Activities of Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas, faced with the impossibility of changing the overall MFF figures decided by the European Council, Parliament successfully negotiated the inclusion of ~~several key~~ new provisions that will help to make the new financial framework and the new EU annual budget more operational, consistent, transparent and responsive to the needs of EU citizens and to allow the MFF ceilings to be fully used; whereas these provision concern, in particular, the new arrangements relating to the MFF revision, flexibility, ~~own resources,~~ and the unity and transparency of the EU budget;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the outstanding payment claims received after 31 October 2013 and carried-over to 2014 amount to 23 billion EUR for structural and cohesion policy only, which will add significant pressure on an already very low ceiling of payment appropriations;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the Council failed to make any progress on a much needed reform of the current system for financing the EU budget, despite the ambitious proposals put forward by the Commission aimed not only at overcoming the stalemate caused by the lack of a genuine own resources system but also at making the system of financing of the EU budget simpler, fairer and transparent to the EU citizen;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Is deeply concerned at the fact that any budgetary debate in the Council has been for many years poisoned by the logic of ‘fair returns’; ~~stresse~~considers that this situation is largely due to the current system of EU financing, whereby some 85 % of revenues stem from national contributions instead of genuine own resources; considers that such a system places disproportionate empdebate already existed before the introduction of an GNI based resources but that this resource hasis on ~~net balances between the Member St~~ly reinforced the poisoned debates and has led to the progressive introduction of complex and opaque rebates and other correction mechanisms for the financing of the EU budget;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that this logic also prevailed in the way the MFF agreement was struck by the European Council on 8 February 2013; considers it regrettable that this was reflected in the fact that the national allocations, especially from agriculture and cohesion policy, were determined at that moment; deplores, in particular, the list of special allocations and ‘gifts’ granted in the course of negotiations between Heads of State and Government, which number culminates in the conclusions of the European Council of 8 February 2013 and which are not based on objective and verifiable criteria, but ~~rather~~ reflect the bargaining power of Member States, trying to secure their national interests and maximise their net returns; denounces the ~~lack of transparenc~~opacity in striking this agreement; highlights that the addition of 27 national individual victories is anything but a success for Europe;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Strongly rejects this purely accounting vision of the EU budget, which disregards the European added value, contradicts the principle of EU solidarity and underestimates the current and potential role of the EU budget in strengthening economic governance; stresses that the EU budget is predominantly an investment budget with a strong leverage effect and a catalyst for growth and jobs across the Union; ~~considers it regrettable~~denounces, therefore, that some Member States seem to regard national contributions to the EU budget purely as a cost to be minimised;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Note~~Strongly regrets that the European Council took a top-down approach to deciding the overall size of the MFF 2014- 2020, which in turn demonstrates a worrying discrepancy between EU political commitments which the European Council has been making and its reluctance to adequately finance them; believes, on the contrary, that this decision should be based on a bottom-up process, resulting from a thorough assessment of EU financial needs and political objectives as set out in EU multiannual programmes and policies defined by the legislator;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is convinced, moreover, that tangible progress can only be achieved following an in-depth reform of the financing of the EU budget that should return to a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources; stresses that this should lead to the introduction of one or several new own resources ~~that will considerably reduce the share of~~with the ultimate objective to put an end to the GNI-based contributions to the EU budget and, accordingly, to the burden onthat the GNI contribution represents for national treasuries; reiterates its strong commitment to any process leading to the reform of the current unfair, non- transparent and complex system of own resources;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls that Parliament was the first EU institution to present its vision on the MFF 2014-2020 and the need to reform the financing of the EU budget, with the report of its specialised SURE Committee, in June 2011; considers that this report provided ~~effective~~ guidance for the Commission in drafting its own proposals on the MFF and own resources and appreciates the regular political dialogue that was established between the two institutions at all stages of the preparation of this report; points to the obvious advantages for Parliament of an early preparation for any negotiations on the MFF;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that, pursuant to Article 312 TFEU, the Council unanimously adopts the MFF Regulation after obtaining the consent of Parliament, while the three EU institutions ‘shall take any measure necessary to facilitate its adoption’; notes, therefore, that the Treaty does not set out any concrete procedure for the involvement of Parliament in the MFF negotiations and that these modalities were subsequently determined in practice through a number of ad hoc arrangements agreed at political level at Parliament’s initiative; notes that the European Parliament was defining its own role as well and encourages the Parliament to draw on the lessons learnt from this experience; stresses the need for clear and transparent mandates for Parliament's negotiating team;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Deplor~~Recalls that, according to the Treaty, the European Council has no legislative powers and, therefore, denounces the fact that, despite Parliament’s strong objections, all successive ‘negotiating boxes’ presented by different Council presidencies and, ultimately, the European Council MFF agreement of 8 February 2013 contained a significant number of legislative elements that should have been decided under the ordinary legislative procedure; stresses that the legally required unanimity in the Council on the MFF Regulation could only be achieved by pre- empting certain major policy changes in EU sectoral policies, thereby hindering Parliament’s prerogatives under co- decision, in clear contradiction with the Treaties;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Strongly believes a five year MFF cycle would enhance democratic legitimacy, improve the prioritisation of budgetary means and could be considered a precondition for more political debate; urges the Commission, in line with TFUE 312, to opt for a five year budgetary cycle from 2020 onwards;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2005(INI)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. CReminds its intention to make the compulsory MFF revision a key demand in the investiture of the next Commission; calls, therefore, on the next European Parliament to make the election of the proposed candidate for President of the Commission conditional upon a strong and non-ambiguous commitment to implementing th~~is review/~~e post-electoral revision clause and engaging in a genuine and deep political dialogue on its content;

2014/02/24
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the European economy is showing some signs of recovery and considers that along with Member States continuing their growth-friendly fiscal consolidation and structural reforms, the European budget can be a very strong tool to increase strategic investment with European added value and put the European economy back on track, generating sustainable growth and employment while aiming to foster economic and social cohesion throughout the EU;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights in particular the importance of the European Structural and Investment Funds, which form the biggest single block of expenditure in the EU budget; underlines the fact that these ESIFs are particularly important in helping Member States and regions to exit the current crisis and achieve the Europe 2020 targets; stresses the need to endow citizens with the tools to find a way out of the crisis; stresses in this regard the special need to also foster investments in areas such as education and mobility, research and innovation, digital agenda, SMEs and entrepreneurship, in order to boost the creation of employment –, in particular youth and 50+ employment;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it also important to invest in other areas such as renewable energy, infrastructures, in particular broadband infrastructure, with a stronger and enhanced use of ‘innovative financial instruments’, particularly in respect of long term investments; underlines the importance of ensuring that sufficient resources are made available for EU external actions; recalls the EU’s international commitments as regards the allocation of 0.7 % of GNP to the Millennium Development Goals Instruments by 2015;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Underlines the importance of ensuring that sufficient resources are made available for EU external actions to allow the European Union to respect the principles and pursue the objectives set out in article 21 of the TEU as well as article 323 of the TFEU; recalls the EU and its Members States' international commitment to increase their Official Development Aid (ODA) spending to 0.7% of GNI and to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the recent agreement on the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF), which defines the main parameters for the annual budgets until 2020; underlines the fact that each annual budget must be in line with the MFF Regulation and the Interinstitutional Agreement and should not be considered an ~~excuse~~opportunity to re-negotiate downwards the MFF; points out~~, however, that this does not exclude the use of all means available to the budgetary authority within the framework of the annual budget procedur~~ the special instruments agreed upon in the MFF 2014-2020 regulation and in the related Interinstitutional Agreement which are available to the budgetary authority within the framework of the annual budget procedure in order to provide the EU budget with the necessary flexibility; highlights its determination to use them as appropriate;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the agreement within the MFF, which is being implemented for the first time in the 2014 budget, to frontload in 2014 and 2015 commitments for specified policy objectives relating to youth employment, research, Erasmus+ in particular for apprenticeships, and SMEs; ~~emphasises that a similar approach needs to be taken for the 2015 budget through~~recalls that for 2015 this means a frontloading of the Youth Employment Initiative (by 871.4 million( in 2011 prices) as well as of Erasmus+ and COSME, by (20 million each (in 2011 prices);

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Emphasises that, in order to help European citizens to exit the crisis, investments should be brought forward as much as possible in those programmes; invites the Commission, furthermore, to identify ~~fur~~possible other programmes for which ~~could benefit from~~a frontloading, could usefully benefit and contribute to ~~this purpose and would also be able to fully absorb~~ help the EU to renew with growthe a~~dditional appropriations~~nd employment;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Underlines the importance of decentralised agencies, which are vital for the implementation of EU policies and programmes; stresses the need to assess all agencies individually and to provide them in the 2015 budget and in the following years with the appropriate financial means and staff so that they are able to properly fulfil the tasks assigned to them by the legislative authority;expects the first outcome of the Interinstitutional Working Group on decentralised agencies to be delivered in due time for Parliament's reading of the budget;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the overall level of payment appropriations agreed for the 2014 budget is below the level considered necessary and proposed by the Commission in its original draft budget; is deeply concerned that the unprecedented level of outstanding bills at the end of 2013, upamounting to EUR 23.4 billion under Heading 1b alone, cannot be covered within 2014 ceilings; Underlines also the backlog of payments appropriations of EUR 160 million for humanitarian aid carried over from 2013 to 2014, which could result in delay of payments, with all the tragic consequences that this would have in a sector where immediate reaction is essential; stresses therefore that, even if all the new flexibility mechanisms are mobilised in payments in 2014, this will again lead to a large implementation deficit at the end of 2014; underlines the fact that the recurrent shortages of payment appropriations have been the main cause of the unprecedentedly high level of outstanding commitments (RALs) especially in the last years;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recalls that according to the Treaty4 ‘the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall ensure that the financial means are made available to allow the Union to fulfil its legal obligations in respect of third parties’; expects the Commission in its draft budget to propose an adequate level of payment appropriations, based on real forecasts ~~rather than political expectations~~; __________________ 4 Article 323 TFEU.

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Insists that the use of all special instruments in payments (EU Solidarity Fund, Globalisation Adjustment Fund and Emergency Aid Reserve) must be entered in the budget over and above the MFF payment ceilingRecalls its position of principle that the financing of special instruments shall be entered in the budget over and above the multiannual financial framework ceilings for commitments and for payments;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2014/2004(BUD)

Angelika WERTHMANN, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Given the alarming situation of payment appropriations in humanitarian aid at the very beginning of 2014, calls for the Commission to take all necessary measures and to react as quickly as possible in order to ensure the proper delivery of EU humanitarian Aid in 2014; given the particularity of this funding for which most of commitments have to be paid within the budgetary year, invites the Commission to reflect on the possibility to enter in the draft budget 2015 not only a sufficient level of appropriations but also to enter an amount of payments appropriations equal to the level of commitment appropriations for humanitarian aid and for the emergency aid reserve;

2014/02/11
Committee: BUDG

2013/2239(DEC)

Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Olle SCHMIDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Concludes that the current financing arrangements of ESMA pose a threat to its independence ~~and therefore calls on the Commission to propose an independent budget line during the review of its regulation~~; recommends full financing of ESMA from the EU budget and/or fees paid by the market participants.

2014/01/23
Committee: ECON

2013/2238(DEC)

Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Olle SCHMIDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Concludes that the current financing arrangements of EIOPA pose a threat to its independence ~~and therefore calls on the Commission to propose an independent budget line during the review of its regulation~~; recommends full financing of EIOPA from the EU budget and/or fees paid by the market participants.

2014/01/23
Committee: ECON

2013/2237(DEC)

Anne E. JENSEN, Olle SCHMIDT, Nils TORVALDS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Concludes that the current financing arrangements of EBA pose a threat to its independence ~~and therefore calls on the Commission to propose an independent budget line during the review of its regulation~~; recommends full financing of EBA from the EU budget and/or fees paid by the market participants.

2014/01/23
Committee: ECON

2013/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Notes that fewer and fewer new European companies are tapping public equity or public bond markets, which means that capital markets are not going to be able to meet the funding needs of enterprises as banks deleverage, unless actions are taken to change this trend;

2013/12/05
Committee: ECON

2013/2175(INI)

Anne E. JENSEN, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – point a (new)

20a. Encourages the European Commission to study the examples of recent initiatives such as that in Denmark or Sweden which has been aimed at identifying the obstacles to initial public offerings and possible solutions that can be supported by a broad range of stakeholders and include both policy and non-policy actions;

2013/12/05
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital T

T. whereas some Member States have had difficulties to meet their compulsory contributions to the ESAs’' budgets; considers that the compulsory contributions of Member States conflicts with the independence of the ESAs and recommends full financing from the European budget or fees paid by market participants;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Anne E. JENSEN, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the financial implications of the requested proposal should be covered by appropriate budgetary allocations from the EU budget;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2145(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, George LYON, Göran FÄRM, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78 a (new)

78a. Stresses that the two arms of the budgetary authority, in order to create long term savings in the EU budget, must address the need for a roadmap to a single seat, as stated in previous resolutions voted by the parliament, notably its resolutions of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013- all sections1 and of 6 February 2013 on the guidelines for the 2014 budget procedure – sections other than the Commission2 and its decision of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I – European Parliament3; ____________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0359. 2 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0048. 3 OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

2013/10/07
Committee: BUDG

2013/2139(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural arrangements to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for the accelerated release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;

2013/08/30
Committee: BUDG

2013/2138(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Regret~~Notes the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", which allows for the provision of financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns and allows for an increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme cost, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline; calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;

2013/08/30
Committee: BUDG

2013/2095(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Hannu TAKKULA, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reaffirms emphatically its opposition to macroeconomic conditionality and to the performance reserve, both of which could seriously penalise local and regional authorities and discourage innovation;deleted

2013/10/25
Committee: BUDG

2013/2095(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Hannu TAKKULA, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Understands the social and economic difficulties that some Member States are experiencing, but reaffirms its strong support and the need for macroeconomic conditionality;

2013/10/25
Committee: BUDG

2013/2087(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Deeply regret~~Notes that the Commission did not analyse the effectiveness of the use of the crisis derogation criterion until now, specially taking into account that these EGF cases were not evaluated in the EGF mid-term review; notes that the Commission is entering the final phase of the ex-post evaluation of the EGF (2007- 2013); regrets, however, that the results are likely to arrive too late to feed into the discussion on the new regulation for the EGF in 2014-2020, especially regarding the effectiveness of the use of the crisis derogation criterion.

2013/06/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/2087(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the importance of networking and exchange of information on the EGF; supports, therefore the ~~funding of the~~ Expert Group of Contact Persons of the EGF as well as other networking activities among the Member States ~~including this years' seminar for practitioners on the implementation of the EGF~~; underlines the need to further enhance the liaising between all those involved in EGF applications, including namely the social partners, to create as many synergies as possible.

2013/06/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/2087(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes the fact ~~that following repeated requests from Parliament, and despite the fact that it is still under the necessary level,~~ that the 2013 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore ~~deserve~~has a dedicated allocation, which would avoid unnecessary delays, due to the fact that now its financing is made through transfers from other budget lines, which have proven to be detrimental to the achievement of the social, economic and policy objectives of the EGF of payment appropriations, which helps avoid unnecessary delays.

2013/06/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/2087(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Deeply regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the 'crisis derogation' which allows provision of financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current social, financial and economic crisis, in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and which allows an increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline; calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay, especially in the context of an aggravation of social emergency situations in several Member States following the expansion and deepening of recession.deleted

2013/06/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/2087(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

~~9. Calls on the Council to introduce special provisions to facilitate mobilisation of the EGF fund for Member States facing particularly serious social, economic and financial constraints.~~deleted

2013/06/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/2087(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Council and the Commission to promote the extension of the object and criteria of the EGF Regulation, in order to integrate and facilitate applications from countries with a smaller demographic density, namely by setting the threshold to 200 workers, and extending the eligibility criteria to independent works from other sectors.deleted

2013/06/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/2087(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deeply regrets the European Council conclusions of 7-8 February 2013; insists on the need to increase the level of appropriations available for the EGF both in commitments and in payments of the EGF to at least the current annual amount of EUR 500 000 000; furthermore calls on the Council, under the budgetary unity principle, to consider the integration of the EGF in the Union budget.deleted

2013/06/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/2048(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union ~~has set up the appropriate~~with its EGF has set up a legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers ~~who are suffering from the consequences~~made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2013/03/21
Committee: BUDG

2013/2048(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the ~~level and~~ needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

2013/03/21
Committee: BUDG

2013/2048(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020) and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;

2013/03/21
Committee: BUDG

2013/2048(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2013/03/21
Committee: BUDG

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas excessive risk-taking, excessive leverage, inadequate capital and liquidity requirements, inadequate governance, risk management and compliance and the excessive complexity of the overall banking system were at the root of the financial crisis;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas, as highlighted in the HLEG's analysis, no particular business model did particularly well or particularly poorly during the financial crisis;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the current post-crisis weakness in the structure of EU banks demonstrates the need for reform in order to serve the wider needs of the economy; and to safeguard European taxpayers' money against the risks that arise from the sheer size of the EU banking sector as a whole in relation to the overall economy.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

D a. Whereas a number of important EU initiatives have been taken to prevent a new banking crisis, increase protection of tax payers and retail clients and create robust and sustainable payment systems.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas more banks have had significant losses from the types of activities that are supposed to remain in the deposit bank, in particular real estate lending, than those caused by losses in trading related activities, let alone market making in fixed-income markets.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)

Gb. whereas there is no analysis in the HLEG report of whether mandatory separation within a holding company is sufficient to insulate the deposit bank from what happens to the trading bank. A mandatory separation does not necessarily hinder banks from transferring funds from the deposit taking entity at a subsidized price to the trading entity. Contagion effects cannot be excluded if the deposit bank and the trading bank work under similar brands. Liquidity stress can be triggered by rumour rather than fact, which can adversely affect the deposit bank. Thus, the need for government intervention may still arise. In addition it is not obvious that a mandatory separation will reduce governments' incentives to bail out troubled banks. Governments may want to protect systemically important banks regardless from where the losses originate. Moreover it is unclear how a legal separation would be accomplished in a bank with a wide range of cross-border activities. The Group may thus be advocating a measure that is neither necessary, nor sufficient to achieve the stated objective. An impact assessment of the cost and benefits must therefore be made before rules on mandatory separation are adopted.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)

Gc. whereas there is little evidence to support that a mandatory separation into trading banks and deposit banks would have helped to prevent the financial crisis or even ease the consequences. Had the global banking system carried more capital, bigger liquidity buffers and longer term funding the crisis would have had less severe consequences.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the Commission proposal should provide for a strong, stable and resilient banking sector with access to a variety of funding sources for the internal market while respecting the diversity of the Member States' banking sectors; and be based on a thorough impact assessment and cost benefit analysis.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas it is necessary that banks hold higher levels and better quality of capital; have greater liquidity buffers and longer-term funding.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas, since it is neither feasible nor desirable to effect a bank separation post- failure, an effective recovery and resolution regime is needed in order to provide authorities with a credible set of tools, including pre-defined bail-inable debt instruments and a bridge bank, so that they can intervene sufficiently early and quickly in an unsound or failing bank to enable its essential financial and economic functions to continue, while minimising the impact on financial stability and ensuring that appropriate losses are imposed on the shareholders and creditors who bore the risk of investing in the institution in question, and not by taxpayers or depositors;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the HLEG's analysis and recommendations on banking reform and considers them a sound basis for initiating reforms, subject to a comprehensive impact assessment proving that such reforms are necessary taking into account the impact of the full implementation of the existing package of reforms to capital, liquidity, resolution and capital markets;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Takes the view that mandatory separation could damage the market making function in fixed-income markets. This would have adverse effects on the real economy. In particular, it would increase the costs and risks borne by both sovereign borrowers, corporates and the functioning of the financial sector as a whole.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Believes that higher capital and liquidity buffers in combination with robust recovery and resolution regimes and reduced interconnectivity are essential in order to create financial stability. The proposal from the HLEG in relation to mandatory separation of banking activities has to be carefully assessed and be regarded as a possible complement to enhanced capital and liquidity requirements and other reforms already agreed upon. The impact assessment has to assess whether structural reform is needed. A proposal from the Commission to require separation along the lines proposed by the HLEG should not be taken until other legislative reforms have taken full effect.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that while current proposals for reforms of EU banking sector rules (including the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation, the Recovery and Resolution Directive, the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive ~~and shadow banking initiatives) are vital, a more fundamental~~, European Markets Infrastructure Regulation, Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and shadow banking initiatives) in conjunction with the regulations on the European Supervisory Authorities and the European Systemic Risk Board are vital, further reform of the banking structure ~~is essential, and~~may only be required, where complementary to the other proposals;.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines the importance the funds for DGS and RRD measures stipulated in the Recovery and Resolution Directive and the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive will have for the financial stability;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Requires that the Commission's impact assessment take account of all other regulatory proposals designed to mitigate the costs of future bank failure and promote financial stability, in particular CRD IV and the Recovery and Resolution directive;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the core principle of banking reform must be to deliver a safe, stable and efficient banking system that serves the needs of the real economy, customers and consumers; takes the view that structural reform must stimulate economic growth by supporting the provision of credit to the economy, in particular to SMEs and start-ups, provide greater resilience against potential financial crises, restore trust and confidence in banks and remove risks to public finances; Recognises also that market making is an essential part of the infrastructure of fixed-income markets in EU-countries and that the importance of market making for fixed-income markets has been recognised by the European Parliament in the current review of MiFID/MiFIR.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the core principle of banking reform, if conducted, must be to deliver a safe, stable and efficient banking system that serves the needs of the real economy, customers and consumers; takes the view that structural reform must stimulate economic growth by supporting the provision of credit to the economy, in particular to SMEs and start-ups, provide greater resilience against potential financial crises, restore trust and confidence in banks and remove risks to public finances;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recognises the importance of market making activities to the provision of credit and risk management services to the real economy, the value that universal banks can provide to their customers and the risks associated with structural measures;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Considers that banking activities that are essential for the functioning of the EU capital markets, such as market making, certain hedging activities, certain types of forex and interest related derivatives transactions, must not be hampered by new reform initiatives, these activities should be analysed and addressed on the basis of their importance for the functioning of the capital markets and creating long term economic growth;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that an effective banking system must deliver a change in banking culture in order to reduce complexity, enhance competition, limit interconnectedness between risky and ~~commerc~~essential activities, improve corporate governance, risk management and compliance, create incentives for banks to establish more transparent organisational structures, create a responsible remuneration system, allow effective bank resolution and recovery, reinforce bank capital and deliver credit to the real economy;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Considers that the transmission funds efficiently from savers to investors is a key component of a well functioning economy and necessary for long term economic growth within the EU and that market making activities which service clients and provide liquidity are key contributors to this process.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Urges the Commission to finalise its impact assessment and on the basis of it come forward with an appropriate follow up taking into account the aims, results and effects of the ongoing regulatory reform agenda.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Urges the Commission to not prejudge the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's ongoing review of the Trading Book;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Urges if the Commission to comes forward with a proposal for ~~mandatory~~appropriate separation of banks' retail and investment activities, should such an approach be justified by a balanced and comprehensive impact assessment which proves that the real economy, the fixed-income markets or EU competitiveness will not be disadvantaged. The form of appropriate separation, legal or otherwise, for various activities should depend on the determination of supervisory authorities based on the risks and costs involved;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to come forward with a proposal for such mandatory separation through the establishment of a thorough, transparent and credible ‘'ring fence’' around bank activities that are vital for the real economy, such as those relating to credit functions, payment systems and deposits, market making and risk management,; takes the view that in the event of a bank failure, the ring fence must ensure that the retail entity is able to continues its business ~~unaffected by~~without significant operational problems, financial losses, or funding shortages ~~or reputational damage~~ resulting from the resolution or insolvency of the investment entity;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Urges the Commission to ensure that proprietary trading activities on own account that are not related to the facilitation of client orders or hedging of risks do not benefit from implicit public guarantees, the use of insured deposits or taxpayer bailouts and that these activities do not pose a risk to the delivery of ~~ring-fenced~~ retail services;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Urges the Commission to ensure that ~~where banks undertake trading activities, the risks and costs associated with those activities are borne by their trading~~supervisors conduct an analysis of where banks undertake risky proprietary trading activities compared with market making which is a core activity of banks important to the financing of the economy, managing government debt and in particular the financing of corporations which need access to primary markets, the risks and costs associated with those risky proprietary trading activities properly capitalized and costs of losses arme a~~nd not by their ring-fence~~bsorbed first by shareholders and cre~~tail arm;~~ ditors.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part

12. Urges the Commission to ensure that ~~separation~~in the event that the removal of impediments to resolution in accordance with Article 14 and 15 of the Recovery and Resolution Directive have been insufficient to achieve the objectives set out above, and where supervisors determine there are risky proprietary activities which are not a core activity for banks, separation of such activities results in:

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a

(a) functionally separate ~~legal~~ entities, with ~~separat~~diverse sources of funding for the bank's retail and investment entities, physical and IT segregation and separate organisational and reporting lines with appropriate internal controls to prevent breaches;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point c

(c) the application of adequate, thorough and separate capital, leverage and liquidity rules to each entity not subject to consolidated supervision, including separate balance sheets; or

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Urges the Commission to take into account the ECB's proposal to establish clear and enforceable criteria for separation8 and to take in to account ECB's comment whereby it "sees merit in separating certain high risk activities of financial institutions that are not associated to the provision of client- related services" , its suggestion that such mandatory separation would require clear and enforceable criteria for separation and its recommendation to further analyse whether market-making activities should be allowed in the deposit taking entity;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Underlines the necessity of assessing the systemic risk presented by both the retail and investment ~~ent~~activities, as well as by the group as a whole, with a view to the application of appropriate capital buffers and liquidity r~~equiremen~~isk weights for each ~~ent~~activity;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Urges the Commission to ensure that the retail entity has sufficient capital and liquid assets to enable it, in the event of the bank's failure, to maintain depositors' access to funds, to protect the essential services ofin the ~~ring-fenced arm from the risk of disord~~case of bank failure in accordance with the individual resolution plans drawn up in accordance to the Directive of Recoverly ~~failure~~and Resolution and to prioritise paying out depositors in a timely fashion;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Urges the Commission to ensure that any form of separation should only be required in such circumstances where it is demonstrable that increased capital requirements would be not be sufficient mitigate the identified risks;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Urges the Commission, within the bounds of CRD IV, to ensure that adequate differentiation exists in terms of capital, leverage and liquidity requirements between the investment and retail entities, with an emphasis on higher capital requirements for the investment entity;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Urges the Commission to ensure that remuneration systems prioritise the use of instruments such as bonds subject to bail- in, and shares, rather than cash; Urges the Commission to ensure that remuneration systems are aligned with international principles and effectively incentivise the use of deferred instruments such as bonds subject to bail-in, rather than cash, and shares which are subject to clawback for top management, but for also for all levels in the institutions;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4

D. Enhancing competition and competitiveness

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Stresses that effective competition and EU bank competitiveness is necessary in order to ensure a well- functioning and efficient banking sector which funds the real economy by reducing the cost of banking services;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28a. Urges the Commission to ensure that competition and an international level playing field is maintained and that any possible initiative does not lead to increased capital markets fragmentation within the EU or globally.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Calls on the Commission to bring forward the necessary structural reforms outlined in this report, ~~which,~~ while maintaining the integrity of the internal market, respect the diversity of national banking systems ~~and ensure Member States' ability to reinforce them where appropriate;~~, protecting the interests of the real economy, in particular lending to SMEs, the fixed-income markets and the functioning of the internal market and promoting competitiveness.

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2010(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that, due to the intransigent position of the Council in the negotiations, the overall level of payments set in the 2013 budget is EUR 5 billion lower than the Commission’s estimates for payment needs in the draft budget; is extremely worried about the level of payments in the 2013 budget and believes that this level of appropriations will be insufficient to cover actual payment needs in 2013; warns that continued and excessive deferral of payments on an annual basis will create significant problems for future years;

2013/02/07
Committee: BUDG

2013/2010(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Further calls on the Commission and the Council to work constructively, together with Parliament, to avoid any repetition of this situation in future budget cycles by improving forecasting accuracy and agreeing on realistic budget estimates which should include clear and detailed information on the nature of all payment estimates;

2013/02/07
Committee: BUDG

2013/2010(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Is concerned about the high level of unused appropriations (RALs) accumulated at the end of the year 2012; proposes to organise once again this year inter- institutional meetings on the difference between commitment and payment appropriations, to establish a dialogue with the Commission in order to fully clarify the composition of RAL and to assess whether the current peak in RAL is primarily due to the economic crisis or whether it indicates wider structural problems; in the event of the latter conclusion, calls on institutions to work together and adopt an appropriate plan of action in order to address the issue of abnormal RAL during the next MFF; insists that the Council refrain from deciding a priori the level of payments, without taking account of actual needs and legal obligations; notes further that accruing RAL actually undermines a transparent EU budget in which the relation between commitments and payments in any specific budgetary year is clearly visible;

2013/02/07
Committee: BUDG

2013/2010(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Highlights the strategic effect of the choice of priorities for 2014, as the first year of the coming MFF; emphasises the urgent need for the EU to foster growth and competitiveness, with the objective of creating jobs and opportunities, in particular for young people;

2013/02/07
Committee: BUDG

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 a (new)

(30 a) Benchmarks mainly used within smaller currency areas and with a limited number of contributors, are to be considered as non-critical. These benchmarks are to be supervised by the local authorities, using the IOSCO principles as the common reference. The competent authority will, after consulting ESMA, decide whether a benchmark is to be considered as critical or non-critical.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 21

(21) ‘critical benchmark’ means a benchmark,: a) the majority of contributors to which are supervised entities ~~and that reference financial instruments having a notional value of at least 500 billion euro;~~; (b) that does not include benchmarks compiled from regulated data as defined in point (11); and (c) that reference financial instruments admitted to trading or traded on at least one Union trading venue, or other financial assets as defined in international accounting standard IAS 32, having a notional cumulative amount of at least 500 billion euro on such Union trading venues; (d) that is widely used on the international markets and (e) for which there is no reasonable substitute so that cessation of the benchmark would have a significant adverse impact on financial stability, the orderly functioning of the markets, consumers or the real economy.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. The administrator shall ~~monitor the input data and contributor~~ensure that the contributors have adequate systems and effective controls in order to identify breaches of the [Market Abuse Regulation] and systems to notify the relevant competent authority of any conduct that may involve manipulation or attempted manipulation of the benchmark ~~and notify the relevant competent authority~~ in accordance with Article 11(2) of the [Market Abuse Regulation] and provide all relevant information where it suspects that, in relation to the benchmark, there has been:

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The ~~code of conduct shall be signed by the~~ administrator and the contributors ~~and~~ shall ~~be legally binding on all parties to i~~publish a confirmation of compliance with the Code of conduct.

2013/12/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1

1. In addition to the requirements of the Title II, the specific requirements set out in Aannex II shall apply to critical inter-bank interest rate benchmarks. When it comes to non-critical benchmarks in non-eurozone Member States the requirements set out in Annex II shall apply in accordance with decisions by the national competent authority.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) describes or lists the purposes for which it is appropriate to use the benchmark and the circumstances in which it may cease to be fit for such purposes;~~deleted

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(da) has transferred the functions as administrator of its benchmarks to another administrator who is properly authorised.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2

It shall apply ~~from [~~12 months after ~~entry into force]~~the publication of the delegated acts issued by the Commission and the technical standards issued by ESMA.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – section 1 – part I – point 7

7. Where Administrators receive input data from employees of a front office function, the Administrator shall, where available, obtain data from other sources that can corroborate that input data.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Olle SCHMIDT, Sharon BOWLES, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – section 3 – part I – point 1 – point c a (new)

(ca) a process for controlling the existence of systems for identification of potential breaches of the [Market Abuse Regulation or Directive] and a whistleblowing procedure.

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0314(COD)

Emilie TURUNEN, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 2 – point 16 – point d

(d) effective conflicts of interest management procedures and communication controls, both within contributors and between contributors and other third parties, to avoid any inappropriate external influence over those responsible for submitting rates. ~~Submitters shall work in locations physically separated from interest rate derivatives traders;~~

2013/12/20
Committee: ECON

2013/0265(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Article 6 and 7 shall not apply to domestic debit card schemes that operate with an average interchange fee or net compensation model which is verifiably below the threshold value in article 3 and 4.

2014/01/28
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 5

5. In exceptional circumstances, certain liabilities may be excluded or partially excluded from the application of the write-down and conversion powers in any of the following circumstances: (a) Where it is not possible to bail-in that liability within a reasonable time notwithstanding the good faith efforts of the resolution authority; or (b) Where the exclusion is strictly necessary and is proportionate to achieve the continuity of critical functions and core business lines in a manner that maintains the ability of the institution under resolution to continue key operations, services and transactions; or (c) Where the exclusion is strictly necessary and proportionate to avoid giving rise to widespread contagion that would severely disrupt the functioning of financial markets in a manner that could cause a serious disturbance to the economy of a Member State or of the Union; or (d) Where the application of the bail-in tool to these liabilities would cause a destruction in value such that the losses borne by other creditors would be higher than if these liabilities were excluded from bail-in. Where an eligible liability or class of eligible liabilities is excluded, or partially excluded, the level of write down or conversion applied to other eligible liabilities may be increased to take account of such exclusions, provided that the level of write down and conversion applied to other eligible liabilities respects the principle laid down in point (f) of Article 13(1).deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 6

6. Where an eligible liability or class of eligible liabilities excluded or partially excluded, pursuant to paragraph 5, and the losses that would have been borne by those liabilities have not been passed on fully to other creditors, a contribution from the Fund may be made to the institution under resolution to: (a) cover any losses which have not been absorbed by eligible liabilities and restore the net asset value of the institution under resolution to zero in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1; (b) purchase shares or other instruments of ownership or capital instruments in the institution under resolution, in order to recapitalise the institution in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 1.deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 7

7. The Fund may only make a contribution referred to in paragraph 6 provided that the contribution meets both the following criteria: (a) a contribution to loss absorption and recapitalisation equal to an amount not less than 8% of the total liabilities including own funds of the institution under resolution, measured at the time of resolution action in accordance with the valuation provided for in Article 17, has been made by shareholders and the holders of other instruments of ownership, the holders of relevant capital instruments and other eligible liabilities through write down, conversion or otherwise; (b) the contribution from the Fund does not exceed 5% of the total liabilities including own funds of the institution under resolution, measured at the time of resolution action in accordance with the valuation provided for in Article 17.deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 8

8. The contribution of the Fund may be financed by: (a) the amount available to the Fund which has been raised through contributions by entities referred to in Article 2 in accordance with Article 66; (b) the amount that can be raised through ex post contributions in accordance with Article 67 within a period of three years; and (c) where the amounts referred to in points (a) and (b) are insufficient, amounts raised from alternative financing sources in accordance with Article 69.deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 9

9. In extraordinary circumstances, further funding may be sought from alternative financing sources after: (a) the 5% limit specified in point (b) of paragraph 7 has been reached; and (b) all unsecured, non-preferred liabilities, other than eligible deposits, have been written down or converted in full.deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 10

10. As an alternative or in addition, when the conditions in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 7 are met, a contribution may be made from resources which have been raised through ex-ante contributions in accordance with Article 66 and which have not yet been usdeleted.

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 12

12. When taking the decision referred to in paragraph 5, due consideration shall be given to the following factors: (a) the principle that losses should be borne first by shareholders and next, in general, by creditors of the institution under resolution in order of preference; (b) the level of loss absorbing capacity that would remain in the institution under resolution if the liability or class of liabilities were excluded; (c) the need to maintain adequate resources for resolution financing.deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1

1. In a period no longer than 10 years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the available financial means of the Fund shall reach ~~at least 1~~0.5 % of the amount of deposits of all credit institutions authorised in the participating Member States which are guaranteed under Directive 94/19/EC.

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 2

2. The available financial means to be taken into account in order to reach the target funding level specified in Article 65 may include payment commitments which are fully backed by collateral of low risk assets unencumbered by any third party rights, at the free disposal and earmarked for the exclusive use by the Board for the purposes specified in Article 71 (1). The share of these irrevocable payment commitments shall not exceed 3050 % of the total amount of contributions raised in accordance with paragraph 1.

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 1

1. Where the available financial means are not sufficient to cover the losses, costs or other expenses incurred by the use of the Fund, the Board shall raise in accordance with Article 623 extraordinary ex post contributions from the institutions authorised in the territories of participating Member States, in order to cover the additional amounts. These extraordinary contributions shall be allocated between institutions in accordance with the rules set out in Article 667. The contributions and the sum of payments referred to in Article 67 cannot exceed one fourth of the target level.

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) to pay compensation to shareholders or creditors if, following an evaluation pursuant to Article 17(5), they have received less, in payment of their credits, than what they would have received, following a valuation pursuant to Article 17(16), in a winding up under normal insolvency proceedings;deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) to make a contribution to the institution under resolution in lieu of the contribution which would have been achieved by the write down of certain creditors, when the bail-in tool is applied and the resolution authority decides to exclude certain creditors from the scope of bail-in in accordance with Article 24(3);deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0253(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 4

4. In the event resources of a deposit guarantee scheme are not sufficient to cover the payments to be made to depositors, and other resources are not immediately available from the relevant participating Member State, the Fund may lend the necessary resources to that deposit guarantee scheme provided that all the conditions under Article 10 of Directive 94/19/EC are met.deleted

2013/10/22
Committee: ECON

2013/0105(COD)

Petri SARVAMAA, Hannu TAKKULA, Eija-Riitta KORHOLA, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Sari ESSAYAH, Anne E. JENSEN, Christofer FJELLNER, Anna IBRISAGIC, Gunnar HÖKMARK, Alf SVENSSON, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Bendt BENDTSEN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) Longer, higher and/or heavier vehicles may be used in cross- border transport if the ~~two~~ Member States concerned already allow itor wish to allow such vehicles on a permanent basis since Directive 96/53/EC came into force and if the conditions for derogation under Article 4~~(3), (4) or (5~~ (4) of the Directive are met. The European Commission has already provided guidance on the application of Article 4 of the Directive. The transport operations referred to in Article 4(4) do not have a significant impact on international competition if the cross- border use remains limited to two Member States where the existing infrastructure and the road safety requirements allSuch vehicles may also be used in cross border transport between Member States and neighbouring Member States where they are already allowed on provisional basis. Provisions to this effect are laid down itn a new Article 4 (7). This balances the Member States’ right under the principle of subsidiarity to decide on transport solutions suited to their specific circumstances with the need to prevent such policies from distorting the internal market. ~~The provisions of Article 4 (4) are clarified in this respect.~~

2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN

2013/0105(COD)

Petri SARVAMAA, Hannu TAKKULA, Eija-Riitta KORHOLA, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Sari ESSAYAH, Anne E. JENSEN, Christofer FJELLNER, Anna IBRISAGIC, Gunnar HÖKMARK, Alf SVENSSON, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Bendt BENDTSEN

Proposal for a directive
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 effective load of the vehicle so that the road transport sector is not penalised in economic terms. The solutions should also maintain the principle of technological neutrality.

2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11

In accordance with paragraph 1, Member States shall 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. The devices must take into account the national rules for weights applicable on the territory where the data is being communicated from the vehicle. 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

2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN

2013/0105(COD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13

Directive 96/53/EC
Article 14

For the transport of ~~container~~freight, including containers, swap bodies or any other loads, the shipper shall give the road haulier to whom it entrusts the transport of a container a, in advance of loading, a written statement indicating the gross weight of the ~~container moved~~load moved. That statement can also be submitted by electronic means. Irrespective of its form, the document declaring the gross weight of the load shall be signed by a person duly authorised by the shipper. If thise information on the gross weight of the load is missing or incorrect, the shipper shall incur liability in the same way as the haulier if the vehicle is overloaded. In intermodal transport operations, the information on the gross weight of a packed intermodal loading unit, including container and/or swap body, shall be provided to the next party taking custody of the intermodal loading unit.

2013/12/10
Committee: TRAN

George LYON, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the smooth functioning of the European Parliament shall be an equally important guiding principle;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas certain investments may have a sustainable impact on the institutional budget and should therefore be considered despite tight margins for manoeuvre;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN, George LYON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the institutions to strengthen their mutual cooperation, where possible and justified, to identify savings through pooling and sharing of resources, for instance, in information technology systems, translation, interpretation and ~~driving~~transportation services and, possibly, other areas;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Encourages the continuation of structural and organisational reforms, without sacrificing legislative excellence and the quality of working conditions, and supports organizational innovation to help improving the Parliament's efficiency and the Members' quality of working conditions in 2014 and the following years, including, but not limited to, more efficient structure of the working rhythm of the Parliament, "demand-driven" translation and interpretation services (without endangering the principle of multi- lingualism), optimal logistical solutions for Members and their assistants, further upgrading of in-house research assistance, and developing paperless Parliament and e- meetings; further notes in this context the letter of Commissioner Lewandowski to the Presidents of the European Institutions dated 7 January 2013 which once again invites institutions to reduce staffing levels in their 2014 estimates and to make all possible efforts aiming at a nominal freeze at the 2013 level of overall non-salary related expenditure;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Encourages the continuation of structural and organisational reforms to deliver greater efficiencies, without sacrificing legislative excellence and the quality of working conditions, and supports organizational innovation to help improving the Parliament's eff~~iciency~~ectiveness and the Members' quality of working conditions in 2014 and the following years, including, but not limited to, more efficient structure of the working rhythm of the Parliament, "demand-driven" translation and interpretation services (without endangering the principle of multi- lingualism), optimal logistical solutions for Members and their assistants, further upgrading of in-house research assistance, and developing paperless Parliament and e- meetings;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Encourages the continuation of structural and organisational reforms, without sacrificing legislative excellence and the quality of services and working conditions, and supports organizational innovation to help improving the Parliament's efficiency and the Members' quality of working conditions in 2014 and the following years, including, but not limited to, more efficient structure of the working rhythm of the Parliament, "demand-driven" translation and interpretation services (without endangering the principle of multi- lingualism), optimal logistical solutions for Members and their assistants, further upgrading of in-house research assistance, and developing paperless Parliament and e- meetings;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the Joint Bureau and Committee on Budgets Working Group on the Parliament budget could play a useful role in this reform process, on the basis of its successful work throughout 2012 in identifying ways of economising and reflecting on possible reorganisation; notes that it has already largely achieved the objectives established for it at the end of 2011, ~~for instance~~in particular, as regards reduction of travel expenses; in the light of the Group’s preliminary findings based, inter alia, on comparative studies of Parliament’s budget with the budgets of the US Congress and a sample of Member States’ parliaments, encourages the continuation of its work and the development of a corresponding action plan; to be presented to both the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau for consideration in the 2014 Parliament budget process; recalls Parliament's resolution of 23 October 20121 in which it expressed the expectation that these studies will "create long-term savings in the Parliament's budget and present ideas for improving efficiency in 2013 and the following years";

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes, more generally, the enhanced cooperation between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau during the annual budget procedure; stands ready to further strengthen the cooperation between the Secretary-General, the Bureau, and the Committee on Budgets throughout the year with a view to ensuring a smooth budgetary process and effective implementation of the budget; expects the Bureau to present prudent needs-based draft estimates that take account of possible subsequent increases arising from legally binding obligations, in particular the one-off costs related to Members' transition arrangements for the 2014 European elections; calls on the Secretary General to provide information on the costs of the transition arrangements for the last 3 European Parliament elections;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Angelika WERTHMANN, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes, more generally, the enhanced cooperation between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau during the annual budget procedure; stands ready to further strengthen the cooperation between the Secretary-General, the Bureau, and the Committee on Budgets throughout the year to ensure a smooth budgetary process and effective implementation of the budget; expects the Bureau to present prudent needs-based draft estimates that take account of possible subsequent increases arising from legally binding obligations and show a detailed record of costs developments to date as they affect the three places of work ;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

Jan MULDER, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recalls the Parliament’s budgetary resolutions, including its most recent resolution of 23 October 201234, calling for a transparent decision-making process in the field of buildings policy, including a halt in acquisitions until the end of the current MFF; asks for information about the Secretary General's findings on, and schedule of, the renovation works and office relocation, including information about an intermediate building for the Parliament's ~~1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0359. 2 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0359. 3 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0359. 4 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0359.~~ staff, in the coming years, especially, in relation to the structural problems in the Paul-Henri Spaak (PHS) building and the acquisition of the Trebel building;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recognises the major efforts that have been made in 2012 to communicate transparently the state of play of the KAD building to the Committee on Budgets~~; notes that adaptations and downsizing of 8 000 m2 have been made, resulting in sav~~ and requests that this communication continues throughout the duration of the project, in particular with respect to the result of the amended Call to Tender; notes that adaptations and downsizings of ~~EUR 80 million for the KAD project~~8 000 m2 have been proposed; welcomes the savings of more than EUR 10 million in interest payments in the coming years achieved by transfers for early advance payments for both the KAD and the Trebel buildings; encourages a continuation of the fruitful dialogue; trusts that the information requested will be delivered in a timely manner, given the strategic importance of these projects for ~~1 EP resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the EU for the financial year 2013 - all sections.~~ Parliament;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Göran FÄRM, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Ashley FOX, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Bart STAES, Diane DODDS, Ulrike LUNACEK, Krzysztof LISEK, Marisa MATIAS, Lara COMI, Isabelle DURANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recalls the plenary decision for the Council to present a roadmap by June 2013 on the multiple seats of the EP and expects both the Committees concerned, the Secretary General and the Bureau to provide members with up-to-date figures and information on the financial and environmental impact of the multiple seat arrangement; suggests the EP's own impact assessment services examine this question also with respect to the impact of the EP's presence or partial presence on the respective communities and regions and present an assessment by June 2013 in order for these findings to be considered for the next MFF;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2013/0000(BUD)

George LYON, Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ERepeats the position adopted in previous budget cycles that it expects all the institutions to continue to demonstrate efforts in seeking savings and maintaining a high degree of budgetary discipline when drawing up their budget estimates;

2013/01/10
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Ulrike LUNACEK, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Parliament's estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206, with costs directly related to the geographic dispersion estimated at ~~EUR 180 000 000~~between EUR 169 million and EUR 204 million;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas since the beginning of the current legislature, both individual committees and the plenary have made several specific requests to the European Parliament's administration to provide comprehensive, detailed and reliable estimates of the additional costs relating to each of the three places of work;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, George LYON, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas, the numbers provided by the Secretary-General's report to the Bureau of September 2002 are the last overall cost estimates available;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Göran FÄRM, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas the 2002 Secretary-General's estimate was confirmed by the joint working group report of the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets on Parliament's budget for 2012, when complementing the EUR 148 million estimate by the EUR 25 million of annual amortisation cost for the Strasbourg buildings that need to be taken into account since the purchase of named buildings;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Göran FÄRM, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

~~1 Economic impact of the presence of the~~Ba. whereas the European Parliament's economic impact on the city and region of Strasbourg is low in comparison with other European bodies with permanent staff there, contributing some 223 jobs compared to the almost 3000 permanent employees of the Council of Europe an ~~Institutions in Strasbourg, CityConsult Médiascopie EDR Group, January 2011.~~d a further 4000 employees associated with Eurocorps, the European Court for Human Rights, Arte and diplomats, which translates into some 17million Euro gains from the seat of the EP at Strasbourg and some 400 million Euro for the other bodies1 that contribute regularly and permanently to the local economy;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas a reply given to the EP Budgetary Control Committee in preparation for the EP discharge for 2011 does not provide estimates on the potential savings, but only a partial estimate of the additional costs of the Strasbourg seat; whereas this EUR 55 million estimate does not include many budget lines that were included in previous and following estimates, namely the cost of data processing, equipment and movable property, travel expenses of political groups as well as any potential savings connected to time lost travelling (totalling EUR 68 million); whereas this estimate provides lower numbers on several budget lines than both previous and following estimates without providing any justification (totalling EUR 25 million);

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas none of these estimates includes the additional costs of the European Parliament's geographic dispersion on the other European Union institutions, in particular the European Commission and Council, EU member states' representations, journalists and civil society representatives;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Helga TRÜPEL, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas ¾ of members believe that the EP should find significant structural savings and these could be found in re- evaluating the EP's geographical dispersion of places of work, illustrated by a breakdown of the costs of Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg set out in a transparent and credible format to standards expected from a major public body;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)

Cd. whereas the historical reasons for the European bodies permanently seated in Strasbourg are well-known in respect e.g. the European Court for Human Rights and the Council of Europe, and while the European Assembly /Parliament for convenience initially used the latter's Chamber, the choice of Brussels as the seat of the European Commission and of NATO reflect the EU's aspirations for a continent progressively united in prosperity and security;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C e (new)

Ce. whereas situating the co-legislators of the EU in a single place does not undermine the tradition of polycentrism in the EU but bears significant efficiency and transparency gains for EU citizens;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C f (new)

Cf. whereas, in many Member States, parliament's seat is laid down either in the Constitution or by law and whereas the European Parliament is a co-legislator of European law and can call for changes of the European treaties under article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C g (new)

Cg. whereas during the European Year of Citizens it is appropriate to show that their voice is not only heard but that their directly elected representatives are taking action on their behalf in order to end the monthly travel between the EP's places of work;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C h (new)

Ch. whereas the European institutions must do everything to further European political integration and bridge the perceived distance from citizens by tackling a major structural issue of the institutions and promoting European understanding, transparency, accountability and coherence by having the EU's decision making bodies in one place;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Angelika WERTHMANN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Recital C i (new)

Ci. whereas 6% of the EU budget is intended for administrative purposes and that the European Union, with a relatively small operating budget for 500 million inhabitants, must set an example in these times of crisis by streamlining its own budgetary impact as much as possible without prejudice to the proper functioning of the European Parliament, adding that the efficiency gains of having a single seat near the co-legislator cannot be ignored;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2308(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS, Jan MULDER, George LYON, Dan JØRGENSEN, Bart STAES, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Isabelle DURANT, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Krzysztof LISEK, Ulrike LUNACEK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that while the seats of the European Institutions are enshrined in the Treaties, so is article 48, which allows for a proposal for treaty change;

2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG

2012/2280(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union ~~has set up the appropriate~~with its EGF has set up a legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who ~~are suffering from the consequences~~have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2280(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the ~~level and~~ needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2280(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2280(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2279(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union ~~has set up the appropriate~~with its EGF has set up a legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who ~~are suffering from the consequences~~have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2279(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the ~~level and~~ needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2279(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2279(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2278(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union ~~has set up the appropriate~~with its EGF has set up a legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who ~~are suffering from the consequences~~have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2278(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the ~~level and~~ needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2278(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2278(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

11. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2277(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union ~~has set up the appropriate~~with its EGF has set up a legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who ~~are suffering from the consequences~~have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2277(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. W~~elcomes~~onders at the fact that, in order to provide workers with immediate assistance, the Austrian authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures on 1 October 2011 - well ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package, thereby turning the EGF special and personalised assistance into a quasi foregone conclusion and reimbursement for measures already undertaken;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2277(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the ~~level and~~ needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2277(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2277(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2276(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the EGF is an obvious example of the European added value, deeply regrets that some Member States are simultaneously presenting applications to mobilise the fund, proposing the reduction of the appropriations for the Fund, and opposing its continuation within the new MFF;deleted

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2276(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the key importance of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; underlines that it is essential that the training on offer in the coordinated package is ~~to be adapted and~~ adequate to the needs ~~and level~~ of the dismissed workers, taking into account the~~ir social and economic background~~ current business environment;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2276(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that ~~further improvements in the procedure will be integrated in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020) and that~~with these improvements greater efficiency, facilitated mobilization, transparency and visibility of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2276(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Acknowledges that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; ~~deeply regret~~notes, however, that for the second year in a row these payment appropriations have turned out to be ~~clearly~~ insufficient to cover the funding requests for a whole year and the missing payment appropriations have to be marshaled though an amending budget via transfers from other budget lines; believes that both these facts do not denote sound budgeting; recalls that the EGF was created as a specific instrument to give an immediate and adequate ~~answer to special situations of social emergencies raised by the impact of~~response to mass redundancies due to the direct and indirect effects of globalization; highlights, therefore, that ~~the EGF deserves a dedicated and~~without adequate ~~level of~~ appropriations, and in order to avoid systematic transfers from other budget lines, as has happened in the past, ~~which is detrimental to~~neither the emergency nature of the EGF ~~itself~~nor its integrity can be guaranteed;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2276(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2275(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union ~~has set up the appropriate~~with its EGF has set up a legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who ~~are suffering from the consequences~~have been made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2275(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. W~~elcomes~~onders at the fact that, in order to provide workers with immediate assistance, the Austrian authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures on 1 October 2011 - well ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package, thereby turning the EGF special and personalised assistance into a quasi foregone conclusion and reimbursement for measures already undertaken;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2275(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained throughout the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the ~~level and~~ needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2275(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2275(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Jan MULDER, Nils TORVALDS, Angelika WERTHMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/11/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2230(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union has set up ~~the appropriate~~ legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2230(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers, by means of ~~adapt~~tailored training and the recognition of skills and competences gained through out the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be ~~adapted to the level and~~tailored not only to the needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment;

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2230(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2230(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2230(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2228(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union has set up ~~the appropriate~~ legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/10/09
Committee: BUDG

2012/2228(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls the importance of improving the employability of workers, by means of adapted training and recognition of skills and competences gained through out the professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted ~~to the level and~~not only to the needs of the dismissed workers, but also to the actual business environment, especially, considering that many of the dismissed workers were highly-skilled experts and technicians;

2012/10/09
Committee: BUDG

2012/2228(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/10/09
Committee: BUDG

2012/2228(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01;

2012/10/09
Committee: BUDG

2012/2165(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union has set up ~~the appropriate~~ legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2165(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements ~~in the procedure~~ will be integrated in the ~~new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~procedure and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2165(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12.~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2165(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2164(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union has set up ~~the appropriate~~ legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2164(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2164(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2164(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2012/2157(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union has set up ~~the appropriate~~ legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2157(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency~~, visibility and follow-up~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2157(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2157(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2155(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union has set up ~~the appropriate~~ legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2155(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency~~, visibility and follow-up~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2155(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2155(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2154(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union has set up ~~the appropriate~~ legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2154(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament's request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission's assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the EGF; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be integrated ~~in the new Regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014–2020)~~ and that greater efficiency, and transparency~~, visibility and follow-up~~ of the EGF will be achieved;

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2154(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following requests from Parliament, the 2012 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 50 000 000 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; recalls that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that it therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines, as happened in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the policy objectives of the EGF;

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2154(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Regrets the decision of the Council to block the extension of the "crisis derogation", allowing to provide financial assistance to workers made redundant as a result of the current financial and economic crisis in addition to those losing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65% of the programme costs, for applications submitted after the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;deleted

2012/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2012/2092(BUD)

Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. On the basis of the data presented by Commission in the inter-institutional meeting on payments of 26 September 2012, doubts that the increase in payments by 6,8% proposed in the DB will be sufficient to cover reimbursements of payment claims awaited by Member States under the various headings – and in particular for Headings 1a and 1b – in the absence of an amending budget covering payment needs for 2012; will therefore ~~rejec~~argue against any attempt to reduce the level of payment appropriations as compared to the DB proposal;

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2092(BUD)

Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Is of the opinion that the answer to the crisis must be more Europe and not less Europe, in order to restart investments and help rebuild confidence in the economy; having already criticised the proposed freezing in commitment appropriations at the level of the expected inflation rate in the DB, cannot accept Council's decision to reduce them further down to 1,27% compared to budget 2012; recalls that commitments reflect EU political priorities and should be set having in mind a long term perspective where the economic downturn might be over; therefore takes the view that, as a general principle, commitments should be restored at the DB level; intends, however, to increase commitment appropriations above the DB on a selected number of budget lines directly related to the delivery of the Europe 2020 priorities and in line with traditional Parliament's priorities;

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2092(BUD)

Jan MULDER, Anne E. JENSEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Deplores the substantial cuts in payments (-EUR 1,6 billion or -3,3 % as compared to DB) by the Council affecting the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective (-12,9%), the European Territorial Cooperation objective (-18,7%) and the Cohesion Fund (-4,7%); thereby substantially increasing RAL, notes instead that the Convergence objective is left practically untouched;

2012/10/08
Committee: BUDG

2012/2016(BUD)

Carl HAGLUND, Göran FÄRM, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Regrets the proposed cuts for technical assistance to macro-regional strategies; reiterates the need for continuous technical and administrative support for the implementation of the strategies as well as for seed money for new projects, as indicated by the high implementation rate in 2011;

2012/05/31
Committee: BUDG

2012/2000(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the promotion of growth and jobs require specific actions and enhanced budgetary efforts to support competitiveness, innovation and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), since most of the EU economic potential lies in SMEs, which, according to latest studies, created 85 % of net new jobs in the EU between 2002 and 2010 and are the backbone of our economic growth; acknowledging therefore that efforts need to be made to reconsider the weighting of current headings and budget lines to support the promotion of growth efforts;

2012/02/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2000(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that such support would be instrumental in preventing SMEs from cutting down their investments, in particular on research and development, while at the same time promoting employment and ensuring that skills are conserved, thus helping to unleash SMEs’ innovation potential, which is essential to the EU’s prosperity and to the creation of a knowledge-based society; further stresses in this context the necessity to further simplify the application procedure for EU-funded programmes;

2012/02/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2000(BUD)

Carl HAGLUND, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the agreement reached on financing the additional costs of ITER in December 2011; urges the Commission to respect the joint conclusions in this agreement in their entirety and to make concrete proposals on the amount of EUR 360 million in the 2013 draft budget, making full use of the provisions laid down in the Financial Regulation and in the IIA of 17 May 2006 and excluding any further ITER-related revision of the MFF; reiterates its strong conviction that securing the amount of EUR 360 million in the 2013 budget should not impair the successful implementation of other EU policies ~~during this last year of the programming period~~especially those that contribute to achieving the goals of the EU 2020 strategy (R&D, Innovation, entrepreneurship, employment, education) during this last year of the programming period and specifically requests that possible redeployments should not infringe upon these budgetary priorities;

2012/02/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2000(BUD)

Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Recalls that financial commitments entered in international agreements and/or agreements between the EU and international organisations shall be respected; in this regard, referring e.g. to the Joint declaration between the European Commission and UNRWA on European Union support to UNRWA in 2011-2013, which stipulates that "the EU's indicative contribution to UNWRA's general fund is based on the 2011 budget allocated to the Palestinians", calls on the Commission not to depart from the 2011 envelope when preparing the draft budget for the line 19 08 01 02 (ENP financial assistance to Palestine, the peace Process and UNRWA);

2012/02/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/0299(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall enstablish binding measures that ensure that the listed companies ~~in whose boards members of the under-represented sex hold less than 40 per cent of the non-executive director positions make the appointments to those positions on the basi~~set a target figure for the proportion of the under-represented gender in boards. The individual company shall thus specifically set a target which is realistic and ambitious for the company itself. The listed companies are also required to have a policy for increasing the proportion of the under-represented gender at the management levels of athe compa~~rative analysis of the qualifications of each candidate, by applying pre-establ~~nies in general. This means that the individual company must establish the optimum recruitment basis in the light of its specific needs and ideas. Lishted, c~~lear, neutrally formulated and unambiguous criteria, in order to attain the said percen~~ompanies must report on the status of fulfilment of the target set out in the annual report, including, if so, why the companies failed to achieve the targe ~~at the latest by 1 J~~t set. Moreover, companies must present the policy in the annua~~ry 2020 or at the latest by 1 January 2018 in case of listed companies which are public undertakings.~~l report, how the policy is implemented and what has been achieved. If the companies fail to do so, they may be fined. These requirements do not apply to representatives of the employees

2013/05/13
Committee: ECON

2012/0299(COD)

Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

~~2. The number of non-executive director positions necessary to meet the objective laid down in paragraph 1 shall be the number closest to the proportion of 40 per cent, but not exceeding 49 per cent.~~deleted

2013/05/13
Committee: ECON

2012/0299(COD)

Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. In order to attain the objective laid down in paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that, in the selection of non- executive directors, priority shall be given to the candidate of the under-represented sex if that candidate is equally qualified as a candidate of the other sex in terms of suitability, competence and professional performance, unless an objective assessment taking account of all criteria specific to the individual candidates tilts the balance in favour of the candidate of the other sex.deleted

2013/05/13
Committee: ECON

2012/0299(COD)

Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4

4. Member States shall ensure that listed companies are obliged to disclose, on the request of an unsuccessful candidate, the qualification criteria upon which the selection was based, the objective comparative assessment of those criteria and, where relevant, the considerations tilting the balance in favour of a candidate of the other sex.deleted

2013/05/13
Committee: ECON

2012/0299(COD)

Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 5

5. Member States shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that where an unsuccessful candidate of the under-represented sex establishes facts from which it may be presumed that that candidate was equally qualified as the appointed candidate of the other sex, it shall be for the listed company to prove that there has been no breach of the rule laid down in paragraph 3.deleted

2013/05/13
Committee: ECON

2012/0299(COD)

Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6

6. Member States may provide that listed companies where the members of the under-represented sex represent less than 10 per cent of the workforce are not subject to the objective laid down in paragraph 1.deleted

2013/05/13
Committee: ECON

2012/0299(COD)

Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Anne E. JENSEN, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 7

7. Member States may provide that the objective laid down in paragraph 1 is met where listed companies can show that members of the under-represented sex hold at least one third of all director positions, irrespective of whether they are executive or non-executive.deleted

2013/05/13
Committee: ECON

2012/0186(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) Roadworthiness testing is a part of a wider regime ensuring that vehicles are kept in a safe and environmentally acceptable condition during their use. 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~~. Periodic testing should be the main tool to ensure roadworthiness. Roadside inspections of commercial vehicles should only be complementary to periodic tests and target vehicles on the road which constitute an immediate risk to road safety ~~are not used on roads~~.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0186(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) The roadside inspections should be implemented via a risk rating system~~. The Member States may use the risk rating system established in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 March 206~~ provided that a sufficient degree of harmonisation of periodic roadworthiness testing has been achieved between all Member States and a system onf m~~inimum conditions f~~utual recognition of roadwor th~~e implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social leg~~iness certificates can be established. The European Commission should draft a report on progress in the harmonislation ~~relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC~~process in order to determine when such a mutual recognition could be established.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0186(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) Reports of technical roadside inspections are in several Member States elaborated by electronic means. In such cases athe full benefits of electronic communication must be used and print- outs of the inspection report should be ~~handed over to the driver~~minimised. All the data and information gathered during roadside inspections should be transferred to a common repository of the Member State in order that the data can be easier processed and information transfer can be performed without additional administrative burden.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0186(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. Drivers of a vehicle registered in a Member State shall keep on board the roadworthiness certificate corresponding to the latest roadworthiness test and the report of the last roadside inspection, when they are available. If the certificate and the report are available electronically in the home country of the vehicle, the authorities cannot ask for paper copies to be kept onboard.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0186(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b

(b) carry out a visual assessment of the condition of the vehicle ~~and of its cargo~~.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0186(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1

The inspector may subject a vehicle to an inspection of the cargo securing in accordance with Annex IV. The follow-up procedures referred to in Article 14 shall also apply in case of major or dangerous deficiencies related to cargo securing.deleted

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0186(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3

3. The results of the roadside inspection shall be communicated electronically to the registration authority of the vehicle and to the owner of the vehicle.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0186(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) No later than 5 years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, the European Commission shall use the results of the report referred to in (the new Article 18a (new) of the draft report of Werner Kuhn on the proposal for a regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests) to determine whether roadside inspections can be based on a network of mandatory harmonised national risk rating systems of undertakings. The findings shall be submitted after consultation of the committee referred to in Article 16. The findings could be accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) Roadworthiness testing is a part of a wider regime ensuring that vehicles are kept in a safe and environmental acceptable condition during their use. 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 tha~~. Periodic testing should be the main tool to ensure roadworthiness. Roadside inspections of commercial vehicles should only be complementary to periodic tests and target vehicles which constitute an immediate risk to road safety ~~are not used on roads~~.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) Vehicles of historic interest ~~are supposed to~~ conserve heritage of the époque ~~they have been built and considered to b~~in which they were built, are preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition and are hrardely used ~~on public roads, i~~as everyday vehicles. It should be left to Member States to extend the period of periodic roadworthiness testing for such vehicles~~. It should also be for Member States to~~ or to otherwise regulate their roadworthiness testing ~~of other types of specialised vehicles~~regime.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)

(25a) Since the objective of this Regulation should be to encourage further harmonisation and standardisation of periodic roadworthiness testing of vehicles, which should eventually lead to the establishment of a Single Market for periodic roadworthiness testing in the European Union with a system of mutual recognition of roadworthiness testing certificates which allows vehicles to be tested in any Member State, the European Commission should draft a report on progress in the harmonisation process in order to determine when such a mutual recognition could be established;

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – introductory part

(7) ‘'vehicle of historic interest’' means any vehicle which ~~fulfils all the following~~was manufactured at least 30 years ago and is preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition~~s :~~.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 1

~~– It was manufactured at least 30 years ago,~~deleted

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 2

~~– It is maintained by use of replacement parts which reproduce the historic components of the vehicle;~~deleted

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 3

~~– It has not sustained any change in the technical characteristics of its main components such as engine, brakes, steering or suspension an~~deleted

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – indent 4

~~– It has not been changed in its appearance;~~deleted

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8

(8) ‘'holder of a registration certificate’' means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, or the person who has the permanent right to use of the vehicle;

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. Roadworthiness tests shall be carried out only by the competent authority of a Member State or by ~~testing centres authorised by Member Stat~~a public body entrusted with the task by the State or by bodies or establishments certified and supervised by the State, including authorised private bodies.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Anne E. JENSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. The holder of the registration certificate may request the testing centre, or the competent authority or the bodies or establishments certified and supervised by the State if relevant, to carry out the roadworthiness test during a period ~~extend~~starting from the beginning of the month preceding the month of the anniversary date referred to in paragraph 1 ~~until the end of the second month following this date~~, without affecting the date for the next roadworthiness test.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. The testing centre or, if relevant, the competent authority that has conducted a roadworthiness test on a vehicle shall issue an electronic roadworthiness certificate to that vehicle that contains at least the elements laid down in Annex IV.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3

3. As from the date of entry into force of this Regulation and at the latest 31 years afterwards, the testing centres shall issue roadworthiness certificates only electronically. They shall also communicate electronically, to the competent authority of a Member State the information mentioned in roadworthiness certificates which they deliver. This communication shall take place within a reasonable time after the issuance of the roadworthiness certificates. Until this date, the testing centres may communicate this information to the competent authority by any other means. The competent authority shall keep this information for 36 months from the date of its reception.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4

4. For the purposes of checking the odometer reading, and where this information was not communicated electronically following the previous roadworthiness test, the inspector shall require the person presenting the vehicle to the test to show the certificate issued following the previous roadworthiness test, if the certificate has not been issued electronically.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0184(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5

5. The results of the roadworthiness test shall be notified by electronic means to the registration authority of the vehicle. This notification shall contain the information mentioned in the roadworthiness certificate.

2013/03/28
Committee: TRAN

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 a (new)

(15a) The expenditure of the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA, ESMA) relating to their tasks should be covered by levying fees on credit institutions. The amount of fee levied on a credit institution should be proportionate to the importance and risk profile of the credit institution concerned. These fees should be levied in addition to any fees paid to the Authorities in the cases specified in the relevant instruments of Union law. The overall amount of fees paid to the Authorities should not exceed their expenditure.

2012/11/19
Committee: BUDG

2012/0150(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Bendt BENDTSEN, Emilie TURUNEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 b (new)

(15b) In a transition period from national co-financing to partial financing from fees, the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA, ESMA) should be fully financed from EU budget.

2012/11/19
Committee: BUDG

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) secured liabilities, such as all liabilities that are issued in a covered bond cover pool and related derivatives which have privileged status in the cover pool;

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Bendt BENDTSEN, Emilie TURUNEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 shall not prevent resolution authorities, where appropriate, from exercising those powers in relation to any part of a secured liability or a liability for which collateral has been pledged that exceeds the value of the assets, pledge, lien or collateral against which it is secured. Member States ~~may~~shall exempt from this provision ~~covered bonds as defined in Article 22(4) of Council Directive 86/611/EEC~~all secured liabilities; Member States shall secure that all assets and liabilities related to a covered bond cover pool remain unaffected and segregated.

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Bendt BENDTSEN, Emilie TURUNEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the institutions maintain, at all times, a sufficient aggregate amount of own funds and eligible liabilities expressed as a percentage of the total liabilities of the institution that do not qualify as own funds under Section 1 of Chapter 2 of Title V of Directive 2006/48/EC or ~~under~~ Chapter IV of Directive 2006/49/EC excluding covered bonds which fulfil the requirements in Article 52(4) of Council Directive 2009/65/EEC and are issued by an institution whose orderly and controlled winding down with insolvency remote and segregated cover pools is explicitly provided for in the legislation of the Member State.

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. The ~~minimum~~ aggregate amount ~~pursuant to~~referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined on the basis of the following criteria:

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 3 – point e – point 1 (new)

1) if indicated by application of the criteria (a)-(e), or if application of the bail-in tool would be likely to violate the 'no creditor worse off' principle or is contrary to the overall objective of this directive, Member States may set the requirement for bail-in eligible liabilities at zero for the institutions in question.

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

(c) the reduction to zero of that principal amount is permanent. However a temporary write down should be possible for institutions not able to convert to equity if the institution is recapitalized according to art. 37(2)(a);

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point i

(i) the power to cancel debt instruments issued by an institution under resolution, except for secured liabilities;

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point m

(m) the power to amend or alter the maturity of debt instruments issued by an institution under resolution or amend the amount of interest payable under such instruments, including by suspending payment for a temporary period except for secured liabilities;

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 68 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e

(e) structured finance arrangements, including securitiszations and ~~covered bond~~all assets and secured liabilities in a cover pools, which involve the granting and holding of security by a party to the arrangement or a trustee, agent or nominee.

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States shall ensure that there is appropriate protection for structured finance arrangements, including securitizations and covered bonds and other cover pool liabilities, so as to prevent either of the following:

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the transfer of some, but not all, of the property, rights and liabilities which constitute or form part of a structured finance arrangement, including securitizations and covered bonds and other cover pool liabilities, to which the credit institution under resolution is a party;

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 71 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the termination or modification through the use of ancillary powers of the property, rights and liabilities which constitute or form part of a structured finance arrangement, including securitizations and covered bonds and other cover pool liabilities, to which the institution under resolution is a party.

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 94 – paragraph 7 – point f

(f) the complexity of the structure of the institution and the resolvability of the institution, ~~and~~

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 94 – paragraph 7 – point g a (new)

(g a) business models and balance-sheet structures of institutions, and

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0150(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 94 – paragraph 7 – point g b (new)

(g b) institutions' risk-taking behaviour.

2012/12/20
Committee: ECON

2012/0061(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan MULDER

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall provide that a contractor who has undertaken due diligence shall not be liable in accordance with paragraph 1. Such systems shall be applied in a transparent, non discriminatory and proportionate way. They may imply preventive measures taken by the contractor concerning proof provided by the subcontractor of the main working conditions applied to the posted workers as referred to in Article 3 (1) of Directive 96/71/EC, including pay slips and payment of wages, the respect of social security and/or taxation obligations in the Member State of establishment and compliance with the applicable rules o~~n posting of workers~~r that the subcontractor and the contractor have notified the authorities so that the authorities can carry out their control.

2013/01/21
Committee: EMPL

2011/2152(ACI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the political agreement reached on 27 June 2013 at the highest political level between Parliament, the Irish Presidency and the Commission on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 package (MFF Regulation and IIA), ~~as the maximum achievable under the current circumstances and procedures; Is determined to make full use~~but reminds that a set of conditions still needs to be met before the package can be put to the vote; Is determined to make full use of its legislative powers in the current negotiations of the legal basis for the new programmes as well as, in the course of forthcoming budgetary procedures, of the new instruments established, notably as regards flexibility;

2013/09/19
Committee: BUDG

2011/2152(ACI)

Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan MULDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Consider~~Highlights that the long and strenuous negotiations, both within Council and at interinstitutional level, ~~and their outcome do not constitute a satisfactory implementation~~revealed an infringement by Council of the new provisions of the TFEU concerning the MFF, which were implemented for the first time, in particular as regards the role and prerogatives of the Parliament;

2013/09/19
Committee: BUDG

2011/2152(ACI)

Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan MULDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. De~~plor~~nounces the fact that the Council considereds the European Council conclusions of 8 February 2013 as binding for Council negotiators; stresses that the European Council conclusions also included elements falling under the ordinary legislative procedure, such as detailed allocation criteria, envelopes by programmes or beneficiary, as well as discretionary financial allocations adjusting the level of national returns from the Union budget;

2013/09/19
Committee: BUDG

2011/2152(ACI)

Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan MULDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Reg~~Strongly deplorets, moreover, that the numerous contacts and meetings held over the past few years between its delegation and the successive Council presidencies had no impact on the spirit, calendar or content of the negotiations or on the Council’s position, including, so far, the need to distinguish the legislative from the budgetary aspects of the MFF agreement;

2013/09/19
Committee: BUDG

2011/2152(ACI)

Anne E. JENSEN, George LYON, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan MULDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for its Committee on Budgets, in cooperation with its Committee on Constitutional Affairs, to draw the necessary conclusions and come forward with new proposals, in due time ahead of the 2016 ~~review / revision proposals~~post electoral revision, on the modalities of such negotiations, so as to ensure the democratic and transparent nature of the whole budget setting process.

2013/09/19
Committee: BUDG

2011/2096(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

H a. stresses the positive experiences several Member States have with the use of the European Modular System, that this is a sustainable road transport solution which contributes to a higher energy efficiency level in the road transport sector,

2011/09/21
Committee: ITRE

2011/2096(INI)

Anne E. JENSEN, Vilja SAVISAAR-TOOMAST

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – indent 4 a (new)

- a solution to the fact that modular road trains cannot cross country boarders, and that this is detrimental for an increased use of this method of road transport;

2011/09/21
Committee: ITRE

2011/2096(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – indent 1 a (new)

- initiatives to ensure that reduction of sulphur emissions from ships does not result in backward modal shift;

2011/09/21
Committee: ITRE

2011/2082(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes that the transport sector is experiencing market distortions since some modes of transport such as bus and train are subjected VAT while others are exempted. This creates an uneven level playing field since all modes of transport are competing for the same cross-border transport services;

2011/07/05
Committee: ECON

2011/2082(INI)

Olle SCHMIDT, Olle LUDVIGSSON, Gunnar HÖKMARK, Sharon BOWLES, Saïd EL KHADRAOUI, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Lena EK, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Underlines that non-profit-making organisations play a vital and very beneficial role for democracy, growth and prosperity in Europe; calls on the Commission to propose a mechanism allowing Member States wishing to strengthen civil society to generally exempt from VAT all or most of the activities and transactions carried out by these organisations; stresses that at least the smaller non-profit-making organisations should be covered by such a mechanism;

2011/07/05
Committee: ECON

2011/2082(INI)

Olle SCHMIDT, Olle LUDVIGSSON, Gunnar HÖKMARK, Sharon BOWLES, Saïd EL KHADRAOUI, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Dan JØRGENSEN, Lena EK, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls on the Commission to look carefully into the issue of further reducing VAT red tape for non-profit- making organisations; underlines that there should be a higher degree of flexibility in the VAT system for Member States wishing to take ambitious measures in order to ease the VAT administration burden for these organisations;

2011/07/05
Committee: ECON

2011/2051(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the incorporation of general objectives into the CAP, particularly relating to consumer protection, environmental protection, climate protection, animal welfare and regional cohesion, is ~~in principle~~ to be welcomed ~~but this must not jeopardise~~and would increase focus on possible new earnings and the competitiveness of the European ~~farmers~~Agri-food Sector,

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Giommaria UGGIAS, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

O. whereas, because the world economy is becoming integrated more rapidly, trade systems are as rule being liberalised more by multilateral negotiations (the Doha Round) and whereas in relation to imports from third countries environmental, animal welfare, plant protection and consumer protection standards need to be raised to EU level and minimum employment standards should be complied with,deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

Anne E. JENSEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

P. whereas rural development is an important instrument of the CAP and whereas the new programmes should be geared even more strongly to the priority objectives of rural development and of ~~farmers~~the Agri-food sector (employment, the agricultural environment, water, climate change, innovation and education and new earnings),

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Britta REIMERS, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. WBroadly welcomes the cCommission Communication ~~from the Commission concerning a reform of agricultural policy; calls, however, for the principles set out below to be incorporated in the legislative proposals~~"The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future", in particular option 2 for reform; calls, however, for the Commission to clarify as soon as possible its overall strategy for a viable and sustainable CAP for the future;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE, Giommaria UGGIAS, Lena EK, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Expects the re-design of the CAP to align with the EU 2020 Strategy priorities of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth; Believes that agriculture is well placed to make a major contribution to tackling climate change, creating new jobs through green growth and supplying renewable energy whilst at the same time continuing to provide safe, high quality food products and food security for European consumers;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls for the CAP to remain structured around two pillars; Points out that pillar 1 should remain fully financed by the EU budget and yearly based, while multiannual programming, a voluntary and contractual approach and co- financing should continue to apply under pillar 2;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE, Giommaria UGGIAS, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Insists that the two pillar structure should serve the purpose of clarity, each pillar complementing the other without overlapping; the first pillar should deliver EU-wide objectives which require 'across- the-board' action whereas the second pillar should be outcome-oriented and flexible enough to easily accommodate national, regional and/or local specificities;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. In the case of direct farm payments, advocates moving away from historical and individual reference values and calls for a transition to a uniform area-based regional or national premium for decoupled payments in the next financing period; recognises, however, that the situations in the individual Member States are very disparate, often requiring speci~~al measures per region~~fic regional adjustments through targeted measures;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Does not believe that the Commission's proposal to introduce an upper ceiling for direct payments would deliver its objectives as it would simply result in the administrative splitting up of large agricultural holdings for pure accountancy purposes; is of the opinion that a degree of degression in the amounts large-scale farms receive from the basic direct payments could be envisaged;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses the need for an adequate basic allowance for small farmers, which Member States can optionally determine in those Member States where these farms help to stabilise rural development; calls for these Member States to decide, in accordance with subsidiarity, what percentage of the direct payments to be incorporated in the new subsidy system should be made available to their small farmers; stresses, however, that this must not hamper the necessary structural change;deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls for a further simplification of the direct payment system, for example simplified transfer rules for payment entitlements in the event of non- activation, merging of minimum payment entitlements, simplification of the rules governing the national reserve and changes to gear them more to young farmers or reduce them, depending on the transition to the regional/national single area payment, abolition of handwritten cattle registries, an effective and unbureaucratic monitoring system for both pillars and uniform penalties; considers that administrative systems which can be proven to be operating well should be looked upon favourably in the light of the scale of monitoring prescribed;deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Calls for the introduction of a second-tier of direct payments consisting of 25 to 30% of the basic direct payments in each Member State to be used as an EU-wide incentivisation scheme targeted at enhancing sustainability by improving both resource and production efficiency, making EU agriculture more competitive, in line with the recently published Commission's 'Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050';

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Calls for a list of EU agreed measures to be established that will deliver the above-mentioned sustainability element of the first pillar with the twin- objective of enhancing farm environmental sustainability throughout Europe while improving farm competitiveness2; __________________ 2 See Annex 2 for an indicative list of measures

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE, Giommaria UGGIAS, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)

14e. Calls, however, for farmers to have the freedom to opt in to the measures if they want to receive the sustainability payment, and there will be no additional penalties if they choose not to;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE, Giommaria UGGIAS, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 f (new)

14f. Believes that any controls put in place to check the implementation of the payments received under the sustainability top-up should be accommodated within the current integrated agricultural control system (IACS), so as to avoid the duplication of control systems under pillar 1, and that when on-farm checks are necessary, they take place at the same time as the checks already carried out for cross-compliance requirements and direct payments entitlements, or at the same time as checks on compliance with agri- environmental measures under pillar 2;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 g (new)

14g. Believes that compensation for natural disadvantages should still lie in the second pillar; however calls, in line with the Commission's proposals to strengthen the fight against land abandonment and to guarantee local food production for local communities across the EU, for the possibility to be left to Member States to top up the support received by farms situated in areas with natural handicaps through an additional support scheme under pillar 1 using up to 10% of the national basic direct payments;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that decoupling has essentially proved its worth, ~~given the increased effect on income and~~allowing greater autonomy in decision-making on the part of farmers and the associated simplification of the CAP, and calls for this also, in general, to apply to suckler cow and sheep premiums; recognises, however, that in certain sectors and regions such as mountain regions, where there are no alternatives to relatively labour-intensive livestock farming, there may be considerable economic and environmental drawbacks which cannot be reconciled with the aims of the Treaty; acknowledges, therefore, that production- based premiums might be defensible within a narrowly defined framework for a limited period even after 2013, ensuring farmers respond to market signals, placing the vast bulk of the CAP into WTO green box and the associated simplification of the CAP, therefore calls for decoupling to continue to apply as a general guiding principle for direct payments;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Recognises, however, that in certain sectors and regions such as disadvantaged regions (hill and mountain farming, specific climatic areas, etc.), where there are no alternatives to livestock farming, there may be considerable economic and environmental drawbacks which cannot be reconciled with the aims of the Treaty; Furthermore, given the move from a historical to an area support model, considers that an adequate margin for flexibility should be left to Member States; acknowledges, therefore, that production- based premiums remain defensible at WTO level, as part of the fight against land abandonment and in order to boost certain national priorities such as encouraging organic production or specific grassland-based livestock production;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls ~~– without casting any doubt on~~ the re~~sults of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP –~~fore for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 ~~primarily~~ to be allocated within WTO limits for measures to promote ~~territorial coherence and boost key~~key and vulnerable sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows), or for area- based environmental measures (e.g. organic farming) which to date have not been included in the second pillar; considers that the budget for Article 68 could – subject to contrary results of an impact assessment – cover up to 10% of direct payments, protein crops programmes, extensive grazing systems);

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Observes that, for historical reasons, farms in the European Union have a very diverse structure as regards size, employment arrangements and legal form; is aware that direct payments are moving away from a historical basis to area-based payments and that the provision of public goods is independent of farm size; rejects, therefore, measures which discriminate against particular types of farm;deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
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 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;deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Considers that direct payments should be made only to active farmers; realises that, under the system of decoupled direct payments, each farmer who uses farmland for production or who tends it in order to maintain GAEC should receive direct payments; calls on the Commission therefore to devise a definition of ‘active farmer’ which the Member States can administer without additional administrative effort, while it should be ensured that traditional farming activities (full-time and various degrees of part- time) are classified as active farming;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 20

~~Resource protection and environmental policy component~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Considers that better resource protection is an element in sustainable farming, which should involve separate support for environmental measures going beyond the requirements of Cross Compliance (CC), which already entail many environmental measures, and being geared to multiannual applications, as a result of which greater environmental benefits can be attained;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that resource protection should be directly linked to the granting of direct payments in order to attain these environmental objectives to the maximum without the need to introduce new, bureaucratic environmental conditions into the first pillar; considers that a flat- rate income payment, as envisaged in a top-up model in the first pillar, must cover costs and income losses;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

~~23. Calls for the resources allocated to greening to be reserved for recipients of direct payments and only disbursed in connection with greening;~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Regards this model as making a substantial contribution to the simplification of the direct payments system and to the attainment of new compulsory environmental objectives; observes that, under this model, there is no need to step up the current rate of monitoring and the current monitoring capacities, as existing checks can be used, and that checks in the second pillar can be combined in the basic and regeneration programme; considers also that no new systems of payments or penalties need be introduced;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Realises that resources from the first pillar (as for a top-up model) should be used to pay for this environmental component; believes, however, that Member States where direct payments lie below the EU average should be given the option of making the payment by means of cofinancing from the first pillar or instead by means of financing entirely from the second pillar; observes that the Member States must notify the Commission of their decision on the financing by 31 July 2013; notes that individual Member States' modulation resources should be used;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Advocates compensation for natural disadvantages in the second pillar and rejects a complementary payment in the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involved;~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Considers that direct payments are no longer justified without cross compliance (CC) and therefore that the CC system should apply to all recipients of direct payments19;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Richard ASHWORTH, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Points out that the cross-compliance system makes the granting of direct payments subject to compliance with statutory requirements and the maintenance of farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition, and remains one of the appropriate means of optimising the provision of baseline eco-system services by farmers and meeting new environmental challenges by securing the provision of basic public goods; notes, however, that the introduction of cross-compliance has raised a whole range of problems relating to administrative issues and acceptance by farmers, who had the impression that they were losing a degree of freedom in their work; calls therefore for the administrative burden on farmers to be reduced through a simplified implementation system for cross- compliance requirements;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Richard ASHWORTH, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 c (new)

27c. Believes that genuine efforts are being made to simplify the system and reduce the administrative red-tape placed on farmers; calls however for a simplified, more proportionate and risk-based approach by the Commission and Member States to the implementation of regulatory controls, the conduct of compliance audits and the system of penalties;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 d (new)

27d. Is ready to consider the introduction of a small farmers' scheme under pillar 1, only if the primary objective of such a system is to simplify administrative procedures and paper work for small farmers and as long as it does not undermine competitiveness or frustrate the necessary modernisation of EU agriculture; such a scheme could consist of taking recipients of direct payments out of the mainstream basic direct payments system when they are currently below a certain amount of annual support; Takes the view that such a scheme should be voluntary on Member States and allow them sufficient flexibility to determine who is eligible as a 'small farmer' in each country;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls, in view of the greater concentration of direct payments on resource protection and environmental measures, for a substantial reduction of the scope of CC; calls on the Commission to make significant progress in simplifying and harmonising rules on monitoring;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Considers that CC should be restricted to monitoring for compliance with fundamental and recognised standards and standards closely related to farming, which lend themselves to systematic monitoring;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Could envisage a modest adaptation of the requirements to maintain GAEC with regard to altered environmental and production conditions (climate change, biomass), if the introduction of the new requirements in a comparable way throughout Europe were guarantedeleted;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 32

Market ~~instruments and safety net~~safety net and trade relations

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Considers that the health check approach should be pursued further, as these existing market instruments have also demonstrated their value as a safety net; takes the view that these market measures, and in particular intervention, should only be used as a minimum safety net in case of extreme price crises and ~~potential~~major market disruption;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Considers that, in view of the anticipated environmental and climate dangers and the risk of epidemics and considerable price fluctuations on agricultural markets, additional risk prevention is of vital importance, particularly at individual farm level;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Considers that the use of these instruments ~~which have been described should be triggered only by a political assessment by the EU leg~~could be complemented by new economic and financial tools that are innovative and flexible such as futures markets or private mutualislat~~ure~~ion funds;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Considers that private- sector insurance schemes, ~~such~~as well as multi-hazard insurance, must be developed in view of increasing risks; is aware of the fact that, without public contributions to the financing (from the EU and Member States), this would be difficult; supports the adoption of an EU-wide and WTO-compliant environment to ensure that no distortions of competition occur among Member States; rejects, however, the introduction of EU-wide insurance systems schemes partly financed by public funds could be promoted as an option in the Member States; Stresses, however, that these instruments must respect WTO rules, and that they should not distort intra-EU competition conditions and trade; Calls therefore, for an EU framework to be followed by those Member States implementing these measures, which should be enshrined in the Single Common Market Organisation;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Considers rather that these measures should be promoted optionally, by decision of the Member State, in the first pillar (now Article 69) within the existing financing ceiling of the Member State concerned and that Member States should be allowed, initially, on the basis of national and regional needs, to use up to 2% of direct payments for risk management, stabilisation and prevention measures; considers that, in justified cases, Member States should be allowed to make additional resources available from national funds;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Takes the view, therefore, that the Commission should devise common rules on support from Member States for risk management systems, possibly by creating common rules in the common market organisation, in order to keep to a minimum any distortion of competition and trade; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to notify all measures to introduce risk management and to submit an appropriate impact assessment with the legislative proposal;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS, Lena EK, Marielle DE SARNEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Acknowledges that in the WTO negotiations the EU has offered to abolish export refunds, albeit with the proviso that other trading partners (particularly the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) also bring their export support into line with WTO rules; calls for the EU likewise to formulate a system for export credits which complies with WTO rulesReaffirms the EU commitment to phase-out export refunds by 2013 if this move is reflected in WTO partners abandoning in parallel similar measures and measures having equivalent effect, in particular the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Vincenzo IOVINE, Giommaria UGGIAS, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)

44 a. Recalls that EU farmers are required to produce food to the highest safety, environmental, quality and animal welfare standards and should be rewarded for doing so; believes that imports from third countries should, respecting WTO rights and obligations, meet equivalent standards to ensure fairer competition; calls on the Commission to uphold the interests of European farmers in the context of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements negotiated on behalf of the EU;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Liam AYLWARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Advocates that the 2006 sugar market reform be ~~extend~~reviewed toin 20~~20 in its existing form in order to develop a system for the subsequent period which can operate without quotas~~15 with a view to bringing in further reforms by 2020;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. ~~Observes that~~Asks for solutions to be formulated at global level to tackle abuses of speculation in agricultural commodities ~~should be combated; ad~~and extreme price voclat~~es a worldwide notification system for agricultural stocks; observes~~ility as they potentially put food security at risk; insists in thatis con~~sideration should be given to maintaining stocks of vital agricultural commoditie~~text that the EU should adopt a coordinated approach with its trade partners in order to avoid further markets disruptions;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Lena EK, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

47 a. Calls for measures to be taken to strengthen primary producers' and producer organisations' management capacity and bargaining power vis-à-vis other economic operators in the food chain (primarily retailers, processors and input companies), provided these developments do not hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; takes the view that the functioning of the food supply-chain should be improved, through greater transparency of food prices and action to address unfair commercial practices, enabling farmers to obtain the added value they deserve; believes that the appointment of ombudsmen should be considered with a view to solving disputes between the operators along the food supply-chain;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 48

Pillar 2: Rural development

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. ~~Is aware of the importance of~~Points out that rural development under the second pillar, in view of its environmental, modernisation and structural improvement achievements, but also for attaining political objectives, which should also benefit farmers; calls therefore for second-pillar measures to be better suited to their objectives, so that the effectiveness of grows now an integral part of the CAP architecture and should remain an important element of the future CAP through a well-equipped rural development strategy with a reinforced focus on growth and innovation in rural areas, improving th,e e~~mployment 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 farmer~~nvironment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, modernising and restructuring agriculture, strengthening cohesion in EU rural areas, revitalising disadvantaged areas and areas at risk of abandonment, improving agricultural added-value and competitiveness and creating new jobs in rural areas;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)

49 a. Calls, in line with the Commission Communication, for a more outcome- oriented approach through a general move towards the use of delivery tools that set goals and empower farmers and rural communities to choose their own systems to meet multiannual targets and objectives, such as outcome agreements and simple contracts;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 b (new)

49 b. Believes that Green growth should be at the heart of a new rural development strategy that focuses on creating new opportunities in terms of: - developing rural areas' potential to produce more renewable and sustainable energy from second-generation biofuels, from biomass, agro-materials, agro-waste and the by-products of agriculture; - boosting on-farm small-scale renewable energy production; - investing in innovative techniques as well as projects for applying research and development on farms; - providing technical support and advice to farmers, especially young farmers, in applying new agricultural techniques;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 c (new)

49 c. Emphasises in the context of the EU 2020 Strategy that research and development, the use of new technologies and best agricultural practices are crucial to develop sustainable intensive and precision farming techniques in order to improve competitiveness and increase production and agricultural productivity while reducing the use of scarce resources such as water, land and energy; takes the view that investment in agricultural innovation should be further encouraged with a view to increase the use of the best available technologies on farms, inter alia through the CAP and EU research and development framework programmes, in order to address new challenges, starting with feeding a projected global population of 9 billion people in 2050 while making a better use of resources;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 d (new)

49 d. Believes that farmers can actively contribute to biodiversity, landscape management and environmental protection, as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation, in a cost- effective way; calls for the CAP to provide the opportunity for the vast bulk of agricultural land to be covered by agri- environmental schemes to further incentivise a majority of farmers for the delivery of additional eco-system services while encouraging more sustainable, lower-input production models such as organic farming, precision farming, the development of high-nature-value farming and sustainable intensive agricultural practices; recalls in this context that the agri-environmental programmes must be designed so as to closely fit national and regional priorities and specificities, and be clearly differentiated from the sustainability element of the first pillar in their objectives, scale and tools;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

50. Advocates ~~in this connection that~~for the compensatory allowance for disadvantaged areas to 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 c~~, independently of the voluntary national top-up under pillar 1; Believes that this will ensure that agricultural activity takes place so that land continues to be managed and local food is produced for local communities across the EU, thereby reducing the threat of land abandonment and ensuring a balanced territeoria ~~for demarcation of disadvantaged areas~~l management as well as a rational development of agricultural production across the EU;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 a (new)

50 a. Stresses that less favoured areas are often of high value in terms of the cultivated landscape, biodiversity preservation and provision of environmental benefits, as well as rural areas dynamism; Asks the Commission, therefore, to orientate its compensatory programmes for these specific areas towards these goals through a careful choice of biophysical selection criteria; Recalls in this context that the European Parliament, in its resolution of 5th May 2010, asked for additional criteria to be considered such as 'isolation' to address difficulties arising from distance from the market, remoteness and limited access to services, as well as the inclusion of a 'field-capacity days' criterion to address the interaction between soil types and climate and notably reflect maritime climate difficulties;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. Stresses at the same time, however, that rural structures differ widely in the Member States and therefore require different measures; calls therefore for flexibility to allow the Member States to adopt voluntary measures, thwhich could be co-financ~~ing rate for which should be based on the rates current at the time~~ed by the EU on the condition that these measures have been notified to the Commission and approved;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Marielle DE SARNEZ, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Advocates that, in the case of measures which are of particular importance to Member States, an optional increase of ~~25% in~~the national financing in the second pillar (top- up) should be possible; Stresses however, that these top-ups should not lead to a renationalisation of pillar 2 or increase the gap in Member States' ability to co- finance their priorities;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Calls for a~~brupt changes in the allocation of appropriations in the second pillar to be avoided, as Member States require certainty to enable them to plan and continuity of financing~~ fair redistribution of second pillar funds to be achieved between Member States, according to objective criteria that must reflect the diversity of needs in European rural areas and the different priority objectives to be achieved by different Member States; Advocates for these changes to be achieved after a transition period in parallel with the changes made to first pillar funds distribution and so as to avoid sudden changes that may be disruptive;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. Calls for simplification and a review of the ~~cross-compliance rule~~requirements and controls 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~~;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56

56. Welcomes the move towards greater coordination at EU level ~~of EU funds; advocates, however, that the funds be preserved as politically autonomous instrument~~between rural development programmes and cohesion policy in particular, with a view to avoiding duplication, contradictory objectives and overlapping; recalls however, that the scale of the projects under EU cohesion policy and rural development programmes is different and therefore advocates for the funds to remain distinct and for rural development programmes to maintain their focus on rural communities;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 57

~~Miscellaneous~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

~~57. Observes that there is a need for action with regard to national tax law applicable to farms in order to distribute the tax burden more evenly over a period of years;~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2020(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the low level of payments proposed by Council would lead to a bigger discrepancy between PA and CA, mechanically resulting in an increase of RALs at year end, particularly in subheadings 1a and 1b; warns in this context of the already extremely large amount of accumulated RAL so close to the end of this MFF;

2011/10/06
Committee: BUDG

2011/2020(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Decides to restore DB payments for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) line; underlines the fact that the insertion of payment appropriations not only gives higher visibility to the fund but also avoids transfers from other budget lines pursuing different aims and covering different needs;deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: BUDG

2011/2020(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls the important role regional and cohesion policies play towards the achievement of the goals of the EU 2020 strategy and economic recovery of European regions; deplores Council's restrictive approach on payments, which were cut by some EUR 1 300 million as compared to Commission's forecasts of payment needs for 2012; notes that only the convergence objective and the technical assistance lines remained untouched by the cuts of Council; reminds that these cuts apply to budget allocations that were already far below Member States' own estimates (EUR 61 billion for 2012 or some 50% above DB) and widely considered as being the bare minimum for honouring upcoming payment claims and be consistent with the speeding up of implementation at the end of the programming period; requests an assessment of the implementation of regional and cohesion policy, with concrete proposals on how to reduce RALs;

2011/10/06
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Reaffirms that the Parliament should show budgetary responsibility and self- restraint by staying around the inflation rate and finding additional savings; following the interinstitutional line, enlargement-related needs are to be integrated either by a letter of amendment or an amending budget; the needs for the 18 new MEPs following the Lisbon Treaty will be also integrated by a letter of amendment or an amending budget;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Furthermore urges the administration to present an objective evaluation of the European Parliament's budget with the aim of identifying savings throughout and present this evaluation to the Committee on Budgets in a timely fashion before the end of the budgetary procedure;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Derek VAUGHAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Is of the opinion that the European Parliament and the other institutions should show budgetary responsibility and self- restraint in the context of economic crisis and the heavy burden of public debt and restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts without undermining the goal of legislative excellence; is therefore ready to accept a revision of the ceiling of heading 5 of the MFF according to point 23 of the Inter-Inter- Institutional Agreement (IIA); this revision should be an offsetting with a reduction of the ceiling of heading 5 (administration) by EUR 100 million and a corresponding increase of other headings in favour of youth;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Decides to ~~maintai~~postpone its decision on the following new requests for new posts ~~in reserve until it is~~until it has received sufficient information showning that no redeployment and training is possible and that outsourcing is not appropriate; this concerns the following new posts: 6 temporary posts for DG COMM, 12 permanent posts in total for the committees BUDG; JURI and INTA, 1 permanent and 1 temporary post for the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction, 2 permanent posts for the Protocol Unit, two permanent posts for DG EXPO for the Latin America and Enlargement units, the 17 new posts in connection with the ongoing DG INLO's three-year plan and the 4 posts for dealing with confidential documents; welcomes that already a total of 36 redeployments are planned;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Considers that the ongoing efforts to modernise and rationalise the administration and the proposals for 2012 should contribute to a reduction in the external provision of services and expects significant savings to be made here so as to achieve a level of expenditure comparable at least to that of 2010;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Re~~quests more detailed information regarding~~jects the creation of an European Added Value Assessment Unit~~, its tasks and competences; puts all appropriations concerning this new Unit and the request for new staff for this Unit into reserve until sufficient information received~~;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Cut~~Keeps the contingency reserve ~~by X million EUR.~~at the level for 2011;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Keeps the funding for European political parties at the level of 2011 while allowing for an adjustment according to the inflation rate;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the Secretary General's proposal to continue to implement Parliament's environmental policy, to start- up an information campaign, to provide support for the multi-annual ICT strategy and to continue to modernise and rationalise the administration; would further welcome that the continued modernisation and rationalisation include that: - the library services provide expertise in all three working languages, - that the medical service continues to be adequately funded with an increase of 15%, - that exchanges with national parliaments continue to be adequately funded and kept at the level of 2011;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Considers that efforts to modernise and rationalise the administration must also include the security of the parliament; requests a reserve of EUR 3 million, which would be lifted upon presentation of a viable concept for improvements and costs-plan;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Welcomes the ~~detailed~~ information received concerning the continuation of the realisation of the House of European History; takes note of the estimated total cost for setting up the House of European History, the estimated running costs and the staffing needs; requests - in order to maintain a transparent and fruitful dialogue with the parties involved - to be presented with a business plan setting out the long-term business strategy of the House of European History and requests to be informed as soon as possible on the building project according to Article 179(3) of the Financial Regulation; proposes a reserve of EUR 2 million until receipt of said business plan;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – title

Pro~~hibition of the pro~~vision of non-a~~udit~~ssurance services

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

1. A statutory auditor or an audit firm carrying out statutory audit of public- interest entities ~~may~~shall not provide to the audited entity, to its parent undertaking and to its controlled undertakings ~~statutory audit services and related financial audit services~~, to which the audited entity is material, prohibited services as mentioned below in the third subparagraph of paragraph 3. 2. Non-assurance services, not categorised as prohibited services, may be provided subject to pre-approval by the audit committee [or Board of Directors, if no audit committee]. In all circumstances the provision of non-assurance services may not create any threats to the independence of the statutory auditor of the public interest entity.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

(2a) The parent company is not audited by the statutory auditor or an audit firm carrying out statutory audit or a network firm related hereto, the restrictions above to provide prohibited services should not apply.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

2. For the purposes of this Article, related financial audit services shall mean: (a) the audit or review of interim financial statements; (b) providing assurance on corporate governance statements; (c) providing assurance on corporate social responsibility matters; (d) providing assurance on or attestation of regulatory reporting to regulators of financial institutions beyond the scope of the statutory audit and designed to assist regulators in fulfilling their role, such as on capital requirements or specific solvency rations determining how likely an undertaking will be to continue meeting its debt obligations; (e) providing certification on compliance with tax requirements where such attestation is required by national law; (f) any other statutory duty related to audit work imposed by Union legislation to the statutory auditor or audit firm.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

A statutory auditor or an audit firm carrying out statutory audit of public- interest entities shall not directly or indirectly provide to the audited entity, to its parent undertaking and to its controlled undertakings non-audit services.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Where the statutory auditor belongs to a network, no member of such network shall provide to the audited entity, to its parent undertaking and to its controlled undertakings within the Union any non- audit services.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – introductory part

For the purposes of this Article, ~~non-audit services shall mean:~~ prohibited services shall mean: a) Any services where a statutory auditor or an audit firm assume a management responsibility or making the significant judgments and decisions for an audit client. b) accounting and bookkeeping, including payroll services, and preparing accounting records and financial statements c) designing and implementing internal control or risk management procedure related to the preparation and/or control of financing information included in the financial statements and advice on risk; that: (a) form a significant part of the internal control over financial reporting or (b) generate information that is significant to the client's accounting records or financial statements on which the firm will express an opinion creates a self-review threat. d) valuation services; if the valuations would have a material effect, separately or in the aggregate, on the financial statements on which the firm will express an opinion. e) actuarial and legal services, including resolving a dispute or litigation when the amounts involved are material to the financial statements on which the firm will express an opinion. f) participating in the audit client's internal audit and the provision of services related to the internal audit function; g) broker or dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services, including providing corporate finance services involving promoting, dealing in, or underwriting an audit client's shares; h) human resources services, including recruiting senior management or a director or officer of the entity in a position to exert significant influence over the preparation of the client's accounting records or the financial statements on which the firm will express an opinion. These prohibited services include searching for or seeking out candidates for such positions and undertaking reference checks of prospective candidates for such positions.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a

(a) services entailing conflict of interest in all cases: (i) expert services unrelated to the audit, tax consultancy, general management and other advisory services; (ii) bookkeeping and preparing accounting records and financial statements; (iii) designing and implementing internal control or risk management procedure related to the preparation and/or control of financing information included in the financial statements and advice on risk; (iv) valuation services, providing fairness opinions or contribution-in-kind reports; (v) actuarial and legal services, including the resolution of litigation; (vi) designing and implementing financial information technology systems for public-interest entities as referred to in Article 2(13)(b) to (j) of Directive 2006/43/EC; (vii) participating in the audit client's internal audit and the provision of services related to the internal audit function; (viii) broker or dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point b

(b) services which may entail conflict of interest: (i) human resources services, including recruiting senior management; (ii) providing comfort letters for investors in the context of the issuance of an undertaking's securities; (iii) designing and implementing financial information technology systems for public-interest entities as referred to in Article 2(13)(a) of Directive 2006/43/EC; (iv) due diligence services to the vendor or the buy side on potential mergers and acquisitions and providing assurance on the audited entity to other parties at a financial or corporate transaction.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

When a member of the network to which the statutory auditor or the audit firm carrying out statutory audit of a public- interest entity belongs provides non-audit services to an undertaking incorporated in a third country controlled by the audited public-interest entity, the statutory auditor or the audit firm concerned shall assess whether his, her or its independence would be compromised by such provision of services by the member of the network.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

If his, her or its independence is affected, the statutory auditor or the audit firm shall apply safeguards in order to mitigate the threats caused by such provision of services in a third country. The statutory auditor or the audit firm may continue to carry out the statutory audit of the public- interest entity only if he, she or it can justify, in accordance with Article 11, that such provision of services does not affect his, her or its professional judgement and the audit report.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3

Being involved in the decision-taking of the audited entity and the provision of the services referred to in points (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 3(a) shall be considered as affecting such independence in all cases.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4

~~The provision of the services referred to in points (i) and (iv) to (viii) of paragraph 3(a) shall be presumed to affect such independence.~~deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 5

~~The statutory auditor or the audit firm may consult the competent authority for an opinion on this issue.~~deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5

5. Where an audit firm generates more than one third of its annual audit revenues from large public-interest entities and belongs to a network whose members have combined annual audit revenues which exceed EUR 1 500 million within the European Union, it shall comply with the following conditions: (a) it shall not directly or indirectly provide to any public interest entity non- audit services; (b) it shall not belong to a network which provides non-audit services within the Union; (c) any entity which provides the services listed in paragraph 3 shall not directly or indirectly hold more than 5 % of the capital or of the voting rights in the audit firm; (d) the entities which provide the services listed in paragraph 3shall not directly or indirectly hold together more than 10 % of the capital or of the voting rights in the audit firm; (e) such audit firm shall not directly or indirectly hold more than 5 % of the capital or of the voting rights in any entity which provides the services listed in paragraph 3.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6

6. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 68 for the purpose of adapting the list of related financial audit services referred to in paragraph 2 and the list of non-audit services referred to in Member States are allowed to include additional prohibited services in the list of prohibited services in the third subparagraph 3 of ~~this Article. When using such powers, the Commission shall take into account developments in auditing and the audit profession~~paragraph 3, based on national requirements or laws.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

The public-interest entity shall appoint a statutory auditor or audit firm for an initial engagement that shall not be shorter than ~~two~~one year and not longer than six years.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

The public-interest entity may renew this engagement ~~only once~~, subject to a proposal made by the audit committee or similar body and subsequently approved by the annual general meeting.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

~~The maximum duration of the combined two engagements shall not exceed 6 years.~~deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2

2. After the expiry of the maximum duration of the engagement referred to in paragraph 1, the statutory auditor or audit firm or any members of its network within the Union, where applicable, shall not undertake the statutory audit of the public-interest entity concerned until a period of at least four years has elapsed.deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

The statutory auditor or audit firm shall establish an appropriate gradual rotation mechanism with regard to the most senior personnel involved in the statutory audit, including at least the persons who are registered as statutory auditors. The gradual rotation mechanism shall be undertaken in phases on the basis of individuals rather than of a complete audit team. It shall be proportionate in view of the scale and the dimension of the activity of the statutory auditor or audit firm.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1

Where a statutory auditor or audit firm is replaced by another statutory auditor or audit firm, the former statutory auditor or audit firm shall provide the incoming statutory auditor or audit firm with a handover file. Such file shall include relevant information concerning the audited entity as may reasonably be necessary to understand the nature of the business and the internal organisation of the audited entity and to ensure the continuity of the statutory audit and the comparability with the audits carried out in previous years.information as required by law and regulation (Art 23 (3)in the current 2006- directive)

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

The former statutory auditor or audit firm shall also grant access to the incoming statutory auditors or audit firms to the additional reports to the audit committee referred to in Article 23 of previous years and to any information transmitted to competent authorities pursuant to Articles 25 and 27.

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

~~ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify technical requirements on the content of the handover file referred to in paragraph 6.~~deleted

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

~~Power is~~ delegated ~~to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in paragraph 6 in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.~~

2012/10/29
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) All trading venues, namely regulated markets, MTFs, and OTFs, should lay down transparent rules governing access to the facility. However, while regulated markets and MTFs should continue to be subject to ~~highly~~ similar requirements regarding whom they may admit as members or participants, OTFs providing organised execution and arranging of trading in financial instruments other than equities should be able to determine and restrict access based inter alia on the role and obligations which their operators have in relation to their clients. For OTFs providing organised execution and arranging of trading in equities any discretion with regard to determining or restricting access should be limited to allowing the operator of the OTF to only provide access to its clients excluding credit institutions and investment firms. In addition OTFs providing execution and arranging of trading in equities should, if it achieves significant market share of the trading in the relevant shares remove any access restrictions.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 78

(78) The introduction of a ~~commercial solution for a~~ consolidated tape for equities should contribute to creating a more integrated European market and make it easier for market participants to gain access to a consolidated view of trade transparency information that is available. The envisaged solution is based on an authorisation of providers working along pre-defined and supervised parameters which are in competition with each other in order to achieve technically highly sophist at reasonable prices compared to the production costs. The envisaged solution would be operated by a single entity. However, this entity would be a commercial undertaking that is appointed following a publica te~~d and innovative solutions, serving the market to the greatest extent possible~~nder every third year upon the merit of its bid submitted to the European Commission.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 111

(111) The Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the functioning of organised trading facilities, the functioning of the regime for SME growth markets, the impact of requirements regarding automated and high-frequency trading, the experience with the mechanism for banning certain products or practices, the impact of the introduction of a consolidated tape for equities including the development in prices on market data in general and the impact of the measures regarding commodity derivatives markets.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall require that investment firms and market operators operating an OTFs that provide organised execution and arranging of trading in equities establish arrangements preventing the execution of client orders in an OTF against the proprietary capital of the investment firm or market operator operating the OTF. The investment firm shall not act as a systematic internaliser in an OTF operated by itself. An OTF shall not connect with another OTF in a way which enables orders in different OTFs to interact.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Member States shall ensure that any access restrictions imposed by investment firms and market operators operating OTFs that provide organised execution and arranging of trading in equities only restrict access to the OTF to the investment firm's or operator's clients.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. With regard to paragraph 1a clients do not include entities listed in Annex II, section I, (1), (a) and (b).

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. For OTFs providing organised execution and arranging of trading in equities that have significant market share Member States shall require that the rules mentioned in Article 18(3) governing access to an OTF comply with the conditions established in Article 55(5).

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine when an OTF is considered to have significant market share as referred to in paragraph 1c.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – indent 1

– the investment firm and its services; when investment advice is provided, information shall specify in advance whether the advice is provided ~~on an independent basi~~in conjunction with the acceptance or receipt of third-party inducements and whether it is based on a broad or on a more restricted analysis of the market and shall indicate whether the investment firm will provide the client with ~~the on- going assessment of the suitability of the financial instruments recommended to clients,~~ a periodical assessment of the suitability of the financial instruments recommended to clients and inform its client as to the total cost of investment advice as a single monetary amount including both fees paid directly by the client to the investment adviser as well as any inducements paid by a third party. This disclosure shall be provided to the client prior to the provision of the investment advice. The disclosure of services and costs of advice shall be provided in a key services document not exceeding [2 pages] setting out the principal services to be provided to the client, details of the qualification of the adviser as set out in [Article 24(8a)] and the aggregate cost of the advice to be provided to the client. ESMA shall prepare binding technical standards setting out the mandatory contents of the key services document. Where the cost of fees and inducements cannot be ascertained prior to the provision of the advice, then the manner of calculation shall be disclosed in a comprehensive, accurate and understandable manner in the key services documents with the total aggregate cost of the advice being disclosed to the client as soon as practically possible thereafter. Where investment advice is provided on an ongoing basis disclosure as to the cost of investment advice, including inducements shall be provided on a periodic basis and at least annually. The periodic report shall disclose all inducements paid or received in the preceding period.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 5

5. When the investment firm informs the client that investment advice is provided on an independent basis, the firm: (i) shall assess a sufficiently large number of financial instruments available on the market. The financial instruments should be diversified with regard to their type and issuers or product providers and should not be limited to financial instruments issued or provided by entities having close links with the investment firm, (ii) shall not accept or receive fees, commissions or any monetary benefits paid or provided by any third party or a person acting on behalf of a third party in relation to the provision of the service to clients.deleted

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. The provision of financial advice to retail investors is subject to the adviser being qualified to a minimum standard European level. ESMA shall provide binding technical standards setting out the mandatory contents of the underlying certification and training programmes. ESMA shall agree in consultation with national competent authorities which existing qualifications shall be deemed equivalent to this standard.

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 96 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) the impact of the introduction of a consolidated tape for equities;

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 96 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)

(ab) the development in prices on market data in general;

2012/05/15
Committee: ECON

2011/0296(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) This new category of organised trading facility will complement the existing types of trading venues. While regulated markets and multilateral trading facilities are characterised by non-discretionary execution of transactions, the operator of an organised trading facility only accessible to its clients excluding any credit institution or investment firm should have discretion over how a transaction is to be executed. Consequently, conduct of business rules, best execution and client order handling obligations should apply to the transactions concluded on an OTF only accessible to its clients operated by an investment firm or a market operator. However, because an OTF constitutes a genuine trading platform, the platform operator should be neutral. Therefore, the operator of an OTF that provide organised execution and arranging of trading in equities should not be allowed to execute in the OTF any transaction between multiple third-party buying and selling interests including client orders brought together in the system against his own proprietary capital. This also excludes them from acting as systematic internalisers in the OTF operated by them.

2012/05/14
Committee: ECON

2011/0296(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. For derivative instruments other than OTC derivatives, the access to trade feeds established in Art. 29.1 will only apply to trading venues handling more than 10% of the total European trading in derivative instruments.

2012/05/14
Committee: ECON

2011/0296(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4

4. The competent authority of the trading venue may only deny a CCP access to a trading venue where such access would threaten the smooth or orderly functioning of markets. If a competent authority denies access on that basis it shall issue its decision within two months following receipt of the request referred to in paragraph 2 and provide full reasons to the trading venue and the CCP including the evidence on which its decision is based. For derivative instruments, other than OTC derivatives, access of the CCP to a trading venue shall be granted only where the competent authorities concerned are confident that interoperability arrangements may not endanger the stability and robustness of the clearing processes. For OTC derivatives, access of the CCP to a trading venue shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of Regulation [ ] (EMIR).

2012/05/14
Committee: ECON

2011/0296(COD)

Nils TORVALDS, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 6 – point a

(a) the conditions under which access could be denied by a trading venue for instruments other than OTC derivatives, including conditions based on the volume of transactions, the number of users or other factors creating undue risks.

2012/05/14
Committee: ECON

2011/0294(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3

3. Projects of common interest for motorways of the sea in the trans-European transport network may also include activities that have wider benefits and are not linked to specific ports, such as activities for improving environmental performance that help ships meet substantially stricter emission levels, making available facilities for ice-breaking, activities ensuring year- round navigability, dredging operations, alternative fuelling facilities, as well as the optimisation of processes, procedures and the human element, ICT platforms and information systems, including traffic management and electronic reporting systems.

2012/10/08
Committee: TRAN

2011/0294(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Ole CHRISTENSEN

To change the status of the railway section from Aarhus to Hirtshals and Frederikshavn, respectively, from the comprehensive network to the core network (freight)

2012/10/11
Committee: TRAN

2011/0294(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Ole CHRISTENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 05/33

To change the status of the railway section from Aarhus to Hirtshals and Frederikshavn, respectively, from the comprehensive network to the core network (passengers)

2012/10/11
Committee: TRAN

2011/0294(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Ole CHRISTENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 05/33

To change the status of the road section from Aarhus to Hirtshals and Frederikshavn, respectively, from the comprehensive network to the core network

2012/10/11
Committee: TRAN

2011/0288(COD)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) Provisions relating to general principles on checks, withdrawals, reductions or exclusions from payments and to the imposition of proportionate administrative penalties are contained in various sectoral agricultural regulations. Those rules should be gathered in the same legal framework at a horizontal level. They should cover the obligations of the Member States as regards administrative and on-the-spot checks including the general principles and criteria applicable, the rules on the recovery, reduction and exclusions of aid. Rules on checks of obligations not necessarily linked to the payment of an aid should be laid down as well.

2012/07/20
Committee: AGRI

2011/0288(COD)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50

(50) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/200125 , which was replaced by Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, established the principle that the full payment to beneficiaries of some supports under the CAP should be linked to compliance with rules relating to land management, agricultural production and agricultural activity. That principle was subsequently reflected in Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)26 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) 27. Under this so-called ‘cross compliance’ system Member States are to impose administrative penalties in the form of reduction or exclusion of support received under the CAP in whole or in part, in accordance with the principle of proportionality and taking into account the general criteria for the graduation of these penalties as defined in this Regulation.

2012/07/20
Committee: AGRI

2011/0288(COD)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Marit PAULSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Member States may decide that an aid application or a payment claim that fulfils the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 is to remain valid for a number of years provided that beneficiaries concerned are under the obligation to report any change to the information they first submitted. The multiannual application shall however be conditional upon annual confirmation by the beneficiary.

2012/07/20
Committee: AGRI

2011/0288(COD)

George LYON, Anne E. JENSEN, Britta REIMERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 93 – paragraph 3

Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy will be considered as being part of Annex II once this Directive is implemented by all Member States and the obligations directly applicable to farmers have been identified. In order to take account of those elements the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 111 for the purpose of amending the Annex II within 12 months starting at the moment the last Member State has notified the implementation of the Directive to the Commission.deleted

2012/07/20
Committee: AGRI

2011/0288(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 99 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

For the calculation of those reductions and exclusions proportionate account shall be taken of the gravity and nature of the infringement found to determine the severity, extent, permanence and reoccurrence of the non-compliance found as defined in Article 99(a) as well as of the criteria set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.

2012/07/20
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

(b) strengthening the links between agriculture, food production and forestry and research and innovation;

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – introductory part

(2) enhancing competitiveness of all types of agriculture and the food processing sector and enhancing farm viability, with a focus on the following areas:

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

(a) facilitating restructuring of farms facing major structural problems, notably farms with a low degree of market participation, market-oriented farms in particular sectors and farms in need of agricultural diversificationencouraging investment in innovative farm technologies and facilitating their diffusion and uptake;

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)

(b a) improving the economic performance of all farms, increasing market participation, orientation and diversification;

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b b (new)

(b b) improving animal welfare;

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b c (new)

(b c) achievement of added value for agricultural products.

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c

(c) facilitating the supply and use of renewable materials and sources of energy, of by- products, wastes, residues and other non food raw material for purposes of the bio- economy;

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(d a) Concern investments that enable and enhance the supply, pre-treatment and use of renewable materials and sources of energy, of by-products, wastes, residues and other non-food raw material for purposes of the bio-economy

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0282(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Support shall be granted to farmers, forest owners, groups of farmers and/or forest owners, or cooperatives or producer organisations active in the agri-food chain.

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 106 – paragraph 1 a (new)

This article shall not apply to co- operatives.

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 108 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States ~~shall~~may recognise, on request, interbranch organisations in any of the sectors listed in Article 1(2), which:

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 108 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. activities of interbranch organisations must not result in distortion of competition between producers in different Member States and must be aligned with the principles laid down in article 145.

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 1

1. In cases where a recognised producer organisation, a recognised association of producer organisations or a recognised interbranch organisation operating in a specific economic area or economic areas of a Member State is considered to be representative of the production of or trade in or processing of a given product, the Member State concerned may, at the request of that organisation, make binding for a limited period of time some of the agreements, decisions or concerted practices agreed on within that organisation on other operators acting in the economic area or areas in question, whether individuals or groups and not belonging to the organisation or association.deleted

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 2

~~2. An ‘economic area’ shall mean a geographical zone made up of adjoining or neighbouring production regions in which production and marketing conditions are homogeneous.~~deleted

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

An organisation or association shall be deemed representative where, in the economic area or areas concerned of a Member State: (a) it accounts for, as a proportion of the volume of production or of trade in or of processing of the product or products concerned: (i) for producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector, at least 60%, or (ii) in other cases, at least two thirds, and (b) it accounts for, in the case of producer organisations, more than 50% of the producers concerned.deleted

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Where the request for extension of its rules to other operators covers more than one economic area, the organisation or association shall demonstrate the minimum level of representativeness as defined in the first subparagraph for each of the branches it groups in each of the economic areas concerned.deleted

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 4

4. The rules for which extension to other operators may be requested as provided in paragraph 1 shall have one of the following aims: (a) production and market reporting; (b) stricter production rules than those laid down in Union or national rules; (c) drawing up of standard contracts which are compatible with Union rules; (d) rules on marketing; (e) rules on protecting the environment; (f) measures to promote and exploit the potential of products; (g) measures to protect organic farming as well as designations of origin, quality labels and geographical indications; (h) research to add value to the products, in particular through new uses which do not pose a threat to public health; (i) studies to improve the quality of products; (j) research, in particular into methods of cultivation permitting reduced use of plant protection or animal health products and guaranteeing conservation of the soil and the environment; (k) definition of minimum qualities and definition of minimum standards of packing and presentation; (l) use of certified seed and monitoring of product quality. Those rules shall not cause any damage to other operators in the Member State concerned or the Union and shall not have any of the effects listed in Article 145(4) or be otherwise incompatible with Union or national rules in force.deleted

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 111

Financial contributions of non-members Where rules of a recognised producer organisation, a recognised association of producer organisations or a recognised interbranch organisation are extended under Article 110 and the activities covered by those rules are in the general economic interest of persons whose activities relate to the products concerned, the Member State which has granted recognition may decide that individuals or groups which are not members of the organisation but which benefit from those activities shall pay the organisation all or part of the financial contributions paid by its members to the extent that such contributions are intended to cover costs directly incurred as a result of pursuing the activities in question.deleted

2012/07/25
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Britta REIMERS, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Liam AYLWARD, Kent JOHANSSON, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) The creation and development of new economic activity in the agricultural sector by young farmers and other new entrants is financially challenging and constitutes an element that should be considered in the allocation and targeting of direct payments. This development is essential for the competitiveness of the agricultural sector in the Union and, for that reason, an income support to young farmers and new entrants commencing their agricultural activities should be established in order to facilitate the initial establishment of young farmers and new entrants and the structural adjustment of their holdings after the initial setting up. Member States should be able to use part of their national ceilings for direct payments to grant an annual area- based payment, on top of the basic payment, to young farmers and new entrants. That payment should only be granted during a period of maximum five years, since it should only cover the initial period of the life of the business and should not become an operating aid.

2012/07/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Britta REIMERS, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Kent JOHANSSON, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) ~~A simple and specific scheme for small farmers should be put in place in ord~~Member States should be authorised to use part of their national direct payments ceiling to put in place a simple and specific scheme for small farmers to reduce the administrative costs linked to the management and control of direct support. For that purpose, a lump- sum payment replacing all direct payments should be established. Rules seeking simplification of formalities should be introduced by reducing, amongst others, the obligations imposed on small farmers such as those related to the application for support, to agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, to controls on cross-compliance ~~and to controls~~ as laid down in Regulation (EU) No […] [HZR] without endangering the achievement of the overall objectives of the reform, it being understood that Union legislation as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No […] [HZR] applies to small farmers. The objective of that scheme should be to support the existing agricultural structure of small farms in the Union without countering the development towards more competitive structures and without hampering structural change in agriculture. For that reason, access to the scheme should be limited to existing holdings.

2012/07/19
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the annual amount of direct payments is less than 5 % of the total receipts they obtained from non-agricultural activities in the most recent fiscal year; or~~deleted

2012/07/19
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) they satisfy objective and non- discriminatory criteria established by Member States which ensure that: (i) their agricultural activities form only an insignificant part of his/its overall economic activities, and/or (ii) their principal activity or company object does not consist in exercising an agricultural activity; and/or,

2012/07/19
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Britta REIMERS, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Anne E. JENSEN, Marielle DE SARNEZ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(b b) they operate, as their main activity, transport activities, airports, real estate companies, sport and recreational grounds, camping sites, mining companies or other non-agricultural activities to be defined accordingly by Member States on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria. Member States may decide that those persons can claim to be eligible if they can provide verifiable evidence that they do not fall under the categories described in (b) and (ba); Member States may add other entities to and/or exclude entities of the ones listed above provided they inform the Commission of their decision and provide objective and non-discriminatory grounds of justification motivating their decision.

2012/07/19
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

~~2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to farmers who received less than EUR 5 000 of direct payments for the previous year.~~deleted

2012/07/19
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. Before 1 August 2013, Member States may decide to make available as additional support for measures under rural development programming financed under the EAFRD as specified under Regulation (EU) No […] [RDR], up to 10 % of their annual national ceilings for calendar years 2014 to 2019 as set out in Annex II to this Regulation. As a result, the corresponding amount shall no longer be available for granting direct payments. The decision referred to in the first subparagraph shall be notified to the Commission by the date referred to in that subparagraph. The percentage notified in accordance with the second subparagraph shall be the same for the years referred to in the first subparagraph.deleted

2012/07/19
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Before 1 August 2013, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United-Kingdom may decide to make available as direct payments under this Regulation up to 5 % of the amount allocated to support for measures under rural development programming financed under the EAFRD in the period 2015-2020 as specified under Regulation (EU) No […] [RDR]. As a result, the corresponding amount shall no longer be available for support measures under rural development programming. The decision referred to in the first subparagraph shall be notified to the Commission by the date referred to in that subparagraph. The percentage notified in accordance with the second subparagraph shall be the same for the years referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1.deleted

2012/07/19
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. In order to take account of the structure of their agricultural holdings, Member States may adjust the 10 ha mentioned in paragraph 1 according to the average farm size as set out in Annex VI.

2012/07/23
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1

1. Farmers shall ensure that at least 7 % of their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2), excluding areas under permanent grassland and permanent crops, is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips without production (except grazing and cutting), fertilisation and pesticides, unsprayed field margins, areas without nitrogen fertilisation, catch crops, areas with perennial energy crops, beetle banks, flower strips, areas with nitrogen fixing crops, areas participating in agri- environmental schemes in accordance with Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No [ ] [RDR], and afforested areas as referred to in article 25(2)(b)(ii).

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The percentage referred to in paragraph 1 can be reduced at member state or regional level if the member state or region has general environmental regulation which goes beyond obligations for famers in other member states. Farmers should be allowed to transfer all or part of the obligation in paragraph 1 to another farmer without transfer of land. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide to implement up to 5 percentage points of the ecological focus areas at regional level in order to obtain adjacent ecological focus areas. Member states and regions which have not included the areas mentioned in paragraph 1 in their land parcel identification system can count these features as a part of the percentage in paragraph 1 without including them in the land parcel identification system.

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Britta REIMERS, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Liam AYLWARD, Kent JOHANSSON, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Title 3 – chapter 4 – title

Payment for young farmers and new entrants

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Britta REIMERS, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Liam AYLWARD, Kent JOHANSSON, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall grant an annual payment to young farmers and new entrants who are entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1.

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Britta REIMERS, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Liam AYLWARD, Kent JOHANSSON, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) in the case of 'young farmers' only, who are less than 40 years of age at the moment of submitting the application referred to in point (a).

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0280(COD)

George LYON, Phil BENNION, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Kent JOHANSSON, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1

1. Member States may operate a simplified scheme under the conditions laid down in this Title, hereinafter referred to as 'small farmers scheme'. Farmers holding payment entitlements allocated in 2014 pursuant to Article 21 and fulfilling the minimum requirements provided for in Article 10(1) may opt for participation in a simplified scheme under the conditions laid down in this Title, hereinafter referred to as ‘small farmers scheme’

2012/07/24
Committee: AGRI

2011/0270(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) Social enterprises ~~are a cornerstone of~~play a role in Europe’s pluralist social market economy. They can act as drivers of social change by offering innovative solutions, and therefore make a valuable contribution to meeting the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The programme should improve social enterprises’ access to finance and thereby contribute to the Social Business Initiative launched by the Commission.

2012/04/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/0270(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c

c) Modernise Union law in line with the Smart Regulation principles and ensure that Union law on matters relating to working conditions is effectively applied, with due account being given to the division of responsibilities between legislators and the social partners;

2012/04/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation
–

The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) In order to maintain the European nature of the EGF, an application for support should be triggered when the number of redundancies reaches a minimum threshold. In small labour markets, such as small Member States or remote regions, and in exceptional circumstances, applications may be submitted for a lower number of redundancies. As regards farmers, the necessary criteria should be determined by the Commission in relation to the consequences of each trade agreementits funds shall be contained in a dedicated budget line within the European Budget for Structural funds and notably the European Social Fund (ESF); an application for support could be triggered when the number of redundancies reaches a minimum threshold.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) FThe temporary and one-off financial contributions from the EGF should be primarily directed at active labour market measures aimed at reintegrating redundant workers rapidly into permanent employment, either within or outside their initial sector of activity~~, including the agricultural sector~~. The inclusion of pecuniary allowances in a coordinated package of personalised services should therefore be restricted.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) When drawing up the coordinated package of active labour market policy measures, Member States should favour measures that will significantly contribute to the employability of the redundant workers. Member States should strive towards the reintegration into permanent employment or new activities of at least 50 % of the targeted workers within 12 months of the date of application.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2

The aim of the EGF shall be to contribute to economic growth and employment in the Union by enabling the Union to show solidarity towards workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, ~~trade agreements affecting agriculture, or an unexpected crisis,~~ and to provide financial support for their rapid reintegration into stable employment~~, or for changing or adjusting their agricultural activities~~.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4

4. The Member State shall carry out the eligible actions set out in Article 6 as soon as possible, but not later than 2418 months after the date of the application, pursuant to Article 8(1).

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

No later than 152 months after the date of the application pursuant to Article 8(1) ~~or by the date laid down in the delegated act taken in accordance with Article 4(3)~~ the Member State shall present an interim report to the Commission on the implementation of the financial contribution, including on the funding, timing and type of actions already carried out and on the rate of reintegration into employment or new activities achieved 12 months after the date of the application.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2

2. No later than ~~six~~three months after the expiry of the period specified in Article 16(4) the Member State shall present a final report to the Commission on the implementation of the financial contribution, including information on the type of actions and main outcomes, the characteristics of the targeted workers and their employment status, together with a statement justifying the expenditure and indicating whenever possible the complementarity of actions with those funded by the ESF.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3

3. No later than ~~six~~three months after the Commission has received all the information required under paragraph 2, it shall wind up the financial contribution by determining the final amount of the financial contribution and, if any, the balance due by the Member State in accordance with Article 22.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) by 30 June 20187, a mid-term evaluation of the effectiveness and sustainability of the results obtained;

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) by 31 December 20221, an ex-post evaluation ~~with the assistance of external experts~~, to measure the impact of the EGF and its added value.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0268(COD)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls its resolution of 8 June 2011 on "Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe"; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next Multiannual Financial Framework to enable the Union to fulfil the existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; points out that even with an increase in the level of resources for the next MFF of at least 5 % compared to the 2013 level only a limited contribution can be made to the achievement of the Union's agreed objectives and commitments and the principle of Union solidarity; challenges the Council, in case it does not share this approach, to clearly identify which of its political priorities or projects could be dropped altogether, despite their proven European added value;

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2011/0268(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The ESF should contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy, ensuring greater concentration of support on the priorities of the European Union and support Member States in implementing their National Reform Programmes. The ESF should in particular increase its support for the fight against social exclusion and poverty, through a minimum ring-fenced allocation. According to the level of development of the supported regions, the choice and number of investment priorities for ESF support should also be limited.

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2011/0268(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Andreas SCHWAB, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)

(4a) As a means to ensure appropriate and goal oriented use of the funds allocated to the ESF, a performance reserve of 5 % of the total amount allocated to the ESF shall be established. The release of the performance reserve shall depend on the achievements resulting from the use of ESF funds, and whether they comply with the Europe 2020 goals.

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68

(68) A leverage ratio is a new regulatory and supervisory tool for the Union. In line with international agreements, it should be introduced first as an additional feature that can be applied on individual institutions at the discretion of supervisory authorities. Reporting obligations for institutions would allow appropriate review and calibration, with a view to migrating to a binding measure in 2018 based on a legislative proposal by the Commission, and subject to the Union's full co-decision procedure.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76

(76) Apart from short-term liquidity needs, credit institutions and investment firms should also adopt funding structures that are stable at a longer term horizon. In December 2010, the BCBS agreed that the NSFR will move to a minimum standard by 1 January 2018 and that the BCBS will put in place rigorous reporting processes to monitor the ratio during a transition period and will continue to review the implications of these standards for financial markets, credit extension and economic growth, addressing unintended consequences as necessary. The BCBS thus agreed that the NSFR will be subject to an observation period and will include a review clause. In this context, EBA should, based on reporting required by this Regulation, evaluate how a stable funding requirement should be designed. Based on this evaluation, the Commission should report to Council and European Parliament together with any appropriate proposals in order to ~~introduce~~decide whether such a requirement should be introduced by 2018.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 85

(85) The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU should also be delegated to the Commission in respect of prescribing a temporary reduction in the level of own funds or risk weights specified under that Regulation in order to take account of specific circumstances; to clarify the exemption of certain exposures from the application of provisions of that Regulation on large exposures; to specify amounts relevant to the calculation of capital requirements for the trading book to take account of developments in the economic and monetary field; to adjust the categories of investment firms eligible for certain derogations to required levels of own funds to take account of developments on financial markets; to clarify the requirement that investment firms hold own funds equivalent to one quarter of their fixed overheads of the preceding year to ensure uniform application of this Regulation; to determine the elements of own funds from which deductions of an institution's holdings of the instruments of relevant entities should be made; to introduce additional transitional provisions relating to the treatment of actuarial gains and losses in measuring defined benefit pension liabilities of institutions; and to temporarily increase in the level of own funds~~; and to specify liquidity requirements~~.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 89

(89) The Commission should adopt the draft regulatory technical standards developed by EBA in the areas of cooperative societies or similar institutions, certain own funds instruments, prudential adjustments, deductions from own funds, additional own funds instruments, minority interests, services ancillary to banking, the treatment of credit risk adjustment, probability of default, loss given default, corporate Governance, approaches to risk- weighting of assets, convergence of supervisory practices, ~~liquidity,~~ and transitional arrangements for own funds, by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU and in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

WThe competent authorities shall waive in full or in part the application of Article 401 to a parent institution and to all of its subsidiaries where all institutions of the single liquidity sub-group are authorised in the same Member State~~, paragraph 1 shall be applied by the competent authorities of that Member State~~ and supervise them as a single liquidity sub group.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point n

(n) the provisions governing the instruments require the principal amount of the instruments except for the provisions contained under Article 51, paragraph c) let (i) below to be written down temporarily, or the instruments to be converted to Common Equity Tier 1 instruments, upon the occurrence of a trigger event;

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) the nature of the permanent or temporarily write down of the principal amount;

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part

(a) the Common Equity Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary minus the ~~low~~higher of the following:

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i

(i) the amount of Common Equity Tier 1 capital of that subsidiary required to meet the sum of the requirement laid down in point (a) of Article 87(1) a specific requirement under Article 100 of Directive [inserted by OP] or the internal capital calculated by the institution and the combined buffer referred to in Article 122(2) of Directive [inserted by OP];

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii

(ii) the amount of consolidated Common Equity Tier 1 capital that relates to that subsidiary that is required on a consolidated basis to meet the sum of the requirement laid down in point (a) of Article 87(1) a specific requirement under Article 100 of Directive [inserted by OP] or the internal capital calculated by the institution in Article 72 of Directive and the combined buffer referred to in Article 122(2) of Directive [inserted by OP];

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part

(a) the ~~low~~Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary minus the higher of the following:

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i

(i) the amount of Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary required to meet the sum of the requirement laid down in point (b) of Article 87(1), a specific requirement under Article 100 of Directive [inserted by OP] or the internal capital calculated by the institution and the combined buffer referred to in Article 122(2)of Directive [inserted by OP];

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 80 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii

(ii) the amount of consolidated Tier 1 capital that relates to the subsidiary that is required on a consolidated basis to meet the sum of the requirement laid down in point (b) of Article 87(1) a specific requirement under Article 100 of Directive [inserted by OP] or the internal capital calculated by the institution and the combined buffer referred to in Article 122(2)of Directive [inserted by OP];

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part

(a) the ~~low~~Own Funds of the subsidiary minus the higher of the following:

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i

(i) the amount of own funds of the subsidiary required to meet the sum of the requirement laid down in point (c) of Article 87(1) a specific requirement under Article 100 of Directive [inserted by OP] or the internal capital calculated by the institution in Article 72 of Directive and the combined buffer referred to in Article 122(2) of Directive [inserted by OP];

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii

(ii) the amount of own funds that relates to the subsidiary that is required on a consolidated basis to meet the sum of the requirement laid down in point (c) of Article 87(1), a specific requirement under Article 100 of Directive [inserted by OP] or the internal capital calculated by the institution in Article 72 of Directive and the combined buffer referred to in Article 122(2) of Directive [inserted by OP];

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the qualifying own funds of the undertaking, expressed as a percentage of all own funds instruments of the subsidiary that are included in Common Equity Tier 1, Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 items and the related retained earnings and share premium accounts

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 96 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) uniform definition, formats, frequencies and dates of reporting of the items referred to in paragraph 1 to ensure a uniform and comparable definition of losses;

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 120 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the risk of the borrower does not materially depend upon the performance of the underlying property or project, but on the underlying capacity of the borrower to repay the debt from other sources, and as a consequence, the repayment of the facility does not materially depend on any cash flow generated by the underlying property serving as collateral. For those other sources, institutions shall determine maximum loan-to-income ratio as part of their lending policy and obtain suitable evidence of the relevant income when granting the loan.deleted

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 124 – paragraph 5

5. Covered bonds issued before 31 December 2007 are not subject to the requirements of paragraph 1 and 2. They are eligible for the preferential treatment under paragraph 3 and 4 until their maturity.

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 155 – paragraph 1

Institutions shall subtract the expected loss amounts calculated in accordance with Article 154(2)(3) and (7) from the sum of value adjustments and provisions related to these exposures. general and specific credit risk adjustments related to these exposures. Discounts on balance sheet exposures purchased when in default according to Article 162(1) shall be treated in the same manner as ~~specific credit risk~~value adjustments Sspecific credit risk adjustments on exposures in default shall not be used to cover expected loss on other exposures. Expected loss amounts for securitiszed exposures and general and specific credit risk adjustments related to these exposures shall not be included in this calculation.

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 160 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

4. The exposure weighted average LGD for all retail exposures secured by residential property and not benefiting from guarantees from central governments shall not be lower than 10% The exposure weighted average LGD for all retail exposures secured by commercial immovable property and not benefiting from guarantees from central governments shall not be lower than 15%deleted

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 174 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) the obligor is past due more than 90 days on any material credit obligation to the institution, the parent undertaking or any of its subsidiaries. The competent authorities of each Member State may set the number of days past due up to a figure of 180 for exposures secured by mortgages on immovable property to counterparties situated in their territory, if local conditions make it appropriate.

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 389 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) covered bonds falling within the terms of Article 124 (1), and ~~Article~~ 124 (2);, and 124 (5)

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 404 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) they are not issued by the institution itself or its parent or subsidiary institutions or another subsidiary of its parent institutions or parent financial holding company; This does not apply to assets referred to in (i) and (ii) in paragraph 2, point (a), which are traded on an ongoing basis in the secondary market;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Sharon BOWLES, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 404 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point c

(c) their price is generally agreed upon by market participants and can easily be observed in the market, or their price can be determined by a formula that is easy to calculate based on publicly available inputs and does not depend on strong assumptions as is typically the case for structured or exotic products;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Sharon BOWLES, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 404 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point e

(e) they are tradable on active outright sale or repurchase agreement markets with a large and diverse number of market participants, a high trading volume, and market breadth and depth. These criteria should be interpreted separately for each market;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 405 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) not less than 60% of the liquid assets that the institution reports are assets referred to under points (a) to (c) of Article 404(1). Such assets owed and due or callable within 30 calendar days shall not count towards the 60% unless the assets have been obtained against collateral that also qualifies under points (a) to (c) of Article 404(1); Secured lending and capital market driven transactions, as defined in Article 188, that are collateralised by assets not qualifying as liquid assets according to Article 404, is not to have any impact on the eligible amount of liquid assets;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Emilie TURUNEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 405 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) the consistency of the denomination of the liquid assets ~~is consistent~~ with the distribution by significant currency of liquidity outflows after the deduction of capped inflows is monitored and reported, including the institution's ability to swap currencies and access the relevant foreign exchange markets. A currency is considered significant if the aggregate liabilities denominated in that currency amount to 5% or more of the institution's total liabilities.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 413 – paragraph 1

1. Institutions shall report their capped liquidity inflows. Capped liquidity inflows shall be the liquidity inflows limited to 75% of liquidity outflows. Institutions may exempt liquidity inflows from deposits placed with other institutions and qualifying for the treatments set out in Article 108(6) or Article 108(7) from this limit. Institutions may exempt liquidity inflows from monies due from borrowers and bond investors related to mortgage lending funded by bonds eligible for the treatment set out in Article 124(3), (4) or (5) or as defined in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC from this limit.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Emilie TURUNEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 413 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) monies due from customers that are not financial customers for the purposes of principal repayment shall be reduced by 50% of their value or by the contractual commitments to those customers to extend funding, whichever is higher. This does not apply to monies due from secured lending and capital market driven transactions as defined in Article 188 that are collateralised by liquid assets according to Article 404 and monies due from mortgage lending funded by bonds eligible for the treatment set out in Article 124(3), (4) or (5) or as defined in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Emilie TURUNEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 414 – paragraph 1 – point b – point ix

(ix) liabilities resulting from securities issued qualifying for the treatment in Article 124 or as defined in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Emilie TURUNEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 415 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)

(g a) and separately those: v) collateralised by commercial real estate (CRE); (vi) collateralised by residential real estate (RRE); (vii) match funded (pass-through) via bond eligible for the treatment set out in Article 124 or as defined in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Andreas SCHWAB, Anne E. JENSEN, Dan JØRGENSEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 416 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Institutions shall calculate the leverage ratio ~~as the simple arithmetic mean of the monthly leverage ratios over a~~every quarter.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 444

Liquidity 1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 445 to specify in detail the general requirement set out in Article 401. Such specification shall be based on the items to be reported according to Part Six, Title II. The delegated act shall also specify under which circumstances competent authorities have to impose specific in- and outflow levels on credit institutions in order to capture specific risks to which they are exposed. 2. The Commission shall be empowered to modify the items referred to in paragraph 1 or add additional items only if one of the following conditions is met: (a) a liquidity coverage requirement based on those criteria, considered either individually or cumulatively, would have a material detrimental impact on the business and risk profile of European institutions or on financial markets or the economy; or (b) modification is appropriate to align them with internationally agreed standards for liquidity supervision. For the purposes of point (a), in assessing the impact of a liquidity coverage requirement based on those criteria, the Commission shall take into account the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 481. 3. The Commission shall adopt the first delegated act referred to in paragraph 1 at the latest by 31 December 2015. A delegated act adopted in accordance with this Article shall, however, not apply before 1 January 2015.deleted

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 476 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) They shall hold own funds as required by Article 87 Part Three Title II Chapter 1;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 476 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) They shall hold own funds which are at all times more than or equal to 80 % of the total minimum amount of own funds that the credit institution would be required to hold under Article 4 of Directive 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC, as applicable prior to 1 January 2007 meet a temporary capital ratio of not less 6.4%. The temporary capital ratio is the own funds of the institution expressed as a percentage of the risk-adjusted assets and off-balance sheet items as set out in Annex IV.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 476 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) Subject to the approval of the competent authorities the amount referred to in (b) may be replaced by any requirements to hold own funds which are at all times more than or equal to 80 % of the total minimum amount of own funds that those credit institutions would be required to hold under any of Article 78 to 83, 103 or 104 of Directive 2006/48/EC and Directive 2006/49/EC, as applicable prior to 1 January 2011.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 476 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(b b) A credit institution may apply paragraph (b a) only if it stated to use the IRB approach or the Advanced Measurements Approaches for the calculation of its capital requirements on or after 1 January 2010.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Bendt BENDTSEN, Anne E. JENSEN, Emilie TURUNEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 478 – paragraph 1

The Commission shall, by 31 December 2015 and after consulting the EBA, report to the Parliament and the Council, together with any appropriate proposals, whether the risk weights laid down in Article 124 and the own funds requirements for specific risk in Article 325(5) are adequate for all the instruments that qualify for these treatments and whether the criteria in Article 124 ~~should be made st~~are appropricater.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. EBA shall, by 31 December 2013, report to the Commission on appropriate uniform definitions of high and of extremely high liquidity and credit quality of transferable assets for purposes of Article 404, taking into account all relevant factors such as the applicable legal framework, incentive structures, available market initiatives and tools designed to enhance transparency and liquidity of assets. EBA shall in particular test the adequacy of the following criteria and the appropriate levels for such definitions:

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) ~~minimum~~ trade volume of the assets

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) ~~minimum~~ outstanding volume of the assets

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 – point d

(d) credit quality steps ~~referred to in Sub- section 2 of Annex VI~~

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 – point g

(g) ~~maximum~~ bid/ask spread

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 – point i

(i) ~~minimum~~ turnover ratio

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. The Commission shall submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and Council to specify in detail the general requirement set out in Article 401. Such legislative proposal shall be based on the items to be reported according to Part Six, Title II. The legislative proposal shall also specify under which circumstances competent authorities have to impose specific in- and outflow levels on credit institutions in order to capture specific risks to which they are exposed.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. For the purposes of paragraph 3 the Commission shall either individually or cumulatively assess whether a liquidity coverage requirement would have a detrimental impact on the business and risk profile of European institutions or on financial markets or the economy and shall take into account the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. The Commission shall submit the proposal referred to in paragraph 3 at the latest by 31 December 2014.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

By 31 December 2015, EBA shall report to the Commission on whether and how it would be appropriate to ensure that institutions use stable sources of funding, including an assessment of the impact on the business and risk profile of Union institutions, including non-deposit taking institutions, or on financial markets or the economy and bank lending, with a particular focus on lending to small and medium enterprises and on trade financing, including lending under official export credit insurance schemes, and match funded mortgage lending.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

The reports referred to in paragraph 1, 2 and 6 shall be open for public consultation in all Member States before submitted to the Commission.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 482 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall submit by 31 December 2016 a report on the impact and effectiveness of the leverage ratio to the European Parliament and the Council. Where appropriate, the report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal on the introduction of one or more levels for the leverage ratio that institutions would be required to meet as a Pillar I tool or a continuation of a Pillar II approach, suggesting an adequate calibration for those levels and any appropriate adjustments to the capital measure and the total exposure measure as defined in Article 416. Any legislative proposal for one or more levels of leverage ratio shall be expressly subject to the full European legislative process involving the Parliament and Council.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 487 – paragraph 2

2. Article 436(1) shall apply from 1 January 20158.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0196(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85
Article 19 – paragraph 4

4. Member States shall take appropriate measures to prevent conflicts of interests between fitters or workshops and road transport undertakings. ~~In particular, if a transport undertaking is also operating as an approved fitter or workshop, it shall not be allowed to install and calibrate recording equipment in its own vehicles.~~

2012/03/29
Committee: TRAN

2011/0196(COD)