13 Amendments of Sophie AUCONIE related to 2009/2222(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. considering Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Protocol No 26 annexed to the treaties,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Given that social services of general interest make a major contribution to the achievement of the EU's goals as enshrined in the Treaties, particularly in terms of promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, calls on the Commission to use the evaluation and revision of the Monti- Kroes package to strengthen legal security in the field of social services of general interest, using a tailored approach which can easily be applied by organising public authorities and takes into account the specific ways in which social services are organised, their legal status and their strongly local nature, as well as the responsibility of the Member States for organising and financing these services;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to adopt a communication establishing a methodology for organising local authorities setting out guidelines for applying European rules, while enabling local authorities to handle European rules flexibly considering their national and local specificities;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to consider the advisability of putting forward a de minimis regulation specific to social services of general interest or to adjust the de minimis threshold for such services, in order to focus EU checks on State aid on social services likely to have a significant impact on cross-border trade within the EU;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission to act in response to the lack of regulation curreneed for legal certaintly affecting SSGI, by creating an unambiguous legislative framework grounded in legal certainty, in line withfor those operating in the SSGI sector by establishing an unambiguous and functional legal framework, particularly by providing the public authorities which organise them wishes of all interested partith a methodology indicating how to apply European rules;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to clarify how the concepts of economic and non- economic activityies and effects on trade are to be applied to social services of general interest and the specific arrangements for applying the concept of the ‘'level of compensation needed (...) on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport (...) would have incurred’' (CJUE, C-280/00, Altmark);
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that wthere an official act of entrustment has been transparently drawn up and made public and includes parameters for calculating compensation based on coverage of the actual cost of providing social services of general interest, systematic monitoring of overcompensation should be replaced by intervention only following a substantiated complaint.is a guarantee of transparency which has to be maintained; asks the Commission to consider whether rules set for entrustment and monitoring of overcompensation are appropriate to the characteristics of social services and to take initiatives if they are not deemed appropriate;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that experience demonstratEmphasises that quality in SSGI provision should be based around a suitable financing method apt to ensure innovative and efficient services; stresses that the profit maximisation objective of commercial providers of SSGImust not conflicts with the principles and objectives of SSGI;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that national and local authorities engaged in providing or mandating SSGI need a clear legal basis for their services and expenditures, and that while the information and clarification service developed by the Commission is essential, it should be flanked with a methodology made available to the organis insufficient and does not protect SSGI providers from legal challengeg authorities and containing a grid for the application of the EU rules;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that SSGI are an indispensable investment for Europe’s future, and are under severe pressure due to the economic and banking crises and government austerity programmes, which are resulting in even greater demand for them;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Emphasises that the quality of services must be based around regular and integrated consultation of users, who are taxpayers, since services must first and foremost meet their needs;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for clarification of basic principles on the control of state aid, and for a review of the criteria for calculating compensation of public service obligations, with an eye to transparency vis-à-vis the taxpayer;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls for the 2005 Monti-Kroes response to the Altmark case to be broadened so as to simplify the rules, improve flexibility in their application, and expand the derogations. The de minimis threshold should beCalls on the Commission to assess whether it is appropriate to raised to at least EUR 500 000 over a three-year cyclehe de minimis threshold applicable to SSGI;