23 Amendments of Jürgen CREUTZMANN related to 2010/2239(INI)
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls upon Member States to strengthen the access of SMEs, in particular micro companies and individual service providers (such as freelancers), to adequate pension systemfunds.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the establishment of national tracing systems for pension rights from different sources in all Member States, and calls upon the Commission to submit proposals for a European tracing system.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that to meet citizen's expectations as regards the Union's internal market, ideally all pension rights should be portable within the EU; considers that currently only statutory and occupational pensions are portable in theory. Is of the opinion that contributions paid by workers into other pension funds should be portable in order to comply more quickly with existing national statutory portability deadlines.
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls upon the Commission to further examine the obstacles to portability, such as account; any action on removing obstandards and fiscal barriers, in order to submit proposals to remove these, accompanied with appropriate supervision meascles for mobility should concern all work related pension schemes in every Member State, independent of how these schemes are submitted to national pillar structures; asks the European Commission to define general principles with sufficient flexibility for the Member States to accommodate them within their own (legal) structures. ;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Observes that sound economic and social policies make an important contribution to growth and stability; points out that the social partners have a decisive role to play in that connection;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Observes that the implementation of the IORP Directive by Member States generally has been delayed;IORP Directive was only implemented by all the Member States a few years ago and thus has not yet produced its full effects and that for IORPs - unlike life insurance understands that Member States have had difficulty in incorporating these new rules and pkings - the internal market plays only a secondary role (at present only some 90 of the roughly 150 000 IORPs in Europe are engaged in cross-border activity; suggests that no action should be taken until further experienciples in their national system; e has been gained with the implementation of the directive;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to clarify when a cross-border activity is triggered, also taking into account the provisions of the Posted workers Directive and the position of expatriates in general, and that national social and labour laws, including compulsory membership, applies only to pension schemes; in addition calls on the Commission to further harmonise rules concerning technical provisions, in particular the technical rate of interest, in order to prevent supervisory arbitrage; suggests that Member States should allow ring fencingUrges, with regard to undertakings which are engaged in cross-border activity and which have IORPs, that consideration should be given to ways of eliminating existing obstacles stemming from the provisions of the pension fund directive and their implementation by national supervisory bodies;
Amendment 127 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that biometric differences (mortality and disability rates), continuing differences in the legal structure of IORPs and differences in national social, tax and labour law mean that a harmonisation of technical standards at European level will be ineffective;
Amendment 142 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that Solvency II is a valuable starting point for developing a solvency regime for IORPs; underlines that such a regime needs to be adapted to the specificities of pensions, in particular as regards the conditionality of pension rights, the duration of pension portfolios and the dedicated purpose vehicle operating a homogenous product portfola revision of the rules on own capital would impose a disproportionate burden on employers and IORPs and thus undermine their economic efficiency and impede the spread of occupational retirement pension provision;
Amendment 158 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers the qualitative elements of Solvency II to be of great importance for their application to IORPs; notes that this applies in particular to requiNotes that an occupational retirement pension is a welfare benefit voluntarily provided by a firm for its employees, and not a financial service, and that, in addition, because of their specific features (statutory secondary liability, employee repremsents in relation to good risk managementation on decision-making bodies, etc.) IORPs differ significantly from insurance undertakings;
Amendment 166 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Observes that pension funds, including IORPs, are still regulaTakes the view that there is no need to apply Solvency II to IORPs, since the pensions of the employees involved are currently guaranteed and supervised as stand alone financial entities, although in practice conglomerates undertake these activitieto a sufficient degree by the employers' secondary liability; applying the Solvency II rules would impose a disproportionate burden on European IORPs by comparison with non-European instítutions;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that, within the diversity of pension systems, the general systemscombination of state (first pillar) combined with, work-related systems (second pillar) and private systems affords the best guarantee of adequate pension provision;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Draws attention to the successful models for occupational pension provision, which are based on the concept of social or company partnerships;
Amendment 354 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Notes that, in the first pillar, pension entitlements are governed by the relevant coordinating Regulation, but that, for second-pillar pensions, arrangements are needed to ensure portability, although entitlements under occupational pension schemes do not constitute a major hindrance to mobility;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Rejects the concept of a supplementary implementation arrangement laid down at European level (28th regime) because it would bring no added value given the need for it to connect in various ways with the wide range of national taxation and social security systems;
Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Notes that occupational pension provision in the form of in-company schemes does not work at transnational level;
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Points out that European-level harmonisation of technical standards is not helpful, due to biometric differences (in mortality rates and likelihood of invalidity), continuing differences in the legal structure of IORPs and differences in national social-security, tax and labour laws;
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)
Paragraph 24 c (new)
24c. Underscores the point that employer- financed occupational pension schemes are a form of voluntary provision by employers, one of the aims of which is to reward and promote employee loyalty; considers, therefore, that because, under labour law, the provision of this type of occupational pension is at the discretion of the employer, who also determines its level and the form it takes, a vesting period of several years is justified; points out that the reduction of vesting periods, by increasing the financial burden on employers, would have the effect of making them less willing to enter into voluntary commitments, ultimately resulting in the curtailment or abolition of this form of supplementary occupational pension provision for individual employees – an outcome at odds with the intended social-policy objectives;
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)
Paragraph 24 d (new)
24d. Points out the risk that successful and sustainable old-age pension schemes could be unnecessarily burdened, or indeed that their viability could be threatened; considers it necessary that portability standards should not apply in an unrestricted way to internal implementation arrangements which retain liquidity within companies and which would be substantially affected by an obligation to release such liquidity in the event of transfer;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 391 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 402 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Considers that fresh investigation of the question of transfer is not useful because European-level arrangements are neither necessary nor helpful and they would make no contribution whatever to achieving the aims set out in the Commission green paper;
Amendment 419 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Supports thePoints out that a decision has already been taken to establishment of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA); stresses the need to equip it so that it can perform effectively the tasks entrusted to it;