and preparedness by sharing information and best practices within the Union Mechanism, Members States shall communicatmake available to the Commission the relevant non-sensitive elements of their risk assessments and their risk management plans no later than 2016.
Amendment 80 #
2011/0461(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The risk management plans shall take into account the major natural and man- made disaster risks analysed in the national risk assessments and other relevant risk assessmentt national or appropriate sub-national level and shall be coherent with other relevant plans in force in thatthe Member State.
Amendment 85 #
2011/0461(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 97 #
2011/0461(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall define quality requirements for the capacities to behat Member States committed to the European Emergency Response Capacity. Member States shall be responsible for ensuring their quality.
Amendment 98 #
2011/0461(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall establish and manage a process for certification and registration of capacities that Member States make available to the European Emergency Response Capacity.
Amendment 99 #
2011/0461(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 11 – paragraph 7
Article 11 – paragraph 7
7. In the event of deployment, thResponse capacities sthall remain under Member States’ command and direction. The coordination among the different capacities shall be ensured by the Commission through the ERC. The ct Member States make available for the European Emergency Response Capacitiesy shall remain available for the national purposes of Member States when not deployed in operations under the Mechanismat all times.
Amendment 15 #
2011/0409(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) More stringent noise limit values alone cannot reduce noise levels and only with an integrated approach that addresses all sources, including infrastructure, driver behaviour along with further improvements to vehicle design such as tyres/exhaust systems, can overall noise be reduced.
Amendment 22 #
2011/0409(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) This Regulation should also further reduce noise limits. It should take account of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefore, which introduced new stricter noise requirements for motor vehicle tyres. Studies highlighting the annoyance and health effects from road traffic noise, and the associated costs and benefits should also be heeded. In particular, this Regulation must also take account of the huge costs that will be born to industry and consumers at a time of economic hardship and the effects on the competitiveness of European vehicle manufacturers in the global market.
Amendment 32 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) On the basis of the objectives set by the White Paper, the TEN-T guidelines as laid down in Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of …20 identify the infrastructure of the trans-European transport network, specify the requirements to be fulfilled by it and provide for measures for their implementation. The Guidelines envisage in particular the completion of the core network by 2030 through the creation of new infrastructure as well as the rehabilitation and upgrading of existing infrastructure.
Amendment 53 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘bottleneck’ means a physical barrier that leads to a system break affecting the continuity of long-distance flows. Such a barrier can be absorbed by new infrastructure such as bridges or tunnels that address problems as for example gradients, curve radii, gauge. The need to upgrade existing infrastructure shall not be considered as a bottleneck;
Amendment 63 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i
(i) removing bottlenecks and bridging missing links, to be measured by the number of new and improved internal and cross-border connections and removed bottlenecks on transport routes which have benefited from the Connecting Europe Facility;
Amendment 93 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6
Article 8 – paragraph 6
Amendment 95 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7
Article 8 – paragraph 7
7. VAT shall not be an eligible cost unless it may be recovered by the final beneficiary under national VAT legislation.
Amendment 109 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c – point i
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c – point i
(i) the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and River Information Systems: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 50% of the eligible cost;
Amendment 139 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Coordination Committee of the Facility and by committees established for each of the three sectors of the Instrument - transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure. Thatese committees shall be a committees within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 140 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. The Coordination committee shall ensure a horizontal overview of the work programmes referred to in Article 17 to ensure consistency and that synergies are identified and exploited between sectors. The committees of respective sectors shall help the Commission monitor implementation of the respective guidelines and shall take part in their reviews.
Amendment 283 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i
(i) removing bottlenecks and bridging missing links, to be measured by the number of new and improved internal and cross-border connections and removed bottlenecks on transport routes which have benefited from the Connecting Europe Facility;
Amendment 394 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6
Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. Expenditure related to the purchase of land shall not be an eligible cost.
Amendment 399 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7
Article 8 – paragraph 7
7. VAT shall not be an eligible cost.
Amendment 456 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c – point i
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c – point i
(i) the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and River Information Systems: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 50% of the eligible cost;
Amendment 512 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point c – point i
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point c – point i
(i) the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS); the River Information Services (RIS) and the Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information systems (VTMIS).
Amendment 573 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Coordination Committee of the Facility. Thats established for each of the three sectors of the Facility - transport, energy and ICT infrastructure. These committees shall be a committees within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 575 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. The committees shall ensurecoordinate their actions, in order to ensure consistency and a horizontal overview of the work programmes referred to in Aarticle 17 and to ensure consistency and that synergies are identified and exploited between sectors.
Amendment 604 #
2011/0302(COD)
Helsinki – Tallinn – Riga – Kaunas – Warszawa – Katowice Gdynia – Katowice Katowice – Ostrava – Brno – Wien Katowice – Žilina – Bratislava – Wien Wien – Graz – Klagenfurt – Villach – Udine – Venezia – Bologna – Ravenna Graz – Ljubljana – Koper/Trieste Szczecin/Świnoujście - Poznań/Zielona Góra - Wrocław - Ostrava
Amendment 35 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The Union, Member States, regions and local authorities located on the TENs, infrastructure managers and other project promoters, when developing the comprehensive network, shall give particular consideration to measures that are necessary for:
Amendment 36 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) bridging missing links and removing bottlenecks, notably in cross-border sections and in urban areas;
Amendment 45 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) ensuring that all aspects – economic, social and environmental – are taken into consideration when a prioritisation is decided between freight and passenger transport on the TEN-T.
Amendment 51 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 51 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) report to the Member States, to the Commission and, as appropriate, to all other entities directly involved in the development of the core network corridor on any difficulties encountered and contribute to finding appropriate solutions;
Amendment 52 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. For each core network corridor, the Member States, regions and local authorities located on the TENs concerned shall jointly establish a corridor platform responsible for defining the general objectives of the core network corridor and for preparing and supervising the measures referred to in Article 53(1).
Amendment 54 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 2
2. The corridor platform shall be composed of the representatives of the Member States , regions and local authorities concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private entities. In any case, the relevant infrastructure managers as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure shall participate in the corridor platform.
Amendment 81 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The planning, development and operation of trans-European transport networks contribute to the attainment of major Union objectives, such as the full implementation and smooth functioning of the Sinternal mgle European Market and the strengthening of economic and soc, social and territorial cohesion and also have the specific objectives of allowing the seamless and sustainable mobility of persons and goods among Member States and ensuring appropriate accessibility and connectivity for all regions of the Union and contributing to further economic growth and competitiveness in a global perspective.
Amendment 117 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11 a) Exemptions from the infrastructure requirements for the core network should be possible in duly justified cases.
Amendment 125 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Projects of common interest should demonstrate a clear European added value. Cross- border projects typically have high European added value, but may have lower direct economic effects compared to purely national projects. Therefore, they are likely not to be implemented without Union intervention.
Amendment 130 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 148 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In order to implement the core network within the given time horizon, a corridor approach could be used as an instrument to coordinate on a transnational basis different projects and synchronise the development of the corridor, thereby maximising network benefits. The corridor approach should not lead to prioritisation of certain projects over others on the core network.
Amendment 155 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Core network corridors should also address wider transport policy objectives and facilitate modal integration and multi- modal operations. This should allow specially developed corridors that are optimised in terms of energy use and emissions, thus minimising environmental impacts, and are also attractive for their reliability, limited congestion and low operating and administrative costs. Their management should not, however, result in an excessive growth of administrative costs. An initial list of corridors should be included in the Regulation (EU) XXX/2012 [Connecting Europe Facility], but should be adaptable in order to take account of changes in traffic flows.
Amendment 157 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Core network corridors should also address wider transport policy objectives and facilitate modal integration and multi- modal operations. This should allow specially developed corridors that are optimised in terms of energy use and emissions, thus minimising environmental impacts, and are also attractive for their reliability, limited congestion and low operating and administrative costs. An initial list of corridors should be included in the Regulation (EU) XXX/2012 [Connecting Europe Facility], but as an indicative list and should be adaptable in order to take account of changes in traffic flows and of priorities of respective Member States.
Amendment 198 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) 'European added value' means, in relation to a project, the value resulting from Union intervention which is additional to the value that would otherwise have been created by Member State action alonein terms of the project's contribution to achieving the objectives set out in Article 4;
Amendment 214 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
(q a) 'isolated network' means the rail network of a Member State, or a part thereof, with a track gauge which is different to that of the European standard nominal track gauge (1435mm), for which certain major infrastructure investments cannot be justified in economic cost-benefit terms by virtue of the specificities of that network arising from its geographic detachment or peripheral location;
Amendment 221 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)
(r a) 'revitalisation' means a process resulting in the achievement of the original construction parameters of existing infrastructure facilities with the long term improvement of its quality compared to the current state, in line with the application of the requirements and the provisions of this Regulation;
Amendment 306 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The Union, Member States, regions and local authorities located on the TENs, infrastructure managers and other project promoters, when developing the comprehensive network, shall give particular consideration to measures that are necessary for:
Amendment 330 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
(i a) mitigating exposure of urban areas to negative effects of rail and road transport;
Amendment 401 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) achieving standards higher than those set out as minimum requirements in the technical specifications, as described in Article 13meeting the infrastructure requirements and enhancing interoperability.
Amendment 431 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) rivers, canals and lakes comply with the minimum requirements for class IV waterways as laid down in the European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance (AGN) on the new classification of inland waterways and ensure continuous bridge clearance in full compliance with the provisions laid down in Article 42.
Amendment 453 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. At the request of a Member State, the Commission may in duly justified cases grant a time-limited exemption from the provisions of Articles 17(3)(a) and 18(1)(a) relating to the requested class of waterway if for environmental or other pressing reasons the minimum requirements laid down could not be met within the given time limit, on condition that the projects implemented must be aimed at complying with them. The granting of such an exemption shall also involve an agreement on further steps to be taken to comply with the minimum requirements for class IV waterways.
Amendment 469 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – point b – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – point b – introductory part
(b) An express road is a road rdeservigned for motor traffic accessible primarily from interchanges or controlled junctions only and which:
Amendment 553 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) ensuring that all aspects - economic, social and environmental - are taken into consideration when prioritisation is decided between freight and passenger transport on the TEN-T.
Amendment 597 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The infrastructure of the core network shall meet all the requirements set out in Chapter II without exception. In addition, the following requirements shall also be met by the infrastructure of the core network:
Amendment 636 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. At the request of a Member State, with regards to railway transport infrastructure, exemptions may be, in duly justified cases, granted by the Commission, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 55 (2) where fulfilment of certain standards would not be feasible due to economic reasons or in the case of isolated networks. This can cover the train length, ERTMS, axle load, electrification, line speed etc.
Amendment 662 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 1
Article 48 – paragraph 1
1. CWithout prejudice to national competences of Member States, with regards to the planning of their infrastructure, core network corridors are an instrument to facilitate the coordinated implementation of the core network. CIn order to lead to resource-efficient multimodal transport, core network corridors shall be bafocused on modal integration,: - intermodality, - interoperability, as well as on a- coordinated development and management of infrastructure, in order to lead to resource-efficient multimodal transportcross-border areas.
Amendment 668 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 48 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Setting up an initial list of these corridors shall not be understood as an automatic pre-requsite for support from the ERDF, Cohesion Fund or from the Connecting Europe Facility.
Amendment 687 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 1
Article 51 – paragraph 1
1. In order to facilitate the coordinated implementation of core network corridors, the Commission shall designate, after consultation with the Member States concerned, and after having consulted the European Parliament, persons called ‘European Coordinator’. Based on the principle of subsidiarity, the European Coordinator shall be designated only for those core network corridors which require special EC assistance in order to ensure timely implementation of the corridor.
Amendment 695 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 51 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) report to the Member States, to the Commission and, as appropriate, to all other entities directly involved in the development of the core network corridor on any difficulties encountered and contribute to finding appropriate solutions;
Amendment 709 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. For each core network corridor, the Member States, regions and local authorities located on the TENs concerned shall jointly establish a corridor platform responsible for defining the general objectives of the core network corridor and for preparing and supervising the measures referred to in Article 53(1).
Amendment 716 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
Article 52 – paragraph 2
2. The corridor platform shall be composed of the representatives of the Member States, regions and local authorities concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private entities. In any case, the relevant infrastructure managers as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure shall participate in the corridor platform.
Amendment 732 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
Article 53 – paragraph 3
Amendment 746 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 56 concerning the adaptation of Annexes I, II and III to take account of possible changes resulting from the quantitative thresholds laid down in Articles 16, 24, 29 and 33 after prior consultations and with the approval of the Member States concerned. When adapting the Annexes, the Commission shall:
Amendment 759 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 1
By 31 December 2023 at the latest, the Commission shall carry out a review of the implementation of the core network, evaluating compliance with the provisions laid down in this Regulation and the progress in implementation. At the request of a Member State, this review, which may also include possible extension of the core TEN-T network, may be conducted sooner, namely immediately after receipt of such a request.
Amendment 830 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To include the D11 motorway (Prague– Hradec Králové), the R35/R55 expressways (Hradec Králové–Přerov) and the R43 expressway (Moravská Třebová–Brno) in the core network rather than the D1 motorway;
Amendment 831 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To add the Ústí nad Labem–Dresden high-speed rail link to the comprehensive TEN-T network;
Amendment 832 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To add Brno as a node in the core TEN-T network;
Amendment 833 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To maintain the crossing of the two TEN- T core network corridors (the Baltic– Adriatic Corridor and the Hamburg– Nicosia Corridor) in the city of Brno;
Amendment 834 #
2011/0294(COD)
To modernise the existing Česká Kubice border station–Regensburg stretch within the core network;
Amendment 835 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To reclassify the Plzeň–Cheb– Marktredwitz rail corridor as part of the comprehensive network or to define an exemption from the core network corridor requirements for the already completed Plzeň–Cheb railway section;
Amendment 836 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To add the IV rail corridor and the Prague–Linz section of the D3 motorway to the core network;
Amendment 837 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To change the route of the Prague– Wrocław rail corridor to include Mladá Boleslav and Liberec;
Amendment 838 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To add the Lovosice–Dresden high-speed rail link to the comprehensive TEN-T network;
Amendment 839 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To transfer the Prague-Lovosice high- speed rail link from the comprehensive to the core TEN-T network;
Amendment 840 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
To add Karlovy Vary airport to the comprehensive TEN-T network;
Amendment 841 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Annex I – Volume 13/33
Amendment 851 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To include the D11 motorway (Prague– Hradec Králové), the R35/R55 expressways (Hradec Králové–Přerov) and the R43 expressway (Moravská Třebová–Brno) in the core network rather than the D1 motorway;
Amendment 852 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To add the Ústí nad Labem–Dresden high speed-rail link to the comprehensive TEN- T network;
Amendment 853 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Amendment 854 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To maintain the crossing of the two TEN- T core network corridors (the Baltic– Adriatic Corridor and the Hamburg– Nicosia Corridor) in the city of Brno;
Amendment 855 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To modernise the existing Česká Kubice border station–Regensburg stretch within the core network;
Amendment 856 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To reclassify the Plzeň–Cheb– Marktredwitz rail corridor as part of the comprehensive network or to define an exemption from the core network corridor requirements for the already completed Plzeň–Cheb railway section;
Amendment 857 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To add the IV rail corridor and the Prague–Linz section of the D3 motorway to the core network;
Amendment 858 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To change the route of the Prague– Wrocław rail corridor to include Mladá Boleslav and Liberec;
Amendment 859 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To add the Lovosice–Dresden high-speed rail link to the comprehensive TEN-T network;
Amendment 860 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To transfer the Prague-Lovosice high- speed rail link from the comprehensive to the core TEN-T network;
Amendment 861 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To add Karlovy Vary airport to the comprehensive TEN-T network;
Amendment 862 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 14/33
Annex I – Volume 14/33
To transfer the Prague-Linz rail corridor from the comprehensive to the core TEN- T network;
Amendment 36 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The objectives of the CSF Funds should be pursued in the framework of sustainable development and the Union's promotion of the aim of protecting and improving the environment as set out in Article 11 and 19 of the Treaty, taking into account primarily the polluter pays principle. The Member States should provide information on the support for climate change objectives in line with the ambition to devote at least 20% of the Union budget to this end, using a methodology adopted by the Commission by implementing act.
Amendment 40 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) It is necessary to fix the limits of those resources for the ‘Iinvestment for growth and jobs’ goal and to adopt objective criteria for their allocation to regions and Member States. In order to encourage the necessary acceleration of development of infrastructure in transport and energy as well as information and communication technologies across the Union, a Connecting Europe Facility should be created. The allocation of the annual appropriations from the Funds and the amounts transferred from the Cohesion Fund to the Connecting Europe Facility to a Member State should be limited to a ceiling that would be fixed taking into account the capacity of that particular Member State to absorb these appropThe development of infrastructure across the Union shall be accelerated, including the trans-European as well as fundamental national infrastructure, strengthening of trans-border links and removal of bottlenecks. For this purpose, investments in sustainable transport and transport efficiency shall be seen as one of the key prioriationes. In addition, in line with the headline target on poverty reduction, it is necessary to reorient the scheme for food support for the most deprived persons to promote social inclusion and the harmonious development of the Union. A mechanism is envisaged which transfers resources to this instrument and ensures that these will be constituted from ESF allocations through an implicit corresponding decrease of the minimum percentage of the Structural Funds to be allocated to the ESF in each country.
Amendment 43 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 90
Recital 90
(90) The Commission should be empowered to adopt, by means of implementing acts, as regards all CSF Funds, decisions approving the Partnership Contracts, decisions on the allocation of the performance reserve, decisions suspending payments linked to Member States' economic policies, and, in the case of decommitment, decisions to amend decisions adopting programmes; and as regards the Funds, decisions identifying the regions and Member States fulfilling the Investment for growth and jobs criteria, decisions setting out the annual breakdown of commitment appropriations to the Member States, decisions setting out the amount to be transferred from each Member State's CF allocation to the Connecting Europe Facility, decisions setting out the amount to be transferred from each Member State's Structural Funds allocation for food for deprived people, decisions adopting and amending operational programmes, decisions on major projects, decisions on joint action plans, decisions suspending payments and decisions on financial corrections.
Amendment 46 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. The part of the Union budget allocated to the CSF Funds shall be implemented within the framework of shared management between the Member States and the Commission, in accordance with Article 53(b) of the Financial Regulation, with the exception of the amount of the CF transferred to the Connecting Europe Facility referred to in Article 84(4) and innovative actions at the initiative of the Commission under Article 9 of the ERDF Regulation, and technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission.
Amendment 50 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
The objectives of the CSF Funds shall be pursued in the framework of sustainable development and the Union's promotion of the aim of protecting and improving the environment, as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty, taking into account primarily the polluter pays principle.
Amendment 51 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
The Member States and the Commission shall ensure that environmental protection requirements, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, transport sustainability and transport efficiency, disaster resilience and risk prevention and management are promoted in the preparation and implementation of Partnership Contracts and programmes. Member States shall provide information on the support for climate change objectives using the methodology adopted by the Commission. The Commission shall adopt this methodology by means of an implementing act. The implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 143(3).
Amendment 57 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 7
(7) promoting sustainable transport andincluding sustainable urban transport and connections to urban and rural areas, removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures and strengthening of trans- border links;
Amendment 61 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point 9
(9) promoting social inclusion, cultural exchange, tourism and combating poverty;
Amendment 75 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Member States shall concentrate support, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules, on actions bringing the greatest added value in relation to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth within the time frame of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, addressing the challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, and taking into account national and regional needs.
Amendment 132 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 134 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 137 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 138 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Amendment 201 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The objectives of the CSF Funds should be pursued in the framework of sustainable development and the Union's promotion of the aim of protecting and improving the environment as set out in Article 11 and 19 of the Treaty, taking into account the polluter pays principle. The Member States should provide information on the support for climate change objectives in line with the ambition to devote at least 20% of the Union budget to this end, using a methodology adopted by the Commission by implementing act.
Amendment 218 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) On the basis of the Common Strategic Framework adopted by the Commission, each Member State should prepare, in cooperation with its partners, as stipulated by Art. 5, and in dialogue with the Commission, a Partnership Contract. The Partnership Contract should translate the elements set out in the Common Strategic Framework into the national context and set out firm commitments to the achievement of Union objectives through the programming of the CSF Funds.
Amendment 311 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) As regards the Funds and with a view to ensuring an appropriate allocation to each category of regions, resources should not be transferred between less developed, transition and more developed regions except in duly justified circumstances linked to the delivery of one or more thematic objectives and for no more than 2 % of the total appropriation for that category of region.
Amendment 374 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 19
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 19
(19) 'category of regions' means the categorisation of regions as 'less developed regions', 'transition regions' or 'more developed regions' according to Article 82(2);
Amendment 391 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 4 – paragraph 7
Part 2 – article 4 – paragraph 7
7. The part of the Union budget allocated to the CSF Funds shall be implemented within the framework of shared management between the Member States and the Commission, in accordance with Article 53(b) of the Financial Regulation, with the exception of the amount of the CF transferred to the Connecting Europe Facility referred to in Article 84(4) and innovative actions at the initiative of the Commission under Article 9 of the ERDF Regulation, and technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission.
Amendment 526 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
Part 2 – article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the key territorial challenges for urban, rural, coastal, fisheries and fhisheriestoric and cultural heritage areas, as well as for areas with particular territorial features referred to in Articles 174 and 349 of the Treaty, to be addressed by the CSF Funds;
Amendment 534 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 11 – paragraph 1 – point f
Part 2 – article 11 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) mechanisms for ensuring the coherence and consistency of the programming of the CSF Funds with the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the TreatyNational Reform Programmes and other relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treatystrategies.
Amendment 552 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 13 – paragraph 1
Part 2 – article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall, in compliance with Art. 5, prepare a Partnership Contract for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.
Amendment 649 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 16 – paragraph 1
Part 2 – article 16 – paragraph 1
Member States shall concentrate support, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules, on actions bringing the greatest added value in relation to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, addressing the challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, and taking into acs translated to the national and regional count national and regional needext by the National Reform Programmes and other strategies.
Amendment 662 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 17 – paragraph 2
Part 2 – article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall assess whether the applicable ex ante conditionalities are fulfillex ante conditionalities laid down in the respective fund-specific rules are applicable to the specific objectives pursued within the priorities of their programmes and whether the applicable ex ante conditionalities are fulfilled. The assessment shall be limited to the criteria laid down in the fund-specific rules and may be proportional, having regard to the level of support allocated.
Amendment 678 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 17 – paragraph 5
Part 2 – article 17 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall assess the information provided on the applicability and fulfilment of relevant ex ante conditionalities in the framework of its assessment of the Partnership Contract and programmes. ItThis assessment shall be limited to the criteria laid down in the fund-specific rules, shall be proportional having regard to the level of support allocated, and shall respect national and regional competences to decide on the specific and adequate policy measures including the content of strategies. In case of disagreement between the Commission and a Member State on the applicability of an ex ante conditionality to the specific objective of the priorities of a programme or its fulfillment, both the applicability in accordance with Article 2 and and the non-fulfillment shall be proven by the Commission. The Commission may decide, when adopting a programme, to suspend all or part of interim payments to the relevant priority axis of programme pending the satisfactory completion of actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality. The failure to complete actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality by the deadline set out in the programme shall constitute a basis for suspending payments by the Commission.
Amendment 735 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 21 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Part 2 – article 21 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. In the case of Member States that receive financial assistance according to Paragraph 1, Letter d, the Commission can, at the request of the relevant Member State, use an implementing measure to establish a special programme according to Article 53a of the Financial Regulation (centralised management) that allocates suspended or withdrawn payments of the relevant Member State to the objectives of Article 21(4) (greatest possible increase in the effects of the available resources on growth and competitiveness);
Amendment 739 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Part 2 – article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States that meet one of the conditions of Paragraph 1, Letters a, b, or c can, in order to stabilise their economic position and to avoid a disastrous loss of resources, request that the Commission should use an implementing measure to establish a special programme according to Article 53a of the Financial Regulation (centralised management) which ensures that suspended or withdrawn payments of the relevant Member State enable the objectives of Article 21(4) (greatest possible increase in the effects of the available resources on growth and competitiveness) to be achieved as quickly as possible;
Amendment 813 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 29 – paragraph 1 – point c
Part 2 – article 29 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) a description of the strategy and its objectives, a description of the integrated and innovative character of the strategy and a hierarchy of objectives, including clear and measurable targets for outputs or results. The strategy shall be coherent with the relevant public authorities strategies and programmes of all the CSF Funds involved;
Amendment 907 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 38 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Part 2 – article 38 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Gains andResources paid back to financial instruments from investments or from the release of resources committed for guarantee contracts, including returns of the principal or capital element of any investment and returns of other earnings or yields, including interest, guarantee fees, dividends, capital gains or any other income receipts generated by investments, which are attributable to the support from the CSF Funds to the financial instrument, shall be re-used for the following purposes, where applicable, up to the amounts necessary:
Amendment 910 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 38 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Part 2 – article 38 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Amendment 912 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 38 – paragraph 2 – point b
Part 2 – article 38 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) preferential remuneration of investors operating under the market economy investor principle, who provide counterpart resources to the support from the CSF Funds on a co-finance basis to the financial instrument or who co-invest at the level of final recipients;
Amendment 929 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – article 40 – paragraph 2 – point g
Part 2 – article 40 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) where available, multiplier effect of investments made by the financial instrument and value of investments and participations;
Amendment 1191 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Resources for the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall be allocated among the following threewo categories of NUTS level 2 regions:
Amendment 1193 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1194 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) more developed regions, whose GDP per capita is above 9075 % of the average GDP of the EU-27.
Amendment 1195 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The threewo categories of regions are determined on the basis of how their GDP per capita, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Union figures for the period 2006 to 2008, relates to the average GDP of the EU-27 for the same reference period.
Amendment 1207 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 4
Part 3 – article 82 – paragraph 4
4. Immediately following the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall adopt a decision by implementing act setting out the list of regions fulfilling the criteria of the threewo categories of regions referred to in paragraph 2 and of Member States fulfilling the criteria of paragraph 3. This list shall be valid from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.
Amendment 1214 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) [50.13 % (i.e., a total of EUR 162 589 839 384) for less developed regions;] 1 (xxx) for less developed regions; __________________ 1 The percentage must be adjusted in accordance with the MFF negotiations
Amendment 1216 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1219 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) 16,39 % (i.e., a total of EUR 53 142 922 017) for more developed regions; [28.40 %]1 (xxx) for more developed regions; __________________ 1 The percentage must be adjusted in accordance with the MFF negotiations
Amendment 1221 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) [21,.19 % (i.e., a total of EUR 68 710 486 782]1(xxx) for Member States supported by the Cohesion Fund; __________________ 1 The percentage must be adjusted in accordance with the MFF negotiations
Amendment 1281 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 3
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 3
3. At least 215 % of the Structural Funds resources for less developed regions, 40% for transition regions and 525 % for more developed regions in each Member State shall be allocated to the ESF. For the purposes of this provision, the support to a Member State through the [Food for deprived people instrument] shall be considered as part of the share of Structural Funds allocated to the ESF.
Amendment 1283 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 3
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 3
3. At least 215 % of the Structural Funds resources for less developed regions, 40% for transition regions and 525% for more developed regions in each Member State shall be allocated to the ESF. For the purposes of this provision, the support to a Member State through the [Food for deprived people instrument] shall be considered as part of the share of Structural Funds allocated to the ESF.
Amendment 1292 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 1294 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 1296 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Amendment 1320 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 85 – paragraph 1
Part 3 – article 85 – paragraph 1
1. The total appropriations allocated to each Member State in respect of less developed regions, transition regions and more developed regions shall not be transferable between each of those categories of regions.
Amendment 1329 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 85 – paragraph 2
Part 3 – article 85 – paragraph 2
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the Commission may accept, in duly justified circumstances which are linked to the implementation of one or more thematic objectives, a proposal by a Member State in its first submission of the Partnership Contract to transfer up to 210% of the total appropriation for a category of regions to other categories of regions.
Amendment 1334 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 86 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Part 3 – article 86 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover at least 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national level.
Amendment 1335 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 86 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Part 3 – article 86 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover more than 15 % and less than 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national and regional level. For that purpose, those Member States shall provide to the Commission information about the expenditure in the less developed and transition regions at each stage of the verification process.
Amendment 1370 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii
(ii) where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29;
Amendment 1375 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 2 – point c – point iii
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 2 – point c – point iii
(iii) the list of citiea list of cities or a set of criteria for the selection of cities and functional urban areas where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented, the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No […] [ERDF] and the indicative annual allocation of ESF support for integrated actions;
Amendment 1410 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point i
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point i
(i) where appropriate, a description of specific actions to take into account environmental protection requirements, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster resilience and risk prevention and management, in the selection of operations;
Amendment 1414 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point ii
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point ii
(ii) where appropriate, a description of the specific actions to promote equal opportunities and prevent any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation during the preparation, design and implementation of the operational programme and in particular in relation to access to funding, taking account of the needs of the various target groups at risk of such discrimination and in particular the requirements of ensuring accessibility for disabled persons;
Amendment 1419 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point iii
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point iii
(iii) where appropriate, a description of its contribution to the promotion of equality between men and women and, where appropriate, the arrangements to ensure the integration of gender perspective at operational programme and operation level.
Amendment 1422 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Part 3 – article 87 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 1546 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 102 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Part 3 – article 102 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. By 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October and 31 July, the managing authority shall transmit electronically to the Commission for monitoring purposes, for each operational programme and by priority axis:
Amendment 1550 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 102 – paragraph 1 – point b
Part 3 – article 102 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1553 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 102 – paragraph 3
Part 3 – article 102 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1606 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Part 3 – article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Amendment 1609 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Part 3 – article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The co-financing rate at the level of each priority axis of operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal shall be no higher than 785%.
Amendment 1621 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 110 – paragraph 5
Part 3 – article 110 – paragraph 5
5. The maximum co-financing rate under paragraph 3 at the level of a priority axis shall be increased by ten percentage points, where the whole of a priority axis is delivered through financial instruments, or through community-led local developmentterritorial instruments supporting local development (ITI, JAP or CLLD).
Amendment 1700 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Part 3 – article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) in 2014: 2,5 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme;
Amendment 1705 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Part 3 – article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) in 2015: 12,5 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme;
Amendment 1710 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Part 3 – article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) in 2016: 12,5 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme.
Amendment 1751 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 134 – paragraph 1 – point d
Part 3 – article 134 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) there is a serious deficiency in the quality and reliability of the monitoring system or of the data on common and specific indicators;
Amendment 1880 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Introductory part - Paragraph 1
Annex -I (new) – Introductory part - Paragraph 1
The purpose of this framework is to serve, in accordance with Article 10, as a means of coordinating, integrating and balancing the objectives of different EU policies in specific national, regional and local contexts, and, in particular, as a means of coordinating and balancing investment priorities with the thematic objectives set out in Article 9. Implementation of this framework must respect principle of simplification in order not to cause any additional administrative burden.
Amendment 1884 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.1 – Paragraph 1.1.3
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.1 – Paragraph 1.1.3
1.1.3 In order to ensure effective multi- level governance Member States must carry out the following actions: a) implement partnership according to the European code of conduct as referred to in Article 5 b) establish coordination mechanisms between the different levels of governance in accordance with the respective constitutional powers systems; c) report regularly on the implementation of partnership.
Amendment 1886 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.1 – Paragraph 1.1.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.1 – Paragraph 1.1.4
1.1.4 At all stages of the implementation of the Funds covered by the CPR, partnership must be organised in accordance with national rules and practices so as to directly involve regional and local authorities in the preparation of Partnership Contracts, and of programmes and also in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of those programmes. Above that, representatives of regional and local governments should take part in negotiations of the Partnership Contract and programmes on the EU level, with the Commission. Social and economic partners, other public authorities, as well as bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, non- governmental organisations and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination must also be included where appropriate, in order to ensure partnership in all phases of policy implementation.
Amendment 1898 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.2 – Paragraph 1.2.3
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.2 – Paragraph 1.2.3
1.2.3 In order to tackle the complex challenges they face, Member States must deploy all available Union policy instruments. In particular, for the purposes of tackling climate change, resources must be focused on preventative and mitigating measures. Any new investment made with the support of the Funds covered by the CPR must be of a nature such that it is inherently resilient to the impact of climate change and natural disasters.
Amendment 1900 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.2 – Paragraph 1.2.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.2 – Paragraph 1.2.4
1.2.4 The ERDF and CF must continue to make major investments in Member States' infrastructures to meet the requirements of the water framework and other relevant directives. Technological solutions, aimed at contributing to sustainable actions, exist and new ones are emerging, the ERDF must therefore continue to provide support to research in this area. Such support must aim to complement measures covered by Horizon 2020. Finance for biodiversity actions may be made available through the EAFRD and the EMFF. The EAFRD may also be used to provide support to land managers where mandatory environmental requirements lead to area- specific disadvantages.
Amendment 1911 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.1
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.1
1.3.1 Member States should increase efforts to eliminate inequalities and promote equality between men and women, as well as to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, at all stages of the implementation of the Funds covered by the CPR.
Amendment 1912 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.2
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.2
1.3.2 Member States should pursue the objective of equality between men and women and should take appropriate steps to prevent any discrimination during the preparation implementation, monitoring and evaluation of operations in the programmes co-financed by the Funds covered by the CPR and clearly state the actions to take into account this principle in the programmes. Barriers to women's labour market participation should, therefore, be assessed and addressed.
Amendment 1916 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.3
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.3
1.3.3 Higher participation of women in the labour market, both as employers and employees, would invigorate the Union's economy. Unblocking the potential for such an increase in activity, by increasing the female employment rate is crucial for reaching the Europe 2020 employment targets.
Amendment 1917 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.3 – Paragraph 1.3.4
Amendment 1926 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.5 – Paragraph 1.5.2
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.5 – Paragraph 1.5.2
Amendment 1927 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.5 – Paragraph 1.5.3
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.5 – Paragraph 1.5.3
1.5.3 Member States shall use the Funds covered by the CPR to take action in promoting inclusion of all age groups, including enhancing job opportunities for the elderly, which will bring about a multitude of benefits to people, societies and public budgets. Making the best use of all existing human resources, including the unemployed youth, outlines the immediate tasks for the Funds covered by the CPR in contributing to maximising the potential of all through active inclusion policies, as well as improved access, sufficiency and quality of education and social support structures. Investments into health infrastructures would serve the same goal of a long and healthy working life for all of the Union's citizens.
Amendment 1928 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.5 – Paragraph 1.5.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.5 – Paragraph 1.5.4
1.5.4 In drawing up their programmes, Member States should take account of the long challenges of demographic change. They may identify, in those regions most affected by demographic change, approaches to: a) support demographic renewal through better conditions for families and an improved reconciliation of working and family life; b) boost employment; raise productivity and economic performance through investing in education and research; c) focus as appropriate on the adequacy and quality of training and education and social support structures; and d) ensure cost-effective provision of health, social and long-term care including investments in infrastructure.
Amendment 1933 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.2
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.2
1.6.2 In this context, the Funds covered by the CPR make it possible to combine the power of different EU funds into integrated packages which are tailor- made to fit local and regional specific needs. These instruments are Integrated Territorial Investments, Community Led Local Development, Integrated Operations and Joint Action Plans.
Amendment 1938 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.3
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.3
1.6.3 When developing their strategies and programmes with a view to identifying the most appropriate interventions, Member States together with regions and local governments must pay particular attention to predominant territorial, structural and institutional features, such as connectivity of the territory in question, employment patterns and labour mobility; rural-urban linkages; the local interdependencies between different sectors; cultural and historical heritage; ageing and demographic shifts; etc.
Amendment 1941 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.4
Amendment 1943 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.4 a (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.4 a (new)
1.6.4a Any instrument of integrated approach used by the Member State must be implemented in the context of strategic approaches followed by elected policy makers, so as to ensure that "bottom-up" definition of local needs takes account of priorities set at a higher level.
Amendment 1946 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.5
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.5
1.6.5 So as to foster good policies which are tailored to specific regional needs, Member States must further develop an integrated territorial approach to policy design and delivery, taking account of relevant contextual aspects but focusing on the basis of the following central elements: a) an evaluation of the Europe 2020 development potential and capacity of the state, regions and local governments; b) an assessment of the development challenges facing the state and its regions and local governments and its ability to address them; c) consideration of the appropriate territorial scale and context for policy design and delivery, according to the subsidiarity principle. d) design of the multi-level governance arrangements necessary to ensure effective policy delivery; e) the choice of appropriate result and outcome indicators, to be used for policy monitoring and evaluation.
Amendment 1949 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.5a (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 1 – Section 1.6 – Paragraph 1.6.5a (new)
1.6.5a Any instrument of integrated approach used by the Member State must be implemented in the context of strategic approaches followed by elected policy makers, so as to ensure that "bottom-up" definition of local needs takes account of priorities set at a higher level.
Amendment 1953 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.1 – Paragraph 2.1.1
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.1 – Paragraph 2.1.1
2.1.1 With a view to achieving optimal results for sustainable growth and development on the ground, it is important to coordinate all Union policies and related instruments which play a role in achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion and a better balanced territorial development in the EU. This must also be reflected in better coordination between the Union budget and the Member States' national and sub- national budgets in financing common political priorities as well as in improved vertical cooperation between the EU and national, regional and local entities.
Amendment 1955 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.1 – Paragraph 2.1.2
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.1 – Paragraph 2.1.2
Amendment 1956 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.1 – Paragraph 2.1.3 – Introductory part
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.1 – Paragraph 2.1.3 – Introductory part
2.1.3 Member States must ensure consistency at programming and implementation stages between interventions supported by the Funds covered by the CPR and the objectives of other EU policies. To this end, they must seek to:
Amendment 1957 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.2 – Paragraph 2.2.2
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.2 – Paragraph 2.2.2
2.2.2 In particular, Member States and regions must develop a national or regional research and innovation (R&I) strategy for 'smart specialisation' in line with the National Reform Program. These strategies must be developed through close collaboration between national, regional and other managing authorities and the authorities directly concerned by Horizon 2020, but also involving stakeholders such as universities and higher education institutions, local industry and social partners. Those innovation strategies must take into account both upstream and downstream actions to and from Horizon 2020.
Amendment 1964 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.3
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.3
2.3.3 Synergies with LIFE, in particular with integrated projects in the areas of nature (in particular ecosystem services and biodiversity), water, waste, air, climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation should be pursued. Coordination with LIFE can be ensured through supporting projects that are of a complementary nature, as well as by promoting the use of solutions, methods and approaches validated under the LIFE Programme.
Amendment 1965 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.4
2.3.4 Where appropriate, the use of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs), Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and other relevant instruments should be promoted in order to take account of biodiversity loss and the effects of climate change in territorial planning (including macro-regional strategies) and regional and local decision-making.
Amendment 1967 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.5
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.5
Amendment 1971 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.8
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.3 – Paragraph 2.3.8
2.3.8 In addition, financing from the Funds covered by the CPR could be coordinated with the support from the NER 300 Programme, which uses revenue from auctioning allowances under the European Emissions Trading Scheme.
Amendment 1974 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.4 – Paragraph 2.4.1
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.4 – Paragraph 2.4.1
2.4.1 The synergies between the Funds covered by the CPR and the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme must be increased in order to maximise the impact of investment in people. That investment will crucially benefit both individuals and society as a whole by contributing to growth and prosperity. ‘Erasmus for All’ supports only transnational projects, whereas cohesion Policy has a more pronounced regional dimension. Member States are encouraged to test tools and methods resulting from transnational cooperation through ‘Erasmus for All’ and then to implement them on their territory through Funds covered by the CPR.
Amendment 1977 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.4 – Paragraph 2.4.2
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.4 – Paragraph 2.4.2
2.4.2 The Commission and Member States must ensure effective coordination between cohesion policy and 'Erasmus for All' through a clear distinction in the types of investment and target groups supported. 'Erasmus for All' will focus its support on transnational learning mobility of students, youth, entrepreneurs, staff and representatives of local and regional councils; on strategic partnerships between organisations and institutions across Europe and on actions supporting policy development and implementation. The primary investment priority targets for cohesion policy should be: education, labour market training, adult learners' mobility and capacity building, especially in less developed regions.
Amendment 1984 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.1
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.1
2.5.1 In order to maximise European added value, the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, Trans-European Networks and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) must be planned in close cooperation, so as to ensure that optimal links of different types of infrastructure (in Transport, Energy and Telecommunications) at local, regional and national levels, and across the Union are provided for. Maximum leverage of funds must be ensured for projects with a European and Single Market dimension, in particular priority transport, energy and digital networks. In particular the east-west connections require improvement, through the creation of new transport infrastructure and/or maintenance, rehabilitation or upgrading of existing infrastructure.
Amendment 1987 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.3
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.3
2.5.3 Prioritisation of investments which have an impact beyond a certain Member State, must be coordinated with TEN-T planning so that investments by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund in transport infrastructure are fully in line with the TEN-T Guidelines, which define the Union's transport priorities, including: the future development of an integrated TEN-T network, and the multimodal corridor concept.
Amendment 1988 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.4
2.5.4 The Commission's White Paper on Transport sets out a vision for a competitive and resource-efficient transport system, highlighting that a significant reduction in greenhouse gases is required in the transport sector. For the Funds covered by the CPR, this means focusing on sustainable forms of transport and investing in areas that offer the greatest European added value, for example Trans-European Networks. Once identified, investments must be prioritised according to their contribution to mobility, sustainability, sustainable economic growth, to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to the Single European Transport Area. The involvement of the member states in the process of creating the 'list of pre-identified projects on the core network in the field of transport' shall be considered necessary and the needs of cohesion countries shall not be neglected.
Amendment 1993 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.5
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.5
2.5.5 Member States should focus investments on building new infrastructure and enhancing the capacity of existing infrastructure through substantial upgrading. Up keeping of TEN-T infrastructures can also draw significant investment where needed.
Amendment 1997 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.8
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.5 – Paragraph 2.5.8
2.5.8 Cohesion and Structural Funds will deliver the local and regional infrastructures and their linkages to the priority Union networks in the energy and telecommunication areas also. Moreover, they will promote sustainable urban mobility by investments in particular in bypassing urban areas, promotion of modern and environmentally friendly public transport, intelligent traffic management systems as well as public logistic platforms or intermodal terminals.
Amendment 1999 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.6 – Paragraph 2.6.2
Annex -I (new) – Part 2 – Section 2.6 – Paragraph 2.6.2
2.6.2 Providing for deeper territorial integration, synergies between territorial cooperation activities under cohesion policy and the European Neighbourhood Instruments must be capitalised upon. The potential for creating complementarities between these instruments is strongest with regard to cross border cooperation activities. Member States should, therefore, ensure that existing activities are associated with newly created European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation, having special regard to coordination and exchange of best practices.
Amendment 2001 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 3 – Paragraph 3.1
Annex -I (new) – Part 3 – Paragraph 3.1
3.1 Member States must ensure that the interventions financed through the Funds covered by the CPR create synergies and that streamlining leads to a reduction of administrative cost and burden on the ground.
Amendment 2010 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.4
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.4
4.4 The two existing macro-regional strategies have paved the way for organising the interested parties into joint actions at the suitable territorial level. Projects within macro-regional strategies and other forms of territorial cooperation may be supported from both ERDF and ESF and thus the specific conditions for support for macro-regional strategies may be, where appropriate, outlined in the programmes.
Amendment 2011 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.5
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.5
4.5 Overcoming barriers needs to be part of the programming of the Funds covered by the CPR – the objectives of the existing macro-regional strategies can be reflected, when appropriate, in the needs analysis and goal setting for the relevant operational programmes from the planning phase on.
Amendment 2013 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.6
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.6
4.6 At the same time, Member States must ensure that territorial cooperation programmes make an effective contribution to the Europe 2020 objectives. Member States and regions can thus foster cooperation as well as test, pilot and introduce new solutions, making sure that cooperation is organised in support of the wider policy goals. Where needed, territorial cooperation must be used to bring together policy-makers from across borders to work towards overcoming common problems.
Amendment 2014 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.7
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 – Paragraph 4.7
4.7 Member States must view the territorial cooperation programmes primarily as useful tools in overcoming barriers to co-operation, which would in turn support national and regional policy goals with impact beyond the programme area.
Amendment 2018 #
Amendment 2019 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4.a 1(new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4.a 1(new)
4a1 The Commission shall specify, by means of implementing acts, as regards all CSF Funds, key targets and an indicative list of key actions addressed by the CSF funds. The implementing acts will also cover general implementation principles.
Amendment 2020 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4. a 2 (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4. a 2 (new)
4a2 On the EU level the Commission shall provide for a maximum of harmonised and simplified rules, especially as regards rules for eligibility, use of lump sums, flat-rate financing, methodology for unit costs, system of co-financing, revolving policy etc.
Amendment 2021 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4.a 3 (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4.a 3 (new)
4a3 The Commission shall provide for a maximum of its internal coordination in the course of negotiations and implementation of the Partnership Contracts and the programmes.
Amendment 2022 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 a new – Paragraph 4.a 4 (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 a new – Paragraph 4.a 4 (new)
4a4 In their Partnership Contracts, Member states must provide a clear picture of how programmes are meeting horizontal principles, including fulfilling the partnership principle, sustainable development, equality, accessibility, contribution of funds to demographic challenges and integrated approach. Besides, member states must give evidence on synergies with horizontal EU policies and coordination mechanisms among funds covered by CPR.
Amendment 2023 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4. a 5 (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4. a 5 (new)
4a5 Member States must set out in their Partnership Contracts and programmes how they intend to make use of the instruments for integrated approaches to achieve integration and how they intend to engage regional and local actors and local communities in the implementation of integrated instruments. The role of the Commission in setting professional background and clarifying criteria for these instruments is essential.
Amendment 2024 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4.a 6 (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 4a new – Paragraph 4.a 6 (new)
4a6 In order to demonstrate the requirements stated in sections 4a 4 and 4a 5, Member States shall take appropriate steps to adapt their monitoring systems and data collection on the national level.
Amendment 2025 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 a new – Paragraph 4.a 7 (new)
Annex -I (new) – Part 4 a new – Paragraph 4.a 7 (new)
4a7 For the purpose of efficient coordination of EU policies and funds on the national level, implementation and control systems must be made as simple as possible. For this purpose Member States shall analyse their institutional system for implementation of the funds and make necessary steps to simplify it.
Amendment 2026 #
2011/0276(COD)
4a8 Capacity building is a prerequisite for achieving objectives set in this regulation. It must be therefore enhanced on the national, regional and local level.
Amendment 36 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The ERDF should contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy, thus ensuring greater concentration of ERDF support on the priorities of the Union. According to the category of regions supported, the support from the ERDF should be primarily concentrated on research and innovation, small and medium-sized enterprises and climate change mitigation. The degree of concentration should take into account the level of development of the region as well as the specific needs of regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-13 period was less than 75% of the average GDP of the EU-25 for the reference period.
Amendment 41 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) A shift towards sustainable mobility - based on multimodal transport, integrated transport systems and diversion of international and transit traffic out of the city centres - is crucial to achieve its EU 2020 targets, given that transport accounts for 24 % of all CO2 emissions in the Union and transport in the Union has seen its emissions increase by 34 % since 1990. The sustainable mobility will require major investments, e.g. in bypassing urban areas, promotion of modern and environmentally friendly public transport, intelligent traffic management systems as well as public logistic platforms or intermodal terminals.
Amendment 43 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 c (new)
Recital 7 c (new)
(7 c) New funding priorities focusing on the achievement of complex multimodal transport are indispensable.
Amendment 44 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to identify or test new solutions to issues relating to sustainable urban development which are of relevance at Union level, the ERDF should support innovative actions and technologies in the field of sustainable urban development including innovative traffic management systems.
Amendment 48 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The ERDF should address the problems of accessibility to, and remoteness from, large markets facing areas with an extremely low population density, as referred to in Protocol No 6 on special provisions for Objective 6 in the framework of the Structural Funds in Finland and Sweden to the 1994 Act of Accession. The ERDF should also address the specific difficulties encountered by certain islands, mountainous areas, border regions and sparsely populated areas whose geographical situation slows down their development, with a view to supporting their sustainable development. As a next point, the ERDF should address the problems of regular transport services to and from national and regional capitals, links between cities and their surrounding areas - including rural areas - or regions, connections of industrial zones and international airports as well as cultural exchange and tourism infrastructure.
Amendment 51 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) investments in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of energy, environment, transport,sustainable tourism and transport - including removal of bottlenecks, connections of industrial zones and international airports to trans- European and fundamental national infrastructure, strengthening of trans- border links as well as the links between cities and their surrounding areas or regions - and information and communication technologies (ICT);
Amendment 55 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d – point iii
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d – point iii
(iii) support to public research and innovation bodies and investment in technology and, transport safety, technological innovation in transport and mobility as well as applied research in enterprises;
Amendment 61 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to address the specific needs of the ERDF, and in line with the Europe 2020 strategy12 that cohesion policy should support the need to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, it is necessary to set out within each thematic objective laid down in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [CPR] the ERDF-specific actions as ‘investment priorities’. This list of investment priorities should not be interpreted as rules of eligibility but as areas where the focus of support should be directed, thus setting the objectives of the ERDF at a more specific level.
Amendment 97 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point e
(e) promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas, including sustainable mobility chains that combine walking- cycling-carpooling-public transport and mobility, intelligent traffic management systems and diversion of international and transit traffic out of the city centres;
Amendment 114 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
(a) supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) network and the modernisation of existing fundamental infrastructure;
Amendment 117 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
(b) enhancing regional and local mobility through connecting secondary and tertiary nodes and other places to TEN-T infrastructure and among each other where relevant;
Amendment 132 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d a (new)
(d a) developing a complex system of multimodal transport including public logistic platforms, intermodal terminals and initial support of regular intermodal transport links as well as inclusion of industrial zones and international airports in multimodal transport and their adequate connection to trans-European and fundamental national infrastructure;
Amendment 140 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The ERDF shall support, within operational programmes, sustainable urban development through strategies setting out integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental, climate, transport and social challenges affecting urban areas.
Amendment 158 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex – row 15
Annex – row 15
Railway km Total length of new railway line of which: TEN-T km Total length of repaired, reconstructed or upgraded railway line of which: TEN-T
Amendment 162 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex – row 19
Annex – row 19
Roads km Total length of newly built roads of which: TEN-T km Total length of repaired, reconstructed or upgraded roads of which: TEN-T
Amendment 163 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex – row 20 a (new)
Annex – row 20 a (new)
International airports minutes Total reduction of the average time needed to reach the airport by means of public transport from the nearest city centre
Amendment 187 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d – point iii
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d – point iii
(iii) support to public and private research and innovation bodies and investment in technology and applied research in enterprises;
Amendment 198 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d – point iv
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d – point iv
(iv) networking, cooperation and exchange of experience between regions, towns, and relevant social, economic and environmental actors and educational, research and science institutions;
Amendment 220 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
In more developed regions, the ERDF shall not supportder to reduce internal disparities in development it may also be necessary for more developed regions to investments in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of environment, transport, and ICT.
Amendment 246 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part
(a) In more developed regions and transition regions:
Amendment 309 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
By derogation from point (a) (i) and (ii), in those regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-13 period was less than 75% of the average GDP of the EU-25 for the reference period but which are eligible under the category of transition or more developed regions as defined in Article 82(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No [ ]/2012 [CPR] in the 2014-2020 period, and for capital regions of Member States eligible under Article 82(3) of Regulation (EU) No [ ]/2012 [CPR] in the 2014-2020 period, at least 60% of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to each of the thematic objectives set in out in points 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [CPR] of which at least 10 percentage points should be allocated for point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. The ERDF resources allocated according to point 1 of Article 4 can be reduced by the amount equal to resources allocated from the Cohesion Fund to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] allocated pro-rata to the different categories of regions based on population.
Amendment 319 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The ERDF shall supportfocus its assistance on the following investment priorities within the thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [CPR]:
Amendment 330 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) enhancing research and innovation infrastructure (R&I), technology and innovation services and capacities to develop R&I excellence and promoting centres of competence, in particular those of European interest;
Amendment 356 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c
(c) supporting technological and applied research, pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first production in particular in Key Enabling Technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies;
Amendment 558 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
(b) enhancing regional mobility in particular through connecting secondary and tertiary nodes to TEN-T infrastructure and multimodal nodes;
Amendment 631 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point a
(a) investing in health and social infrastructure which contribute to national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities in terms of health status, and transition from institutional to community- based services and integration of marginalised communities;
Amendment 667 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 11
(11) enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support of actions in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the ESF.
Amendment 700 #
2011/0275(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
At least 510 % of the ERDF resources allocated at national level shall be allocated to integrated actions for sustainable urban development delegated to cities for management through Integrated Territorial Investments referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [CPR].
Amendment 41 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) investment in new housing.
Amendment 44 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point a – introductory part
Article 3 – point a – introductory part
(a) supporting the shift towards a low- carbemission economy in all sectors by:
Amendment 50 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point a – subpoint ii
Article 3 – point a – subpoint ii
(ii) promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in particular in small and medium-sized enterprises;
Amendment 55 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point a – subpoint iv
Article 3 – point a – subpoint iv
(iv) developing smart distribution systems at low voltage levels including smart grids and intelligent buildings ;
Amendment 57 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point a – subpoint v
Article 3 – point a – subpoint v
(v) promoting low-carbemission strategies for urban areas;
Amendment 63 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point b – subpoint ii
Article 3 – point b – subpoint ii
(ii) promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems including anti floods and water capture measures;
Amendment 85 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point d – subpoint ii
Article 3 – point d – subpoint ii
(ii) developing environment-friendly and low-carbemission transport systems including promoting sustainable urban mobility;
Amendment 86 #
2011/0274(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point d – subpoint iii
Article 3 – point d – subpoint iii
(iii) developing and reconstruction of comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railwaypublic transport systems;
Amendment 11 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Cross-border cooperation should aim to tackle common challenges identified jointly in the border regions (such as poor accessibility, poor and missing infrastructure including the bottlenecks within the fundamental transport networks, inappropriate business environment, lack of networks among local and regional administrations, research and innovation and take-up of information and communication technologies, environmental pollution, risk prevention, negative attitudes towards neighbouring country citizens) and exploit the untapped potentials in the border area (development of cross-border research and innovation facilities and clusters, development of cultural exchange and improvement of tourism infrastructure, cross-border labour market integration, cooperation among universities or health centres), while enhancing the cooperation process for the purpose of the overall harmonious development of the Union. In the case of any cross-border programme between Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland in support of peace and reconciliation, the ERDF shall also contribute to promoting social and economic stability in the regions concerned, notably by actions to promote cohesion between communities.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to deliver on the targets and objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, the ERDF should contribute under the European territorial cooperation goal to the thematic objectives of developing an economy based on knowledge, research and innovation, promoting a greener, more resource-efficient and competitive economy, fostering high employment that delivers social and territorial cohesion, and developing administrative capacity. However, the list of the investment priorities under the different thematic objectives should be adapted to the specific needs of the European territorial cooperation goal, in particular by allowing for the continuation under cross-border cooperation of legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions, of development, improvement or expansion of transport and tourism infrastructure, of cooperation in the fields of employment, training and social inclusion in a cross-border perspective, by allowing for the continuation under transnational cooperation of maritime cross-border cooperation not covered by cross-border cooperation programmes, and by the development and implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies.
Amendment 34 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – point a – point iv c (new)
Article 6 – point a – point iv c (new)
(iv c) the development of new as well as improvement or expansion of the existing transport and tourism infrastructure;
Amendment 53 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Cross-border cooperation should aim to tackle common challenges identified jointly in the border regions (such as poor accessibility, poor and missing infrastructure including bottlenecks within the transport networks, inappropriate business environment, lack of networks among local and regional administrations, research and innovation and take-up of information and communication technologies, environmental pollution, risk prevention, negative attitudes towards neighbouring country citizens) and exploit the untapped potentials in the border area (development of cross-border research and innovation facilities and clusters, development of cultural exchange and improvement of tourism infrastructure, cross-border labour market integration, cooperation among universities or health centres), while enhancing the cooperation process for the purpose of the overall harmonious development of the Union. In the case of any cross-border programme between Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland in support of peace and reconciliation, the ERDF shall also contribute to promoting social and economic stability in the regions concerned, notably by actions to promote cohesion between communities.
Amendment 81 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to deliver on the targets and objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, the ERDF should contribute under the European territorial cooperation goal to the thematic objectives of developing an economy based on knowledge, research and innovation, promoting a greener, more resource-efficient and competitive economy, fostering high employment that delivers social and territorial cohesion, and developing administrative capacity. However, the list of the investment priorities under the different thematic objectives should be adapted to the specific needs of the European territorial cooperation goal, in particular by allowing for the continuation under cross-border cooperation of legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions, of development, improvement or expansion of transport and tourism infrastructure, of cooperation in the fields of employment, training and social inclusion in a cross-border perspective, by allowing for the continuation under transnational cooperation of maritime cross-border cooperation not covered by cross-border cooperation programmes, and by the development and implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies.
Amendment 149 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Amendment 159 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Each Member State under the Eureopan Territorial Cooperation goal may transfer up to 15 % of the financial allocation of the cross-border or trans national cooperation strand to the other.
Amendment 209 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
(iv) promoting legal and administrative cooperation and diverse cooperation between citizens and institutions, including necessary infrastructure (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration);
Amendment 214 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv a (new)
(iv a) investments in infrastructure to promote the economic and functional development of cross-border regions
Amendment 225 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv b (new)
(iv b) in the case of any cross-border programme between Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland in support of peace and reconciliation, actions to promote cohesion between communities and to contribute to enhanced social and economic stability in the regions concerned.
Amendment 239 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 263 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii
(ii) where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR];
Amendment 273 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c – point v
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c – point v
Amendment 294 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point i
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point i
(i) where appropriate, a description of specific actions to take into account environmental protection requirements, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and risk prevention and risk management in the selection of operations;
Amendment 295 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point ii
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point ii
(ii) where appropriate, a description of the specific actions to promote equal opportunities and prevent any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation during the preparation, design and implementation of the cooperation programme and in particular in relation to access to funding taking account of the needs of the various target groups at risk of such discrimination and in particular the requirements of ensuring accessibility for disabled persons;
Amendment 297 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point iii
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point iii
(iii) where appropriate, a description of its contribution to the promotion of equality between men and women and where appropriate the arrangements to ensure the integration of gender perspective at programme and operation level.
Amendment 299 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 308 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
Article 10
For cooperation programmes, the intermediate body to carry out the management and implementation of an Integrated territorial investment referred to in Article 99(3) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR] shallmay be an EGTC or other legal body established under the laws of one of the participating countries provided that it is set up by public authorities from at least two participating countries.
Amendment 311 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1a (new)
The above mentioned conditions shall not apply to those actions under any cross- border programme between Northern Ireland and the border countries of Ireland in support of peace and reconciliation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6.
Amendment 327 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) where appropriate, progress in implementation of actions to reinforce the capacity of authorities and beneficiaries to administer and to use the ERDF;
Amendment 328 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) where appropriate, the specific actions taken to promote equality between men and women and to prevent discrimination, including accessibility for disabled persons, and the arrangements implemented to ensure the integration of the gender perspective in the operational programme and operations;
Amendment 330 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point e
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) where appropriate, actions taken to promote sustainable development;
Amendment 335 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
Article 16
The amount of the ERDF allocated to technical assistance shall be limited to 6% of the total amount allocated to a cooperation programmes, but shall not be less than EUR 1 500 000.
Amendment 364 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. The managing authority shall ensure that any amount paid as a result of an irregularity is recovered from the lead or solultimate beneficiary. BUltimate beneficiaries shall repay the lead beneficiary any amounts unduly paid to the managing authority.
Amendment 365 #
2011/0273(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3
Article 25 – paragraph 3
3. If the lead beneficiary does not succeed in securing repayment from other beneficiaries or if the managing authority does not succeed in securing repayment from the lead or solultimate beneficiary, the Member State or third country on whose territory the lead or solultimate beneficiary concerned is located or, in the case of an EGTC, is registered shall reimburse the managing authority the amount unduly paid to that beneficiary. The managing authority shall be responsible for reimbursing the amounts concerned to the general budget of the Union, in accordance with the apportionment of liabilities among the participating Member States as laid down in the cooperation programme.
Amendment 36 #
2011/0272(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Experience from the setting up of EGTCs shows that the three months period for approval by a Member State has rarely been respected. The period should therefore be extended to sixfour months. On the other hand, in order to create legal certainty after that period, the convention should be deemed to be approved by tacit agreement. While Member States may apply national rules on the procedure for such approval or may create specific rules in the framework of the national rules implementing the EGTC Regulation, derogations to the provision concerning tacit agreement after the period of six months should be ruled out.
Amendment 46 #
2011/0272(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – point a – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – point a – subparagraph 2
Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
The Member State shall reach its decision within a deadline of sixfour months from the date of receipt of an application in accordance with paragraph 2. If the Member State concerned does not respond within the time limit laid down, the convention shall be deemed to be approved.
Amendment 62 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Efficient and effective implementation of actions supported by the ESF depends on good governance and partnership between all relevant territorial and socio- economic actors, in particular local and regional authorities, the social partners and non-governmental organisations. It is therefore necessary that Member States encourage the participation of social partners and non-governmental organisations in the implementation of the ESF.
Amendment 143 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma;
Amendment 149 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – point vi
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – point vi
(vi) Public authorities´ and Community- led local development strategies and territorial initiatives;
Amendment 153 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i – introductory part
(i) Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and, good governance and cooperation;
Amendment 166 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) Supporting the shift towards a low- carbemission, climate-resilient, resource- efficient and environmentally sustainable economy, through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy;
Amendment 191 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 205 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. As a derogation from the provisions set out in point (a) and (b), for the capital regions of Member States eligible under Article 82(3) of Regulation (EU) No [ ]/2012 [CPR] in the 2014-2020 period, the above percentages shall be decreased by 10 percentage points.
Amendment 214 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. The involvement of the relevant public authorities, social partners and other stakeholders, in particular non- governmental organisations, in the implementation of operational programmes, as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No […], may take the form of global grants as defined in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No […]. In such a case, the operational programme shall identify the part of the programme concerned by the global grant, including an indicative financial allocation from each priority axis to it.
Amendment 216 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. To encourage adequate participation of the regional and local public authorities as well as social partners in actions supported by the ESF, managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No […] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity- building activities, in the form of training, networking measures, and strengthening of thepublic authorities´ capacity to provide for community planning and strengthening of social dialogue, and to activities jointly undertaken by the public authorities and by social partners.
Amendment 235 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. The Commission shall ensure complementarity of the social innovation measures financed by the ESF and by the EU Programme for Social Change and Innovation.
Amendment 267 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. At least 5% of the ESF resources allocated at national level shall be allocated to integrated actions for sustainable urban development delegated to cities for management through Integrated Territorial Investments referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR].
Amendment 275 #
2011/0268(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Grants reimbursed on the basis of the eligible cost of operations, determined in the way of flat-rate financing, standard scales of unit costs and lump sums as referred to in Article 57(1) of Regulation (EU) No […] may be calculated on a case- by-case basis by reference to a draft budget agreed ex ante by the Managing Authority, where the public support does not exceed EUR 1200 000.
Amendment 11 #
2011/0177(APP)
Draft opinion
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas both beneficiaries and net contributors benefit from EU cohesion policy, and whereas over the period 2007- 2013 every euro in cohesion funding for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia will have generated an average of EUR 0.61 in direct and indirect benefits for the EU-15 Member States;
Amendment 14 #
2011/0177(APP)
Draft opinion
Point i
Point i
i. The amount of EUR 376 billion forUnderlines that the position of the European Parliament is that Cohesion pPolicy, as proposed by the Commission in its proposal for a regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014- 2020, should be considered as a funding should be maintained at least at the level of the 2007-2013 period, namely EUR 366, 8 billion in 2011 prices (excluding the Connecting Europe Facility), which is the absolute minimum sound level of sound funding and should, therefore, constitutes a red line in the future negotiationg position of the Parliament.
Amendment 19 #
2011/0177(APP)
Draft opinion
Point i b (new)
Point i b (new)
ib. Given that cohesion policy provides support for measures to align economic and social conditions in all EU regions and in particular to reduce development disparities affecting the least favoured regions, is opposed to attempts to set up, to the detriment of cohesion policy, thematic funds that will undermine national financial envelopes;
Amendment 158 #
2011/0177(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Points to the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat; urges the budgetary authority to raise this issue in the negotiations on the next MFF 2014-2020;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2305(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 13 #
2010/2305(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 47 #
2010/2305(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 52 #
2010/2305(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that emphasis should be placed on payments for delivery of results and achievement of objectives rather than checking inputs;. believes, in this context, that a better balance should be found between, on the one hand, the rules and procedures required for ensuring the legality and regularity of EU expenditure and, on the other, making cohesion policy more performance-oriented and cost- efficient;
Amendment 56 #
2010/2305(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that proportionalitythe balance between the volume of support and control requirements should be strengthenimproved, and emphasises that the coordination of audit activity should be enhanced and the single audit principle followed in the next programming period; considers that the control process in the single audit framework must bring about an overall simplification of the control mechanism;
Amendment 79 #
2010/2305(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 89 #
2010/2305(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to verify the existence and examine the efficiency of the legislative bases for the implementation of PPP projects and, where appropriate, to recommend to those Member States which have not adopted such legislative measures to prepare and adopt as soon as possible, with a view to permitting the mobilisation of resources from the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund for PPP projects in the next programming period, procedures for efficient implementation of these projects at regional and local level;
Amendment 5 #
2010/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the provision of fast broadband networks is vital if the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy are to be achieved, in terms of promoting economic growth, strengthening Europe's competitiveness and enablgiving all regions and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment, cities and municipalities the opportunity to exploit 21st-century digital technology to the full,
Amendment 23 #
2010/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that, in addition to measures aimed at supporting the provision of broadband networks and other network technologies, it is especially important to ensure that investments are also directed towards the development of applications and programmes for the use of the IT infrastructure, which will improve the life of citizens, support the provision of online public services and enhance the quality of public administration;
Amendment 27 #
2010/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the cost in administrative and planning terms of implementing national and European broadband support programmes is considerable; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to simplifyensure that conditions for support as well as procedures as far as possible, in order to step up the flow of fundsand procedures are simplified as far as possible and that regions, cities and municipalities can draw on maximum financial support as rapidly as possible;
Amendment 36 #
2010/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that European law on aid, as it currently stands, frequently leads in practice to legal uncertainty, hampering planned investment; calls, therefore, on the Commission to examine to what extent the rules could be simplified and made more investment-friendly, and an unnecessary administrative burden on regional and local authorities avoided;
Amendment 45 #
2010/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the definition of basic provision will have to be adjusted in future in line with changed requirements; calls, therefore, on the Commission, in view of the likely failure of the market to supply rural areas with NGA networks, to incorporate new organisational models for the provision and financing of high-speed and ultra-high-speed networks as an option into the broadband guidelines on the use of broadband;
Amendment 14 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that single market accessibility for all EU regions is a prerequisite for the free movement of people, goods, capital and services, and thus for a strong and dynamic single market; points out, in this connection, the essential role played by the Union's regional policy in terms of developing infrastructure, particularly in the less developed and outermost regions; calls for the development of innovative sources of funding (such as public-private partnerships, project bonds and user charges); calls for the elimination of those barriers to venture capital funds who desire to invest in the EU's regions, which, if permitted, could allow the EU's regions to play their full part in the Commission's flagship Innovation Union initiative; calls on the Commission and the Member States jointly to address the complexity of the rules governing revenue- generating projects;
Amendment 24 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that regional policy implementation is crucial for the success of the Europe 2020 strategy and the deepening of the single market; points out that EU structural funding should be allocated in a dynamic, forward-looking manner, i.e. so as to cushion further the possible adverse effects on regions of international trade agreements and to prepare EU regions forto help develop the capacity of EU regions to adapt to socioeconomic change; calls for a more user-friendly regional policy, but also for stricter rules against ‘fund-shopping’, by means of which some enterprises may misuse the Union's financial instruments;
Amendment 46 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8a (new)
Paragraph 8a (new)
8a. Underscores the potential for the EU's regions to play their considerable role in assisting the Commission's drive to create a digital Single Market; highlights, in this regard, the importance that should be placed on utilising the funds available to the EU's regions in order to overcome their lack of development in the fields of e-commerce and e-services, which could serve as a fruitful source of future growth in the regions;
Amendment 48 #
2010/2277(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes the view that territorial cooperation (including European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) and macro-regional strategies) makes a decisive contribution to removing visible and invisible internal borders within the single market; calls, in this connection, for the post-2013 budget for territorial cooperation to be increased;
Amendment 8 #
2010/2276(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that Roma continue to be victims of persistent discriminationfrequent prejudice in many Member States and that this situation is exacerbated by the current economic and financial crisis; calls on those Member States which the EU Fundamental Rights Agency identified as having severe problems to fully exploit the EU resources available under the Structural Funds, and in particular the ERDF and ESF;
Amendment 15 #
2010/2276(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises that, in times of demographic change, the Roma population, which has been part of our common heritage for centuries, should be given the meanincentives through good quality education, decent housing and job opportunities to fully integrate the work place and contribute to economic development as foreseen in the EU 2020 strategy, especially in those Member States with a shrinking population, who could stand to benefit from an additional large and young labour force; calls on the Member States, therefore, to increase their efforts now, by reinforcing their effective strategies for addressing the specific circumstances (deep poverty, lack of education, poor health conditions) of marginalised communities, in order to ensure their social and economic integration;
Amendment 38 #
2010/2276(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recognises that Roma communities, as found both in the EU-27 and in candidate countries, represent extremely heterogeneous groups, with the consequence that there can be no single strategy; underlines therefore, that there exists a need for distinct approaches which take account of the varying geographical, economic, social, cultural and legal contexts in which each Roma community is found;
Amendment 3 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points to the increased importance of cohesion policy following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and to the fact that a third pillar – territorial cohesion – has been added to it, and notes that the regionMember States, the regions and cities are best placed to implement that policy on an active basis and that sectoralisation is therefore counterproductive;
Amendment 6 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that cohesion policy is an important componentbut not the only tool for the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and that a sound cohesion policy is the prerequisite for successful joint action by the EU as it contributes to a better ownership of EU2020 objectives at regional and local level and allows for a consolidation of strategic goals and local needs with potential on the ground; emphasises that objectives that are included in the Lisbon Treaty but are not part of EU2020 goals should also be achieved and the relationship between the objectives of the EU2020 Strategy and other objectives should be clarified;
Amendment 21 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that cohesion policy, which accounts for the largest individual budget, has been one of the EU's most significant and most successful policies for decades; believes that cohesion policy should have its heading or subheading within the EU budget;
Amendment 25 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Points out that a modern cohesion policy must take on the remaining needs of structural reforms and the new challenges facing all the EU; regions; considers it is therefore necessary to set priorities:
Amendment 31 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 – introductory part
– we stress the need, within cohesion policy, for increased support for pro- growth measures and qualitative update of public goods and services such as:
Amendment 32 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 – point i a (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 – point i a (new)
(i a) development of smart physical infrastructure,
Amendment 34 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 – point i
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 – point i
(i) ICT deployment, research, development and innovation,
Amendment 50 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Endorses the view that that the ESF must remain an integral component of cohesion policy and be strengthenedthat operational integration should exist between the ERDF and the ESF, their resources should be used in a more coordinated manner in order to allow for integrated and more effective delivery; calls for greater coordination with cohesion policy measures so that rural regions can be properly involved and resources used more efficiently;
Amendment 60 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Insists, in keeping with a spirit of solidarity, on largely targeting the support to less developed regions; furthermore on specific support for the EU- 27‘'s most disadvantaged regions; stresses, at the same time, the need for a powerful Objective 2 and sound transitional rules;
Amendment 69 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that funds must be spent transparently and efficiently in the regions, cities and municipalities, on the basis of rules that are as simple as possible and sound management with a strong decentralised strand derived from political accountability of local and regional self- governing authorities;
Amendment 76 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Insists that, in future, expenditure control should be streamlined and more result-oriented in order not to put excessive administrative burden on final beneficiaries;
Amendment 100 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 19 #
2010/2206(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Strongly emphasises, however, that the primary responsibility for destination management lies with the local and regional bodies and they are irreplaceable in this role; the common EU agenda in this area must therefore remain confined to laying down standards and arranging exchanges of good practice, on the one hand, and monitoring global trends on the tourism market, and also possibly promoting Europe as a tourist destination effectively abroad, on the other;
Amendment 30 #
2010/2206(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Emphasises that the development of tourism calls for further infrastructure investment (for example, to improve transport links, to increase quality in response to demand for better service, to expand capacity and thereby boost employment, etc.) and calls on the Commission, therefore, to take better account, in its nature conservation proposals, of public interest in the socio- economic development of the most attractive tourist destinations, because by their very nature these destinations are located in areas of great natural and cultural value and are therefore often subject to special protection arrangements, whereas tourism is often a significant, and sometimes the only possible, form of economic activity there;
Amendment 2 #
2010/2160(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas a local-development-based approach can contribute significantly to the efficiency and effectiveness of cohesion policy, while an exclusive emphasis strong urban issues and the role of cities within cohesion policy could lead to imbalance in thedimension of cohesion policy reflecting wider functional areas has to be accompanied by balanced conditions for synergic development of both urban and rural areas,
Amendment 12 #
2010/2160(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that one of the main reasons why the ERDF and the other Structural Funds have struggled to effectively channel money towards projects with a greater possibility of generating economic development and employment creation, has been an excessive emphasis on absorption capacity, rather than on results;
Amendment 14 #
2010/2160(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that an unfocused and uncoordinated policy design may end up financing a very wide and disparate collection of projects, without necessarily prioritising those investments with the greatest impact on competitiveness and economic development in the regions;
Amendment 6 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EU can be characterised by its polycentric development and variety of different sized urban areas and cities that have heterogenic competences and resources; expresses the view that it would be inappropriate and even problematic to adopt a common definition of ‘urban areas’ and of the term ‘urban’ in general as it is difficult to bring under the same umbrella the diversity of situations in Member States and regions and hence takes the view that any obligatory definition and designation of urban areas should be left to Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity based on European common indicators,
Amendment 13 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, building on the experience of the URBAN initiatives, urban actions, that have been integrated (‘mainstreamed’) into the regulatory framework for the Convergence and Regional competitiveness and employment objectives in the 2007-2013 programming period; and whereas this mainstreaming has clearly expanded the available funding for cities, although the integrated approach to urban development risks to get lost due to a strengthened sectoral focus in the individual operational programmes,
Amendment 14 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas subsidiarity in its strengthened and widened form as defined in the TFEU, as well as multi-level governance and a better defined partnership principle are essential elements for the correct implementation of all EU policies and whereas engagement of resources and competences of local and regional authorities should be reinforced accordingly,
Amendment 18 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas simplification of policy implementation, including that of control and auditing mechanisms, help improve efficiency, reduce error rates, turn the policy architecture more user-friendly and increase visibility; and whereas simplification efforts should continue and be accompanied by the simplification of national and regional procedures so that representatives of urban areas can better orient and manage the utilization of European funds,
Amendment 21 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the European Urban Agenda comprises on the one hand the urban dimension of EU policies, in particular cohesion policy, and on the other hand the intergovernmental strand of European level efforts to coordinate urban policies of Member States, the latter being implemented through informal ministerial meetings with the coordination of successive Council Presidencies and the active contribution of the Commission; considers in this context that local governments should be better informed of and more strongly involved in the activities of the intergovernmental strand; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Context of the Urban Dimension)
Amendment 22 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes the approval of the Toledo Declaration and the Toledo Reference Document on urban regeneration; agrees with the need of more continuity and coordination in moving towards a joint working programme or ‘European Urban Agenda’; welcomes that Ministers underlined the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination with the European Parliament as well as the aim of strengthening the urban dimension in cohesion policy and promoting sustainable urban development and integrated approaches by reinforcing and developing instruments to implement the Leipzig Charter at all levels; Congratulates Member States and the Commission on their efforts to continue the Marseille process and implement a reference framework for European sustainable cities; follows with interest the launch of the test phase of the reference framework; regrets however, that cities are not sufficiently involved in these processes; asks therefore the Commission and Member States to ensure better flow of information about this process to non- participating cities and to keep Parliament informed about further developments;
Amendment 23 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that further to the significant contribution of cohesion policy interventions to the development of urban areas, a range of other EU policies (such as environment, transport, energy, etc.) and programmes which have a strong impact on urban development; stresses the need for a better understanding of the territorial impact of policies and calls for enhancing the Urban Agenda in EU policies; reiterates in this context its call on the Commission to proceed with a territorial impact assessment of sectoral policies, and to extend the existing impact assessment mechanisms; welcomes in this context the ideas outlined in the Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion and the work carried out by ESPON;
Amendment 28 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that it is to a great extent urban areas that translate European policies into on the ground implementation; stresses that urban areas generate around 80% of the GDP of the EU and significantly contribute to the economic growth of Europe; on the other hand they also bear the costs of economic productivity (urban sprawl, concentration, congestions, pollution, exclushigh unemployment, crime, migration, social exclusion, social polarization etc.) that put their role as ‘motors of growth’ into risk; considers therefore that there is a clear justification for common engagement towards the urban areas of the EU; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Local Needs and/vs. European Priorities)
Amendment 33 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that maximising the contribution of urban areas to the economic growth of the EU while sustaining or improving their parameters as ‘good places to live in’ is a shared goal of European, national, regional and local levels of government; stresses that while this goal is widely shared, the specific measures to pursue it can vary place by place; notes that as a consequence of historical development in the second half of the XXth century, some regions and cities will generally need to follow a wider palette of priorities including that of convergence and hence considers that sufficient flexibility must be therefore ensured allowing particular urban areas to find the solutions best suiting to their needs, macro- and micro-environment and development context;
Amendment 43 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points to a great potential of modernisation of infrastructural investments through intelligent technologies which would deal with persisting problems in city governance, energy, water supply and utilization management, transport, tourism, housing, education, health and social care, public safety etc. through the concept of ‘smarter urban development’; believes that such ICT infrastructure investments can be seen as explicit driver for economic growth and innovation-based economic activity bringing together the following elements of public and private investment that can aim to generate new entrepreneurship, jobs and growth and thus should be regarded as a European priority:;
Amendment 45 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Reiterates its view that the main weakness of the Lisbon Strategy was the lack of well functioning multi-level governance and the insufficient involvement of regional and local authorities and civil society in the design, implementation, communication and evaluation stages of the strategy; stresses the need for an improved governance system of the EU2020 Strategy with stronger integration of stakeholders at all stages; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Multi-level Governance and Partnership Principle)
Amendment 49 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to make it obligatory for Member States to formally involve political leaders of key urban areas and associations of local and regional authorities into all stages of Cohesion Policy decision-making (strategic planning, definition of and negotiation on the foreseen ‘National Strategic Development Contracts’); is of the opinion that this is the one and only way to reflect on local needs while preventing fragmentation of strategic goals and solutions;
Amendment 52 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes that the link between local action plans and regional/national mainstream programmes should be strengthened and that the local development approach of local communities through local support groups and local action plans should be supported;
Amendment 61 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses the positive role that cross- border cooperation, transnational cooperation and URBACT initiative plays in networking of cities, sharing best practice and generating innovative solutions; believes that supported networks should be linked to real development projects and calls on the Commission to enhance the platforms to allow experimental approach to urban regeneration and development;
Amendment 65 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reiterates its call on the Commission to create an exchange programme ‘Erasmus for local and regional elected representatives’ in order to encourage the transfer of good practice in strategic local and urban development;
Amendment 66 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Reiterates its recommendations on the establishment of an EU High-level Group for Urban Development convening delegated experts from Member States responsible for coordinating urban policies and providing recommendations towards related EU policies and initiatives; notes that this body should exercise its activities without prejudice to the subsidiarity principle and the competences of Member States in urban development;
Amendment 71 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the fact that local elected authorities have direct political accountability in terms of strategic decision-making and investing public resources; therefore for reaching the goals of Cohesion Policy and EU 2020 Strategy there must be obligatory involvement of local elected bodies in the strategic decision making process and the broad use of the option of sub-delegated responsibilities in the implementation and evaluation of the Cohesion Policy; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Sub-delegation of Responsibilities)
Amendment 80 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Advocates for the integrated strategic planning principles as they can help local authorities with stepping up from thinking in terms of ‘individual projects’ to a more strategic inter-sectorial thinking to use their endogenous development potential at the same time, regrets the vague common definition resulting only in formal application in some cases; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Integrated Strategic Planning)
Amendment 84 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Invites the Commission to prepare a study comparing the to-date practice of individual Member States in this area concluded by specific EU guidelines for integrated urban development planning practise clarifying relations between these plans and other planning documents as well as promoting efficient partnership; calls on the Commission to make integrated urban planning legally binding if EU funds are used for co-financing projects; at the same time calls on the Commission to step up technical assistance towards improved integrated development planning, participatory policy-making and strategic urban development;
Amendment 86 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Reiterates its belief that only if sufficient resources are available for specific urban actions will it be efficient to draw up integrated urban development plans and therefore consequently recommends that available resources be concentrated on specific actions; proposes a minimum level of Structural Funds expenditure per inhabitant of the urban area per programming period;
Amendment 87 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Stresses that unavoidable austerity measures on all levels of government in the European Union put unprecedented stress on all types of public spending including strategic investments on economic development; is of the opinion that in the interest of improved efficiency of investment, better coordination of all available public resources (European, national, regional, local, private) and their more strategic allocation is needed; (Please introduce the following subheading above this paragraph: Comprehensive Financial Planning)
Amendment 88 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Advocates in this respect for comprehensive financial planning on local level as an indivisible component of integrated development planning and calls on each user of public resources in line with the notion of result orientation to strictly sign-up to the ‘money for projects, instead of projects for money’ principle;
Amendment 98 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the promising role of new financial engineering instruments put in place during the current programming period; calls on the Commission to evaluate the experience with these tools and adapt them where necessary to improve their competitive position on the financial market in comparison with common commercial products; for the benefit of making them more ‘user- friendly’, practical, attractive and hence more effective; believes that the interest rates of EIB financial tools should be made lower in comparison with commercial loans in this respect;
Amendment 101 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the financial flows between European, national and sub-national level are organised in the most efficient and flexible way in the future; expresses its concern about the existing low level of pre-financing to projects and believes that in the future it should be ensured through the regulations that Member States are more clearly obliged to use pre-financing for payments to public beneficiaries such as urban authorities;
Amendment 102 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Calls on the European Commission to aim at the best possible harmonisation of rules for particular EU funds and programmes under which urban and local development projects are eligible for co- financing in order to minimise the red tape and potential errors in implementation;
Amendment 103 #
2010/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Invites the Committee of the Regions to elaborate on the ideas how to better shape the urban dimension of future cohesion policy;
Amendment 108 #
2010/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the regions and municipalities to provide, where feasible, universally available, reliable and free all-day childcare facilities for children of all ages to prevent depopulation, while also recognising the valued role of extended families in taking care of children;
Amendment 117 #
2010/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 156 #
2010/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Stresses that for European regions faced with demographic challenges, creating the environment for a competitive and innovative private sector is the central element in order to create new opportunities for employment across all generations;
Amendment 1 #
2010/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that culture and creative industries (CCIs), that constitute a major part of local and regional attractiveness and vision for their economic, social and territorial development, are recognised throughout the Green Paper as a tool for local and regional development, and points out that local and regional authorities in most Member States are responsible for sectors mentioned in the context of CCIs, especially culture, research, education, tourism and employment;
Amendment 29 #
2010/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines that culture has an essential role to play in terms of the sustainable development of cross-border territories, believes that stimulating culture and creativity should be an integral part of territorial cooperation and hence calls on the Commission to map available knowledge of the practices, needs and good experiences of cross- border cultural and creative cooperation and to acquire specific expertise on culture, creativity and cross-border territories (particularly in little-explored areas such as the link between culture, creativity and economy);
Amendment 30 #
2010/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Welcomes the envisaged actions that are supposed to be undertaken to strengthen the role of CCIs as a catalyst for innovation and structural change under the "Innovation Union" and “Digital Agenda for Europe” flagship initiatives; and emphasises the role of ICTs in CCIs and the “creative nexus” between investment, technology, innovation entrepreneurship and trade, and invites the Commission to promote access to and encourage the use of new ICT technologies in the cultural and creative sector such as the digitalisation and online accessibility of cultural content;
Amendment 31 #
2010/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Emphasises the widespread recognition of the European Capital of Culture initiative as a "laboratory" for urban development through culture and invites the Commission to promote this initiative and ensure the right conditions for the transfer of best practices, cultural cooperation and setting up networks for sharing experience on the opportunities of CCIs in order to make use of the full potential of these sectors;
Amendment 32 #
2010/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Regrets the fact that the Commission does not pay enough attention to twinning arrangements between towns, municipalities and regions, which have for many years provided an excellent forum for cultural and creative cooperation and information exchange; calls on the Commission in cooperation with European associations of local and regional authorities to promote modern, high quality twinning initiatives and exchanges that involve all parts of the society;
Amendment 34 #
2010/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recommends that the Commission evaluate the relevanceimpact of the Structural Funds and existing and future programmes in the field of culture, research, tourism, audiovisual media, youth and education, drawing lessons from existing projects and studies in order to design a post-2013 cohesion policy that would help release the full potential of the cultural sphere, and particularly that of the creative industries;
Amendment 47 #
2010/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recognising the exceptional cross- sectoral nature of CCIs, calls on the Commission in coordination with Eurostat to pursue its efforts for a better definition of the sector and for it to be more accurately reflected in statistics (development of new models and methodology for gathering qualitative and quantitative data, improving their comparability as well as quality of collection processes);
Amendment 10 #
2010/2155(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that territorial cooperation aims to help territories and regions to work together in tackling their common challenges, to reduce the physical, cultural, administrative and regulatory barriers to such cooperation and to lessen the ‘border effect’;
Amendment 66 #
2010/2155(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Encourages the Member States and regions to set up multi-regional operational programmes, whose managing authorities could be EGTCs, to address common territorial problems; invites the Commission to consider the rule changes which would be needed so that cross- border multi-regional operational programmes could be established along similar lines;
Amendment 78 #
2010/2155(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Stresses at the same time that the aims of macro-regional strategies complement the aims of micro-regional cross-border cooperation and may encompass them, but cannot replace them; stresses for this reason that the cross-border component of territorial cooperation must be preserved as a distinct and legitimate element in its own right;
Amendment 104 #
2010/2155(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the allocation of global grants to EGTCs, on the basis of common cross- border development strategies, to enable them to directly manage Structural Fund appropriations, and for the multinational and multilateral nature of EGTCs to be better reflected in regulations governing the other European funds, with a view to improving their access to other sources of financing;
Amendment 133 #
2010/2155(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 1 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that enhancing accessibility, strengthening regional and local economies and achieving cohesion is also an objective of the Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T) programme and is fully compatible with the need for efficient mobility, meeting the climate change challenges and the general internal market goals;
Amendment 3 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls the imbalancedistribution of the planned transport investments between the different modes (road infrastructure 41 billion versus rail: €23.6 billion and inland waterways €0.6 billion), that is neither helpfulless supportive to enhance modal swift objectives to reduce CO2 emissions norand to ensure fair and efficient co-modality;
Amendment 9 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, according to Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion, and in particular, the Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions such as rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicap,
Amendment 11 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Draws particular attention to the European added value of the TEN-T, particularly evident in cross border sections of projects and in their interconnection with national road, rail and inland waterways projects;
Amendment 11 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the strategic dimension of cohesion policy guaranteeing consistency with the European Union priorities - making Europe and its regions more attractive places in which to invest and work, improving knowledge and innovation for growth and creating more and better jobs - is provided and highlighted through Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (hereinafter: General Regulation), the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (hereinafter: Strategic Guidelines), the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) and the Operational Programmes (OP),
Amendment 14 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls therefore for an increase in the overall funds available for TEN-T through earmarking cohesion funding foand for other transport projects and the dedication of an amount within this for the core TEN T network as thus would lead to a more efficient and consistent use of cohesion funding with the EU climate change and sustainable development targets and a more effective realisation of the TEN-T network;
Amendment 18 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to work out a good practice guidance for public consultation as regards large projects of general interest. The aim is to avoid not unfrequented situations when individual concerns obstruct transport projects of general interests, limit the effective use of Funds and restrain reaching Cohesion and Transport Policy goals.
Amendment 25 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. NReiterates its appreciation of the national efforts resulting in average allocation of expenditure for the achievement of the Lisbon agenda of 65% of the available funds in the convergence regions and 82% in the regional competitiveness and employment regions, exceeding the levels originally requested; notes with satisfaction that a total of EUR 63 billion is reported as allocated to Lisbon earmarking projects and that project selection under Lisbon earmarking is at the same level or slightly faster than selection for other actions;
Amendment 30 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the progress rate among CSG themes is highest in the Territorial Dimension theme (30%), above average for ‘Improving knowledge and innovation for growth’, but below 27.1% in the case of the other two guidelines and that, moreover, selection rates are above average for Lisbon earmarked projects in both Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives, but amount only to 20.5% in the European Territorial Cooperation objective; regrets that, in the absence of output and result indicators for all Member States, the analysis of policy performance as presented in the strategic report has proved to have serious limitations; calls on the Commission, therefore, to review its administrative reporting requirements and calls on the Member States to be more disciplined about providing data on programme implementation;
Amendment 37 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that corrective measures need to be promptly taken to improve poor performance in some priority areas; calls on Member States in this context to step up efforts to improve project selection in the delayed themes, and to accelerate implementation of all selected projects so as to avoid the risk of not reaching the agreed objectives;
Amendment 38 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Considers that rapid project selection and implementation is particularly needed for the activities aimed at improving human capital, supporting labour markets and enhancing social inclusion in order to overcome the negative impacts of the economic crisis;
Amendment 39 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Highlights the fact that several Member States confirmed that the discipline imposed by the earmarking exercise has improved the quality and focus of programming; moreover Member States unanimously considered that maintaining fundamental priorities of their National Strategic Reference Frameworks and Operational Programmes linked to the Lisbon Strategy is the best instrument to tackle the crisis, and reconfirmed the relevance of the medium and long term objectives set out in these documents;
Amendment 42 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the fact that effective selection and implementation of projects in some areas is hampered by missing relevant preconditions, such as the lack of clear national priorities for certain areas of intervention, belated transposition of EU laws and lack of institutional and administrative capacity; calls therefore on Member States and regions to facilitate policy implementation by tackling these challenges and in particular by improving the legal framework in the field of state aid, public procurement and environmental rules and pursue institutional reforms;
Amendment 57 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Considers that the signs of recovery from the crisis are fragile, and in the coming years Europe has to tackle its structural weaknesses, also through Cohesion Policy interventions; stresses therefore the need for a thorough analysis of the impact of measures aimed at counteracting the crisis;
Amendment 65 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Highlights the particular added value of more synergies between ERDF and ESF, since experience clearly proves that successful performance of ESF-financed programmes is essential in order to maximise the effectiveness of ERDF funding for economic actions; notes also that greater coordination would be welcome between cohesion policy instruments and rural development policy instruments, since achieving more synergies between ERDF and EAFRD is similarly important;
Amendment 75 #
2010/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Considers that strategic reporting, as a valuable tool of monitoring the progress of implementation creates a basis for peer review and strategic debate on EU level, therefore encourages Member States to adopt more analytical and strategic approach while elaborating national reports, and expects stronger focus on outputs, outcomes, as well as reasons for the failure to achieve the targets;
Amendment 1 #
2010/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that energy- saving measures are a cost-efficient way to increase the supply security and to reduce CO2 emissions; is concerned about the low outflow of ERDF funds for the energy efficiency measures in a number of Member States; urges the Member States to make energy efficiency a horizontal priority in their operational programmes, and calls on the Commission and the national authorities to developelaborate ways to facilitate the use of structural funds for energy efficiency measures, such as ensuring better information flow to the local level or establishing one-stop shops;
Amendment 14 #
2010/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Supports a multi-level, decentralised approach to energy policy and energy efficiency, including the Covenant of Mayors and the Smart Cities Initiative; underlines the importance of the bottom-up EU energy policy approach for cities and regions that aims to promote clean, energy-efficient investment; stresses that aligning the future Cohesion Policy with the Europe 2020 Strategy would provide a key delivery mechanism that would bring about smart, sustainable growth in the Member States and, regions and cities.
Amendment 1 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Recognises the contribution of EU industry towards the vision of socio- economic and territorial cohesion and considers prosperous industry to be a crucial condition for economic growth and social stability in EU regions;
Amendment 3 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that an ‘EU industrial policy for the globalised era’ can achieve its aims only if it deals with the extent to which Community policies are adapted to future challenges that European regions and their local industries are facing and will face in the coming years; in this regard, stresses that the impact of demographic, climate and energy changes needs to be further analyzed with respect to their regional dimension, taking into consideration the potential regional disparities that these challenges will generate, thus affecting the homogeneous growthprosperity of EU industries;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognises the threefold challenge to be tackled by the EU industrial policy: i) related to the transformation of CEE economy to a market oriented one, ii) related to the recent economic downturn, iii) related to ensuring the future industrial production; therefore is of the opinion that the future steps should be directed to: i) liberalising and improving the environment for industry and business inside the EU, ii) removing non-essential regulations and interventions undermining the position of EU industry in comparison with its competition on the global market, iii) utilising the potential of research, development and innovation.
Amendment 18 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the global economic crisis is affecting employment rates all over Europe, thus worsening the socio- economic prospects of the EU and increasing regional disparities; in this respect, emphasises that a fair and sustainableprosperous industrial sector is essential for the future of workers Europe-wide;
Amendment 21 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a new approach to a sustainable industrial policy, as acknowledged by the EU 2020 Strategy, and highlights the need for an integrated industrial strategy to be developed by the Commission together with the European Parliament and the Council alongside consistent involvement of industries themselves, in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Better Regulation strategy;
Amendment 24 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises that research and innovation is a need shared by the whole spectrum of industry, and is of the opinion that the EU’'s various instruments for cohesion, research and innovation should be implemented in an integrated manner to ensure their effectiveness; emphasises the need to seek synergies between these instruments and calls for an increased budget for these financial instruments;
Amendment 26 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes and supports moves by Member States towards the establishment of a single EU-wide patent regime, which can stimulate and encourage researchers and innovators throughout the EU;
Amendment 36 #
2010/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the importance of a well- balanced and sustainable resource efficiency plan as a toollongside moves towards the creation of an integrated and liberalised EU energy market as the primary tools for driving EU industries towards a competitive industrial strategy, thus enhancing the competitiveness of our industrial sector compared to other markets, such as the USA and China, which have set ambitious targets on environmental products; emphasises that environmental standards on raw and auxiliary materials, as well as on security of energy supplies, should lead to enhanced territorial cohesion instead of increasing the distance between central and outermost regions, taking special account of the peripheral regions and their needs;
Amendment 24 #
2010/2088(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses, however, that GDP must remain the sole criterion for decision- making on the adherence of the Member States and regions to the aims of the future cohesion policy and on the level of financial allocations;
Amendment 44 #
2010/2088(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates that demographic characteristics, transport accessibility, access to public services, the condition of natural environments, environmental sustainability, fairness and social integration and other factors are now just as important as the economy among the key issues underpinning the Europeansustainable model for development; states, furconsiders, thermefore, that an overarching approach should be taken with regard to assessing people’s wellbeing and quality of life, as welthese issues, which should therefore be taken into account as supplementary indicators at national asnd regions’ vulnerabilitiesal level when programmes are being designed and projects approved;
Amendment 52 #
2010/2088(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 73 #
2010/2088(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 15 #
2010/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that research and innovation can best be fostered at regional level, thanks to the proximity between universities, public research bodies, large companies, SMEs and regional and local public authorities, for example within clusters;
Amendment 21 #
2010/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that the EU’'s instruments for encouraging research and development focus on large-scale projects of excellence likely to have a tangible impact on economic activity and job creation, innovation in product planning and ensuring a future for high value-added production, thereby creating jobs and leaving the European Union better equipped to compete globally; points out that the momentum generated by projects of excellence benefits all the Member States and is an effective adjunct to the territorial dimensionprimary objective of cohesion policy instruments, which is convergence.
Amendment 3 #
2010/2001(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to undertake a pilot project aiming at promoting a common regional identity and reconciliation of nations, e.g. in the Danube macro-region; considers that these pilot projects should consistregions formerly traversed by the Iron Curtain, and in the Danube macro-region, where the 'scars of history' from the half- century of a divided Europe are still visible; considers that these pilot projects should consist of support for common cross-border strategic plans for the development, coherence and coordination of public services and of training programmes, seminars organised for young people with a view to fostering opportunities of cultural exchange and contributing to a progressive, sustainable, European, future-oriented dimension of coexistence; considers that this would promote social and economic stability and territorial cohesion in the regions concerned;
Amendment 18 #
2009/2243(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights the great potential of cities in pursuing research and innovation; believes that smarter urban policy based on technological advancements would contribute to sustainable economic growth and hence calls for a more significant respect paid to cities and adjusting agglomerations in future cohesion policy as well as research and innovation policy;
Amendment 36 #
2009/2243(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Welcomes the emphasis in the draft EU 2020 strategy on the interdependence between policies, the importance of policy integration and the need for better synergies and stronger partnership in the design and delivery of public policies; calls for consideration to be given to the need expressed by cities and regions for a more comprehensive framework in the three policy areas;
Amendment 57 #
2009/2243(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Highlights the need for place-based policies and considers that cities and regions should pursue smart and green specialisationdevelopment based on technological advancements by defining a few innovation priorities based on the EU objectives and on their needs, and concentrate earmarked EU resources on these identified priorities;
Amendment 25 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. points out that the regional and local level in particular has a crucial role to play as the vehicle to reach the countless economic and social actors living and producing in Europe, especially SMEs, and to foster education and vocational training, research, innovation and development;
Amendment 31 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the adoption of the Commission proposal on the future EU2020 strategy; stresses the long-term nature of this strategy thatits nature of long-term vision aimsing to create framework conditions for stable growth infor coordinating national economic policies in order to strengthen the competitiveness of Europe, and agrees with the priorities identifiedidentified priorities;
Amendment 36 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13a (new)
Paragraph 13a (new)
13a. Recommends strongly that the Commission prepares a straight-out evaluation of the weaknesses in the Lisbon strategy implementation in order to prevent making the same mistakes with EU2020;
Amendment 43 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Appreciates that the social dimension is taken into account in the proposal, but regrets that it still does not have a central role in the strategystresses that the economic pillar has the central role in terms of job creation and therefore it is vital to complete the free, open and functional Internal Market enabling businesses to react with flexibility to the macro-economic trends; stresses that the recent crisis has demonstrated that no strategy for growth can neglect the objectives of social protection, access to services, the fight against poverty and social exclusion and the creation of quality jobs;
Amendment 55 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Sstresses that education, training, research and innovation are key instruments to foster the development of the EU and make it more competitive in the face ofagainst the global challenges; is of the opinion that there must be regular and reasonable investment in these fields and that innovation in particular should be measured by its results, for example the successful transfer to and real use by services and industry;
Amendment 66 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Welcomes the recognition of the role of the Structural Funds in the delivery of the EU2020 goals; stresses, however, that the cohesion policy is not just the source of stable financial allocations. Its main goals - overcoming the disparities between regions and introducing real economic, social and territorial cohesion in Europe, and principles - an integrated approach, multi- level governance and real partnership - are key complementary elements for the success of the Sstrategy and should be fully integrcoordinated intowith it;
Amendment 71 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Emphasises that a strong and well- financed cohesion policy, embracing all European regions, must be a ke must be a key complementary element of the EU2020 Strategy; believes that this policy, with its horizontal approach, is a pre-condition for a successful delivery of the EU2020 goals, as well as for achieving social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EUn unique tool for economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU and as such is an important precondition for successful delivery of the EU2020 goals; rejects all attempts to renationalise the cohesion policy and asks for the regional dimension to be fully supported in the review of the EU budget;
Amendment 73 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that the cohesion policy is not subordinated to the EU2020 Strategy; highlights that whilst the cohesion policy's priorities should be resulting from the foreseen Single European Strategic Reference Framework and aligned with the EU2020 objectives, sufficient flexibility should be allowed to accommodate regional and national specificities and support the weaker regions to overcome their socio- economic difficulties and reduce disparities; since not the process but the results matter, common approach must not super ordinate the substance of the EU2020 strategy nor the future generation Cohesion Policy;
Amendment 77 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Asks for an improved governance system in the EU2020 Strategy compared to the Lisbon Strategy; recommends its design and implementation according to the multi-level governance principle so as to ensure the greateran obligatory involvement of local and regional authorities andvoluntary consultations with civil society stakeholders;
Amendment 88 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. points out the key role of cities in achieving the EU2020 goals; believes that only a balanced and smart development of urban areas based on technological advancements can ensure that the growth is sustainable; highlights that future Cohesion Policy must pay more significant respect to cities and adjusting agglomerations in order to enable them to be more instrumented, interconnected and intelligent in all areas of public life; urges that their experience and contribution be taken into account in implementing the EU2020 priorities, especially as regards climate and demographic change and green investments in energy, transport, water management, health care, public safety etc;
Amendment 93 #
2009/2235(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recognises that, although highly significant, the Structural Funds are not the only instrument to implement the EU2020 Strategy; expects the Commission to present - without anticipating the debate on future Financial Framework - concrete proposals for creating synergies between the cohesion policy and existing sectoral policies according to an integrated approach; recommends rationalisation of the that objectives, instruments and administrative procedures of programmes and alignment of the programme duration of these policies;
Amendment 47 #
2009/2234(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor, on a continuous basis, the impact of the crisis in various structural and development fields and the use made of the opportunities offered by the financing instruments earmarked for Objective 2 primarily to support competitiveness and employment, with an emphasis on entrepreneurship and SMEsentrepreneurship and SMEs with a view to increasing their competitiveness and thus the potential for greater employment;
Amendment 48 #
2009/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that the Member States must support a place-based approach to framing and implementing cohesion policy; acknowledges that the role of the regions varies between Member States depending on their political and administrative structure; requests that, in the interests of subsidiarity, an improvement be sought, by promoting the principle of decentralisation, down to the local authority level over the current programming period, in which the regions are administering only 30.5% of the overall budget allocated to cohesion policy, with the remainder being administered by central governments;
Amendment 65 #
2009/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the importance, in the interests of eliminating disparities, of continuing to provide support primarily for projects aimed at regions that are lagging behind, so that the impact expected in this programming period can be maintained and is in line with initial estimates; improving accessibility and infrastructural facilities will contribute to the competitiveness of lagging regions in the internal market, and thus to the external competitiveness of the EU as a whole; takes the view that withdrawing that support would reduce the impact of the positive initial results;
Amendment 13 #
2009/2232(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 39 #
2009/2232(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Reiterates its view that partnership can contribute tois a prerequisite for transparency, responsiveness, efficiency and legitimacy in all the phases of cohesion programming and implementation, and can increase commitment to, and public ownership of, programme outputs; calls, therefore, on the Member States and managing authorities fully to involve partners more closelyregional and local authorities and, as appropriate, other relevant partners in all the phases of cohesion programming and implementation at an early stage and to give them full access to all project documents, with a view to making better use of their experience and knowledge;
Amendment 45 #
2009/2232(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for more guidance from the Commission on how to put the partnership clause into practice under current programmes, and for sufficiently binding rules on partnership in future regulatory texts, particularly as regards the involvement of regional and local authorities, i.e. elected bodies, which are essential partners in the whole process;
Amendment 29 #
2009/2231(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Member States also to strengthen the role of regional and local authorities in programme preparation, management and implementation, where appropriate; recommends the adoption in the cohesion policy of the local development methodology based on local partnerships, in particular for projects related to urban, rural and cross-border issues;
Amendment 36 #
2009/2231(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission, following the pilot project initiated by the European Parliament 'Erasmus for elected local and regional representatives', to create a training and mobility scheme for local and regional actors and elected officials involved in running cohesion policy programmes;
Amendment 6 #
2009/2175(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that it is not only costs and complexity which can be prohibitive, but also the time needed to complete the public procurement process, not land the threast because theof legal action in the form of lengthy appeal procedures arethat are often obstructed by various actors, and hence welcomes the fact that the recovery plan makes it possible to apply accelerated versions of the procedures outlined in the public procurement directives to major public projects specifically in 2009 and 2010; calls on the Member States to supportmake use of the procedure and assist local authorities in using these new procedures, in each case in compliance with the standard public procurement rules and regulations;
Amendment 11 #
2009/2175(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Deplores the fact that in some cases Structural Fund allocations for infrastructure projects undertaken in the context of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) and related contracts with private operators based on public procurement carried out at sub-national level have led to a loss of European Union subsidies previously available to fund infrastructure development; believes that it is vital to remove obstacles to and establish clear rules for PPPs if the European Union wants to have any chance of making the necessary investments in infrastructure and quality services; calls on the Commission to ensure that public procurement and Structural Fund implementation rules set a clearoherent framework for PPPs in order to create legal certainty for all stakeholders and reduce the pressure on public budgets, in the context of the principle of co-financing and in the aftermath of the global economic crisis;
Amendment 15 #
2009/2175(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the right of local and regional authorities to decide democratically on the best means of delivering public services, including decisions to use companies they own or control without any private partner being involved; believes that even without compulsory tendering inter-communal or other forms of public-public cooperation for service delivery should be accepted as a legitimate way of delivering in-house services and that sub-national actors should be able to assign tasks relating to public service provision to companies they own or control, provided that those companies do not compete on external markets; proposes that the Commission should assess whether there is any remaining legal uncertainty regarding the concepts of ‘public authority’ and ‘in- house services’ in the light of various judgments1 of the Court of Justice and, if necessary, take steps to clarify them so that the principle of subsidiarity is observed;.
Amendment 22 #
2009/2175(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the difficulty in distinguishing public works contracts from public authorities’ town planning activities and endorses the concerns voiced by many local authorities in response to the interpretation of the rulings1 of the Court of Justice in the field of urban development; firmly believes that the operationally and legally strict application of public procurement rules might hinder urban development; calls on the Commission to clarify the corresponding public procurement rules and revise the legal framework in order not toso that land agreements can be facilitated between the public and private sector without the unnecessary requirement of having to award a tender and without jeopardiseing the powers and right of local authorities to decide how they want to develop their territory; awaits with great interest the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-451/08; endorses the view of the Advocate-General of the Court of Justice delivered on 17 November 2009 in Case C-451/08: 'These broad and ambitious aims must be borne in mind when interpreting the Directive but it should not be assumed that, by appealing to the purpose of the measure, its scope can be extended indefinitely.' (paragraph 35); otherwise there is the risk 'that all town planning activities are subject to the Directive since, by definition, provisions on the possible execution of building works substantially alter the value of the land in question'.
Amendment 8 #
2009/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that the fight against the depopulation of rural areas should form part of the strategy to support disadvantaged areas in the EU; considers it necessary, in the interests of disadvantaged areas, to take a 'depopulation' criterion into account in the ‘fine-tuning’ that the Member States are to carry out when drawing up the map of intermediate disadvantaged areas;
Amendment 19 #
2009/2156(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 13 #
2009/2152(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that the way to increase the share of low carbon footprint means of transport in the transport market does not lie in regulating the level of investment in the transport network in favour of the rail infrastructure at the expense of the road infrastructure; considers that efforts should rather focus on increasing the efficiency of transport, on creating a level playing field for all means of transport (primarily by thorough liberalisation of the rail sector), on developing intermodality and also on improving the technological quality of road vehicles in terms of their CO2 emission parameters;
Amendment 7 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the transport sector is an important element in the development of the European Union and its regions, one which has a direct influence on the competitiveness and social and territorial cohesion of the regions and thereby makes a significant contribution to achieving the European single market and to creating the conditions for equal benefit from its advantages,
Amendment 8 #
2009/2096(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that an integrated and coordinated approach to infrastructure planning, project financing and development can plays a central role in developing a competitive and sustainable transport sector; stresses that local and regional authorities often cannot meet transport challenges without co- operation, callingand therefore for their and the stakeholders’ active involvementcalls on the Member States to cooperate actively with the stakeholders in the policy development and implementation process;
Amendment 16 #
2009/2096(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the added value of interregional, cross-border and transnational cooperation in addressing challenges faced by the transport sector; therefore calls for the trans-border considerations to be taken into account in future transport policy; further calls on the Commission to fully and consistently make use of the European Coordinators particularly for the planning and construction of cross-border sections of priority projects in the TEN-T network, on the grounds that there will be a multiple return on the investment involved in their activity in the form of savings arising from more efficient and speedier completion of projects;
Amendment 29 #
2009/2096(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that rail liberalisation is linked with the challengenecessary to increase the effectiveness of rail transport, to improve its competitive position vis-a-vis road transport and to increase its share in long-distance freight and public passenger transport, in accordance with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector as a whole and promoting regional development; notes howevfurther, that liberalisation should not have the unintended consequence of making rail transport less competitive vis-a-vis road transport and that due regard must be given to ensuring that peripheral regions do not lose rail connectivity; is also necessary in order to increase the cost-effectiveness of rail transport and its affordability for clients, who are often regional public authorities;
Amendment 41 #
2009/2096(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8a (new)
Paragraph 8a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to continue consistently to proceed on the basis of the ‘co-modality’ principle defined in the Mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 Transport White Paper, with a view to improving the overall transport connectivity of the regions, which is an essential condition for their development; takes this view because it considers that there is only a single transport sector, or one demand for transport services, and that the challenge for public policies is to create fair conditions for the various modes of transport to ensure that each can contribute its strengths to the system as a whole, whereas giving one-sided preferential treatment to one transport mode over another results in inequalities and inefficiencies;
Amendment 53 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the development of society and a wide range of economic sectors results in increased demand in the transport sector, so that all means of transport are vital; whereas, however, these should be measured according to their efficiency in economic, environmental, cohesion, social and employment policy terms,
Amendment 67 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is convinced that population growth, in particular in cities, will give rise to challenges for transport in terms of safety and capacity, and that the basic right to mobility and the applicability of this right are crucial in this regard; stresses that, in this context, multimodal transport chains and collective transport, inter alia, are the way ahead for urban areas; recognises the contribution of all levels of governance to achieve sustainable transport in Europe, in the respect of subsidiarity;
Amendment 80 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that increasing demand also results, inter alia, in a strain on capacity and reduced efficiency due to infrastructure problems in the field of freight transport, and that, primarily, the TEN-T network should therefore be completed, the bottlenecks removed and the missing links filled in, in particular in cross-border sections, and comodal use and the safety of transport users and transported goods should therefore be increased;
Amendment 197 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is of the view that coordination of the preparation and construction of priority TEN-T projects and their operation, technical interoperability, European certification and mutual recognition are essential elements of an effectively functioning single market, and that the consistent enforcement of these should figure more prominently in the tasks of the various agencies, since the costs thus incurred will be recouped in the form of savings owing to the better functioning of the system as a whole;
Amendment 261 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises that an efficient transport policy requires adequate funding, and that a transport fund might be created using, inter alia, existing funds in the EU budget, part of the structural and cohesion policy funds and PPPs or other financial instruments; such a fund should be used, at all levels of government, to improve infrastructure, support research and promote the implementation of intelligent transport systems, and should be guided by award criteria which take account of environmental, social and security efficiency;
Amendment 283 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is convinced that the definition of a European core network within the overall TEN-T network should be evaluated according to criteria of territorial cohesion, accessibility of regions and sustainable development at European and also regional level, and that multimodal platforms remain an essential element of infrastructural supply, since they enable effective interconnections between different modes of transport;
Amendment 307 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 introductory part
Paragraph 20 introductory part
20. Calls for compliance with clearer, more measurable targets, clearly structured by priority, responsibility and level of application (Community, national, regional, local), and therefore proposes the following:
Amendment 316 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 - indent 1 a new
Paragraph 20 - indent 1 a new
- completion by Member States of the TEN-T projects set out in Decision No 884/2004/EC in accordance with the approved schedule,
Amendment 369 #
2009/2096(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 - indent 7 a (new)
Paragraph 20 - indent 7 a (new)
- completion by Member States of the TEN-T projects laid down in Decision No 884/2004/EC in accordance with the approved schedule,
Amendment 88 #
2009/0173(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
For the purposes of determining each manufacturer’s average specific emissions of CO2, a potential over- achievement of a manufacturer’s CO2 target under Regulation (EC) 443/2009 shall be taken into account for the same manufacturer and in the same calendar year if requested by the manufacturer. In this case it shall be done as follows: 80% of the difference between the manufacturer’s specific emission target and its average specific emissions according to Regulation 443/2009 shall be deducted from its average specific emissions of CO2 for light commercial vehicles. Directive 2009/33/EC establishes the relation of lifetime mileage for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles at 80%.
Amendment 102 #
2009/0173(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Manufacturers of new light commercial vehicles, other than manufacturers which have been granted a derogation under Article 10 or under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) 443/2009, may form a pool for the purposes of meeting their obligations under Article 4.
Amendment 103 #
2009/0173(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6
Article 6 – paragraph 6
6. Paragraph 5 shall not apply where all the manufacturers included in the pool are part of the same group of connected manufacturers or where the pool consists only of one manufacturer pooling its passenger car and light commercial vehicle fleets.
Amendment 104 #
2009/0173(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 125 #
2009/0173(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – introductory part
(b) From 2019:22: (Excess emissions × €95) × number of new light commercial vehicles.
Amendment 5 #
2008/2214(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the relationship between energy and territorial cohesion, as pointed out by the Green Paper on territorial cohesion, in terms of both the positive contribution of energy efficiency measures to sustainable development and the possible long-term solutions for isolated regions; calls on the Commission to take the utmost account of these areas, especially mountainous regions and the outermost regions, and to present urgently concrete measures suited to their specific characteristics and constraints aiming at ensuring greater energy efficiency;
Amendment 18 #
2008/2214(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to envisage, for the next programming period of the Structural Funds, priority criteria settingomotion of energy- efficiency objectives or introducing concreteand promotion of measures and technologies for saving energy and for its efficient use, including through the usepromotion of partnerships, in projects such as renovating buildings, modernising street lighting, environmentally friendly transport, modernising installations for urban heating and producing heating and electricity;
Amendment 12 #
2008/2174(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 56 #
2008/2174(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Emphasises that the concept of territorial cohesion also embraces cohesion within territories, which is to be achieved by supporting territorial capital, its potential and links with suburban and rural areas.
Amendment 143 #
2008/2174(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Emphasises that, although various EU territories have different territorial development dynamics, they all need integrated development strategies covering several development sectors and that better integration of different EU and national funding sources as well as other policy measures is therefore essential;
Amendment 175 #
2008/2174(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Emphasises the need for coordinated and comprehensive EU strategies to support the development of urban and rural areas that will enable them to address jointly the problems and challenges they are facing;
Amendment 3 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 26 a (new)
Citation 26 a (new)
- having regard to the New Charter of Athens 2003, proclaimed at the European Council of Town Planners in Lisbon on 20 November 2003,
Amendment 77 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Recommends that the Commission and Member States establish an EU High Level Group on Urban Development and apply the open method of coordination to urban development policy at EU level;
Amendment 9 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas one of the Union’s development aims is to modernise social structures, including employment structurespromote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development,
Amendment 12 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas territorial cohesion can be enhanced by aligning both per-capita incomesthrough economic development and employment structurespromotion in rural and urban areas,
Amendment 39 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that the criteria traditionally used to distinguish rural areas from urban areas (lower population density, size of population, different employment structure, lower level of income and worse access to public goods and services) fail to provide a complete picture of the situation; considers, therefore, that from the point of view of territorial cohesion, per-capita income, not lower population density, should be the decisive characteristicit is necessary, in addition to the criteria cited, to take into consideration the costs of safeguarding living standards; at the same time, is aware that it is not appropriate to adopt a common definition of rural areas, since that would not take sufficient account of the diversity of situations in the individual Member States, and therefore takes the view that the definition of rural areas should be determined by the Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 55 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on Member States and regional authorities to formulate, in cooperanjunction with the Commissiondevelopment strategy for urban areas, a transparent, long- term rural development strategy at national and regional level, in order to be able to identify clearly rural development priorities and objectives and adapt to them the various sources of funding available;
Amendment 102 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide appropriate support for projects to develop human capital, in particular through the provision of retraining and further training opportunities for inhabitants of rural areas with the aim of promoting employment and job creation;
Amendment 119 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Council to convene a joint meeting of agriculture and regional development ministers to discuss the best means of coordinating cohesion policy and rural development measures, and to invite to this meeting representatives of regional and local bodies;
Amendment 127 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission and Member States to apply the open method of coordination to rural development policy at Union level and to involve the representatives of regional and local authorities in this process;
Amendment 128 #
2008/2100(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Amendment 53 #
2008/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Proposes, for the sake of simplification and effectiveness, that a study should be carried out into the feasibility of merging the various European funds, in particular the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund, under the future cohesion policy for the period 2014-2020after 2013;
Amendment 76 #
2008/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8a (new)
Paragraph 8a (new)
8a. Highlights that the partnership process can only be effective if it is open and inclusive on the one hand and representative on the other hand; in this context suggests that the guide mentioned in recital 7 specifically deals with issue of partner selection;
Amendment 99 #
2008/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12a (new)
Paragraph 12a (new)
12a. Takes the view that successful multi- level governance needs to be based on a 'bottom-up' approach and hence calls on Member States (or regions) to design and implement development strategies for regions (or municipalities) whilst developing plans for Structural Funds interventions;
Amendment 139 #
2008/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Proposes the creation of an ERASMUS programme for local elected officials and civil servants;
Amendment 11 #
2008/2055(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers it indispensable that adequate funding be guaranteed for the period after 2013, so as to enable cohesion policy not only to continue carrying out successfully its traditional tasks, but also to deal with a number of new global challenges with significant territorial impact, such as climate and demographic change, energy efficiency and urban concentration, as detailed in the Commission's Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (COM(2007)0273); therefore takes the view that the allocation of 0.35% of the EU’s GDP will be insufficient to finance this policy;
Amendment 38 #
2008/2055(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that, during the negotiations for the Regulations on Structural Funds 2007- 2013, Parliament put forward in the context of an informal trilogue, a proposal for the reallocation of unspent resources that are lost because of the N+2 / N+3 rule to the Community cohesion budget (Heading 1b) and to other operational programmes with a better record of absorption; greatly regrets that this proposal was not considered at the time by the Council; calls on the Commission, in its forthcoming mid-term review, to respond to Parliament’s proposal and to make specific proposals for the reallocation of these resourcalls on the Commission to make an analysis of the impact of applying this instrument in practices.
Amendment 24 #
2007/2191(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, due to it its strong territorial impact, rural development policy should be integrated into regional policy in order to foster synergies and complementarities betweennecessary to foster synergies and complementarities between rural development policy and regional policy and to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of reintegrating these policies,
Amendment 80 #
2007/2191(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. In this connection takes the view that it is necessary to consider carefully whether new quantifiable development and social indicators other than GDP per capita should be used in order to indicate intra- regional disparities, evaluate implementation and policy efficiency and be used as guidance for development planning;