7 Amendments of Iosif MATULA related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the Structural Funds to be increased to 7%; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions; calls for simplification of the implementing rules governing Objective 3 programs, based on the principle of proportionality, as well as for the development of a common set of eligibility rules, all of which are pre- conditions for these programs to become more effective and more visible;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for common eligibility rules and for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be increased and facilitated;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion; recommends that the Globalisation Fund be abandoned as a stand-alone instrument and that appropriate provision for its functions be included in the Social Fund; calls for consideration of whether a merger of the Cohesion Fund and the Regional Development Fund would be compatible with the European Treaties; points out that, as a rule, monies from the Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund are spent on the same types of project;
Amendment 437 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 785%, otherwise applications will be driven less by the case for the projects than by the prospect of the funding they can attract; calls for it to be made easier for regions to use private co- financing and market-oriented credit options to cover their share of project financing;
Amendment 463 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Emphasises that the provision of subsidies must always be retained as an option and that it must be the responsibility of those involved on the ground to use the funding mix best suited to regional needs; considers that subsidies should continue to dominate in regions lagging behind;
Amendment 496 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 546 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Supports the Commission's proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied systematically except in the first year of funding and that any other derogations from it should be abolishedshould only reflect the administrative burdens required by the programming process; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high- quality investment and smooth and speedy programme implementation;