Activities of Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that ~~following repeated requests from the 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;

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. 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 loosing their job because of changes in global trade patterns, and increase 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

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Approve~~Rejects the Decision annexed to this resolution;

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Approves partly the Decision annexed to this resolution;

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Approves partly the Decision annexed to this resolution;

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 3

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 provides that 0.35 % of the annual maximum amount can be made available each year for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR ~~1 1~~420 000.

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 3

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 provides that 0.35 % of the annual maximum amount can be made available each year for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR ~~1 12~~730 000.

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR ~~1 1~~420 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2058(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR ~~1 12~~730 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.

2012/05/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2023(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,

2012/03/13
Committee: BUDG

2012/2023(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the institutions' commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one- off, time-limited ~~individual~~ support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market;

2012/03/13
Committee: BUDG

2012/2023(BUD)

George LYON, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Regret~~Notes the decision of the Council to block the extension of the ‘crisis derogation’, allowing the increase in the rate of Union co-financing to 65 % of the programme costs, beyond the 31 December 2011 deadline, and calls on the Council to reintroduce this measure without delay;

2012/03/13
Committee: BUDG

2012/2016(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Intends, therefore, to ~~strongly defend~~ensure an adequate level of resources for next year's budget, as defined in the Draft Budget, and to oppose ~~any attempt to cut down~~excessive cuts of the resources especifically for policies delivering growth and employment; believes that the EU budget, which cannot run a deficit~~, should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic polici~~ and which is investment-oriented, should not however be unresponsive to economic circumstances at national level; notes that in 2012 several Member States are increasing the size of their national budgets while others are implementing extensive cuts;

2012/05/31
Committee: BUDG

2012/2016(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Takes note that the level of appropriations proposed in the Commission's draft budget corresponds to the current Union of 27 Member States and that the Commission intends to present a draft amending budget in early 2013 to integrate the additional operational expenditure which will be required for the accession of Croatia to the European Union; recalls that any new funding requirements shall be financed with fresh money; highlights that the existing margins currently entered in the draft budget need to be read in this regard;

2012/05/31
Committee: BUDG

2012/2016(BUD)

Jan MULDER, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period, puts the accent on the side of payments, as it intends to also provide a solution to the ever more growing level of RALs; ~~while sharing this approach, is particularly concerned by the proposed freezing of commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year;~~ stresses the importance of commitments for determining political priorities and, thus, ensuring that the necessary investments will eventually be put in place to boost growth and employment; ~~does not believe~~is of the opinion that the freezing of commitment appropriations ~~can~~is only a partial solution to the increasing RALs problem and cannot be considered as an acceptable strategy to keep the level of RAL under control;

2012/05/31
Committee: BUDG

2012/2016(BUD)

Carl HAGLUND, Göran FÄRM, Anne E. JENSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Remains, however, sceptical on whether the proposed level of payment appropriations ~~will be sufficient~~is adequate to cover the ~~actual~~ needs for next year, especially in Headings 1b and 2; will carefully monitor the payments situation during the 2012 with particular attention given to all proposed transfers and reallocations; warns also that the level of payments for 2012 in connection to the level proposed by the Commission for 2013 would result in billions of decommitments only under cohesion policy; highlights that the current proposal would bring the overall level of payments for the period 2007-2013 to EUR 859,4 billion, i.e. ca. EUR 66 billion lower than the agreed MFF ceilings;

2012/05/31
Committee: BUDG

2012/2016(BUD)

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

2012/2016(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Recalls in this context that 2013 is the last year of the current MFF, where implementation of co-financed projects runs at full speed and the bulk of payment requests is expected to reach the Commission in the second half of the year; highlights moreover that 2013 will be a year when, due to the lapsing of the N+3 rule, payment claims submitted by 12 Member States will need to be presented for two annual commitment tranches (2010 and 2011 tranches under the N+3 rule and N+2 rule, respectively); ~~considers therefore as a minimum~~takes note of the proposed increase in payment appropriations by 11,7 % (to EUR 48.975 million) as compared to last year ~~since~~, bearing in mind, as mentioned by the Commission, that it strictly relates to 2013 and assumes that payment needs from previous years will have been covered;

2012/05/31
Committee: BUDG

2012/2016(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Considers important to maintain the financial backing to the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform; stresses in particular the need to support SMEs in the fisheries sector and the access to jobs for young people in this field, while adhering to the principle of sustainable fisheries; welcomes in this regard the proposed increase for the European Fisheries Fund by respectively 2,2% (to EUR 687,2 million) in CA and 7,3% (to EUR 523,5 million) in PA, compared to the 2012 Budget;

2012/05/31
Committee: BUDG

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Welcomes the special report by the Court of Auditors that scrutinizes the economical and ecological impact the implementation of the CFP and the EFF has had on the Union fishing sector. Notes that, in its report, the Court of Auditors:

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Criticises the Commission for not having effectively defined or quantified ‘fishing overcapacity’ in a way that would allow for alignment of~~Notes that although there is no official definition of overcapacity, declined catches and lost jobs caused by overfished fish stocks demonstrates a de facto overcapacity; therefore calls on the Commission to define overcapacity and consider more relevant and robust measures to facilitate actions to balance fishing capacity towith fishing opportunities;

2012/06/11
Committee: CONT

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) considers that transferable fishing concessions are the only possible solution to the problem of overcapacity, for which there is as yet no precise definition;~~deleted

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is concerned that fleet capacity ceilings, as a measure to restrict the size of the fishing fleet, have become irrelevant as the actual fleet size is well under the ceilings and could be even 200 000 tonnes bigger, while still complying with the rules; stresses that, at the same time, due to technological advances, fishing capacity of the fleets has increased with an average of 3 % per year during the last decade;

2012/06/11
Committee: CONT

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) states that a very significant number of jobs has been lost in the European fishing industry over the past decade because of the poor state of fish stocks and technological advances have increased fishing capacity;

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. C~~onsiders that it is for all responsible actors in the Member States - notably the fishermen themselves - to adequately define how to measure ‘capacity’ and ‘overcapacity’~~alls on the Commission to set effective fishing fleet capacity ceilings; notes that the CFP measures vessel capacity in terms of power (kilowatt) and size (gross tonnage) and that, however, these measures do not take into account technological progress in fishing methods, which complicates setting appropriate targets for its reduction; notes that for reasons of coherence the Commission wants to maintain these static parameters until the end of 2015;

2012/06/11
Committee: CONT

2012/2009(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Calls on the Commission to enforce Member States’ obligation to correctly update their fleet register, and to establish the obligation to report on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities;

2012/06/11
Committee: CONT

2012/2009(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Note~~Considers that the Commission has not addressed the issue of clear rules for the treatment of fishing rights when fishing vessels are scrapped with public aid and has not defined clear and effective selection criteria for fishing vessel decommissioning schemesscrapping schemes have partially been badly implemented, with examples of tax payers' money used for scrapping of already inactive vessels or even rebuilding new vessels; notes, however, that some Member States have had scrapping schemes that have fulfilled their purpose; stresses, therefore, the need of strict safeguards when using scrapping schemes, as a way of reducing overcapacity in order to avoid abuse;

2012/06/11
Committee: CONT

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) fails to consider the features specific to each area and types of fishing, e.g. the difference between small-scale and industrial fishing;~~deleted

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Regrets that investment on board fishing vessels funded by~~Considers that the available data on the actual capacity of the European Ffisheries Fund (EFF) could increase the ability of individual vessels to catch fish; considers that the interpretative note the Commission has prepared and sent to Member States following the Court's Special Report on the ability of the vessels to catch fish where it called for national authorities to enforce stricter checks before deciding on the funding of projects of investments on board is insufficienting fleet are not reliable, because technological development has not been taken into account and Member States have failed to accurately report data on fleet capacities;

2012/06/11
Committee: CONT

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) Notes that the total catches in the Union have decreased with over 1 million tonnes over the last decade;

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) has ignored the fact that a multi- species fishing system, like that in the Mediterranean, cannot be founded on catch quotas.~~deleted

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(ca) considers that overcapacity continues to be one of the main reasons of the failure of the CFP aiming at assuring sustainable fisheries;

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that the data available on the actual capacity of the Union fishing fleet are not reliable, because technological development has not been taken into account and the Member States failed to accurately report on the fleet capacities.

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Considers that the fleet capacity ceilings don't reflect the fishing effort and have become irrelevant since the fleet is well below the ceiling due to the decreased amount of gross tonnage and engine size. At the same time, points out that, due to the technological advances, the fishing capacity of the fleets has increased with an average of 3 % per year during the last decade.

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

~~2. Takes the view that a multi-species fishing system should be combined with the notion of fishing effort.~~deleted

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF and CFP ~~provide no value added, further disrupt the fishing industry in Europe and should therefore be discontinued in order to avoid further waste of taxpayers‘ money~~should be radically reformed;

2012/06/11
Committee: CONT

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that although there is no official definition of overcapacity, declined catches and lost jobs caused by overfished fish stocks demonstrates a de facto overcapacity. Therefore, calls on the Commission to define overcapacity and consider more relevant and robust measures to facilitate actions to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities.

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point b

(b) ~~in the inter~~the scrapping schemes have partially been badly implemented, with examplest of ~~reducing fleet size, it is essential to allow for an adequate transitional period before the final withdrawal of public funds for scrappage, by providing support measures for crews~~tax payers money used for scrapping of already inactive vessels or even for rebuilding new vessels; while at the same time other Member States have had scrapping schemes that have fulfilled their purpose; stresses therefore the need for strict safeguards when using scrapping schemes as a way of reducing overcapacity in order to avoid abuse;

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. ~~Takes the view that, in order to achieve the objective of a real~~Considers that a reduction in fishing effort~~, provision should be made for the following additional measures:~~ is needed to reach maximum sustainable yield.

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to set effective fishing fleet capacity ceilings.

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Calls on the Commission to clarify how fishing concessions should be treated if fishing vessels are decommissioned with public aid.

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2009(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Calls on the Commission to enforce Member State’s obligation to correctly update their fleet register and to establish the obligation to report on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities;

2012/06/04
Committee: PECH

2012/2006(BUD)

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Carl HAGLUND, George LYON, Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Supports an effective information campaign for the 2014 elections; asks the Bureau to present before the end of June 2012 a more detailed and in-depth presentation of this information campaign programme, in order to be able to better assess the funding needed;

2012/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2012/2006(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Is of the opinion that further reorganisation of the Parliament working methods should be considered; repeats that substantial savings could be made by having a single seat for the European Parliament; stresses that the European Parliament should have the right to decide its own working arrangements; calls on the Secretary-General to implement a possible revision of the calendar for committee meetings and delegation missions; furthermore, calls on the Secretary-General to examine possible further opportunities for savings regarding delegations; if such changes can be implemented in 2012, requests that the administration provides the Committee on Budgets with a record of savings generated in 2012 in these areas.

2012/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2012/2000(BUD)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Continues to be concerned at the unprecedented ~~global~~ crisis that has seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration in the government deficit and debt position of the Member States; shares the Council’s concern regarding economic and budgetary constraints at national level and insists that 2013 ~~will be a key year for~~should be devoted to fiscal consolidation in addition to economic recovery;

2012/02/16
Committee: BUDG

2012/2000(BUD)

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

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2010 on "arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP" (2009/2238(INI)),

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Urges the Commission to promote international law, notably the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) and the participation in ILO conventions and to guard compliance with these rules; encourages the Commission to cooperate with third countries in all appropriate forums, especially in regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs);

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that the EU should be active within the UN system to explore means for the global community to address the need for more integrated global ocean governance, regarding both living marine resources and other resources as well as pollution and the impacts of climate change on the oceans; furthermore believes that the EU should support the World Banks Global Program on Fisheries (PROFISH);

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that bilateral fisheries agreements, or Sustainable Fisheries Agreements (SFA) as the Commission proposes to call them, negotiated between partners and equitably implemented, should be of benefit to both parties, providing economic resources, technical and scientific expertise and support for improved fisheries management and good governance to the third country~~, while allowing the continuation of fishing activities by EU vessels that provide a modest but important supply of fish to the EU and other markets~~;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Considers that the Fishing Authorisations Regulation should be amended so that EU-flagged vessels which have temporarily left the register of a Member State to seek fishing opportunities elsewhere are not allowed to benefiting from fishing opportunities under the SFA if they subsequently return to an EU register; the same shall apply to temporarily re- flagging while fishing under RFMOs;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Encourages the Commission in its endeavours to obtain complete and reliable data from th~~e coastal State~~ird countries on the total amount of fishing occurring in its waters, so as to prevent over-exploitation;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

~~17. Reaffirms that EU vessels should not compete with local fishermen for the same resources;~~deleted

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Believes that the EU must make increased efforts to help provide th~~e coastal Stat~~ird countries with which it negotiates bilateral agreements with sufficient data and information for reliable stock assessments, and that providing funding for a scientific research vessel in regions where the EU fleet is active would considerably strengthen scientific analyses on fish stocks, which is a prerequisite for any SFA;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Believes at the same time efforts should be increased to obtain the necessary data from third countries with which the EU has bilateral fishing agreements, in order to assess the effectiveness of the agreement and that conditions are met, e.g. the benefit of the local population;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Insists that the Commission closely monitors the implementation of bilateral agreements, with annual reports being sent to Parliament and the Council, as well as evaluations performed by external, independent experts to be sent to the co- legislators in due time prior to the negotiation of new protocols, all of which should be in the public domain and translated at least into the three working languages of the EU;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Underlines the need for Parliament to be ~~whol~~adequately involved in both the negotiating process and the long-term monitoring of the functioning of bilateral agreements~~, in order to respect~~ according to the provisions of the TFEU; recalls its conviction that Parliament should be represented at the Joint Committee meetings ~~envisaged in fisheries agreements, and insists that civil society, includ~~as observers; the Parliament should be immediately and fully informed on an equal footing bowith ~~EU and third country fisheries representatives, also participate in those meetings~~the Council at all stages of the procedure related to FPAs, pursuant to Article 13(2) TEU and Article 218(10) TFEU;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Strongly believes that the Commission should make sure that negotiations with third countries envisaging new agreements or protocols to bilateral fishery agreements are initiated well in advance of the expiry date of such provisions; in this context underlines the importance of the early involvement of Parliament to avoid the provisional application of such provisions which lead to irreversible fait accompli, not serving the benefit of the EU nor of the third country;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24 b. Believes that the European fishing industry shall take over a considerable financial share of the costs when acquiring access rights to non-EU fishing zones in the framework of a bilateral or multilateral fisheries agreement;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Believes that there should be a regional approach to the negotiation and implementation of the EU's bilateral agreements, and, where appropriate, a clear link between the terms they contain and the management measures and performance of the relevant RFMOs;deleted

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

~~31. Is firmly opposed to the EU supporting the adoption of rights-based management systems in RFMOs which would jeopardise the livelihood of dependent fishing communities;~~deleted

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Considers that EU vessels should not be allowed to temporarily reflag in order to take advantage of fishing opportunities under other flags, either in bilateral fisheries agreements or under the auspices of RFMOs;deleted

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Encourages banks and other lending institutions to incorporate assessments of the environmental and social sustainability of activities, and not simply their short-term profitability, prior to granting access to capital;deleted

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)

41 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that fair, transparent and sustainable trade in fish is strengthened in the EU's bilateral and multilateral trade agreements;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 b (new)

41 b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that fish and fishery products from third countries meet the same sanitary and hygiene conditions as well as come from sustainable fisheries, thus to create a level-playing field between EU and non- EU countries' fisheries;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 c (new)

41 c. Calls on the Commission to further streamline EU policy regarding development, trade and fisheries policy objectives;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 d (new)

41 d. Calls on the Commission to develop specific eco-labelling schemes based on transparent and easy understandable criteria for fish caught in third countries and imported into the EU;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2318(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 – indent 5 a (new)

- include provisions for suspension and review of the payment of the financial contribution as well as provisions on the suspension of the implementation of the protocol in case there is a breach of essential and fundamental elements on human rights, as laid out for example by Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement, or non compliance with the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas management models based on transferable fishing rights ~~or concessions comprise real risks for the subsistence of certain sectors of inshore and artisanal~~ cannot be considered as the only measure to tackle overfishing, a~~s demonstrated by the experience in some countries~~nd overcapacity;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the absence of reliable scientific data remains a serious problem when seeking to achieve sustainable management of most fish stocks;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas its structural weaknesses mean small-scale fishing is more exposed to certain types of external shock (such as the rapid increase in fuel prices) and to rapid changes in the availability of resources than the elements of the fleet considered more competitive; the rapidly growing populations of certain seabirds, that are invasive species in a particular region, and seals put further pressure on the depleted fishery resources in some regions of the EU;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) should fully take into account the specific problems and needs of small-scale fishing, both in coastal and inland areas;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that local management~~, that is based on scientific knowledge and that involves the sector in setting out and implementing policy, is the management type that best meets the needs of small- scale fishing~~ involving the sector in setting out and implementing policy, based on scientific knowledge and within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy, could have a more important role in managing the small-scale fishing; considers that Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) should play a much greater role in the future Common Fisheries Policy;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Re~~jects the mandatory implementation of TFCs; argues that the decision on whether or not to adopt TFCs and on which sectors of the fleet to include in this scheme should be left to the Member States~~cognises the Commission's proposal to introduce a system of individually transferable fishing concessions (TFCs), subject to strict safeguards, providing a special regime for small-scale and coastal fisheries as well as preferential treatment for ecologically-friendly fishing vessels, and addressing the issue of rights concentration and the possibility of revoking fishing concessions; underlines that the TFC system cannot be considered as the only measure to tackle overfishing and overcapacity but that it should be available as one of the various additional management measures available to a Member State whereby the Commission, together with the two co-legislators, is to set the broader framework, control and monitor national application, and report to the legislators periodically on the results of this system;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Draws attention to the importance of taking into account, not only the quantity of the fleet, but also its quality; considers that the future CFP should encourage the increased sustainability of the fleet in environmental, economic and social terms, by promoting the progressive prevalence of sectors and operators that use fishing techniques and fishing gear with less impact on resources, and that benefit the communities of which they are part in terms of generating jobs and of the quality of these jobs;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Rejects a general reduction in the capacity of a given fleet solely and obligatorily on the basis of market criteria~~Calls on the Commission to establish a definition of overcapacity at EU level accommodating regional definitions, where local specificities are taken into account;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Calls on the Commission to monitor and adjust fleet capacity ceilings for Member States so that they are in line with reliable data and technical advances are taken into account;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1

– ~~renewal and modernisation of fleets with a view to making them safer, and more economically and environmentally sustainable (selection of techniques, energy efficiency, etc.)~~investments in new landing sites to improve the quality of fish, decrease the fuel consumption, ease the access of fish product into the markets and improve the cooperation between fishermen;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)

- investments in more sustainable fishing gear;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 2

– promotion of young people's increased involvement in the sector's activities and start-up packages in order to secure a new generation of fishermen entering into small-scale fisheries;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 7 a (new)

- support for measures taken to reduce the negative effects on fish stocks caused by seals and certain seabirds, particularly when these are invasive species in a particular region;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers it ~~urge~~important to promote ~~the~~a fairer and ~~more~~ adequate distribution of value added along the sector's value chain, by reducing operating margins, increasing the prices paid to producers and limiting the prices paid by end consumers; considers that, in cases where there are serious imbalances in the chain, the Member States should adopt means of intervention, such as setting maximum operating margins for each agent in the chain;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2292(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Advocates the establishment and expansion of the exclusion zone (currently 12 nautical miles) and adjoining areas, in line with the continental shelf; considers that, in the case of the outermost regions, this area should go from 100 to 200 nautical milesat the special access regime for small-scale fisheries in the 12 nautical mile zone should be retained;

2012/05/08
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas, although the EU's fishing industry lost 30 % of its jobs be~~tween 2002 and 2007,~~cause of the poor state of fish stocks, the fall in prices caused by cheaper imports, and technological advances the fisheries sector (including aquaculture) between 2002 and 2007 is still estimated to generate EUR 34.2 billion in annual earnings, and creates more than 350 000 jobs both upstream and downstream in the fishing, fish processing and marketing sectors, in particular in coastal areas, remote regions and islands; despite the lost jobs, the fishing capacity of the fleets has significantly increased due to the technological advances;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. whereas the available data on the actual capacity of the European fishing fleet is not reliable because technological developments have not been taken into account and Member States are failing to accurately report data on fleet capacities;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls on the Commission to provide for the establishment of long-term management plans (LTMPs) for all EU fisheries and use of the ecosystem approach as a basis for all LTMPs, with clearly defined objectives and harvest control rules playing a pivotal role in each plan, whereby the latter is to lay down rules for determining annual fishing effort taking into account the difference between the current stock size and structure of the fishery and the target stock objective; urges the Council in this regard to follow the objectives of the LTMPs without exception;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Under~~stand~~lines the Commission's motivations when proposing to implement a discard ban by 2016, and considers that it is right to view such practices as unacceptable in principle, particularly given their harmful impact on numerous essential evaluations direct link between discards, unwanted by-catch and overfishing, and understand the Commission's motivations and the need to develop an efficient no-discards policy at EU level whereby the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) should have grelat~~ing to sustainable stock management, sound scientific advice, marine ecosystem surveillance and the financial viability of fisheries~~er powers to ensure a fair system of rules and sanctions, i.e. the principle of equal treatment;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that a ~~ban on~~ discards ban should ~~only be put in p~~be fishery-based and not relacte ~~if accompanied by technical measures to reduce unwan~~to different fish stocks; stresses that selected fishing gear and other devices which reduce or eliminated by-catch ~~and incentives to encourage selective fishing practices, provided the ecosystem balance is maintaine~~es of non-targeted species, as well as other sustainable fishing methods, should be promoted; underlines the importance of addressing the management of mixed fisheries to this end; priority should go to avoiding unwanted catches in the first place, rather than finding ways to market them; also stresses the importance of stakeholder engagement and careful design of the landing obligation, in order not to shift from unwanted fish in the sea to unwanted fish on land;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the need for more scientific research ~~to develop tackle~~and that adequate financial means have to be allocated to relevant scientific research in the Member States to develop the fishing gear and fishing techniques in such a way as to avoid bycatches of non-targeted species and promote other sustainable fishing methods; underlines the importance of addressing the management of mixed fisheries to this end;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Notes that the main reason for this lack of basic scientific data on the majority of stocks is inadequate reporting by Member States; ~~in this respect,~~calls on the Commission to establish a system whereby Member States which do not fulfil their data collection and transmission obligations are sanctioned; calls on the Commission to provide Member States with technical and financial assistance for the collection and ~~analysis of reliable data, employing both positive and negative incentiv~~that adequate financial means have to be allocated to relevant scientific research in the Member States;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20 a. Calls on the Commission to establish a definition of overcapacity at EU level accommodating regional definitions, where local specificities are taken into account; further calls on the Commission to redefine fishing capacity in such a way that both the vessel's fishing capacity and its actual fishing effort are taken as a basis; stresses moreover the necessity to define small-scale fisheries in order to dissociate them from industrial fisheries;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Considers that prior to the mandatory introduction of TFCs the Commission should undertake fleet assessments in order to ~~obtain credible results vis-à-vis the precis~~monitor and adjust fleet capacity ceilings for Member States so that they are in line swit~~uation of overcapacity at EU level~~h reliable data and technical advances are taken into account, thus making it possible to propose appropriate and targeted instruments for its reduction;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Urges the Member States to carry out mandatory cuts to achieve set targets for a sustainable level of capacity for every fishery so as to tackle the remaining significant overcapacity of the fishing fleets, with sanctions for failure to meet the targets, i.e. the freezing of funds from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF);

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Considers that the fisheries sector can remain sustainable only if there are sufficient and adequately trained and skilled workers; believes that in order to achieve this, careers in fishing need to remain attractive and standards of qualifications and training need to meet international and European requirements; calls on the Commission to promote proper training and mandatory education schemes in best practice in different areas of the sector, since this will attract young people and help create a competitive and eco- friendly fisheries and aquaculture sector; believes that there should be a possibility for start-up packages in order to secure a new generation of fishermen entering into small-scale fisheries;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Believes that as far as regionalisation is concerned, the key response is good governance, which means a bottom-up approach; stresses that clear and simple rules must be established at the appropriate level, thus increasing compliance; also strongly believes that the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) promote dialogue and cooperation between stakeholders and should contribute actively to the establishing of Long Term Management Plans; considers that RACs should play a much greater role in the future Common Fisheries Policy;

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2290(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Believes, more generally, that the role of the RACs should be strengthened; in this respect, urges the Commission to table a new proposal aimed at strengthening the participation of stakeholders and small-scale fisheries, thus leading to genuine regionalisation in the CFP; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission's proposal to set up a Black Sea Advisory Council;deleted

2012/05/09
Committee: PECH

2011/2279(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,

2011/11/23
Committee: BUDG

2011/2279(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. 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 in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the 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 reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility of the EGF~~ will be achieved;

2011/11/23
Committee: BUDG

2011/2279(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the institutions' commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one- off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market~~, in particular the most vulnerable and least qualified workers~~;

2011/11/23
Committee: BUDG

2011/2279(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

2011/11/23
Committee: BUDG

2011/2279(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that 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 various policies objectives;

2011/11/23
Committee: BUDG

2011/2262(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,

2011/11/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2262(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. 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 in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility of the Fund~~ will be achieved;

2011/11/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2262(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one- off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market~~, in particular the most vulnerable and least qualified workers~~;

2011/11/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2262(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

2011/11/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2262(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, superseding transfers from other budget lines, as done in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the various policies objectives;

2011/11/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2254(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,

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2254(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. 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 in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the Fund ~~will~~must be achieved, if the EGF is to have any future;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2254(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2254(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, superseding transfers from other budget lines, as done in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the various policies objectives;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2253(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,

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2253(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. 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 in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the Fund ~~will~~must be achieved, if the EGF is to have any future;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2253(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2253(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, superseding transfers from other budget lines, as done in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the various policies objectives;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2252(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,

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2252(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. 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 in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility~~ of the Fund ~~will~~must be achieved, if the EGF is to have any future;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2252(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2252(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that therefore deserves a dedicated allocation, superseding transfers from other budget lines, as done in the past, which could be detrimental to the achievement of the various policies objectives;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2200(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,

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2200(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. 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 in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility of the Fund will be achieved~~, if the EGF is to have any future;

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2200(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2200(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that 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 various policies objectives;

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2199(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,

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2199(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. 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 in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, and transparency ~~and visibility of the Fund will be achieved~~if the EGF is to have any future;

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2199(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that the EGF assistance can co-finance only active labour market measures which lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; deplores that the EGF might provide an incentive for companies to replace their contractual workforce with a more flexible and short-term one;

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2199(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that 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 various policies objectives;

2011/10/21
Committee: BUDG

2011/2195(INI)

Göran FÄRM, Carl HAGLUND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Draws attention to Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and the specific situation of northernmost regions with very low population density; believes that resources and capacities found within these regions can have a significant role in the future competitiveness of the European Union; stresses, accordingly, that these areas facing challenges should continue to receive the same support also in the future MFF;

2012/02/02
Committee: BUDG

2011/2163(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
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~~made redundant due to structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2011/09/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2163(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcom~~Notes the foreseen reinforcement of the EGF budget line 04.05.01 by EUR 50 000 000 through Amending Budget No 2/2011, which will be used to cover the amount needed for the present application;

2011/09/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2159(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~~made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2011/09/08
Committee: BUDG

2011/2159(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcom~~Notes the foreseen reinforcement of the EGF budget line 04.05.01. by EUR 50 000 000 through Amending Budget No 2/ 2011, which will be used to cover the amount needed for the present application;

2011/09/08
Committee: BUDG

2011/2158(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the EGF application submitted by France does not cover the Renault workers who opted for the early retirement scheme and to which the EGF aid could not be allocated under Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, but saw their pension rights altered by the pension reform which came into force in the meantime; whereas the efforts made by all parties involved to find a viable solution so that these former Renault workers can complement their pension rights should be noted; whereas in this regard, the efforts made by the French government, as well as the written engagement made by Renault should be underlined; whereas the constructive dialogue between all parties concerned should be continued until a satisfactory solution is found;deleted

2011/11/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2158(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~~made redundant due to structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

2011/09/08
Committee: BUDG

2011/2158(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 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 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 various policies objectives;

2011/11/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2158(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcom~~Notes the foreseen reinforcement of the EGF budget line 04.05.01 by EUR 50 000 000 through Amending Budget No 2/2011, which will be used to cover the amount needed for the present application;

2011/09/08
Committee: BUDG

2011/2158(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

~~6. Welcomes the foreseen reinforcement of the EGF budget line 04 05 01 by EUR 50 000 000 through Amending Budget No 2/2011, which will be used to cover the amount needed for the present application;~~deleted

2011/11/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2157(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Emphasises the critical role of the ENI in supporting EU macro-regional strategies, such as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, by providing funding for the external dimension of these strategies, most importantly activities which involve neighbouring countries;

2011/10/26
Committee: BUDG

2011/2125(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital E

E. whereas European Commission's evaluation concludes that the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

2011/07/01
Committee: BUDG

2011/2125(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that after the adjustment of the eligibility criteria to include the global economic and financial crisis (Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006), broadening temporarily the scope of the EGF, the EGF- financed measures should lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

2011/07/01
Committee: BUDG

2011/2125(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Notes that, following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that 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 various policies objectives;

2011/07/01
Committee: BUDG

2011/2124(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital E

E. whereas European Commission's evaluation concludes that the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

2011/07/01
Committee: BUDG

2011/2124(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; further stresses that after the adjustment of the eligibility criteria to include the global economic and financial crisis (Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006), broadening temporarily the scope of the EGF, the EGF- financed measures should lead to long-term employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

2011/07/01
Committee: BUDG

2011/2124(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Notes that, following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that 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 various policies objectives;

2011/07/01
Committee: BUDG

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

2011/2074(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital E

E. whereas the Commission's evaluation concludes that the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

2011/05/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2074(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Expresses its doubts that the developments leading to redundancies at General Motors Belgium were solely influenced by the global financial crisis and therefore completely unpredictable; highlights the fact that the situation of General Motors in Belgium has been difficult throughout the last decade, linked to comparably high cost and inflexibility in the labour market as well as other structural problems;

2011/05/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2074(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that~~, in accordance with~~ the intervention criteria as defined in Article 62 of the ~~EGF~~original Regulation~~, it should be ensured that~~ (EC) No 1927/2006 allow for clearer differentiation, compared to the revised version of 2008, as to the scope of the EGF ~~support~~vis-a-vis othe ~~reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment~~r, more long- term, programmes to achieve economic growth and labour market stability; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

2011/05/11
Committee: BUDG

2011/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas ~~under the subsidiarity principle,~~regardless of the fact that national budgetary procedures ~~and terminology~~ are governed by the constitutional system of each Member State the subsidiarity principle allows for a stronger budgetary coordination between Member States,

2011/06/22
Committee: BUDG

2011/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the great achievement of the common market in linking European economies needs to be coupled to a system of budgetary coordination in order to make use of substantial synergies,

2011/06/22
Committee: BUDG

2011/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the need to mainstream the Europe 2020 objectives into the annual budgets of the EU and of the Member States; stresses that structured and early debate on annual budget orientations ~~could help~~will enable Member States to take more account of the European dimension into their draft budgets and help reducing doubling structures significantly; therefore all efforts and activities of the Parliament, in this regard, should concentrate in the first part of the annual budgetary cycle, so to allow for an ex-ante coordination;

2011/06/22
Committee: BUDG

2011/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets the lack of clarity on one hand and the overlapping of the different instruments and budgetary lines on the other hand through which the Europe 2020 targets are to be achieved through the EU budget; reminds that the European Semester provides a good opportunity to develop greater synergy between EU and Member States budgets;

2011/06/22
Committee: BUDG

2011/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the Committee on Budgets has a long existing tradition in holding inter-parliamentary meetings with national representatives to discuss budgetary issues of both EU and national relevance; reminds that the competencies of each EP committee shall be fully respected in a parliamentary dimension of the European Semester; is dissatisfied with the outcome of this year's annual exchange with national parliaments, which suffered from a lack of participation of national parliaments and from a lack of a clear and structured approach which could have lead to concrete results;

2011/06/22
Committee: BUDG

2011/2071(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the ~~crucial~~ role of the cohesion policy as ~~key~~an instrument for Europe 2020, due to its budgetary dimension and multi-level governance approach; advocates, in line with the report of the Policy Challenges Committee, for the maintenance in the next MFF of at least the same level of funding for this policy as in 2013to fund policies linked to Europe 2020; nevertheless asks for clearer identification of possible synergies also in this policy area which could be included in the European Semester process;

2011/06/22
Committee: BUDG

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Whereas beside the adoption of the six texts related to the ~~growth and stability pact,~~stability and growth pact, the macroeconomic surveillance and budgetary frameworks the Presidents of the European Council and of the Commission have announce their intention to table new proposals;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that the success of the Europe 2020 strategy depends on the commitment of the EU as a whole, and on ownership by Member States, national parliaments, local and regional authorities and social partners; recalls the importance of a ~~strong~~competitive and properly functioning social ~~dialogue and collective agreement~~market economy and structural reforms within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy~~, as well as the promotion of a genuine European social dialogue on macroeconomic policies and measures~~;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Emphasises that steps needed to improve the European economic governance capacity should not lead to any deficit in democratic legitimacy and accountability; warns, therefore, against a set-up of the Annual Growth Survey as a bureaucratic act which lacks the ~~approval~~understanding of the European Parliament and Member States;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

~~13. Request that the AGS be transformed into "Annual Sustainability Guidelines”(ASG);~~deleted

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls for the Commission to adopt the Annual ~~Sustainability Guidelines~~Growth Survey by 10 January each year with a specific chapter on and guidelines for the euro area;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15.Calls on the Commission, when drawing up the Annual Sustainability Guidelines, to draw upon heterodox scientific expertise to the greatest extent possible and to take relevant recommendations of the European Parliament into account;deleted

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Commission clearly to assess, in the Annual ~~Sustainability Guidelines~~Growth Survey, the main economic problems of the EU and individual Member States, to propose priority measures to overcome those problems, and to identify the initiatives taken by the Union and the Member States to support enhance competitiveness, long- term investment, to remove obstacles to growth, achieve the targets laid down in the Treaties and the current economic strategy, implement the 7 flagships and reduce macroeconomic imbalances;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls on the Commission and Council to ensure that policy guidance for fiscal consolidation and structural reforms are fully coherent and consistent with the Union's objectives of social and sustainable development; considers that, in defining and implementing the Annual Sustainability Guidelines, the Union must take into account the impact of developments in micro-financial legislation, in particular prudential regulation, on long-term investment stimulating competitiveness, sustainable growth and job creation; believes that the country-specific recommendations need to be subject of social impact assessments so as to ensure that requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training, retraining and protection of human health are met;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls on the Commission to identify explicitly in the Annual ~~Sustainability Guidelines~~Growth Survey potential cross-border spill- over effects of major economic policy measures implemented at the EU level as well as in Member States;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls on the commissioners responsible for the European Semester to come and debate the Annual ~~Sustainability Guidelines~~Growth Survey with the relevant EP committees as soon as it has been adopted by the Commission;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Sharon BOWLES, Iliana IVANOVA, Gunnar HÖKMARK, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Olle SCHMIDT, Carl HAGLUND, Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Othmar KARAS, Corien WORTMANN-KOOL, Kay SWINBURNE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

~~30. Proposes the setting-up of a sub- committee on the Economic and Monetary Union within its ECON committee where only euro area members would vo~~delete;d

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Asks for the AGSO to be subject to a vote with co-decision powers for the European Parliament before the Spring Council;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Intends to organise, from 2013, prior to the Spring European Council each year, an interparliamentary forum at the European Parliament for members of the competent national parliamentary committees, recommends that this meeting be an integrated part of the annual meeting organised by the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee for members of national parliaments; proposes that this forum include meetings of the political groups and the relevant committees, along with a plenary sitting affording an opportunity to adopt a joint resolution in preparation for the Spring European Council; instructs its President to represent it at the European Spring Council on the basis of the resolution thus adopted; ~~invites the European social partners to participate in this meeting and provide their views;~~

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Underlines the need for country- specific recommendations to be based on democratic procedures; warns against the establishment of any practice that lacks parliamentary approval at the European and national level; ~~notes that this applies especially to recommendations which could undermine social regulation;~~

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Wishes an economic dialogue to be held at Parliament with the heads of state or government of those Member States intending to make use of the European financial Stability Facility and Mechanism as well as the European Stability Mechanism, before the latter is activated; urges the Council and the Commission to ensure the consistency of economic conditionality and adjustment programmes in the framework of any rescue programme with Union's overarching objectives of ~~social and~~ sustainable development ~~and in particular~~, employment and economic policy guidelines a~~s well as~~nd EU 2020 objectives; asks to include recommendations addressed in the framework of the EU Semester to Member States under financial assistance to take account explicitly of these consistency requirements;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

~~48. Calls for the development of the concept of a European Treasury to strengthen the implementation capacity of the European semester and the economic pillar of EMU;~~deleted

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

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)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that decoupling has essentially proved its worth, given the increased effect on income and 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 and Nordic type areas with comparable conditions, 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~~can be considered essential;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls – without casting any doubt on the results of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP – for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 primarily to be allocated for measures to promote territorial coherence and boost key sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows), for area-based environmental measures (e.g. organic, farming, production of plant proteins2) 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 and in exceptional cases even higher due to extreme natural conditions;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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 ~~reg~~type areas with comparable conditions 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;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Advocates compensation for natural disadvantages in the second pillar; calls for its effectiveness to be increased and rejects a complementary payment in the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involved;

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)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Advocates that the ~~2006~~ sugar market re~~form~~gime be extended at least to 2020 in its existing form ~~in order to develop a system for the subsequent period which can operate without quotas~~;

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, 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, 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)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

50. Advocates in this connection that the compensatory allowance for disadvantaged areas be retained in the second pillar; c~~onsiders that it should be ascertained wha~~alls for its effectiveness to be increased; considers that the current cofinancing rate appears to be appropriate; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantaged areas;

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)

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 national co-financing in the second pillar (top-up) should be possible; alternatively considers that existing co- financing rates should apply also after 2013;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2045(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital B

B. whereas the scope of the EGF was temporarily broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis,

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2045(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1

1. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the EP 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the Fund;

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2045(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one- off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have ~~suffered~~been made redundan~~cies~~t as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; ~~emphasises~~points out the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market; however, calls for an evaluation on the long-term integration of these workers into the labour market as a direct result of the EGF-funded measures;

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2045(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; r~~Reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; therefore calls for the intervention criteria as defined in article 2 of the original Regulation (EC) No. 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund1 to be reinstalled; _________________ 1 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, as corrected by OJ L 48, 22.2.2008, p.82.

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2045(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that 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 various policies objectives;

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2044(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital B

B. whereas the scope of the EGF was temporarily broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis,

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2044(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1

1. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the EP 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 Fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the Fund;

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2044(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one- off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have ~~suffered~~been made redundan~~cies~~t as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; ~~emphasises~~points out the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market; however, calls for an evaluation on the long-term integration of these workers into the labour market as a direct result of the EGF-funded measures;

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2044(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; r~~Reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; therefore calls for the intervention criteria as defined in article 2 of the original Regulation (EC) No. 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund1 to be reinstalled; _________________ 1 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, as corrected by OJ L 48, 22.2.2008, p.82.

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2044(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the fact that following repeated requests from the Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the EGF budget line 04 05 01; reminds that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that 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 various policies objectives;

2011/03/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/2043(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that ~~the current~~a risk-averse culture of EU research ~~policy~~funding would prevents f~~und~~inancing of high-risk research ideas with the highest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore suggests to follow a trust-based approach with higher tolerance for risk and failure;

2011/03/16
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Takes the view that the Europe 2020 strategy should help Europe recover from the crisis and come out stronger, through smart, sustainable and inclusive growth based on the five EU headline targets, namely promoting employment, improving the conditions and public spending for innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, improving education levels and promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty; recalls that the Member States themselves have fully endorsed these five targets;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Is of the opinion that the EU budget brings added value to national public expenditure by initiating, supporting and complementing investments in those policies which are at the core of Europe 2020; believes, moreover, that the EU budget has an instrumental role to play in helping the EU to exit the current economic and financial crisis through its capacity as a catalyst to boost investment, growth and jobs in Europe; takes the view that the EU budget could at least mitigate the effects and support the efforts of current restrictive national budgetary policies; stresses also that, given its redistributive nature, ~~any attempt to limit~~lowering the level of the EU budget ~~will be detrimental to~~may harm European solidarity and toinfluence the pace of economic development in most Member States; takes the view that the ‘net contributor’/’net beneficiary’ approach ~~has no economic rationale~~contradicts the EU principle of solidarity, since it disregards spill-over effects between EU countries and therefore undermines common EU policy goals;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives will require a huge amount of future- oriented investment ~~in the short, medium and longer term~~, estimated at no less than 1800 billion Euros, until 2020, by the European Commission in its communication on the Budget review (COM (2010) 700 final); stresses that the main objective of the Europe 2020 strategy – namely, to promote jobs and high-quality employment for all Europeans – will be achieved only if the necessary investments in education, research and development, innovation, SMEs a~~nd green~~s well as green and new technologies are made now and not delayed any longer; calls for a renewed political compromise combining the reduction of public deficits and debt with the promotion of such investments; expresses its willingness to improve and widen existing instruments enhancing the synergy between the EU budget and EIB actions, in order to support long-term investments and welcomes the launch by the European Commission of a public consultation on "Europe 2020 Project bonds initiative";

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Strongly o~~Opposes, therefore~~, any~~ attempts to limit or reduce budget appropriations in those sectors linked to the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy’s headline targets and seven flagship initiatives; notes that such an attempt would be counter-productive, most likely resulting in the failure of Europe 2020, as was the case for the Lisbon Strategy; takes the view that the Europe 2020 strategy can be credible only if adequately funded, and recalls that the EP has on numerous occasions raised this serious political concern;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Highlights the fact that budgetary measures are not the only factor in achieving the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, but that efforts on the budget have to be balanced by concrete proposals for simplification in order to create the environment necessary to achieve our goals in the fields of employment, research and innovation and green and energy technologies;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Title after paragraph 10

2012 EU BUDGET: budget responsibility ~~should not automatically entail~~and budget austerity

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Does not share the Council’s view~~Highlights the fact that leaving sufficient margins below all MFF headings ~~is a proper~~might not be the only solution in order to address unforeseen circumstances; points out the recurrent under-financing of certain headings of the MFF, in particular sub- heading 1A and heading 4, as compared to the needs and EU political priorities endorsed by the Member States; ~~is worried by the short-term~~finds that the approach underpinning the Council’s budget guidelines for 2012~~, which would jeopardise~~ does not reflect a long-term perspective, possibly putting existing actions and programmes at risk, should unforeseen events or new political priorities arise;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Invites the Commission to assess how the existing EU financial instruments for external relations could be utilised in support of the aspiration towards democracy, particularly the rule of law and open society in the EU neighbourhood and in a wider context, following the recent events in North Africa and in the Middle East;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes, on the contrary, that the various flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA (such as shifting expenditure between headings or mobilising the flexibility instrument) are tools to be used fully; recalls that they have had to be used every year since 2007 in response to various challenges that have arisen; expects the Council ~~to show less reluctance to use them, and~~'s full cooperation to use them, and to enter into these negotiations early in order to avoid disproportionately long and difficult negotiations on their mobilisation;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses, in this connection, that keeping commitment appropriations under strict control would require not only significant redeployments and reprioritisation, but also the joint identification of possible negative priorities and savings by the institutions; highlights, however, the fact that, to this end, greater budgetary flexibility (mainly between the headings of the current MFF) would be needed in order to align budgetary resources with evolving circumstances and priorities;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2042(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Is aware that the level of payments finally implemented every year sometimes entails a significant so-called ‘surplus’ compared to the level of payments originally agreed by the budget authority, meaning that Member States’ national contributions to the EU budget are therefore decreased accordingly and their fiscal positions improved; does not consider the Council’s concerns as to the level and timing of this ‘return’ relevant in addressing the sensitive underlying political issue of the financing of the EU budget and is rather of the opinion that unspent payments should be carried over to the following budget year; strongly urges the Commission, therefore, to make ambitious proposals for the establishment of new and genuine own resources so as to fully provide the EU with real and autonomous financial resources and to put an end to the Member States tendency to calculate their net returns;

2011/03/09
Committee: BUDG

2011/2020(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission – in order to strengthen the independence ~~and~~, integrity and effectiveness of the European Supervisory Authorities – to initiate a dialogue on changing their funding key so that the share covered by the EU budget is, as a first step, increased from 40 % to 60 %; underlines that the option of partly financing their activities via fees paid by market actors should be given more attention; stresses that as soon as the authorities are running at full speed, the issue of whether they are sufficiently staffed to safeguard stability and ensure coherent implementation of regulatory reform should be thoroughly dealt with;

2011/07/20
Committee: ECON

2011/2020(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines that Eurostat ~~might also~~ needs to be reinforced in order to be capable of managing new tasks in the updated economic governance framework; points out that the resources of Eurostat must continuously match the expanding workload and the enhanced quality demands in the key area of economic and financial statistics; is concerned about the reduction proposed by the Commission for the Union Statistical Programme and the very limited increase in staff expenditure in the ‘Statistics’ policy area;

2011/07/20
Committee: ECON

2011/2020(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Supports the proposal for a new pilot project to facilitate non-industry stakeholder involvement in EU policy- making in the area of financial services; ~~underlines that if the project turns out to be successful, the expert centre to be set up should be made permanent;~~ stresses that additional resources should be allocated to the ‘Knowledge Partnerships’ pilot project in order to further tighten the connection between business education and real-world enterprises;

2011/07/20
Committee: ECON

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Is deeply concerned, against this background, by the alarming drop in public investment in the Member States in some of these areas and firmly believes that this trend must be reversed if the EU as a whole is to deliver on the EU 2020 strategy; is of the opinion that the EU budget has an role to play as a leverage tool for Member States’ recovery policies by triggering and supporting national investment to reinforce growth and employment, particularly in the field of R&D; emphasises that this is fully in line with the dynamics of the European Semester, which, as a new mechanism for enhanced European economic governance, aims at increasing consistency, synergies and complementarities between the EU and the national budgets in delivering on the jointly agreed Europe 2020 goals;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Highlights the fact that the proposed figures in the 2012 EU annual budget are consistent with the profile of EU expenditure set in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013, provided an agreement of the budgetary authority can be found to a revision of the MFF accommodating the additional financing needs of ITER; emphasises that any increase (or decrease) compared to Budget 2011 must therefore be assessed bearing in mind its impact on the delivery of the multiannual programmes; stresses that this is a question of institutional credibility and coherence of the EU project when EU responsibilities and commitments keep on growing; deeply regrets from this point of view that the Commission did not propose endowing policies and new competencies established at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with meaningful and visible financial capacity;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Observes that according to the DB 2012 there is an overall margin of EUR 1 603 million in CA under the 2012 ceiling agreed in the MFF; is determined to make full use of this available margin as well as – if necessary – of other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the current IIA to support and strengthen certain targeted political objectives, which have not been included in the current MFF; expects Council’s full cooperation as regards the use of these mechanisms;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls that a first round of discussions on budgetary priorities has already sta~~ken place~~rted in Parliament in the form of the extensive consultation of its specialised committees by its general rapporteur for the Budget 2012; emphasises that the process must now be fine-tuned in each committee for its respective field of competence so as to identify the positive and negative priorities for the Budget 2012;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes the Commission’s estimate that all in all 43.5% of the DB 2012 (in CA) contributes to the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy; finds this estimate positive but not sufficient; acknowledges that the priorities set by the Commission ~~therefore~~ seem consistent with those defined by Parliament in its resolution on general guidelines for the 2012 Budget, but calls for a more ambitious approach to the funding of the Europe 2020 strategy; is, however, determined to further analyse these figures in full association with all its specialised committees;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Takes the view that, besides the delivery of the EU 2020 strategy, appropriations in the EU 2012 Budget should be ~~kep~~set at an appropriate level to ensure the continuation of EU policies and the achievement of EU objectives; underlines in particular the need to allow the EU to shoulder its global responsibility, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring and the unrest in the Middle East;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Observes that the Commission has made a first endeavour to identify negative priorities and savings in some policy areas as compared with what was initially foreseen in the financial programming, particularly in those characterised by poor performance and low implementation rates in the recent past; asks the Commission to provide additional information supporting its assessments; notes also that, contrary to previous years, the Commission has frequently departed from its indicative financial programming presented in January 2011; is determined to further check and analyse these proposals before endorsing them and is also willing to assess the possibility for further savings and re-allocations;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes the proposed increase in PA of 4.9% compared to 2011; is convinced that the Commission is proposing such figures on the basis of a careful and critical analysis of forecasts provided by Member States, which themselves co-manage 80% of the EU budget; notes that the bulk of this increase is linked to legal needs arising in relation to the 7th Research Programme and the Structural and Cohesion Funds; is convinced that the proposed level of payments represents the bare minimum required to honour EU legal commitments made in previous years and that it is the EU’s duty to comply with the legal obligations deriving from these commitments; strongly urges the Council, therefore, to refrain from cutting the proposed level of payments;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Observes, moreover, that the overall margin in PA under the ceiling of the MFF ~~remains high~~amounts at EUR 8 815 million; highlights the fact that any decrease below the figure proposed by the Commission would in turn worsen the situation in relation to the urgent need to reduce the unprecedented level of outstanding commitments (RALs) and to ensure the correct implementation of EU policies and programmesReminds the non-respect by Council of the inter- institutional declaration on payments agreed in December 2010 related to the implementation of Budget 2011; In this context recalls that the draft amending budget 03/2011 shows a budgetary surplus of 4.9 bn Euro in payments in 2010; Deplores the Commission’s proposal to lower the Member States’ contributions by this amount; is of the opinion that such an approach is not good budgeting and will have no impact on the overall deficit level of Member States, while this amount can make a clear difference to the EU’s annual budget; therefore is not ready to give its agreement to the draft amending budget 03/2011;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission’s proposal in the DB 2012 to increase CA by 12.6% (to EUR 15 223 million) and PA by 8.1% (to EUR 12 566 million) as compared to Budget 2011, since Heading 1a is the key heading of the MFF 2007-2013 in terms of reaching the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, thanks to its direct or indirect contribution to the financing of all its five headline targets and the seven flagship initiatives;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Notes with concern, in addition to the proposed EUR 100 million redeployment for ITER, the extra cuts of EUR 64 million made to EC FP7 as compared to the financial programming; ~~regret~~demands that the Commission ~~is not~~ propos~~ing~~es to use all the savings (amounting in total to EUR 190 million) to be made in 2012 thanks to re- assessment of staffing needs and the reduced financial contributions to some Joint Undertakings for the benefit of operational expenditure under the EC FP7;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Points out in this regard to the need to improve the funding conditions for the sustainable energy priorities, energy storage technologies and other priorities under the newly introduced Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan), including energy efficiency, which are vital for meeting the economic, energy and climate challenges; believes that clear goals for sustainable energy policy and energy efficiency can deliver cost-efficient solutions from which the European economy as a whole could benefit; notes also that additional innovative ways of leveraging investments and fostering research and innovation, such as the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF), could be explored in the frame of the 2012 budgetary procedure;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Olle LUDVIGSSON, Astrid LULLING, Sven GIEGOLD, Jürgen KLUTE, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Stresses that the European Supervisory Authorities have a crucial role to play in safeguarding market stability and that they need to be adequately funded in order for regulatory reforms to be effective; reiterates that one single supervisory authority would be more cost-efficient; welcomes the budget increases proposed for all three authorities as important steps in their build-up procedures, while calling for additional resources for the joint committee; emphasises that any additional tasks entrusted to these authorities must be swiftly accompanied by the corresponding allocation of supplementary resources; underlines, inter alia, that the new responsibilities planned for the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in the areas of short-selling and derivatives must be promptly reflected in the 2012 budget procedure as soon as the legal bases are in place;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Sidonia MAZUR, Damien ABAD, Carl HAGLUND, Franziska Katharina BRANTNER, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Regrets that with the limited increase foreseen for the PROGRESS programme in the DB 2012 as compared to Budget 2011, the Commission will not be able to reinstate the amount of EUR 20 million for the period 2011-2013 to which it had committed itself in 2010 in order to compensate partially for the redeployment of PROGRESS in favour of the Microfinance Facility; recalls that the ~~PROGRESS programme is an essential pillar of the Europe 2020 strategy, owing in particular to its contribution to the two~~contribution of the PROGRESS programme to the two EU 2020 strategy flagship initiatives ‘European Platform against Poverty’ and ‘Youth on the Move’;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Olle LUDVIGSSON, Astrid LULLING, Sven GIEGOLD, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Welcomes the increase (+ EUR 5.7 million) in the overall level of commitment appropriations for the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework programme compared to what was initially foreseen; hopes that this increase will contribute to improving the access of SMEs to this programme and to developing specific programmes and innovative financial mechanisms; supports, in particular, the sharp increase in payments proposed for the CIP-EIP programme as an indispensable reaction to the positive trend of SMEs recovering from the crisis; notes that the present budgetary request – being based on very recent developments – is to be seen as provisional; stresses, therefore, that there should be a preparedness throughout the 2012 budget process to further increase the payments in this programme if the recovery over the coming months turns out to be stronger than currently foreseen;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Takes the view that, given its high European added value, support for the Lifelong Learning programme should be continued and increased in 2012, because of its strong contribution to the flagship initiatives ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘Innovation Union’; stresses in particular that, given the growing number of people in adult education in Europe, Grundtvig, which currently represents only 4% of the allocations in the Lifelong Learning Programme, should be reinforced;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Takes the view that, given its high European added value, support for the Lifelong Learning programme should be continued and may be increased in 2012, because of its strong contribution to the flagship initiative ‘Youth on the Move’; stresses in particular that, given the growing number of people in adult education in Europe, Grundtvig, which currently represents only 4% of the allocations in the Lifelong Learning Programme, should be reinforced;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Olle LUDVIGSSON, Astrid LULLING, Sven GIEGOLD, Jürgen KLUTE, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Is concerned about the proposed reduction in appropriations for the Union Statistical Programme and the very limited – below the rate of inflation – increase in staff expenditure in the ‘Statistics’ policy area; emphasises that there is a strong need to continuously make sure that the resources of Eurostat match the expanding workload and the enhanced quality demands in the key area of economic and financial statistics;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Olle LUDVIGSSON, Astrid LULLING, Sven GIEGOLD, Jürgen KLUTE, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Notes that the crisis has clearly highlighted the importance for the strength of government finances of having effective and fraud-proof tax collection systems; stresses that the fight against tax fraud and evasion must be highly prioritised and that the appropriations for Fiscalis must enable the programme to respond to this ambition;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission’s decision to include in the DB for the second consecutive year payment appropriations (EUR 50 million) for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF); underlines the fact that this ~~not only gives higher visibility to the fund but also~~ avoids transfers from other budget lines pursuing different aims and covering different needs; eagerly awaits the presentation of the mid-term review of the EGF Regulation by the Commission as a means of identifying ways to speed up the procedure for mobilising the fund and of simplifying its management rules;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the 8.4% increase in PA to EUR 45 134 million proposed for 2012 as compared to 2011~~, and believes that this increase will allow for programme implementation to catch up quickly following~~; reminds the very slow start-up of programmes at the beginning of the 2007- 13 period; emphasises that ~~this~~any increase should also make it possible to address additional payment needs stemming from the recent legislative changes, the approval of all management and control systems and the closure of the 2000-2006 programmes;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Sidonia MAZUR, Damien ABAD, Carl HAGLUND, Franziska Katharina BRANTNER, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Stresses therefore that thise level of payments ~~is a bare minimum and~~has to compl~~ies~~y fully with realistic budgeting, taking due account of the general payment profile over the period, the Member States’ available forecast in respect of payment claims to be sent to the Commission, and the need to fill the gap between commitments and payments; underlines the fact that these cash flows will also help accelerate the recovery of the European economy and contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy in the regions; ~~will therefore strictly oppose any possible decrease in the level of payments compared to the one proposed by the Commission in its Draft Budget, particularly in view of~~reminds Council’s early 2011 reluctance to honour its formal commitment of December 2010 to providing fresh appropriations in case of need;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Asks the Commission to collect demographic data of the beneficiaries of the cohesion policy, the European Social Fund notably, in order to monitor the real impact of the funds provided for human capital development and job market insertion, keeping in mind the particularly worrying problem of youth unemployment;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Asks the Commission to keep on working closely with those Member States with a low absorption rate in order to further improve absorption on the ground; calls, therefore, for the further promotion of mutual learning, exchange of best practices and reinforcement of administrative capacities in certain Member States as well as in candidate countries through paying attention to the proper functioning of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance supporting the countries preparations for the implementation of Community programmes;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)

32a. Is determined to deeply assess the proposed appropriations for this subheading with regard to the past implementation and absorption rate;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Notes that the DB 2012 proposes to increase commitment appropriations by 2.6% to EUR 60 158 million and payment appropriations by 2.8% to EUR 57 948 million as compared with Budget 2011; ~~underlines that these increases remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the budget as a whole;~~

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Emphasises that energy efficiency, the fight against climate change and the promotion of renewable energy are transversal priorities that can be financed under several headings of the EU budget, and that Parliament will pay specific attention to their funding, by budget line and overall; urges the Commission to further mainstream such priorities in other policies, including EU financial support to developing countries; takes the view that the proper implementation of the existing legislation on these topics is crucial and therefore asks the Commission to carefully analyse whether ~~more resources~~reallocation of funding in this heading are required in order to examine seriously the implementation of EU environmental legislation, and to report back to Parliament;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Points out that, owing to ~~its political importance, the financing and existing actions~~the overfishing of more than 70 % of European fish stocks, a fundamental reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ~~should be p~~needs to be financed; stresse~~rved, not least given its upcoming reform~~s that it essential for EU and national fisheries funding to be channelled, in a flexible manner, only into activities and measures which are based on ecologically, economically and socially sustainable fisheries; takes the view that the funding of the integrated maritime policy should not be detrimental to that of other fisheries actions and programmes under Heading 2; further considers it crucial to keep on monitoring the size of the European fishing fleet and in particular combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU);

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Considers putting part of the expenditure related to staff in active employment in the ‘Home Affairs’ policy area in reserve until all elements of the TFTP Agreement have been implemented according to its provisions;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. ~~Welcomes the ambitions~~Takes due note of the Commission in’s propos~~ing~~al to increase by EUR 8 million, as compared to the initial financial programming, the 2012 allocations for Youth in Action (EUR 134.6 million foreseen in 2012), ~~stresses that this~~a programme which constitutes one of the main tools of the ‘Youth on the Move’ flagship initiative and provides support for non-formal learning experiences and the development of active citizenship for young people;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. ~~Regret~~Notes that similar efforts are not being proposed for programmes such as ~~MEDIA and~~ Culture 2007, ~~although they~~which contributes greatly to the richness and diversity of European culture and give support to actions which would not be funded by Member States alone;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58

58. Is very concerned from this point of view that the proposed margin of EUR 246.7 million for Heading 4, while far above that foreseen by the January 2011 update of the financial programming (EUR 132.2 million), may be insufficient to address the ~~increasing~~new needs under Heading 4, since it seems to be based on cuts to some major EU programmes; is determined to further check and analyse the impact of these cuts;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 a (new)

60a. Stresses that there is a continuous need for resources to fund the external dimension of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region; reminds that all funds initially foreseen for this purpose in the original DB 2011 were excluded in the second DB;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63

63. ~~Recalls that it will firmly reject any systematic, quasi-automatic and sometimes unconsidered cuts by the other branch of the budgetary authority~~Is not opposed by principle to possible savings in administrative expenditure under Heading 4 ~~for~~at the ~~sole sake of decreasing appropriations, since~~condition that this would not deprive the EU of its means to properly and efficiently implement its programmes;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67

67. Acknowledges the Commission’s great effort to freeze its own administrative expenditure in nominal terms; notes that this was rendered possible through the offsetting of the increases linked to statutory and contractual obligations against other drastic cuts in other administrative expenditure; ~~is nevertheless concerned about the possible consequences of the latter, for instance those related to training (-11%) and publications (-17% and -2.1% for the Publication Office);~~

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69

69. Acknowledges the Commission’s efforts not to request any additional posts, but views with scepticism its commitment to meet all its needs, including those relating to new priorities and to the entry into force of the TFEU, merely by means of internal redeployment of existing human resources; wonders in particular where the 230 additional posts for the monitoring of Member States’ economic and financial situation within DG ECFIN are to be redeployed from and what the impact of 70 fewer posts for administrative support and programmes management will be, following redeployments within specific Directorates-Generalmerely by means of internal redeployment of existing human resources;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Olle LUDVIGSSON, Astrid LULLING, Sven GIEGOLD, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69

69. Acknowledges the Commission’s efforts not to request any additional posts, but views with scepticism its commitment to meet all its needs, including those relating to new priorities and to the entry into force of the TFEU, merely by means of internal redeployment of existing human resources; wonders in particular where the 230 additional posts ~~for th~~needed to ensure the appropriate monitoring of Member States’ economic and financial situation within DG ECFIN are to be redeployed from and what the impact of 70 fewer posts for administrative support and programmes management will be, following redeployments within specific Directorates-General; stresses that the human resources issue is made all the more important by the fact that DG ECFIN may have to be further strengthened to cope with vital additional tasks as soon as the economic governance package has been adopted;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76

76. Stresses that EU agencies’ budget allocations are far from consisting in administrative expenditure alone, but instead contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 goals and EU objectives in general, as decided by the legislative authority; endorses therefore, in times of austerity, the Commission’s restrictive approach to determining EU decentralised agencies’ subsidies from the EU budget, but disapproves of the use of assigned revenue to reduce the EU Budget contribution to fee-dependent agencies, wh~~ich~~en this is used by the Commission to increase margins artificially;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/0459(COD)

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"1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF in order to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new and reinforced tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, such as consumer protection, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; ______________ Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/05/14
Committee: BUDG

2011/0414(CNS)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Recalls its resolution of 8 June 2011 on Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF in order to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; _____________ Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/06/07
Committee: BUDG

2011/0413(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 Europe1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; _________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/05/23
Committee: BUDG

2011/0412(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 Europe1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; ___________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/05/23
Committee: BUDG

2011/0406(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 Europe1; reiterates that regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF in order to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; _______________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/06/07
Committee: BUDG

2011/0404(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Carl HAGLUND, Olle SCHMIDT

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 Europe1; 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 its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; 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; __________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/05/29
Committee: BUDG

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) The introduction of a European redemption fund is fundamental to ensuring that budgetary discipline is rewarded with affordable interest rates for Member States' debt and to finding a sustainable long-term solution for the European sovereign debt crisis.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Carl HAGLUND, Olle SCHMIDT

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

(ca) complementing the procedure for correction of a Member State's excessive debt as established by Article 126 TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 by establishing a European redemption fund in order to secure a durable correction of excessive debt.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Carl HAGLUND, Olle SCHMIDT

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

(5) ‘government’ ~~and~~, ‘deficit’ and 'debt' have the meaning's set out in Article 2 of the Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the T~~reaty on European Union~~FEU and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall have in place numerical fiscal rules on the budget balance that implement in the national budgetary processes their medium-term budgetary objective as defined in Article 2a of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97. Such rules shall cover the general government as a whole and be of binding, preferably constitutional, nature. Member States may deviate temporarily from the medium- term objective or the adjustment path towards it in exceptional circumstances, provided that such deviation does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium term.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

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

1a. Member States shall ensure that the annual budgetary position of the general government is balanced or in surplus. Member States shall put in place a correction mechanism to be triggered automatically with the aim of correcting significant observed deviations from the medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it, including their accumulated impact on government debt dynamics.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Carl HAGLUND, Olle SCHMIDT

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

1b. Member States shall ensure rapid convergence of their medium-term objectives on the basis of ambitious and binding time frames proposed by the Commission, which take country-specific fiscal sustainability risks into consideration. The proposed time frames shall be made public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point f a (new)

(fa) detailed information on general government debt developments, as well as other data relevant to an assessment of the country-specific risks to the sustainability of public finances, in particular an overview of implicit liabilities, and of the contingent liabilities with potentially large impacts on public budgets within the meaning of Article 14(3) of Council Directive 2011/85/EU.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Carl HAGLUND, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Member States shall report their public debt issuance plans to the Commission and to the Council with a view to better coordinating and monitoring them ex- ante.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Carl HAGLUND, Olle SCHMIDT

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

5. Where the Commission identifies ~~particularly serious~~significant non-compliance with the budgetary policy obligations laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact, it shall, within two weeks from the submission of the draft budgetary plan, request a revised draft budgetary plan from the Member State concerned. This request shall be made public. Moreover, the Commission shall request a revised draft budgetary plan from Member States in the case of significant non-compliance of a draft budget with the deficit and/or debt path specified in the stability program of the Member State concerned, or when the Commission identifies serious risks to fiscal sustainability.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall~~, if necessary, adopt an opinion on the draft budgetary plan by 30 November.~~ assess the draft budgetary plans, taking into account the medium-term budgetary implications of new measures, and shall assess the implication for fiscal sustainability. It shall also assess the quality of the process of collecting the underlying data. The Commission shall, if necessary, adopt an opinion on the draft budgetary plan by 30 November. An opinion shall always be adopted in the following situations: (a) if the draft budgetary plans would lead to non-compliance with the budgetary policy obligations laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact; (b) if the draft budgetary plans would lead a structural deficit higher than foreseen in the stability programme of a Member State; (c) if the government debt ratio is above 60 % of GDP and not declining at a sufficient pace as defined in the Stability and Growth Pact; or (d) if the Commission identifies serious risks to fiscal sustainability.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

The Member State shall report regularly to the Commission and to the Economic and Financial Committee or any sub-committee it will designate for that purpose, for the general government and its sub-sectors, the in-year budgetary execution, the budgetary impact of discretionary measures taken on both the expenditure and the revenue side, targets for the government expenditure and revenues, as well as information on the measures adopted and the nature of those envisaged to achieve the targets. The Member State shall also report on the implementation of the budgetary and economic partnership programme and the structural reforms necessary to ensure an effective and durable correction of its excessive debt. The report shall be made public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The Eurogroup and the Council shall discuss the adequacy of the measures taken by the Member State and, if necessary, the Council shall propose further measures, including the adjustment of the Member State's sovereign risk-weighting, to ensure compliance with the deadline to correct the excessive deficit or an adjustment of the budgetary and economic partnership programme. If the Member State does not implement such further measures, the European Council shall discuss the situation and propose any further action which it considers necessary.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The Eurogroup and the Council shall discuss the adequacy of the measures taken by the Member State and, if necessary, the Council shall propose further measures to ensure compliance with the deadline to correct the excessive deficit or an adjustment of the budgetary and economic partnership programme. If the Member State does not implement such further measures, the European Council shall discuss the situation and propose any further action which it considers necessary.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article -11 (new)

Article -11 European Redemption Fund 1. A European redemption fund (ERF), based on joint liability and strict fiscal discipline is established with the aim of reducing excessive debt over a period of maximum 25 years after which the ERF will be wound up. 2. Member States whose currency is the euro and who are not under an assistance or adjustment programme shall: (a) transfer debt amounts above 60 % of GDP to the ERF over a roll-in period of five years; (b) implement a budget rule with a lower limit of a structural deficit of 0,5 % of GDP in their national constitution; (c) implement a fiscal consolidation strategy and a structural reform agenda; (d) lodge guarantees to cover their liabilities in the form of international currency reserves and tax revenues which accrue directly to the ERF; (e) reduce their structural deficit during the roll-in period to comply with the budget rule in point (b). 3. The Commission shall ensure the setting up and day-to-day management of the ERF. It shall, in particular: (a) set up a Board of Governors composed of one member of government who is responsible for finance from each participating Member State and chaired by the Member of the European Commission in charge of economic and monetary affairs; (b) propose to the Board of Governors the technical terms for the functioning of the ERF based on paragraph 1 and 2; (c) establish a fiscal consolidation strategy including a binding target of medium term government expenditure and a binding structural reform agenda for each participating Member State; (d) set the conditions for the interest and redemption payments for the participating Member States; (e) suspend a Member States' participation if the Member State does not comply with one of the criteria in Article 11(2); (f) provide the ERF with sufficient human resources in the form of a secretariat. 4. The decisions of the Board of Governors shall be taken by qualified majority. The Board of Governors shall make in particular the following decisions: (a) approve the technical terms for the functioning of the ERF proposed by the Commission; (b) approve the participation of Member States; (c) appoint and end the term of a Managing Director from among candidates having the nationality of an ERF Member, relevant international experience and a high level of competence in economic and financial matters. Whilst holding office, the Managing Director shall not be a Governor. The Managing Director shall be the head of the ERF secretariat. 5. Participation in the ERF shall be open to other Member States as from the entry into force of the decision of the Council of the European Union taken in accordance with Article 140(2) TFEU to abrogate their derogation from adopting the euro. Admittance of new Members shall be approved by the Board of Governors. 6. Member States shall implement provisions in national law to ensure winding up and terminating the ERF after a maximum of 25 years.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) The unprecedented global crisis that has hit the world over the last three years has seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration in the government deficit and debt position of the Member States, leading a number of them to seek financial assistance within and outside the framework of the Union.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Regulation sets out provisions for strengthening the economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability and/or that ~~receive or may~~have requested or receive financial assistance from one or several other States, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM), the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) or other International Financial Institutions (IFI), such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Financial assistance covers all forms of financial support including pre- cautionary financial assistance.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Philippe DE BACKER, Olle SCHMIDT

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

1a. In addition to complying with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, Member States shall ensure that the budgetary position of the general government is balanced or in surplus. The budgetary position of the general government shall be deemed to be balanced if the annual structural balance of the general government is at its country-specific medium-term objective as defined in the revised Stability and Growth Pact without showing a structural deficit of the gross domestic product at market prices. Member States may temporarily deviate from their medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it in exceptional circumstances as defined in the Stability and Growth Pact.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Philippe DE BACKER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission ~~may~~shall decide to make a Member State experiencing or threatened with severe difficulties with regard to its financial stability, which are likely to have adverse spill-over effects on other Member States whose currency is the euro, subject to enhanced surveillance. The Member State concerned shall be given the possibility to express its views beforehand. The Commission shall decide every six months whether to prolong the enhanced surveillance.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall decide to make a Member State requesting or receiving a financial assistance on a precautionary basis from one or several other States, the EFSF, the ESM or any other International Financial Institution, such as the IMF, subject to enhanced surveillance. The Commission shall establish a list of the precautionary financial assistance instruments concerned and keep it updated to take into account possible changes in the financial support policy of the EFSF, the EFSM, ESM or of any other relevant International Financial Institution.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3

3. PThe Commission may decide that paragraph 2 shall not apply to a Member State receiving a financial assistance on a precautionary basis in the form of a credit line which is not conditioned to the adoption of new policy measures by the concerned Member State, as long as the credit line is not drawn.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

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

3. On a request from the Co~~mmission~~uncil or on its own initiative, the Commission may decide that, the Member State under enhanced surveillance shall:

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission shall conduct, in liaison with the ECB, regular review missions in the Member State under surveillance to verify the progresses made in the implementation of the measures mentioned in paragraph 1, 2 and 3. It shall communicate every quarter its findings to the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) - or to any subcommittee the latter may designate for that purpose - and to the competent committee of the European Parliament and assess notably whether further measures are needed. These review missions shall replace the onsite monitoring foreseen in Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5

5. Where it is concluded - on the basis of the assessment foreseen in paragraph 4 - that further measures are needed and the financial situation of the Member State concerned has significant adverse effects on the financial stability of the euro area, the Council, acting ~~by qualified majority~~ on a proposal from the Commission, ~~may~~shall recommend to the Member State concerned to seek financial assistance and to prepare a macro- economic adjustment programme. The Council ~~may~~shall decide to make this recommendation public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. When taking a decision in accordance with paragraph 5, the Commission's proposal shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Council, unless the Council decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Member State concerned may request that a meeting of the Council be convened within that period to take a vote on the decision.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

A Member State ~~wish~~intending to ~~obtain~~request financial assistance from one or several other States, the EFSF, the EFSM, the ESM, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or another institution outside of the Union framework shall immediately inform the Council, the Commission and the ECB of its intention. The EFC, or any subcommittee the latter may designate for that purpose, shall hold a discussion on this envisaged request, after having received an assessment from the Commission.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

Where financial assistance is sought from the EFSF, the EFSM or the ESM, the Commission shall prepare – in liaison with the ECB and wherever possible, the IMF - an analysis of the sustainability of the government debt of the Member State concerned, including the Member State's ability to repay the envisaged financial assistance, and forward it to the EFC or to any subcommittee the latter may designate for that purpose.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. A Member State requesting or receiving financial assistance from one or several other States, the IMF, the EFSF, the EFSM or the ESM shall prepare in agreement with the Commission - acting in liaison with the ECB - a draft adjustment programme aimed at re- establishing a sound and sustainable economic and financial situation and restoring its capacity to finance itself fully on the financial markets. The draft adjustment programme shall take due account of the current recommendations addressed to the Member State concerned under Articles 121, 126 and/or 148 of the Treaty- and its actions to comply with them - while aiming at broadening, strengthening and deepening the required policy measures.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. The Council, acting ~~by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall approve the adjustment programme~~on a proposal from the Commission, shall approve the adjustment programme. The Commission's proposal shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Council, unless it decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Member State concerned may request that a meeting of the Council be convened within that period to take a vote on the decision. The Council shall make the decision public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission, in liaison with the ECB, shall monitor the progress made in the implementation of the adjustment programme and inform every three months the EFC or any subcommittee the latter may designate for that purpose and the competent committee of the European Parliament. The Member State concerned shall give the Commission its full cooperation. It shall in particular provide to the Commission all the information that the latter deems necessary for the monitoring of the programme. Article 3(3) shall apply. In the case of insufficient cooperation, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may address a public request to the Member State concerned laying down the action to be taken by that Member State.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission - in liaison with the ECB - shall examine with the Member State concerned the changes that may be needed to its adjustment programme. The Council, acting ~~by a qualified majority~~ on a proposal from the Commission, shall decide on any change to be made to the adjustment programme. The Commission's proposal shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Council, unless it decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Member State concerned may request that a meeting of the Council be convened within that period to take a vote on the decision. The Council shall make the decision public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5

5. If the monitoring referred to in paragraph 3 highlights significant deviations from the macro-economic adjustment programme, the Council, acting ~~by qualified majority~~ on a proposal from the Commission, ~~may~~shall decide that the Member State concerned does not comply with the policy requirements contained in the adjustment programme. The Commission's proposal shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Council, unless it decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Member State concerned may request that a meeting of the Council be convened within that period to take a vote on the decision. The Council shall make the decision public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. A Member State shall be under post- programme surveillance as long as a minimum of 75% of the financial assistance received from one or several other Member State(s), the EFSM, the EFSF or the ESM has not been repaid. The Council, acting on a ~~qualified majority on a~~ proposal from the Commission, may extend the duration of the post programme surveillance. The Commission's proposal shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Council, unless it decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Member State concerned may request that a meeting of the Council be convened within that period to take a vote on the decision. The Council shall make its decision public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. The Council, acting ~~by qualified majority~~ on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a recommend toation that the Member State under post programme surveillance to adopt corrective measures. The Commission's proposal shall be deemed to have been adopted by the Council, unless it decides, by qualified majority, to reject the recommendation within 10 days of its adoption by the Commission. The Member State concerned may request that a meeting of the Council be convened within that period to take a vote on the decision. The Council shall make the recommendation public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the Member State concerned to participate to an exchange of views on the progress made under post-programme surveillance.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. The parliament of the Member State concerned may invite the Commission to participate in an exchange of views on the post-programme monitoring.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1

For the measures referred to in ~~Articles 2(1), 3, 6(2), 6(4) and 11(4),~~this Regulation only members of the Council representing Member States whose currency is the euro shall vote and the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0341(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 Europe1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF in order to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new and reinforced tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, such as consumer protection, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/0340(COD)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. 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"1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next Multiannual Financial Framework in order to enable the Union to fulfil the existing policy priorities and the new and reinforced tasks provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, such as consumer protection, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; ________________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266

2012/05/15
Committee: BUDG

2011/0276(COD)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1b (new)

1b. Recalls its resolution of 8 June 2011 on Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF in order to enable the Union to fulfil its 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, if 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; ______________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/06/01
Committee: BUDG

2011/0275(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 Europe1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF in order to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for in 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 to the principle of Union solidarity; challenges the Council, if 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; _______________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(011)0266.

2012/06/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/0274(COD)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1a (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;

2012/06/01
Committee: BUDG

2011/0273(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"1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF in order to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for in 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, if 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; _______________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(011)0266.

2012/06/04
Committee: BUDG

2011/0270(COD)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 b

1b. Reiterates its position that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next Multiannual Financial Framework to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, notably social inclusion, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; points out that Parliament called in its resolution of 8 June 2011 on "Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe" for a level of resources for the next MFF of at least 5 % extra compared to the 2013 level ; challenges the Council, if 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;

2012/04/26
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)

Carl HAGLUND, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, George LYON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) In compliance with the principle of sound financial management, financial contributions from the EGF should not replace or duplicate support measures which are available for redundant workers within the Union's Structural Funds or other Union policies or programmes. The EGF can only provide limited, one-off support, whereas other Union policies and programmes can provide long-term support.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) ~~Special provisions should be included for~~The information and communication activities on EGF cases and outcomes. In addition, to bring about greater efficiency in communication to the public at large and stronger synergies between the communication activities undertaken at the initiative of the Commission, the resources allocated to communication actions under this Regulation should also contribute to covering the corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union provided that these are related to the general objectives of this Regulation of the support need to be published in a timely fashion in order to better assess the impact of the EGF.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) In order to enable political scrutiny by the European Parliament and continuous monitoring by the Commission of results obtained with EGF assistance, Member States should submit interim and final reports on the implementation of the EGF in a timely fashion.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Since the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of their scale and effects, be better achieved at the Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives, and should therefore be included under the appropriate budget line,

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

This Regulation establishes the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) as part of the package on Structural Funds for the period of the Multiannual Financial Framework from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The financial contribution shall be limited to what is necessary to provide solidarity and temporary, one-off support for individual redundant workers. The activities supported by the EGF shall comply with Union and national law, including state aid rules.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4

4. The applicant Member State shall ensure that the specific actions receiving a financial contribution shall not also receive assistance from other Union financial instruments, thereby avoiding undermining longer-term programmes such as structural funds and notably the European Social Fund (ESF).

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. At the initiative of the Commission, subject to a ceiling of 0,51 % of the annual maximum amount of the EGF, the EGF may be used to finance the preparation, monitoring, data gathering and creation of a knowledge base relevant to the implementation of the EGF. It may ~~also~~not be used to finance administrative and technical support, information and communication activities, as well as audit, control and evaluation activities necessary to implement this Regulation, which shall be undertaken by the appropriate services within the Commission dealing with the administration of structural funds and/or the European Social Fund (ESF).

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1

1. The applicant Member State shall provide information on and publicise the funded actions in a timely fashion. The information shall be addressed to the targeted workers, local and regional authorities, social partners, the media and the general public. It shall highlight the role of the Union and ensure that the contribution from the EGF is visible, thereby showing the EU added value and aiding the data gathering efforts of the Commission in order to enhance budgetary transparency.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall ~~set up an Internet site~~update the dedicated Internet site in a user friendly manner, available in all Union languages, to provide up to date information ~~on the EGF~~and implementation data on the EGF since its inception, guidance on the submission of applications, and information on accepted and rejected applications, highlighting the role of the budgetary authority.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4

4. The resources allocated to communication actions under this Regulation shall also contribute to covering the corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union provided that these are related to the general objectives of this Regulation.deleted

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2

2. The appropriations concerning the EGF shall be entered in the general budget of the European Union ~~as a provision~~.

2012/07/20
Committee: BUDG

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

At the same time as it presents the proposal for a Decision to deploy the EGF, the Commission shall present to the two arms of the budgetary authority a proposal for a transfer to the relevant budgetary lines. These transfers shall be carried out in accordance the budgetary priorities, both annual and long-term. In case of disagreement a trialogue procedure shall be initiated.

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

2011/0261(CNS)

Olle SCHMIDT, Carl HAGLUND, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a directive
-

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal;

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0261(CNS)

Olle SCHMIDT, Carl HAGLUND, Philippe DE BACKER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to analyse and to propose the introduction of an EU wide VAT on financial services or Financial Activity Tax.

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0261(CNS)

Olle SCHMIDT, Carl HAGLUND, Sharon BOWLES

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2

In that report the Commission shall, at least, examine the impact of the FTT on the proper functioning of the internal market, the financial markets and the real economy and it shall take into account the progress on taxation of the financial sector in the international context, as well as alternative ways of taxing the financial sector, e.g. by imposing a VAT on financial services or the instruction of a Financial Activity Tax.

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)

(19a) Establishing Internet-based reporting systems in or between Member States should be encouraged and supported in order to make reporting even easier. The information about reported catches should be publicly available. The specific fishing ground of the catch should not be disclosed, however, in order to avoid incentives for fishermen targeting this specific fishing ground.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20 a (new)

(20a) The Commission should ensure that Member States take the administrative or criminal measures needed to tackle the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Fishing effort for salmon and sea trout beyond four nautical miles measured from the baselines shall be reduced by 50 % by …*, and phased-out by …**. ______________ * OJ please insert the date three years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation. ** OJ please insert the date six years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0206(COD)

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

The Commission shall review the State aid guidelines with a view to facilitating the possibilities for Member States to compensate for damage caused by seals and cormorants.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1

Releases of salmon other than those made in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 may continue until 710 years after the entry into force of this Regulation, and be carefully evaluated. A river-by-river approach shall be used for the gradual phasing out. It shall be administered by Member States' local, regional and/or national agencies and shall also involve local stakeholders and make use of their competence with regards to habitat restoration and other measures. Legally binding national decisions on the use of economical recourses currently used for restocking, shall be redirected to support fishermen potentially impacted by the negative effects of a phasing-out.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0206(COD)

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

2a. A minimum landing size of 60 cm shall apply to salmon and sea trout and come into force on the same day than this regulation.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1

1. The master or other responsible user of service vessel shall complete a catch declaration in accordance with Annex III and submit it to the competent authority of the flag Member State of the service vessel by the last day of every month.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0206(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1

Member States concerned shall verify the accuracy of the information recorded in the catch declarations by landing inspections. Such landing inspections shall cover a minimum of 10% inspection of the total number of landings. The European Fisheries Control Agency shall carry out effective controls and shall encourage Member States to undertake more focused and targeted inspections in areas where IUU-fishing is suspected or reported to take place.

2012/06/12
Committee: PECH

2011/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 59 a (new)

(59a) Sovereign debt in a currency union has differing dynamics to those of independent currencies. Maintenance of the statutory 0% risk weight of all Member States' sovereign debt should therefore be reviewed and, where there is an instance of non-compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact under Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 and Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, be restricted or withdrawn, as a disciplinary measure to address excessive macroeconomic imbalances and observance of the Stability and Growth Pact.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Member States or their competent authorities may fully or partially exempt one or more credit institutions situated in the same Member State and which are permanently affiliated to a central body which supervises them and which is established in the same Member State, from the requirements set out in the second sub-paragraph 2 if national law provides that: (a) the commitments of the central body and affiliated institutions are joint and several liabilities or the commitments of its affiliated institutions are entirely guaranteed by the central body; (b) the solvency and liquidity of the central body and of all the affiliated institutions are monitored as a whole on the basis of consolidated accounts of these institutions; and (c) the management of the central body is empowered to issue instructions to the management of the affiliated institutions.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Competent authorities~~A credit institution referred to in paragraph 1, may be exempt ~~a credit institution that meets the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Regulation [inserted by OP] from Art~~ed from the provisions in Articles 10, 12 and 13 (1) and Title VII Chapter 4 of this Directive and Parts Two to Four and Six to Eight of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... [on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms] provided that, without prejudicle ~~10, 12 and 13(1) of this Directive, under the conditions set out in Article 9 of that Regulation~~to the application of those provisions to the central body, the whole as constituted by the central body together with its affiliated institutions is subject to those provisions on a consolidated basis.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2

2. In case of exemptions exercised ~~by the competent authorities~~ in accordance with this Article ~~9 of Regulation [inserted by OP]~~, Articles 17, 33, 34, 35, 36(1)-(3) and 39-46 of this Directive shall apply to the whole as constituted by the central body together with its affiliated institutions.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall provide that their ~~respective~~ competent authorities may ~~tak~~impose appropriate administrative sanctions and measures where the provisions of Regulation ~~[inserted by OP~~(EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... [on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms] or the national provisions adopted in the implementation of this Directive have not been complied with, and ~~shall ensure that they are applied~~where the violation of these provisions is not subject to national criminal law. The sanctions and measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that where obligations apply to institutions, financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies and mixed-activity holding companies, ~~in case of a breach~~ sanctions can be applied to ~~the members of the management body, and to any other individuals who under national law are responsible for the breach~~at least these undertakings.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0203(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 122 b (new)

Article 122b Measures to address macroeconomic imbalances As a measure to address excessive macroeconomic imbalances and for observance of the Stability and Growth Pact, on an instance of non-compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact under Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 and Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, the Commission, in consultation with the ESRB and EBA, may: - propose a delegated act to vary the 0% risk weight assigned under Art 109 (4) of Regulation (EU) No. .../2012 of ... [on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms]; - issue guidelines for macro-prudential intervention by supervisors at individual Member State level.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69

(69) When reviewing the impact of the leverage ratio on different business models, particular attention should be paid to business models which are considered to entail low risk, such as mortgage lending and specialised lending with regional governments, local authorities or public sector entities. It may be appropriate to have a range of leverage ratios with only large international banks aligned with the strictest criteria.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

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

For the purpose of this Regulation any reference to real estate or residential or commercial immovable property or mortgage on such property shall include shares in Finnish residential housing companies operating in accordance with the Finnish Housing Company Act of 1991 or subsequent equivalent legislation. Member States or their competent authorities may allow shares constituting an equivalent indirect holding of real estate to be treated as a direct holding of real estate provided that such indirect holding is specifically regulated in the national law of the Member State and, when pledged as a collateral, provides equivalent protection to creditors.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

CMember States or their competent authorities may waive the application of the requirements set out in Parts Two to Four and Six to Eight ~~to one or more credit institutions situated in the same Member State and which are permanently affiliated to a central body which supervises~~in accordance with Article 21 of the Directive 2012/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... [on access to them a~~nd which is established in the same Member State, if national law provides all of the following:~~ctivity of credit institutions and prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms].

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

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

~~(a) the commitments of the central body and affiliated institutions are joint and several liabilities or the commitments of its affiliated institutions are entirely guaranteed by the central body;~~deleted

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

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

~~(b) the solvency and liquidity of the central body and of all the affiliated institutions are monitored as a whole on the basis of consolidated accounts of these institutions;~~deleted

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

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

~~(c) the management of the central body is empowered to issue instructions to the management of the affiliated institutions.~~deleted

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. Where Article 9 is applied, the central body referred to in that Article shall comply with the requirements of Parts Two to Four and Seven on the basis of the consolidated situation of the central body. Article 16 shall apply to the central body and the affiliated institutions shall be treated as the subsidiaries of the central body.deleted

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point h – point i

(i) there are no preferential distribution treatment regarding the order of distribution payments, including in relation to other Common Equity Tier 1 instruments, and the terms governing the instruments do not provide preferential rights to payment of distributions;

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1

1. As an alternative to the deduction of holdings of an institution in the Common Equity Tier 1 instruments of insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings and insurance holding companies in which the institution has a significant investment, competent authorities may allow institutions to apply methods 1, 2 or 3 of Annex I to Directive 2002/87/EC. The institution shall apply the method chosen in a consistent manner over time. An institution may apply method 1 (accounting consolidation) only if it has received the prior consent of the competent authority. The competent authority may grant such consent only if it is satisfied that the level of integrated management and internal control regarding the entities that would be included in the scope of consolidation under method 1 is adequate.deleted

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2

2. For the purposes of calculating own funds on a stand-alone or subconsolidated basis, institutions subject to supervision on a consolidated basis in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title II of Part One shall not deduct holdings referred to in points (h) and (i) of Article 33(1) in relevant entities included in the scope of consolidated supervision.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. Competent authorities may, for the purposes of calculating own funds on a stand-alone or sub-consolidated basis, permit institutions not to deduct a holding ~~of an item~~s referred to in points (h) and (i) of Article 33(1) in the following cases:

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Sharon BOWLES, Carl HAGLUND, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) where the holding is in a relevant entity which is included in the same supplementary supervision as the institution in accordance with Directive 2002/87/EC; and all regulated entities included in the supplementary supervision: i) are authorised in a Member State; ii) subject to integrated risk management at group level.

2012/03/07
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 109 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Institutions shall not hold disproportionate amounts of sovereign debt of any specific country, having due regard to all circumstances. The EBA shall monitor and set guidelines on appropriate levels of exposure.

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 120 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) exposures fully and completely secured by shares in Finnish residential housing companies, operating in accordance with the Finnish Housing Company Act of 1991 or subsequent equivalent legislation, in respect of residential property which is or shall be occupied or let by the owner shall be assigned a risk weight of 35 %;deleted

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 121 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) exposures fully and completely secured, by shares in Finnish housing companies, operating in accordance with the Finnish Housing Company Act of 1991 or subsequent equivalent legislation, in respect of offices or other commercial premises may be assigned a risk weight of 50%;deleted

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d – introductory part

(d) loans secured by residential property ~~or shares in Finnish residential housing companies as referred to in Article 120(1)(b)~~ up to the lesser of the principal amount of the liens that are combined with any prior liens and 80 % of the value of the pledged properties or by senior units issued by French Fonds Communs de Créances or by equivalent securitisation entities governed by the laws of a Member State securitising residential property exposures. In the event of such senior units being used as collateral, the special public supervision to protect bond holders as provided for in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) shall ensure that the assets underlying such units shall, at any time while they are included in the cover pool be at least 90 % composed of residential mortgages that are combined with any prior liens up to the lesser of the principal amounts due under the units, the principal amounts of the liens, and 80 % of the value of the pledged properties, that the units qualify for the credit quality step 1 as set out in this Chapter and that such units do not exceed 10 % of the nominal amount of the outstanding issue;

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 124 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e

(e) loans secured by commercial immovable property ~~or shares in Finnish housing companies as referred to in Article 121(1)(b)~~ up to the lesser of the principal amount of the liens that are combined with any prior liens and 60 % of the value of the pledged properties or by senior units issued by French Fonds Communs de Créances or by equivalent securitisation entities governed by the laws of a Member State securitising commercial immovable property exposures. In the event of such senior units being used as collateral, the special public supervision to protect bond holders as provided for in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC shall ensure that the assets underlying such units shall, at any time while they are included in the cover pool be at least 90 % composed of commercial mortgages that are combined with any prior liens up to the lesser of the principal amounts due under the units, the principal amounts of the liens, and 60 % of the value of the pledged properties, that the units qualify for the credit quality step 1 as set out in this Chapter and that such units do not exceed 10 % of the nominal amount of the outstanding issue. Loans secured by commercial immovable property are eligible where the Loan to Value ratio of 60 % is exceeded up to a maximum level of 70 % if the value of the total assets pledged as collateral for the covered bonds exceed the nominal amount outstanding on the covered bond by at least 10 %, and the bondholders' claim meets the legal certainty requirements set out in Chapter 4. The bondholders' claim shall take priority over all other claims on the collateral. Exposures caused by transmission and management of payments of the obligors of, or liquidation proceeds in respect of, loans secured by pledged properties of the senior units or debt securities shall not be comprised in calculating the 90 % limit;

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

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

~~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%~~Based on the data collected under Article 96, and any other relevant indicators, the competent authorities shall periodically, and at least annually, assess whether the exposure weighted average LGD for exposures secured by mortgages on residential property and exposures secured by commercial immovable property located in its territory are appropriate, based on the default experience of exposures secured by immovable property and taking into account forward-looking immovable property markets developments, and may set a minimum exposure weighted average LGD level, where appropriate, on the basis of financial stability considerations. EBA shall coordinate the assessments carried out by the competent authorities. The assessment process followed by the authorities shall be publicly available. The full results and the aggregate data used in the assessment process shall be disclosed at the same time with the minimum exposure weighted average LGD level.

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 160 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

~~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)

Sharon BOWLES, Carl HAGLUND, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation
Article 195 – paragraph 3

3. Institutions may use as eligible residential property collateral shares in Finnish residential housing companies operating in accordance with the Finnish Housing Company Act of 1991 or subsequent equivalent legislation in respect of residential property which is or will be occupied or let by the owner provided that the conditions in paragraph 2 are met.deleted

2012/03/08
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 372 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Transactions with international organisations referenced in Article 113 and with multilateral development banks referenced in Article 112.2 are excluded from the own funds requirements for CVA risk.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 372 – paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Transactions with counterparties referred to in Article 2 paragraph (23) and therein subject to the transitional provisions referred to in Article 71 of the Regulation (EU) No [xxxx/xxxx] of [date] on OTC derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories ("EMIR) are excluded from the own funds requirements for CVA risk, until the transitional provisions referred to in Article 71 of the Regulation (EU) No [xxxx/xxxx] of [date] on OTC derivative transactions cease to apply.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Sari ESSAYAH, Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 372 – paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Transactions with counterparties that do not meet the conditions referred to in Article 5 [Non-financial counterparties] of the Regulation (EU) No [xxxx/xxxx] of [date] on OTC derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories ("EMIR) and therefore not subject to the clearing obligation are excluded from the own funds requirements for CVA risk.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 391 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) the exposure is secured, by mortgages on residential property ~~or by shares in Finnish residential housing companies, operating in accordance with the Finnish Housing Company Act of 1991 or subsequent equivalent legislation~~;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Sari ESSAYAH, Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 391 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) exposures secured by mortgages on offices or other commercial premises, or by shares in Finnish housing companies, operating in accordance with the Finnish Housing Company Act of 1991 or subsequent equivalent legislation, in respect of offices or other commercial premises;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Sari ESSAYAH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 404 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) assets that are eligible collateral in normal times for intraday liquidity needs and overnight liquidity facilities of a central bank in a Member State or if the liquid assets are held to meet liquidity outflows in the currency of a third country, of the central bank of that third country;

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Sari ESSAYAH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 404 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. The following shall not be considered liquid assets unless they meet the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 (aa):

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Sari ESSAYAH

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

(b) they are eligible collateral in normal times for intraday liquidity needs and overnight liquidity facilities of a central bank in a Member State or if the liquid assets are held to meet liquidity outflows in the currency of a third country, of the central bank of that third country;deleted

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Sari ESSAYAH, Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 416 a (new)

Article 416 a Leverage Ratio 1. From 1 January 2018, systemic and large international financial institutions shall at all times maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 3%. 2. Following the review required by article 482, the EBA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to increase or decrease the leverage ratio specified in paragraph 1 or to specify different ratios for different kinds of institutions, taking into account any unintended spill over effects this could have, the findings of the review and developments in relevant international standards. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first sub-paragraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10-14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 463 – paragraph 1

1. This Article shall apply only to instruments that were issued prior to ~~20 Jul~~1 January 20113 and are not those referred to in Article 462(1).

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0202(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 481 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. EBA and ESMA 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~~. EB~~, 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, their volatility compared to other assets and which haircuts can be applied. In particular it shall be assessed if gold, equities and major index linked equity instruments, some corporate bonds, bonds and other securities backed by mortgages and which have strict due diligence and performance criteria, can be considered eligible assets under art. 404 (3). EBA and ESMA 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 482 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)

(g a) whether a band for the or each leverage ratio should be defined with facility to reduce to a lower level in economic downturns.

2012/03/09
Committee: ECON

2011/0195(COD)

Chris DAVIES, Carl HAGLUND, Christofer FJELLNER

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 Europe1; reiterates that, regardless of realisable savings and reallocations, sufficient additional resources are needed in the next MFF to enable the Union to fulfil its existing policy priorities and the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as to respond to unforeseen events; challenges the Council, if 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; ______________ 1 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0266.

2012/05/30
Committee: BUDG

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Until such time as agreement is reached between the Council and the Parliament on the procedure for determining the content and application of multiannual plans no increase in fishing opportunities for the fisheries concerned shall be permitted from the date that the Commission has adopted proposals for a multiannual plan until the date of its adoption.

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 16 – paragraph 3

3. Fishing opportunities shall not exceed the level specified in the scientific advice and shall comply with quantifiable targets, time frames and margins established in multiannual plans in accordance with Article 9(2) and 11(b), (c) and (h).

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Chris DAVIES, Carl HAGLUND, Christofer FJELLNER

Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)

(aa) are compatible with the principles of good governance set out in Article 4;

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 31 – paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Member States shall ensure that all information regarding the requirements, the allocation and the holding of fishing concessions is made publicly available.

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Chris DAVIES, Linda McAVAN, Carl HAGLUND, Christofer FJELLNER

Proposal for a regulation
Part 5 – article 36 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall record and publish the information on ~~characteristics an~~vessel and gear characteristics, ownership and spatial and time-related activity ofor Union fishing vessels flying their flag that is necessary for the management of measures established under this Regulation.

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 6 – article 37 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Member States shall annually submit to the Commission a summary report listing the fisheries for which it is required to collect data and indicating in each case and category whether the requirement has been met. The summary report shall be made publicly available.

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 10 – article 46 – paragraph 2 – point e

(e) the establishment of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions., including the freezing of funds from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF);

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 11 – article 49 – paragraph 1

Union financial assistance mashall only be granted to ~~contribute to the achievement of~~measures, actions and initiatives in compliance with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3.

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 11 – article 50 – paragraph 1

1. Union financial assistance towards Member States shall be transparent and conditional upon compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy by Member States.

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0195(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Part 11 – article 51 – paragraph 1

1. Union financial assistance towards operators, vessel owners and fishermen shall be conditional upon compliance with the rules and objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy by operators.

2012/06/25
Committee: PECH

2011/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)

(16 a) The use of eco-labels for fisheries products, originating from both inside and outside the Union, offers the possibility of providing clearer information about their ecological sustainability and other characteristics. To ensure that consumers are not misled it is important that the Commission should bring forward proposals for the minimum criteria for the display of eco- labels, and for the prohibition of any that do not meet the requirements.

2012/04/13
Committee: PECH

2011/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3

3. All fishery products landed, including those not complying with marketing standards, may be, under the responsibility of the Member States, distributed free of charge to philanthropic or charitable institutions established in the Union or to persons who are recognised by the legislation of the Member State concerned as being entitled to public assistanceused for bait, as well as for fishmeal, fish oil and pet food. The value of these fishery products shall go to a fund used for data collection and monitoring purposes. The value must be kept at a level so that it will not, in any case, create a new market for juveniles and other by-catch.

2012/04/13
Committee: PECH

2011/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) ~~the area where the product was caught or~~specific fish stock and the area from which the product was caught or area where the product was farmed;

2012/04/13
Committee: PECH

2011/0194(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 a (new)

Article 42 a (42a) After consulting stakeholders, the Commission shall by 1st January 2015, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report, accompanied by a proposal, for the establishment of minimum criteria for the display of eco- labels on fisheries products. The report shall examine potential minimum requirements for obtaining approval for the use of eco-labels.

2012/04/13
Committee: PECH

2011/0190(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) Complying with the low fuel sulphur limits, particularly in SECAs, can result in a significant increase in the price of marine fuels, at least in the short term, and can have a negative effect for the competitiveness of short sea shipping in comparison with other transport modes as well as for the competitiveness of the industries in the countries bordering SECAs. Suitable solutions are necessary in order to reduce compliance costs for the affected industries, ~~such as allowing for~~and therefore it is necessary to allow a transitional period in SECAs in order to ensure the equal treatment of Member States in the single market. Furthermore it is necessary to allow alternative, more cost-effective methods of compliance than fuel-based compliance and providing support, where necessary. The Commission will, based inter alia on reports from Member States, closely monitor the impacts of the shipping sector's compliance with the new fuel quality standards, particularly with respect to possible modal backshift from sea to land based transport, and will, if necessary, take appropriate measures to alleviate the situation.

2011/12/16
Committee: ENVI

2011/0190(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14 a (new)

(14a) Considering the global dimension of environmental politics and shipping emissions, this Directive encourages the Union and its Member States to actively advance, in the IMO, the objective of achieving uniform emission standards for all maritime areas of the world.

2011/12/16
Committee: ENVI

2011/0190(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Hannu TAKKULA

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point b

Directive 1999/32/EC
Article 4 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

A transitional period can be allowed in SECAs if there is no guaranteed availability of low-sulphur maritime fuel (sulphur content 0.10%) at a competitive cost and if there are no appropriate, economically feasible and tested emission cleaning methods available. The transitional period may last until 31 December 2019. During the transitional period the sulphur content of fuel can be a maximum of 1.00%. This paragraph may be reviewed, and if needed revised, in the light of any possible future change in Regulation 14(4) of Annex VI to MARPOL.

2011/12/16
Committee: ENVI

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. This Directive shall apply to ~~the following credit agreements:~~ : – credit agreements for the purpose of acquiring or retaining rights in land or residential immovable property and which are secured either by a mortgage or another comparable security commonly used in a Member State on residential immovable property or secured by a right related to residential immovable property. 1a. Member States shall decide to apply either the provisions of this Directive or Directive 2008/48/EC to the following credit agreements: (a) credit agreements for other purposes than acquiring or retaining rights in land or residential immovable property which are secured either by a mortgage or another comparable security commonly used in a Member State on residential immovable property or secured by a right related to residential immovable property. (b) credit agreements in of more than 75.000 EUR for the purpose of renovation of the residential immovable property a person owns or aims to acquire.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) Credit agreements which are secured either by a mortgage or by another comparable security commonly used in a Member State on residential immovable property or secured by a right related to residential immovable property.deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

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

~~(b) Credit agreements the purpose of which is to acquire or retain property rights in land or in an existing or projected residential building.~~deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) Credit agreements the purpose of which is the renovation of the residential immovable property a person owns or aims to acquire, which are not covered by Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008.deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) The staff of creditors and credit intermediaries possess an appropriate level of knowledge and competence in relation to the offering or granting of credit agreements within the meaning of Article 2, or the activity of credit intermediation as defined in Article 3(e). Where the conclusion of a credit agreement includes an ancillary service related to it, in particular insurance or investment services, they shall also possess appropriate knowledge and competence in relation to that ancillary service in order to satisfy the requirements set out in Article 19 of Directive 2004/39/EC and Article 4 of Directive 2002/92/EC.deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) The natural persons within the management of ~~creditors and~~ credit intermediaries who are responsible for ~~or have a role in~~ the intermediation, or advice ~~or approval of the~~with regards to credit agreement, possess appropriate knowledge and competence in relation to credit agreements. The management of credit intermediaries shall ensure that the staff has an appropriate level of knowledge and competence to perform their tasks.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4

~~4. Powers are~~ delegated to the Commission in accordance with Article 26 and subject to the conditions of Articles 27 and 28, to specify the requirements provided in paragraph 1 and 2 of this Article, and in particular, the necessary requirements for appropriate knowledge and competence.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point i

(i) a warning, where applicable, concerning the risk of losing the immovable property in the event of non- observance of the commitments linked to the credit agreement when the credit is secured by a mortgage or another comparable security commonly used in a Member State on residential immovable property or secured by a right related to residential immovable property.deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4

~~4. Powers are~~ delegated to the Commission in accordance with Article 26 and subject to the conditions of Articles 27 and 28, to further specify the list of standard information items to be included in advertising. In particular, the Commission, when adopting such delegated acts shall amend, where necessary, the list of the standard information items laid down in paragraphs 2(a) to (i) of this Article.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point k

~~(k) details on how to obtain information on tax relief on credit agreement interest or other public subsidies.~~deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

~~Member States shall ensure that t~~The creditor and, where applicable, the credit intermediary, ~~without undue delay after the consumer has given the necessary information~~shall on the basis of credit terms and conditions offered by the creditor and the information received from the consumer on his needs, financial situation and preferences ~~in accordance with Article 14~~, provides the consumer with the personalised information needed to compare the credits available on the market, assess their implications and take an informed decision on whether to conclude a credit agreement. This information shall be given in good time before the consumer is bound by any credit agreement or offer. Such information, on paper or on another durable medium, shall be provided by means of the European Standardised Information Sheet (‘ESIS’), as set out in Annex II.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Member States shall ensure that when an offer binding on the creditor is provided to the consumer, it shall be accompanied by an ESIS. In such circumstances, Member States shall ensure that the credit agreement cannot be concluded until the consumer has had sufficient time to compare the offers, assess their implications and take an informed decision on whether to accept an offer, regardless of the means of conclusion of the contract.deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3

~~3. Powers are~~ delegated to the Commission in accordance with Article 26 and subject to the conditions of Articles 27 and 28, to amend the standard information items laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article and the content and format of the ESIS set out in Annex II. In particular, such delegated acts shall, where necessary: (a) amend the list of the standard information items laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article; (b) delete any of the information items laid down Annex II; (c) make additions to the list of information items laid down in Annex II; (d) amend the presentation of the contents of the ESIS as laid down in Annex II; (e) elaborate on the instructions for the completion of the ESIS as laid down in Annex II.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 3

~~3. Powers are~~ delegated to the Commission in accordance with Article 26 and subject to the conditions of Articles 27 and 28, to update the list of information items on credit intermediaries to be provided to the consumer, as laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article. In particular, the Commission, when adopting such delegated acts shall amend, where necessary, the information items laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1 of this Article, powers are conferred on the Commission to determine, where necessary, a standardised format and the presentation of the information items set out in paragraph 1 of this Article.deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1

Member States shall ensure that creditors and, where applicable, credit intermediaries provide adequate explanations to the consumer on the proposed credit agreement(s) and any ancillary service(s), in order to place the consumer in a position enabling him to assess whether the proposed credit agreements are adapted to his needs ~~and~~, to his financial situation. An adequate explanation shall include the provision of personalised information on the characteristics of the credits on offer, without however formulating any recommendation. Creditors and, where applicable, credit intermediaries shall accu, where appropriate by explaining the pre-contractual information to be provided in accordance with art. 9(2), the essential characte~~ly assess the level of knowledge and experience with credit of the consumer by any means necessary so as to enable the creditor or the intermediary to determ~~ristics of the products proposed and the specific effect they may have on the consumer, includineg the ~~level of explanations to be given to the consumer and adjust such explanations accordingly~~consequences of default in payment by the consumer.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2

Such adequate explanations shall include an explanation of the information and terms included in the pre-contractual information to be provided in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 and of the consequences that concluding the credit agreement may have for the consumer, including in the event of default in payment by the consumerMember States may adapt the manner by which and the extent to which such assistance is given, as well as by whom it is given, to the particular circumstances of the situation in which the credit agreement is offered, the person to whom it is offered and the type of credit offered.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) Where the assessment of the consumer's creditworthiness results in a negative prospect for his ability to repay the credit over the lifetime of the credit agreement, the creditor refuses credit.~~deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point e

(e) Without prejudice to the general right of access contained in Article 12 of the Directive 95/46/EC, where the application is rejected on the basis of an automated decision or a decision based on methods such as automated credit scoring, the creditor informs the consumer immediately and without charge and that the creditor explains the logic involved in the automated decision to the consumer.deleted

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 5

~~5. Powers are~~ delegated to the Commission in accordance with Article 26 and subject to the conditions of Articles 27 and 28, to specify and amend the criteria to be considered in the conduct of a creditworthiness assessment as laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article and in ensuring that credit products are not unsuitable for the consumer as laid down in paragraph 4 of this Article.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2

~~2. Powers are~~ delegated to the Commission in accordance with Article 26 and subject to the conditions of Articles 27 and 28, to define uniform credit registration criteria and data processing conditions to be applied to the databases referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. In particular, such delegated acts shall define the registration thresholds to be applied to such databases and shall provide for agreed definitions for key terms used by such databases.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the consumer has a statutory or contractual right to discharge fully or partially his obligations under a credit agreement prior to the expiry of that agreement. In such cases, he shall be entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, such a reduction consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1

1. Credit intermediaries shall be duly authorised ~~to carry out the activities set out in Article 3(e) by~~or registered with a competent authority as defined in Article 4 in their home Member State to carry out the activities set out in Article 3(e). Such authorisation or registration shall be granted on the basis of requirements established in the home Member State of the credit intermediary and shall include the fulfilment of the professional requirements laid down in Article 20s 6 and 20. What is later on provided for regarding authorisation, applies to registration.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1

1. The powers to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article~~s 6(4), 8(4), 9(3), 10(3), 14(5) and 16(2~~ 12(5) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time following the entry into force of this Directive.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0062(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 1

1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article~~s 6(4), 8(4), 9(3), 10(3), 14(5) and 16(2~~ 12(5) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.

2011/10/06
Committee: ECON

2011/0046(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16

(16) This Decision should establish, for the entire duration of the Framework Programme (2012-2013), a financial envelope that constitutes the prime reference, within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (IIA), for the budgetary authority during the annual budgetary procedure; . To accommodate the Framework Programme (2012-2013) in the MFF for the years 2012 and 2013, it will be necessary to amend the MFF by increasing the ceiling of Heading 1a by EUR 650 million in 2012 and by EUR 190 million in 2013. On 20 April 2011, the Commission presented a proposal based on points 21 to 23 of the current IIA which will serve as the basis for negotiations. An agreement on the funding of ITER through additional transfers to Heading 1a of the MFF would allow for swift adoption of the Euratom research programme in 2011. If the margin in Heading 2 is not sufficient, or if no other 2011 MFF margins are available to be transferred to Heading 1a in 2012 and 2013, the Flexibility Instrument, as provided for in point 27 of the IIA, should be mobilised;

2011/09/13
Committee: BUDG

2011/0046(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16 a (new)

(16a) For the 2014-2020 MFF, the financial resources dedicated to the ITER project should be fixed for the whole programming period so that any over- running of the costs beyond the EU share of EUR 6.6 billion for the ITER construction period, currently planned to be finalised in 2020, should be financed outside the MFF ceilings (‘ring fencing’);

2011/09/13
Committee: BUDG

2011/0046(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

The maximum amount for the implementation of the Framework Programme (2012-2013) shall be EUR 2.56100.270.000. This amount shall be distributed as follows (in EUR):

2011/09/13
Committee: BUDG

2011/0046(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a – indent 1

– fusion energy research ~~2.20~~1.748.809.000;

2011/09/13
Committee: BUDG

2011/0046(NLE)

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a – indent 2

– nuclear fission, especially safety, improving the management of nuclear waste and radiation protection 118.245.000;

2011/09/13
Committee: BUDG

2010/2290(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that the way the EU system of own resources has evolved, gradually being replaced by national contributions and consequently becoming an excessive burden on net contributing countries, renders its reform more necessary than ever; calls on the Commission to present by July 1st 2011 substantive proposals for new own resources for the EU, based on Article 311 of the TFEU, to reverse this evolution and return to the original system of funding the EU entirely by its own resources, and for a commitment by the Council to discuss these proposals with Parliament within the negotiating process for the next multiannual financial framework (MFF), in line with declaration No 3 of the Interinstitutional agreement of May 17th 2006;

2010/12/07
Committee: BUDG

2010/2290(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Nevertheless approves, as amended, the draft budget for 2011;

2010/12/07
Committee: BUDG

2010/2290(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Reiterates its call for an agreement on genuine flexibility mechanisms which comply with the existing principles for revisions, as laid down in the IIA of 17 May 2006, to be decided by Parliament and by qualified majority in the Council, allowing proper future financing of the policies, for 2011 and subsequent years, stemming from the new competences conferred on the EU by the Treaty of Lisbon and from the Europe 2020 strategy;

2010/12/07
Committee: BUDG

2010/2290(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. In line with Article 314(4) TFEU, considers some reserves on appropriations to be necessary to help the Commission to improve transparency of information and implementation of appropriations under Section III of the budget; ~~approves, as amended, the draft budget for 2011 as modified by Council's position;~~

2010/12/07
Committee: BUDG

2010/2290(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a

~~2a. In line with Article 314(4) TFEU, approves without amendment the draft budget for 2011 as modified by Council's position;~~deleted

2010/12/07
Committee: BUDG

2010/2279(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; this should also not prevent speeding up and simplification of decisions as well as Member States' and Commission's reporting on the successful mobilisation and European added value of the EGF;

2010/11/30
Committee: BUDG

2010/2243(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/11/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/2243(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that the complementarities between the EGF and other structural funds also illustrate that neither the Commission nor Member States requesting assistance have made sufficient use of other available funds such as the ESF or structural and cohesion funds prior to their application;

2010/11/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/2241(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/11/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/2241(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that the complementarities between the EGF and other structural funds also illustrate that neither the Commission nor Member States requesting assistance have made sufficient use of other available funds such as the ESF or structural and cohesion funds prior to their application;

2010/11/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/2230(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/10/28
Committee: BUDG

2010/2229(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/10/28
Committee: BUDG

2010/2228(BUD)

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4

4.Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/10/28
Committee: BUDG

2010/2227(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/10/28
Committee: BUDG

2010/2226(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/10/28
Committee: BUDG

2010/2225(BUD)

Isabella LÖVIN, Carl HAGLUND, Britta REIMERS

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the redundant workers;

2010/10/28
Committee: BUDG

2010/2210(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Encourages the Commission and Member States to identify and sanction violators of EU rules to safeguard the Union’s credibility on this issue;

2011/06/21
Committee: PECH

2010/2210(INI)

Isabella LÖVIN, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Believes that the European Union should set an example by adopting and promoting a policy of transparency in decision-making in fisheries management in international bodies and in third countries with which the EU has fisheries relations;

2011/06/21
Committee: PECH

2010/2165(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines ~~and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified~~;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2165(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5a (new)

5a. Notes the severe shortcomings of the European Commission when implementing the framework programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2164(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines ~~and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified~~;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2164(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5a (new)

5a. Notes the severe shortcomings of the European Commission when implementing the framework programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2163(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines ~~and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified~~;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2163(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5a (new)

5a. Notes the severe shortcomings of the European Commission when implementing the framework programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2142(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 d (new)

45d. Proposes, in order to increase transparency, the creation of a user- friendly tool on the Internet showing money flows not only in figures, but also through lines of different sizes, reflecting those figures and making the necessary connections from one actor in the chain to another, at the various different levels of action, whilst always taking into account the protection of privacy;

2011/03/10
Committee: CONT

2010/2142(DEC)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 e (new)

45e. Notes that NMDs should contain full information about the use of Union funds, and that after the signing of NMDs at ministerial level they should be made public;

2011/03/10
Committee: CONT

2010/2141(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines ~~and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified~~;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2141(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5a (new)

5a. Notes the severe shortcomings of the European Commission when implementing the framework programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

2010/09/24
Committee: BUDG

2010/2136(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines ~~and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified~~;

2010/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2010/2136(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the severe shortcomings of the European Commission in the implementation of the framework programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

2010/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2010/2134(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines ~~and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified~~;

2010/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2010/2134(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the severe shortcomings of the European Commission in the implementation of the framework programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

2010/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2010/2133(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines ~~and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified~~;

2010/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2010/2133(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the severe shortcomings of the European Commission in the implementation of the framework programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

2010/09/21
Committee: BUDG

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas energy generation from solid biomass and biowaste is projected to be 58% of EU renewables by 2020, leading to an intensification of forestry ~~practices and~~and thus will lead to increased demands ion the ~~ratio of felling to increment to over 100%~~forestry sector to practice Sustainable Forest Management,

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas forests constitute live and evolutionary ecosystems often cutting across state borders ~~which may be classified according to bioclimatic zone and forest type, following the forest nomenclature developed by the EEA~~,

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Green Paper on Forest Protection and Information; considers that EU Strategy on forests should be strengthened with a view to improving the national management and conservation of forests, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Lena EK, Carl HAGLUND, Christofer FJELLNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Is convinced that ~~ecological sustainability is the prerequisite~~Sustainable Forest Management is important for the continuation of the economic and social functions of EU forests;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that, since forest legislation affects millions of small forest owners, forest policies should always balance respect for the owners' property rights with the requirements for delivering public goods;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Gaston FRANCO, Carl HAGLUND, Giommaria UGGIAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the success of EU efforts to achieve global competitiveness for European forest- based industries;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Gaston FRANCO, Carl HAGLUND, Giommaria UGGIAS, Lena EK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission and Member States to intensify efforts to achieve ~~the environment and quality of life goals of the FAP, the implementation of which is currently lagging behind~~all the four objectives of the FAP according to the key recommendations in the Report of the Mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Advocates that ~~active~~ SFM should be ~~made mandatory in the EU in the context of five-year~~promoted by relevant Members States with National Forest Programmes incorporating regional priorities and measurable targets and evaluation criteria;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Gaston FRANCO, Carl HAGLUND, Lena EK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that sustainable management which includes genetic diversity, natural regeneration and diversity in structure and species mixture ~~are common elements in forest adaptation options, cutting~~should be applied across all bioclimatic zones, management systems and forest types in order to guarantee economic viability;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to ~~present a legislative proposal for~~evaluate a framework for the climate adaptation of EU forests;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Lena EK, Carl HAGLUND, Christofer FJELLNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Urges the Commission to ~~report to~~consider an EU-wide study to present to the Parliament and the Council on options for ~~the introduction of~~ payments for ecosystem services taking into account the role of forestation, biodiversity conservation and SFM;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Urges the Commission to present a ~~legislative~~ proposal for coordination on Forest Information, taking into account climate threats and the need for harmonised and comparable data in the context of the UNFCCC, CBD, and environmental accounts; points out that such a system should be compatible with already existing efforts within FAO/COFO, UNECE and Forest Europe, and in that context can only be justified if a clear added European value exist;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Lena EK, Carl HAGLUND, Christofer FJELLNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Stresses the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity and the role of local and national governments on forest policy; notes that due to the diversity of the climate challenges facing different parts of Europe, the divergence in forest ownership and the differences in conditions within the Union, a common EU-policy runs the risk of being too broad to be useful in achieving the climate adaptation needed;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Gaston FRANCO, Carl HAGLUND, Giommaria UGGIAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Maintains that p~~roducer groups and public bodie~~ublic bodies, forest owners, forest owner groups and other rural producers should be made eligible for forestry measures in the second pillar of the CAP;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Gaston FRANCO, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Maintains that assistance to ~~public and~~ private actors protecting forest biodiversity of species, habitats and ecosystem services must increase, and also include voluntary protection methods and eligibility must also be extended to areas connecting NATURA 2000 sites;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

~~20. Calls for the inclusion of a new CAP measure ‘in situ and ex situ-conservation of source-identified forest genetic material’;~~deleted

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls on the Commission to develop ~~legally binding~~a framework of sustainability criteria for ~~woody~~ biomass ~~and ILUC factors for all forms of biomass~~taking into account potential risks of distortion of the market for renewable energy originating from the carbon neutrality assumption;

2011/02/15
Committee: ENVI

2010/2105(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Takes note of the work carried out so far by the Commission~~, but deplores its obvious reluctance to make concrete proposals and its failure to respond to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of March 2010 for a feasibility study on an EU-based FTT;~~ and stresses the need of the comprehensive impact assessment announced by the Commission, calls for the result of the impact assessment and possible concrete proposals by summer 2011, as announced in the Commission communication on Taxation of the Financial Sector;

2010/11/16
Committee: ECON

2010/2105(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Should no international agreement be reached within the next few months, urges the EU to move ahead with legislative proposals on the introduction of an EU FTT; stresses that a low rate between 0.01 and 0.05% would prevent major shifts in activity towards other, lower-taxed jurisdictions;deleted

2010/11/16
Committee: ECON

2010/2105(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Points out that some EU Member States have already introduced similar types of transaction taxes with no apparent negative impact, stresses that other EU Member States, such as for example Sweden, have experienced strong negative impacts, including massive delocalization of financial activities;

2010/11/16
Committee: ECON

2010/2105(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses that within the centralised European market central clearing and settlement services make an EU FTT technically feasible, cheap in administrative terms and simple to implement; recalls, however, that it must be borne in mind that the financial industry is a global and interconnected one, stresses need to be taken competitive inconveniences and risks of relocation of a EU FTT into account, since it would undermine the European economy and the ability to generate revenue;

2010/11/16
Committee: ECON

2010/2105(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Notes the IMF proposal for a Financial Activities Tax (FAT), as endorsed in the recent Commission communication; stresses that an FAT ~~is a solely revenue- oriented tax tool and therefore has no dir~~could deal with the current VAT exemption of the financial sect or iandirect potential to restore market balance or to curb speculation in financial transactions; emphasises, moreover, that even if they are given the broadest possible scope FATs offer lower revenue potential than FTTs; believes, therefore, that an FAT can only be a complement to an FTT raise substantail revenues, calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment to further examine this option, and to present the results by summer 2011, at the latest;

2010/11/16
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1

1. Calls on the Commission to submit forthwith a report on the use made to date of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, setting out in particular a detailed account of ~~how~~to what extent the appropriations ~~were used~~have been used in support of redundancies caused by globalisation as opposed to those resulting from the economic crisis, and what proportion of overall funding they accounted for ~~by comparison with~~in relation to other national and company-specific support measures; calls on the Commission to draw initial conclusions from that report and ~~rapidly submit~~formulate proposals for the ~~improvement~~future of the fund;

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas, however, 10 Member States have yet to make use of the EGF, the amounts mobilised remain well below the ~~amounts~~maximum annual amount of EUR 500 million available and most applications are for regions in which per capita GDP is above the EU average and where the unemployment rate is relatively low; whereas, in view of this, it may be concluded that, although the improvements made to the original regulation were substantial, they remain limited when set against the increase in the number of collective redundancies recorded over recent years,

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 2

2. Calls on the ~~Commission to put forward a proposal forthwith stipulating that firms that are making workers redundant and which recorded profits in past reporting periods must contribu~~firms that are making workers redundant to co-operate in an appropriate manner ~~to meeting~~with the social ~~costs arising out of plant relocations and job cuts and securing the refinancing of the EGF~~partners and the Member State authorities preparing an EGF application;

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas, according to the Commission's interim report on the functioning of the IAA34, the need for the two arms of the budgetary authority to take a specific decision to mobilise the EGF ~~is one of the factors behind the slownes~~should not prevent speeding up decisions ofn the ~~procedure, 1 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010. 2 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010. 3 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010. 4 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010.~~mobilisation of the EGF,

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 3

3. Calls on the Commission to replace the EGF in the medium term with a restructuring fund, financed by means of an EU-wide plant relocation levy and offering support to enterprises in proportion to the level of lasting replacement jobs created by them;deleted

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas reliable and consistent data on the implementation of the EGF since its modification after 2009 is not yet available and taking the strong view that transparency and regular reporting duties need to be established,

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 4

4. Calls on the Commission to introduce criteria by means of which the granting of EGF assistance can be linked as a matter of priority to restructuring measures designed to secure and create employment and ecologically sustainable and socially balanced development in the regions concerned; also calls on the Commission to revise the criteria in order to take into account the size of the working age population in the region concerned, instead of only an absolute number of redundancies.

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas, ~~in addition to having a cyclical dimension resulting from~~keeping in mind the original core task of the EGF of addressing mass redundancies resulting from globalisation, as well as the added task of addressing effects of the economic and financial crisis, the difficulties arising oin the labour market in most Member States are also due to ~~structural~~ factors which European and national recovery plans can only partly address; whereas, therefore, the increase in the number of applications for EGF funding may ~~be said to be a long-term trend~~continue to rise,

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 5

~~5. Calls on the Commission, when allocating EGF assistance, to give the social partners a formal role in the decision-making process;~~deleted

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Takes the view that the EGF's added value as an EU social policy instrument lies in the fact that it provides specific ~~and~~, targeted and temporary financial support for personalised programmes for the reskilling and re- integration into employment of workers affected by collective redundancies in sectors or regions undergoing severe economic and social disruption;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to submit forthwith a report on the use made to date of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, setting out in particular a detailed account of to what extent the appropriations have been used in support of redundancies caused by globalisation as opposed to those resulting from the economic crisis, and what proportion of overall funding they accounted for in relation to other national and company- specific support measures; also calls on the commission to incorporate in that report an analysis on the relationship between the EGF and the ESF, and particularly on any duplications that may exist between these; calls on the Commission to draw initial conclusions from that report and formulate proposals for the future of the fund;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 6

6. Calls on the Commission to ~~broaden~~review the criteria for the mobilisation of the EGF, in keeping with the above-mentioned conditions~~, to cover delocalisation within the European Union~~ and to simplify the application procedure significantly;

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the long-term increase in the number of applications for EGF funding and the difficulties experienced in implementing the EGF mobilisation and deployment procedure call for improvements to be made to the fund's procedural and budgetary arrangements at the earliest opportunity; notes the lack of awareness of the existence of this fund among the employers in Member States (only 17 countries have applied so far) and calls on the Commission to introduce the tools that could improve the visibility of the fund; calls, accordingly, on the Commission to bring the submission of its mid-term evaluation forward to 30 June 2011 and to submit at the same time a proposal for the revision of the EGF Regulation, in order to remedy the fund's most obvious shortcomings before the end of the current multiannual financial framework;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~increase significantly the financial framework for the EGF, in the light of the current economic and financial crisis and the Fund's broader remit, and to create a separate title in the budget for~~evaluate the future needs of the financial framework of the EGF.

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the time required to mobilise the EGF could be halved and that, to this end, applications for mobilisation of the EGF should be drawn up by Member States as soon as a collective redundancy has been announced, and not after it has taken place, so as to reduce the 10-week period Member States have in which to forward their applications once the intervention criteria have been fulfilled; considers that Member States should forward their applications in their own language and one of the European institutions' working languages so that the Commission department responsible for scrutinising applications may do so without delay, and that the Commission should - respecting the principles of budgetary neutrality - assign additional staff to processing applications submitted by Member States and should scrupulously observe the time limit of 15 days between the adoption of a mobilisation decision and the payment of the financial contribution to the Member State;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Charles GOERENS, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Undertakes, for its part, to simplify its decision-making process by stipulating that, in the absence of objections by the Committee on Budgets or the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Commission proposals will be voted on at the first part-session following the month in which they are submitted, where appropriate grouped into batches, as explicitly provided for in the regulation establishing the EGF;Delete

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that these immediate steps to simplify and give added flexibility to the EGF mobilisation procedure could, if warranted in the light of the experience gained by then, be incorporated into the regulation when it is revised; any of these steps should not in any way limit or decrease the power of the Parliament as the one of the arm of the budgetary authority while deciding on the mobilisation of the fund;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that these immediate steps to simplify and give added flexibility to the EGF mobilisation procedure could, if warranted in the light of the experience gained by then, be incorporated into the regulation ~~whe~~upon it is revisedion;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the view that, over and above these improvements to the procedure, the period of validity of the derogation inserted in 2009 with a view to assisting workers who lose their jobs as a result of the economic and financial crisis should be extended until the end of the current multiannual financial framework and that the co-financing rate should be raised from 50% to 65%, given that the underlying causes on which their approval was based are very far from having been removed, and that ESF Convergence Objective regions should be eligible for 75% co- financing under the EGF, in order to diminish the current bias in favour of the ESF; also calls on the Commission to revise the criteria for granting EGF funds in order to take into account the size of the working- age population in the region concerned, instead of only an absolute number of redundancies;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Wishes the EGF to be made a permanent fund in the next multiannual financial framework,~~Upon the revision of the regulation and in the course of the discussions on the next multiannual financial framework, the question of a more permanent solution for the EGF with its own commitment and payment appropriations~~, instead of on which depends~~ could be examined in light onf the ~~non- utilisation or under-utilisation of appropriations from previous financial years~~EGF ending with the current MFF;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2072(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Johannes Cornelis van BAALEN, Carl HAGLUND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

10. Stresses that the conversion of the EGF into a permanent means of support for active job-seeking measures would show a political will to develop a European social pillar that would be complementary to Member States' social policies and capable of revitalising the European approach to professional training; with this in mind,upon the revision of the regulation and in the course of the discussions on the next multiannual financial framework, the question of a more permanent solution for the EGF and whether the EGF should remain separate from the ESF and the European lifelong learning programmes, given that the fund focuses on enhancing the abilities of each of the workers assisted, rather than on providing a response to the concerns of businesses or on the delivery of across-the- board services to training establishments could be examined; bearing in mind that in the spirit of good financial discipline, the doubling of structures should be avoided at all costs and that the EGF ends with the current MFF;

2010/06/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Stresses the need for appropriate pre- deployment training to be provided, which shcould include participation by civilian personnel in military exercises and military personnel in civilian training and/or exercises; strongly recommends that Member States maintain rosters of deployable civilians, in particular those trained for missions carried out alongside military forces; welcomes the practice employed by certain Member States of having a dedicated centralised agency responsible for the recruitment and training of all deployable civilian personnel, such as the German Centre for International Peace Operations (ZIF), Finnish Crisis Management Centre (CMC Finland), Swedish Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA) and the UK Stabilisation Unit;

2010/10/05
Committee: AFET

2010/2071(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Johannes Cornelis van BAALEN, Carl HAGLUND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Emphasises, in line with the 2008 Council recommendations, the enhanced role the European Security and Defence College (ESDC) should play in the field of training for crisis management in the light of the setting-up of the EEAS; urges the Council to improve the training facilities and staffing of the ESDC, including by providing it with a permanent seat, in order to guarantee sustainable training at the strategic, operational and tactical levels for civilian and military personnel of ~~the~~ Member States and EU institutions;

2010/10/05
Committee: AFET

2010/2071(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Johannes Cornelis van BAALEN, Carl HAGLUND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Calls on the Member States to look further into developing interoperability of training and practice, along with dual-use capabilities for CSDP civilian missions and military operations, making better use of existing capabilities and interlinking the civilian and military capability- development processes where appropriate;

2010/10/05
Committee: AFET

2010/2071(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Johannes Cornelis van BAALEN, Carl HAGLUND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)

36a. Emphasises the critical importance of having assessment mechanisms to determine the impact of missions, and further underlines the need to integrate such mechanisms in all field missions;

2010/10/05
Committee: AFET

2010/2040(INI)

Britta REIMERS, Carl HAGLUND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that bnoth only the fisheries sector but also the tourism sector and environmental organisations share the concern that fisheries should be taken into account in policies dealing with maritime affairs as a whole;

2010/06/24
Committee: PECH

2010/2040(INI)

Britta REIMERS, Carl HAGLUND, Anne E. JENSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Draws attention in this context to the efficient cooperation of coastal states in the Baltic Strategy, which aims to promote dynamic growth in that region’s economy, environment and infrastructure;

2010/06/24
Committee: PECH

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Commission communication voices concerns about the ~~adverse impact on growth potential and government defic~~long-term sustainabilitsy of p~~opulation ageing and the long-term trend towards rising welfare spending as a~~ublic finances with regard to high deficit and debt levels, especially in the light of proporulation ~~of GDP~~ageing,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas fiscal policy is not sustainable if it implies an excessive accumulation of government debt over time,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the projections underpinning the communication are based on assumptions that ~~will inevitabl~~may change between now and 2060, ~~which is a long way off,~~

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the debt and deficit increases of the Member States during the crisis and the projected demographic development will make fiscal sustainability an acute challenge,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Member States have not taken enough steps to reduce their administrative expenditure, bring their healthcare spending under control and reform their health and retirement systems,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas all the Member States saw their deficits and debt ratios increase in 2009 as a result of the ~~cyclical slowdown in tax revenue~~financial crisis and the implementation of the special recovery measures recommended by the Commission,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas increasing government debt ~~is rated by the very credit-ratings agencies that underestimated the risks associated with private securities before the financial crisi~~puts a high burden on future generations,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

~~F. whereas it agrees with the Commission that ‘there is no one clear-cut definition of a sustainable fiscal position’, but nevertheless attempts to suggest a criterion for sustainability,~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

~~G. whereas the long-term growth rate is affected by short-term business investment,~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas th~~ose economies that account for the largest propor~~e threat of deflation ofin the E~~U’s GDP are in fact beset by excess saving, and whereas the threat of deflation is consequently still~~uropean Union has been successfully presvent ined by the E~~uropean Union~~CB,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

~~I. whereas tax incentives that advantage economic agents with a strong propensity to save are liable to fuel excess saving leading to financial bubbles,~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

~~J. whereas population trends are shaped by changes in the fertility rate and migration flows,~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

~~K. whereas the health and macroeconomic benefits of reducing the compulsory component of social protection are dubious,~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas there is still considerable demand for a welfare state ~~in some Member States,~~s and whereas ~~the~~many welfare states ha~~s not necessarily sapped those countries’ economic dynamism in the past~~ve proved their functionality and economic dynamism even in times of decreased economic growth,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas the current debt and deficit levels threaten the very existence of the welfare state,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)

Lb. whereas the lack of implementing structural reforms and of consolidating public finances will have an adverse effect on expenditure with regard to health care, pensions and employment,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L c (new)

Lc. whereas many Member States are in breach of the Stability and Growth Pact and whereas proper compliance to it would have mitigated the negative effects of the crisis,

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Title before first paragraph

~~What kind of exit strategy?~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Expresses its deep concern about the long-term sustainability of public finances in the aftermath of the financial and economic crises; reminds that the efforts made within the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact prior to the crises were to a very high degree geared towards meeting the growing demographic challenge; acknowledges that much of this effort has been wiped out by the necessity to dramatically increase government expenditure mainly in order to prevent the world-wide melt- down of the financial system, but also to alleviate the worst of the social consequences of the economic crises;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Regrets that even before the crises started a number of Member States' performance in consolidating their public finances were not impressive despite the fact that the economic conditions were favourable; which was a breach of the preventive arm of the SGP, especially after its re-drafting in 2005, and which seriously diminished the capacity to act in a counter-cyclical way as the crises unfolded, leading to more uncertainty, higher unemployment and increased social problems;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1b. Is aware that the current levels of public expenditure cannot be maintained indefinitely; welcomes the European Councils' decision to refrain from deciding on a follow-up package of help measures until the present one's results have been thoroughly analysed and the need for further action is clearly demonstrated;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

-1c. Acknowledges that the operations destined to prevent a melt-down of the financial sector were successful, although vigilance is still highly necessary; expects the financial burden in relation to the saving of the banking sector to decrease; lauds the central banks' coordinated approach to achieve this goal; is proud of the ECB's leading role in saving the banking sector; puts its full weight behind the reform of the system of prudential supervision and the re-drawing of the framework of the financial architecture;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 d (new)

-1d. Underlines that the SGP must aim for balance or surplus over time, requiring surplus in economic good times and pension schemes transparently financed in the framework of public budgets or by funded private schemes;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 e (new)

-1e. Points out that the long-term sustainability of public finances is essential for stability and growth, and for maintaining appropriate levels of public expenditure; stresses that high debt and deficit levels are a threat to sustainability and will have adverse effects on public health care, pensions and employment;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 f (new)

-1f. Expresses its deep concern with the high deficit and debt levels in the Member States; warns against using the crisis not to consolidate public finances, not to decrease public spending and not to implement structural reforms, all of which are essential for a return to growth and employment;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 g (new)

-1g. Reminds that the consolidation of public finances, the reduction of deficit and debt levels is essential to maintain a modern welfare state and a system of redistribution which caters for society as a whole but especially supports the less privileged parts of it;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 h (new)

-1h. Stresses that, if public debt continues to increase, the costs in the form of interest rate payments cannot be borne anymore by future generations without endangering welfare state models;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 i (new)

-1i. Is deeply concerned that many Member States are in breach with the Stability and Growth Pact; regrets that Member States have not consolidated their public finances in economic beneficial times before the crisis; agrees with the Commission statement that debt sustainability should get a very prominent and explicit role in surveillance procedures; urges the Commission to rigorously ensure compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. DWarns against an abrupt end of support to the real economy in order to avoid a double dip; draws attention to the undesirable effects – in terms of deteriorating employment, human capital and purchasing power – of prematurely withdrawing support measures; reminds that these measures were explicitly meant to be timely, targeted and temporary; welcomes the Commission's work on the exit strategy from the present contingency measures; supports the Commission's approach of exit strategies that are differentiated between countries in time and scope; understands that the withdrawals from the measures will start in 2011 for the first batch of countries; encourages the Member States to do their utmost to implement the exit strategies as soon and as firmly as possible;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that the fiscal exit strategy should start before the monetary exit strategy in order to allow the latter to be correctly implemented, thus ensuring that the ECB, which successfully avoided a slip into deflation, can equally well insure that inflation does not ruin the recovery; understands that the ECB has hinted that in the absence of timely fiscal reining-in, its monetary tightening would regrettably have to be stronger than anticipated;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Points to the fact that the anti-cyclical effects of the SGP can only work if the Member States effectively achieve a budgetary surplus in good times; calls in this respect for a better implementation also of the preventive arm or the SGP; urges to move from the 'spend first, reimburse later' attitude to a 'save for a possible future emergency' principle; reminds that the SGP requires the Member States to achieve a budget that is balanced or in surplus over the medium term, meaning that a deficit of three percent is not an aim, but the extreme limit allowed for, even under the revised Pact; warns decision-makers as well as businesses to get used to non- conventional fiscal and monetary measures to expect these to become the norm;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Urges to carry out structural reforms in parallel to the unwinding of the help packages in order to prevent future crises as well as to increase the competitiveness of the European businesses, achieve more growth and boost employment;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Takes the view that the Commission should define indicators of a ‘recovering economy’ in order to determine the point at which exit strategies should be deployed~~, for example where an economy has reached its normal production capacity utilisation rate~~;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Suggests that the Commission apply a~~Acknowledges that fiscal stim~~ple rule enabling each Member State to let its automatic stabilisers work: allow ‘non-conventional’ measures for as long as the production capacity utilisation rate is lower than normal, and~~ulus and unfettered automatic stabilisers have proved to be successful and suggests that the Commission ask the Member States to strive towards a balanced budget by allocating primary budget surpluses to debt repayment once the economy is on the way to ~~full employment~~sustained recovery;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Title before paragraph 5

~~How can the long-term sustainability of public finances be determin~~deleted?

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Agrees with the Commission that ‘successful fiscal expansion to counter recession and longer-term fiscal sustainability are not incompatible’; stresses, however, that fiscal expansion has to be temporary and targeted;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Takes the view that~~, where there is an imbalance between savings and investment, budgetary policy must, by means of borrowing, be able to~~ budgetary policy must, predominantly by means of reallocation, convert available savings into growth-boosting investment expenditure (such as investment in ~~developing a zero-carbon~~research and development, modernising the industrial base, developing a smarter and greener economy in the European Union);

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Emphasises that public-sector and welfare spending is more than just unproductive expenditure, since it also has a beneficial impact on the accumulation of physical and human capital and on effective demand; stresses that due to more scarce resources the quality of public sector spending has to be improved;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

~~8. Emphasises that the resulting increase in the potential growth rate would in turn be likely to relax constraints on financing such expenditure, thanks to the ensuing tax revenue;~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the long-term ~~balance of compulsory pens~~sustainability of social protection schystemes depends not only on population trends, but also on the ~~productivity of assets (which affects the potential growth rate)~~consolidation of public finances and the ~~propor~~reduction of ~~GDP allocated to the financing of such scheme~~debt and deficit levels;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recalls that the debt burden increases when real interest rates are higher than the GDP growth rate, and that deficits are sustainable as long as they do not entail a transfer of burdens so large that they cannot be borne by the relevant economic agents;deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Title before paragraph 14

~~How can public debt be assess~~deleted?

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Asks the Commission to carry out studies that will a~~fford a basis for assessing the quality of the~~ssess Member States’ debts – which determines interest rates on government borrowing – in order to improve the information available to credit-rating agencies;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Suggests, in particular, that the Commission assess the effects of the fiscal spending deployed by the Member States in order to kick-start their economies, in terms of its impact on production ~~and~~, on government accounts and the long-term sustainability of public finances;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Suggests that the term ‘excessive deficit’ be used where spending or poorly calibrated tax incentives increase the debt by depriving the government of significant resources without producing the effect on growth and tax revenue forecast in the budget legislation;deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Recalls that the Stability and Growth Pact was revised in 2005 ~~in order to allow the de facto adoption of the principles underpinning a counter-cyclical macroeconomic policy, which have come into their own in the fa~~and that a counter-cyclical macroeconomic policy can only work if Member States strive for a balanced o~~f the crisi~~r surplus budget in economic upswings;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

~~18. Asks the Commission to ensure that any recommendations on deficit reduction are compatible with this principle of counter-cyclical management of public finances;~~deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for the structural deficit to be ~~used as an~~one of the indicators used for determining the long-term sustainability of public finances;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for an indicator of the level of structural debt – such as the ‘government debt-to-assets’ ratio or the ‘net debt-to- GDP’ ratio – to be used in order to determine the Member States’ solvency;deleted

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Considers a renewed growth and jobs strategy as key contributor to sustainable public finances in the European Union; believes that the European Union needs to modernise its economy and particularly its industrial base; calls for a re-allocation in the EU and the Member States' budgets towards greater investment into research and innovation; points out that the new EU 2020 strategy needs binding instruments to succeed;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Reminds that the interest rates' spreads on the capital markets are the main indicators of the Member States' solvency;

2010/03/09
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas inappropriate remuneration structures of some financial institutions that incentivise excessive and imprudent risk- taking have ~~been one of the main causes of~~played a role in the accumulation of risks that led to the current financial, economic and social crisis, and are therefore a major issue of concern for policy-makers and regulators,

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas numerous initiatives have been launched at the global, European and national levels to address the issue of problematic remuneration practices, and whereas a globally coordinated approach is ~~important~~essential in order not only to guarantee a level playing field, but also to ensure the global competitiveness of Europe and promote sustainable and fair competition between market places,

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the FSB Principles for Sound Compensation Practices which were endorsed by the G20 leaders set out five elements for sound remuneration practices, underlines the importance of promoting simultaneous implementation of these principles,

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the principles agreed upon and the measures taken on various levels with regards to remuneration policies must be evaluated and reviewed on a continuous basis in light of their impact and of global developments in the field of remuneration,

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas several scientific studies and practice have demonstrated the limited impact of non-binding recommendations on remuneration policies, which underlines the need to put in place a stronger instrument in order to ensure respect for the principles,deleted

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

~~E. whereas it is necessary to set up an insurance fund fed by a financial fee paid by financial institutions in order to avoid a new financial crisis,~~deleted

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Fully supports~~Takes into consideration the proposals of the rapeport~~eur~~ on the capital requirements directives putting forward binding principles on remuneration policies in the financial sector;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that ~~every~~ financial institution and listed companyies that are significant in terms of their size, internal organisation and the nature, scope and complexity of their activities should have a remuneration committee which should determine the remuneration policy, which must be independent and accountable to shareholders and supervisors and should work closely with the firm's risk committee in the evaluation of the incentives created by the compensation system ~~as well as with the trade unions' representatives~~;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Is of the opinion that, where appropriate, shareholders should be given the opportunity to contribute towards the determination of sustainable remuneration policies and shcould therefore be given the opportunity to express their views on the remuneration policies through a non- binding vote on the remuneration report at the general meeting of the firm;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that non-executive board members' compensation should ~~only comprise fixed pay and should not include performance or share-based pay~~not include share options as part of their remuneration in order to avoid conflicts of interest;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that members engaged in risk control should be independent from the business units they control, ~~have appropriate authority~~ and be compensated independently of the performance of these business units;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that remuneration should be ~~risk-sensitive and that risk adjustments should take into account all types of current and potential risks~~adjusted for all types of risks, symmetric with risk outcomes, and sensitive to the time horizon of current and potential risks that have an impact on the overall performance and stability of the firm;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

~~9. Stresses that the operational risk management should therefore be pre- approved by the supervisor;~~deleted

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that amounts of variable remuneration should be ~~determined according to the achievement of long-term objectives which should be clearly defined in advance~~based on predetermined and measurable performance criteria, which should promote the long-term sustainability of the company;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that ~~compensation systems~~performance related remuneration should link the size of the bonus pool to the overall performance of the firm, while an employee's in~~centives should be linked to his/her contribution to such performance, while quantitative and qualitative criteria, as well as human judgment, should play a role in determining this link~~dividual performance related remuneration should be based on a combination of the assessment of the performance of the individual, of the business unit concerned and of the overall results of the institution;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Is of the opinion that not only quantitative measures, but also quality- linked performance criteria and human judgement should be taken into consideration in order to determine the level of the variable compensation; ~~proposes therefore that the 'social added value of companies' performance' should be taken into consideration as one essential criterion, as well as 'sustainability' criteria when applicable;~~

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

~~15. Is of the opinion, for ethical reasons, that the difference between the highest and the lowest remuneration in a company should be reasonable;~~deleted

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that a procedure should be set up and applied by the internal supervisory body of the company or institution in order to solve any conflict which may occur between the risk management and the operational unit;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses that there must be an appropriate balance between variable and fixed ~~remuneration and that in particular an individual's bonus must not make up more than 50% of their total annual~~ remuneration;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Underlines that the deferred proportion of the variable pay and the length of the deferral period should be established in accordance with the business cycle, the nature of the business, its risks and the activities of the member of staff in question;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Believes that a substantial proportion~~, i.e. more than 50%,~~ of variable compensation should be awarded in shares or share-linked instruments, as long as these instruments create incentives aligned with long-term value creation and the time horizons of risk;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Believes that firms should disclose clear, comprehensive and timely information about their compensation practices ~~to facilitate the constructive engagement of all stakeholders,~~ and that supervisory authorities should have access to all information they need to evaluate compliance with applicable principles;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls on the Commission to ~~adopt strong bindi~~promote strong principles on remuneration policies in the financial sector ~~as suggested in the draft re~~, stresses that these principles need to be proport ion ~~the CRD and a naming and shaming procedure for listed companies which do not respect these principl~~al and take into account the different types of companies and entities;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls on the Commission to ~~ensure~~clarify in its legislati~~on the decisiv~~ve proposals the role of the supervisory authorityies in remuneration policy ~~and risk management~~;

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment on the feasibility of instituting a European bonus tax;~~deleted

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

~~27. Requests the Commission to set up an insurance system fed by contributions from the financial institutions in order to avoid a new financial crisis;~~deleted

2010/05/11
Committee: ECON

2010/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes that for trading commodities and agricultural products, but also greenhouse gas emission allowances, it must be ensured that that market operates ~~transparently in order to stem speculation~~appropriately transparently while taking into consideration the market integrity as the main objective;

2010/04/13
Committee: ECON

2010/2005(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Emphasises that the buildings policy is intimately linked to the 2011 procedure and also to the general question of a sustainable budget; stresses that ~~property needs result from~~there are already existing property needs which may be exacerbated by other decisions, notably those on staffing;

2010/04/20
Committee: BUDG

2010/2005(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Welcomes the budgetary annex on environmental management which gives a good technical overview of the budget items involved; would also welcome, in this context, in the same annex to present ~~the~~a comprehensive study on the carbon footprint of Parliament's buildings in Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg and the impact of travel between those places of work, to present the current results of reducing Parliament's carbon footprint and to illustrate the beneficial impact on the environment as a result of these investments, and indeed any savings achieved in the longer term;

2010/04/20
Committee: BUDG

2010/2005(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Believes that public procurement directives need to be better adapted to facilitate, where possible and appropriate, the inclusion of environmental and social clauses;

2010/04/20
Committee: BUDG

2010/2005(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. ~~Note~~Supports the proposal for an increase of EUR 5,1 million (from 27 million to 32 million) in order to finance 120 annual visitors that members can invite instead of the current 100; ~~takes the view that it may be appropriate to have some time to evaluate the func~~additionally, considers that in conjunction with the proposed increase in visitors, the services responsible for the organisation~~ing~~ of the ~~new~~ visitors' centre before considering such an increase; additionally, considers that the proposed increase is not ideally timed given the budgetary circumstances and thus decides not to approve this increase fos should also take into account that Members may wish to split the visitor groups into different sizes over the year ~~2011~~;

2010/04/20
Committee: BUDG

2010/2004(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced, in the context of the global economic slowdown, that the EU should concentrate its efforts on actively supporting innovative technologies that are making an essential contribution to overcoming the economic crisis and establishing the EU as a leading competitive economy; notes that the smooth implementation of the R&D programmes should be guaranteed in order to achieve this goal;

2010/02/26
Committee: BUDG

2010/2004(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Reaffirms its firm commitment to assist the Haitian people to the largest possible extent in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that has struck their country; asks the Commission to present, on the basis of an extensive needs assessment, the most ambitious assistance plan possible for Haiti; recalls that such a plan should not jeopardise existing cooperation with other developing and less advanced countries, and should consist mainly of new funding sources; recalls its position on establishing a permanent EU Civil Protection Force respecting the voluntary nature of Member States' participation and based on the principle of burden sharing;

2010/02/26
Committee: BUDG

2010/2004(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Recalls that the issue of the financing of ‘banana accompanying measures’, following the Geneva Agreement on trade on bananas, was not dealt with during the conciliation for the 2010 budget; expresses its strong opposition to the proposal to use heading 4 margins for such financing (EUR 25 million per year), which was not foreseen in the MFF and believes that this item deserves an appropriate multiannual financing solution;

2010/02/26
Committee: BUDG

2010/2004(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Stresses the need to be transparent and forward-looking on a number of issues with major financial implications, such as staffing needs, pensions, ~~building policy,~~ a cost and energy efficient building policy also with regard to location, outsourcing policy and administrative versus operational functions and trends;

2010/02/26
Committee: BUDG

2010/2003(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates its conviction that interinstitutional cooperation is essential to exchange best practices and explore further the scope for improving effectiveness and efficiency and, where possible and appropriate, finding savings and sharing resources better; believes that useful gains could also be made by extending this concept to other areas which have not so far been considered in this context, such as EMAS, non-discrimination policies, and teleworking; suggests that possibilities ~~to use~~for using open software with sufficient safety guarantees ~~and teleworking~~be explored, subject to clearly defined feasibility criteria and taking into account both direct and indirect costs; points out that efforts should continue in areas already under consideration such as for example translation capacity and recruitment (EPSO);

2010/02/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2003(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers that follow-up and analysis are important on a number of fronts with clear budgetary links such as, inter alia, the restructuring of Directorates-General, the pursuit of a more effective and professional staff policy, a cost- and energy-efficient buildings policy, including with regard to location, non-discrimination action, EMAS, public procurement and action taken following budget discharge recommendations; emphasises the need for continuous follow-up and analysis of Parliament's budget implementation in general;

2010/02/25
Committee: BUDG

2010/2002(BUD)

Ulrike RODUST, Carl HAGLUND, Isabella LÖVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Considers moreover that adequate resources for cohesion policy are crucial in order to accelerate the recovery of the European economy and to contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy for the regions; emphasises the synergetic effects of EU macro-regional cooperation in achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy and the need to allocate sufficient resources to the implementation of existing macro- regional strategies; calls, therefore, on the Commission and Council to present and adopt an amending budget without delay, should payment appropriations not be sufficient to cover needs;

2010/05/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/2002(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a new

35a. Point out that the funds proposed for the development of an integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) are not sufficient to cover the most important aspects of the launch of this new policy; stresses that a new European Union maritime policy could develop to the detriment of the existing priority areas of the CFP in so far as their budgetary funding is concerned; stresses, that in future the IMP should also be financed by means provided from budgetary lines foreseen for transport policies;

2010/05/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/2002(BUD)

Ulrike RODUST, Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO, Carl HAGLUND, Isabella LÖVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 b new

35b. Expresses its concern that the political importance of the Common Fisheries Policy(CFP) is not adequately reflected in the draft budget for 2011; points out that the funds proposed for the development of an Integrated Maritime policy are not sufficient to cover the most important aspects of the launch of this new policy; stresses that a new European Union maritime policy could develop to the detriment of the existing priority areas of the CFP in so far as their budgetary funding is concerned; stresses, that in future such a policy will require adequate financing under more than one budget line;

2010/05/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/2002(BUD)

Ulrike RODUST, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 c new

35c. Expresses its concern that the political importance of the Common Fisheries policy (CFP) is not adequately reflected in the draft budget 2011, as the European Commission proposes a decrease in commitment appropriations by 0,6% compared to the 2010 budget;

2010/05/12
Committee: BUDG

2010/0821(NLE)

Sylvie GOULARD, Carl HAGLUND

Draft decision
Recital 4 f (new)

(4f) In order to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole, the Commission should make recommendations or proposals under Articles 136, 121 and 126 TFEU to those Member States whose currency is the euro. Those recommendations or proposals should be deemed to have been adopted unless the Council objects to them by a qualified majority.

2011/02/04
Committee: ECON

2010/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. If, on the basis of its in-depth review referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation, the Commission considers that a Member State is experiencing imbalances, it shall inform European Parliament and the Council accordingly. The Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, ~~may~~shall address the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned~~, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 121(2) of the Treaty~~. The recommendation by the Commission shall be deemed adopted by the Council unless it decides, by qualified majority to reject the recommendation within ten days of the Commission adopting it.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. The ~~Council, on a recommendation from the~~ Commission, may ~~adopt~~make a recommendation~~s in accordance with Article 121(4) of the Treaty~~ to the Council declaring the existence of an excessive imbalance and recommending the Member State concerned to take corrective action. The recommendation by the Commission shall be deemed adopted by the Council unless it decides, by qualified majority to reject the recommendation within ten days the Commission adopting it. Those recommendations shall set out the nature of the imbalances and specify the corrective action to be taken in detail and the deadline within which the Member State concerned must take such corrective action. The Council may~~, as provided for in Article 121(4) of the Treaty,~~ make ~~its~~the recommendations public.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. Any Member State for which an excessive imbalance procedure is opened shall submit a corrective action plan to the Council and the Commission within a deadline to be defined in the recommendations in accordance with Article 7, but at most within two months after the adoption of the recommendation. The corrective action plan shall set out the specific and concrete policy actions the Member State concerned has implemented or intends to implement and shall include a timetable for implementation thereof.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The proposals by the Commission shall be deemed adopted by the Council unless it decided, by a qualified majority, to reject them within ten days the Commission adopting them.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. Where it concludes that the Member State has not taken the recommended corrective action, the Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, shall adopt revised recommendations in accordance with Article 7, on a recommendation from the Commission, setting another deadline for corrective action by when another assessment in accordance with this Article shall be conducted. The recommendation by the Commission shall be deemed adopted by the Council unless it decides, by qualified majority to reject the recommendation within ten days the Commission adopting it.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Where the Council, upon a recommendation from the Commission pursuant to article 10 (4) or article 8 (1) and (2), concludes that the Member State has not taken the recommended corrective action or not provided a sufficient corrective action plan, it shall impose a fine in accordance with Regulation (EU) No .../2011.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0281(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 d (new)

Article -12d Review 1. By ...* and every three years thereafter the Commission shall publish a report on the application of this Regulation. 2. The report and any accompanying proposals shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council. 3. If the report identifies obstacles to the proper functioning of the provisions in the Treaties governing economic and monetary union it shall make the necessary recommendations to the European Council. 4. The report shall include a proposal for the extension of reversed qualified majority voting in Council to all steps of the procedure referred to in this regulation.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0280(COD)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 9 g (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1466/97
Article 12 a (new)

9g. The following article shall be added: Article 12a Review 1. By ...* and every three years thereafter the Commission shall publish a report on the application of this Regulation. 2. The report and any accompanying proposals shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council. 3. If the report identifies obstacles to the proper functioning of the provisions in the Treaties governing economic and monetary union it shall make the necessary recommendations to the European Council. 4. The report shall include a proposal for the extension of reversed qualified majority voting in Council to all steps of the procedure referred to in this regulation.

2011/02/15
Committee: ECON

2010/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 2

(2) ~~two successive~~a deadlines haves been set in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No […/…], and the Council thereafter concludes in accordance with Article 8(2) of that Regulation that the Member State concerned has again submitted an insufficient corrective action plan, even after the invitation to amend its corrective action plan within the new deadline.

2011/02/15
Committee: ECON

2010/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. The yearly fine to be proposed by the Commission shall be ~~0.1~~minimum 0.1% and maximum 0.5% of the GDP of the Member State concerned in the preceding year, depending on the severity of the non-compliance with Council or Commission recommendations.

2011/02/15
Committee: ECON

2010/0279(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The total yearly amount of fines imposed on a Member State shall not exceed 0,7% of its GDP except in cases of fines imposed for reasons stated in paragraph 4a.

2011/02/15
Committee: ECON

2010/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 a (new)

Article 8a Review 1. By ...* and every three years thereafter the Commission shall publish a report on the application of this Regulation. 2. The report and any accompanying proposals shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council. 3. If the report identifies obstacles to the proper functioning of the provisions in the Treaties governing economic and monetary union it shall make the necessary recommendations to the European Council. 4. The report shall include a proposal for the extension of reversed qualified majority voting in Council to all steps of the procedure referred to in this regulation.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0277(NLE)

Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Member States' debt and deficit levels and their evolution shall be published by Eurostat at least every three months.

2011/02/16
Committee: ECON

2010/0276(CNS)

Wolf KLINZ, Carl HAGLUND, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Gunnar HÖKMARK, Olle SCHMIDT

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EC) No 1467/97
Article 2– paragraph 1a

1a. When it exceeds the reference value, the ratio of the government debt to gross domestic product (GDP) is to be considered sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace in accordance with Article 126 (2) (b) of the Treaty if the differential with respect to the reference value has reduced over the previous t~~hree~~wo years at a rate of the order of one-twent~~iet~~h per year. For a period of 32 years from [date of entering into force of this Regulation - to be inserted], account shall be taken of the backward-looking nature of this indicator in its application.

2011/02/15
Committee: ECON

2010/0276(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point c

Regulation (EC) No 1467/97
Article 2 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission, when preparing a report under Article 126(3) of the Treaty shall take into account all relevant factors as indicated in that Article. The report shall appropriately reflect developments in the medium-term economic position (in particular potential growth, prevailing cyclical conditions, inflation, excessive macroeconomic imbalances) and developments in the medium-term budgetary position (in particular, fiscal consolidation efforts in “good times”, public investment, the implementation of policies in the context of the common growth strategy for the Union and the overall quality of public finances, in particular, compliance with Council Directive […] on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States). The report shall also analyse developments in the medium-term debt position as relevant (in particular, it appropriately reflects risk factors including the maturity structure and currency denomination of the debt, stock-flow operations, accumulated reserves and other government assets; guarantees, notably linked to the financial sector; liabilities both explicit and implicit related to ageing and private debt to the extent that it may represent a contingent implicit liability for the government). Furthermore, the Commission shall give due consideration to any other factors which, in the opinion of the Member State concerned, are relevant in order to comprehensively assess in qualitative terms the excess over the reference value and which the Member State has put forward to the Commission and to the Council. In that context, special consideration shall be given to financial contributions to fostering international solidarity and to achieving Union policy goals, including financial stability. When preparing a report, the Commission may request additional information from the Member State concerned.

2011/02/15
Committee: ECON

2010/0276(CNS)

Britta REIMERS, Isabella LÖVIN, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point c a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1467/97
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. When assessing compliance on the basis of the debt criterion, these relevant factors shall be taken into account in the steps leading to the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit and debt provided for in articles 126 (4), (5) and (6) of the Treaty, only where the government debt ratio is declining.

2011/02/15
Committee: ECON

2010/0257(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) Implementation of the Programme in third countries should contribute to the development objectives of the beneficiary country and be consistent with other cooperation instruments of the EU, including objectives and priorities of the relevant EU policies, and should also complement other EU cooperation instruments such as the existing fisheries partnership agreements and the development programmes, and be consonant with them.

2011/03/16
Committee: PECH

2010/0257(COD)

Isabella LÖVIN, Britta REIMERS, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point b

(b) to contribute to the development and implementation of tools that cut across sea or coast-related sectoral policies;

2011/03/16
Committee: PECH

2010/0257(COD)

Britta REIMERS, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point b

(b) to contribute to the development of tools that cut across sea- or coast-related sectoral policies, particularly for the more vulnerable partners in this area;

2011/03/16
Committee: PECH

2010/0257(COD)

Isabella LÖVIN, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point e a (new)

(ea) to contribute to the application of the ecosystem and precautionary approaches in all marine and maritime sectoral policies.

2011/03/16
Committee: PECH

2010/0257(COD)

Isabella LÖVIN, Britta REIMERS, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point e a (new)

(ea) to support, at all levels, transparency and good governance in all aspects of the Integrated Maritime Policy and the associated sectoral policies.

2011/03/16
Committee: PECH

2010/0257(COD)

Britta REIMERS, Carl HAGLUND

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

(e) facilitate the development of common methods and approaches, so as to ensure that the natural resources and the areas at sea are exploited fairly;

2011/03/16
Committee: PECH

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 b (new)

(12 b) For long term savings institutions, the posting of government and high quality corporate bonds as an alternative to cash shall be permitted to cover initial and variation margins.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 b (new)

(16 b) Where an exemption from clearing is provided this should normally ensure that a similar exemption is provided for in any prudential requirements.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) A contract entered into by a fund, whether managed by a fund manager or not, should be considered within the scope of this Regulation. However, a fund whose investment policy is solely to develop or invest in physical real estate (directly or indirectly through subsidiary entities, co- ownership or joint venture participations) shall not be considered a financial counterparty for the purposes of this Regulation.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

There shall be no clearing obligation in the case of derivative contracts between subsidiary undertakings of the same parent company of between a parent company and a subsidiary undertaking. 'Parent companies' and 'subsidiary companies' for the purposes of this provision shall be companies thus defined under the relevant EU rules. Furthermore, there shall be no clearing obligation in case of derivatives contracts entered into between credit institutions affiliated to the same central body as defined under Article 3 (1) or undertakings of the same financial group as defined in Article 80 (7) or of the same institutional protection scheme as defined in Article 80 (8) of the Banking Directive 2006/48/EC (recast). This derogation shall not affect the reporting obligation under Article 6 or the obligations in relations to risk mitigation techniques under Article 8.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Derivative contracts that are objectively measurable as reducing risks directly related to the financial solvency of a pension scheme or other liability driven investment shall be excluded from the clearing obligation set out in Article 3.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. ESMA may define under certain conditions and circumstances under which financial counterparties and non- financial counterparties referred to in Article 7(2) and certain OTC derivative contracts may be exempted from the clearing obligation.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. For pension scheme investments under IORP or a scheme where the law of the Member State recognises the scheme for retirement planning, resilient bilateral collateralisation of derivatives used for risk mitigation may take account of counterparty creditworthiness. Capital requirements in prudential regulation should be in line with those of centrally cleared contracts.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1

1. A CCP shall ~~only~~ accept highly liquid collateral with minimal credit and market risk to cover its exposure to its clearing members. It shall apply adequate haircuts to asset values that reflect the potential for their value to decline over the interval between their last revaluation and the time by which they can reasonably be assumed to be liquidated. It shall take into account the liquidity risk following the default of a market participant and the concentration risk on certain assets that may result in establishing the acceptable collateral and the relevant haircuts. For non-financial counterparties, CCPs may accept bank guarantees.

2011/03/30
Committee: ECON

2010/0207(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 26

(26) The payout delay of at maximum six weeks from 31 December 2010 , runs counter to the need to maintain depositor confidence and does not meet their needs. The payout delay should therefore be reduced to a period of ~~one~~four weeks.

2011/04/05
Committee: ECON

2010/0207(COD)

Marek Józef GRÓBARCZYK, Werner KUHN, Ulrike RODUST, Carl HAGLUND

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Deposit Guarantee Schemes shall be in a position to repay unavailable deposits within ~~7 day~~four weeks of the date on which the competent authorities make a determination as referred to in Article 2(1)(e)(i) or a judicial authority makes a ruling as referred to in Article 2(1)(e)(ii).

2011/04/05
Committee: ECON

2010/0175(COD)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to prepare a comprehensive management plan for flat fish in the Baltic Sea.

2010/10/06
Committee: PECH

2010/0101(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Ivars GODMANIS, Anne E. JENSEN

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16

(16) EIB activity in Neighbourhood countries should take place in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy, under which the EU aims to develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries with a view to establishing an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the EU and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on co-operation. To achieve these objectives the EU and its partners implement jointly agreed bilateral Action Plans defining a set of priorities including on political and security issues, trade and economic matters, environmental concerns and integration of transport and energy networks. The Union for the Mediterranean, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, the Eastern Partnership, and the Black Sea Synergy are multilateral and regional initiatives complementary to the European Neighbourhood Policy aimed at fostering co-operation between the EU and the respective group of neighbouring partner countries facing common challenges and/or sharing a common geographical environment. The Union for the Mediterranean supports improved socio-economic, solidarity, regional integration, sustainable development and knowledge building, underlining the need to increase financial co-operation to support regional and trans-national projects. The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region supports a sustainable environment and optimal economic and social development in the Baltic Sea region. The Eastern Partnership aims to create the necessary conditions to accelerate political association and further economic integration between the EU and Eastern Partner countries. The Russian Federation and the EU have a wide-ranging Strategic Partnership, distinct from the European Neighbourhood Policy and expressed through the Common Spaces and Roadmaps. Th~~is is~~ese are complemented at multilateral level by the Northern Dimension which provides a framework for co-operation between the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland.

2010/10/29
Committee: BUDG

2010/0094(NLE)

Draft legislative resolution
Citation 5 a (new)

- having regard to the considerable improvements needed in terms of transparency and in ensuring that the European parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of bilateral negotiations in accordance with 218(10) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

2010/09/07
Committee: PECH

2010/0094(NLE)

Carl HAGLUND, Pat the Cope GALLAGHER, Isabella LÖVIN, Britta REIMERS

Draft legislative resolution
Citation 5 b (new)

- having regard to the fact that the partnership component of the previous agreement failed, in that the Joint Committee never convened to define how to use the EU financial contribution earmarked for sectoral support (EUR 120,000 per year) and that contribution was used for unspecified purposes.

2010/09/07
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas this drop is a result of both declining fish stocks in EU waters and the measures (rightly) put in place to limit fishing and ensure sustainable management of fish stocks ~~under the CFP~~both within the EU and wherever EU fisheries are conducted by virtue of Fisheries Partnership Agreements,

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas unselective fishing and high levels of discards in some fisheries that export to the EU market mean that significant amounts of fish that would be suitable for human consumption is wasted,

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recognises that there is an upper limit on the amount of fish that can be caught on a sustainable basis, either for human consumption or for industrial purposes, which means that supplies of fish to the EU market cannot increase ad infinitum;

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Carl HAGLUND, Pat the Cope GALLAGHER, Isabella LÖVIN, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises, however, the overriding need to ensure that the EU retains environmentally sustainable and economically viable fishery and aquaculture sectors – including small-scale operations – that are spread harmoniously along its coastline, help to preserve the cultural identity of the regions concerned, provide jobs at all stages of production, and supply safe, good-quality food, which implies that fishers receive a fair price for their product;

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Cannot, therefore, accept the idea – promoted through the commercial policy currently being pursued – that all tariff protection in the fishery and aquaculture production sector must eventually be abolished, a~~nd that European producers (fishermen, fish farmers and processors) have no other choice than to resign themselves to this situat~~sks the Commission to ensure that any adjustment of customs protections is linked to trading partners´ alignment with the high health, consumer protection, social as well as environmental standards upheld in the European Union;

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Isabella LÖVIN, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

~~(See FAO study "Responsible Fish Trade an~~6a. Notes that an FAO study has demonstrated that even if international trade in fish products can lead to increased Ffood Ssecurity~~" by John Kurien. FAO Technical~~ in developing countries, it has also led to increased fishing in order to supply the export market, which can exacerbate stock depletion, pointing to the need to ensure that fisheries are properly managed and controlled to prevent depletion of stocks; Or. en Paper 456.)

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Isabella LÖVIN, Carl HAGLUND, Pat the Cope GALLAGHER, Kriton ARSENIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Takes the view that, like agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture are strategic sectors with multiple functions, which ~~rely on th~~depend on the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and include extremely vulnerable segments that do not lend themselves to a purely free- trade approach based on the free play of the comparative advantages;

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Isabella LÖVIN, Carl HAGLUND, Pat the Cope GALLAGHER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Emphasises the urgent need to introduce stringent and transparent criteria for certifying and independently verifying the quality and traceability of European fishery and aquaculture products and to promote the introduction, as soon as possible, of specific EU ~~ecolabelling for such products in order to put an end to the uncontrolled proliferation of private certification syste~~legislation to ensure that the private labels currently on the market are regularly inspected, and the results published, so that consumers can rely on the credibility of their claims;

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2238(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Sees a determined policy of supporting and developing sustainable aquaculture, with a reduced environmental impact, in the EU as one of the key aspects of a strategy to reduce dependence on fishery and aquaculture imports, stimulate economic activity in the EU and offer a more plentiful and varied supply in response to the rapidly rising demand;

2010/05/26
Committee: PECH

2009/2236(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has gained the power to shape the Union's agricultural policy, not only as regards multiannual agricultural programmes but also by amending the annual budget for agriculture, thus giving the Parliament the responsibility of ensuring a fair and sustainable common agricultural policy,

2010/04/23
Committee: BUDG

2009/2236(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the new CAP will have to face new and demanding challenges with a view not merely to meeting the food consumption needs of European citizens with adequate quality products, meeting the challenges with regards to world food security, ensuring the functioning of the agricultural markets and supporting the income of the agricultural sector but also preserving the environment in all parts of Europe and responding to climate change,

2010/04/23
Committee: BUDG

2009/2236(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas the current small margins available under Heading 2 make it very difficult for the Union to respond appropriately to market crises and unexpected ~~politic~~global events and may deprive the annual budgetary procedure of its substance,

2010/04/23
Committee: BUDG

2009/2236(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. DWhile ensuring that European Common Agriculture Policy stays common, draws attention to the fact that in order to avoid inevitable disparities between Member States it is necessary to maintain a CAP financed entirely from the European budget; ensuring that agriculture can be practiced in all parts of the EU, particularly with regards to less favoured areas and areas with shorter growing seasons;

2010/04/23
Committee: BUDG

2009/2236(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that over the last four years of the current MFF, it was only possible to agree the annual budgets either by using up the existing margins or through recourse to revision and reprogramming, reducing the ceilings of Heading 2 in order to finance other EU priorities; points out that in 2011-2013 the margins in Heading 2 will be extremely limited;

2010/04/23
Committee: BUDG

2009/2236(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

O. whereas the EU must continue to ensure food security for its citizens in all regions of the Union as well as help feed the world's poor; whereas the number of hungry people now exceeds 1 billion and in the European Union today there are over 40 million poor people who do not have enough to eat,

2010/04/29
Committee: AGRI

2009/2236(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)

Ra. whereas the objectives and the substance of the future of the Common Agricultural Policy must be subject to broad public discussions in order to increase the public knowledge of the CAP, therefore welcomes the initiative of the commission on the public debate on the future of the CAP after 2013;

2010/04/29
Committee: AGRI

2009/2236(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Is of the opinion that a strong European Common Agricultural Policy is needed to ensure that EU farmers remain competitive on the world market against well subsidised trading partners; believes that the EU cannot afford to rely on other parts of the world to provide for European food security in the context of increasing global food demand, climate change, political instability in certain regions of the world and potential outbreaks of diseases or other events potentially detrimental to production capacity;

2010/04/29
Committee: AGRI

2009/2236(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Believes that the new CAP must be simple to administer, transparent and reduce red tape and administrative burdens on farmers by moving towards the use of delivery tools such as outcome agreements and simple contracts;

2010/04/30
Committee: AGRI

2009/2236(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Considers that there should be no return to coupled payments as a guiding principle of the CAP; however, given the move from a historical to an area support model in view of the decisions following the Health check, takes the view that a ~~limi~~n adequated margin for flexibility should be left to Member States to respond to the specific needs of their territory in order to prevent production from stopping completely or the diversity of farming from reducing, in the form of capped coupled payments for vulnerable agr~~assland livestock area~~iculture sectors in these territories, in compliance with WTO requirements;

2010/04/30
Committee: AGRI

2009/2236(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63

63. Recalls that, amongst the current set of market tools, export refunds should continue to be phased out in parallel with similar measures of trading partners according to WTO agreements;

2010/04/30
Committee: AGRI

2009/2203(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Stresses the importance of using effectively the new provisions provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to improve economic coordination and governance in the euro area; looks forward to the adoption of concrete proposals by the Commission and the President of the Eurogroup in this respect;

2009/12/09
Committee: ECON

2009/2203(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Welcomes the first annual report by the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board and agrees inter alia with its conclusion that the legal underpinning of professional independence of national statistical authorities should be pursued in those Member States where this has not yet been done; looks forward to an assessment by the Commission in this respect;

2009/12/09
Committee: ECON

2009/2203(INI)

George LYON, Carl HAGLUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. ~~Considers it necessary to review the rules of the SGP, which were not designed for the purposes of the expected post- crisis levels of accumulated debt in many Member States~~Agrees that the revised SGP provides the correct tools by which to coordinate "exit strategies" and give enough room for manoeuvre during economic downturns; is of the view, however, that once out of the current recession there is a need to strengthen the preventive arm of the pact, by avoiding pro-cyclical policies during periods of growth above the trend, and by putting increased focus on sustainability of public finances as part of the procedure;

2009/12/09
Committee: ECON

2009/2202(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – indent 6

~~- a ban on rearing animals in ways which hamper their natural behaviour;~~deleted

2010/02/15
Committee: AGRI

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes the agreement of 21 October 2009 (between the Commission, the EIB, the EBRD and the Council of Europe Development Bank) on the Western Balkan Investment Framework establishing a single entry point for project submission by the countries and screening by the contributors and financiers concerned; asks the Commission to assess and report annually on the functioning of the framework;

2010/02/02
Committee: ECON

2009/2166(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Takes the view that the EIB as an EU- policy-driven bank should keep a balance in terms of lending between the different regions in the EU neighbourhood. As regards regions where EIB activity may overlap with other regional or international publicly funded financial institutions, a clear division of labour may be necessary;

2010/02/02
Committee: ECON

2009/2166(INI)

Maria do Céu PATRÃO NEVES, Carl HAGLUND, Isabella LÖVIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Reiterates its view that the EIB and EBRD should make a concrete proposal on more consistent cooperation, including a reflection on common standards, to the benefit of their shareholders, stakeholders and beneficiary countries; takes the view that the memorandum of understanding between the Commission, the EIB and the EBRD of 15 December 2006 should be revised in this respect; welcomes the Commission’s intention also to improve the cooperation between the EIB and EBRD as part of the Eastern Partnership Strategy.

2010/02/02
Committee: ECON

2009/2152(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2c (new)

2c. Recalls that the potential impact of climate change may have devastating consequences for some of the more closed European seas, such as the Baltic; notes that some scientific studies forecast an 8- 50% fall in the salinity of the water and a 2- 4°C rise in its surface temperature, which could destroy a large part of the marine fauna and flora if these forecasts prove accurate;

2010/02/04
Committee: PECH

2009/2134(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Sari ESSAYAH, Carl HAGLUND, Satu HASSI, Siiri OVIIR, Mitro REPO

Motion for a resolution
Recital W

W. electoral equality must remain the overriding principle if pan-European lists are introduced; the status of Members in Parliament should therefore remain equal regardless of whether they are elected from pan-European, national or regional lists,deleted

2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Sari ESSAYAH, Carl HAGLUND, Satu HASSI, Siiri OVIIR, Mitro REPO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

~~2. Proposes that 25 MEPs be elected by a single constituency formed of the who~~dele territory of the European Union; pan- European lists would be composed of candidates drawn from at least one third of the States, and may ensure an adequate gender representation; each elector would be enabled to cast one vote for the EU- wide list in addition to their vote for the national or regional list: and seats would be allocated without a minimum threshold in accordance with the D’Hondt method; further, proposes that an electoral authority be established at EU level in order to regulate the conduct and to verify the result of the election taking place from the pan-European list;d

2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Sari ESSAYAH, Carl HAGLUND, Satu HASSI, Siiri OVIIR, Mitro REPO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4.~~(i)~~ Determines that Parliament will initiate a proposal for a decision establishing the redistribution of the 751 seats among States, if justified objectively by figures established by Eurostat before every election; this decision should be adopted before the end of the fourth calendar year of the parliamentary term, (ii) Proposes to enter into a dialogue with the European Council to explore the possibility of reaching agreement on a durable and transparent mathematical formula for the apportionment of seats in Parliament respect; redistribution shall be made following the principle of degressive proportionality, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, will serve as a parameter for assessing whether the decision which the competent institutions take to establish the composition of the European Parliament complies with the applicable rules; observes that the abovementioned framework would make it possible to combine the principle of efficiency, by imposing a ceiling on the ~~criteria laid down in the Treaties and~~number of Members at a level which is still compatible with the role of a legislative assembly, the principles of plurality, b~~etween political parties and solidarity among States~~y allowing the main constituents of the spectrum of political opinion in each Member State – particularly the majority and the opposition – to be represented, and the principle of solidarity;

2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on States and political parties to promote the better representation of women and linguistic and ethnic minority candidates; considers it important for the legitimacy of the Union that Parliament’s composition reflects the diversity of Europe’s peoples;

2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for the non-representation of certain autonomous regions in the European Parliament to be taken into consideration in the redistribution of seats;

2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Sari ESSAYAH, Carl HAGLUND, Frédérique RIES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Encourages Member States to arrange for the representation in the European Parliament of autonomous regions with a legislative responsibility to implement Union legislation;

2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Sari ESSAYAH, Carl HAGLUND, Siiri OVIIR, Mitro REPO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. (i) Calls for the opening of a dialogue with the Council, with the participation of the Commission, on the issues raised in this resolution and on any other matter germane to the electoral procedure of the Parliament1; notes the need to reach consensus in particular on the timing of the reforms, the overall size of the Parliament and seat apportionment within it (including a legal definition of degressive proportionality), and the voting system to be used for the pan-European 1 For example, the minimum age of voters and candidates, verification of credentials, filling of vacancies, campaign spending ceilings and thresholds. constituency, (ii) Instructs its President, in cooperation with the chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the rapporteur and the representatives of the political groups appointed by the Conference of Presidents, to initiate that dialogue with the Council;deleted

2011/11/10
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital Q

Q. the redistribution of parliamentary seats among States needs to take place on a regular basis in order to reflect demographic change in the resident populations of the States and to strictly respect the principle of degressive proportionality; it may be possible to reach agreement on an apolitical, mathematical formula which would respect the criteria laid down in the Treaties and spelt out in 1 Declaration No 5 annexed to the Final Act of the Lisbon Treaty IGC. the Act1,

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital R

R. Parliament lacks an autonomous system for regulating the legal privileges and immunities of its Members; the Council has previously agreed to examine the request of Parliament to revise the 1965 Protocol on Privileges and Immunities once the Members' Statute had entered into force1,deleted

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital W

W. Parliament has previously resolved to study the possibility of electing some MEPs on transnational lists, considering that this would impart a genuine European dimension to the campaign, particularly by entrusting a central role to European political parties1,deleted

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Sari ESSAYAH, Carl HAGLUND, Frédérique RIES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

~~2. Proposes that an additional 25 MEPs will be~~ delected by a single constituency formed of the whole territory of the European Union; transnational lists will be composed of candidates drawn from at least one third of the States, and will be gender-balanced; each elector will be enabled to cast one vote for the EU-wide list in addition to their vote for the national or regional list: voting for the EU constituency will be in accordance with the preferential semi-open list system (whereby votes are allotted either to the party list or to individual candidates within a list); and seats will be allocated in accordance with the Sainte-Laguë method1; further, proposes that an electoral authority will be established at EU level in order to regulate the conduct and to verify the result of the election taking place from the EU-wide list;

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Proposes that a redistribution of the existing 751 seats among States will take place, if justified objectively by figures established by Eurostat, based on the total resident population, before every election; ~~the~~ redistribution wishall be made ~~in accordance with a mathematical formula respecting the criteria laid down in the Treaties, and will be announced~~following the principle of degressive proportionality, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, that will serve as a parameter for assessing whether the decision which the competent institutions take to establish the composition of the European Parliament complies with the rules applicable; observes that the aforementioned framework makes it possible to combine the principle of efficiency, by imposing a ceiling on the number of Members at a le~~ast twelve months before the end of the mandate~~vel which is still compatible with the role of a legislative assembly, the principle of plurality, by allowing the main constituents of the spectrum of political opinion in each Member State – particularly the majority and the opposition – to be represented, and the principle of solidarity;

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls for the non-representation of certain autonomous regions in the European Parliament, to be taken into consideration in the redistribution of seats;

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Urges States and political parties to promote the better representation of women and ethnic minority candidates at both the EU and the national level; recognizes its value for the internal and external legitimacy of the European Union;

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Encourages member states to arrange for representation in the European Parliament for autonomous regions with a legislative responsibility to implement EU legislation;

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

~~8. Submits to the Council for the amendment of the Treaties the amendments contained in Annex II;~~deleted

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

~~9. Submits to the Council for the amendment of the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage the amendments contained in Annex III;~~deleted

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Sari ESSAYAH, Carl HAGLUND, Frédérique RIES

Article 2 a (new)

Article 2a 1. For the purposes of distributing seats between Member States in accordance with the principle of degressive proportionality pursuant to Article 14(2a) of the Treaty on European Union, the ratio between the population and the number of seats of each State must vary in relation to their respective populations in such a way that each Member from a more populous State represents more citizens than each Member from a less populous State and also, conversely, that no less populous State has more seats than a more populous State. 2. The seats will be distributed following the principle of degressive proportionality, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, that will serve as a parameter for assessing whether the decision which the competent institutions take to establish the composition of the European Parliament complies with the rules applicable. The aforementioned framework makes it possible to combine the principle of efficiency, by imposing a ceiling on the number of Members at a level which is still compatible with the role of a legislative assembly, the principle of plurality, by allowing the main constituents of the spectrum of political opinion in each Member State – particularly the majority and the opposition – to be represented, and the principle of solidarity. Special consideration should be taken to ensure the representation of traditional minorities and national communities in the European Parliament.

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2134(INI)

Article 2 a (new)

Article 2a 1. For the purposes of distributing seats between Member States in accordance with the principle of degressive proportionality pursuant to Article 14(2a) of the Treaty on European Union, the ratio between the population and the number of seats of each State must vary in relation to their respective populations in such a way that each Member from a more populous State represents more citizens than each Member from a less populous State and also, conversely, that no less populous State has more seats than a more populous State. 2. The seats will be distributed following the principle of degressive proportionality, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, that will serve as a parameter for assessing whether the decision which the competent institutions take to establish the composition of the European Parliament complies with the rules applicable. The aforementioned framework makes it possible to combine the principle of efficiency, by imposing a ceiling on the number of Members at a level which is still compatible with the role of a legislative assembly, the principle of plurality, by allowing the main constituents of the spectrum of political opinion in each Member State – particularly the majority and the opposition – to be represented, and the principle of solidarity.

2011/03/14
Committee: AFCO

2009/2107(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Calls on the Commission, t~~herefore, to~~o consider developing a specific EU quality label for aquaculture products, along with a specific organic aquaculture label, establishing strict rules in accordance with EU principles of high-quality organic production, so as to assure the consumer of the reliability of the system for the production, control and full traceability of aquaculture products; encourages the Commission to consider using already existing labelling structures for high-quality organic aquaculture production;

2010/04/14
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Carl HAGLUND, Maria do Céu PATRÃO NEVES, George LYON

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the application of the CFP interacts directly with areas as vast as the ~~environment~~protection of the environment, climate change, safety, public health, consumer protection and regional development and whereas it is essential to guarantee proper and careful harmonisation between all these areas,

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Recognizes the need to lay the foundation for a Common Fisheries Policy that does not structurally or otherwise, encourage discards; maintains that solutions to phase out discards should be explored together with the fishing industry;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Carl HAGLUND, Maria do Céu PATRÃO NEVES, George LYON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Urges the Commission to consider the social implications and the serious damage to fisheries done by some fish predators, like oversized seal and cormorant populations;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Urges the Commission to examine all the alternative measures to tackle overfishing and the possibilities to modernise certain parts of the fleet without increasing the fishing capacity;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Carl HAGLUND, Maria do Céu PATRÃO NEVES, George LYON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Urges the Commission to work for a separate, clearly defined, liberal and de- bureaucratized and simplified model for managing small-scale, coastal fisheries, where the European institutions set the overarching targets to be achieved by the member states according to their own strategy;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 b (new)

31b. Recognizes the potential of self- management and regionalization for the creation of a culture of compliance;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Calls for a more comprehensive policy to make Member States take greater responsibility, whereby they would be eligible for structural funding and other forms of Community support if, and only if, they had fulfilled their control and conservation commitments; considers it essential to direct the EU and national fisheries funding flexibly only to activities and measures which are based on ecologically, economically and socially sustainable fisheries;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Considers that the sustainable development of aquaculture requires environment-friendly production methods, to avoid issues such as eutrophication of waters; also stresses the importance of stringent health and animal welfare standards, and a high level of consumer protection;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Maintains that new fisheries agreements with third countries should be ~~encouraged in order to afford the Community fleet easier acc~~given an overall assessment, against criteria, as defined by the European Parliament; the purpose of these criteria should be to balance economic interests ~~to new fishing ground~~with promoting sustainable fisheries abroad and maintaining the credibility of the European union as a global defender of human rights;

2009/12/17
Committee: PECH

2009/2002(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Is concerned by the low rate of payments implementation for Research Framework programmes in 2009 and intends to monitor their implementation, in a constructive spirit, in 2010; in this regard, calls on the Commission for continued good cooperation in the follow- up to those programmes;

2009/11/27
Committee: BUDG

2009/2002(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Stresses the necessity of allocating sufficient funding to the EU Baltic Sea Strategy in order to finance actions that cannot be financed from other budget lines (coordination, information and pilot projects in any of the four pillars of the action plan);

2009/10/02
Committee: BUDG

2009/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

1. TDecisions of the Board of Supervisors shall ~~act on the basis of qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 205 of the Treaty, for acts specified in Articles 7, 8 and all measures and decisions adopted under Chapter VI~~be taken by simple majority of its members, according to the principle where each member has one vote.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

~~All other decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by simple majority of members.~~deleted

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3

3. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 226 of the Treaty, where a national supervisory authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority referred to in paragraph 2 within the period laid down therein, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements laid down in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under that legislation, including the cessation of any practice.deleted

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2

2. Where information is not available or is not made available in a timely fashion by the national supervisory authorities and other public authorities of the Member States, the Authority may address a reasoned request directly to relevant financial institutions and other parties. It shall inform the relevant national supervisory authorities of such requests. At the request of the Authority, the national supervisory authorities and other public authorities of the Member States shall assist the Authority in collecting such information.deleted

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1

1. TDecisions of the Board of Supervisors shall act on the basis of qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 205 of the Treaty, for acts specified in Articles 7, 8 and all measures and decisions adopted under Chapter VI. All other decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by simple majority of membersbe taken by simple majority of its members, according to the principle where each member has one vote.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Serious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the ~~Community~~European Union require a swift and concerted response at ~~Community level. The Authority should therefore be able to require national s~~European Union level. The Council should, in consultation with the ESRB and, where appropriate, the European Supervisory aAuthorities ~~to take specific actions to remedy an emergency situation. As the determination of an emergency situation involves a significant degree of discretion, this power should be conferred on the Commiss~~, have the power to determine the existence of an emergency situation. Where the emergency situation concerns the market in general the Authority should be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific actions to remedy an emergency situation. To ensure an effective response to the emergency situation, in the event of inaction by the competent national supervisory authorities, the Authority should be empowered to adopt, as a last resort~~, decisions directly addressed to financial institutions in areas of Community law directly applicable to them~~ and on the basis of a clear mandate by the Council, decisions directly addressed to financial market aimed at mitigating the effects of the crisis and restoring confidence in the markets.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44

(44) It is essential that ~~business secrets~~commercially sensitive and other confidential information are protected. The confidentiality of information made available to the Authority and exchanged in the network should ~~likewise be safeguarded~~be subject to rigorous and effective confidentiality rules.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. In the case of adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the ~~Community, the Commission, upon its own initiative or following a request by the Authority, the Council, or the ESRB~~European Union, the Council, in consultation with the ESRB and, where appropriate, the European Supervisory Authorities, may adopt a decision addressed to the Authority, determining the existence of an emergency situation for the purposes of this regulation, following a request by the Authority or the ESRB. The decision shall be reviewed by the Council at appropriate intervals and it shall declare the discontinuation of the emergency situation as soon as appropriate.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

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

In case of developments of this kind, the Authority shall act as a facilitator and, where deemed necessary, as a coordinator of any actions by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

2. Where the Co~~mmission~~uncil has adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 1, the Authority may adopt individual decisions requiring competent authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any ~~risk~~such developments that may jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the European Union, by ensuring that financial institutions and competent authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

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

1. At the request of the Authority, competent authorities ~~and other public authorities~~ of the Member States shall provide the Authority with all the necessary information to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals. Primarily, the requests are to build upon existing channels to collect information. Where appropriate, common reporting formats are to be used.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Before requesting information in accordance with this Article, the Authority shall first take account of the existing statistics produced, disseminated and developed by the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

2. Where information is not available or is not made available in a timely fashion by the competent authorities ~~and other public authorities of the Member States~~, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request directly to ~~relevant financial institutions and other parties~~other supervisory authorities, the Ministry of Finance where the latter has at its disposal prudential information, the central bank or statistical office of the Member State concerned. It shall inform the relevant competent authorities of such requests.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities ~~and other public authorities~~ of the Member States shall assist the Authority in collecting such information.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

1. The Board of Supervisors shall act on the basis of qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 205 of the Treaty, for acts specified in Articles 7, 8 and all measures and decisions adopted under Chapter VI.deleted

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 2

~~All other d~~Decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by simple majority of its members according to the principle where each member has one vote.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0070(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

16. For the entire duration of GMES initial operations, a financial envelope of EUR 107m constituting the prime reference, within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management should been established. It is envisaged that this financial envelope will be complemented by an amount of EUR 43209 million from the space theme of the Seventh Framework Programme for research actions accompanying GMES initial operations. The funds from the Seventh Framework Programme should be used solely for the purpose of actions related to the development phase of the GMES programme. These two sources of financing should be managed in a coordinated manner so that real progress can be made in deploying GMES services.

2010/02/04
Committee: BUDG

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Recent difficulties in financial markets have underlined that many AIFM strategies are vulnerable to some or several important risks in relation to investors, other market participants and markets. In order to provide comprehensive and common arrangements for supervision, it is necessary to establish a framework capable of addressing those risks taking into account the diverse range of investment strategies and techniques employed by AIFM. Consequently, this Directive should apply to AIFM managing and marketing all types of funds which are not covered by Directive 2009/…/EC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast), irrespective of the legal or contractual manner in which the AIFM is entrusted with this responsibility as long as they are of potential systemic relevance. AIFM should not be entitled to manage UCITS within the meaning of Directive 2009/…/EC on the basis of authorisation under this Directive.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) Recent difficulties in financial markets have underlined that many AIFM strategies are vulnerable to some or several important risks in relation to investors, other market participants and markets. In order to provide comprehensive and common arrangements for supervision, it is necessary to establish a framework capable of addressing those risks taking into account the diverse range of investment strategies and techniques employed by AIFM. Consequently, this Directive should apply to AIFM managing and marketing all types of funds which are not covered by Directive 2009/…65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast)1, irrespective of the legal or contractual manner in which the AIFM is entrusted with this responsibility. Such funds may include, inter alia, hedge funds, private equity funds, real estate funds, commodity funds and infrastructure funds. AIFM should not be entitled to manage UCITS within the meaning of Directive 2009/…65/EC on the basis of authorisation under this Directive. 1 OJ L […], […], p. […]. OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p. 32.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The scope of this Directive should be confined to the management of collective investment undertakings which raise capital from a number of investors with a view to investing it in accordance with a defined investment policy on the principle of risk-spreading for the benefit of those investors. This Directive should not apply to the management of AIF managed exclusively for their parent undertaking or subsidiaries, of pension funds or managers of non-pooled investments such as endowments, sovereign wealth funds or assets hoeld on own account by credit institutions, insurance or reinsurance undertakings nor to the management of investment products authorised in accordance with national law and sold only nationally on the territory of a respective Member State nor to national, regional and local governments and government investment vehicles or bodies or institutions which manage funds supporting social security and pension systems or employee participation schemes. This Directive should neither apply to actively managed investments in the form of securities, such as certificates, managed futures, or index-linked bonds. It should, however, cover managers of all collective investment undertakings which are not required to be authorised as UCITS in so far as they manage or market AIF of potential systemic relevance. Investment firms authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC on Markets in Financial Instruments should not be required to obtain an authorisation under this Directive in order to provide investment services in respect of AIF. Investment firms can however only provide investment services in respect of AIF, if and to the extent the units or shares thereof can be marketed in accordance with this Directive.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)

(5a) This Directive should not prevent or restrict investors from placing units or shares which they hold in AIF on the capital markets. Such investors, or their intermediaries, may offer or place such shares or units in a Member State in accordance with the national law of that Member State. However, where such offering or placement is at the initiative of the AIFM managing such AIF, such offering or placement shall be treated as marketing.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) In order to avoid imposing excessive or disproportionate requirements, this Directive provides for a~~n exemption for~~ lighter regime for non-systemically relevant AIFM where the cumulative AIF under management fall below a threshold of EUR 10250 million. The activities of the AIFM concerned are unlikely to have significant consequences for financial stability or market efficiency. For AIFM which only manage unleveraged AIF and do not grant investors redemption rights during a period of five years a specific threshold of EUR 500 million applies. This specific threshold is justified by the fact that managers of unleveraged funds, specialised in long term investments, are even less likely to cause systemic risks. Furthermore, the five years lock-up of investors eliminates liquidity risks. AIFM ~~which are exempt from this Directive should continue to be subject to any relevant national legislation~~that fall under the lighter regime should register with their competent authorities and comply with the transparency requirements of this Directive. They should however be allowed to be treated as AIFM subject to the opt-in procedure foreseen by this Directive.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) This Directive aims at providing a harmonised and stringent regulatory and supervisory framework for the activities of AIFM. Authorisation in accordance with this Directive should cover the services of management ~~and administration~~ of AIF throughout the Community. In addition, authorised AIFM established in the Union should be entitled to market AIF established in the Community across the Union to professional investors, subject to a notification procedure. Member States should be able to allow AIFM to market AIF established in third countries or not covered by this Directive to professional investors on their territory subject to national law. Member States may furthermore allow professional investors on their territory to invest under their own responsibility in AIF established in third countries.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16

(16) Activities of AIFM based on the use of high levels of leverage could be detrimental to the stability and efficient functioning of financial markets. ~~It is considered necessary to allow t~~Leverage is a difficult concept to define. The Ccom~~mission to impose limit~~petent authorities onf the ~~level of leverage~~home Member States of thate AIFM cshould use in particular in those cases where AIFM employ high levels of leverage on a systematic basis. The limits to the maximum amount of leverage should take into account aspects related to the source of leverage and the strategies employed by the AIFM. They should also take into account the essentially dynamic nature of the management of leverage by most AIFM using a high level of leverage. In this respect the limits to leverage chowever have the possibility to impose limits on the level of leverage that AIFM could use in times of extreme market stress. The Member States should infor ~~example either consist in a threshold that should not be breached at any point in time or a limit on the average leverage employed during a given period (i.e. monthly or quarterly)~~m the European Securities Markets Authority (ESMA) and the Commission of any such measure.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(19) AIFM should ~~also~~ be able to market AIF domiciled in th~~ird countries~~e Union to professional investors both in the home Member State of the AIFM and in other Member States. That right should be subject to notification procedures and the existence of a tax agreement with the third country concerned which ensures an efficient exchange of information with the tax authorities in the domicile of the Community investors. Given the fact that such AIF and the third country in which they are domiciled have to meet additional requirements, some of which first have to be laid down in implementing measures, the rights granted under the Directive to market AIF domiciled in third countries to professional investors should only become effective three years after the transposition period. In the meantime Member States may allow or continue to allow AIFM to market AIF domiciled in third countries to professional investors on their territory subject to national law. During this period of three years, AIFM can however not market such AIF to professional investors in other Member States on the basis of rights granted under this Directive.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)

(19a) Member States should be able to allow AIFM to market AIF established in third countries or not covered by this Directive to professional investors on their territory subject to national law. Member States should also be able to allow professional investors on their territory to invest under their own responsibility in AIF established in third countries.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21

(21) Subject to the existence of an equivalent regulatory framework in a third country, as well as of effective access for AIFM established in the Community to the market of that third country, Member States should be allowed to authorise AIFM in accordance with the provisions of this Directive, without requiring that it has a registered office in the Community, after a period of three years as from the end of the transposition period. This period takes account of the fact that such AIFM and the third country in which they are domiciled have to meet additional requirements some of which first have to be laid down by implementing measures.deleted

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) Since those ~~measure~~acts are of general scope and are designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive, by supplementing it with new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the ~~regulatory procedure with scrutiny~~procedure provided for in Article 5a290 of ~~Decision 1999/468/EC~~the Treaty. Measures not falling under the above category should be subject to the regulatory procedure provided in Article 5 of ~~that~~ Decision. Those measures are designed to state that the fund valuation standards of a specific third country are equivalent to those applicable in the Community where the valuator is established in a third country. They are designed to state that the legislation on depositaries of a specific third country is equivalent to this Directive. They are designed to state that the legislation on prudential regulation and on-going supervision of AIFM in a specific third country is equivalent to this Directive. They are designed to state whether a specific third country grants Community AIFM effective market access comparable to that granted by the Community to AIFM from that third country. They are designed to 1999/468/EC. Those measures should specify standard models for notification and attestations and to specify the procedure for the exchange of information between competent authorities.

2010/02/12
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

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

(a) whether the AIF is ~~domicil~~established inside or outside of the ~~Community~~Union;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

(ba) AIFM which manage one or more AIF exclusively for their parent undertakings or subsidiaries or other subsidiaries of their parent undertaking;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

(fa) national, regional and local governments and government investment vehicles and bodies or institutions which manage funds supporting social security and pension systems;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)

(ga) AIFM managing Private Equity funds or closed-ended funds;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point ge (new)

(ge) internally-managed companies which do not grant their shareholders any redemption or repurchase rights, invest for the longer term predominantly in transferable securities, use no or only limited leverage, and have their shares traded on an EU regulated market.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g f (new)

(gf) employee participation schemes.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point gt (new)

(gt) AIFM that solely manage investment products authorised in accordance with national law and sold only nationally on the territory of a respective Member State;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g x (new)

(gx) Internally-managed companies which do not grant their shareholders any redemption or repurchase rights, invest for the longer term predominantly in transferable securities, use no or only limited leverage and have their shares traded on an EU regulated market;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. For non-systemically relevant AIFM only Articles 6a, 19 to 21 and 40 to 44 of this Directive apply.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that AIFM ~~not reaching the threshold set out~~excluded in accordance with paragraph 2(ba) or falling under the lighter regime established in paragraph 2~~(a)~~a are entitled to be voluntarily treated as AIFM falling under the scope of this Directive.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point a a (new)

(aa) ‘non-systemically relevant AIFM’ means AIFM which either directly or indirectly through a company with which the AIFM is linked by common management or control, or by a substantive direct or indirect holding, manage portfolios of AIF whose individual assets under management, including any assets acquired through use of leverage, do not exceed EUR 100 million and in total do not exceed a threshold of EUR 250 millions or whose total assets under management do not exceed EUR 500 millions when the portfolio of AIF consists of AIF that are not leveraged and with no redemption rights exercisable during a period of 5 years following the date of constitution of each AIF;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)

Article 6a Procedure and conditions for registration of non-systemically relevant AIFM 1. A non-systemically relevant AIFM shall provide the information stipulated in Article 5(-a) to (a), (c) and (g) as well as the following information to the competent authorities of its home Member State when registering: (a) a programme of activity, including information on how the AIFM intends to comply with its obligations under Chapter IV; (b) the organisational structure of the AIFM. 2. The competent authorities shall confirm the registration immediately after the complete information as referred to in paragraph 1 is submitted.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. The AIFM shall ensure that the functions of risk management and portfolio management are separated ~~and subject to separate review~~so far as is appropriate and proportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of the AIFM and the AIF it manages.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Where it is not considered to be appropriate or proportionate for an AIFM to establish and maintain a risk management function that is separated from the portfolio management, the AIFM must be able to demonstrate that the risk management process satisfies the requirements of this article.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. In the case of AIFM which engage in short selling when investing on behalf of one or more AIF, Member States shall ensure that the AIFM operates procedures which provide it with access to the securities or other financial instruments at the date when the AIFM committed to deliver them, and that the AIFM implements a risk management procedure which allows the risks associated with the delivery of short sold securities or other financial instruments to be adequately managed.deleted

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5

5. The Commission shall adopt implementing measures further specifying the following: (a) the risk management requirements to be employed by AIFM as a function of the risks which the AIFM incurs on behalf of the AIF that it manages; (b) any arrangements needed to enable AIFM to manage the particular risks associated with short selling transactions, including any relevant restrictions that might be needed to protect the AIF from undue risk exposures. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3).deleted

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3

3. The rules applicable to the valuation of assets and the calculation of the net asset value per unit or share of the AIF shall be laid down in the law of the ~~country where the AIF is domiciled~~ Member State where the AIF is domiciled or in the existing applicable valuation standards of the home Member State of the AIFM, including arrangements established by bodies appointed by public authorities or recognized by national law,or in the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3

3. The depositary shall be either: (a) a credit institution having its registered office in the Community and be authorised in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC ~~of the European Parliament and Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (recast).~~;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new)

(aa) an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC to also provide the ancillary service of safe- keeping and administration of financial instruments for the account of clients in accordance with Section B(1) of Annex I to that Directive, having its registered office in the Union;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a e (new)

(ae) a legal person which is authorised by the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM to act as a depositary, which is subject to prudential regulation and ongoing supervision and which can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to be able to effectively perform the relevant depositary functions and meet the commitments inherent to those functions; or

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a k (new)

(ak) an entity which carries out depositary functions as part of professional or business activities in respect of which it is subject to mandatory professional registration recognised by law or to legal or regulatory provisions or rules of professional conduct and which can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to be able to effectively perform the relevant depositary functions and meet the commitments inherent to those functions.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point h

(h) a description of all fees, charges and expenses and of the maximum amounts or rates thereof which are directly or indirectly borne by investors;

2010/02/16
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point e

~~(e) where relevant, the use of short selling during the reporting period.~~deleted

2010/02/16
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – subparagraph 2

~~AIFM shall assess on a quarterly basis whether the AIF employs high levels of leverage on a systematic basis and shall inform the competent authorities accordingly~~deleted.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – subparagraph 3

For the purposes of the second subparagraph, an AIF shall be deemed to employ high levels of leverage on a systematic basis where the combined leverage from all sources exceeds the value of the equity capital of the AIF in two out of the past four quarters.deleted

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23

Article 23 Disclosure to investors AIFM managing one or more AIF employing high levels of leverage on a systematic basis shall for each such AIF: (a) disclose to investors the maximum level of leverage which the AIFM may employ on behalf of the AIF as well as any right of re-use of collateral or any guarantee granted under the leveraging arrangement; (b) quarterly disclose to investors the total amount of leverage employed by each AIF in the preceding quarter.deleted

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24

Article 24 Reporting to competent authorities 1. AIFM managing one or more AIF employing high levels of leverage on a systematic basis shall regularly provide, to the competent authorities of its home Member State, information about the overall level of leverage employed by each AIF it manages, and a break-down between leverage arising from borrowing of cash or securities and leverage embedded in financial derivatives. That information shall include the identity of the five largest sources of borrowed cash or securities for each of the AIF managed by the AIFM, and the amounts of leverage received from each of those entities for each of the AIF managed by the AIFM. 2. The Commission shall adopt implementing measures further specifying the disclosure requirements with regard to leverage and the frequency of reporting to competent authorities and of disclosure to investors. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3).deleted

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3

3. In order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, the Commission shall adopt implementing measures setting limits to the level of leverage AIFM can employ. These limits should take into account, inter alia, the type of AIF, their strategy and the sources of their leverage. Those measures designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3).deleted

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 4

4. In exceptional circumstances and when this is required in order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, the competent authorities of the home Member State ~~may impose additional~~of the AIFM may impose limits to the level of leverage that AIFM can employ. ~~Measures taken by the competent authorities of t~~The home Member State~~s shall have a temporary nature and should comply with the provisions adopted by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 3~~ of the AIF, the ESMA, the ESRB and the Commission shall be informed of any such measure.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 4a (new)

4a. Without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VI, Member States may allow AIFM to market to professional investors on their territory shares or units of AIF that are either established in a third country or not covered by this Directive.

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 35

Article 35 Conditions for the marketing in the Community of AIF domiciled in third countries An AIFM may only market shares or units of an AIF domiciled in a third country to professional investors domiciled in a Member State, if the third country has signed an agreement with this Member State which fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters. Where AIFM market shares or units of AIF domiciled in a third country the home Member States may prolong the period referred to in Article 31(3), when this is necessary to check whether the conditions of this Directive are met. Before allowing AIFM to market shares or units of AIF domiciled in a third country, the home Member State shall have particular regard to the arrangements made by the AIFM in accordance with Article 38, where relevant.deleted

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36

Article 36 Delegation by the AIFM of administrative tasks to an entity established in a third country Member States shall only allow an AIFM to delegate administrative services to entities established in a third country, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (a) the requirements set out in Article 18 are fulfilled; (b) the entity is authorised to provide administration services or registered in the third country in which it is established and is subject to prudential supervision; (c) there is an appropriate co-operation agreement between the competent authority of the AIFM and the supervisory authority of the entity.deleted

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37

Article 37 Valuator established in a third country 1. Member States shall only allow the appointment of a valuator established in a third country, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (a) the requirements set out in Article 16 are fulfilled; (b) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 3 stating that the valuation standards and rules used by valuators established on its territory are equivalent to those applicable in the Community. 2. The Commission shall adopt implementing measures specifying the criteria for assessing the equivalence of the valuation standards and rules of third countries as referred to in paragraph (1) (b). Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3). 3. On the basis of the criteria referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2), adopt implementing measures, stating that the valuation standards and rules of a third country legislation are equivalent to those applicable in the Community.deleted

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38

~~Delegation of the depositary tasks in respect of AIF dom~~Articiled in third countries 1. 17(4), in respect of AIF domiciled in a third country Member States shall allow the depositary of that AIF appointed in accordance with Article 17 to delegate the performance of one or more of its functions to a sub-depositary domiciled in the same third country provided that the legislation of that third country is equivalent to the provisions of this Directive and is effectively enforced. The following conditions shall also be met: (a) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 4 stating sub-depositaries domiciled in that country are subject to effective prudential regulation and supervision which is equivalent to the provisions laid down in Community law; (b) co-operation between the home Member State and the relevant authorities of the third country is sufficiently ensured; (c) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 4 stating that the standards to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing are equivalent to those laid down in Community law. 2. investors shall not be affected by the fact that it has delegated to a third country depositary the performance of all or a part of its tasks. 3. implementing measures specifying the criteria for assessing the equivalence of the prudential regulation, supervision and standards of third countries as referred to in paragraph 1. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3). 4. referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2), adopt implementing measures, stating that prudential regulation, supervision and standards of a third country are equivalent to this Directive. 38 deleted By way of derogation from Article The depositary's liability towards The Commission shall adopt On the basis of the criteria

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 39

Authorisation of AIFM established in third countries 1. units or shares of an AIF to professional conditions of this Directive, provided that: (a) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 3 (a) stating that its legislation regarding prudential regulation and on-going supervision is equivalent to the provisions of this Directive and is effectively enforced; (b) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 3 (b) stating that it grants Community AIFM effective market access comparable to that granted by the Community to AIFM from that third country; (c) the AIFM provides the competent authorities of the Member State in which it applies for authorisation with the information referred to in Articles 5 and 31 ; (d) a cooperation-agreement between the competent authorities of that Member State and the supervisor of the AIFM exists which ensures an efficient exchange of all information that are relevant for monitoring the potential implications of the activities of the AIFM for the Article 39 deleted Member States may authorise, in accordance with this Directive, AIFM estability of systemically relevant financial institutions and the orderly functioning of markets in which the AIFM is active. (e) the third country has signed an agreement with the Member State in which it applies for authorisation which fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters. 2. implementing measures aimed establishing: (a) general equivalence criteria for the equivalence and effective enforcement of third country legislation on prudential regulation and on-going supervision, based on the requirements laid down in Chapters III, IV and V. (b) general criteria for assessing whether third countries grant Community AIFM effective market access comparable to that granted by the Community to AIFM from those third countries. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3). 3. referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 49(2), adopt implementing measures stating: (a) that the legislation on prudential regulation and ongoing supervision of AIFM in a third country is equivalent to this Directive and effectively enforced; (b) that a third country grant Community AIFM effective market access at least comparable to that granted by the Community to AIFM from that third country.shed in a third country to market investors in the Community under the The Commission shall adopt at On the basis of the criteria

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Carl HAGLUND, Dirk STERCKX

Proposal for a directive
–

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

2010/02/25
Committee: ECON

2007/0229(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) In the absence of horizontal community legislation, the rights of third-country nationals vary, depending on the Member State in which they work and on their nationality. They do not have the same rights as nationals of the Member State, or other EU citizens. With a view to pursue a further development of a coherent immigration policy, to lower the rights gap between EU citizens and third-country nationals legally working and complementing the existing immigration acquis a set of rights should be laid down in particular in the form of specifying the policy fields where equal treatment with own nationals is provided for third-country workers legally admitted in a Member States but not yet long term residents. Such provisions are intended to establish a level playing field within the EU, to recognize that such third-country nationals legally working in a Member States contribute to the European economy through their work and tax payments and to serve as a safeguard to reduce unfair competition between own nationals and third-country nationals resulting from possible exploitation of the latter. Definition of "third country worker" as laid down in Article 2(b) of this Directive means, without prejudice to the interpretation of the concept of employment relationship in other EU legislation, any third-country national who has been admitted to the territory of a Member State, is legally resident and is allowed to work in the context of a paid relationship under national law and /or in accordance with national practice in that Member State.

2010/03/25
Committee: EMPL

2007/0229(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16

(16) Third-country nationals who work in the territory of a Member State should enjoy equal treatment as regards social security. Branches of social security are defined in the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community. Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality extends the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to third country nationals who are legally residing in the European Union and who are in a cross-border situation. The provisions on equal treatment concerning social security in this Directive also apply to persons ~~com~~entering to a Member State directly from a third ~~country~~state, but allowing Member States to limit equal treatment to those in employment. Nevertheless, this Directive should noteither confer more rights than those already provided in existing Community legislation in the field of social security for third- country nationals who have cross-border elements between Member States. nor limit the power of the Member States to organise their social security schemes and to lay down the conditions under which a person is affiliated to a social security scheme. Nor should it confer rights in respect of situations that do not fall within the scope of EU legislation as for example in the case of family members residing in a third country.

2010/03/25
Committee: EMPL

2007/0229(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point (b)

(b) "third- country worker" means, without prejudice to the interpretation of the concept of employment relationship in other EU legislation, any third-country national who has been admitted to the territory of a Member State, is legally resident and is allowed to work ~~legally~~in the context of a paid relationship under national law and /or in accordance with national practice in that Member State;

2010/03/25
Committee: EMPL

2007/0229(COD)