Activities of Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the unchecked expansion of the EU’s acquis is detrimental to its proper application; stresses therefore the importance of upholding the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; wWelcomes the practice by the Commission of taking due account of the principles of better law-making when selecting priorities for monitoring the application of EU law in the Member States;

2017/05/16
Committee: AFCO

2017/2011(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls, in this respect, for the commitment of all EU institutions engaged in the legislative process to enhance the drafting quality of legislative texts, in line with the commitment undertaken in the Better Law-Making Agenda; considers that the 1998 Inter-institutional Agreement on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation should be substantially adapted in order to deliver on that objective; reiterates the provision in the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making that calls on Member States when transposing EU directives into national law, in cases where they choose to add elements that are in no way related to Union legislation to make these additions identifiable either through the transposing act or through explanatory documents;

2017/05/16
Committee: AFCO

2017/2011(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Points out that ~~the inclusion of~~closer scrutiny by national parliaments inof the law-making process will foster effective application of EU law; highlights, for that reason, the necessity to ensure genuine application of the yellow-card procedure as specified in Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionalityir respective governments when the latter are involved in the law-making process will foster a more effective application of EU law as provided for in the Treaties;

2017/05/16
Committee: AFCO

2017/2011(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Insists that national parliaments also have an essential role to play in ~~both pre- legislative scrutiny of draft legal acts and post-legislative scrutiny of their correct implementation by~~the scrutiny of the implementation process of EU law in the Member States; ~~highlights it~~calls con~~tinued determination to support them in such efforts~~ them accordingly to pursue that role proactively;

2017/05/16
Committee: AFCO

2017/2011(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the system of exchange of information and cooperation between committees of national parliaments working with the EU (in the framework of COSAC) ~~can help in achieving more effective legislation and~~ should also be used to support ~~better~~a more effective application of EU law by the Member States;

2017/05/16
Committee: AFCO

2017/2011(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights the need for Parliament to also monitor the Commission’s enforcement of regulations in the same way it does with directives; requests the Commission to ensure that the data on the implementation of regulations is provided in its future annual reports on the monitoring of the application of EU law; calls on the Member States to submit national legislation transposing or implementing regulations to the Commission with a view to ensuring its correct compliance and to specify which parts stem from EU legislation and which parts are national additions;

2017/05/16
Committee: AFCO

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)

- having regard to the Annual Report on European SME's 2015/2016,

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)

- having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council dated 26th August 2016 on the implementation of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions,

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas growth has to an important degree relied upon unconventional and, in the long term, unsustainable monetary policies; whereas interest rates will rise again; whereas this supports the call for a three-pronged policy approach of growth- friendly investment, a full and consistent implementation of the Stability and Growth pact across Member States, and a particular focus on structural reforms;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the long-term sustainability of public finances of EU Member States is a matter of concern for intergenerational fairness;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

Fb. whereas the size of government debt can be affected both by contingent and implicit liabilities;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the EU requires important investment efforts; notably in growth enhancing areas such as research, ICT, innovation or education;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the EU’'s insufficient level of global competitiveness and ~~productivity calls for structural reforms in the Member States in order to bring about sustained growth~~its lack of sustainable growth is linked to low productivity growth which can only be tackled through structural reforms in the Member States and the completion of the single market, also aiming at making the EU's economy more dynamic through the creation and scale-up of innovative companies;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas economies with more punitive bankruptcy regimes forego the potential growth in value added and employment which calls for the full implementation of the Small Business Act second chance principle by all Member States;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)

Hb. whereas the late payments directive was designed to help companies that are facing high costs or even bankruptcies due to late payments by private and public companies; whereas the external ex-post evaluation revealed that public entities in more than half of all Member States are not yet respecting the 30-day payment limit imposed by law; whereas the report has identified that Member States under adjustment programmes have difficulties applying the directive where prompt payment of current invoices has to be balanced against accumulated debt repayment;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey 2017 reaffirming the strategy of a virtuous triangle of investment, structural reforms and responsible public finances; agrees that faster progress on the adoption of reforms, in line with the country-specific recommendations, is needed to deliver on growth and jobs; deplores the very low implementation rate of country specific recommendations, which declined from 11 % in 2012 to only 4% in 2015; stresses that Member States will need to step up their efforts to reform if they want to return to growth and create jobs;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that poverty and widening income inequality are a threat to growth and its sustainability; calls on the Commission to coordinate and support the Member States in their missions to combat them by facilitating the exchange of best practice and accurate data collection; considers that these responsibilities should explicitly be part of the European Semester for economic policy coordination;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes that the EU needs to be prepared for an environment of phasing out of unconventional monetary policy measures and rising interest rates;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Sylvie GOULARD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Agrees with the Commission that access to finance is crucial for businesses to innovate and grow;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that tha credible financial system and its institutions are crucial for attracting investment and growth in the European economy; stresses that the current financial system is characterised by increased safety and stability;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that a fully functioning Capital Markets Union can, in a longer perspective, provide alternative financing to SMEs, complementing that of the banking sector; calls for a faster and more ambitious implementation of CMU to create a more efficient allocation of capital throughout the EU, improving the depth of EU capital markets, increasing diversification for investors, stimulating long term investment and making full use of the EU's innovative financial instruments designed to support access to capital markets for SMEs;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes in particular the findings in the Annual Growth Survey 2017 that high growth companies have issues with access to finance; calls for the Commission to identify and implement projects that support and attract market-based investment for such high growth innovative companies, such as the pan European VC Funds-of-Funds;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Sylvie GOULARD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Emphasises that reliable investment requires a stable regulatory environment that allows for a return on investment; considers that predictable rules, a level playing field and reduced compliance costs are crucial factors for attracting investment;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes with concern that the EU share of global foreign direct investments flows have fallen significantly since the crisis; calls on the Commission and Member States to step up efforts to improve the business environment for investments inter alia by fully implementing and enforcing EU Single Market legislation;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Sylvie GOULARD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Believes that EFSI and structural funds should also support recommendations for the EU as a whole; calls for the Commission to increase its efforts to finance projects or help to attract market based finance for projects with a cross-border dimension, especially in the fields of knowledge, innovation, education and ICT;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Stresses that structural reforms need to be complemented by longer-term investment in education, research, innovation and sustainable energy; believes that public-private partnerships can also be considered as tools to promote investment and to deliver smart and sustainable growth which complement public investment programmes;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Agrees that structural reforms in product, services and labour markets, also with the aim to improve the efficiency of research and innovation systems, remain a priority in the Member States;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Lieve WIERINCK, Sylvie GOULARD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Believes that the Member States and the Commission are not delivering enough on their commitment to complete the Single Market which limits the transfer of capital and labour resources from traditional to new activities, such as in the services sector which contributed more than 70% of the EU-28's total gross value added in 2015, and limits the expansion of intra-EU trade; reiterates the importance of the completion of the Single Market, not only for the purpose of economic gains such as growth and jobs in the EU but also as a way to increase citizens confidence in the European project;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Underlines the importance of launching or continuing the process of coherent and sustainable structural reforms for stability in the medium and long term; stresses that the EU cannot compete on general or labour costs alone, but needs to invest more in research, innovation and development, education and skills, and resource efficiency, at both national and European level;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. believes that reducing the tax burden for low and middle incomes will increase demand and boost growth agrees with the Commission that the Member States need to continue to pursue growth- friendly fiscal consolidation; calls on Member States to simplify tax systems, reduce taxes and social security contributions, especially for low and medium incomes, and shift taxes away from labour to consumption and environmentally damaging activities in order to stimulate growth, private investment and job creation, to make consolidation efforts more efficient, and to enhance investments in education, R&D, and active labour market policies;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Is concerned about the effects of demographic developments on public finances, conditioned by, inter alia, low birth rates, ageing societies and the influx of refugees; points in particular to the impact of ageing populations on pension and healthcare systems in the EU; notes that, owing to different demographic structures, the effects of these developments will vary across Member States, but warns that the already foreseeable funding costs will have a significant impact on public deficits; highlights the fact that current consolidation paths will not be sufficient to ensure compliance with EU fiscal rules if pension and health systems are not reformed or current reforms are reversed or not implemented;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Notes that EU Member States currently spend between 5 and 11% of GDP on healthcare which is expected to increase considerably in the next decades due to demographic changes; urges the Commission to focus efforts on more efficient spending on healthcare through cooperation and sharing of best practices at EU level; calls for greater accountability through measurement and reporting of spending on healthcare, and addressing the sustainability of healthcare systems in Country Specific Recommendations.

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13 b. Calls on the Commission to broaden its debt sustainability analysis of Member States by including contingent, implicit and other off-budget obligations, and make them public; notes the increased burden on companies as a barrier to growth due to late payments notably by public companies and calls for the Commission to assess of the application of the Late Payments Directive 2011/7/EU by Member States as part of the CSR's.

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Welcomes the fact that, on average, youth unemployment is declining; notes, however, that there remain stark differences across the Member States that call for continued reforms to facilitate the entry of young people into the labour market to ensure intergenerational fairness; ;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Underlines the fact that all Member States are obliged to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact; points, in this regard, also to the importance of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG), and urges the Commission to submit a report on the implementation of the TSCG in the Member States; believes that the TSCG should be incorporated into Community law as soon as possible;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Emphasises the Commission’s role as guardian of the treaties; recalls the importance of credible fiscal rules for regaining trust of financial markets, which is fundamental to attract investment;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Is concerned about the hesitancy in using the instruments available under the Excessive Deficit Procedure;, which may be interpreted as a lack of commitment to the EU's fiscal rules and hence undermine trust of financial markets; recalls that the mere announcement of the potential use of such instruments such as macro-economic sanctions may have motivated Member States in the past to take budgetary actions, notably Spain and Portugal; notes that only a fiscal policy that respects and follows the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact will lead to credibility and trust between Member States as a pre-condition for the completion of EMU.

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the reduction in average public deficits and debt, but agrees that aggregate pictures hide significant disparities across the Member States; stresses the need for prudent fiscal policies in anticipation of rising interest rates;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Takes note of the Commission’'s communication on a fiscal stance; questions the usefulness of an aggregate target, given the lack of significant spill- over effects of domestic demand between Member States; recalls that the Member States must comply with the Stability and Growth Pact, regardless of aggregate recommendations; notes that a debate on a fiscal stance would first require further transfers of sovereignty to the EU level, such as some form of effective control of Member States' budgets and their composition;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Takes the view that improving the structure of public budgets is a key lever to ensure compliance with EU fiscal rules and to allow for the financing of indispensable expenditure, the building of buffers for unforeseen needs , growth-enhancing investment and, lastly, the financing of non-essential spending;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Welcomes the ongoing review of public spending, and encourages the Member States critically to assess the quality and composition of their budgets; points out that such a review cannot replace urgent fiscal consolidation needs;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25 a. Stresses the importance of the long term sustainability of public finances; suggests that the Commission develops an indicator to assess to which extent Member States public finances and annual budgets affect future generations taking into account future liabilities and implicit budgetary obligations;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25 a. recalls that a better economic governance in the euro area is crucial and that, according to the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union, "a complete EMU is not an end in itself. It is a means to create a better and fairer life for all citizens, to prepare the Union for future global challenges and to enable each of its members to prosper"

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2306(INI)

Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Believes that better implementation of country-specific recommendations requires clearly articulated priorities at European level and genuine public debate at national level, leading to greater ownership; believes that national parliaments should invite the responsible Commissioner for a hearing in their national parliament on the CSRs; stresses that CSRs should be legally binding as they are formally adopted by elected governments;

2016/12/15
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas Europe is one of the wealthiest regions in the world, although recent data on income poverty highlights the rising of poverty and severe poverty in Europe;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas income poverty is only a part of the overall concept of poverty, therefore poverty does not only refer to material resources, but also to social resources, notably education, health and access to services;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~a number of Member States have been coerced into reducing budget deficits and cutt~~, in order to respect their treaty obligations, a number of Member States have reduced their budget deficits; some Member States decided to achieve this goal in part by reducing their social spending, which has ~~undermined~~often resulted in the degradation of public health, education, social security and housing systems, which has had a disproportionate impact on the most deprived members of society in those Member States;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes ~~have deprived countries of revenue that is essential~~create an un-level playing field within the European Union and have deprived countries of revenue that helps to contribute to sufficient funding for a robust social ~~state~~ and public welfare policies~~, leading to worsening poverty~~; whereas this has often resulted in increasing levels of poverty in these Member States in recent years;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas, according to the ILO2 , education, transfers and social benefits are ~~the most~~ powerful factors for reducing inequalities; _________________ 2 Decomposing income inequality into factor income components: Evidence from selected G20 countries, ~~p. 1.~~http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ ---dgreports/--- inst/documents/publication/wcms_499918. pdf

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

D a. whereas the concept of minimum income must not be confused with the concept of a minimum wage, which is fixed by collective agreement or by legislation;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that urgent practical steps need to be taken to eradicate poverty and social exclusion ~~and promote the fair distribution of income and wealth~~; stresses that these steps need to be undertaken at the appropriate level - with actions at national and European level according to the division of competencies for the relevant policies;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes reflections and studies concerning how to improve the fair distribution of income and wealth within our societies;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls ~~for priority to be given~~, when shaping macroeconomic policies, for due attention to be paid to the need to reduc~~ing~~e social inequalities and ~~guaranteeing universal free access to public social services~~to the impact of the aforementioned macroeconomic policies on the most deprived in society;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. PoUnderlintes ~~out~~ that an increase in education, social transfers and progressive, fair and redistributive tax systems, alongside measures to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion, are prerequisites for economic, social and territorial cohesion;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Argues that minimum income schemes are essential transitional instruments in~~Believes that further study and research into potential different minimum income scheme models could be a useful tool in the battle to reduc~~ing~~e and fight~~ing~~ poverty, and ~~they should be seen as a social investment~~social exclusion, stresses that it is essential that any potential schemes and models must be created with the active involvement of Europe's most deprived, as they are an under-used and under-represented resource with in-depth knowledge and experience which must be harnessed;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to exchange best practices from minimum income schemes;

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2270(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission ~~to propose a framework directive establishing minimum income schemes set at above 60% of national median equivalised disposable income~~, after further study and reflection, to evaluate the potential positive impact of a framework directive establishing minimum income schemes for all Member States, taking due account of each country’s specific characteristics.

2017/05/10
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the EU role in the framework of international financial, monetary and regulatory institutions and bodies (2015/2060(INI)),

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas ~~no non-euro area country has yet expressed a willingness~~all Member States, with the exception of one having a derogation, are committed to joining the euro and therefore to joining the Banking Union;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the high level of non- performing loans (NPLs) in some ~~jurisdiction~~countries; considers that this issue is crucial and has yet to be solved; welcomes the work of the SSM and its draft guidance on this issue; looks forward to the results of the work on a minimum EU insolvency framework; ~~calls on Member States to improve their insolvency legislation~~welcomes the Commission proposal on insolvency and restructuring; calls on Member States to improve their insolvency legislation and more generally their legal framework concerning the restructuring of debt, and to stimulate growth in order to tackle NPLs;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes the low profitability of a number of institutions in the euro area; considers that low profitability remains an important concern for the stability of the financial and banking sector; considers that resolute actions should be taken to strengthen the profitability of those institutions, while acknowledging the impact of the overall economic environment in that regard;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that there are risks associated with sovereign debt; notes, however, that government bonds play a critical role as a source of high-quality, liquid collateral and that modifying its prudential treatment could have a significant effect on both the financial and the public sector, which calls for caution in reform efforts; ~~awaits with interest the~~considers that, in the end, a better resgul~~ts of the~~atory framework, be it European or international, w~~ork on this issue~~ill be needed; considers that~~, in~~ the ~~end, a better regulatory framework, be it European or international, will be needed~~European framework should enable market discipline in delivering sustainable policies and providing safe assets for the financial sector and safe liabilities for governments;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it essential to ensure the comparability of risk-weighted assets across institutions in order to allow for effective supervision; welcomes the work done internationally to streamline the resort to internal models and to re-establish the credibility of internal models, as well as the introduction of a leverage ratio to act as a backstop; recalls, however, that the regulatory changes planned should not result in ~~significant~~unjustified increases in capital requirements, nor harm the ability of banks to finance the real economy, in particular SMEs;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Points out that guidance provided by international fora should be used in order to avoid the risk of regulatory fragmentation; stresses the importance of the role of the Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Banking Authority to engage in the work of the BCBS and provide the European Parliament and the Council with transparent and comprehensive updates on the status of the development of the BCBS discussions; considers that the EU should work on having an appropriate representation in the BCBS and notably for the euro area; calls for a stronger visibility of this role during ECOFIN meetings, as well as enhanced accountability towards the ECON Committee in the European Parliament with a regular de-brief by EU representatives party to the discussions;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. SNotes that there are very different banking models within the Banking Union but stresses that national options and discretions are hindering the creation of a level playing field between Member States and the comparability of the financial reporting by banks to the public; welcomes the ECB guidance and regulation harmonising the exercise of some of these within the Banking Union; looks forward to the upcoming amendments to the CRR as a means ~~of closing the most significant one~~to keep only the ones strictly necessary because of the diversity of banking models;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that there has been a natural learning phenomenon for all the members of the Supervisory Board since the creation of the SSM to deal with a variety of different business models and entities of different sizes, which needs to be supported and accelerated;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the ‘'too-big-to-fail’' issue ~~still needs to be addressed~~is being addressed; recalls the words of Mark Carney, Chair of the Financial Stability Board, that agreement on proposals for a common international standard on total loss-absorbing capacity for G-SIBs is a watershed in ending "too big to fail" banks; stresses that these agreements, once implemented, will play important roles in enabling globally systemic banks to be resolved without recourse to public subsidy and without disruption to the wider financial system; notes that TLAC will complement EMIR's mandatory requirement to centrally clear and the capital surcharge for G-SIBs;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Underlines that the creation of the SSM has been accompanied by an increase of influence for the European Union on the international stage compared to the pre-existing situation;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Underlines that the separation of the supervisory tasks from monetary policy functions should enable the SSM to take an independent position on all relevant matters, including on potential effects of ECB interest rate targets on the financial position of supervised banks;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Takes note of the report of the European Court of Auditors on the SSM which stresses the insufficient levels of staffing;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls the need to find, in the exercise of supervision, a balance between the need for proportionality and the need for a consistent approach; invites the SSM to reduce as much as possible the supervisory fees; points out that all banks should be subject to an appropriate level of supervision; reminds that an appropriate supervision is key to monitor all risks whatever the size of the banks;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Underlines that the safety and soundness of a bank cannot be captured by a point-in-time assessment of its balance sheet alone, as they are ensured through dynamic interactions between the bank and the markets, and affected by various elements in the entire economy; underlines therefore that a sound framework for financial stability and growth should be comprehensive and balanced to cover dynamic supervisory practices and not focus merely on static regulation with mainly quantitative aspects;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Notes that the outcome of the referendum on the UK membership to the EU makes an assessment of the whole European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS), including the voting modalities inside the EBA, necessary;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls the need to adhere to State aid rules in the context of bank resolution and reminds that extraordinary public support shall only be of both precautionary and temporary nature, and cannot be used to offset losses that an institution has incurred or is likely to incur in the near future; takes the view that enough flexibility is embedded within the current framework to address specific situations and might be better exploited, in particular in the case of preventive measures involving the use of DGS funds; reminds that a report assessing the continuing need for allowing precautionary recapitalisations and the conditionality attached to such measures was due by 31 December 2015; calls on the Commission to submit such report as soon as possible;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Takes note of the differences between the FSB TLAC standard and the MREL; stresses, however, that both standards share the same objective: to make sure that banks have enough regulatory capital and loss-absorbing liabilities to make bail-in an effective instrument in resolution (without causing financial instability and without needing public money); concludes therefore that a holistic approach to loss-absorption can be reached by combining the two; highlights that due consideration should be given to retaining the two criteria of size and risk- weighted assets;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. calls on the Commission to carefully assess the evolution of the global standard-setting process for the prudential regulation and its effective implementation following the latest political developments, in particular the setting-up of the new American administration;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that it is crucial to harmonise the hierarchy of claims in bank insolvency across Member States in order to make the implementation of the BRRD more consistent and effective; welcomes the Commission's proposal on this subject;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. reminds that bail-in instruments should only be sold to appropriate investors in the first place which can absorb potential losses without being threatened in their own sound financial standing and considers it fundamental to address the mis-selling of bail-in instruments to retail investors; asks the Commission to carefully assess the EU Investor Protection Framework and to present proposals if necessary;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Regrets that the Commission did not allow for more time to assess the implementation of the DGSD before proposing the EDIS and did not conduct a proper impact assessment of the proposal; stands ready, however, to seize the opportunity generated by the proposal to discuss the DGSD and address some of the options and discretions it includes; takes note of the Commission services' non- paper of a supplementary analytical report on the effect of the proposal;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Is aware of the potential benefits of an EDIS; is nevertheless of the opinion that risk reduction measures are an indispensable counterparty to its establishment in order to prevent moral hazard, and that the work on such measures should ~~preferably precede risk sharing~~start as early as possible;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Welcomes a European approach to deposit insurance, which must make it possible to address outstanding DGSD implementation issues and phase in the risk reduction measures; is of the opinion that every final scheme should include enough time to build the trust necessary among all stakeholders and citizens; reminds that protection of deposits is a common concern for all EU citizens;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2247(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Highlights that Article 114 ~~seems to be an~~is the appropriate legal basis for the establishment of both the EDIS and the DIF; considers therefore that a recourse to an IGA is not warranted and would create legal uncertainty;

2016/12/20
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)

– Having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 26 May 2016 on virtual currencies (2016/2007(INI)),

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas investments in the application of Fintech represent billions of Euros and keep increasing every year;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas FinTech can lead to considerable benefits, such as faster, cheaper, more transparent, more tailor- made and better financial services for consumers and businesses, and open up many new business opportunities for European entrepreneurs;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas FinTech can contribute to risk reduction in the financial system by decentralisation and de-concentration of risks, faster clearing and settlement of cash payments and securities trades, and better collateral management and capital optimisation;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Eb. whereas creating a level-playing field for financial services in the EU is a prerequisite for boosting Fintech in Europe;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas the ESAs have started identifying the potential risks and benefits of those technologies; whereas national competent authorities are monitoring these technological developments and have come up with different approaches;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Emphasises the importance of supervisors having sufficient technical expertise to adequately scrutinise increasingly complex FinTech services; recognises the necessity of breaking down supervisory silos across sectors to accommodate better manage risks concerning cyber-security and privacy; urges the ESAs as well as the national competent authorities to increase their cooperation with other relevant competent authorities across sectors;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission and the ESAs to monitor and avoid overlaps of regulation, new barriers to entry on the market and national barriers to those services; calls on the Commission to prevent barriers between Member States due to inconsistencies between national regimes;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Emphasizes the need for clear rules on data ownership, access and transfer; highlights that increasing amounts of data are generated by machines or processes based on emerging technologies, such as machine learning; stresses that the General Data Protection Regulation provides a clear legal framework on personal data but that more legal certainty is needed regarding other categories of data; believes, in this regard, that a clear distinction should be made between raw data and data resulting from further processing;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Notes that there are no clear, comprehensive European guidelines for outsourcing data to the cloud with regard to the financial sector; stresses the need for the development of such guidelines;~~ Highlights the benefits that cloud computing can have for consumers and providers of financial services, in terms of cost efficiency, decreased time to market and a better use of ICT resources; notes that there are no clear, comprehensive European guidelines for outsourcing data to the cloud with regard to the financial sector; stresses the need for the development of such guidelines; stresses that such guidelines are necessary to bring agility and speed to cloud adoption; underlines that high standards of data security and consumer protection should be a part of these guidelines; calls on the Commission and the ESAs to study different possibilities in this regard, such as pre-approved contracts between cloud service providers and financial institutions;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Notes the necessity of creating more awareness among consumers as regards the value of their personal data; acknowledges that consumers can sell their personal data through re-sharing; underlines that this may lead to economic benefits but can also be used in a discriminatory way; calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility of a European data re-sharing strategy with the aim of putting consumers in control of their data; believes that a clear, consumer-centric approach will increase trust in cloud-based services and stimulate new innovative services offered by diverse actors in the financial value chain, e.g. by using API's or facilitating direct access to data for electronic payments services; asks the Commission to investigate the future potential of Personal Information Management Systems (PIMS) as technical tools for consumers to manage their personal data;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Is concerned by the increased use of unpermissioned blockchain applications, in particular Bitcoin, for criminal activities, tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering; calls on the Commission to investigate the role of bitcoin mixers in this process; invites the Commission to organise an annual multi-stakeholder conference on this subject;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Asks the ESAs to identify in which cases targeted- or risk-based authentication can be an alternative to strong authentication; further asks the Commission to investigate whether the strong authentication processes can also be executed by other entities than banks;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls on the ESAs to develop technology-neutral standards and licences for both know-your-customer techniques and remote identification methods, for example based on biometric criteria;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Calls on the ESAs to partner with private sector players in developing and evaluate innovative technologies that have the potential to safeguard financial stability and increase consumer protection, for instance by mitigating bias in algorithms or by increasing consumer awareness of cyber threats;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)

21b. Notes that the increasing use of big data and artificial intelligence presents benefits to consumers but also entails questions concerning consumer protection; stresses that errors or biases that can lead to discrimination and exclusion in these algorithms can potentially cause systemic risk and harm consumers and investors; notes that insurance is a prominent example of a sector where these technologies are increasingly used, e.g. for risk assessment; asks the Commission and the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to investigate discriminatory effects;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2243(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Emphasises that financial education is a prerequisite for raising awareness in society and equipping citizens with the knowledge that is necessary to make sound decisions concerning financial products and services;

2017/03/09
Committee: ECON

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

At the beginning of their mandate Members of the European Parliament shall sign a solemn declaration stating that they will serve in the general interest of the Union. Failure to comply with this declaration may lead to application of measures in accordance with Rule 166 and 167.

2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Members’ conduct shall be characterised by mutual respect, be based on the values and principles laid down in the basic texts on which the European Union is founded, respect the dignity of Parliament and not compromise the smooth conduct of parliamentary business or disturb the peace and quiet of any of Parliament's premises. Members shall comply with Parliament's rules on the treatment of confidential information. Members must respect these values and principles for their entire mandates, irrespective of whether or not they are within the Parliament's premises.

2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 73 a (new)

Rule 73a Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading 1. Where a committee has adopted a legislative report pursuant to Rule 49, it may decide, by a majority of its members, to enter into negotiations on the basis of that report. 2. Decisions to enter into negotiations shall be announced at the beginning of the part-session following their adoption in committee. By the end of the day following the announcement in Parliament, one political group or at least one-tenth of the Members may request in writing that a committee decision to enter into negotiations be put to the vote. Parliament shall vote on such requests during the same part-session. If no such request is received by the expiry of the deadline laid down in subparagraph 1, the President shall inform the Parliament that this is the case. If a request is made, the President may, immediately prior to the vote, give the floor to one speaker in favour and to one speaker against. Each speaker may make a statement lasting no more than two minutes. 3. If Parliament rejects the committee decision to enter into negotiations, the draft legislative act and the report of the committee responsible shall be placed on the agenda of the following part-session, and the President shall set a deadline for amendments. Rule 59(1b) shall apply. 4. Negotiations may start at any time after the deadline laid down in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 has expired without a request for a plenary vote on the decision to enter into negotiations being made. If such a request has been made, negotiations may start at any time after the committee decision to enter into negotiations has been approved in Parliament by a majority of the votes cast.

2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO

2016/2114(REG)

Kaja KALLAS, Frédérique RIES, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Pavel TELIČKA, Antanas GUOGA, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Jana TOOM, Sylvie GOULARD, Marietje SCHAAKE, Paavo VÄYRYNEN

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 116 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Parliament shall establish a register of Parliament documents. Legislative documents and certain other categories of documents shall, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, be made directly accessible through the register, in an open and accessible format to allow for the reuse of content. References to other Parliament documents shall as far as possible be included in the register.

2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 117 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

The vote shall be taken by ~~secret b~~roll callot.

2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 136

1. three political groups may submit a written declaration of not more than 200 words relating exclusively to a matter falling within the competence of the European Union. The contents of such a declaration may not go beyond the form of a declaration. In particular, it may not call for any legislative action, contain any decision on matters for which specific procedures and competences are laid down in these Rules of Procedure or deal with the subject of ongoing proceedings in Parliament. 2. further shall be subject to a reasoned decision by the President pursuant to paragraph 1 in any given case. Written declarations shall be published in the official languages on Parliament's website and distributed electronically to all Members. They shall be entered, with the names of the signatories, in an electronic register. This register shall be public and shall be accessible through Parliament's website. Hard copies of written declarations with signatures will be also kept by the President. 3. The signature of any Member may be added to a declaration entered in the electronic register. It may be withdrawn at any time before the end of a period of three months from the entry of the declaration in the register. In the event of such a withdrawal the Member concerned shall not be permitted to add his or her signature again to the declaration. 4. three months from its being entered in the register, a declaration is signed by a majority of Parliament's component Members, the President shall notify Parliament accordingly. Without binding Parliament, the declaration shall be published inRule 136 deleted Written declarations At least 10 Members from at least The authorisation to proceed Where, at the end of a period of The procedure shall be closed by Where the minutes with the names of its signatories. 5. the forwarding to the addressees, at the end of the part-session, of the declaration, together with the names of the signatories. 6. adopted declaration has been addressed do not inform Parliament about the intended follow-up within three months from its receipt, the matter shall, at the request of one of the authors of the declaration, be placed on the agenda of a subsequent meeting of the committee responsible. 7. remained in the register for over three months and is not signed by at least one half of the component Members of Parliament shall lapse, without any possibility of that three-month period being extended.stitutions to which the A written declaration that has

2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO

2016/2114(REG)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 204 – paragraph 1

At the first committee meeting after the election of committee members pursuant to Rule 199, the committee shall elect a bureau consisting of a chair and of vice- chairs who shall be elected in separate ballots. The number of vice-chairs to be elected shall be determined by Parliament upon a proposal by the Conference of Presidents. The diversity of Parliament must be reflected in the composition of the bureau of each committee; it shall not be permissible to have an all male or all female bureau or for all of the Vice Presidents to come from the same Member State.

2016/09/27
Committee: AFCO

2016/2101(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

Europe’s ~~investment~~ challenges in the context of the global economic slowdown

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the challenges in the EU are linked to the deteriorating international environment and the divergences in the economic and social performance achieved in different parts of the Union due to a lack of structural reforms as well as the short-comings in completing the single market, which deprive the EU of its full growth potential;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Fully supports the efforts made to ensure greater national ownership in the formulation and implementation of CSRs as an ongoing reform process; recalls that CSRs are endorsed by the Heads of State and Government and adopted by the EU Finance Ministers; believes that to achieve greater national ownership CSRs should become part of a legally binding convergence code;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that Europe’'s long economic crisis has shown that there is a strong need to focus on ~~public and~~structural reforms, public investment where Member States have fiscal space and regulatory initiatives that incentivise greater private investment, in order to enhance the EU’'s competitiveness;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that the still-too-high unemployment rates show that the capacity to create jobs in most Member States is still limited; emphasises that further action is needed, in consultation with social partners and in accordance with national practices, to make labour markets more inclusive overall; believes that the capacity to create jobs would increase if the EU had a single European labour market;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Expresses disquiet about the current ‘liquidity trap’ the EU economy seems to have fallen into, with interest rates at the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB), weak demand prospects, and restricted investment and spending by households and companies, not least in surplus countries; due to a lack of confidence in the macro-economic environment and reform fatigue in certain Member States;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Underlines the fact that investment has so far lagged and failed to lead to sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU because measures to improve the business environment are missing and that under the current circumstances, monetary policy alone is unlikely to bring about recovery, even though the rules made necessary by banking union have imposed more stringent financial criteria on banks; considers that a coordinated fiscal expansion is also needed in the EU, therefore, in line with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and its flexibility clauses, in order to place emphasis on public and private investment;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Emphasises the need to improve the EU’s overall capacity to create and sustain jobs and thus to tackle high levels of unemployment, while considering that migration could play an important role in compensating for the negative effects of the ageing population; emphasises, however, that this alone cannot be the main response to address structural demographic, labour market or fiscal challenges but that it should be complemented with efficient public expenditure, especially in high-quality social and environmentally sustainable growth enhancing investments;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Highlights the importance of resilient labour markets where an appropriate trade-off is maintained between economic, social and human costs and where wages are in line with productivity in accordance with the EU values of solidarity and subsidiarity, with a focus on the upgrading of educational systems and vocational education;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Deeply deplores the fact that with regard to the Europe 2020 strategy, the biggest failure to be recorded concerns the goal of reducing the scale of poverty in the Union, as not only will the goal not be reached, but poverty will in fact have increased; notes however for the first time fighting poverty was part of an EU strategy; considers that fighting poverty should be included right from the conception of all EU policies;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2101(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17a (new)

17a. Requests a report from the Commission no later than three months after the adoption of this resolution, which lists all CSRs and Single Market laws by Member State that are not fully implemented and details concrete measures the Commission will undertake to ensure full implementation as well as a timetable by which full implementation will be achieved;

2016/08/30
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the European Union, under the leadership of the Commission, should promote "a competition culture" in the EU and world-wide;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the need to reinforce the single market ~~through a fiscal union~~by addressing divergent tax policies through the EU which impact upon competition, ranging from discriminatory national tax regimes to regimes favouring particular financial instruments, and calls for ~~the tre~~initiatives to be ~~amended~~taken accordingly;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that the sharing economy is offering EU consumers numerous innovative products and services; reiterates that beside the taxation and security aspects, the Commission should also examine its competition aspects; underlines that national or EU rules must not impose the same conditions for different kinds of services; stresses that this type of economy, already established several years ago, raises competition issues in several Member States and they should be resolved at the EU level, for reasons of legal consistency;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the overhaul of the state aid rules; reminds the Member States, nonetheless, that the aim was to better target aid measures towards long-term economic growth, and quality job creation ~~and social cohesion~~while respecting fair competition between all market stakeholders; calls on the Commission to scrutinize any last minute transaction made by a Member State without regard to political pressure applied by the latter; also reminds the Commission of the need to prevent certain governments from acting in bad faith as they do when misspending EU funds;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Calls on the Commission to put in place a guidance document on the notion of state aid in the light of important changes in case law and enforcement practice as soon as possible in order to ensure legal certainty and predictability;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Calls on the Commission to push within international competition organisations, such as the International Competition Network, for a harmonised definition of state aid;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2100(INI)

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Recalls its resolution of 21 November 2013 on the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base which states that an operational Common Security and Defence Policy needs a strong European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB), constituting a key element for Europe's capacity to ensure the security of its citizens, protect its values and promote its interests; points out that the European defence sector is a major source of growth and innovation, key features for stability and security; believes that the establishment and development of a competitive EDTIB should be part of the strategic priorities of the EU; calls on the Commission to examine the impact of competition rules on the establishment of the EDTIB and how they can promote it;

2016/10/24
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the dynamics of retail financial services markets in many Member States, featuring a combination of high concentration and inadequate competition, tend to result in limited choice and low value for money, as well as huge discrepancies between Member States;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the market for retail financial services in Europe remains highly fragmented, requiring urgent action to unlock the full potential of the Single Market;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas a level playing field for new market entrants must be ensured and innovation facilitated;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas tha genuine fEur~~ther development of the~~opean internal market for retail financial services ~~market at EU level would not only facilitate important and fruitful cross-border activity, but would also open up greater scope for healthy competition at national level~~has huge potential for providing consumers with better financial services and products, more choice and improved access to financial services and products, and lower rates;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas we should remain ambitious in breaking down national barriers and curbing the existing protectionist tendencies that block innovation in retail financial services; whereas a true single market will make the EU attractive as the hub for innovative financial services;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the rapid transformation, brought about by digitisation and fintech innovation ~~not only~~, creates new and often better financial products for consumers and contributes to financial inclusion, but also involves key challenges in terms of security, data protection, consumer protection and taxation;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas for the first quarter of 2016 the fintech funding in Europe accounts to only 348m$, compared to 1.8b$ in North America and 2.6b$ in China, which demonstrates the urgent need for quick mentality shift and adequate regulatory response to technological developments in order for Europe to become a lead market for innovation;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas fiscal, regulatory and technical barriers must be urgently eliminated with a view to unlocking the full potential of the single European market for retail financial services;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas multinational companies with branches in several Member States can circumvent these barriers more easily than small companies;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)

Cd. whereas disruptive technologies present regulatory challenges, but also offer great opportunities for innovation and an impulse to economic growth and jobs;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Finds the Green Paper initiative to be timely, ~~particularly~~ given the need to ~~work proactively at all stages of the policymaking process in order to be able to track and steer~~respond quickly and adequately to developments in such an innovative and fast-changing market;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines the importance of promoting positive developments in ~~this~~ market in retail finance by creating and maintaining a level playing field ~~where~~ between incumbent operators and new entrants, withe rules ~~are~~ as technology- and business- model-neutral as is feasible; points out, that such an approach is necessary, not least in order to give new and innovative SMEs a fair chance;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out that a wide range of EU laws relevant for the single market in retail financial services has already been adopted, such as PSD2, the MIFs regulation, PAD, AMLD, the Mortgage Credit directive, IDD, IORP2; calls for full and harmonised implementation and application, avoiding duplication and overlaps;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses~~, not least given that otherwise positive digitisation processes could trigger exclusionary tendencies,~~ that the financial inclusion perspective should always be kept in mind, and that measures should be taken to ensure that all consumers have access to at least the most essential financial services;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Observes that the EU-level capacity for data collection and analysis in this field will probably need to be strengthened; notes that ~~it will be necessary to give some of the most promising~~some of the ideas in the Green Paper ~~a broad and adequate~~may require further empirical underpinning ~~before it is possible to move on to legislative processes~~;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the Commission, inter alia with reference to the PAD, to map the rules, practices and non-practices that apply to domestic and cross-border switching in all parts of the European retail financial services market, and to present a coherent and comprehensive strategy for making EU wide cross-border switching easier for the consumer;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Urges the Commission and the Member States, by working ~~carefully~~ on the implementation of the eIDAS Regulation and the new anti-money laundering legislation, inter alia, to create ~~– as should be entirely feasible~~ – a general environment in which robust security requirements are combined with fair and simple procedures for consumers to identify themselves, and facilitate EU wide cross-border digital onboarding;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Urges the Commission to put forward proposals for harmonisation and cross border applicability of the assessment procedure for creditworthiness conducted by the lender;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Urges the Commission to clarify the use of the general good provisions, which currently could be vicariously used by Member States to block new products into their market, and to empower the ESAs to become an active mediator between Member States when there are countering interpretations on its use;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)

18d. Urges the Commission to map the obstacles to internal market in retail finance stemming from different consumer protection, taxation and labour law provisions across Member States; furthermore, urges the Commission following the assessment to come up with concrete proposals for eliminating identified barriers by July, 2017;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)

18e. Urges the Commission to investigate into possibility of introducing a 29th regime for retail financial products in the absence of harmonised national rules; furthermore calls on the Commission to look into the possibility of creating standardised pan-European financial products based on PEPP-model;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 f (new)

18f. Urges the Commission to use regulations instead of directives when formulating legislative proposals in the field of retail financial services in order to avoid 'gold plating' and protectionist national tendencies, foreclosing national markets to the detriment of both businesses and consumers;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Asks the Commission to study further the ~~benefits and costs of guaranteeing~~options for domestic and cross- border portability in various parts of the retail financial services market ~~(for example as regards insurance products and bank account numbers)~~and come up with concrete proposals until the beginning of 2018;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2056(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Encourages the Commission, while ensuring financial stability, to move forward in creating a stronger single market for mortgages and consumer credit, ~~but to do so carefully, balancing privacy and data protection concerns with~~providing improved cross-border access to better- coordinated credit databases ~~and making sure~~in full compliance with privacy and data protection rules, and ensuring that credit- related incidents whereby consumers have been unreasonably exposed to currency exchange risks are not repeated;

2016/06/29
Committee: ECON

2016/2055(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that ~~not all~~of the nine EU institutions and bodies ~~have adopted the rule~~only the Commission and the Court of Auditors have so far adopted rules to protect whistle-blowers;

2016/10/06
Committee: AFCO

2016/2055(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note that the Commission, in its EU Anti-Corruption report, stated that EU Member States have in place most of the necessary anti-corruption legal instruments and institutions, ~~the capacity and efficiency of which should be improved;~~ but that, however, the results they deliver are not satisfactory across the EU; anti- corruption rules are not always vigorously enforced, systemic problems are not tackled effectively enough, and the relevant institutions do not always have sufficient capacity to enforce the rules; declared intentions are still too distant from concrete results, and genuine political will to eradicate corruption often appears to be missing;

2016/10/06
Committee: AFCO

2016/2055(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to set up an EU legal framework on the protection of whistle-blowers ~~without undermining Member State competences~~;

2016/10/06
Committee: AFCO

2016/2055(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Encourages the Commission to study best-practices from existing whistle- blower programmes which are already in place in other countries around the world; draws attention to the fact that some existing schemes provide financial rewards (for example a percentage of the sanctions ordered) to whistle-blowers; considers that although this needs to be carefully managed to prevent potential abuse, these financial rewards could provide important income to whistle- blowers who have lost their job as a result of whistleblowing;

2016/10/06
Committee: AFCO

2016/2055(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Regrets the Commission’s decision to withdraw a chapter on the EU institutions from the report on corruption in the Member States;~~deleted

2016/10/06
Committee: AFCO

2016/2055(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on ~~the Commiss~~all EU institutions to address the Ombudsman’s request ~~and to encourage~~for all EU institutions and bodies to adopt internal rules on whistle-blowing.; reiterates the Parliament’s determination to do so;

2016/10/06
Committee: AFCO

2016/2052(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the VP/HR and the Member States to use the full potential of the TEU, especially Article 44 on the implementation of a CSDP task by a group of Member States and Articles 42(6) and 46 on permanent structured cooperation with regard to a faster and more flexible deployment of CSDP missions and operations; welcomes the activation of Article 42(7) on the mutual defence clause;

2016/09/07
Committee: AFCO

2016/2052(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the establishment of the Council of Defence Ministers format and the setting up of a permanent strategic civil-military headquarters with a permanent military operational component; underlines the role of the European Defence Agency in capability development; calls on the EDA to fully exploit its Treaty mandate;

2016/09/07
Committee: AFCO

2016/2052(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Stresses that for the Union to strengthen the defence of the EU territory, as a pillar within NATO, which remains the cornerstone of the European security architecture, and to enable the Union to act autonomously in operations abroad, mainly with a view to stabilising its neighbourhood, the Treaties should provide for the possibility of establishing a European Defence Union;

2016/09/07
Committee: AFCO

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the ‘'Panama Papers’' and ‘'LuxLeaks’' scandals, as revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), have shown the urgent need for the EU and its Member States to fight tax evasion and avoidance and act for increased cooperation and transparency in order to re-establish tax ~~justice~~fairness for citizens and fair competition between companies;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas within a budgetary framework of mutual control it is unacceptable for resources to be generated by taxes due in a Member State to actually be generated in another Member State through unfair and aggressive tax planning;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the European Parliament insisted on introducing measures to safeguard tax revenues in the « 2-pack » (article 9 of regulation EU No 472/2013 of 21 May 2013 on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability);

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a common corporate consolidated tax base (CCCTB) which would provide a comprehensive solution to harmful tax practices within the Union; believes that the consolidation of the CCCTB is essential and is becoming increasingly urgent; calls on the Member States to promptly reach an agreement on this and to swiftly implement it; recalls the words of the Commission that « the existence of common rules for computing the tax base would render tax competition more transparent in the EU because this would inevitably focus on the levels of (statutory) tax rates. »1a and thus would not intend to erase any fair tax competition; __________________ 1aCommission document accompanying the Public consultation on the Re-launch of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/reso urces/documents/taxation/company_tax/f airer_corporate_taxation/2015-10- 08_consult-docmt-ccctb.pdf

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Commission to come up as soon as possible with a common Union list of uncooperative jurisdictions (i.e. a ‘'blacklist of tax havens’'), based on sound and objective criteria, including full implementation of OECD recommendations, BEPS actions and Automatic Exchange of Information standards, and welcomes the Commission’'s intention to reach an agreement on such a list within the next six months; calls on the Member States to endorse that agreement by the end of 2016; considers that this assessment should also include the countries which are OECD members;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Stresses the importance of clear separation between legal, tax advising ~~services~~ and auditing services within accountancy firms; asks the Commission to study the possibility of revising the Accounting Directive and Regulation to this effect;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Urges the Commission to propose as soon as possible a clear legal framework to guarantee the effective protection of whistleblowers, as well as of journalists and other persons connected with the press who aid and facilitate them; calls on the Member States to revise their current legislation with a view to preventing prosecution in such cases; considers that a credible and efficient framework should also prevent cases of unduly and detrimentally using whistleblowing as a strategy to deliberately damage the credibility of a company;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Uacknowledges that the Code of Conduct Group enabled some improvements towards a more fair EU tax competition but urges the Member States to reform, as soon as possible, the criteria and governance aspects of the Code of Conduct Group, in order to increase its transparency and accountability and ensure the strong involvement of Parliament;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)

38a. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to object to Third Countries' legislation having extraterritorial effects unless the EU has been offered to apply a similar mechanism in these jurisdictions;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2038(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Calls on the OECD to start work on an ambitious BEPS II, to be based primarily on minimum standards and concrete objectives for implementation; considers that monitoring implementation is the new challenge ahead; stresses that the coordination between the Commission and the Member States which are members of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) should be improved in order for the EU to make its voice heard;

2016/06/02
Committee: TAX2

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regards to the Report on the future of VAT (2011/2082(INI)),

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)

– having regard to the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (COM(2012)0363),

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Single Market, established on 1 January 1993, has abolished border controls for intra- community trade and whereas, under Articles 402-404 of the current VAT Directive, the European Union VAT arrangements in place since 1993 are of a provisional and transitional nature only;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas, according to a COM study 1a , MTIC fraud (Missing Trader Intra-Community fraud, commonly called carousel fraud) alone is responsible for a VAT revenue loss of approximately €45 billion to €53 billion annually; __________________ 1a http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/reso urces/documents/common/publications/st udies/ey_study_destination_principle.pdf

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Eb. whereas according to Europol estimates, between EUR 40 billion and EUR 60 billion of the annual VAT revenue losses of Member States are caused by organised crime groups, and 2 % of those groups are behind 80 % of missing trader intra-Community fraud;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)

Ec. whereas several Member States under the coordination of Eurojust and Europol have recently conducted three successful and consecutive Vertigo Operations which uncovered in total a 320 million EUR carousel fraud scheme;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the high administrative costs incurred under the present VAT system, especially with regard to cross- border transactions, could be significantly reduced for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular through ~~the necessary reform~~simplification measures;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Petr JEŽEK, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas, although unanimity in the European Council is required for the definitive VAT system to be established, 23 years after the introduction of the VAT Directive, the so called ‘standstill derogations’ are outdated, in particular with regards to the modern digital economy;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that it is essential for the Member States to adopt a coordinated tax policy and improve the speed and frequency of their exchange information concerning intra community trade in order to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance more effectively and finally close the existing ‘VAT gap’;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the view that cooperation between the Member State tax authorities has been inadequate in the past and the activities of Eurofisc have to date failed achieve any satisfactory results; is of the view that the information exchanged through Eurofisc should be better targeted to fraud;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Notes that the data provided to Eurofisc by national authorities is not filtered in a way which transfers solely suspect cases and thus hinders the optimal functioning of the group; supports the initiative of several Member States that argue for the setting up of national risk analysis tools which would permit filtering of data and allow Eurofisc to quickly react against cross-border VAT fraud;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls that MS largely depend on information received from other MS concerning intra EU trade in order to be able to collect VAT in their territory; Calls on the authorities responsible to exchange VAT and excise information in particular and to use ~~all available technical means~~reliable and user-friendly IT means, such as electronic standard forms, to record cross-border deliveries of goods and services to end- users;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Believes that the lack of comparable data and of adequate relevant indicators to measure Member States' performance affects the effectiveness of the EU system to tackle intra EU VAT fraud and thus calls on tax authorities to establish, in coordination with the COM, a common system to estimate the size of intra EU fraud and then set targets to reduce it, as this would enable the evaluation of MS's performances in tackling this issue;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Takes the view that the Commission should closely monitor the performance of national tax authorities;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Welcomes the Commission announcement to expand the mini-one- stop-shop into a fully-fledged one-stop- shop; notes the paramount importance for it to be user-friendly and equally efficient in all 28 Member States; notes that creating a one-stop-shop would alleviate administrative burdens preventing companies from operating across borders and reduce costs for SMEs1c; __________________ 1c COM(2016) 0148 final

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Notes the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling in C-97/09[ASE1] ; takes note of the 28 different thresholds for exemption from VAT tax; takes note of the ensuing financial difficulties faced by SMEs and micro-businesses which would be exempted under their national systems; calls on the Commission to conduct further studies on establishing a threshold for the exemption to pay VAT for micro-businesses;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Welcomes the Commission's announcement that it will submit an SME package for VAT in 2017; recommends however that the implementation of the new framework should be gradual as it will trigger additional administrative costs (IT infrastructure, VAT processes);

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Petr JEŽEK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Notes the complex filing system that imposes a high burden on SMEs and thus discourages cross-border trade; calls on the Commission to include in its SME package the proposal of a unified VAT filing, harmonised reporting requirements and deadlines;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Calls in the short term for a comprehensive internet portal for companies and end-users to find, clearly and easily, information on the VAT rates applicable to individual products and services in the Member States; further calls on the Commission to provide guidelines to national tax authorities on the classification of transactions with respect to the applied VAT rate in order to reduce compliance costs and legal disputes;

2016/06/02
Committee: ECON

2016/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Emphasises the importance of the SME Supporting Factor for maintaining and increasing bank lending to SMEs; calls on the Commission to examine the appropriate calibration of the factor, including size, threshold and possible interactions with other regulatory requirements; is concerned about the possible negative impact of ~~its~~the SME Supporting Factor removal; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of making it~~his factor~~ permanent;

2016/04/06
Committee: ECON

2016/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Highlights the benefits of third-party guarantees in loan agreements for entrepreneurs; demands that greater account be taken of these third-party guarantees when it comes to the evaluation of credit ratings as well as prudential rules and supervisory practices;

2016/04/06
Committee: ECON

2016/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Highlights the need to foster innovation through lending platforms; encourages banks to regard the use of such innovative technologies as an opportunity; stresses that alternative funding sources like crowdfunding or peer-to-peer lending offer solutions for start-ups and innovative SMEs in particular; welcomes the Commission’s assessment of the existing framework for crowdfunding; calls on the Commission to explore the need for, and potential of, a harmonised EU framework; recalls that for the system to be efficient both the SME and the lender must be fully aware of the potential risks/opportunities linked to the funding mechanism;

2016/04/06
Committee: ECON

2016/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Calls for an EU corporate taxation framework which would be fair for all companies, irrespective of their size, and simpler, in order to avoid creating loopholes and rewarding complex tax strategies by companies;

2016/04/06
Committee: ECON

2016/2032(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)

27b. Believes that the EIB/EIF should step up their efforts to provide SMEs with expertise to access funding and tools to facilitate contacts with investors such as, inter alia, the European Angels Fund; believes that the EIB/EIF should explore direct funding to innovative and risky projects that prudent regulatory requirements render difficult for private actors to finance; stresses however that the range of such projects and the funding made available by the EIB/EIF should not endanger its credit rating;

2016/04/06
Committee: ECON

2016/2009(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that ‘human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities’ are the values on which the EU is founded, as stated in Article 2 TEU; underlines the utmost importance of ensuring, strengthening and promoting full respect for these values both at Union and Member State level; reminds that Human Rights are universal and indivisible;

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2016/2009(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that article 23 of regulation 1303/2013 (measures linking effectiveness of ESI Funds to sound economic governance) provides for the suspension of ESI Funds if a Member State fails to take action concerning the violation of the Stability and Growth Pact (Excessive Deficit Procedure); believes a fortiori that the EU should link the payment of all EU funds with the respect of European values, as laid out in the Treaties;

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2016/2009(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the importance of ensuring full respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights throughout the whole legislative process; welcomes in this regard the Better Regulation Agreement, and draws attention to the significant role of comprehensive impact assessments, as well as of close cooperation between the EU institutions and Member States; reminds that effective and accurate implementation of EU law is primordial to protect the values of the Union, and this protection is essential for the credibility of the EU as a whole;

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2016/2009(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Takes note of the activation by the Commission for the first time ever of the new Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law; recommends a thorough evaluation of its functioning and results with a view to improving its effectiveness ~~if necessary~~; points out the report with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (2015/2254(INL)) that is being discussed in the European Parliament;

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2016/2009(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to be mandated to produce a biennial report on the extent to which Europe's most deprived citizens have access to all fundamental rights, as laid out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2016/2009(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Believes that collaboration and support between Member States and EU agencies needs to be enhanced and the exchange of information has to be more consistent and effective; believes the mandate of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency should be empowered;

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas open government data has the potential to foster economic growth, increase public sector efficiencies and improve transparency and accountability of European and national institutions;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas e-democracy could represent an alternative form of engagement capable of providing a solution to public disaffection with traditional politics, and could help promote communication, dialogue and grassroots support for EU policies;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Charles GOERENS, Kaja KALLAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the purpose of e- democracy is to facilitate democratic practice, not to establish an alternative democratic system or to promote a certain type of democracy; points out that e- democracy alone does not assure political participation, and that a non-digital environment to pursue political participation of citizens must also be addressed in a harmonized way with e- democracy;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Recalls~~Highlights the positive example of the first successful European ~~example of~~ online voting which took place in Estonia in its legally binding elections in 2005 ~~as a positive example, but maintains that~~, calls on other Member States to be ambitious ifn the ~~take-up of e-voting across Europe is to be successful, it will be necessary to assess the costs, benefits and implications of different or divergent technological approaches~~creation of secure online voting systems; believes that significant advances could be made through the sharing of best-practice and research;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Charles GOERENS, Kaja KALLAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Underlines that in order for the take-up of e-voting across Europe to be wide-spread, it will be necessary to assess the costs, benefits and implications of different or divergent technological approaches, to build on existing interoperable solutions, and to provide citizens with guarantees about the security of the e-voting system; underlines that e- voting is complementary to and does not replace the system of ballot boxes and ballot papers;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Charles GOERENS, Kaja KALLAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Member States and the EU to provide educational and technical means for improving ICT competences and digital access for all EU citizens, irrespective of their age, in order to bridge the digital divide (e-inclusion), for the ultimate benefit of democracy; encourages the Member States to integrate the acquisition of digital skills into school curricula and life-long learning programmes, supports the development of networks with universities and educational institutions to promote research on and implementation of new participation tools;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Member States and the EU to ~~deliver~~give citizens the possibility to fully access the digital environment to be able to actively participate in politics, as is their right; this will be enhanced by delivering affordable and high-speed digital infrastructure, particularly in peripheral regions and rural and economically less developed areas, and to ensureing that equality between citizens is guaranteed; recommends that public libraries and schools be appropriately resourced and that IT infrastructure be accessible to all citizens;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Commission to expand and develop e-participation in the Digital Single Market Strategy; calls in particular on the Commission to integrate the use of the D-CENT platform, as a EU funded project providing technological tools for participative democracy, based on security, privacy, and openness, in the consultation processes;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Kaja KALLAS, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses that the development of e- administration and open data should be a priority for Member States and the EU institutions and welcomes the Commission’s ambitious and comprehensive e-government action plan, for which proper national implementation will be key; Considers that more efforts should be done to implement open data strategies in both European institutions and Member states including the increase and faster release of data into the public domain, better quality of the data, and easy access to data in machine readable formats and without restriction to its use and reuse;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls for more cooperation at EU level and recommends the sharing of best practices for e-democracy projects as a way to move towards a form of democracy that is more participatory and deliberative and that responds to the requests and interests of the public; ~~calls~~stresses that trust is key to ensure the take up of e-democracy solutions; calls therefore on the Commission to provide an assessment of possible interoperable models of online voting for consideration by the Member States by the end of 2017, ~~in time for the next European elections in 2019~~based on secure and encrypted digital identity and digital signature, in accordance with the EIDAS regulation that provides an EU framework on electronic identification and trust services, in time for the next European elections in 2019, including responses to citizens' legitimate concerns about cyber security, data protection and voter anonymity;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/2008(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Gérard DEPREZ, Dominique RIQUET, Louis MICHEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses the need to protect privacy and personal data when using e-democracy tools, therefore to further develop the use of digital services based on key enablers such as a secure and encrypted digital identity according to the EIDAS regulation, and to foster a more secure internet environment, particularly with regard to information and data security, the setting- up of secure digital public registers and the validation of electronic signatures in order to prevent fraudulent multiple interactions; underlines that security issues must not become a deterrent to the inclusion of individuals and groups in democratic processes;

2016/11/08
Committee: AFCO

2016/0276(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK, Gérard DEPREZ, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET, Louis MICHEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) That positive momentum should be maintained and efforts need to be continued to bring investment back to its long-term sustainable trend. The mechanisms of the Investment Plan work and should be reinforced to continue the mobilisation of private investments in sectors important to Europe's future and where market failures or sub-optimal investment situations remain. To foster growth three dimensions complementing each others and necessary to each others need to be worked on in parallel: a framework to finance investment and innovation (including CMU), structural reforms and a common policy mix.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) Additionality, a key feature of the EFSI, should be strengthened in the selection of projects. In particular, operations should only be eligible for EFSI support if they address clearly identified market failures or sub-optimal investment situations. The purpose of additionality should be limited to ensuring that selected projects are those that could not have otherwise obtained financing on the market due to a higher risk profile. Operations in infrastructure under the Infrastructure and Innovation Window linking two or more Member States, including e-infrastructure, should be considered additional given their inherent difficulty and their high added value for the Union.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)

(9 a) The EIB has also the responsibility to supervise and do a cost-benefit analysis also those projects between 10 and 50 million euros to avoid misuses of the EFSI fund at national level.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Gérard DEPREZ, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET, Louis MICHEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)

(11 a) It is appropriate to encourage partnerships with National Promotional Banks or Institutions including for setting up Investment Platforms and, where, on a case by case basis, the National Promotional Banks or Institutions could select projects thereafter.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)

(16 a) Investment platforms participating in EFSI shall be able to work in a cross- border basis in order to increase their efficiency and to reduce geographical imbalances.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 b (new)

(16 b) In the framework of a partnership between the Investment Committee and an investment platform, a national promotional bank or an institution, the Investment Committee may at any time supervise the project selection procedure applied in order to guarantee the respect of this Regulation.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)

(18 a) The annual country-by-country reports of EFSI will include the exact funding that every project has required.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) The European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) should be enhanced and its activities should ~~focu~~address any shortcomings oin ~~needs not covered adequately under current arrangemen~~the implementation of the EFSI. It should play an instrumental role in empowering project promoters to initiate and develop viable, sustainable and quality projects. It should pay particular attention to supporting the preparation of projects involving two or more Member States or regions and projects that contribute to achieving the objectives of COP21. ~~Notwithstanding its objective to build upon existing advisory services of the EIB and the Commission, so to act as a single technical advisory hub for project financing within the Union, t~~The EIAH should also contribute actively to the objective of sectorial and geographical diversification of the EFSI and proactively support the EIB ~~where needed~~ in originating projects and launching o~~riginating projects~~perations. The EIAH activities should be complementary to the existing structures and overlaps to the services in the Member States should be avoided. It should also actively contribute to the establishment of investment platforms and provide advice on the combination of other sources of Union funding with the EFSI. It is considered necessary for the EIAH to establish a strong local presence, where needed, to leverage local knowledge about the EFSI and better consider local needs. The EIAH should aim to conclude agreements with national and regional promotional banks or institutions in each Member State. To achieve those objectives, the staff capacity of the EIAH should be commensurate to the tasks that it is called upon to undertake.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK, Nils TORVALDS

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

(ii a) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 6: ‘6a. In order to actively ensure a wide geographic outreach of the advisory services across the Union and to successfully leverage local knowledge about the EFSI, the local presence of the EIAH shall be established, where needed and taking into account existing support schemes, with a view to providing tangible, pro-active, tailor-made assistance on the ground.'.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK, Gérard DEPREZ, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET, Louis MICHEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 2015/1017
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

(11 a) In Article 21, the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: ‘2. OLAF may carry out investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, in accordance with the provisions and procedures laid down in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 1 1), Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 ( 2 2) and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 ( 3 3) in order to protect the financial interests of the Union, with a view to establishing whether there has been fraud, corruption, money laundering or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union in connection with any financing and investment operations covered by this Regulation. OLAF may transmit any information obtained in the course of its investigations to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. The competent authorities shall follow up on the information transmitted, unless not compatible with the national legal framework.’

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 2015/1017
Article 24 – paragraph 2

(13 a) In Article 24, the second paragraph is replaced by the following: ‘2. The Commission shall assess the operations referred to in paragraph 1 and, where they comply with the eligibility criteria set out in Article 6, the general objectives set out in Article 9(2) ~~and Annex II~~, Annex II, and the principles of operations' own merit, and without any geographic or sectorial allocation, decide that the EU guarantee coverage extends to them.’

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – point 1 b a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 2015/1017
Annex II – section 2 – point 2 a (new)

(b a) A new point is added: (2 a) The EIB shall use the EU guarantee for supporting investment platforms or funds and national promotional banks or institutions that invest in operations meeting the requirements of this Regulation (eligible vehicles), after approval by the Investment Committee. In order to avoid geographical concentration, Investment Committee shall encourage cooperation with cross-border investment platforms.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

2016/0276(COD)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK, Nils TORVALDS, Dominique RIQUET

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – point 3

Regulation (EU) No 2015/1017
Annex II – section 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)

The scoreboard shall be made public as soon as an operation under the EU guarantee is signed, with the exclusion of commercially sensitive information; a compilation of the scoreboard results shall be presented to MEPs in an annual basis.

2017/03/27
Committee: BUDG ECON

Petr JEŽEK, Sylvie GOULARD, Nils TORVALDS, Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

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

(21a) in Section 3 of Chapter VI, the following subsection is inserted : Subsection IIIa International Cooperation Article 57a 1. Member State should ensure that their competent authorities supervising credit and financial institutions as well as their law enforcement authorities, provide the widest possible range of international cooperation with the competent authorities of third countries that constitute counterparts of the national competent authorities. 2. Member state shall ensure that there are effective gateways to facilitate the prompt and constructive exchange directly between counterparts, either spontaneously or upon request, of information relating to money laundering.

2016/12/19
Committee: ECON LIBE

2016/0208(COD)

Nils TORVALDS, Petr JEŽEK, Sylvie GOULARD, Lieve WIERINCK, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

2016/0010(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 23 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission a yearly assessment of the effectiveness of the automatic exchange of information referred to in Article 8, Article 8a and 8aa as well as the practical results achieved. The Commission shall then submit an annual consolidated report, based on the information received, to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt the form and the conditions of communication of that yearly assessment. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 26(2).

2016/03/22
Committee: ECON

2016/0010(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 23 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. In the event that the Commission's impact assessment on the economic consequences of the public disclosure of the country-by-country reporting information does not identify a significant negative impact, including on global competitiveness and investment, the Commission shall consider making an appropriate legislative proposal for the amendment of this Directive to make that information available to the public.

2016/03/22
Committee: ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Recalls that, although still a young currency and despite having experienced a serious crisis over recent years, the euro is solidly established as a global reserve currency;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes, however, that the crisis enhanced the need for improvement in EU economic governance and that the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) must be progressively completed; considers that public confidence will only be rebuilt through the development of a progressive and comprehensive roadmap; calls for this roadmap to be urgently established;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that 26 Member States are committed to joining the euro area and that in the Treaties the euro is recognised as the currency of the economic and monetary union (article 3(4) TEU); underlines that this single currency is the reason for the current single institutional framework which means that all MEPs, Commissioners and European judges participate fully in decisions concerning the euro area;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area, Regulation (EU) no 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area, Regulation 1174/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, Regulation (EU) no 1175/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, Regulation 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, Regulation (EU) no 1177/2011 of 8 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Takes note of different proposals for this purpose, with different designs and assigning different functions; points out that some options are possible under the current Treaties, whereas others would require Treaty change; stresses the importance of examining this issue from a holistic perspective - a budgetary capacity of the euro area is a tool which can complement others, notably a greater focus on convergence, or the completion of the Single Market, in order to reinforce both the euro area and the European Union - as an isolated measure it cannot be a panacea;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Treaty on European Union establishes the creation of the single market, whose currency is the euro; whereas the European Monetary Union referred to in TEU article 3.4 currently consists of 19 members~~, two of whom~~ having the Euro, two members haveing opt-out clauses, and the remaining seven EU Member States ~~having yet~~bound to join; whereas no financial liability will be incurred by the two countries with opt-outs from EMU in the framework of any fiscal capacity for the euro area;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Recalls that such capacity should be part of the EU budget as laid down in Article 310(1) TFEU and should comply with the provisions of Articles 310(4) and 312(1) TFEU;~~deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points out that, pursuant to Article 311 TFEU, it is possible to raise the own resources ceilings, to establish new categories of own resources (even if only from a limited number of Member States) and to assign certain revenue to finance specific items of expenditure, as provided for in Article 21 of the Financial Rules1 ; believes that the best option would be to generate own resources specifically linked to the euro area, in order to avoiding mixing the budget of the EU 28 and the budget of the euro area, which each have different goals; __________________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Jean ARTHUIS, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Recalls that the protocols on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and on the role of national parliaments offer ample opportunities for national parliaments’ involvement in this respect; states that responsibilities must be assigned at the level where decisions are taken or implemented, with national parliaments scrutinising national governments and the European Parliament scrutinising the European executives; believes that this is the only way to ensure the required increased accountability of decision- making;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas it became apparent during the sovereign debt crisis that the European Treaties do not provide the euro area with the instruments to deal effectively with shocks; whereas the rules-based system, with loose adherence to the rules by the Member States, and mere coordination of national economic policies failed to provide the required resilience during the crisis;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that using own resources specifically linked to the euro area would ensure the necessary clarity, transparency and democratic legitimacy concerning control and accountability, as these resources would be generated and controlled at the European level;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that non-eurozone Member States should be involved, if they so desire, although in a differentiated way, and with no decision-making capacity, and depending on the design of the budgetary capacity.;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Considers it essential to differentiate between discussion concerning policies for the euro area and related decision making; modalities must be found to allow all Member State who are committed to joining the euro area to participate in discussions concerning the euro area, if they so wish, however only Member States who are members of the euro area and contribute to rescue funds and the budgetary capacity should be able to vote on these decisions;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Jean ARTHUIS, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Considers that, in parallel to the euro area decision-making body within the European Parliament, it will also be essential to foresee an equivalent decision-making structure within the Council of Ministers; suggests that the Euro Group could be the appropriate formation, with its accountability improved;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the Euro acted as a shield during the financial crisis and whereas many Member States would have experienced a worse situation without it; whereas improvements are however required for the Euro to really meet its promises and potential;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Nils TORVALDS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9c. Believes that a clearly defined role for the European Court of Justice will be crucial in order to guarantee fairness and efficiency in the implementation of the new framework;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

Fb. whereas any budgetary capacity for the euro area should not be seen independently from the other necessary evolutions required for the euro area to be an optimal currency area, nor from other tools that already exist (inter alia EIB/EIF), nor from existing rules;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Jean ARTHUIS, Sylvie GOULARD, Gérard DEPREZ, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nedzhmi ALI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 d (new)

9d. Underlines that improvements of the euro area can already be implemented under the current Treaties; considers, however, that Treaty revision or an ad- hoc euro area Treaty should not be excluded; recalls that recourse to an intergovernmental agreement was the option chosen for the UK settlement; considers that the current single institutional framework is no longer justified; considers that any evolution would need to respect the "Community" framework and its spirit, for example maintaining the existing institutions but modifying their structure to reflect the new reality rather than creating new ones, as much as possible;

2016/06/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the Community method was abandoned in favour of intergovernmental agreements in order to allow for rapid responses in the crisis; whereas this has made the European Council the leading actor in the crisis, while the European Parliament and its national counterparts have been side-lined and the European Commission relegated to a role of secretariat of the European Council;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Jean ARTHUIS, Sylvie GOULARD, Gérard DEPREZ, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers, against this background, that shortcomings have existed in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) since its inception under the Maastricht Treaty with the attribution of monetary policy to the European level, while budgetary policy remains within the competencies of the Member States and is only framed by provisions on light coordination of national policies; recalls that the Stability and Growth Pact is a necessary set of rules allowing Member States to share a single currency but is not, per se, a European economic policy;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that the introduction of the euro as a common currency has eliminated tried and tested policy options for counterbalancing asymmetric shocks such as exchange rate devaluation; acknowledges that the Euro in itself is a shield against exchange rate fluctuations; reiterates that the relinquishing of autonomy over monetary policy therefore requires alternative adjustment mechanisms to cope with asymmetric macroeconomic shocks in order to make the euro zone an optimal currency area able, inter alia, to implement a proper policy mix;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Points out that the crisis has proved that a common monetary policy without a common fiscal policy cannot address asymmetric shocks to the euro area; reiterates that mere coordination of national fiscal policies without credible enforcement mechanisms, as well as loose adherence by Member States to the common fiscal framework, has not prevented an investment gap, has proved insufficient to trigger growth-enhancing, sustainable and socially balanced structural reforms and has not enhanced the national capacity to absorb economic shocks;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Believes that the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure has not been used to its full potential to prevent imbalances and to foster greater convergence;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Makes it clear that ~~rapid action is needed to ensure the sustainabil~~a well-defined roadmap is needed to realise the full benefitys of the ~~euro~~common currency; stresses that this requires strong joint efforts on the part of the EU and its Member States to complete the EMU and to restore the trust of citizens and markets;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes that in order to regain trust, the euro must deliver on its promise of stability, convergence, growth and jobs; regards a fiscal capacity as a vital element in this enterprise, which can be successful only if solidarity is closely linked to responsibility, meaning that financial support is provided on the basis of clear criteria; considers that it should go hand in hand with completion of the internal market, with an EU budget funding European and future oriented investments;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Argues that convergence, good governance and conditionality enforced through institutions being held democratically accountable at the euro-area and national level are key, notably to preventing permanent transfers and moral hazard; states that responsibilities must be assigned at the level where decisions are taken or implemented, with national parliaments scrutinising national governments and the European Parliament scrutinising the European executives; believes that this is the only way to ensure the required increased accountability of decision-making;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes the view that incentives for sound fiscal policymaking and for addressing structural weaknesses at national level, taking into account the aggregate euro area fiscal stance, are core elements for the functioning of the euro area; considers that a fiscal capacity should, moreover, address specific concerns for the euro ~~area in the case of absorbing shocks~~to prevent shocks and in order to enable daily political management;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that, while seeking complementarities and avoiding overlaps, a fiscal capacity must be created on top of existing EU funding instruments, within its legal framework, in order to ensure consistent development between euro and non-euro Member States; considers however that the option of an ad-hoc Euro area Treaty should not be disregarded, as this has been the tool chosen for the UK settlement;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Jean ARTHUIS, Michael THEURER, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that effective stabilisation of large euro area Member States or a group of closely economically intertwined countries requires ~~sufficient resources~~adequate own resources, drawing lessons from one of the main failures of the EU budget coming from the expectation of a "fair return", calculated only in numerical terms; recalls the creation of the interinstitutional group on own resources (the Monti group), whose creation in itself reveals an awareness of this problem;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Nils TORVALDS, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3

~~Three pillars of the fiscal capacity~~deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Considers that, in opposition to the ESM, EFSF, EFSM which were conceived as emergency tools, the budgetary capacity of the euro area should be seen as a permanent governance tool and fund the stability of the Euro area, labour mobility, investment to bring prosperity, in order to make it an optimal currency area;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that ~~three different functions have to be fulfilled; argues, first, that in order~~a sound management of the Euro area must include notably the following elements: to foster economic and social convergence within the euro area and to improve the economic competitiveness and resilience of the euro area, Member States’ structural reforms should be incentivised in good economic times; argues, secondly, that differences in the business cycles of euro area Member States stemming from structural differences create the need for an instrument to address asymmetric shocks; considers, thirdly, that symmetric shocks should be addressed so asto address asymmetric shocks, to increase the resilience of the euro area as a whole;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Argues in consequence that three pillars of a fiscal capacity should be distinguished, wherein action should be undertaken in the framework of a common toolbox to address the different functions, i.e. incentivising convergence and sustainable structural reforms, absorbing asymmetric shocks, and absorbing symmetric shocks; takes note of the various proposals regarding designs put forward on this matter by politicians and academia;deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Demands that the ESM be integrated into the Union’s legal framework and evolve towards a Community mechanism, as provided for in the ESM Treaty and as constantly requested by the European Parliament and foreseen in the Five Presidents’ report; underlines that the ECJ Pringle case-law and jurisprudence open up the possibility of bringing the ESM within the Union’s framework, within the existing Treaties, on the basis of Article 352 TFEU; calls, therefore, on the Commission to bring forward as a matter of urgency a legislative proposal to that end; demands that the ESM be made fully accountable to the Members of European Parliament elected in the contributing Member States;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for the ESM, whilst fulfilling its ongoing tasks, to be further developed and turned into a European Monetary Fund (EMF) with adequate lending and borrowing capacities and a clearly defined mandate, including its contribution to a euro area fiscal capacity; stresses that an EMF should be managed by the Commission and held democratically accountable by the Members of the European Parliament elected in the contributing Member States; emphasises that national parliaments would be adequately involved in the process, ~~given that~~if their constitutional prerogatives regarding financial resources ~~could~~were to be affected;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Jean ARTHUIS, Sylvie GOULARD, Gérard DEPREZ, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Insists that once it is integrated into Community law, the fiscal capacity for the euro area should be integrated into the EU budget, provided control and accountability is the responsibility of those contributing to it, but over and above the ceilings of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF);

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Believes that compliance with a convergence code should be the condition for access to funding from the ESM/EMF; reiterates its call on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to this end;deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Believes that compliance with a convergence code should be the condition for access to ~~fund~~borrowing from the ESM/EMF; reiterates its call on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to this end;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4

~~Pillar 1: A convergence code to promote convergence and incentivise the implementation of structural reforms~~deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Reiterates its call for the adoption of a ‘convergence code’, based on the MIP, as a legal act resulting from the ordinary legislative procedure, to streamline the existing coordination of economic policies into a more effective convergence of economic policies within the European Semester;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 1

– taxation: ~~base and rate of corporate tax~~implementation of a CCCTB and modification of fiscal rules detrimental to the optimal allocation of capital as underlined in the Werner report,

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 2

– labour market, including minimum wages within sectors (within the Member State), and pension systems,

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5

~~Pillar 2: Absorption of asymmetric shocks~~deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

~~29. Notes that the two models for the shock absorption function are featured most prominently in the academic literature: a Rainy Day Fund and a European Unemployment Benefit Scheme;~~deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Points out that the Rainy Day Fund should be funded by all the Member States on the basis of a cyclically sensitive economic indicator and used for payments to all Member States suffering from economic downturns;deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

~~31. Acknowledges that the model of a European Unemployment Benefit Scheme would foster convergence of labour markets in the medium term;~~deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6

~~Pillar 3: Absorption of symmetric shocks~~deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Considers that in the case of symmetric shocks brought about by a lack of internal demand, monetary policy alone cannot reignite the economy, particularly in a context of zero lower bounds; is therefore convinced that public and private investment must be increased, the administrative burden reduced and a proper, simpler regulatory framework developed and implemented, with a view to stimulating potential growth;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Stresses that the Community method should prevail in the development of economic governance for the euro area; urges that no reinforcement of intergovernmental structures should take place in parallel with existing structures;deleted

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Calls urgently for the European Parliament and national parliaments to be given a strengthened role in the renewed economic governance framework in order to reinforce democratic accountability; ~~calls for increased national ownership in the European Semester in order to improve compliance with the CSRs;~~

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Jean ARTHUIS, Sylvie GOULARD, Gérard DEPREZ, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Considers that ~~in order to provide for a genuine EMU,~~ a euro area treasury should be created for collective decision- making, supervision and management of the budgetary capacity for the euro area; calls for the inclusion of this treasury within the European Commission with full macroeconomic, fiscal and financial competences; calls for a vice-president of the European Commission to head the treasury and simultaneously to act as president of the Eurogroup; urges full accountability of this treasury to the European Parliament with appropriate accountability;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Jean ARTHUIS, Sylvie GOULARD, Gérard DEPREZ, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Nedzhmi ALI, Urmas PAET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)

41a. Is convinced that the macroeconomic governance of the euro area should evolve towards a system of surveillance centred on a limited number of fiscal indicators with clear and simple rules; considers that a strong enforcement of these rules coupled with an ambitious fiscal capacity should allow for less intrusion from the European level into policy-making at national level; stresses that such an application of the subsidiarity principle would allow for a more credible and more democratic governance of the euro area, which would foster ownership by citizens;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 b (new)

41b. Notes that the European Parliament should review its internal organisation so as to allow an expression of these MEPs elected in the euro area;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Lieve WIERINCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Considers that those non-euro countries that do not have an opt-out will eventually become part of the EMU and therefore may join the governance framework on a voluntary basis with a special status; considers it essential to differentiate between discussion concerning policies for the euro area and related decision making; modalities must be found to allow all Member States who are committed to joining the euro area to participate in discussions concerning the euro area, if they so wish, however only Member States who are members of the euro area should be able to vote on these decisions;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2344(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. ~~Acknowledges that the current political climate characterised by deep inequality, mistrust and uncertainty is not conducive to proper reforms to achieve and complete EMU; believes, therefore,~~Believes that a comprehensive roadmap, including clear milestones and convergence criteria within an agreed timetable and taking into account the political situation, should be urgently adopted with a clear commitment by euro area Heads of State and Government ~~to achieving a genu~~; considers that the roadmap should also address the issue of sovereign debt stock ine an~~d complete EMU~~ appropriate manner;

2016/06/09
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/2329(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Points out that participation in the programme by countries seeking EU membership would lead to better mutual understanding and closer cooperation; proposes, therefore, that thought should be given to promoting projects involving cooperation between EU NGOs and NGOs from Eastern Partnership countries and other countries seeking EU membership.deleted

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2015/2329(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Underlines that before accession of a country to the European Union takes place profound and holistic preparation is required concerning issues of remembrance, coming to terms with the past and ensuring the active participation of citizens in civic life in the country concerned.

2016/10/12
Committee: AFCO

2015/2326(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Maintains that the citizens of the Union may feel confident about Union law and can benefit effectively from its correct application in the Member States ~~only if~~when Union law is established in full compliance with the ~~principle of conferral and~~Treaties; recalls that the principles of conferral and subsidiarity and proportionality, asre set out in ~~Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union~~the Treaties (article 5 TEU);

2016/06/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2326(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that it is important for both the Member States and the Commission to respect their own roles and responsibilities, the former with regard to the timely and accurate transposition of directives and the proper application of EU law, and the latter with regard to the efficient monitoring ~~of the application~~and enforcement of EU law;

2016/06/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2326(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Reiterates the provision in the recently adopted IIA on Better Law- Making that calls on Member States when transposing EU directives into national law where they choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation to make these additions identifiable either through the transposing act or through associated documents;

2016/06/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2326(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. calls on the Commission to dedicate, for each directorate-general, a webpage listing the Member States not having transposed directives or not complying with decisions and regulations; considers it should be updated on a monthly basis and should detail which directives have not been transposed and/or which decisions and regulations have not been complied with;

2016/03/31
Committee: ECON

2015/2326(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that Member States should express their political concerns at an early stage, through actively engaging in the legislative process as foreseen in the Treaties, rather than postponing the timely transposition of Union law;

2016/06/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2326(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. considers that the Commission should more actively tackle cases of improperly transposed directives, as it may cover cases of both involuntary and of voluntary action by Member States;

2016/03/31
Committee: ECON

2015/2326(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. considers it the duty of the Commission to oppose the two legislative branches of decision making at the European level leaving substantive elements to be decided through delegated acts/implementing acts during the co- decision process, due to the legal uncertainties and potential risks, dangers and complications which could result;

2016/03/31
Committee: ECON

2015/2326(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. expresses concern that the settlement concluded with the UK on February 19 2016 has been concluded outside of the EU treaty framework which could create legal uncertainties; underlines the importance of the Court of Justice in its enforcement control as well as its sovereign power;

2016/03/31
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas economic recovery and the effective implementation of structural reforms in the European Union is under way but remains uneven between ~~and within~~ Member States ~~and is partly driven by temporary factors~~;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the euro area’s ~~current account surplus continues to rise, while Europe still faces an important~~public and private debt levels remain very high and are a drag on growth and hold back investment ~~gap~~;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the employment rate is improving but not enough to significantly curb unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and poverty;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the 2008 crisis was not only of a cyclical nature but also of a structural nature, which explains its lasting effects;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the free movement of people, goods, services and capital is the cornerstone of the sustainable economic growth in the European Union’s Single Market;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the 2016 Annual Growth Survey package and the proposed policy mix of investment, structural reform and fiscal ~~responsibility~~consolidation, with increased emphasis on ~~domestic demand and convergence, complementing accommodative monetary policies~~the effective implementation of structural reforms to ensure well- functioning labour, product, services and capital markets, quality education and training systems, modern and efficient social security systems and to promote innovation and entrepreneurship;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes improvements in public finances, in particular ~~gradually declining debt/GDP ratio~~a fall in headline budget deficits and gradually declining debt/GDP ratios but points out that public debt still remains very high in some Member States, which is a drag on growth and a burden for future generations;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that Europe’s global competitiveness remains an important objective, while the worsening global outlook calls for strengthening ~~domestic sources of growth~~productivity as well as growth and employment by reducing macroeconomic imbalances, particularly current account deficits;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for further efforts to support recovery, foster convergence towards the best performers and correct macroeconomic imbalances, including by ~~channelling excess savings towards the domestic econom~~increasing productivity and boosting investment;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Is encouraged by mild improvements in labour market indicators; calls for more effort to reduce barriers to entry into the labour market, poverty, social exclusion and growing inequalities;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Asks the Commission for an impact study of the consequences of growing inequalities on economic growth and job creation in the European Union;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for tackling economic inequalities which act as an obstacle against long-lasting economic growth;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Expresses its concern on the potential consequences for the Union due to a possible decrease of the Chinese economic growth and emphasises the need to take them into consideration in further economic and monetary policies;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the European Structural and Investment Funds to their full potential; underlines that EU financial means (inter alia structural funds or EFSI) have swiftly been made available and should be used in coherence with each other and with the EU 2020 strategy;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Is aware of the on-going deleveraging process in the private sector; points to the importance of completing the banking and capital markets union and boosting equity investments in SMEs;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. HCalls on Member States to improve the quality and productivity of public investment and for the Commission to come up with clear criteria to assess their impacts; highlights the importance of investments in human capital and other social investments;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that~~, after a long period of nominal adjustment, focus should be put on structural reforms and investments aimed at strengthening growth potential, promot~~ focus should be put on structural reforms promoting growth, jobs and investment while ensuring fair and sustainable welfare systems and reducing social inequalities;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls for product and service market reforms and better regulation, promoting open markets, innovation and ~~quality-based~~fair competition;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges that further steps be taken towards resilient labour markets with reduced segmentation and sustainable welfare systems with increased focus on ~~social investment~~removing barriers to entry into the labour market, particularly for the young; believes that it is important to improve workers' mobility, notably by providing portability of pensions rights and ensuring adequate and sustainable pension benefits across the EU;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Emphasises the need for modern, efficient and citizen-friendly public administration; in this respect asks the Commission and the Member States to identify and correct deficiencies in the Member States’ and the Commission’s administrations that could prove to be detrimental in crisis situations;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls for a greater shift of taxation away from labour to consumption;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Reiterates the need for ~~responsible fiscal policies~~the continuation of growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, taking into account debt sustainability, the economic cycle and investment gaps;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Insists on the full implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact, while ~~making use of available fiscal space, inter alia, to deal with security threats and refugee inflows~~the Commission may assess that possible temporary deviations may be justified to deal with unusual and unpredictable events outside of a Member State's control;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Emphasises the need for improved tax collection, fighting tax evasion and avoidance and improved tax policy coordination as well as removing distortions from unfair differential taxation; is convinced that simplification of the tax systems is key and that a common consolidated corporate tax base would help to achieve this;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area as a way to deepen policy coordination in the follow-up to the Five Presidents’' Report, particularly the recommendations on reforms that enhance productivity, foster job creation, raise competitiveness, improve the business environment and create flexible labour markets; in this regard, considers that the Green Paper on retail financial services is a positive step as it aims to fulfil the promise made to EU citizens of a real Internal Market and can provide tools for growth through daily actions and, for example, unleash the full potential of the digital economy;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Emphasises that, given its high level of interdependence and the singleness of its monetary policy, the euro area needs to be viewed as one macroeconomic entity where co~~nvergence~~mpetitiveness and convergence towards the best performers must be promoted; calls therefore for an in-depth aggregate assessment of macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area to complement the assessment of country-specific vulnerabilities; insists on full coherence between the euro area recommendation and country-specific recommendations;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Recalls that monetary policy can succeed in supporting cyclical recovery but can only facilitate and not replace structural reforms necessary for structural recovery; underlines the Member States' and the European institutions' responsibility to restore confidence to enable private investments, entrepreneurship and active participation of citizens in the economic cycle;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Welcomes increased attention to the euro area’s aggregate fiscal stance; ~~calls for greater discussion on whether it can be considered broadly neutral given the large investment gap;~~

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Supports the recommendation to differentiate fiscal effort by individual Member States taking into account their respective positions vis-à-vis Stability and Growth Pact requirements and stabilisation needs, as well as spillover effects; notes that high-surplus countries may have ~~significant~~ fiscal space which they could use to ~~the benefit of their populations and the monetary union as a whole;~~ reduce taxes and invest in modernising their infrastructure, unless such measures would endanger sustaining their social welfare systems in the light of adverse demographic developments;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Agrees that while the euro area’'s high current account surplus partly is a welcome sign of the euro area’'s external competitiveness, partly it also simpl~~ies a lack of internal investment and a risk of euro appreciation when monetary policy starts to become less accommodative, with adverse effects on growth and employment~~y reflects weaker commodity prices and the depreciation of the euro; believes that the excess of savings is due to a lack of investor confidence in the euro area and its ability to establish a sustainable business environment for long-term investment; calls on the Member States to effectively implement structural reforms to modernise their economies and improve the business environment in coherence with the EU 2020 strategy;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Emphasises the need to foster real economic and social convergence driven by improvements in productivity and non- cost factors; underlines the importance of all Member States ~~having sufficient investment capacity, enabling balanced and sustainable growth;~~ effectively implementing structural reforms and having sufficient investment capacity by leaving a safety margin in economic good times and improving the quality of public expenditure;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Recognises the benefits of ~~symmetrical~~ adjustment, where regaining cost competitiveness does not merely require undergoing deflation ~~which is detrimental to debt sustainability;~~

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Calls for measures preventing a race to the bottom in terms of taxation and social standards~~, building on better use of social indicators in macroeconomic surveillance~~ leading to an increase in inequalities;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2285(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Requests that plenary debates with the Commission and the President of the Eurogroup on the draft euro area recommendation become regular features in order to strengthen and complement existing democratic dialogue and accountability, for example the economic dialogue;

2016/01/12
Committee: ECON

2015/2283(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the package of better regulation measures adopted on 19 May 2015~~; believes however that material criteria for establishing the existence of a violation of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles should be proposed~~ and supports a stronger, more efficient European Union; underlines however that this package must be used to create robust European legislation concerning issues where real progress and added value can be best achieved at the European level and must not result in inaction at the European level;

2016/01/22
Committee: AFCO

2015/2283(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Regret~~Observes the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014; takes note of the Commission’s view that, far from reflecting a decrease in interest on their part, this might be the result of the declining number of legislative proposals from the Commission;

2016/01/22
Committee: AFCO

2015/2283(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes, however, that a majority of opinions by national parliaments are submitted by only a few national chambers; encourages the other chambers to become more involved in the European debate;

2016/01/22
Committee: AFCO

2015/2283(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes, ~~nevertheless~~therefore, that it is important to raise the awareness of national parliaments ~~on subsidiarity issues and to support them with tools permitting information exchange; stresses that, especially since~~regarding their specific role in European decision making and to promote further the use of IPEX which facilitates information exchange; recalls that the public consultations regularly organized by the Commission could be a source of information, but remain largely unused by members of national parliaments; notes that the volume of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014 remained unchanged in proportion to the number of Commission proposals~~, a mechanism should be developed for the participation of national parliaments in the EU legislative process~~;

2016/01/22
Committee: AFCO

2015/2283(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that the period of eight weeks given to national parliaments to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality ~~should be extended significantly~~is sufficient to allow national parliaments to participate to a greater extent, without delaying the adoption of relevant legislation;

2016/01/22
Committee: AFCO

2015/2283(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that the so-called yellow and orange card procedures concerning the principle of subsidiarity exist since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and that the yellow card procedure has already been used multiple times; believes that an equivalent so-called yellow and red card system should be created for the European Parliament to allow it to react when Member States legislate in domains which are within the competencies of the Single Market, or alternatively if Member States do not correctly implement European directives, which fragments the Single Market and results in a lack of level playing field;

2016/01/22
Committee: AFCO

2015/2283(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the Commission should provide an adequate response to the request by a number of national chambers for a stronger subsidiarity control procedure; supports the request made by some national chambers to play a more crucial role, by proposing that the Commission should be bound to withdraw or amend its proposal when a yellow card is triggered; believes, at the same time, that the idea of a ‘green card’ should be considered as one means of raising the participation and activity of national parliaments in the EU legislative process.deleted

2016/01/22
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 1 – paragraph - 1 (new)

- 1. Underlines the shared values as laid down in Article 2 TEU on which the European Union is founded;

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 1 – paragraph 1

1. Expresses the view that the Member States of the European Union should ~~move towards a shared culture of the meaning of~~uphold the rule of law in the 28 Member States to be applied by all concerned even- handedly;

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 1 – paragraph 2

2. Considers that the procedure under Article 7 TEU ~~is virtually unusable; not~~remains a last resort instrument; deplores that the Union has no legally binding mechanism in place to monitor regularly the compliance of the Member States and EU institutions with the EU's fundamental values;

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 1 – paragraph 3

3. ~~Takes note of~~Welcomes the rule of law Framework established by the Commission in 20141 and of the creation of an annual dialogue on the rule of law in the General Affairs Council as established in December 2014; ~~and looks to the formulation of common ground as between these different rule of law mechanisms~~urges however all EU institutions to work towards the establishment of a broader, integrated Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights mechanism that applies to all Member States and the EU Institutions; therefore recommends the adoption of a Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Pact between citizens, governments, and EU institutions, giving ownership to all and thus making everyone responsible for a robust democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights throughout the Union, rather than just a legal tool for top down enforcement; __________________ 1 Communication of the Commission of 11 March 2014 on "A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law" (COM(2014)0158).

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls, therefore, for the adoption of an objective and evidence based mechanism that enables not only infringements to specific EU laws to be addressed, but also threats to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; ensuring that all Member States are treated equally and no decision will be taken (or perceived to be taken) on political grounds;

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 1 – paragraph 4

4. Considers it important to work towards a new ~~consensus between the EU and its Member States~~binding mechanism with the aim of promoting and protecting democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, ~~proceeding from the basis that unless extreme care is taken, there will always be a danger of politicising legality~~to safeguard the shared values as enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter in a fully transparent and objective manner; proceeding from the basis that the EU loses credibility if enforcement of the founding principles is perceived to be uneven and unfair; Calls, therefore, for the adoption of an objective and evidence based mechanism that enables not only infringements to specific EU laws to be addressed, but also risks of systemic threats to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; ensuring that all Member States are treated equally and no decision will be taken (or perceived to be taken) on political grounds;

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 2 – paragraph 6

6. Recommends the establishment on an EU mechanism for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights which would include all relevant stakeholders~~; considers that this would, however, require a Treaty change~~, within the limits of the current Treaties;

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 2 – paragraph 7

7. Calls for a ~~coordination of the~~broader, integrated mechanism on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights incorporating the existing initiatives from the different EU institutions and is of the opinion that ~~inform~~an annual democracy, rule of law and fundamental tri~~logues should be regularly~~ghts policy cycle should be organiszed in order to ensure a coherent EU approach ~~and to establish a fully consensual working definition of human rights, the rule of law and democracy~~;

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2254(INL)

Draft opinion
Indent 2 – paragraph 10

10. Recommends that the pan-EU parliamentary debate is organised in such a way that it can involve setting goals to achieve and provide the means to measure changes from one year to another with the possibility to report back on the implementation of goals or recommendations.

2016/04/05
Committee: AFCO

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the establishment of the SSM, which has been successful since its creation both from an operational point of view and in terms of supervisory quality, and considers it a remarkable achievement, taking into account the complexity of the project and the very short time frame available; calls for this high-quality work to continue;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that the worldwide drive towards more and better quality bank capital is a necessary condition for a sound banking system capable of supporting the economy and for avoiding any repeat of the ~~enormous~~significant bailouts witnessed during the crisis; underlines however that the development of regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies at global level (FSB, BCBS, etc.) must have defined aims, and must not be used as a guise to enable unfair competition, nor to negatively target a particular funding model used in one part of the world;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Welcomes the development of a common methodology for the 2015 round of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP); takes note that, partly as a consequence of the swift start of the SSM, many aspects of this methodology were finalised while the SREP cycle was already underway, and considers that in order to improve robustness of results and consistency between banks’ risk profiles and capital levels, the process leading to the approval of the common risk assessment may benefit from further refinement; welcomes the SSM's willingness to work on banks' governance and in particular on risk management, risk appetite and cyber risk;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes that the homogenisation of supervisory practices and standards within the euro area is a key objective for the SSM in order to ensure a true level playing field; in this respect, welcomes the agreement on a single implementation of national options and discretion for the euro area; considers that such a single implementation requires a gradual approach and should aim to address all existing barriers and segmentations; stands ready to cooperate at the legislative level to further improve regulatory and supervisory harmonisation; urges the Commission to use regulations, applicable directly and to all throughout the EU, as the legislative tool to ensure harmonised implementation across the EU and the Banking Union rather than directives;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Welcomes the efficient and open way in which the ECB has so far fulfilled its accountability obligations towards Parliament and calls upon the ECB to continue to fully engage in this regard and to further contribute to improving Parliament’s capacity to assess SSM policies and activities; views favourably the willingness of the ECB President to further cooperate with the European Parliament regarding the ECB's role in banking matters in the framework of global standards setting bodies, in particular the Financial Stability Board; is aware that this would require a renewed effort from the ECON committee to follow these issues;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Welcomes the credibility of the SSM on the international stage; considers it fundamental that the SSM is properly involved in the design of global regulatory standards, in particular the orientations negotiated within the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Welcomes the Commission’s announcement regarding the presentation of a legislative proposal for the first steps towards a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) by establishing a reinsurance mechanism at EU level for the national deposit guarantee schemes, considers it vital to agree on a scheme that would not create any distortion between the different banking models; in parallel it is essential to work to reduce risks, including those linked to sovereign debt and banks' governance;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)

40a. Recalls that the role of the Commission is to guarantee a level playing field across the European Union and that it should avoid any fragmentation within the internal market;

2015/12/14
Committee: ECON

2015/2210(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that further fiscal consolidation is still needed in many Member States in order to comply with the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and, more fundamentally, to stop putting the burden on young and future generations and to be able to finance future-oriented projects and growth enhancing projects; notes the Commission's interpretative communication on flexibility in the SGP, aimed at clarifying the scope of the investment clause and allowing for a certain degree of temporary flexibility in the preventive arm of the SGP;

2015/09/11
Committee: ECON

2015/2210(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recalls that poverty and widening income inequality are a threat to growth and its sustainability; calls on the Commission to coordinate and support the Member States in their missions to combat them by facilitating the exchange of best practice and accurate data collection; considers that these responsibilities should explicitly be part of the European Semester for economic policy coordination;

2015/09/11
Committee: ECON

2015/2210(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Agrees with the Commission that many Member States need to be more ambitious in implementing structural reforms in order to make product and services markets more competitive; welcomes, in this context, the Commission's communication on the roadmap for completing the Digital Single Market; believes that this roadmap should define a clear path for Member States to build a comprehensive framework (covering for example tax and legal issues) enabling companies, large and SMEs, to boost their investments in new technologies;

2015/09/11
Committee: ECON

2015/2210(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Deplores the fact that the CSRs suffer from lack of ownership at national level and from a democratic accountability mechanism; calls, in this context, for an increased role for national parliaments in the preparation of the National Reform Programmes (NRPs); believes that national parliaments should proceed to a formal vote on the NRP before its submission to the Commission; stresses that increased ownership is a crucial factor for the successful implementation of the CSRs and, in the longer term, for the success of the Europe 2020 strategy;

2015/09/11
Committee: ECON

2015/2210(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Reiterates its call for the strengthening of the position of the Commission's Chief Economic Analyst (CEA), whose mandate is to verify independently the implementation of the EU governance rules within the European Semester; calls, in particular, for the CEA's analysis to be made public and for the establishment of a regular dialogue between the competent committee of Parliament and the CEA; notes also in this context that the Five Presidents' Report on completing EMU proposes the setting-up of a European Fiscal Board (EFB); recalls that a better economic governance in the euro area is crucial and that, according to the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union, "a complete EMU is not an end in itself. It is a means to create a better and fairer life for all citizens, to prepare the Union for future global challenges and to enable each of its members to prosper";

2015/09/11
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas, in the field of competition, the European Union's voice is heard and respected on the international scene; whereas this unified independent external representation, backed up by clearly defined powers, enables the Union to exert its true political, demographic and economic power;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the strong application of competition-law principles under the EU Treaty primarily benefits consumers, promotes innovation and growth, and controls and restricts unfair market practices as well as monopolies and dominant market positions with a view to ensuring equal opportunities of success for all;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the existing rules relating to fines for infringements could be supplemented by ~~ongoing~~harsher penalties against th~~ose responsible;~~ e legal entities responsible than for the individuals; takes the view that the penalties should be high enough to act as a deterrent;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Queries the long duration of the investigations into American Internet giant Google and regrets the fact that these investigations have already dragged on for several years with no result, because until 2014 the Commission was reluctant to indicate its intention to abolish market restrictions; welcomes the Commission's actions on this matter, in remaining unmoved by political pressures

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that particularly in the digital economy additional new criteria must be introduced in assessing mergers, such as the purchase price, possible market entry barriers and network effects, and that day attention should be paid to the global nature or otherwise of competition in the sector in question; Calls on the Commission to give particular consideration to the commercial model of businesses in the digital economy and possible market entry barriers;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Stresses that the temporary State aid in the financial sector for the stabilisation of the global financial system was necessary ~~but on completion of the Banking Union must be quickly reduced or totally removed and scrutinise~~in the absence of a European regulatory framework to address and overcome banking crises; takes the view that the introduction of the Banking Union and entry into force of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) – which is intended to resolve failures of banks and large investment companies – justifies a revision of the Commission communication of July 2013 on the banking sector, and the development of a clear strategy with a precise timetable for phasing out temporary state aid;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Welcomes the investigations initiated by the Commission in 2014 into unlawful State aid through unfair tax competition and calls on Member States ~~in future~~ to present the Commission with information about their taxation practice in good time and ultimately to comply with the obligation to declare special arrangements ~~to the detriment of other Member States~~;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Considers that healthy tax competition is one of the constitutive elements of the internal market of the Union but unfair tax competition must be prevented through minimum rates of taxation and harmonised tax bases; takes the view that introducing a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) would help make the system more transparent; believes that the issue of consolidation can be addressed at a later date, and should not be a barrier to the swift introduction of a CCCTB;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls on the Commission to give the Parliament greater and earlier involvement in fundamental issues of competition policy, if the desired treaty amendment is not expected soon; Calls on the Commission to give the Parliament greater involvement in sector-specific investigations, while ensuring the confidentiality of certain information submitted by stakeholders;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2140(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Considers harmful the trend in European legislation towards introducing distortions and fragmentation in the internal market, giving rise to unfair competition; views the split between members and non-members of the banking union as damaging, in particular in respect of structural reform of the banking sector, where a move from a partial derogation concerning the Vickers Act towards a full exemption based on establishment in a specific territory or on arbitrary thresholds is becoming apparent;

2015/10/21
Committee: ECON

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reiterates its call for all the Member States to make public national declarations by their respective Court of Auditors to account for the spending of EU funds;

2015/11/03
Committee: AFCO

2015/2128(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Highlights the importance of establishing a coherent and effective European system for the investigation and prosecution of offences affecting the EU's financial interests, reiterates the Parliament's support for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office and the urgent need for it, in order, inter alia, to contribute to helping to restore public trust in the effective management of EU funds, calls on the Council to prioritise making progress on this crucial dossier;

2015/11/03
Committee: AFCO

2015/2115(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas, according to the same forecast, unemployment in the euro area is expected to record a slow decrease, from 11.6 % at the end of 2014 to 10.5 % at the end of 2016; whereas there are major disparities between the unemployment rates in different Member States, with figures ranging from 6.4 % in Germany to 26.6 % in Greece hitting in particular the young;

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Acknowledg~~Notes that, in reaction to a complex environment of falling inflation, contraction of credit and sluggish economic growth, and with its interest rates close to the zero lower bound, the ECB resorted to non-conventional monetary policy instruments; insists that monetary policy cannot resolve the fiscal and economic problems that exist in many Member States and cannot be a substitute for necessary structural reforms.

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers that ~~the existing flexibility within the~~all tools available in the enhanced Stability and Growth Pact ~~rules c~~should be used to better address the weak recovery in some Member States and consolidate the overall long term growth, in particular through the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure;

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that austerity policies in a number of Member States have contributed to stagnation and recession, with damaging effects on euro area members’ public accounts, levels of unemployment and social cohesion;deleted

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. welcomes the willingness expressed by Mario Draghi during the Monetary dialogue of 23 September 2015 "to inform the European Parliament of the positions taken by the ECB" within organisations such as the Financial Stability Board or the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision;

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. supports the vision stated by Mario Draghi in his speech delivered in Frankfurt am Main on 16 March 2015 that "economic convergence should be reached through structural reforms that lead to an alignment of productivity levels. On the institutional side, we need to move from a system of rules and guidelines for national economic policy making to a system of further sovereignty sharing within common institutions. As part of this process, we need to strengthen the democratic accountability of Europe towards its citizens";

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Deplores the fact that the ECB has exceeded even a broad interpretation of its Treaty-based mandate, inter alia in its role in the Troika and Quadriga; urges the ECB to take a step backwards and reinforce its independence from political decisions, abiding by the ECJ judgment in Case C-62/14 of 16 June 2015, especially its paragraph 102, as well as the opinion expressed by Advocate-General Cruz Villalón in the same case, especially its paragraphs 227 and 263;deleted

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls for a thorough assessment of the ECB’s modus operandi towards Greece, especially as regards the decisions taken by it, namely: a) (on 4 February 2015) to lift the waiver affecting marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic; b) (on 28 June 2015) to limit the liquidity available to Greek banks via the European Liquidity Assistance (ELA) facility, resulting in the imposition of capital controls; c) (in 2015) to withhold profits from its Greek bond portfolio acquired under the Securities Markets Programme (SMP);deleted

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point a

~~a) (on 4 February 2015) to lift the waiver affecting marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic;~~deleted

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – point b

~~b) (on 28 June 2015) to limit the liquidity available to Greek banks via the European Liquidity Assistance (ELA) facility, resulting in the imposition of capital controls;~~deleted

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. ~~Asks the ECB~~Reminds the ECB, the Member States, the Council and the European Parliament (Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee) to examine the gender imbalance factor on its Council ~~when its~~and Board when their membership iss are renewed;

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Believes that the current structure of the Banking Union should be complemented in the future with a single mechanism to guarantee bank deposits, aimed at avoiding capital flight in the event of a future banking crisis; echoes the statement made by the ECB President, at the thirty-second meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee in Lima, that completing the Banking Union is key "in order to create a truly single banking system and achieve its objectives of breaking the bank- sovereign nexus, making the financial system more resilient, and protecting the interests of taxpayers" and that in "parallel, the authorities will need to decisively deal with remaining crisis legacies to create a better foundation for bank lending to the real economy";

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Welcomes the capital market union project and its potential contribution to rebalancing the funding channels and reducing excessive dependence of euro area economies on the banking system;

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Welcomes the capital market union project and its potential contribution to reducing excessive dependence of euro area economies on the banking system; makes clear that the aim is not to diminish, or to keep funding means at their current level, but rather to increase and diversify them;

2015/10/29
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas profound changes have occurred, and are still on-going, in all financial sectors, including banking, insurance, securities markets, investment funds and financial market infrastructure;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the Commission’s Investment Package, including the Capital Markets Union (CMU); stresses that an efficient and effective financial services framework ensuring financial stability is a prerequisite in order to increase (long-term) investment and to foster growth in a competitive European economy; underlines the linkage between economic and financial stability; considers that the CMU should be renamed ‘Union for Financing and Investment’ in order to focus not on the tool but on the aim;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Is of the opinion that such a Union should be embedded into a global supervisory and regulatory framework which should be transparent, made accountable and whose requirements must be enforceable;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Is concerned about the increased complexity, reflected in the greater amount, detail and number of layers of regulation and supervision with requirements at international, European and national level; stresses the need for international regulatory cooperation but recalls that the global framework for cooperation should be improved to better take into account the interests of all parts of the world and in order to increase accountability;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Highlights that a strong CMU should encourage the development of capital markets in all 28 Member States; calls on the Commission to support those Member States with developing capital markets sectors through its Structural Reform Support Service;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Is convinced that an efficient CMU, benefiting both citizens and companies, as well as enabling growth, should be simple, not risk-adverse, consistent throughout the legislation, with clear regulation and a strong mandate for supervision, including sanctions to act as deterrents and to be implemented where appropriate;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Believes that a single market for financial services serves businesses, but ultimately has to benefit customers and investors; insists that barriers to cross- border access, marketing and investment have to be analysed and addressed; considers that the ESAs should be at the forefront of any process to align third country equivalence, given their expertise, access to resources and insight into market and consumer protection issues;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights the benefits of asset diversification both in terms of asset classes and asset origin; reminds in this respect that the internal market is key to meet this diversification; emphasises that the purpose of prudential regulation is not to favour certain asset classes; calls for a risk- based approach to regulation, with the same rules being applied to the same risks; believes that a more granular categorisation of asset classes is appropriate, in particular by establishing categories such as infrastructure;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recalls that diversity in funding means is a strength; is convinced therefore that the EU should design its own framework, building on but not replicating the system of other jurisdictions;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the need for consistency in the risk-based approach, including sovereign exposures; ~~supports the work~~welcomes the contributions of the BCBS and ESRB in this regard; believes that a risk-based approach requires a clear regulatory framework, strong supervisor and respect of a level playing field;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Is of the opinion that firms should have access to a wide range of debt instruments, inter alia, safer securitisation, private placements, direct lending platforms;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Calls on the Commission to foster cross-border equity investments, as well as to set up task forces to enable convergence in insolvency law, information on SMEs and credit scoring, and consumer protection;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the diversity of business models; ~~calls for a differentiation~~recognises the need to reflect this diversity in regulation and supervision regarding the nature, ~~size,~~ riskiness and complexity of entities, provided that the principles of fair competition and effective supervision are met;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls for an appropriate division of competences between EU and national level, bearing in mind that national supervisors have more knowledge of local market characteristics~~; is concerned about~~ and that supervision was transferred to EU level or euro area level in order to avoid the phenomenon of proximity, laxity or conflict of interests; asks the ECB to assess the effect ofthat a one-size-fits-all supervisory approach on smaller and primarily nationally active entities within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) could have; recalls however that it is crucial to have equivalent standards for all;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes the achievements in establishing a banking union; stresses that the next priority steps hasve to be its full implementation, including full capitalisation of national Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) and the Single Resolution Fund (SRF); emphasises the aim of avoiding moral hazard ~~and~~, ensuring that risk-takers bear the costs when their risks materialise and preventing domino effects across the banking union;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Philippe DE BACKER, Petr JEŽEK, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Acknowledges the traditional reliance of SMEs on bank funding due to their specific nature, different risk profiles and variety across Europe; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the ECB, to analyse the obstacles to, and benefits of, the diversification of funding channels and how to enable banks to increase SME funding; reminds of the importance of tools like the ‘SME supporting factor’; suggests that the initiatives for improved SME funding should be expanded to mid-cap companies;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Acknowledges the traditional reliance of SMEs on bank funding due to their specific nature, different risk profiles and variety across Europe; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the ECB, to analyse the obstacles to, and benefits of, the diversification of funding channels and how to enable banks to increase SME funding; calls in this respect to consider ‘SME benchmarks’ enabling banks to compare and price credit, instead of the less realistic SME credit registry; suggests that the initiatives for improved SME funding should be expanded to mid-cap companies;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Philippe DE BACKER, Petr JEŽEK, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Asks the Commission to embed the ‘Funding Escalator’ concept within CMU, addressing the diversity of companies’ financing needs throughout their stages of development;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Philippe DE BACKER, Petr JEŽEK, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Asks the Commission and supervisors to address the interaction between International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and prudential requirements, ~~and to review the impact of tax accounting on own funds~~especially for SMEs where EU accounting standards are incompatible with IFRS, and to review the impact of tax accounting on own funds; in response to its proposals in the recent Tax Action Plan (European Commission Communication on A Fair and Efficient Corporate Tax System in the European Union: 5 Key Areas for Action), requests the Commission to address the corporate debt equity bias in order to strengthen CMU; further calls on the Commission to review the structural bias against share holdings in the Solvency II framework;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Underlines the importance of the international framework with respect to its scope, methodologies and implications on the EU framework; calls on the ~~Commission and ESAs to coordinate more closely with international bodies promoting EU interests~~Member States, the Council, the Commission and ESAs to streamline the EU representation, with a view to increasing its influence and promoting the legislation it has adopted through a democratic process; reminds of the principle of sincere cooperation between the Union and the Member States, referred to in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Believes that better financial regulation starts with Member States applying the current acquis; considers that gold-plating does not facilitate the functioning of the internal market; urges the Commission to consider a greater use of Regulations in order to underpin the Single Rulebook;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls on the Commission to ensure balanced participation in consultations by reflecting the diversity of stakeholders, as well as facilitating and providing better conditions for the participation of small stakeholders ~~to participate~~;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Stresses the need to respect the interplay, consistency and coherence between the basic acts and delegated and implementing acts; insists that the Commission and the ESAs, when drafting delegated and implementing acts and guidelines, stick to the empowerments laid down in the basic acts and respect the co- legislators’ agreement; recalls article 290 of the TFEU stating that delegated acts are meant ‘to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act’;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Emphasises that an early legal review by the Commission should not reduce the transparency of the process vis-à-vis Parliament; requests that during the drafting process the ESAs proactively provide Parliament with provisional drafts;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Petr JEŽEK, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)

42a. Is concerned by threats to cyber security and believes that it should be an integrated dimension of the EU strategy;

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 8

– the effectiveness and appropriateness of the framework for retail investors, institutional investors and consumers, including the effect on access to finance for SMEs and mid-cap companies,

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Petr JEŽEK, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 9 a (new)

– the transparency of the legislative process, including consistency between the basic acts as adopted by the co- legislators and any associated level 2 measures,

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2106(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – indent 9 a (new)

– enumerate and analyse the barriers to the Single Market, including in national competencies, with a specific focus on taxation which hampers EU growth by creating regulatory arbitrage and distorting competition,

2015/09/25
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Emphasizes the importance of a unified European voice in international institutions and bodies and calls on the Commission to propose a European code of conduct on transparency and accountability designed to guide the action of European representatives in international organisations, drawing upon existing best practices; in time this code of conduct could be used as an example by all international institutions and bodies when they create their own codes of conduct;

2015/09/29
Committee: AFCO

2015/2060(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that this unified and inclusive European approach could be better realised through a regular and formal 'financial dialogue' organised in the European Parliament in order to establish guidelines regarding the adoption of European positions in the run-up to major international negotiations, making sure that these positions are known and ensuring follow- up; the European institutions, the Member States and, where appropriate, the heads of the international organisations concerned would be invited to attend; the nature (public or in camera) and frequency of this dialogue would depend on practical requirements;

2015/09/29
Committee: AFCO

2015/2060(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Considers that this dialogue would serve to define the negotiating remit for areas where the European Parliament is co-legislator with the Council, unifying European positions around the legislation adopted by majority vote or avoiding inconsistencies with legislation pending adoption;

2015/09/29
Committee: AFCO

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the diversity of the legal structures and financial and operating procedures of international economic organisations make it difficult to undertake an overall monitoring; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are genuine international organisations, set up by Treaty, with broad remits and composition, while the G20, the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee, for example, are among the informal public bodies with limited membership, some of which have enjoyed a new impetus following the crisis, and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), the International Organisation of Pension Supervisors (IOPsS) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) are private specialist ~~organis~~associations of a sectoral nature with more or less involvement on the part of the sectors concerned;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Believes that in the future, with due regard to the distribution of competences between the EU and its Member States and the progress made towards deepening economic and monetary union, ~~consideration should be given to introducing~~ unified external representation of the EU ~~and the euro area~~ within the IMF and other international economic forums should be ensured, in order to allow the EU to fully exploit its potential ~~fully~~ and to increase its relevance and influence within the global economic and financial architecture; considers it imperative that this unified representation begins with progress towards single representation of the euro area within the IMF, without prejudice to the creation of a single European Union constituency in the long term;

2015/09/29
Committee: AFCO

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas a number of informal exchanges are already taking place, albeit not on a systematic basis, between the European Parliament and certain of these organisations/bodies;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for the provision of a single seat for the Council and Commission presidencies at G20 meetings, as the two current separate seats detract from Europe's external credibility;

2015/09/29
Committee: AFCO

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas the common goal of all stakeholders should be to design a comprehensive framework providing financial stability and to ensure consistency between the global and local levels;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)

Gb. whereas the creation of new EU supervisory bodies should not automatically imply the increase of seats the EU holds in those organisations and bodies; warns that an increase of seats may lead to a situation which has undemocratic effects such as blocking minorities being more likely to occur and could create unease amongst the EU’s partners;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Expresses concern at the lack of coherence caused by the fragmentation and diversity of the various organisations/bodies and at the delays in ensuring a level playing field at international level;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for clarification as to the remit of each organisation/body and the legal nature of their decisions;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Regards as detrimental to the Union situations in which representatives of a Member State or national ~~organisation~~authority assume positions in international organisations/bodies that are contrary to European legislative or regulatory decisions democratically adopted by majority vote;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the priorities of organisations and related working groups should be clarified and formally set out; takes the view, that the principle of consensus risks not only slowing down deliberations but also diluting the substance of the recommendations and that the composition of the organisations must reflect their diversity in financial, economic and supervisory terms; stresses the need to carry out ex ante ~~impact assessment~~evaluations; considers that such evaluations are without prejudice to the political prerogatives of the co-legislators;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes the work done by the OECD on tax issues, especially the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project; considers that the monitoring of the implementation is the new challenge ahead; underlines that the coordination between the Commission and the Member States that are members of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) should be improved in order for the EU to make its voice heard;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Takes note that the FSB is now engaging to develop standards in the insurance sector; recognizes that the IAIS is playing an important role in global insurance policy, but stresses that involving EIOPA would have the benefit of strengthening the contribution of European insurance specific expertise and ensure that the standards developed at global level do not go against the logic the EU has been the first to develop;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 1

- Calls on the Commission to draw on existing best practices to draft a European code of conduct on transparency and accountability designed to guide the action of European representatives in international organisations/bodies;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 2

- Recommends, on the basis of the code, working towards global standards of transparency and accountability, regarding the statute, financing and operation of those organisations/bodies (including their relations with the sector concerned and the public, their communication and access to their documents) as well as their dialogue with the authorities;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 4

- Observes that, in areas where the European Parliament is co-legislator with the Council, the dialogue would serve to define their negotiating remit, unifying European positions around the legislation adopted by majority vote or avoiding inconsistencies with legislation pending adoption; calls for particular attention to be paid to compliance by countries with the overall recommendations made by these organisations/bodies in order to create a level playing field at international level;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 4 a (new)

- Calls on the Member States to accept the representation of Banking Union at the Basel Committee on banking supervision through the Single Supervisory Mechanism;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 5

- Urges ~~that~~ the Member States to take seriously the coordination provisions of the Treaties;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 6 a (new)

- underlines that it is the duty of the Commission, the Council, or where appropriate the Eurogroup, to strengthen the coordination through preparatory meetings; considers that new ad hoc working groups should be set up, if necessary, like the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC), the Eurogroup Working Group (EWG) and Economic Policy Committee (EPC);

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 6 b (new)

- Considers that beyond the sole case of the IMF progressive streamlining should be implemented over the next years through first enhanced coordination then through unification of the seats; believes that membership to these organisations and bodies should be made according to the respective competencies of the EU institutions and agencies, the Council/Eurogroup, and the national authorities; is of the opinion that in parallel the EU should work on the functioning of those organisations and bodies to move away from the consensus to a weighted majority voting system;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 8

- Calls on the EU institutions and Member States to reflect on the practicalities of creating a global financial organisation with wide-ranging powers of recommendation, arbitration and, where appropriate, penalisation through independent panels; believes that experiences built notably in the trade sector could be used to set up these arbitration and penalisation panels;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2060(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – indent 8 a (new)

- Highlights the increasing importance of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and welcomes the efforts to unify the representation of the EU mainly through rotation between the Member States;

2015/10/15
Committee: ECON

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

– having regard in particular to Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and to Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas dialogue between law-makers and society is an integral part of democracy;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that ~~the Commission, Parliament and the Council should record and disclose all input rece~~a voluntary ‘legislatived f~~rom lobbyists/interest~~ootprint’ (disclosing representatives onmet concerning draft policies, laws and amendments ~~as a ‘legislative footprint’; suggests that this~~) on the part of the Commission, Parliament and the Council could improve the visibility of the workings of the European institutions; this voluntarily legislative footprint shcould for example consist of a form annexed to reports~~, detailing all~~ intending to detail a comprehensive list of the lobbyists with whom those in charge of a particular file have met in the process of drawing up each report ~~and a second document listing all written input received~~;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Suggests that the Code of Conduct should be amended so as to make it mandatory for rapporteurs and committee chairs to adopt the same practice of exclusively meeting registered lobbyists and publish information on such meetings online and for rapporteurs to publish a legislative footprint;deleted

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that, when interpreting ‘inappropriate behaviour’ within the meaning of point (b) of the Code of Conduct, this expression should be taken ~~to include turning down formal invitations to hearings or committees without sufficient reason~~, besides the points as established in paragraph 10 of the European Parliament decision of 15 April 2014 on the modification of the interinstitutional agreement on the Transparency Register, also include turning down formal invitations to hearings or committees without sufficient justification, as requested in the European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2015 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (2015/2066(INI);

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Asks the Bureau to restrict access to Parliament’s premises for non-registered organisations or individuals by making all visitors to its premises sign a declaration that they are not lobbyists falling within the scope of the register or otherwise declare their registration;deleted

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that a~~t least 5 %~~ set percentage of declarations should be checked each year;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that representations of national, regional and local governments should not fall under the EU lobby register if they have their own mandatory lobby register and do not offer workspace for private or corporate actors within their representations;deleted

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Believes that the Members’ declaration of financial interests form should be modified to require the declaration of net income received rather than gross, as the tax systems and social contributions differ widely between Member States; considers that this would give a much more accurate overview of the complementary sources of income which an MEP receives;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Believes that the Members’ declaration of financial interests form should be further modified to require the declaration of non-income based benefits received because of activities undertaken which are complementary to their activities as an MEP;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Members should be rephrased to include a clear ban on Members holding side jobs or other paid work that ~~could~~ lead to a conflict of interest;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Considers that it would be most necessary to modify the Code of Conduct so it can include a clear definition of ‘conflict of interests’;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that Members should have the remuneration paid to them by Parliament reduced by half of what they earn, whether as employees or self- employed persons, from any outside activity in parallel to their office as Members of the European Parliament;deleted

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Believes that the Code of Conduct should be amended to ~~provide for a three- year ‘cooling-off period’ during which Members may not engage in lobbying work in the area of their parliamentary responsibilities~~allow the Advisory Committee to assess a potential conflict of interest in the exercise of professional activities of the Member six months after leaving office;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Believes that for Members of the Commission the ‘cooling-off period’ should be extended to three years and that a two-year cooling-off period should also apply to all Commission staff involved in the drafting or implementation of EU legislation or treaties, including contract staff;deleted

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Supports the Ombudsman’s call for entry in the lobby register to be made a requirement for appointment to expert groups provided that the Members concerned are not government officials and do not receive all or the vast majority of their other income from state institutions ~~such as universitie~~; underlines the importance of avoiding conflicts of interests when appointing expert groups;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Considers that Article 15.2 of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents has not been yet implemented; considers that the interinstitutional Committee could be an instrument to improve the efficiency of the European institutions; asks that the examination of the evolution of the access to documents should be presented before the European Parliament in a public way;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Believes that the ~~chairs of Parliament’s committees sh~~Parliament negotiating team could proactively publish ~~minutes and all~~the so-called 4-column documents used in trialogues;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

~~35. Calls on the Presidency of the Council to include all trialogue documents in the documents register to allow for access in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;~~deleted

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)

35a. Believes that the attribution of posts within the European Parliament, for example committee chairs, should take into account both gender balance and competence, in order to remove the link between post attribution and national delegation size within different political groups;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Takes the view that Members should have access to all Commission documents, where necessary and when duly justified under exceptional circumstances through a reading room;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)

38a. Takes the view that a balance is needed between informing citizens about the details of potential trade deals being negotiated and the need for negotiators not to have already revealed their full negotiating positions to their negotiating partners; recalls the highly strategic nature of these negotiations;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Believes that, when the Commission engages in trade negotiations, it should ~~publish the negotiation mandates, all negotiating positions, all requests and offers and all consolidated draft~~make available to the European Parliament, in confidence when necessary and duly justified, all relevant texts without the risk of jeopardizing the negotiation ~~texts~~and prior to each negotiation round, so that the European Parliament ~~and national parliaments, as well as civil society organisations and the wider public,~~ can make recommendations thereon before the negotiations are closed for comments and the agreement goes to ratification;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)

40 a. Believes that when the Commission engages in trade negotiations it should publish the negotiating mandate;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 10 a (new)

Transparency and accountability concerning the EU budget

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)

42 a. Notes that in 2014 a total of 40 cases into EU staff and members of the institutions were concluded, underlines that this figure is low and illustrates that fraud and corruption are not endemic within the EU institutions[1a ]; __________________ 1aThe OLAF report 2014, Fifteenth report of the European Anti-Fraud Office, 1 January to 31 December 2014

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 b (new)

42 b. Highlights that in 2014 the highest number of potential fraud cases reported to OLAF concern the use of European Structural Funds (549 out of 1417 allegations); underlines that OLAF recommended the financial recovery of 476.5 million euros of structural funds in 2014; notes that 22.7 million euros were recovered by the relevant authorities following OLAF's recommendations in 2014; calls on Member States to prioritise the correct allocation of EU funds and to maximise efforts to recover them when they are not correctly allocated[1a ]; __________________ 1a The OLAF report 2014, Fifteenth report of the European Anti-Fraud Office, 1 January to 31 December 2014

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Believes that the ongoing review of EU election law should include a rule that persons found guilty of corruption against the EU’s financial interests or within Member States may not run for office in the next two terms of the European Parliament;deleted

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2041(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Supports national parliaments inviting Commissioners in order to ~~question them~~facilitate dialogue;

2016/03/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. the hearing process gives Parliament and EU citizens the opportunity to discover and evaluate the candidates’ personalities ~~and~~, priorities and qualifications;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD, Pascal DURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment; whereas this requirement must be reflected in the composition of the European Commission; whereas despite repeated requests from Jean-Claude Juncker in 2014 the governments proposed a far greater number of male rather than female candidates; whereas the women who were proposed primarily come from Member States with smaller populations and the larger Member States largely ignored this requirement; whereas the only fair solution is to ask each Member State to propose two candidates, one male and one female, so that the President- designate is able to propose a high quality College with an equal number of men and women;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD, Pascal DURAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Recalls that article 3.3 of the TEU states that "The Union shall promote equality between women and men" and that article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that "Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay";

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that it would be useful to set a deadline by which all Member States have to put forward a candidate, so as to leave adequate time for the Commission President-elect to allocate the portfolios taking into account the working experience and background of the candidate, and for Parliament to conduct its hearings and evaluations, and asks its President to enter into discussion with the other institutions with a view to achieving this objective;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that it would be useful to set a deadline by which all Member States have to put forward atheir candidates, one male and one female, so as to leave adequate time for the Commission President-elect to allocate portfolios and for Parliament to conduct its hearings and evaluations, and asks its President to enter into discussion with the other institutions with a view to achieving this objective;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Barbara SPINELLI, Jo LEINEN, Sven GIEGOLD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Further considers that ~~it would be desirable for~~the time has come to ask each Member State to put forward at least two candidates – one male and one female – for consideration by the Commission President-elect;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that it is the committees which are responsible for conducting the hearings; considers, ~~how~~that all hearings should follow a uniform, public format; believer,s that whopen ~~a vice-president of the Commission has responsibilities which are primarily horizontal, the~~conference of presidents meetings are not an appropriate format for Commissioner- designate hearings, in the case where a Commissioner-designate has responsibilities which impact a number of committees then joint hearing cs should ~~exceptionally be carried out in a different format such as a meeting of the Conference of Presidents or a meeting of the Conference of Committee Chairs, provided~~be organised, if this is not possible then multiple hearings should be organised with the relevant committees; considers it of the utmost importance that sueach ~~a meeting is open to all Members and that there is adequate opportunity to address all relevant issues~~committee is able to audition the Commissioner-designate whose responsibilities are linked to their committee work;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

~~4. Considers that it would be better to have around 25 questions, but with each questioner allowed immediate follow-up, so as to enhance the effectiveness and inquisitorial nature of the hearings;~~deleted

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the following guidelines should apply for the coordinators’ evaluation meeting after the hearings: • if the coordinators unanimously approve the candidate – letter of approval; • if the coordinators unanimously reject the candidate – letter of rejection; • if coordinators representing a clear majority approve the candidate – letter stating that a large majority approve (minorities may request that it be mentioned that their group does not share the majority view); • if there is no clear majority, or there is a majority (but not a consensus) against the candidate: o first request additional information through further written questions; o if still dissatisfied – request for a further 1.5-hour hearing, with the approval of Parliament’s President; o if there is still no consensus or overwhelming majority among the coordinators – vote in committee;deleted

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent -1 (new)

– there must be a specific section of the Parliament’s website where the Commissioner-designates’ CVs and responses to written questions must be available, in advance of the public hearings, in all the official languages of the Union;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 1

– there should be a specific and visible place on Parliament’s website where the evaluations are placed within 24 hours after the hearing in accordance with the current version of the Annex XVI of the Rules of Procedure;

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2040(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that horizontal issues affecting the composition, structure and working methods of the Commission as a whole, which cannot be adequately addressed by an individual Commissioner- designate, are a matter for the Commission President-elect; considers that such issues should be addressed at meetings between the President-elect and the Conference of Presidents open to all Members (one before the hearing process has started and one after it has ended);

2015/04/14
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regard to its previous resolutions on Parliament’s electoral procedure, and in particular its resolution of 15 July 1998 on a draft electoral procedure incorporating common principles for the election of Members of the European Parliament a __________________ 1a OJ C 292, 21.9.1998, p. 66.

2015/09/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of 28 April 2011 on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976 (A7-0176/2011),

2015/09/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the reform of Parliament’s electoral procedure should aim at enhancing the democratic and supranational dimension of the European elections, reinforce the concept of citizenship of the Union, improve the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, make the work of the European Parliament more legitimate and efficient, enhance the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and provide for greater electoral equality for citizens of the Union;

2015/09/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Decides to reform its electoral procedure in good time before the 2019 elections, with the aim of enhancing the democratic and supranational dimension of the European elections, reinforcing the concept of citizenship of the Union, improving the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, making the work of the European Parliament more legitimate and efficient, enhancing the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and providing for greater electoral equality for citizens of the Union;

2015/09/01
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. In each Member State, members of the European Parliament shall be elected as representatives of the citizens of the Union on the basis of proportional representation, using the list system or the single transferable vote.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 1 a (new)

Article 1a 1. For the purpose of allocating seats among Member States in accordance with the principle of degressive proportionality pursuant to Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union, the ratio between the population of each Member State and the number of seats allocated to it, before rounding to whole numbers, shall vary in relation to the respective populations of the Member States in such a way that each Member of the European Parliament from a more populous Member State represents more citizens than each Member from a less populous Member State and, conversely, that the larger the population of a Member State, the greater its entitlement to a large number of seats. 2. Where a State accedes to the Union during a parliamentary term, it shall be allocated seats which will be added to the number of seats provided for in Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union on a transitional basis for the remainder of that parliamentary term.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 2 a (new)

Article 2a 1. Pursuant to Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union, there shall be one additional constituency formed of the entire territory of the Union from which 25 Members shall be elected. 2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish an electoral authority to conduct and verify the electoral process of the European Union constituency referred to in paragraph 1. 3. Transnational lists of candidates for election in the European Union constituency shall be submitted by the European political parties and shall be admissible only: (a) if the candidates whose names appear on the lists in question are, in the aggregate, resident in at least one third of the Member States, and (b) if the lists in question are balanced in terms of gender. 4. Each elector shall have one supplementary vote that may be cast for the European Union-wide list. 5. Detailed arrangements for elections in the European Union constituency shall be laid down in implementing measures to be adopted in accordance with Article 14.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. There shall be no minimum threshold for the allocation of seats from the European Union constituency referred to in Article 2a(1).

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 3 a (new)

Article 3a Each Member State shall set a deadline for the establishment of electoral lists at national level at least 12 weeks before the start of the electoral period referred to in Article 10(1).

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 3 a (new)

Article 3c All electoral lists must contain an equal number of men and women, with lists alternating between male and female candidates.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 3 b (new)

Article 3b Electoral materials distributed shall include the names and logos of the national political parties of any European political parties to which they are affiliated. They shall also provide a reference to the manifesto of the European political party, if any, to which they are affiliated.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 3 d (new)

Article 3d The rules concerning the posting of electoral materials to voters in elections to the European Parliament shall be the same as those applied for national, regional and local elections.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 4

Each Member State may set a ceiling for ~~candidates' campaign expenses~~the campaign expenses of candidates and political parties at the national and/or regional level. The electoral authority of the Member State concerned shall set a ceiling for the campaign expenses of candidates and political parties at the European Union level.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. The five-year term for which members of the European Parliament are elected shall begin at the opening of the first session following each election. It may be extended or curtailed pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 101(2).

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. Members of the European Parliament shall vote on an individual and personal basis. They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate. They shall represent all the citizens of the Union.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – indent 1

– member of ~~the Government of a Member State~~a national or regional parliament,

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. From the European Parliament elections in 2004, the office of member of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of member of a national parliament. By way of derogation from that rule and without prejudice to paragraph 3: – members of the Irish National Parliament who are elected to the European Parliament at a subsequent poll may have a dual mandate until the next election to the Irish National Parliament, at which juncture the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall apply; – members of the United Kingdom Parliament who are also members of the European Parliament during the five-year term preceding election to the European Parliament in 2004 may have a dual mandate until the 2009 European Parliament elections, when the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall apply.deleted

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. Members of the European Parliament to whom paragraphs 1~~, 2~~ and 3 become applicable in the course of the five-year period referred to in Article 5 shall be replaced in accordance with Article 13.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Where, in a Member State, the turnout in the last elections to the European Parliament was below 50%, that Member State shall take action to increase the turnout and shall provide for information campaigns.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 9

NWithout prejudice to Article 2a, no one may vote more than once in any election of members of the European Parliament. In order to ensure that this principle is respected, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of a regulation in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish an electoral roll at European Union level.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 11

1. The Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, shall determine the electoral period for the first elections. 2. Subsequent elections shall take place in the corresponding period in the last year of the five-year period referred to in Article 5. Should it prove impossible to hold the elections in the Community during that period, the Council acting unanimously shall, after consulting the European Parliament, determine, at least one year before the end of the five-year term referred to in Article 5, another electoral period which shall not be more than two months before or one month after the period fixed pursuant to the preceding subparagraphEuropean Parliament, after consulting the Council, shall determine the electoral period for the elections at least one year before the end of the five-year term referred to in Article 5. 3. Without prejudice to Article ~~196~~229 of the Treaty ~~establish~~on the Functioning of the European ~~Community~~Union and Article 109 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the European Parliament shall meet, without requiring to be convened, on the first Tuesday after expiry of an interval of one month from the end of the electoral period. ~~4. The powers of the European Parliament shall cease upon the opening of the first sitting of the new European Parliament.~~

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 12

The European Parliament shall verify the credentials of mthe Members of the European Parliament. For this purpose it shall take note of the results declared officially by the Member States and shall rule on any disputes which may arise out of the provisions of this Act other than those arising out of the national provisions to which the Act referParliament on the basis of the results declared officially by the electoral authority referred to in Article 2a(2) and the Member States.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a When former Members of the European Parliament intend to engage in an occupation during the period of 18 months after they have ceased to hold office, they shall inform the European Parliament within good time and the European Parliament shall examine the nature of the planned occupation. If the planned occupation is related to content for which the former Member in question has been responsible during his or her term of office, the European Parliament shall seek the opinion of the Ad Hoc Ethical Committee.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Where the law of a Member State provides for the temporary replacement of a member of its national parliament during the absence of that member on maternity leave, that State may decide that such provisions are to apply mutatis mutandis to the Members of the European Parliament elected in that State.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 13 a (new)

Article 13a 1. In the case of Members of the European Parliament elected for the European Union constituency, and subject to the other provisions of this Act, appropriate procedures for the filling of any vacancy for the remainder of the five- year term of office referred to in Article 5 shall be laid down in implementing measures to be adopted in accordance with Article 14. 2. Where the law of the Union makes explicit provision for withdrawal of the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament elected on the European Union-wide list, that mandate shall end pursuant to those legal provisions. The electoral authority shall inform the European Parliament of those legal provisions. 3. Where a seat of a Member of the European Parliament elected for the European Union constituency falls vacant as a result of resignation or death, the President of the European Parliament shall immediately inform the electoral authority of that vacancy.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 14

~~Should it appear necessary to adopt measures to implement this Act, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from~~Measures to implement this Act shall be proposed by the European Parliament, a~~fter consulting the Commission, shall adopt such measures after endeavouring to reach agreement with the European Parliament in a conciliation commit~~cting by a majority of its component members, and adopted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, afteer consisulting of the Co~~uncil and representatives~~mmission and obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Article 15

This Act is drawn up in the Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Irish, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish languages, all the texts being equally authentic. Annexes I and II shall form an integral part of this ActPursuant to the Accession Treaties, the Bulgarian, Czech, Croatian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian versions of this Act shall also be authentic.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Annex I

~~The United Kingdom will apply the provisions of this Act only in respect of the United Kingdom.~~Annex I deleted

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Annex II

~~As regards the procedure to be followed by the Conciliation Committee, it is agreed to have recourse to the provis~~Annex II deleted Declarations o~~f paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the procedure laid down in the joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 4 March 19751. _____________ 1~~n Article 14 OJ C 89, 22. 4. 1975, p. 1.

2015/09/02
Committee: AFCO

2015/2035(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – indent 1a (new)

– Member of a national or regional parliament,

2015/09/10
Committee: AFCO

2015/2010(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)

Na. whereas the OECD adopted comprehensive package of measures on BEPS (The OECD/G20 Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project); whereas the European Commission and Member States shall ensure that those are implemented as a minimum standard at Union level and remain ambitious; whereas it is of crucial importance that all Member Countries of OECD do implement them;

2015/10/13
Committee: ECON

2015/2010(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital U – point i

(i) whereas a mandatory Union-wide Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) w~~ould~~ill be a major step towards solving those problems associated with aggressive tax planning within the Union and should be introduced as a matter of urgency; whereas the ultimate goal should remain a full, mandatory CCCTB with possible exemptions for small- and medium-sized enterprises and companies with no cross-border activity; whereas until a full CCCTB is in place, the Commission is considering temporary measures to counteract profit shifting opportunities; whereas it is necessary to ensure that those measures, including the offsetting of cross- border losses, do not increase the risk of BEPS;

2015/10/13
Committee: ECON

2015/2010(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V – point i

(i) whereas aggressive tax planning practices may sometimes arise from the cumulative benefits of double taxation treaties concluded by different Member States, perversely resulting in double non- taxation instead; whereas the proliferation of double tax treaties signed up to by individual Member States with third countries may lead to opportunities for new loopholes; whereas international agreements regarding tax compliance, information exchange and cooperation against tax evasion should be negotiated by the European Commission on behalf of the Member States; whereas the postponement of the entry into force of FATCA and the associated IGAs between US and various Member States, should be used as an opportunity to renegotiate a Union-US agreement, replacing the bilateral agreements, and offering adequate legal safeguards for Union citizens and companies; whereas, in line with Action 15 of the OECD/G20 BEPS project, there is a need to develop a multilateral instrument for amending bilateral tax treaties;

2015/10/13
Committee: ECON

2015/2010(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V – point vii

(vii) whereas the Commission's ongoing investigations into alleged breaches of the Union state aid rules have revealed a degree of uncertainty regarding the way in which those rules should be applied; whereas to rectify this, the Commission should publish binding guidelines to clarify how it will determine instances of tax- related state aid, thereby providing more legal certainty for companies and Member States alike; whereas in the framework of modernisation of state aid regime the Commission should ensure effective ex- post control of the legality of granted state aid;

2015/10/13
Committee: ECON

2015/2010(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – title 3 – subtitle 1 – indent 1

The Commission should negotiate tax agreements with third countries on behalf of the EU instead of the current practice under which bilateral negotiations are conducted, which produce sub-optimal results. The Commission has to ensure that such agreements are in full compliance with Union law, and take measures against extraterritorial application of third country legislation within the jurisdiction of the Union and its Member States.

2015/10/13
Committee: ECON

2015/2010(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – title 3 – subtitle 1 – indent 3 a (new)

All international tax arrangements shall foresee an enforcement mechanism.

2015/10/13
Committee: ECON

2015/0270(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital -1 (new)

(-1) The clear legal basis for the creation of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a European Deposit Insurance Scheme means that the Union legal framework should be used, without the need to utilise intergovernmental agreements.

2016/12/09
Committee: AFCO

2015/0270(COD)

Michael THEURER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 33 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 806/2014
Article 67

"CHAPTER 2 The Single Resolution Fund Section 1 Constitution of the Fund Article 67 General provisions 1. The Single Resolution Fund ('the Fund') is hereby established. It shall be filled in accordance with the rules on transferring the funds raised at national level towards the Fund as laid down in the Agreement. 2. The Board shall use the Fund only for the purpose of ensuring the efficient application of the resolution tools and exercise of the resolution powers referred to in Part II, Title I and in accordance with the resolution objectives and the principles governing resolution referred to in Articles 14 and 15. Under no circumstances shall the Union budget or the national budgets be held liable for expenses or losses of the Fund. 3. The owner of the Fund shall be the Board. 4. Contributions referred to in Articles 69, 70 and 71 shall be raised from entities referred to in Article 2 by the national resolution authorities and transferred to the Fund in accordance with the Agreement." 5. The Agreement shall cease to exist two years after the entry into force of this Regulation. Those of its provisions that are necessary for the proper functioning of the SRM shall be incorporated into this Regulation by that date." Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1481048502235&uri=CELEX:32014R0806)

2016/12/09
Committee: AFCO

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

Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 257 – paragraph 4

(4) Where an institution may become exposed to potential losses from the underlying exposures by virtue of contract, the institution shall determine the maturity of the securitisation position by taking into account the ~~longest~~weighted–average maturity of such underlying exposures. FoThe same shall apply for securitisations of revolving exposures with an early amortisation trigger according to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EU) .../... (STS Regulation). For other revolving exposures, the longest contractually possible remaining maturity of the exposure that might be added during the revolving period shall apply.

2016/09/06
Committee: ECON

2015/0068(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4

(4) However, the efficient spontaneous exchange of information in respect of advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements is hindered by several important practical difficulties such as the discretion permitted to the issuing Member State to decide which other Member States should be informed and the weak monitoring system which makes it difficult for the Commission to identify any violation of the exchange information requirement.

2015/09/24
Committee: ECON

2015/0068(CNS)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)

(4a) Underlines that an efficient exchange and processing of tax information and the resulting peer pressure would have a strong deterrent effect against the introduction of harmful tax practices and would allow Member States and the Commission to have all the relevant information at their disposal in order to react against them.

2015/09/24
Committee: ECON

2015/0068(CNS)

Sylvie GOULARD, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Dominique RIQUET, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) Member States should exchange the basic information to be communicated also with the Commission. This would enable the Commission at any point in time to monitor and evaluate the effective application of the automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements and to ensure that rulings do not have a negative impact on the internal market. Such communication will not discharge a Member State from its obligations to notify any state aid to the Commission.

2015/09/24
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2

The Commission shall assess those operations and, where they comply with the substantive requirements set out in Article 5 and in the ~~EFSI Agreement~~principles of operations' own merit, and without any geographic or sectorial allocation, decide that the EU guarantee coverage extends to them.

2015/03/19
Committee: BUDG ECON

2015/0009(COD)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK, Philippe DE BACKER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Dominique RIQUET, Michael THEURER, Gérard DEPREZ

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I

~~[...]~~deleted

2015/03/19
Committee: BUDG ECON

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Citizens' Initiative is a~~n extraordinary~~ unique and innovative ~~tool of participatory democracy~~agenda setting tool in the European Union, whose potential must be exploited fully and enhanced in order to achieve the best results;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the practicalities set out in Article 6 of the Regulation, i.e. the setting up of the online collection system and its certification by a competent authority in a Member State, leaves the organizers in most cases less than 12 months to collect the required signatures;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas the submission of a successful initiative to the Commission after the signature collection period is over is not bound to a specific time limit and is thus a source for confusion and uncertainty both for the institutions and the public;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to provide as much guidance as possible – especially of a legal nature – to organisers of ECIs via the Europe Direct Contact Centre, so that they are aware of the possibilities open to them and will not fail by proposing an ECI that is outside the scope of Commission's ~~power~~competences, or else to assign the task of giving advice to another independent company or body so as to avoid a possible conflict of interest within the Commission itself; notes, however, that under the Treaty of Lisbon the issues raised by ECIs may not correspond entirely to the Commission's jurisdiction; takes the view, furthermore, that the Commission should consider setting up a dedicated ECI office in each Member State;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses furthermore that a dedicated ECI office could also contribute to raising public and media awareness about the ECI; therefore invites the Commission to promote the ECI as an official EU instrument to achieve this goal; underlines that this measure might also lead to overcome citizen's distrust of sharing the personal data required to support a ECI;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Invites the Commission to consider the possibility of registering only part of an initiative in the event that the entire ECI does not fall within the scope of Commission's ~~power~~competences, and to give the organisers, at the time of registration, an indication as to which part they could register; invites the Commission to explore ways to confer initiatives or those parts of initiatives that do not fall under the scope of Commission's competences to the competent authority, be it at national or regional level;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Invites the Commission to examine whether a specific time limit for the submission of a successful initiative that has gathered the required number of signatures could serve as a guideline to both, the organizers and the Commission;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Commission to revise the wording of Article 10(c) of Regulation 211/2011 to allow proper follow-up to a successful ECI, including, if necessary, a parliamentary debate in plenary followed by a vote on the ECI; urges the Commission to start preparing a legal act on successful ECIs within 12 months of their acceptance;

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2257(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes the view that, in order to emphasise the political dimension of ECIs, a public hearing held under the terms of Article 11 of Regulation 211/2011 should be structured in such a way as to allow organisers to engage in a dialogue with Members of the European Parliament; ~~stresses that hearings on ECIs should be organised by a neutral committee that does not have the main responsibility for their subject-matter;~~

2015/05/21
Committee: AFCO

2014/2254(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in compliance with the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more specifically, to ensure that the values of the European Union set out in Article 2 and oall ther relevant articles of the EU Treaty are respected and promoted by the EU, its institutions and all the Member States; stresses that the European institutions should be at the forefront of this endeavour;

2015/04/20
Committee: AFCO

2014/2253(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Whereas in line with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on explanatory documents1 a the Commission has reported to the two legislators on its implementation; ___________ 1a OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14

2015/05/07
Committee: AFCO

2014/2253(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Welcomes the new practice whereby the Commission can ask the Member States, in justified cases, to include explanatory documents when they notify the Commission of their transposition measures; reiterates, however, its call for mandatory correlation tables on the transposition of Directives;

2015/05/07
Committee: AFCO

2014/2253(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Insists that these explanatory documents need to be publicly available in all EU languages;

2015/05/07
Committee: AFCO

2014/2253(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Deplores the fact that the European Parliament, which is now a fully-fledged co-legislator and an institution directly representing the citizens, does not yet receive transparent and timely information on the implementation of EU laws, when such information is essential ~~, including~~not only to enhance the accessibility and the legal certainty of the European citizens, but also for purposes of adopting amendments aimed at improving those laws;

2015/05/07
Committee: AFCO

2014/2253(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the enhanced transparency of the EU could boost the participation of the EU nationals in the new framework of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI);

2015/05/07
Committee: AFCO

2014/2252(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes, however, that a majority of opinions by national parliaments are submitted by only a few national chambers, encourages the other chambers to become more involved in the European debate;

2015/03/24
Committee: AFCO

2014/2252(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that the eight-week period given to national parliaments to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality ~~should be extended significantly~~is sufficient to allow national parliaments to participate to a greater extent~~; encourages national parliaments to become more involved in the European debate~~, without delaying the adoption of relevant legislation;

2015/03/24
Committee: AFCO

2014/2252(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that 2012 saw the first use of the so-called yellow card by national parliaments regarding the principle of subsidiarity in response to the Commission's proposal for a regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Monti II); notes that although the Commission concluded that the principle of subsidiarity had not been breached it did withdraw the proposal due to lack of political support; remarks that a second so-called yellow card was triggered in 2013 on the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO); notes that Commission concluded that the proposal complied with the principle of subsidiarity and decided to maintain it;

2015/03/24
Committee: AFCO

2014/2252(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes that an equivalent so-called yellow and red card system should be created for the European Parliament to allow it to react when Member States legislate in domains which are within the competencies of the Single Market, or alternatively if Member States do not correctly implement European directives, which fragments the Single Market and results in a lack of level playing field;

2015/03/24
Committee: AFCO

2014/2252(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Regrets the deficit in material criteria for establishing the existence of a violation of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles; finds that this has led to a diversity of criteria applied by national parliaments in their evaluation of proposals, and calls for the adoption of guidelines to define the principles and methods for the examination of subsidiarity and proportionality ~~issues in a better way;~~ by drawing from the Commission's Impact Assessment Guidelines (SEC(2009)92), particularly points 5.2 and 7.2 respectively;

2015/03/24
Committee: AFCO

2014/2252(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Believes that the Commission should perceive the European Citizens’ Initiative more positively and without dogmatism as it is a substantial instrument for citizens to influence EU legislation.~~deleted

2015/03/24
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the new settlement for the UK within the European Union proposed by President Tusk ignores the legal and institutional framework foreseen in the Treaties to modify the existing Treaties (article 48 TEU);

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the internal market, facilitating the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is a cornerstone of the EU;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the European Parliament is the parliament of the whole Union, democratically elected by direct universal suffrage, and plays an essential role in ensuring the legitimacy and accountability of EU decisions, including through finding ways to guarantee the democratic accountability of eurozone-specific actions and decisions;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas political dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament ~~should be enhanced and practical possibilities for the use~~has a role to play, whereas the national parliaments and the European Parliament have different mandates; whereas practical tools, such as the 'yellow' and 'orange card', already exist for national parliaments to object to proposed European legislation; whereas ofn the ~~‘yellow’ and ‘orange card’ improved~~European level the EP can respond to concerns where national decisions taken infringe on European competences through resolutions voted in the plenary;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the Commission’s role as the executive should be strengthened in the field of Economic and ~~Monetary~~Fiscal Policy by the creation of the position of EU Finance Minister, assisted by an EU Fiscal and Treasury administration, and by endowing it with the powers to implement and enforce any future and existing Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) instruments;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the existing economic governance system is not yet strong enough to tackle all potential future crises and shocks as it should, nor is it yet sufficiently good at generating higher competitiveness, structural convergence among its members,macro-economic imbalances procedure is not currently sufficiently used; whereas if used to its full capacity it could help to correct economic imbalances at an early stage, provide an accurate overview of the situation in each Member State and the Union as a whole, prevent crises and contribute to improving competitiveness; whereas greater structural convergence among its members is required, which will help to contribute to sustainable growth and social cohesion; whereas, therefore, ~~progress towards~~ the completion of the EMU ~~should be sustain~~is urgently needed, as well as efforts to render its institutional structure more legitimate and democratically accountable;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

N. whereas the European Semester process should be simplified, and rendered more focused and democratic, by enhancing Parliament’s scrutiny role over it and by investing it with a more substantial role in the various cycles of negotiations; whereas national parliaments must fully engage in the role foreseen for them in the European Semester in order to ensure its effectiveness and accountability at the appropriate level;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)

Oa. whereas the MFF should be modified to have a duration of 5 not 7 years, in line with the mandate of the European Parliament, in order to increase democratic control of the Union budget;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital Q

Q. whereas part of the EU budget should be used to establish a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms based on certain conditions; whereas this additional fiscal capacity should be placed outside the ceilings of the MFF ~~and should be~~, financed by genuine own resources and fiscally neutral for the Member States who contribute;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital V a (new)

Va. whereas the need for immediate action in light of the refugee crisis requires the creation of a European Rapid Refugee Emergency Force (ERREF) to manage all European external borders and to implement previous agreements, and to transform Frontex into a full- fledged European Coast and Border Guard (ECBG);

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Highlights that the existing European Treaties, voluntarily ratified by all 28 Member States, include a legal and institutional framework, within European law, to enable the existing Treaties to be modified (article 48 TEU) and for a Member State to decide to withdraw from the Union (article 50 TEU); considers therefore that the new settlement for the UK within the European Union, as proposed by President Tusk, through an international agreement is not the appropriate tool as it creates legal uncertainty and does not allow all European citizens to be consulted;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Insists that any new settlement for the UK within the European Union must provide legal certainty; insists also that an international agreement cannot modify the legal order of the EU nor affect the allocation of responsibilities defined in the Treaties and, consequently, the autonomy of the EU legal system, compliance with which the Court ensures under article 19 TEU;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Recalls that the internal market, facilitating the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is a cornerstone of the EU; also recalls that exceptions to the internal market create distortions of competition within the Union and destroys the level playing field;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Is of the opinion that intergovernmental solutions should not exist, not even in areas where not all the Member States fulfil the conditions for participation, and that the Fiscal Compact as intended in the Treaty, and the European Stability Mechanism, ~~as inten~~provided that the appropriate scrutiny accorded byto the ~~Treaties~~EP reflects the composition of the contributors, should therefore be incorporated into Union law and no new institutions should be introduced;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Recalls that the European Parliament is the parliament of the whole Union; considers that its working methods should be reformed so as to strengthen its control over the Commission in the implementation of the acquis, and to ensure proper democratic accountability even in the areas in which not all Member States participate, inter alia through finding ways to guarantee the parliamentary democratic accountability of eurozone- specific actions and decisions;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that political dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament ~~should be intensified and made more meaningful and substantial, without overstepping the limits of~~is important, recalls however their respective constitutional competences; points out, in this regard, that national parliaments are best placed to mandate and scrutinise at national level the action of their respective governments in European affairs, while the European Parliament should ensure the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the European executive;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers it necessary for the European Parliament to reform its working methods in order to cope with the challenges ahead, by using its control over the Commission, including in relation to the implementation and application of the acquis in the Member States, by limiting first-reading agreements to exceptional cases of urgency, and by improving its own electoral procedure through the revision of the 1976 Electoral Act in line with Parliament’s proposals contained in its resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union5 or as a future step through the adoption of implementing measures in application of Article 14 of the Electoral Act; __________________ 5 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0395.

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Encourages meaningful political dialogue with national parliaments on the contents of legislative proposals when relevant; insists, however, on a clear delineation of the respective decision- making competences of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, where the former ~~should~~must exercise their European function on the basis of their national constitutions, in particular via the control of their national governments as members of the European Council and the Council, which is the level where they are best placed to directly influence the content of and exercise scrutiny over the European legislative process; is therefore against the creation of joint parliamentary decision- making bodies for reasons of transparency, accountability and ability to act;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses the importance of cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments in joint bodies such as the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC), and the Inter-parliamentary Conference on Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP-IPC), and in the framework of Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union on the basis of the principles of consensus, information sharing and consultation in order to exercise control over their respective administrations; underlines the need for stronger cooperation between the specialised committees of the European Parliament and their national equivalents within these joint bodies;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Insists on curbing the interference of the European Council in the legislative process as it goes against the letter and spirit of the Treaties, as detailed in article 15 TEU;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Stresses that the existing, ratified Treaties are the basis for renegotiation of any Member State's membership of the Union, stresses that any modification of any Member State's membership of the Union must be negotiated transparently, through a convention and then ratified by all 28 Member States; deplores the Heads of State and Government's decision to propose a new settlement for the UK in the EU through an international agreement, which is undemocratic and which creates legal uncertainty;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that it is possible within the Treaties to merge the function of President of the European Council with that of President of the European Commission; and that the European Council, by means of an Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA), could engage itself politically to appoint as its President the Commission President, who should be elected by the European Parliament on a proposal by the European Council on the basis of the European election results, as was the case in the 2014 European elections;deleted

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Insists that the European Council publicly ~~expla~~outline and ~~motivate~~explain its policies before the European Parliament, including by presenting its intentions in advance of its meetings;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls for the creation of the position of European Finance Minister, combining the roles of a permanent President of the Eurogroup and Commission Vice- President (VP) for Economic and Financial Affairs, through an Interinstitutional Agreement between Parliament, Council and Commission;deleted

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Is determined to strengthen the role of Parliament in the election of the Commission President by reinforcing the formal consultations of its political groups with the European Council President, as foreseen in Declaration 11 annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, in order to ensure that the European Council takes full account of the election results when presenting a candidate for Parliament to elect, as was the case in the 2014 European elections;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Calls for the creation of the position of European Finance Minister to strengthen the Commission's role as the executive in the field of Economic and Fiscal Policy;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Insists on ensuring a single representation of the EU/eurozone within the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other international financial institutions (Article 138 TFEU) by its Finance Minister/VP of the Commission and the President of the European Central Bank (ECB); calls for the Single Supervisory Mechanism to be the sole representative of the EU at the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision for all elements concerning Banking Union; takes the view that the EU should streamline and codify its representation in all multilateral organisations/bodies with a view to increasing the transparency, integrity and accountability of the Union's involvement in these bodies;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Stresses the importance of the subsidiarity principle, as laid down in Article 5 TEU, which is binding on all institutions and bodies, notably the CoR and the EESC, and of the instruments contained in Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; ~~supports a flexible interpretation of the deadlines enshrined in the Protocol and~~ calls on the Commission to improve the quality of its responses to reasoned opinions;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Considers that the ~~practic~~formal possibilities for national parliaments to ensure the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality ~~should be improved, and cooperation between national parliaments strengthened, to enable them, in close cooperation among themselves, to reach the necessary quorum under article 7(3) of the~~ are laid out in the Treaties (Protocol 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality);

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Recalls that ~~any further~~immediate development of the EMU ~~should~~must be based on, and build on, existing legislation and its implementation;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Points out the need for ~~fewer and more targeted~~ Country Specific Recommendations (CSR) to be prioritised through a clear hierarchy, based on the policy framework set out in the Convergence Code and the Annual Growth Survey (AGS), and on the concrete proposals presented by each Member State, in line with their respective key reform objectives, from a broad range of structural reforms, fostering competitiveness, real economic convergence and social cohesion; insists on the importance of CSRs being implemented if they are to be effective, calls for greater efforts in this area, which monitoring would facilitate;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. ~~Considers it necessary for~~Recalls that economic dialogue mechanisms already exist, notably through the creation of the "economic dialogue" within the framework of the '6- pack' and '2-pack' legislation, considers that this is an effective tool to enable the Parliament to be invested with a more substantial role in negotiations within the framework of the European Semester ~~by allowing it to call hearings w~~through its ability to invithe governments of Member States affected by Country Specific Recommendations, Economic Partnership Programmes (EPP), Corrective Action Plans (CAP) and Alert Mechanism Reports (AMRs); to hearings in the EP; calls for this tool to also be used to enhance dialogue between Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Eurogroup for dedicated meeting time- slots during the main steps of the European Semester cycle;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Calls for the establishment of an enhanced dialogue between Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Eurogroup by agreeing on dedicated meeting time-slots during the main steps of the European Semester cycle;deleted

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Points out the need to switch from unanimity to QMV for the adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) Regulation, by using the provisions of Article ~~48 (7) TEU and Article~~ 312 (2) TFEU; highlights the importance of establishing a link between the duration of Parliament’s legislative term and the duration of the MFF, ~~which can be reduced to five years~~and thus reducing the duration of the MFF to five years, which is possible under the provisions of Article 312 (1) TFEU;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Proposes to change the procedure for the adoption of own resources through the general ‘'passerelle clause’' contained in Article 48 (7) TEU, which would facilitate the necessary transition from a system based on Gross National Income (GNI) contributions to one based on real own resources for the EU and the eurozone budget, such as a reformed Value Added Tax (VAT), a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) based on a wide scope and a low rate, applicable to at least a broad majority of Member States, or revenue from other sources such as the Emission Trading Scheme;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Insists on the full implementation of the existing six-pack and two-pack framework and the European Semester to address, in particular, macroeconomic imbalances, and secure long-term control over deficit and still extremely high levels of debt by growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, improving spending efficiency, prioritising productive investments, providing incentive to structural reform and taking into account business cycle conditions;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Recalls that the euro is the currency of the Union and that the EU budget is ~~designed to help less developed Member States catch up and become able to join the eurozone~~intended to fulfil the objectives for the Union laid out in article 3 TEU;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. ~~Proposes~~Underlines the need for the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms, based on incentives and certain conditions, including the effective implementation of the National Reform Programmes agreed within the European Semester; considers that this c~~ould~~annot be done ~~through the creation of additional capacity and/or by earmarking funding from the existing EU budget for this purpose~~in a meaningful way without changing the treaties; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but outside the ceilings of the MFF, and financed from real own resources;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. PRecalls the creation of the European Supervisory Authorities and the Banking Union; calls for further work to be undertaken on the issue of sovereign debt; pledges to further increase the resilience of the EMU when facing economic shocks while preventing any form of permanent fiscal transfers, in line with articles 125 and 136(3) TFEU;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

50. Reiterates its support for the suggestion to transform the position of Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs into a ~~Treasury~~European Finance Minister, as made in its resolution of 12 December 2013 on constitutional problems of a multitier governance in the European Union6 ; __________________ 6 Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0598.

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. Considers it necessary to incorporate the European Stability Mechanism into the Union legal framework ~~and,~~, providing that the appropriate scrutiny is established within the European Parliament which reflects the composition of the contributors; as a next step, tohe ESM will be transform ited into a European Monetary Fund;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Calls for ~~due consideration to be given to~~the implementation of the main findings of the Expert Group created by the Commission, with a view to constituting a Redemption Fund;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)

53a. Deplores any attempt to disintegrate the Single Market, recalls that it is a cornerstone of the Union, rejects any renegotiation of the Single Rule Book as it would fragment the Single Market in financial services and create unfair competition through a lack of level playing field;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Believes that the Single Market contains growth potential that has not yet been fully exploited, particularly with reference to the Digital Single Market and financial services; calls, therefore, for better control of the correct application, and better enforcement, of the existing acquis in thisese domains;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. Calls for the rapid completion of a Banking Union based on a single supervision mechanism (SSM) and a single resolution mechanism (SRM), and sustained by an adequate and fiscally neutral backstop; calls, to this end, for a swift agreement on an adequate bridge financing mechanism until the Single Resolution Fund becomes operational and a European Insolvency Scheme is created;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56

56. ~~Considers it necessary~~Recalls that the European Supervisory Authorities should act with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, in particular by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States and the different nature of financial market participants; considers that issues that affect all Member States should be raised, discussed and decided by all Member States and that to strengthen the level playing field inside the single market ~~by creating~~ a single rule book applicable to all ~~banks in the EU~~financial market participants in the EU is essential;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

57. Calls for the establishment of a ~~true~~n ambitious capital markets union, with a single European capital markets supervisor, where, inter alia, regulations replace directives, gold plating by Member States is excluded, there are EU standardised and comparable products for retail investors, as well as a single legal and fiscal framework for investors, regulatory arbitrage and distortions of competition are removed, data challenges and cyber security risks are addressed;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

59. Considers it necessary to improve the automatic information exchange between national tax authorities in order to avoid tax planning, base erosion and profit shifting, as well as to promote coordinated actions to fight tax havens; calls for the adoption of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base directive ~~establishing a minimum rate~~, the simplification of tax systems and the spelling out of common objectives for progressive ~~harmonisation~~convergence; deems it necessary to embark on a comprehensive review of the existing VAT legislation, addressing i.a. the issue of reduced rates and the introduction of the country of origin principle, and also deems it necessary to establish a partially automatic stabilising mechanism to foster convergence and counter differences in the economic cycles of the Member States;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

62. Reiterates that interparliamentary cooperation should not be seen as establishing a new joint parliamentary body or any other institution, because the euro is the currency of the EU and the European Parliament is the parliament of the EU; recalls that the EMU is established by the Union, whose citizens are directly represented at Union level by Parliament, which can find ways to guarantee the parliamentary democratic accountability of eurozone-specific actions and decisions;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69

69. Supports the creation of a European Energy Agency under Article 204 of the Euratom Treaty, as well as the establishment of a European strategic reserve and a joint negotiating centre with suppliers, with a view to completing the institutional structure of the Energy Union; notes, however, that a genuine Energy Union requires the removal of the constraint that EU policy must not affect a State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy sources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply (Article 194(2) TFEU);

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Points out the importance of promoting the idea of a minimalum wage throughout the EU, determined by each Member State/sector according to the Member State, aiming towards the progressive alignment of wages throughout the Union in the long-term, and suggests that, under current Treaty provisions, an ‘'Employees Mobility Directive’' could be adopted to reduce still-existing barriers for employees;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75

75. Calls for the establishment of a new social pact aimed at preserving Europe’'s social market economy~~, respecting~~ and reducing inequalities, ensuring that all citizens' fundamental rights are respected, including, inter alia, the right to education, to work, non-discrimination, the right to collective bargaining, the freedom of movement; points out that such a pact could enhance the coordination of the social policies of the Member States;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83

83. Calls for ~~progressive steps to be taken towards~~ a common defence policy (Article 42(2) TEU) and~~, eventually,~~ a common defence, which can be set up by unanimous decision of the European Council;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94

94. Underlines that in the light of the recent attacks and the increase of the terrorist threat, a more intense and structured exchange of information and data between national security agencies and intelligence services, and with Europol and Frontex, is absolutely essential; and must be put in place as soon as possible;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 95 a (new)

95a. Regrets that the Temporary Protection Directive has not been activated in light of the refugee crisis, despite having been established to deal with a mass influx of third country nationals;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97

97. Considers it necessary to immediately create a European Rapid Refugee Emergency Force (ERREF) to manage all European external borders and to implement previous agreements as well as to strengthen Frontex and transform it into a ~~European System of~~full-fledged European Coast and Border Guards (ECBG), to be supported, when necessary, by military instruments such as a European Maritime Force (Euromarfor) and an upgraded European Corps (Eurocorps), together with the resources pooled through Permanent Structured Cooperation; suggests that automatic adjustment should also be envisaged of the databases of border agencies such as Eurodac, and, in future, Smart Borders, such that they incorporate the ‘'European list of dangerous persons’' and the ‘'European Database for wanted persons’';

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98

98. Stresses the importance of distinguishing between the concepts of ‘unsafe ~~third~~ countries’ (war zones) and ‘safe ~~third~~ countries of origin’ (mostly Western Balkans countries), and the corresponding distinction of procedures for processing applicants coming from these two categories of countries; calls for the signature of agreements with safe ~~third~~ countries of origin in order to control and reduce migration flows before migrants arrive at the EU border; insists, at the same time, on strict procedures for returning applicants with unfounded claims;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 99

99. Calls for the competences for external border controls to be strengthened by vestrengthening Frontex and transforming it into a full-fledged ECBG, rather than the requesting Member State, with the power to command when the former is in charge of an operation;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100

100. Calls for an upgrade of the human and financial capabilities of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) so that it can coordinate all EU asylum applications as well as be deployed to support Member States under particular migratory pressure in the processing of asylum requests, including in its mandate for the deployment of joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions similar to the ones added by Regulation 1168/2011 to the mandate of Frontex;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2249(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 104 a (new)

104a. Considers that this resolution should be the basis for improving the functioning of the European Union on the short term; recalls that further fundamental reform is essential and requires a convention and a revision of the Treaties;

2016/02/17
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6

– having regard to the European Council conclusions of 18-19 February 2016 concerning a new settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union6 , which has since ceased to exist, __________________ 6 EUCO conclusions of 19 February 2016.

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)

– having regard to the Declaration ‘Greater European Integration: The Way Forward’ by the Presidents of the Camera dei Deputati of Italy, the Assemblée nationale of France, the Bundestag of Germany, the Chambre des Députés of Luxembourg, and the Presidency of the EU Speakers Conference signed on 14 September 2016 and currently endorsed by several national parliamentary chambers in the EU,

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 b (new)

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 31 January 2013 on the promotion of EU citizens’ electoral rights 6a, __________________ 6a OJ C 062, 2.3.2013, p. 26

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas this problem, coupled with a lack of a common vision on the part of our Member States as regards the future of our continent, has given rise to unprecedented levels of ‘euroscepticism’ that risk leading to a return to nationalism and the ~~disintegration of the Union~~re is a risk of the Union disintegrating;

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas, the euro is the currency of the Union (article 3 (4) TEU), however in the field of the euro and monetary policy, the United Kingdom obtained a permanent derogation from joining (Protocol No 15), Denmark has a constitutional exemption (Protocol No 16), Sweden has ceased to follow the euro convergence criteria and the possibility of Greece leaving the single currency has been openly discussed in the European Council in Spring 2015;

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas, since the Treaty of Lisbon, further accelerated by the financial and migration crises, the European Council has widened its role to include day-to-day management through the adoption of intergovernmental instruments outside the framework of the EU such as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG or the ‘Fiscal Compact’) and the deal with Turkey on migration, despite the fact that its role is to provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and to define general political direction and priorities, it shall not exercise legislative functions (article 15(1) TEU);

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)

Ra. in order to provide as much clarity as possible for business, investors and citizens (both EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the rest of the EU) it is welcome that Theresa May has declared that article 50 will be triggered before the end of March 2017, as the current uncertainty is damaging to both the UK and the EU;

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital T a (new)

Ta. whereas a clear majority of the Union’s regional and local government have consistently expressed their view, through the Committee of the Regions, in favour of a more integrated EU with an effective governance;

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that a comprehensive democratic reflection on the reform of the Treaties can and must only be achieved through a Convention, which like the last one guarantees inclusiveness through its composition of representatives of national parliaments, governments of all the Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament, the EU’s consultative bodies and also provides the proper platform for such reflection and engagement with European citizens;

2016/11/16
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines the fact that, until the Treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom, it will continue to participate in all decision-making of the Union throughout its institutions, with the exception of the negotiations and the agreement concerning its own withdrawal; considers that intermediate arrangements will need to be made concerning the UK’s participation in European decision-making, as it will be politically difficult to allow a Member State in the process of leaving to influence decisions affecting the Union of which it will soon cease to be a member; recalls the principle of sincere cooperation as laid out in the Treaties (article 4(3) TEU);

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Reaffirms that constitutional elements of the Union, notably the integrity of the Single Market and the fact that this cannot be separated from the four fundamental freedoms of the Union (free movement of capital, people, goods and services) are essential, indivisible pillars of the Union, as is the existence of a state of law, guaranteed by the European Court of Justice; reaffirms this constitutional unity cannot be undone during the negotiations of the exit of the United Kingdom from the Union;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Acknowledges the improvements brought by the European Semester, the six- pack and the two-pack aimed at addressing these issues, but concludes that they have not solved the problems, in part due to the fact that the rules have not been fully respected nor the tools available in them activated; believes, moreover, that they have contributed to making the system overly complex, are not binding with regard to country-specific recommendations and do not cover spill- over effects between one Member State and another, or to the euro area or the EU as a whole;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for the integration of the Fiscal Compact into the EU legal framework as well as the incorporation of the ESM and the Single Resolution Fund into EU law, with corresponding democratic oversight by Parliament, ensuring that control and accountability is the responsibility of those contributing to them;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. In order to ensure that control and accountability is undertaken by those contributing to these instruments believes that the creation of a Euro Area Parliament within the European Parliament will be needed; within the Euro Area Parliament considers it essential to differentiate between discussion concerning policies for the euro area and related decision making; modalities must be found to allow all Member State who are committed to joining the euro area to participate in discussions concerning the euro area, if they so wish, however only Member States who are members of the euro area and contribute to rescue funds etc. should be able to vote on these decisions;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Believes that any future attempts to reintroduce a double-majority for euro- area/non-euro-area Member States in the field of financial legislation must be refused as it would violate article 3 TEU;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Considers it necessary to endow the European Central Bank with the status of lender of last resort for market actors directly under its supervision or oversight, enjoying the full powers of a federal reserve bank;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Stresses that for the Union to strengthen the defence of the EU territory, as a pillar within NATO, which remains the cornerstone of the European security architecture, and to enable the Union to act autonomously in operations abroad, mainly with a view to stabilising its neighbourhood, the Treaties should provide for the possibility of establishing a European defence union; draws attention to the Franco-German initiative of September 2016, which provides a useful contribution to this issue;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)

37a. Emphasises that involving citizens in the political process of their country of residence helps to build European democracy, and therefore calls for the electoral rights of citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, as set out in Article 22 TFEU, to be extended to include all remaining elections: provincial, regional, and national;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)

39a. Believes that a delay of at least ten years will be required between deciding on a single seat for the European Parliament and this becoming a reality, to allow for a sufficient budgetary endowment to be established, in order to ensure the sustainable financing of a permanent centre for exchange in the former buildings of the Parliament in Strasbourg; considers that this centre should ensure meetings and exchanges of best practice between Europeans, for example citizens, experts, politicians, academics;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Proposes that, when Parliament and the Council vote on legislation specific to the euro area, only MEPs elected in the euro area and respectively representatives of its member states, can take part in the vote in order to ensure that democratic control and accountability is undertaken by the members of the Eurozone;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Pproposes moreover, that, in line with the common practice in a number of Member States, both chambers of the EU legislature, the Council and in particular the Parliament, ands the ~~Council~~only institution directly elected by citizens, should be given the right of legislative initiative, without prejudice to the basic legislative prerogative of the European executive or government;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2248(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

47a. Recalls that legislation provides for the suspension of ESI Funds if a Member State fails to take action concerning the violation of the Stability and Growth Pact (Excessive Deficit Procedure); believes a fortiori that the EU should link the payment of all EU funds with the respect of European values, as laid out in the Treaties;

2016/11/09
Committee: AFCO

2014/2245(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the economic crisis and the austerity measures have ~~greatly~~ increased economic and social disparities, worsening the differences between (and within) Member States; emphasises that some of the investments made in the context of cohesion policy have not been sufficiently forward-looking and have therefore added to the burden on public finances;

2015/03/26
Committee: ECON

2014/2245(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the potentially important role of cohesion policy in mitigating the effects of the financial, economic and social crisis, as well as its positive effects on all regions; underlines its importance in closing the public/private investment gap, especially in the Member States hit most by the crisis;

2015/03/26
Committee: ECON

2014/2245(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Notes~~Welcomes the fact that the reform of cohesion policy has focused on delivering an investment policy; welcomes the Commission’s Investment Plan, and endorses its proposal to finance the new EFSI by making national contributions to the fund fiscally neutral as regards the SGP; stresses the interdependence of cohesion policy with the EU’s other investment initiatives; calls on the Commission to create a coherent and effective investment framework;

2015/03/26
Committee: ECON

2014/2245(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the ‘investment clause’ outlined in the Commission communication on flexibility within the SGP; strongly believes that the investment clause should be symmetrically extended to the corrective arm;deleted

2015/03/26
Committee: ECON

2014/2245(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Believes that the possibility of exempting the national cofinancing of the ESIF from SGP deficit calculations should be examined;~~deleted

2015/03/26
Committee: ECON

2014/2245(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the closer alignment of cohesion policy with the overall economic strategy and the EU’s Economic Governance Framework; opposes creating a close link between financial and fiscal objectives and cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to ensure that the effectiveness of the ESIF is not compromised by macroeconomic policies; calls for the full and formal involvement of Parliament in the future governance structure of the fundCalls on the Commission to guarantee coherence between the ESIF and macroeconomic policies; emphasises the need for detailed ex post parliamentary scrutiny;

2015/03/26
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1. - Point (d) - Subpoint (i.)

i.) to specify the role and the legal quality of the Regulatory Cooperation Council’s findings, taking into consideration that any direct application of its recommendations for the relevant EU instances would imply a breach of the law- making procedures laid down in the Treaties, and to ensure that no standards are lowered inside the European legal framework;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1.- Point (d) - Subpoint (ii.)

ii.) while the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is an appropriate tool to protect investors and assure that investments are treated in a fair and non- discriminatory way, to oversee that it does not undermine the capacity of European, national and local authorities to legislate their own policies, in particular social and environmental policies, and therefore respect the constitutional framework of the Member Statesrecognising that investment protection is necessary, to explore viable, transparent alternatives to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms (ISDS), inspired, for example, by the dispute settlement mechanism in place within the WTO;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1. - Point (d) - Subpoint (ii.) d (new)

ii.)d to ensure the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of European Union law, enforcing the general principles of the legal framework of the EU;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph c

c. take immediate action to include restrictions on state aid in the agreement; propose greater transparency within state aid rules and within the allocation of state aid; acknowledge the particular statute of Defense but believes that Defense spendings must not be misused, leading to abuse and unfair funding through this channel or expenditure which is in fact state aid;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1.- Point (e) - Subpoint (iv.)

iv.) to implement the recommendations of the European Ombudsman from 6 January 2015 to further enhance the legitimacy and transparency of the negotiating process by fully complying with the rules on public access to documents, by making available relevant documents in all the official languages of the EU on its website more proactively and comprehensively, and by ensuring more balanced and transparent public participation;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1.- Point (e) -subpoint (iv.) - a (new)

iv.)a - calls, therefore, on the Commission to support and continue negotiations with the Council to unblock the amendment to Regulation (EC) Nº 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph d

d. take immediate action to ensure that market access negotiations on financial services are combined with upward convergence in financial regulation; support high international standards in on- going cooperation efforts in other international fora; provided that they respect transparency and fairness; ensure that cooperation efforts do not limit each partner's ability to adopt regulatory and supervisory decisions appropriate to their respective economic and financial systems, including their ability to ban financial products and activities, as long as it does not favour regulatory arbitrage nor does it unfairly restrict competition;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph e

e. take immediate action to ensure that aggressive tax planning, and distortion of competition by e.g. moving of headquarters across the Atlantic to obtain competition- distorting conditions, are addressed; calls on the TTIP to include and implement the OECD's recommendations on tax havens, tax avoidance and Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS);

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph g

g. take immediate action to ensure reciprocal market access for European companies to public contracts and public procurement in the United States; underlines that anthe current imbalance of market access to public contracts and public procurement in the United States compared to in the European Union constitutes unfair competition;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i

i. propose the introduction of a national court systems-first principle, to be supplemented with mediation and intergovernmental dispute mechanisms in legal disputes in order to ensure easier access and lower litigation costs than those offered by current ISDS- mechanisms, benefitting especially SMEs (having fewer resources available than large corporations), thus creating more equal competition conditionexplore viable alternatives to dispute settlement mechanisms; stress that any and all dispute mechanisms set in place within the TTIP-framework must uphold full transparency and be subject to democratic principles and scrutiny;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i a (new)

ia. include the FACTA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) into the TTIP making it reciprocal, less costly and less administrative;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i b (new)

ib. include a mandatory country-by- country reporting regime for corporates;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph j

j. acknowledge ~~the importance of state- owned enterprises for certain crucial services~~article 345 of the TFEU stating that "the treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership";

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph k

~~k. stress the need to uphold the EU’s tradition for organising its public services, and call for an exclusion of public services from the agreement;~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2228(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph l

~~l. propose that there should be no obligation in TTIP to expose sensitive sectors to competition.~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Believes that there should be a role foreseen for the European Court of Justice in EMU in case a Member State does not respect the rules, which would allow a Member State taking another Member State to court over the non- compliance with the rules;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Underlines that Member States must ringfence their investment funds in their national budgets in order to take part in the European Strategic Investment Fund. Stresses that it is important that the European funds will lead to additional investment, not just replacing national investment funds that would go to consumption;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Petr JEŽEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses that there should be a special regime for SME:s to the Investment Fund in order to create a level-playing field as SME:s easily are put into disadvantage due to their size and market position.

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Underlines the fact that the overall indebtedness of Member States in the euro area is not only an obstacle to growth but also puts a huge burden on future generations;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Petr JEŽEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the ambitious structural reforms implemented by those Member States most affected by the crisis; welcomes as well the fact that those Member States that have successfully implemented adjustment programmes or financial sector programmes have been able to return to the capital markets, where they now access capital at low interest rates; finds it regrettable that the Member States in the rest of the euro area are less ambitious in modernising their economies;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Member States to continue the process of deep and sustainable structural reforms to make their labour markets more efficient, to modernise social protection systems, including pensions, and to improve and streamline the legal and administrative environment for business investment; stresses that structural reforms need to be complemented by well-targeted, longer- term investments in education, research and development, innovation, infrastructure, ICT ~~and~~, sustainable energy and human resources;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Underlines that the Member States should pay particular attention to youth unemployment when making reforms in order not to deprive young people of their opportunities from the start;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Points out that EU financial assistance to certain Member States, provided on terms combining solidarity with conditionality, has proved to be most successful when there was a strong ownership and commitment to reform; reminds the Commission and the Member States that they need to explore ways of bringing the financial assistance under the EU framework; calls therefore for the creation of a European Monetary Fund (EMF) on the basis of Union law, which would be subject to the Community method;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK, Michael THEURER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Calls on the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, to make full use of all measures provided for in EU law to support the enforcement of the implementation of the European Semester;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK, Michael THEURER, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Is concerned about protectionist tendencies in certain Member States; points out that the Treaty does not provide for the restriction of the free movement of people, services or capital, and recalls that the Commission must safeguard and enforce these freedoms;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK, Michael THEURER, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Agrees with the Commission that most Member States need to continue to pursue growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; invites Member States with sufficient fiscal space to consider reducing taxes and social security contributions with a view to stimulating private investment; stresses the fact that special emphasis should be placed on growth-enhancing reforms and policies;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Notes the excessively high public debt levels, particularly in the euro area; urges Member States and the Commission to address the debt overhang by establishing a European debt redemption fund based on conditionality combining structural reforms with fiscal incentives; points out that such a debt redemption fund needs to go hand in hand with an insolvency procedure for sovereigns safeguarding market discipline;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK, Michael THEURER, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4

Strengthened coordination of national ~~policies~~and international policies, and improved democratic accountability

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Michael THEURER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Calls on the Commission to put forward a proposal on the single external representation of the euro area based on Article 138 TFEU;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2221(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD, Petr JEŽEK, Michael THEURER, Marian HARKIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23b. Reiterates its view that the current economic governance framework is lacking sufficient democratic accountability in the application of its rules and of the institutions and bodies involved; calls on the Commission to make the necessary proposals to address the lack of proper democratic accountability in EU economic governance;

2015/01/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2157(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas, according to the Commission services’ spring 2014 forecast, the average inflation rate in the euro area was 1.3 % in 2013, down from 2.5 % in 2012; whereas inflation in the euro area has continued to be on a downward path since the beginning of 2014, reaching a low of 0.3 % in September; whereas the overall HICP inflation rate went down to 0% in Portugal, -0.1% in Italy and -0.3% in Spain in September 2014;

2014/11/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2157(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Points out that the ECB forecasts published in 2013 had not anticipated the actual conjunction of a flat growth and a very low inflation and even deflationary signs; calls, against this background, for the current forecasts of stronger economic growth and higher inflation in 2015 and 2016 to be read with caution;

2014/11/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2157(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that the ECB has announced that it will purchase asset-backed securities (ABS) and covered bonds in order to empower the credit-easing impact of the TLTROs; stresses that such interventions on ABS market must be conducted in a transparent manner that does not create excessive risks for the ECB’s balance sheet, notably through transparent and strict conditionality;

2014/11/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2157(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Recalls that the independence of the ECB in the conduct of its monetary policy, as enshrined in the Treaties, is crucial to the objective of safeguarding price stability; recalls that all governments and public national authorities should also refrain from asking for actions or commenting on decisions which the ECB takes;

2014/11/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2157(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Reminds that all members of the ECB's General Council are committed to the decisions taken which remain confidential, unless a decision has been taken to make them public;

2014/11/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2157(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. believes that central banks worldwide should work actively to avoid any policy that would generate negative spillovers on others; notes that some central banks call on other central banks to take on board potential negative spillovers of monetary policies long after they have unilaterally implemented their own policies;

2014/11/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2157(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Points out that activity on government securities continues to be a major source of profit for banks of the euro area, even though credit to the non-financial private sector remains sluggish; considers that technical and legislative work on risks linked to sovereign debt should be accelerated;

2014/11/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3

~~– having regard to the~~ deletter of 3 July 2013 from the then Vice-President of the Commission, Olli Rehn, on the application of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies,d

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

- having regard to the conclusions of the European Council meeting on 23rd October 2011,

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17

~~– having regard to the speech of 15 July 2014 by President of the Commission Jean-Claude Juncker at the European Parliament,~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19

~~– having regard to the speech of 22 August 2014 by President of the ECB Mario Draghi at the annual central bank symposium in Jackson Hole,~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20

– having regard to the opinion of 14 January 2015 of the European Court of Justice Advocate-General, Cruz Villalón, regarding the legality of the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) programme of the ECB,deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21

~~– having regard to the announcement by the ECB of 22 January 2015 of an expanded asset purchase programme,~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22

– having regard to ECB Occasional Paper No 157 of November 2014 entitled ‘The identification of fiscal and macroeconomic imbalances – unexploited synergies under the strengthened EU governance framework’,deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes President Juncker's proposal to create a European fund for strategic investments (EFSI) and introduce new detailed guidelines for the deduction of expenditure for the fund under the Stability and Growth Pact;

2015/01/29
Committee: AFCO

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 23

~~– having regard to the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis policy brief of July 2014 entitled ‘Structural budget balance: a love at first sight turned sour’,~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that it is vital to distinguish between countries' operating expenditure and their productive investments, and that it is for the Commission, with the help of Eurostat, to lay down, in advance, strict eligibility criteria that, for the durable achievement of the objective of balancing national public finances under the Treaties, it is vital for the Commission allow for more favourable treatment of national productive investments that guarantee the viability of public finances in the long term, in accordance with Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); urges the Commission, together with Eurostat, to define the eligibility criteria in advance;

2015/01/29
Committee: AFCO

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 24

~~– having regard to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Paper No 977 of 6 July 2012 entitled ‘Implications of output gap uncertainty in times of crisis’,~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25

~~– having regard to OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No 163 of 9 December 2014 entitled ‘Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth’,~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 26

~~– having regard to the IMF staff discussion note of September 2013 entitled ‘Towards a fiscal union for the euro area’,~~deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Takes the view that ~~a minor change to the Treaties, i.e. the deletion of Article 126(10) TFEU, would make it possible for the Court of Justice to penalise infringements~~the European Court of Justice is one of the pillars of the Community method; considers that a community of law requires judicial control (infringement proceedings against defaulting Member States and action for annulment against decisions of the institutions, thereby providing programme countries with a guarantee) and that the absence of the European Court of Justice, which has played an essential role in underpinning the rule of law in the Union, ais ~~befits a community based on the rule of law.~~ a serious shortcoming of Economic and Monetary Union; considers that the deletion of Article 126(10) TFEU would enable the Court of Justice to resume this key role.

2015/01/29
Committee: AFCO

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas, according to the Commission’'s autumn forecast, after two consecutive years of unanticipated negative growth, gross domestic product (GDP) in the euro area is expected to rise by 0.8 % in 2014 and by 1.1 % in 2015, meaning that ~~the pre-crisis growth rate will not be regained this year~~economic recovery is slowly gaining ground;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas, according to article 2 of the TEU, the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas ~~huge~~ differences will continue to prevail between the Member States~~, also following the Troika’s intervention,~~ with forecasted GDP growth rates in 2014 ranging between -2.8 % in Cyprus and +4.6 % in Ireland reflecting ~~increasingly undermining growing internal divergenc~~the will and ambition of different Member States to reform to regain competitivenes s;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas, according to the Commission’'s autumn forecast, investment in the euro area decreased by 3.4 % in 2012, by 2.4 % in 2013 and by 17 % since the pre-crisis period, with the expected rebound rate in 2014 (0.6 %) and that anticipated for 2015 (1.7 %) being very weak; whereas both a lack of future-oriented investment can ~~be just as detrimental to future generations as excessive public debt~~d excessive public debt are a crippling burden for future generations;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas a European investment plan is being put in place to raise EUR 315 billion in new investments over the next three years whose success also depends on the implementation of structural reforms to create an investor-friendly environment in Member States;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Underlines, however, that since the new rules have been introduced, progress has been made in addressing fiscal consolidation, with the EU-28 average fiscal deficit falling from 4.5% of GDP in 2011 to a forecast of around 3% of GDP in 2014;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Welcomes the Commission communication (COM(2014) 905) on the application of the Six- and Two-Pack; agrees with the Commission that the ability to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the regulations is limited by the short experience of their operation, which in addition has been characterised by a severe economic crisis and hence leaves the rules untested in normal economic times;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1b. Stresses that at the core of the economic governance system is the prevention of excessive deficit and debt levels as well as excessive macroeconomic imbalances; underlines therefore that an assessment of the application of the six- pack and two-pack at this stage remains partial as the efficiency of the system to a large extent relies on the proper working of the preventive part of it, which is precisely what remains to be proven in better economic times;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

-1c. Welcomes the measures taken by the EU to respond to the weaknesses in its economic governance system revealed by the economic and financial crisis, namely the six-pack and two-pack; believes these represent a necessary first step to strengthen budgetary surveillance and economic policy coordination;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the current economic situation calls for ~~urgent, comprehensive and decisive measures to face the threat of deflation or very low inflation, low~~a continuation of growth-friendly fiscal consolidation and structural reforms to modernise EU economies, restore competitiveness, foster innovation, increase growth and ~~high un~~employment prospects as well as reducing inequalities and fighting poverty;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. recalls that article 3 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU) states that the Union, based on a highly competitive social market economy, "shall combat social exclusion and discrimination"; underlines therefore that budgetary policies must also tackle the poverty and social exclusion suffered by Europe's most deprived citizens, as not wasting human resources is a crucial component of competitiveness;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that the current economic governance framework does not allow for a proper debate on the economic perspective of the euro area or on an aggregate fiscal stance and does not address the different economic and fiscal situations on an equal footing;deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that the current situation calls for closer and inclusive economic coordination (to increase aggregate demand, improve fiscal sustainability and allow for fair and sustainable structural reforms and related investments) and for swift reactions so as to correct the most obvious fault lines in the economic governance framework: the fact that the Member States of the Euro area do not currently sufficiently consider the Euro area as a whole, and this lack of/or misguided implementation of the rules;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Believes that ensuring the credibility of the framework is key to enhancing its democratic legitimacy; stresses that credibility can only be assured by a consistent and fair implementation of the framework across countries and over time;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Warns that the ~~accumulation~~complexity of procedures ~~makes~~concerning the economic governance framework complex and not transparent enough, which is detrimental to the ownership and acceptance by parliaments, social partners and citizens of guidelines, recommendations and reforms stemming from this frameworkas well as the lack of transparency on their implementation at national and European level makes it less efficient;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines all the existing provisions under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) which have been put in place to ensure an anti-cyclical policy; finds it regrettable that these provisions were not put to full use in previous years, in the context of low inflation, low growth and high unemployment;deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Believes that sufficient flexibility is built in the existing provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP); stresses that the application of flexibility should solely be based on numerical criteria and quantifiable targets leaving no room for political bargaining;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Acknowledges that progress has been made to strengthen the preventive arm of the SGP: stresses that any new flexibility in granting deviations from the Medium Term Objectives should not endanger this preventive nature of the Pact over the economic cycle and that any deviation should include a real safety margin for all Member States to reach their MTO in the given timeframe;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Requests the Commission and the Council to include an explicit reference to the required fiscal effort for the current and the upcoming year in the relevant recommendations under the preventive and corrective arm of the SGP; Requests furthermore that all underlying analysis regarding the implementation of the SGP should be published;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that in its interpretative communication on flexibility, the Commission ~~acknowledg~~states that the way in which the current fiscal rules are interpreted is crucial in bridging the investment gap in the EU and implementing growth- enhancing structural reforms;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Considers that in order to ensure the long term sustainability of national public finances, it is of the utmost importance for the Commission to check the quality and relevance of public finances, in particular that national budgets are future oriented, by identifying, together with Eurostat, and encouraging the investment expenditures rather than the consumption expenditures, in accordance with Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Supports all the incentives to finance the new European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), mainly by making national contributions to the fund fiscally neutral as regards the SGP; calls for further clarification regarding the concrete treatment of these contributions in accordance with the new paradigm set out in the communication;deleted

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Believ~~Notes that the communication ~~rightly~~ broadens the scope of the investment clause, allowing for flexibility in the preventive arm of the SGP to accommodate investment programmes by the Member States, in particular as regards expenditure on projects under structural and cohesion policy, including the Youth Employment Initiative, trans- European networks and the Connecting Europe Facility, and co-financing under the EFSI; believes that this approach must be urgently reassessed to be symmetrically applied to the correcmore flexibility in the preventive arm of the SGP;

2015/03/04
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Believ~~Stresses that the ~~structural reform clause under the preventive arm and the means of considering~~precondition for the application of the structural reform pclansuse under the ~~correc~~preventive arm ~~constitute a step forward as regards ensuring the more efficient implementa~~is the formal parliamentary adoption of a reform~~s by Member States~~; calls for further clarification as to the types of structural reforms eligible under this new scheme; believes that a direct link to the cost, timeframe impact and value of structural reforms should also be explicit in the corrective arm of the SGPcompatibility of the reinterpretation of the rules with the Treaty and secondary law;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes that structural reforms should have a positive ~~socio~~economic return and contribute to increased administrative ~~capacit~~efficiency;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Deplor~~Notes, however, the fact that the communication does not touch upon the nature of ‘unusual events’ falling outside the control of a Member State ~~which could allow it to temporarily depart from the adjustment path towards achieving its MTO~~, recalls the general principle of law which requires that exemption rules must be applied restrictively;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that ~~more room for flexibility and soft laws exists under the SGP and~~ the rules as laid out in the SGP clearly define the ~~European Semester; invites the Commission to build on this flexibility and to propose rule changes where needed~~remits of flexibility and calls on the Commission to ensure their strict and fair implementation;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Invites the Commission and the Council to better articulate the fiscal and macroeconomic frameworks~~, notably in the corrective arm of the SGP,~~ to allow for earlier debate among stakeholders, taking into account the need to increase convergence between euro area Member States and the role of national parliaments and social partners regarding the ~~design and implementation~~ownership of structural reforms;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Insists that the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) and euro area recommendation must be better designed ~~and put~~ to better ~~use to allow for a global economic debate, notably as regards convergence in~~take into account the interest of the euro area as a whole; proposes that the country- specific recommendations (CSRs) should be established on the basis of striking a better balance between the AGS and the macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP), and suggests that the euro area recommendation should be made compulsory following a proper debate with the European Parliament, with incentives being offered so as to encourage the implementation thereof; requests that the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) recommendation be joined together with the CSRs;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

~~17. Asks the Commission to verify whether the current 1/20 rule on debt reduction is sustainable and whether it needs to be reconsidered;~~deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Asks the Commission to make the three-pillar strategy (investment, fiscal rules and structural reforms), presented in the AGS 2015, more concrete under the euro area recommendation and in the CSRs and to ~~strengthen its~~take into account the need for ap pro~~ach by building a fourth pillar on~~gressive and common approach to taxation;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes that national fiscal councils could play a useful role at EU level; requests the set-up of a European network allowing for an independent analysis of the economic perspective to be established as a basis for a proper political discussion among stakeholders; recalls that independent bodies due to assess the effective and timely monitoring of compliance with the rules where created by the Council directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States; is of the opinion that an independent analysis is also needed at the EU level; reminds that the Commission's independent Chief Economic Analyst (Decision of the President of the European Commission of 28 October 2011) was designed in response to the calls for an independent surveillance of the Commission's increased discretionary powers enshrined in the 6-pack and the 2-pack; believes that the national independent bodies should work as a network, under the leadership of the Chief Economic Analyst, to monitor the fair and transparent implementation of the EU rules' framework; calls on this monitoring to be made public;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Suggests that such a fiscal council led by the Chief Economic Analyst could provide objective, independent and transparent analyses to both the Commission and the Council as well as the Parliament;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that the MIP must be used in a more ~~balanced manner between deficit and surplus countries, also to address countries with significant room for action~~efficient manner, particularly with regard to strengthening competitiveness and better taking into account the euro area as a whole, including all the spill- over effects of national policies through the scoreboard;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to explore ways in which to better align the preventive and corrective arms of the SGP, in particular regarding investment allowing temporary deviation from the MTO, or the adjustment path towards it, within the existence of a safety margin under the preventive arm;deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

~~22. Asks the Commission to take into account all relevant factors, including real growth and inflation, when evaluating the economic and fiscal situations of Member States under the EDP;~~deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Insists on the need to clarify~~Believes that the way in which effective actions are taken into account under the EDP should be based on clear, numerical and quantifiable criteria;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Insists that the focus on structural deficits since the 2005 reform of the SGP, together with the introduction of an expenditure rule with the 2011 reform, creates margins for the discretionary implementation of the SGP, as the calculation of potential growth, underpinning the assessment of structural deficits, and that of the expenditure rule are subject to several questionable assumptions and substantial revisions between the Commission’s autumn and spring forecasts, thereby leading to various calculations and diverging assessments as regards the implementation of the SGP;deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls on the Commission, when evaluating the fiscal position of Members States, to include a better balance between the impact of the agreed fiscal measures and the fiscal figures based on estimated potential growth for GDP, output gaps and structural deficits that may introduce unexpected radical change at a later stage;deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Calls on the Commission, when evaluating the fiscal position of Members States, to include a better balance between the impact of the agreed fiscal measures and the fiscal figures based on estimated potential growth for GDP, output gaps and structural deficits that may introduce unexpected radical change at a later stage;deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Believes that the credibility of the economic governance framework rests on the fair and transparent application of the rules; calls on the Commission to publish the reports of its independent Chief Economic Analyst verifying the consistent implementation of the rules; invites the Commission's Chief Economic Analyst to present to the European Parliament his/her assessment regarding the consistent implementation of the rules;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Takes the view that implementation and an effective enforcement of the current economic governance framework is the best way forward for the EMU: stresses the need for political ownership of the common rules and tool both at EU and national level which includes a stronger commitment of national parliaments and governments to implement structural reforms;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Takes the view that in the field of EMU parliamentary control is shared between the national and the European level and insists that responsibilities must be assumed at the level where decisions are taken or implemented, with national parliaments scrutinising national governments and the European Parliament scrutinising the European executive; it is only in this way that the required increased accountability of decision making can be ensured; considers that this increased legitimacy can be ensured by foreseeing the adoption of National Reform Programmes and possible Convergence Partnerships by national parliaments as well as the adoption of European policy orientations, detailed in the Annual Growth Survey, by the European Parliament; stresses that such a cooperation should not be seen as the creation of a new mixed parliamentary body which would be both ineffective and illegitimate from a democratic and constitutional point of view;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)

26b. Considers that in the medium term, notably in order to ensure the required accountability for the ESM, a Euro area parliament will be required, under the auspices of the European Parliament, for Euro area Member States, with appropriate and inclusive mechanisms for those Member States committed to joining;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Acknowledges, based on the current situation, that the economic governance framework must be ~~corrected and~~ completed in both the medium and long term to allow for the EU and the euro area to meet the challenges of convergence, ~~long-lasting investment and reli~~competitiveness, future- oriented investment and sound public finances;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls for the annual ~~sustainable growth guidelines to be made subject to a codecision procedure that should be introduc~~growth survey to be made subject to a more formal involvement of Parliament based ion ~~the next Treaty chang~~a consent procedure; instructs its President to represent ~~the annual sustainable growth guidelines as amended by~~ Parliament at the spring European Council based on a resolution adopted in plenary;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Recalls that legislation implemented during the crisis on the basis of intergovernmental agreements lacks sufficient democratic accountability at EU level;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Recalls the European Parliament’'s request that the creation of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance ('Fiscal Compact') outside of the structure of the institutions of the Union represents a setback to the political integration of the Union and, therefore, demands that the ESM and the Fiscal Compact be fully integrated into the community framework and made formally accountable to Parliament, for the latter on the basis of an assessment of the experience of its implementation, as stipulated in Article 16 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. ~~Calls for a new~~Underlines that the legal framework for ~~future~~ assistance programmes needs to be improved in order to ensure that all decisions are taken under the responsibility of the Commission with full involvement of Parliament; stresses that Parliament should without delay follow up on its resolution of 13 March 2014 on the enquiry on the role and operations of the Troika and prepare a new, separate resolution fully dedicated to this issue drawing and building on the first enquiry, irrespective of any eventual evolution concerning the name of the Troika;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

~~32. Requests, as per the opinion of the ECJ’s Advocate-General, that the ECB not form part of any assistance programmes;~~deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Requests that a reassessment of the Eurogroup’s decision-making process be conducted so as to provide for apimpro~~priate~~ved democratic accountability; believes that in the long term the Commissioner for Economic Affairs should assume the role of President of the Eurogroup;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Recalls that a ‘genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ (EMU) ~~cannot simply be limit~~needs to ~~a system of rules but also requires an increased euro area fiscal capacity~~be based on a rules based system, which is simple, comprehensible and can be easily enforced, including automatic sanctions in the case of non-compliance;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)

34a. Believes that there will never be genuine EMU without Treaty change and a role for the ECJ in the enforcement of the budgetary rules, according to the principle of the rule of law, as stated in article 2 of TEU; this includes both infringement proceedings against Member States failing to fulfil their obligations and action for annulment against decisions of the institutions, thereby inter alia providing programme countries with a guarantee; believes that the involvement of the ECJ may notably be a guarantee that the rules will be applied identically irrespective of the size of the Member State; states that this role for the ECJ will not result in economic governance procedures being delayed;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

~~35. Recalls that the banking union was the result of the political will to avoid a financial crisis and that the same will is needed as regards a fiscal union in order to avoid a political crisis;~~deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Asks the Commission to come forward with an ambitious roadmap ~~which takes into account the need for economic governance reforms, as outlined in this report, and~~for the establishment of a genuine economic and monetary union, which should be presented to Parliament by the end of May 2015, ahead of the June European Council building on previous work such as the Thyssen report of 20 November 2012 "Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union", the communication of the Commission of 28 November 2012 "A blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union. Launching a European debate" and the final Four Presidents report of 5 December 2012;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)

36a. Is of the opinion that a 'genuine EMU' cannot be limited to a system of rules but requires an increased budgetary capacity based on specific own- resources which should, in the framework of the Union budget, support growth and social cohesion addressing imbalances, structural divergences and financial emergencies which are directly connected to the monetary union, without undermining its traditional functions to finance common policies.

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 1

– a ~~‘taxation union’,~~ common approach to taxation including a common corporate tax base, convergence of tax rates, simpler and more transparent tax systems and country-by-country reporting for corporates;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 2

– a social dimension, including a ~~minimum wage mechanism and a minimum unemployment~~common approach to social benefit ~~scheme~~s for the euro area and in-depth reforms to favour mobility,

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 3

– the inclusion of the ESM in Union law ~~and a new approach towards Eurobonds~~,

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 3 a (new)

- the establishment of a European redemption fund based on conditionality;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – indent 3 b (new)

- the introduction of exposure limits and risk weights on sovereign debt (sovereign debts can no longer be considered as a safe asset);

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Michael THEURER, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Within the framework of future Treaty revision, calls for - a role for the ECJ in the enforcement of the budgetary rules; - the creation of a parliament for the Euro area, under the auspices of the European Parliament, in order to ensure full legitimacy and parliamentary control at the level where decisions are taken and/or implemented, for the ESM for example; - the merging of the deficit and debt procedures, the macroeconomic imbalance procedure and the Country Specific Recommendations into one single, legally binding instrument;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

~~38. Requests that it be elaborated on the basis of a ‘4+1 Presidents’ approach, including the EP President;~~deleted

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)

38 a. Notes that the President of the Commission has indicated his intention to draw on input from the President of the European Parliament in his reflections during the preparation of the 4 Presidents' reports; Underlines that the President of the European Parliament can only represent the institution on the basis and within the remit of a mandate by plenary;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. ~~Asks~~Stresses that if its President were to represent Parliament in this upcoming task, it shall be on the basis of ~~the~~a mandate given by ~~this resolution~~plenary based on a new resolution prepared by its competent committee addressing inter alia the questions in the Four Presidents' Analytical Note on 'Preparing Next Steps on Better Economic Governance in the Euro area';

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2145(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)

39 a. believes that some reflexion should be launched to improve the in-house analysis capacity of the European Parliament, building on the experience of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office which provides budgetary and economic information such as baseline budget and economic projections, cost estimates, scorekeeping for legislation;

2015/03/03
Committee: ECON

2014/2144(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines the need to simplify the taxation systems enabling the costs for public administrations, citizens and companies to be reduced, as well as to prevent tax evasion, tax avoidance or simply mistakes;

2014/12/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2144(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Takes note of the joint statement of 6 May 2014 by 10 MSs on enhanced cooperation on the FTT and the progress of its implementation; recalls ~~on participating MSs to reach an agreement including derivative transactions by th~~that the financial sector should make a fair contribution to public finances and therefore the FTT must be designed in a way that combines a wide scope, a small tax rate eand ~~of 2014~~simplicity;

2014/12/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2144(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to carry out an in-depth study into the difference, in the Member States, between legal and actual corporation tax rates in order to ensure that the debate on fiscal harmonisation is based on objective data;

2014/12/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2144(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on MSs to agree to a compulsory CCCTB as a comprehensive and long-term solution to tackle company tax obstacles in the Single Market as defined by the European Parliament in its legislative resolution of 19 April 2012 on the proposal for a Council directive on a CCCTB; underlines that the swift implementation of a CCCTB may be a first significant and effective step following the "Luxleaks revelations";

2014/12/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2144(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Stresses that Member States that have received or are seeking financial assistance have an obligation to implement measures designed to strengthen and improve their capacity to collect tax and tackle tax fraud and tax evasion; urges the Commission to extend this obligation to encompass measures tackling money laundering, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning;

2014/12/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2144(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Encourages the Commission to develop a European taxpayers' code setting out best practices for enhancing cooperation, trust and confidence between tax administrations and taxpayers, for ensuring greater transparency on the rights and obligations of taxpayers and encouraging a service-oriented approach;

2014/12/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2144(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Recalls that following the "Luxleaks revelations" the European Parliament will produce an Inquiry report on Tax Fairness in Europe and a Legislative report on Bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to Corporate Tax policies in the Union;

2014/12/19
Committee: ECON

2014/2059(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses, therefore, the importance of continuing the process of deep and sustainable structural reforms to deliver on growth and jobs; reiterates, in this connection, the fact that the EU cannot compete on costs alone, but needs to invest more in research and development, education and skills, and resource efficiency, both at national and European level; recalls that the very aim of structural reforms and decreasing the level of public debt is to be able to focus on growth friendly policies and ultimately to provide jobs and fight poverty;

2014/09/09
Committee: ECON

2014/2059(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that the EU 2020 priorities and targets such as fighting poverty and social exclusion remain valid and should be implemented;

2014/09/09
Committee: ECON

2014/2059(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls, in this connection, on the future Commission to put forward a proposal on the single external representation of the euro area based on Article 138 TFEU; recalls that the new President of the Commission pledged for "the EMU and the euro to be represented by one chair, by one place, by one voice in the institutions of Bretton Woods" in his speech just before being elected by the European Parliament on Tuesday 15th July 2014;

2014/09/09
Committee: ECON

2014/2059(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Stresses, once again, its call on Member States to simplify their tax systems and reiterates its call to shift taxes from labour to consumption to make the use of resources more efficient and sustainable; calls on the Commission to take urgent action and develop a comprehensive strategy based on concrete legislative measures to fight tax fraud ~~and tax eva~~, tax evasion and tax avoidance or illegitimate tax inversion;

2014/09/09
Committee: ECON

2014/2059(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Underlines that flexibility exists within the Stability and Growth Pact and should be used, but requires primarily Member States to come up with reforms considered credible by the Commission and the other Member States;

2014/09/09
Committee: ECON

2014/2059(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)

26b. Recalls the balanced remarks by Mario Draghi on August 22nd stating: "no amount of fiscal or monetary accommodation, however, can compensate for the necessary structural reforms in the euro area." and "a coherent strategy to reduce unemployment has to involve both demand and supply side policies, at both the euro area and the national levels. And only if the strategy is truly coherent can it be successful.";

2014/09/09
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)

(19a) A resilient system builds on the diversification of products, the diversity of institutions and the sizes of institutions as well as effective and converging supervisory practices.

2015/10/05
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 b (new)

(19b) The over-fragmentation of particular markets with high numbers of very small institutions for occupational retirement provisions can however be challenging in terms of supervision but also the economic benefits for the employees can be questioned.

2015/10/05
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 57

(57) In order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market for occupational retirement provision organised on a European scale, the Commission should, after consulting EIOPA, review and report on the application of this Directive and should submit that report to the European Parliament and to the Council four years after the entry into force of this Directive. That review should assess in particular the application of the rules regarding the calculation of the technical provisions, the funding of technical provisions, regulatory own funds, solvency margins, investment rules and any other aspect relating to the financial solvency situation of the institution. These rules should respect the specific nature of the pension sector.

2015/10/05
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1

1. The home Member State shall require every institution to have at all times ~~sufficient and appropriate~~ assets to fully cover the technical provisions in respect of the total range of pension schemes operated.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

In the event of cross-border activity as referred to in Article 12, the competent authorities of the home Member State and of the host Member State shall jointly agree on the application of paragraph 2 of this Article and may intervene in accordance with Article 62. To comply with this requirement the home Member State may require ring-fencing of the assets and liabilities. EIOPA may help to settle any disagreements in accordance with Article 19 paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3

3. In the event of cross-border activity as referred to in Article 12, the technical provisions shall at all times be fully funded in respect of the total range of pension schemes operated. If these conditions are not met, the competent authorities of the home Member State shall intervene in accordance with Article 62. To comply with this requirement the home Member State may require ring- fencing of the assets and liabilities.deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 40 a (new)

Article 40a Pension benefit statement 1. Member States shall require institutions to draw up a document containing key relevant information for each member. The title of the document shall contain the words ‘Pension Benefit Statement’. 2. The pension benefit statement shall be written in a concise way. 3. Member States shall require that the information contained in the pension benefit statement is updated and sent to each member, free of charge, at least annually. 4. Any material change to the information contained in the pension benefit statement compared to the previous year shall be clearly indicated. 5. Member States may allow institutions to provide the pension benefit statement in a durable medium, or by means of a website in case it can be downloaded and stored in a durable medium. A paper copy shall be delivered to the members on request and free of charge in addition to any electronic means. 6. When laying down rules for the pension benefit statement, Member States shall require that it contains the key relevant information for the members, taking into consideration the specific nature of national pension systems and of relevant national social, labour and tax law. 7. Key relevant information for members shall include: (a) personal details of the member, including a clear indication of the retirement age or the date when receiving retirement benefits used as the basis for the projections referred to in Article 49; (b) identification of the institution and of the Member State in which the institution is registered or authorised and the name of the national competent authority; (c) identification of the pension scheme of the member; (d) where applicable, any information on full or partial guarantees under the pension scheme. Where no guarantee is provided, this should be indicated. Where a guarantee is provided, the pension benefit statement shall briefly explain the nature of the guarantee and provide information on the current level of financing of the member’s accrued individual entitlements; (e) information on pension projections in accordance with Article 50, taking into consideration the specific nature and organisation of the pension scheme; (f) information on the accumulated entitlements, contributions and costs of the pension scheme in accordance with Article 49, taking into consideration the specific nature and organisation of the pension scheme; (g) information on the investment profile, in accordance with Article 51 taking into consideration the specific nature of the pension scheme; (h) information on the past performance of the pension scheme, taking into account the specific nature of the pension scheme. 8. Member States shall exchange best practices with regard to the format and the content of the pension benefit statement.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) ~~the sum of the costs deducted from the gross~~where the pension scheme does not provide for a given level of benefits the contributions paid by the sponsoring undertaking~~, where applicable, or by~~ and the member, over the past twelve months, or, if the member has joined the scheme less than twelve months ago, the sum of the ~~costs deducted from their~~ contributions since joining;

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) the sum of the contributions paid by the member over the past twelve months, or, if the member has joined the scheme less than twelve months ago, the sum of their contributions since joining;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the sum of the contributions paid by the sponsoring undertaking over the past twelve months, or, if the member has joined the scheme less than twelve months ago, the sum of the contributions paid by the sponsoring undertaking since the member joined;deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i

(i) for pension schemes that do not provide for a ~~target~~given level of benefits, ~~the total sum of~~ the capital accumulated by the member, expressed also as an annuity ~~per month~~, if applicable,

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii

(ii) for pension schemes that provide for a ~~target~~given level of benefits, the accrued individual entitlements ~~per month~~.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point e

~~(e) other contributions or costs relevant to the member such as transfer of accrued capital;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) the costs referred to in point (a) broken down into the following separate amounts expressed in the currency relevant for the pension scheme: (i) costs of administration of the institution; (ii) costs of safekeeping of assets; (iii) costs related to portfolio transactions; (iv) other costs.deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 49 – paragraph 2

2. TWhe ~~‘other costs’ referred to in paragraph 1 (f)(iv) shall be briefly expla~~re the pension scheme does not provide for a given level of benefits, the pension benefit statement shall indicate the total amount of the costs borne by members over the past twelve months or, if the member has joined wthe~~re they account for 20% or more of the total charges~~ scheme less than twelve months ago, the sum of the aforementioned costs that have been deducted since joining.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Where the pension scheme provides for a ~~target~~given level of benefits, the pension benefit statement shall indicate the ~~following three amounts concerning pension projec~~amount of the given level of benefits at the estimated retirement age or the estimated date when receiving retirement benefits provided for in the pension scheme under best estimate assumptions, expressed in the currency relevant for the pension scheme:, or shall indicate where these projections are provided.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the target level of benefits per month at the retirement age under best estimate assumptions;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) the target level of benefits per month two years before the retirement age under best estimate assumptions;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) the target level of benefits per month two years after the retirement age under best estimate assumptions.~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 2

~~2. The assumptions referred to in paragraph 1 shall take into account future wages.~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. Where the pension scheme does not provide for a ~~target~~given level of benefits, the pension benefit statement shall indicate the ~~following amounts concerning pension projec~~expected amount of the capital accumulated by the member at the estimated retirement age or the estimated date when receiving retirement benefits provided for in the pension scheme under best estimate assumptions, expressed in the currency relevant for the pension scheme:, or shall indicate where these projections are provided. The amount shall also be expressed as an annuity, if applicable.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point a

~~(a) the expected amount of capital accumulated until two years before the retirement age under best estimate assumptions relevant for the scheme;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point b

~~(b) the expected amount of capital accumulated until the retirement age under best estimate assumptions relevant for the scheme;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point c

~~(c) the expected amount of capital accumulated until two years after the retirement age under best estimate assumptions relevant for the scheme;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – point d

~~(d) the amounts referred to in points (a) to (c) expressed as a benefit per month.~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. ~~The assumptions referred to in paragraph 3~~Member States shall provide rules to determine the assumptions referred to in the above paragraphs. These rules shall take into account the following factors:

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 5

5. ~~For the purposes of calculating the projections referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3, the contribution rates shall be assumed to remain constant~~The pension benefit statement shall contain a warning in order to clarify that amounts indicated in the pensions projections are estimates based on assumptions and might differ from the final value of the benefits accrued.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

For pension schemes where members bear investment risk and where they have a choice between different investment options, the pension benefit statement shall indicate the investment profiles ~~providing~~. The pension benefit statement shall indicate where a list of the investment options is available and a short description of each option is provided. The member’s current investment option shall be marked prominently.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

When the number of different investment options with different investment objectives exceeds five, the institution shall restrict the short description of each option to five representative options including the most risky and the least risky options.deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. For pension schemes where members bear investment risk and where an investment option is imposed on the member by a specific rule specified in the pension scheme, the pension benefit statement shall indicate where the following additional information shall be provided, where applicable:

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) rules based on the member’s targeted retirement age or the target date for receiving retirement benefits;

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

For pension schemes where members bear investment risk, the pension benefit statement shall contain information about the risk and return profile ~~showing a synthetic graphic~~The pension benefit statement shall indicat~~or of the risk and return profile of the pension sc~~e the documents or the website whemre ~~or, where applicable, of each investment option accompanied by the following~~the following additional information shall be provided:

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a

~~(a) an explanation of the indicator and of its main limitations;~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) an explanation of risks which are materially relevant ~~and which are not adequately captured by the synthetic graphical indicator.~~;

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) a brief explanation of the actual returns;

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b b (new)

(bb) a statement that the lowest risk profile does not mean a risk-free investment

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

~~The computation of the synthetic indicator shall be adequately documented and institutions shall make that documentation available to members on request.~~deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 4

4. The explanation referred to in paragraph 3(a) shall include the following: (a) a brief explanation as to why the pension scheme or investment option is in a specific category; (b) a statement that historical data, such as is used in calculating the synthetic graphical indicator, is not a reliable indication of the future risk profile of the pension scheme or of the investment option; (c) a statement that the risk and return category shown is not guaranteed to remain unchanged and that the categorisation of the pension scheme or the investment option may shift over time; (d) a statement that the lowest category does not mean a risk-free investment.deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 5

5. The synthetic graphical indicator and the explanations referred to in paragraph 3 shall be drawn up in accordance with the internal process for identifying, measuring and monitoring risks adopted by the institution as laid down in this Directive, as well as with the investment objectives and investment policy described in the statement of investment principles.deleted

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 51 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. The pension benefit statement shall indicate where the statement of investment principles is available.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0091(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Norica NICOLAI, Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a directive
Article 75 – paragraph 1

Four years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall review this Directive and report on its implementation and effectiveness to the European Parliament and the Council. That review shall assess in particular the application of the rules regarding the calculation of the technical provisions, the funding of technical provisions, regulatory own funds, solvency margins, investment rules and any other aspect relating to the financial solvency situation of the institution. These rules shall respect the specific nature of pension sector.

2015/10/20
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)

(3 a) Since the proposal of the High-level Expert Group on reforming the structure of the Union’s banking sector, the Union has adopted a large amount of legislation (EMIR, MIFID2, CRR, CRD4, DGS, BRRD among others) reducing systemic risk, increasing capital requirements, safeguarding depositors and improving the tools for dealing with bank crises across the Union. As a result of these new rules and of new structures for supervision, the legal framework has been reinforced and the single rulebook in banking has created a new basis for financial markets in the Union, facilitating a single financial market and a working Capital Markets Union.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Norica NICOLAI, Philippe DE BACKER, Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) Consistent with the goals of contributing to the functioning of the internal market, it should be possible to grant a derogation for a credit institution from the provisions on separation of certain trading activities where a Member State has adopted national primary legislation prior to 29 January 2014 (including secondary legislation subsequently adopted) prohibiting credit institutions, which take deposits from individuals and Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) from dealing in investments as a principal and holding trading assets. The Member State should therefore be entitled to make a request to the Commission to grant a derogation from the provisions on separation of certain trading activities for a credit institution that is subject to the national legislation compatible with those provisions. This would allow Member States that already have primary legislation in place, the effects of which are equivalent to and consistent with this Regulation, to avoid alignment of existing, effective provisions. To ensure that the impact of that national legislation, as well as of subsequent implementing measures, does not jeopardise the aim or functioning of the internal market, the aim of that national legislation and related supervisory and enforcement arrangements must be able to ensure that credit institutions that take eligible deposits from individuals and from SMEs comply with legally binding requirements that are equivalent and compatible with the provisions provided in this Regulation. The competent authority supervising the credit institution subject to the national legislation in question should be responsible for providing an opinion that should accompany the request for the derogation.deleted

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Norica NICOLAI, Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)

(12 a) Through a risk-based approach, this Regulation should aim at providing financial stability, reducing systemic risk and maintaining a competitive European banking sector able to finance the economy.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) It is difficult to distinguish proprietary trading from market making. To overcome this difficulty, the ~~prohibition of proprietary trading should be limited to desks, units, divisions or individual traders specifically dedicated to proprietary trading~~re should be enhanced rules regarding the definition of trading mandates with risk limits and improved permanent monitoring under the control of the competent authorities to ensure the consistency of transactions with the trading mandates and risk limits. Banks should not be able to circumvent the prohibition by running or benefiting from investments in non-bank entities engaging in proprietary trading.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) The management body of the entities subject to the prohibition of proprietary trading should ensure compliance with this prohibition. The permanent control should assess the consistency of profit and loss, risk and activity (including turnover) results with the appetite for risk of the institution, the internal risk limits and the trading mandates.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) If, when assessing the trading activities, the competent authority concludes that they exceed certain metrics in terms of relative size, leverage, complexity, profitability, associated market risk, as well as interconnectedness, and further deems that there is a threat to the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the whole or part of the Union financial system, taking into account the objectives of this Regulation, it should require their separation from the core credit institution unless the core credit institution can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that those trading activities do not pose a threat to the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the Union financial system as a whole, taking into account the objectives set out in this Regulation.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) Irrespective of separation, the core credit institution should still be able to manage its own risk. Certain trading activities should therefore be allowed to the extent that they are aimed at the prudent management of the core credit institution's capital, liquidity and funding and do not pose concerns to its financial stability. Similarly, the core credit institutions needs to be able to provide certain necessary risk management services to its clients. However, that should be done without exposing the core credit institution to unnecessary risk and without posing concerns to its financial stability. Hedging activities eligible for the purpose of prudently managing own risk and for the provision of risk management services to clients can, but does not have to, qualify as hedge accounting under the International Financial Reporting Standards. Irrespective of a decision to separate, the competent authority shall have the power conferred by Article 104(1)(a) of Directive 2013/36/EU to impose an own funds requirement when the volume of risks and trading activities exceeds certain levels, in order to incentivise an institution not to take unnecessary risks for its financial stability or the financial stability of the Union in whole or in part.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32 a (new)

(32 a) In accordance with Article 1(5) and Article 22(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), EBA shall pay particular attention to any systemic risk posed by financial institutions, the failure of which may impair the operation of the financial system or the real economy. EBA shall therefore develop guidance on the quantitative and the qualitative parameters.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)

(37 a) For the purpose of carrying out its exclusive tasks, including the duties specified in this Regulation, the ECB has the sanctioning powers specified in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013. For the purpose of carrying out its exclusive tasks, including the duties specified in this Regulation, the ECB has the sanctioning powers specified in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Norica NICOLAI, Nils TORVALDS, Philippe DE BACKER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44 a (new)

(44 a) The conferral of supervisory tasks implies a significant responsibility for the ECB to safeguard financial stability in the Union, and to use its supervisory powers in the most effective and proportionate way. Any shift of supervisory powers from the Member State to the Union level should be balanced by appropriate transparency and accountability requirements. The ECB should therefore be accountable for the exercise of those tasks towards the European Parliament and the Council as democratically legitimised institutions representing the citizens of the Union and the Member States. That should include regular reporting, and responding to questions by the European Parliament in accordance with its rules of procedure, and by the Eurogroup in accordance with its procedures. Any reporting obligations should be subject to the relevant professional secrecy requirements.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47 a (new)

(47 a) As stated in the Liikanen report, "attention should be paid to the governance and control mechanisms of all banks". More attention should indeed be given by the competent authorities to the ability of management and boards to run and monitor large and complex banks as well as smaller ones as the crisis has shown that small banks represent a risk too. Complementary supervisory tools should be developed such as fit-and- proper tests applied when evaluating the suitability of management and board candidates.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

This Regulation ~~aims at~~confers on the competent authorities specific tasks concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision with the aim of preventing systemic risk, financial stress or failure of, in particular, large, complex and interconnected ~~entities in the financial system, in particular credit institu~~credit institutions by mandating competent authorities to assess the trading activities and if an excessive risk occurs across the different legal entities of a banking group imposing the separation in a trading entity of those activities from the rest of the banking group, where they represent a threat to the solvency of the institution or to financial stability. In exercising this Regulations, ~~and at meeting~~the competent authorities will have to pay particular attention to the following ~~objective~~dimensions:

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

This Regulation lays down rules onfor a framework for the competent authorities' supervisory processes to properly assess the need for:

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(b) any of the following entities that for a period of three consecutive years has total assets amounting at least to EUR 30 billion ~~and has trading activities amounting at least to EUR 70 billion or 10 per cent of its total assets~~:

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(b a) any entity that the competent authority may, on its own initiative, consider to be of significant relevance on grounds of preventing systemic risk, financial stress or failure.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4

4. ‘proprietary trading’ means using own capital or borrowed money to take positions in reaction to and with the motivation of exploiting actual or expected movements in market valuations, in any type of transaction to purchase, sell or otherwise acquire or dispose of any financial instrument or commodities for the sole purpose of making a profit for own account, and without any connection to actual or anticipated client activity or for the purpose of hedging the entity’s risk as result of actual or anticipated client activity~~, through the use of desks, units, divisions or individual tra~~. This definition includers ~~specifically dedicated to such position taking and profit making, including through dedicated web-based proprietary trading platforms~~any such transaction undertaken with the aim of making profit, irrespective of whether such profit would be realised in the short term or in the longer term, or is in fact realised;

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 12

12. ‘market making’ means a financial institution's commitment to provide market liquidity on a regular and on-going basis, by posting two-way quotes with regard to a certain financial instrument, or as part of its usual business, by fulfilling orders initiated by clients or in response to clients’ requests to trade, ~~but~~or in ~~both cases without be~~reasonable anticipation of potential client activity, and by hedging expos~~ed to material market ri~~itions arising from the fulfilment of these tasks;

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)

22 a. "concentration" means a concentration as determined in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

2015/02/04
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Entities referred to in Article 3 shall not unless via a separate trading entity which satisfies the conditions set in Articles 13, 14 and whose process of creation satisfies Article 18:

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i

(i) acquire or retain units or shares of substantially leveraged AIFs as defined by Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2011/61/EU;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b – point ii

(ii) invest in derivatives, certificates, indices or any other financial instrument the performance of which is linked to shares or units of substantially leveraged AIFs;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii

(iii) hold any units or shares in an entity that engages in proprietary trading or acquires units or shares in substantially leveraged AIFs.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notwithstanding paragraph 1(b)(i), entities referred to in Article 3 may: - provide seed capital to substantially leveraged AIFs up to 3% over a period of one year extendable twice from the date of their commitment; or - retain at least one share of contractual funds.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) financial instruments issued by Member States central governments or by entities listed in point (2) of Article 117 and in Article 118 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013;~~deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. The management body of each entity referred to in Article 3 shall ensure that the requirements set out in paragraph 1 are complied with. In particular, the credit institution or the EU parent must report qualitative and quantitative information to the competent authority and have in place appropriate procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the requirements set out in paragraph 1. Procedures shall include inter alia: - identifying, defining and monitoring activities within the credit institution; - establishing appropriate risk limits unit by unit for trading activities; - computing a comprehensive profit and loss attribution for each unit engaged in trading; - reviewing on a regular basis the compliance program; - aligning the remuneration of the staff with a prudent management of the risks involved.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 3 – title

~~Separation of~~Framework for certain trading activities

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

1 a. The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to all entities referred to in Article 3 paragraph (b) that for a period of three consecutive years have total trading activities amounting to at least EUR 70 billion or 10 per cent of the entity's total assets.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to the buying or selling of financial instruments issued by Member States’ central governments or by entities listed in point (2) of Article 117 and in Article 118 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

1 a. Even when trading activities are separated from the rest of the group, as a result of national measures referred to in Article 1, as a result of the decision laid down in Article 10 or as a choice of the institution, the competent authority shall assess these trading activities with a view, where necessary, to implement intra- group large exposure limits referred to in Article 14 or further requirements such as additional capital surcharges and risk limits.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. When performing the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall use ~~the following metrics~~qualitative and quantitative parameters, inter alia:

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(h a) the cartography of trading activities, including methods for assessing the need to build up inventories in order to meet anticipated client demand;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(h b) the compliance framework implementing this regulation;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(h d) the remuneration schemes;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(h c) additional quantitative data such as inventory turnover, value-at-risk variations, 'day 1 profit and loss', limits on trading desks and geographic diversification of the trading activities.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(h e) the risk management policy;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(h f) the risk disclosure management;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(h g) the policy to fight aggressive tax planning and tax havens;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)

This assessment by the competent authority shall be carried out at a detailed level up to the desk where deemed relevant, and cover all trading activities, including market making.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

2 a. The competent authority may require all quantitative and qualitative information it deems relevant for the assessment of trading activities under paragraph 1.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. Where the competent authority concludes that, following the assessment referred to in Article 9(1), the limits and conditions linked to the metrics referred to in points (a) to (h) of Article 9(2) and specified in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 5 are met, and it therefore deems that there ispart or all of the trading activities represent a threat to the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the whole or part of the Union financial system ~~as a whole~~, taking into account the objectives referred to in Article 1, it shall, no later than two months after the finalisation of that assessment, ~~start the procedure leading to a decision as referred~~require the institution to take measures to mitigate excessive risk taking. The institution shall submit a report to in the ~~second subparagraph of paragraph 3~~competent authorities outlining the measures that it has taken or intends to take to efficiently address those risks.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

2. Where the limits and conditions referred to in paragraph 1 are not met, the competent authority may still start the procedure leading to a decision as referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 3 where it concludes, following the assessment referred to in Article 9(1), that any trading activity, with the exception of trading in derivatives other than those permitted under Article 11 and 12, carried out by the core credit institution, poses a threat to the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the Union financial system as a whole taking into account the objectives referred to in Article 1.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

The competent authority shall notify its conclusions referred to in paragraphs 1 ~~or 2~~ to the core credit institution and provide the core credit institution with the opportunity to submit written comments within two months from the date of the notification.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

Unless the core credit institution demonstrates, within the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that the reasons leading to the conclusions are not justified, tThe competent authority shall adopt a decision addressing the ~~core~~ credit institution and requiring it not to carry out the trading activities specified in those conclusions that should be carried out in a segregated trading entity, or alternatively set risk limits or an additional loss absorbency capacity. The competent authority shall state the reasons for its decision and publicly disclose it.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

~~For purpose of paragraph 1, where the competent authority decides to allow the cor~~This decision shall be proportionate to the risks taken by credit institutions and to the necessity to safeguard a competitive European banking sector aiming at financing the economy. The competent authority shall in particular authorise the credit institution to carry out those ~~trad~~market making activities ~~it shall also state~~which do not pose a threat to the financial stability of the cre~~asons for that decision and publicly disclose it.~~ dit institution or to the whole or part of the Union financial system. For this purpose, the competent authorities shall consult all relevant authorities.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

For purpose of paragraph 2, where the competent authority decides to allow the core credit institution to carry out trading activities the competent authority shall adopt a decision addressed to the core credit institution to that effect.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. The decisions referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 will be subject to review by the competent authority ~~every 5 years~~at least every year in the context of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process that competent authorities shall carry out under Article 97 of Directive 2013/36/EU.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. The ~~Commission shall, [OP insert the correct date by 6 months of publication of this Regulation] adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 35 to:~~EBA shall develop and submit guidance on the parameters to the competent authority. In order to properly assess the risk, the EBA shall review regularly the guidance.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point a

(a) specify, with regard to the metrics: (a) the relevant limit of each of the metrics provided in points (a) to (h) of Article 9(1), above which the risk level of the trading activity concerned is deemed individually significant; (ii) the conditions, including how many of the metrics need to exceed the relevant limit, and in what combination, in order for the competent authority to start the procedure referred to in Article 10(1). (iii) The specification of the conditions in point (ii) shall include an indication of the level of the aggregate significant risk of the trading activity concerned that results from several metrics having exceeded the relevant limits referred to in point (i);deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point b

(b) specify which type of securitisation is not considered to pose a threat to the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the Union financial system as a whole with regard to each of the following aspects: (i) the structural features, such as the embedded maturity transformation and simplicity of the structure; (ii) the quality of the underlying assets and related collateral characteristics; (iii) the listing and transparency features of the securitisation and its underlying assets; (iv) the robustness and quality of the underwriting processes.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

~~A core credit institution that has been subject to a decision referred to in Article 10(3) may~~Without prejudice to the decision of the competent authority referred to in Article 10(3), a core credit institution may also carry out trading activities to the extent that the purpose is limited to only prudently managing its capital, liquidity and funding.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

AWithout prejudice to the decision of the competent authority referred to in Article 10(3), a core credit institution that has been subject to a decision referred to in Article 10(3) may also sell interest rate derivatives, foreign exchange derivatives, credit derivatives, emission allowances derivatives and commodity derivatives eligible for central counterparty clearing and emission allowances to its non- financial clients, to financial entities referred to in the second and third indents of point (19) of Article 5, to insurance undertakings and to institutions providing for occupational retirement benefits when the fsol~~lowing conditions have been satisfied:~~e purpose of the sale is to hedge interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, credit risk, commodity risk or emissions allowance risk.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the sole purpose of the sale is to hedge interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, credit risk, commodity risk or emissions allowance risk;~~deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) the core credit institution's own funds requirements for position risk arising from the derivatives and emission allowances does not exceed a proportion of its total risk capital requirement to be specified in a Commission delegated act in accordance with paragraph 2.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1

1. In addition to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 395 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 when measures have been imposed in accordance with this Chapter of this Regulation the core credit institution shall not incur the following exposures: (a) a large exposure that exceeds 25 per cent of the core credit institution's eligible capital to a financial entity. That exposure limit shall apply on an individual and on a sub-consolidated basis, and after taking into account the effect of the credit risk mitigation and exemptions in accordance with Articles 399 to 403 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Article 16 of this Regulation; (b) large exposures that in total exceed 200 per cent of the core credit institution's eligible capital to financial entities. That exposure limit shall apply on an individual and on a sub-consolidated basis, and after taking into account the effect of the credit risk mitigation and exemptions in accordance with Articles 399 to 403 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Article 16 of this Regulation.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16

Credit risk mitigation techniques In addition to the provisions of Articles 399 to 403 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, when measures have been imposed in accordance with this Chapter of this Regulation, restrictions with respect to the recognition of credit mitigation techniques shall apply to the computation of exposure values for the purposes of compliance with the large exposure limits as referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of this Regulation. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 35 to specify the extent to which credit risk mitigation techniques including types of and limits to eligible credit protection shall be recognised for the purposes of the first sub-paragraph with the purpose of ensuring that credit risk mitigation techniques do not fail when risks materialise so that there can be effective recovery of credit protection.Article 16 deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1a (new)

A finding by the relevant resolution authority that there are no substantive impediments to resolvability shall not in itself be deemed sufficient indication that the conclusions referred to in Article 10(3) are not justified, as primary objectives of this Regulation focus on financial stability at large and not only on resolvability. Likewise, the competent authority shall not take a decision referred to in Article 10(3) for resolvability purposes, since the powers to change banking groups' structure, including by requiring a "holding company" structure are entrusted to the resolution authority in accordance with Article 17(5)(g) of Directive 2014/59/EU.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1a (new)

In particular, the competent authority shall provide the resolution authority with all relevant information resulting from its risk assessment of trading activities so as to facilitate the update of resolution plans by the resolution authority.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – title

~~Derog~~Implementation of~~rom~~ the requirements ~~of Chapter III~~in order to preserve the Single Market

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. ~~At the request of a Member State, the Commission may grant a derogation from the requirements of this Chapter to a~~This Regulation shall not prevent Member States from implementing national bank structural reforms that apply at individual level to credit institutions authorized in their territory with the view of isolating core credit institutions or taking ~~deposits from individuals and SMEs that are subject to national primary legislation adopted before 29 January 2014~~macro-prudential measures, with the prior consent of the competent authorities and resolution authorities. Competent authorities and resolution authorities shall not authorise those national measures whenre the ~~national legislation complies with the following requirements:~~credit institution is subject to a resolution regime equipped with resolution financing arrangements that prevent the use of tax payer money by establishing ex ante funding in a resolution fund separate from Member States' general budget.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

~~(a) it aims at preventing financial stress or failure and systemic risk referred to in Article 1;~~deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(b) it prevents credit institutions taking eligible deposits from individuals and SMEs from engaging in the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal and holding trading assets; however, the national legislation may provide for limited exceptions to allow the credit institution taking deposits from individuals and SMEs to undertake risk- mitigating activities for the purpose of prudently managing its capital, liquidity and funding and to provide limited risk management services to customers;deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

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

(c) if the credit institution taking eligible deposits from individuals and SMEs belongs to a group, it ensures that the credit institution is legally separated from group entities that engage in the regulated activity of dealing in investments as a principal or hold trading assets, and the national legislation specifies the following: (i) the credit institution taking eligible deposits from individuals and SMEs is able to make decisions independently of other group entities; (ii) the credit institution taking eligible deposits from individuals and SMEs has a management body that is independent of other group entities and independent of the credit institution itself; (iii) the credit institution taking eligible deposits from individuals and SMEs is subject to capital and liquidity requirements in its own right; (iv) the credit institution taking eligible deposits from individuals and SMEs may not enter into contracts or transactions with other group entities other than on terms similar to those referred to in Article 13(7).deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

AWhere a Member State wishing to obtain a derogation for a credit institution subject to the national legislation in question, shall send a request for derogation, accompanied by a positive opinion issued by the competent authority supervising the credit institution that is subject to the request for derogation, to the Commission. That request shall provide all the necessary information for the appraisal of has implemented national measures referred to in paragraph 1, this Regulation applies in the following way: (a) the separation decision referred to in Article 10 shall be performed at consolidated level for EU parent institutions authorized in that Member State; (b) Credit institutions that have already been separated in accordance withe national ~~legislation and specify the credit institutions the derogation is applied for. Whe~~measures shall be subject to the supervisory assessment referred t~~he Commission considers that it does not have all the necessary information, it shall contact the Member State concerned within two mo~~o in Article 10, so that the competent authority may impose, at consolidated level or at individual level, higher capital requiremenths o~~f receipt of the request and specify what additional information is required~~r stricter limits; (c) All other provisions of this Regulation, including Article 14 on large exposure, shall apply.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Once the Commission has all the information it considers necessary for appraisal of the request for derogation, it shall within one month notify the requesting Member State that it is satisfied with the information.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

Within five months of issuing the notification referred to in the second subparagraph, the Commission shall, after having consulted the EBA on the reasons underlying its envisaged decision and on the potential impact of such a decision on the financial stability of the Union and the functioning of the internal market, adopt an implementing decision declaring the national legislation not incompatible with this Chapter and granting the derogation to the credit institutions specified in the request referred to in paragraph 1. Where the Commission intends to declare the national legislation incompatible and to not grant the derogation it shall set out its objections in detail and provide the requesting Member State with the opportunity to submit written comments within one month from the date of notification of the Commission objections. The Commission shall within three months from the end of the time limit for submission adopt an implementing decision granting or rejecting the derogation.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 4

~~Where the national legislation is amended, the Member State shall notify the amendments to the Commission. The Commission may review the implementing decision referred to in the third subparagraph.~~deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5

Where the national legislation not declared incompatible with this Chapter no longer applies to a credit institution that has been granted derogation from the requirements of this Chapter, that derogation shall be withdrawn with regard to that credit institution.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 6

The Commission shall notify its decisions to the EBA. The EBA shall publish a list of the credit institutions that have been granted a derogation in accordance with this Article. The list shall be continuously kept up-to-date.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

By [OP insert the correct date by 12 months of publication of this Regulation], the competent authority shall annually identify credit institutions and groups that are subject to this Regulation in accordance with Article 3 and notify them immediately to the EBA.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. For the purpose of Article 3(1)(b), the calculation of thresholds for entities that have effected a concentration during the previous year shall for the two years prior to the concentration be based on the combined accounts of the merged entities.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

~~For the purposes of this Regulation~~Without prejudice to Council Regulation No 1024/2013, the consolidating supervisor ~~shall be deemed to be~~and the competent authorit~~y with regard to all group entit~~ies responsible for the supervision of subsidiaries tsha~~t belong to the same group as the EU parent and that are subject to this Regulation~~ll take joint decisions, based on the risk assessment performed under Article 10, following the process for decisions on institution-specific prudential requirements laid down in Article 113 of Directive 2013/36/EU, which shall apply mutatis mutandis to separation decisions and other supervisory measures referred to in Article 10.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

When the subsidiary of an EU parent is established in another Member State and supervised by a different supervisor than the EU parent and when the subsidiary is significant in accordance with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, the consolidating supervisor shall consult with the competent authority of the home Member State of the significant subsidiary with regard to any decision to be made by the consolidating supervisor pursuant to this Regulation.deleted

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 a (new)

Article 26 a Accountability and reporting 1. When acting as a competent authority in the framework of this regulation, the ECB shall be accountable to the European Parliament and to the Council for the implementation of this Regulation. The ECB shall be subject to the same accountability provisions laid down in Article 20 of Council regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions. This implies inter alia that at the request of the European Parliament, the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB shall participate in a hearing on the execution of its supervisory tasks by the competent committees of the European Parliament. 2. The ECB shall report on the execution of the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation in the framework of the annual report it is due to submit to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission and to the euro Group referred to in article 20 of Council regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions. 3. The other competent authorities shall report, on a regular basis, to the Commission and the EBA on the implementation of this Regulation. 4. The competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the other competent authorities to participate in an exchange of views.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) the disgorgement of the profits ~~gained~~ or losses ~~avoided due to the breach in so far as they can be determined~~which the competent authority estimates to have been gained or avoided due to the breach ;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point d

(d) withdrawal ~~or suspension~~ of the authorisation;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point g

(g) ~~maximum~~ administrative pecuniary ~~sanctions of at least three times the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided because of~~penalties of up to twice the amount of the benefit derived from the breach where th~~ose~~at benefit can be determined;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point h

(h) in ~~respect~~the case of a natural person, ~~a maximum~~ administrative pecuniary ~~sanction of at least~~penalties of up to EUR 5 000 000 or, in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on the date of entry into force of this Regulation;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point i

(i) in ~~respect~~the case of a legal persons, ~~maximum~~ administrative pecuniary ~~sanctions of at least~~penalties of up to 10 per cent of the total annual net turnover of the legal person according to the last available accounts approved by the management body; where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary of the parent undertaking which has to prepare consolidated financial accounts according to Directive 2013/34/EU, the relevant total annual turnover shall be the total annual turnover or the corresponding type of income according to the relevant accounting regime according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertakingincluding the gross income consisting of interest receivable and similar income, income from shares and other variable or fixed-yield securities, and commissions or fees receivable in accordance with Article 316 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the undertaking in the preceding business year.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. In the event of a breach referred to in paragraph 1, the ECB, as a competent authority, may impose the sanctions laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the importance of the profits ~~gained~~ or losses which the competent authority estimates to have been gained or avoided by the person responsible for the breach, insofar as they can be determined;

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1

The ~~Commission~~EBA shall, on a regular basis, monitor the effect of rules laid down in this Regulation in respect of the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 1 and on the stability of the Union financial system as a whole, taking into account market structure developments as well as the development and activities of the entities regulated by this Regulation, and make any appropriate proposals. The review shall in particular focus on the appropriateness and the application of the thresholds referred to in Article 3, the application and effectiveness of the prohibition foreseen in Article 6, including the exemptions to the prohibition provided in the same Article, the scope of activities referred to in Article 8 and the suitability of the metrics set out in Article 9. By 1 January 2020 and on a regular basis thereafter, the Commission shall, after taking into account the views of the competent authorities, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report, including the issues mentioned above, if appropriate accompanied by a legislative proposaland qualitative information set out in Article 9.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)

By*, the Commission, after consulting the ESRB, the EBA and the competent authorities, shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the potential threats to financial stability, to the Single Market and to the competitiveness of the EU, covering inter alia: - the calibration of sovereign debt; - the governance and control mechanisms of the banks; - misaligned fiscal incentives, notably the preferential fiscal treatment of debt ; - the level of competition both inside the EU and at global level. If appropriate, the report should be accompanied by legislative proposals. * within 12 months of publication of this Regulation in the OJ.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2014/0020(COD)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Based on the EBA review referred to in paragraph 1, by 1 January 2020 and on a regular basis thereafter, the Commission shall, after taking into account the views of the competent authorities, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report, including the issues mentioned above, if appropriate accompanied by a legislative proposal.

2015/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the Troika and its role have been enshrined in Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2013 and mentioned in the Treaty on the ESM;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2013 has been adopted in the European Parliament with 528 votes in favour, 81 against and 71 abstentions;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas the ECJ has confirmed in its ruling on Pringle C-370/12 that the Commission and the ECB can be entrusted with the tasks conferred to them in the ESM Treaty;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas, within the Troika, the Commission is responsible for negotiating the conditions for financial assistance for euro area Member States ‘in liaison with the ECB’ and ’wherever possible together with the IMF’, the financial assistance hereinafter referred to as ‘EU-IMF assistance’, but the Council is responsible for approving the macroeconomic adjustment programme;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Troika is the basic structure for negotiation between the official lenders and the governments of the recipient countries, as well as for reviewing the implementation of adjustment programmes; whereas for the European side, the final decisions as regards financial assistance and conditionality are taken by ~~the Eurogroup~~EU Finance Ministers;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is based on a draft macroeconomic adjustment programme prepared by the Member State requesting financial assistance and approved by the Council; whereas a MoU is an agreement between the Member State concerned and the Troika, which results from negotiations and whereby a Member State undertakes to carry out a number of actions in exchange for financial assistance; whereas the Commission signs the MoU on behalf of euro area finance ministers; whereas it is stipulated in the ESM Treaty that a Member State requesting assistance from the ESM has also to address a request for assistance to the IMF;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas the ECJ has stated in its Pringle ruling that the prohibition laid down in Article 125 TFEU ensures that the Member States remain subject to the logic of the market when they enter into debt, since that ought to prompt them to maintain budgetary discipline and that compliance with such discipline contributes at Union level to the attainment of a higher objective, namely maintaining the financial stability of the monetary union; it stresses, however, that Article 125 TFEU does not prohibit the granting of financial assistance by one or more Member States to a Member State which remains responsible for its commitments to its creditors provided that the conditions attached to such assistance are such as to prompt that Member State to implement a sound budgetary policy;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the Task Force for Greece was set up to strengthen the capacity of the Greek administration to design and implement structural reforms to improve the functioning of the economy and ~~society and~~ create the conditions for sustained recovery and job creation, as well as to speed up the absorption of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in Greece and to provide critical resources to finance investment;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas the programmes were in the short run primarily meant to avoid a disorderly default and stop speculation on sovereign debt; whereas the medium term aim was to ensure that the money that was lent would be reimbursed, thus avoiding a large financial loss that would rest on the shoulders of the taxpayers of the countries which are providing the assistance and guaranteeing the funds; whereas this also requires the programme to deliver on sustainable public finances, sustainable growth and effective debt reduction in the medium ~~and long~~ term; whereas th~~e programmes were not suited to comprehensive~~is also requires the programme to deliver on modernising the public sector to establish a lean and efficient public administration as a pre- condition for the swift and proper implementation of these programmes and further structural reforms; whereas the programmes could only partly correct~~ing~~ macroeconomic imbalances which had accumulated sometimes over decades;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas it is crucial to recognize in this context that the four Member States under assistance were very different in terms of their industrial and financial structures and that for this reason one- size fits all policies could not work;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that the precise triggers for the crises differed in all four Member States; points out that excessive public and private debt, and a loss of competitiveness played a crucial role all of which could not be prevented by the existing EU economic governance framework;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that while domestic policy mistakes were important factors in the development of the underlying vulnerabilities, all four Member States also fell victim to repercussions of the global financial crisis that first surfaced with Lehman Brothers and further spread to the euro area, exposing rigidities and incompleteness in the fiscal and structural architecture of the EMU;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, prior to the beginning of the EU-IMF assistance programme initiated in the spring of 2010, there was a dual fear associated with the ‘'insolvency’' and ’'non- sustainability’' of the public finances of Greece as a result of the constantly declining competitiveness of the Greek economy and decades of imprudent fiscal policy, with the government deficit reaching 15.7% of GDP in 2009, and the debt-to-GDP ratio continuing on an upward trend since 2003 when it stood at 97.4%, reaching 1297% in 2009 and 156.9% in 2012; is of the opinion that the problematic situation of Greece was also due to statistical fraud; recalls that because of the European parliament's insistence Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union) is now endowed with powers and means to deliver a solid basis of reliable and objective statistics;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that, at the beginning of the EU- IMF assistance programme in 2013, speculations about the systemic instability in the Cypriot economy had been ongoing for a long time, owing inter alia to the exposure of Cypriot banks to overleveraged local property companies, the Greek debt crisis, the downgrading of Cypriot government bonds by international rating agencies, the inability to refund public expenditure from the international markets, and the initial reluctance of the government to restructure the troubled financial sector; recalls also that the situation has been complexified by the overreliance on savings coming from Russian citizens and by the recourse to a loan from the Russian authorities;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. recalls that cheap and excessive private capital flows were permitted to Member States, which have since become programme countries, from other Member States with their explicit or tacit support;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. notes that the allocation of EU funds, inter alia structural funds, was not optimal;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the initial agreement between the Greek authorities on the one side and the EU and IMF on the other was adopted on 2 May 2010 in the relevant MoUs containing , the policy conditionality for EU-IMF financial assistance; further notes that, following five reviews and the insufficient success of the first programme, a second programme had to be adopted in March 2012, which has been reviewed three times since; recalls the legal uncertainties created because of the agreement made by two Member States on October 2010 (the "Deauville deal") in the absence of a European framework;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Deplores the unpreparedness of the EU and international institutions, including the IMF, for a sovereign debt crisis of a large magnitude inside a monetary union; regrets that the Council of Ministers has consistently refused to develop a long term and comprehensive approach and only based its decisions on a country by country approach;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Deplores the unpreparedness of the EU and international institutions, including the IMF, for a sovereign debt crisis of a large magnitude inside a monetary union; deplores that the EU structural funds and other policies aiming at long term economic convergence within the Union had not effectively delivered;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Points out that EU Finance Ministers approved the macroeconomic adjustment programmes;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Points out that each Member State's reform efforts need to be tailor-made taking the experiences and histories of the respective country into consideration;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the end of the programme for Ireland and the expected end of the programme for Portugal; regrets the ~~lack of~~uneven progress in Greece despite unprecedented reforms having been undertaken; and recommends implementing measures that would make all parties contribute fairly to tax revenues

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the end of the programme for Ireland and the expected end of the programme for Portugal and the financial sector programme for Spain; regrets the lack of progress in Greece despite unprecedented reforms having been undertaken;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Points out that while the IMF’s stated objective in its assistance operations within the frame of the Troika is internal devaluation, the Commission has never clearly endorsed this objective; notes that the objective emphasised by the Commission in all four programme countries under enquiry has rather been fiscal consolidation;deleted

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Considers that too little attention has been given to alleviating the negative impact of adjustment strategies in the programme countries; deplores that too often the one-size fits all approach taken to crisis management did not fully consider the balance in the social impact of the prescribed policy measures;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Notes that the Troika’s mandate has been perceived as being unclear and lacking transparency; welcomes however that since the entry into force of Regulation No 472/2013 which codifies the surveillance procedures to be employed in the euro for countries experiencing financial difficulties, a de facto mandate for the Troika has been established; calls for full implementation and full ownership of this regulation;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Points out that due to its ad hoc nature there was no appropriate legal basis for setting up the Troika on the basis of Union primary law; recalls that, in the context of the Regulation on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area (Gauzès report), the EP has already introduced some elements of accountability concerning the Troika;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Points out that the Troika and its role are defined in Article 6 and 7 of Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2013;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)

30b. Reminds that the Member State which requests financial assistance is responsible for the preparation of its macroeconomic adjustment programme and stresses that macroeconomic adjustment programmes are being approved by a qualified majority of EU Finance Ministers;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 c (new)

30c. Stresses that despite the Commission acting on behalf of the Member States the ultimate political responsibility for the design and approval of the macroeconomic adjustment programmes lies with EU Finance Ministers and their governments;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 d (new)

30d. Deplores that neither the President of the Eurogroup nor the President of the European Council did attend the hearings in the European Parliament on the role of the Troika;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Notes the admission by the former President of the Eurogroup before the European Parliament that the Eurogroup endorsed the recommendations of the Troika without considering their specific policy implications; stresses that, if accurate, this does not discharge euro area finance ministers from their political responsibility for the macroeconomic adjustment programmes and the MoUs;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Points equally to a possible conflict of interest between the current role of the ECB in the Troika as ‘technical advisor’ and its position as creditor of the four Member States as well as its mandate under the Treaty; requests that possible ECB conflicts of interest, especially as regards crucial liquidity policy are carefully scrutinized; notes that throughout the crisis, the ECB has had crucial information on the health of the banking sector and financial stability in general, and that it has subsequently exerted policy leverage on decision- makers, at least in the cases of the Greek debt-restructuring, the Cypriot ELA operations and the Irish non-inclusion of senior-bondholders in the bail-in; calls for the appropriate lessons to be learnt;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Notes that the ECB’'s role is not sufficiently defined, as it is stated in Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 and the ESM Treaty that the Commission should work ‘in liaison with the ECB’, thus reducing the ECB’s role to that of a provider of expertise; further notes that the ECB mandate is limited by the TFEU to monetary policy and that the active involvement of the ECB in ~~any~~ matters related to budgetary, fiscal and structural policies ris ~~therefore on uncertain legal ground~~ks being outside its mandate;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Points to the generally weak democratic accountability of the Troika in programme countries at national level; notes however that this democratic accountability varies between countries, depending on the will of national executives; Notes with concern that three independent institutions of the Troika with an uneven distribution of responsibility between them, coupled with differing mandates and negotiation and decision-making structures with different levels of accountability, resulted in a lack of appropriate scrutiny and democratic accountability of the Troika as a whole;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)

35a. Recalls that the Parliaments of the Member States requesting financial assistance approved the macroeconomic adjustment programmes; points out that a national parliament objected to such a programme and thereby proved wrong the criticism that there is no alternative but to approve as objection to and revision of programmes is possible;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Notes that ~~formal decisions are made by both~~, following preparatory work by the Troika, formal decisions are made, according to their respective legal statutes and roles, by the Eurogroup and the IMF separately, with a crucial role now given to the ESM as it is the organisation responsible for deciding on financial assistance, thus putting governments, including those of the Member States directly concerned, at the centre of any decisions taken;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)

3a. Deplores that EU institutions are being portrayed as the scapegoat for adverse effects in Member States' macroeconomic adjustment while it is the Member States' Finance Ministers that bear the political responsibility for the Troika and its operations; stresses that this may lead to increased Euroscepticism although responsibility lies with the national not the European level;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 b (new)

36b. Calls on the Eurogroup, the Council and the European Council to assume full responsibility for the operations of the Troika;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Reiterates its call for all decisions related to the strengthening of the EMU to be taken on the basis of the Treaty on European Union; takes the view that any departure from the Community method and increased use of intergovernmental agreements ~~woul~~have proven not to be efficient enough, and divide and weaken the Union, including the euro area;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Stresses that as long as Member States make direct contributions from their national budget to the ESM national parliaments should approve financial assistance; recommends for this purpose that all Member States establish an appropriate mechanism by which their parliaments approve financial assistance and monitor implementation to enhance ownership and democratic accountability; stresses that the ESM should evolve towards Community-method management as provided for in the ESM Treaty and demands that the ESM be made accountable to the European Parliament including with respect to decisions to grant financial assistance, in order to exert democratic accountability over the ESM;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Is concerned~~, in particular,~~ to improve the accountability of the Commission when it acts in its capacity as a member of the Troika; requests that the Commission representative(s) in the Troika should be heard in the European Parliament before taking up their duties and should be subject to regular reporting to the European Parliament;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)

43a. Requests that in any reform of the Troika framework the ECB role is carefully analysed in order to align it with the ECB mandate; requests especially to assess the viability granting the ECB a transparent and clearly defined advisory role while not allowing it to be a full negotiation partner and discontinuing ECB co-signing mission statements;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 b (new)

43b. Is concerned, in particular, to improve the accountability of decisions of the Eurogroup with regard to financial assistance as finance ministers bear the ultimate political responsibility for macroeconomic adjustment programmes and their implementation while often neither being directly accountable to their national parliament nor the European Parliament for specific decisions; believes that before financial assistance is being granted the President of the Eurogroup should be heard before the European Parliament and the EU finance ministers in their respective parliament; stresses that the President of the Eurogroup and the finance ministers should both be required to regularly report to the European parliament and national parliaments;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Olle SCHMIDT, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Calls for a reassessment of the decision-making process of the Eurogroup, amending MoUs with the Member States receiving EU-IMF financial assistance to include appropriate democratic accountability at both national and European levels; calls for European guidelines to be established in order to ensure appropriate democratic control on the implementation of measures at national level; proposes the creation of a permanent chairman of the Eurogroup, who would be one of the Vice-chairs of the Commission and accountable in front of the European parliament;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Sylvie GOULARD, Wolf KLINZ, Olle SCHMIDT, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Stresses that the EU and the euro area in particular need to continue the path of economic reforms to increase the overall competitiveness of the Union, to create growth and jobs, and to make it more resilient to external shocks;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Recommends that if the Troika was to remain in the future part of the crisis management of the euro area, the respective roles and tasks1 a of each participant should be clarified: a- the Eurogroup, accountable as a whole in front of the EP, would remain the final decision-maker; b- the ESM, evolving towards a European Monetary Fund, would take over the Commission's role, allowing the latter to act in conformity with article 17 of the TEU and in particular to be the guardian of the Treaties; c- the ECB would participate as an observer, in order to enable it to raise strong concerns if appropriate; d- the IMF, if strictly necessary, would be a marginal lender and therefore could leave the program if in disagreement; __________________ 1a Points a and b would require a Treaty change to fully apply but an appropriate accountability mechanism for the current euro area and the Member States committed to joining could be found within the European Parliament for the transitory period.

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)

45b. Asks the Commission, in accordance with article 138 TFEU, to propose appropriate measures to ensure unified representation of the euro area within the international financial institutions and conferences and particularly in the IMF, in order to replace the current system of individual Member State representation at the international level;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 c (new)

45c. Calls for the full implementation of the 6-pack and the 2-pack, allowing notably for a better and public dialogue between all parties involved (through the European Semester and the Economic Dialogue); believes that the EP could act as an arbitration court when a Member State calls into question a sanction which has been proposed and not been opposed by the Council in the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) or the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP);

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 d (new)

45d. Proposes that for each programme country the Commission sets up a "growth task force" composed inter alia of experts coming, among others, from the Member States, the EIB, in association with representatives of the private sector and civil society in order to allow ownership, to suggest options to promote growth which would complement fiscal consolidation and structural reforms; this task force would have the objective of restoring confidence and therefore enabling investments; the Commission should build on the experience of the "Twinning" instrument for cooperation between Public Administrations of EU Member States (MS) and of beneficiary countries;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 e (new)

45e. Is of the opinion that the situation of the euro area as a whole (including spill- over effects resulting from national policies on other Member States) should be better taken into account when looking at the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) or when the Commission is drafting the AGS;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 f (new)

45f. Believes that the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) should also clearly assess any Member State's overreliance on a particular sector of activity;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 g (new)

45g. Recalls the necessity of measures to safeguard tax revenues, in particular for programme countries enshrined in the regulation n°472/2013 of the European parliament and of the Council on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability (Gauzès report), by taking "measures in close cooperation with the Commission and in liaison with the ECB and, where appropriate, with the IMF, aiming to reinforce the efficiency and effectiveness of revenue collection capacity and the fight against tax fraud and evasion, with a view to increasing its fiscal revenue"; recalls that effective steps to fight and prevent fiscal fraud both within and outside the EU should be taken rapidly;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2277(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 h (new)

45h. Is convinced of the need for a thorough analysis of the use of EU funds in order to assess their real effects, to dramatically increase their consistency with the objectives of the macroeconomic adjustment programme and to better take into account the use of EU funds in the euro area as whole;

2014/02/03
Committee: ECON

2013/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that some investors from the banking and insurance sector are reluctant to invest oin certain types of assets in ac countext of tightened regulatory requirements;

2013/12/05
Committee: ECON

2013/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Welcomes~~Points out that the Commission’s call for the use of private equity or venture capital as an alternative source of finance for high- risk investments should be further assessed, in particular vis-à-vis companies in the start-up and growth phases; notes that there is currently a strong tax bias favouring debt financing; believes that venture capital firms can provide valuable non-financial support including consultancy services, financial advice, marketing strategy and training;

2013/12/05
Committee: ECON

2013/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Calls on the Commission to work on eliminating all bias against equity in the various national, European and global economies;

2013/12/05
Committee: ECON

2013/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Believes that sound fair value accounting principles for institutional investors can enhance the transparency and consistency of financial information; stresses that ~~those principles should avoid~~however the implementation of theses accounting principles shall not result in creating incentives for pro- cyclical strategies;

2013/12/05
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the financial implications of the requested proposal should be covered by appropriate budgetary allocations (taking into account the option of the ESAs to deduct fees from entities under their supervision);

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 – indent 1

– Enhance the mandate for the all ESAs for binding and non-binding mediation especially with regard to the ECB and delete Recital 32 which is misleading on the mandate for non-binding mediation provided that the voting modalities do not recognise clusters of Member States;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 1 – indent 4

– Ensure that the ESAs, national supervisory authorities and the ECB have access to the same supervisory information which has to be provided where possible in a common format which has to be determined by the ESAs, in cooperation with the ECB;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 2 – indent 1

– proposing a single seat for all three ESA and, if deemed appropriate, merge the EBA and the EIOPA or all 3 ESAs;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 2 – indent 5

– taking account of the size of Member States when reviewing the voting rights on the boards of supervisors and introducing simple majority voting for all decisions within the ESAs provided that the voting modalities do not recognise clusters of Member States;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 2 – indent 9

– enabling the ESRB to explore and to propose additional measures for macroeconomic stability such as leverage and loan-to-value ratios, counter cyclical buffers and accounting standards promoting financial stability; in line with international recommendations;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 2 – indent 11

– revising the structure of the ESRB to allow swifter decision-making and stronger accountability by establishing a systemic stability council with a limited number of members coming from a diversified background;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2166(INI)

Nils TORVALDS, Olle SCHMIDT, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Annex – paragraph 3 – indent 1

– whether the current model of three separate supervisory authorities is the best solution for coherent supervision or the merging of the ESAs ("twin peak model" or into a single entity) is an appropriate option;

2014/01/15
Committee: ECON

2013/2145(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the economic and financial crisis is continuing to grip Europe. Given that simultaneous austerity measures across many Member States is leading to contraction, the ~~EU budget needs~~elements of the Union budget which enhance economic growth and employment need to be boosted for the EUnion to be able provide stronger counter- cyclical stabilizsation.

2013/07/22
Committee: ECON

2013/2145(BUD)

Olle SCHMIDT, Nils TORVALDS, Sharon BOWLES, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Acknowledges that the European Parliament has been strongly in favour of the creation of the ESAs and believes that the Authorities are key actors in order to create more stable and safer financial markets. The European Union needs stronger and better coordinated supervision at the European level.

2013/07/22
Committee: ECON

2013/2145(BUD)

Nils TORVALDS, Olle SCHMIDT, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the additional tasks already delegated to the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), as well as future tasks envisaged in the legislative proposals yet to be agreed, which will require commensurate budgetary increases in order for them to fulfil their supervisory role in a satisfactory manner; recalls its position that the European Supervisory Authorities (ESA) need independent budget lines and should become ~~less~~ financially independent ~~upon contributions~~ from their national member authorities;

2013/07/22
Committee: ECON

2013/2145(BUD)

Olle SCHMIDT, Nils TORVALDS, Sharon BOWLES, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Concludes that the current financing of ESAs, with a mixed-financing arrangement, is inflexible, creates administrative burden, and poses a threat to the agencies' independence.

2013/07/22
Committee: ECON

2013/2145(BUD)

Olle SCHMIDT, Nils TORVALDS, Sharon BOWLES, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Calls for the Commission to explore options for a new long-term sustainable financing of the ESAs, which safeguards its independence in the next review of the Agencies' work and financing arrangements; the Commission shall present the review of the agencies by 2 January 2014.

2013/07/22
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the democratic legitimacy of economic governance in the European Semester requires real and dedicated respect for parliamentary prerogatives at European and national level and for those of the European Commission as laid down in the Treaties and EU legislation against the trend of an increasingly de- parliamentarised and intergovernmental culture of economic-policy making at EU level;

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the Commission’s recognition that ‘deficit’ countries need to boost their competitiveness and that ‘surplus’ countries need to boost their demand~~, and that this calls for a deep revision of the prevailing policy stanc~~ in a proportionate and sustainable way in order to contribute to the stability and growth of the eurozone;

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Welcomes the use by the Commission of the margin of manoeuvre offered by the revised SGP to extend the deadlines for the correction of excessive deficits in seven procedures; calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the content and the calendar of the fiscal adjustment path are adapted to the specificity of each country ~~and~~, particularly in ‘deficit’ countries, ~~include~~making them conditional on the aforementioned margin of manoeuvre and the full use of structural funds, sound and sustainable structural reforms and the identification of investments (namely in the CSR) essential to boost competitiveness; calls on the Commission to clarify as a matter of urgency the ways in which to accommodate, under certain conditions, non-recurrent, public investment programmes with a proven impact on the sustainability of public finances;

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Agrees that the ECB’s action has ‘decisively contributed to the stability of the euro area’, limiting speculation on sovereign debt and supporting attempts at reform embarked upon in some Member States; considers, however, that insufficient growth and high (and still growing) levels of private and public debt in many Member States mean that ‘a carefully managed process of deleveraging’ is required; calls on the Commission, therefore, to quickly deliver its 2-pack commitments to Parliament in order to deepen the analysis on the partial substitution of national debt issuance through joint issuance in the form of awelcomes the establishment of the expert group on the redemption fund and eurobills;

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses that the financing of the real economy, and of SMEs in particular, has not been restored on the EU’s periphery; points out that major differences in access to credit ~~further stimulate the growing~~tend to exaggerate internal divergence ~~trend~~s in the EU and euro area in particular and destroy the internal market through unfair competition conditions; ~~points out also~~reiterates that cleaning up the bank portfolios is a precondition and stresses that negative economic prospects only partially justify such restrictive credit constraints; calls for closer monitoring of the application of the new prudential rules and the banking sector practices in financing the real economy, in particular economically viable SMEs; calls for the Commission to prioritise work ~~on alternative~~aimed at diversifying sources of financing for SMEs, in particular through the structural funds, the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund and public development banks, and also through the financial markets (SME growth market, securitisation, ...);

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Stresses that the retreat of various financial actors into national markets suggests that they are being weakened by the fragmentation of the internal market through excessive concentration, blocking the interbank market and negating the advantages of the internal market, i.e. risk diversification and greater opportunities;

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Urg~~Congratulates the Commission ton submitting a legislative proposal to create a Single Resolution Mechanism (~~includ~~comprising a Single European Authority and an industry financed Single European Fund), which is essential for completing the Banking Union; urges the Council to rapidly conclude negotiations with Parliament on the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive and on the Banking Recovery and Resolution Directive (to be negotiated in parallel);

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for direct banking recapitalisation by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to be available ~~as soon as all the pillars of the Banking Union – namely~~, if necessary, as soon as the Ssingle Ssupervisory ~~Mechanism and the Deposit Guarante~~authority is in place, as announced by the heads of state and ~~Rec~~gover~~y and Resolution frameworks – are in place~~nment of the eurozone in their June 2012 declaration; given the possible urgency of having a Single Resolution Fund to accompany the SSM, supports the immediate frontloading of the ESM to feed the SRF, w~~ith a reimbursement period by industry; believ~~hich in turn would be fed by contributions from the banking sector; reiterates that the MESM facility must ~~reinforce the EU budget and~~ be managed under the Community method;

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2134(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN, Kent JOHANSSON, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Urges the Commission to ensure~~Reminds thate Member States that they must involve their national parliaments, the social partners and civil society in the European Semester process as a whole, and particularly in the development and discussion of their national reform programmes;

2013/07/17
Committee: ECON

2013/2098(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas successful and comprehensive rural development programmes can have a concrete positive impact on employment rates and the competitiveness of businesses in rural areas, and thus reduce the risk of unemployment or that as a result of low rural incomes inhabitants live in abject poverty;

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN, Kent JOHANSSON, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas ~~regional~~ quality branding can contribute to the development of territorial economies by broadening the concept of quality through the use of schemes for the delivery of sets of high-quality goods and services which are inextricably interlinked and which embody the specific characteristics of each territory, and in particular its heritage (historical, cultural, geographical, etc.); whereas, as a result, these sets of goods and services come to be seen as unique, generating revenue at territorial level and opening up new opportunities on local and international markets;

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN, Kent JOHANSSON, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas official European quality labels already exist (Protected Designation of Origin, Protected Geographical Indictation, Traditional Specialty Guaranteed) and the number of both European and Third country products carrying them continues to increase;

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2098(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Marian HARKIN, Kent JOHANSSON, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~develop an approach to~~continue to develop its three official ~~reco~~quality labels (Protected Designiation of ~~reg~~Origin, Protected Geographical Indication, Traditional quSpeciality ~~branding based on an objective assessment of the governan~~Guaranteed) which are already established and increasingly recognised by consumers, and to concentrate resources ofn the ~~territorial development process, focusing in particular on the steps taken to incorporate the social, economic and environmental dimensions,~~se clearly defined labels rather than creating new ones, to enable them to contribute to both the dieve~~rsity of the~~lopment of rural areas economic ~~and~~ally, social ~~actors involved in promoting regional quality branding and the quality of the set of specific goods and services which they can offer~~ly and environmentally, and the development of quality EU products to the greatest extent possible;

2013/10/16
Committee: AGRI

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Is deeply concerned at the fact that persistently weak economic conditions are becoming the norm in Europe~~, creating overwhelming discontent among European citizens~~ in parts of the EU, creating instability for the Eurozone as a whole and there~~fore jeopardising the whol~~atening the support of the European project;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that the three-year LTRO ~~settled on March~~s announced on 8 December 20121 contributed to stabilising the banking system, but that this should be a temporary measure; notes that, despite the liquidity injected into the banking system by the LTRO, the credit available to the real economy is still below pre-crisis levels; suggests that it would be appropriate for the ECB to ~~reduce its deposit facility rate to negative values in order to~~ encourage banking lending to the real economy if necessary by conditioning its support;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines the important role played by the SMP until September 2012 in addressing the malfunctioning of certain eurozone sovereign debt securities market segments;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the setting-up of the OMTs, with no ex ante quantitative limits, in order to safeguard monetary policy transmission~~, but deplores the decision to link the activation of the OMT to strict conditionalities attached to an EFSF/ESM programme; calls on the ECB to activate OMTs independently from strict conditionality~~;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

~~8. Considers unnecessary the full sterilisation of the liquidity injected by the OMTs, as inflation expectations remain extremely low in a context of weak economic activity;~~deleted

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the monetary policy tools that the ECB has used since the beginning of the crisis, while providing a welcome relief in distressed financial markets, have revealed their limits as regards stimulating growth and improving the situation on the labour market; considers, therefore, that the ECB could investigate the possibilities of implementing new unconventional measures aimed at participating in a large, EU-wide pro- growth programme, including the use of the Emergency Liquidity Assistance facility to undertake an ‘overt money financing’ of government debt in order to finance tax cuts targeted on low-income households and/or new spending programmes focused on the Europe 2020 objectivesnot allowed a proper transmission of its monetary policy and thus have not sufficiently contributed to stimulating growth and improving the situation on the labour market;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers it necessary to review the Treaties and the ECB's statutes in order to establish price stability together with full employment as the two objectives, on an equal footing, of monetary policy in the eurozone; that any debate on a potential revision of the Treaties should also include the ECB's statutes in order to analyse the possibilities of reinforcing its contribution to the realisation of the objectives of the EU (including full employment) while preserving price stability as the primary mandate; believes that it should also be an opportunity to change the legal basis to have adequate supervision (bank, insurance, markets) at the euro area and EU levels; considers, furthermore, that any revision of the ECB's statutes should seek to completely integrate the national central banks into the ECB;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Argues that the conduct of monetary policy should ~~be democratic and should result from deliberation between different viewpoints and approache~~respect the principle of independence and accountability; recalls in this respect the importance of the Monetary Dialogue and of the written questions submitted by MEPs;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Invites the ECB to pay more attention to the contractionary effects on GDP, employment and social welfare created by ~~austerity~~corrective policies carried out by national governments in the framework of Economic Assistance Programmes involving the ECB;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines that the ECB's independence should not justify lack of democratic accountability and recalls in this respect the importance of the Monetary Dialogue and of the written questions submitted by MEPs;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. CRecalls ~~on the ECB to pay more attention to the euro exchange rate in order to avoid excessive euro appreciation, which could in turn damage~~that, in accordance with Article 219 of the TFEU, the exchange rate policy is the responsibility of the Council involving recommendation from the Commission, consultation or recommendation of the ECB, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability and also including consultation of the eEuro~~zone~~pean Parliament;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Invites the ECB, in cooperation with the national central banks, to explain its policies in terms of currency swap deals designed to provide support for the bilateral economic and trade exchanges and to help maintain financial stability;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that transparency in the field of banking supervision is essential and that the ECB should take all possible measures to improve its transparency such as, inter alia, the publication of the minutes (including a full account of the policy discussion) of the Supervisory Board;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Recalls that it is of paramount importance that the ECB ensure operational separation of the core units preparing the draft decisions in the field of monetary policy and supervisory policy; underlines the crucial need for the agreement negotiated between the ECB and the European Parliament regarding practical measures to ensure democratic accountability;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers it urgent to approve the establishment of a European Resolution System in order to protect depositors ~~and prevent fur~~, to reinforce the stability of ther banking ~~crises;~~ system as well as to prevent the "too big to fail" syndrome;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Notes that in order to strengthen the stability of the banking system and avoid the development of the ‘too big to fail’ syndrome, consideration should be given to introducing a full separation between deposit and investment banks, on the lines of the ‘Volcker Rule’ in the US;deleted

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Believes that the "troika" should be replaced by a system where the Commission, accountable to the European Parliament, is put at the heart of the mechanism with Program Countries, while the Eurogroup is included in the decision-making process, the ECB provides expertise and the IMF would give advice where appropriate;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Olle SCHMIDT, Sylvie GOULARD, Sharon BOWLES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Recalls that, according to Article 10.4 of the Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, the proceedings of the meetings of the Governing Council shall be confidential but it may decide to make the outcome of its deliberations public; believes that, unless the Governing Council has taken such a decision, all its members are bound by confidentiality and loyalty;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Olle SCHMIDT, Sylvie GOULARD, Nils TORVALDS, Sharon BOWLES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Takes the view that the EU institutions, including the ECB, should lead by example in the field of gender balance and that it is essential that the gender representation among leading positions within the ECB be improved in order to better represent European citizens;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)

27b. Deeply disapproves of the fact the Member States ignored the negative vote in the European Parliament, both in the ECON Committee and in the plenary, because of the lack of gender balance perspective during the appointment of Yves Mersch;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Olle SCHMIDT, Sylvie GOULARD, Nils TORVALDS, Sharon BOWLES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 c (new)

27c. Urges the Member States to incorporate a gender-balance perspective with possibility for positive action on the basis of a balanced gender representation in regard to the appointment of members to the Executive Board; whenever a vacancy arises on the Executive Board, Euro Member States should be encouraged to nominate two candidates, one male and one female, for the vacant position;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Olle SCHMIDT, Sylvie GOULARD, Nils TORVALDS, Sharon BOWLES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 d (new)

27d. Believes that the principles of gender balance in appointment to leading positions should also apply to the Steering Committee and Advisory Committee of the ESRB as well as the Boards of Supervisors of the ESAs;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2076(INI)

Olle SCHMIDT, Sylvie GOULARD, Nils TORVALDS, Sharon BOWLES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 e (new)

27e. Believes that Member States should also be encouraged to appoint women as governors of the National Central Banks (NCBs) in order to achieve a better gender balance on the Governing Council and the General Council of the ECB as well as on the General Board of the ESRB;

2013/07/12
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the financial crisis demonstrated the problem of cross- contamination between banks' retail and investment activities; whereas the report of the HLEG underlines that "there are important systemic benefits of having diversity of business models" and the Eurosystem states in its contribution of January 2013 that "diversity implies that different institutional forms, business and earnings models coexist which strengthens resilience and mitigates contagion vulnerabilities";

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas the funding of the real economy by banks is significantly higher in most of the Member States than it is in the UK or the US;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)

Jb. whereas the report of the Independent Commission on Banking and the Vickers reforms in the UK state several times that its recommendations are a policy approach for UK banks;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the HLEG's analysis and recommendations on banking reform and considers them a sound ~~basis for initiating reform~~contribution; is of the opinion that any reform should take into account the EU funding opportunities available to the real economy, and in this respect, the role played by the banks;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that while current proposals for reforms of EU banking sector rules (including the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation, the Recovery and Resolution Directive, the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive and shadow banking initiatives) are vital, ~~a more fundamental reform of the banking structure is essential, and complementary to the other proposals~~they must be fully implemented and their cumulative effects assessed inter alia concerning complexity, risk-taking incentives and systemic risk; underlines that further reforms are necessary of banking structures as well as resolution, taking into account the global banking framework;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Urges the Commission to ensure that the core principles of reform ~~detailed in paragraph 7~~s also apply to the shadow banking sector and unregulated areas of the financial services sector;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. recalls that any banking reform would not deliver if the supervision is not undertaken at the relevant level or is not provided with appropriate means; underlines that the transmission of information is key to ensure quality work by supervisors;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to c~~ome forward with a propos~~arefully assess the complementarity of structural reform with the new EU banking framework, including in particular CRD4, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, Banking Union before any decision is taken on structural refor m and~~atory separation of banks' retail and investment activitie~~ in particular on legal separation between deposits and proprietary trading and other significant trading activities, if the activities to be separated amount to a significant share of a bank's business;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to come forward with a proposal for ~~such mandatory separation through~~ the establishment of a thorough, transparent and credible ‘ring fence’ ~~around~~between bank activities that are vital for the real economy, such as those relating to credit functions, payment systems ~~and deposits~~, deposits, business support services and high-risk activities relating to trading; takes the view that in the event of a bank failure, the ring fence must ensure that the retail entity continues business unaffected by operational problems, financial losses, funding shortages or reputational damage resulting from the resolution or insolvency of the investment entity;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part

12. Urges the Commission to ensure that any separation ~~results in~~of certain high-risk activities that are not associated with the provision of client-related services:

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 (new)

(i) results in:

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point b

(b) limits on the extent to which the two entities are reliant on each other for funding and/or resources; in particular, there should be no legal basis for unduly and unnecessarily shifting capital and liquidity from ring-fenced entities to other entities in the group;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point d a (new)

(da) (ii) does not result in: (a) increasing dependency on non-EU banks or unregulated sources of funding; (b) increasing regulatory arbitrage (inside and outside the EU) and a global unlevel playing field; (c) a discrepancy between overly regulated retail banks and lite-regulated investment banks; (d) fragmentation of the internal market;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Believes that the possible scope for allowing market-making to be carried out by the deposit taking entity, subject to certain limits, should be further analysed;

2013/04/18
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) The Financial Stability Board (FSB) called, on 20 October 2010, for more robust core market infrastructures and asked for the revision and enhancement of the existing standards. TIn April 2012, the Committee on Payments and Settlement Systems (CPSS) of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) ~~are finalising draft global standards. These are to~~published principles for financial market infrastructures. These principles replace the ~~BIS~~CPSS-IOSCO recommendations f~~rom 2001, which were adapted through non-binding guidelines at European level in~~or securities settlement systems from November 2001, which were implemented at Union level through the recommendations for securities settlement systems and for central counterparties jointly adopted in May 2009 by the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR).

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) One of the basic tasks of the ESCB is to promote the smooth operation of payment systems. In this respect, the members of the ESCB execute oversight by ensuring efficient and sound clearing and payment systems. The members of the ESCB often act as settlement agents for the cash leg of the securities transactions. They are also important clients of CSDs, which often manage the collateralisation of monetary policy operations. The members of the ESCB should be closely involved ~~by being~~and be consulted in the authorisation and supervision of CSDs, recognition of third country CSDs and the approval of CSD links. To prevent the emergence of parallel sets of rules, they should also be closely involved ~~by being~~and be consulted in the setting of regulatory and implementing technical standards as well as of guidelines and recommendations. The provisions of this Regulation ~~should b~~are without prejudice to the responsibilities of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the National Central Banks (NCBs) to ensure efficient and sound clearing and payment systems within the Union and other countries. Access to information by the members of the ESCB is crucial for the adequate performance of their oversight of financial market infrastructures as well as to the function of a central bank of issue.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) Considering the global nature of financial markets and the systemic importance of the CSDs, it is necessary to ensure international convergence of the prudential requirements to which they are subject. The provisions of this Regulation should follow the existing ~~recommendations developed by CPSS- IOSCO and ESCB-CESR~~CPSS-IOSCO principles for financial market infrastructures and the ESCB-CESR recommendations for securities settlement systems and recommendations for central counterparties in the European Union. ESMA should consider the existing standards and their future developments when ~~drawing up or proposing to revise the~~proposing the draft regulatory technical and implementing standards as well as the guidelines and recommendations re~~quired~~ferred to in this Regulation.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35

(35) The safety of the link arrangements set up between CSDs should be subject to specific requirements to enable the access of their respective participants to other securities settlement systems. The requirement to provide banking type of ancillary services in separate legal entity should not prevent CSDs from receiving such services, in particular when they are participants in a securities settlement system operated by another CSD. It is particularly important that any potential risks resulting from the link arrangements such as credit, liquidity, organisational or any other relevant risks for CSDs are fully mitigated. For interoperability links, ~~it is important that linked securities settlement systems have identical~~the Directive 98/26/EC requires systems, to the extent possible, to ensure that their rules are coordinated concerning the moments of entry of transfer orders into the system, irrevocability of transfer orders and finality of transfers of securities and cash. The same principles should apply to CSDs that use a common settlement information technology (IT) infrastructure.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. ~~Articles 9 to 18 and 20 as well as the provisions of Title IV do~~This Regulation shall not apply to the members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), o~~the~~r Member States~~‘ national bodies performing similar functions or Member States’~~' public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

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

4 a. Notwithstanding paragraph 4, this Regulation, with the exception of Article 7(1) and Articles 9 to 18, 20, 25 and 44 as well as the provisions of Title IV, applies to the members of the ESCB when operating a securities settlement system and performing the core services listed in Section A of the Annex.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

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

(1) ‘central securities depository’ (‘CSD’) means a legal person that ~~operates a securities settlement system listed in point 3 of Section A of the Annex and~~ performs at least one of ther core services listed in Section A of the Annex;

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. Any ~~compan~~legal entity that issues transferable securities which are admitted to trading on regulated markets shall arrange for such securities to be represented in book-entry form as immobilisation through the issuance of a global note, which represents the whole issue, or subsequent to a direct issuance of the securities into a dematerialised form.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) ~~shall develop in consult~~, in close cooperation with the members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the details of the procedures enabling confirmation of relevant details of transactions and facilitating settlement referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 and the details of the monitoring tools identifying likely settlement fails referred to in paragraph 3.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. For each securities settlement system it operates, a CSD shall establish a system that monitors settlement fails of transactions in financial instruments referred to in Article 5(1). It shall provide regular reports to the competent authority, to the authorities referred to in Article 11 and to any person with a legitimate interest as to the number and details of settlement fails and any other relevant information. The competent authorities shall share with ESMA any relevant information on settlement fails.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. The relevant authorit~~y of the Member State whose law applies to the securities settlement system operated by a CSD shall be competent~~ies referred to in Article 10 shall be responsible for ensuring that Articles 6 and 7 are applied and for monitoring ~~the~~any penalties imposed, in close cooperation with the authorities competent for the supervision of the regulated markets, MTFs, OTFs, and CCPs referred to in Article 7, and the authorities referred to in Article 11(1). In particular, these authorities shall monitor the application of penalties referred to in Article 7 (2) and (4) and of the measures referred to in Article 7(6).

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. In order to ensure consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices within the Union in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of this Regulation, ESMA may issue, in close cooperation with the members of the ESCB, guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) ~~where applicable,~~ the central bank in the Union in whose books the cash leg of a securities settlement system operated by the CSD is settled or, in case of settlement through a credit institution in accordance with Title IV, the central bank in the Union of issue of the relevant currencyssuing the currency in which settlement takes place.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) where relevant, the member of the ESCB in whose books the cash leg of a securities settlement system operated by the CSD is settled.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

In order to ensure consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices within the Union, including cooperation between authorities referred to in Articles 9 and 11 in the different assessments necessary for the application of this Regulation, ESMA, in close cooperation with the members of the ESCB, may issue guidelines addressed to authorities referred to in Article 9 in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1

TWithout prejudice to the notification referred to in Article 6 of Directive 98/26/EC, the authorities referred to in Articles 9 and 11 shall immediately inform ESMA, the ESRB and each other of any emergency situation relating to a CSD, including of any developments in financial markets, which may have an adverse effect on market liquidity, the stability of a currency in which settlement takes place, integrity of monetary policy and on the stability of the financial system in any of the Member States where the CSD or one of its participants are established.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

The competent authority shall, before granting authorisation to the applicant CSD, consult the competent authorities and the authorities referred to in Article 11 of the other Member State involved in the following cases:

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2

2. ~~Central banks shall immediately~~Members of the ESCB shall inform ESMA of any ~~CSD~~securities settlement system that they operate.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1

1. The competent authority shall, at least on an annual basis, review the arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms implemented by a CSD with respect to compliance with this Regulation and evaluate the risks to which the CSD is, or might be, exposed or associated with. The competent authority shall be entitled to collect all the relevant information necessary for its evaluation.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4

4. When performing the review and evaluation referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall c~~onsult at an early stage~~losely cooperate with the relevant authorities referred to in Article 11 at an early stage concerning the functioning of the securities settlement systems operated by the CSD.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5

5. The competent authority shall discuss regularly, and ~~at least once a year, inform~~in advance with the relevant authorities referred to in Article 11 of the results, including any remedial actions or penalties, of the review and evaluation referred to in paragraph 1.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 a (new)

Article 20 a Professional secrecy 1. The obligation of professional secrecy shall apply to all persons who work or who have worked for the authorities referred to in Articles [10 and 11] and ESMA, and auditors and experts instructed by the competent authorities, ESMA or the ESRB. Confidential information they may receive in the course of their duties shall not be divulged to any other person or authority whatsoever, except in summary or aggregate form such that an individual CSD or any other person cannot be identified, without prejudice to cases covered by criminal law or taxation or the other provisions of this Regulation. 2. Where a CSD has been declared bankrupt or is being compulsorily wound up, confidential information which does not concern third parties may be divulged in civil or commercial proceedings where necessary for carrying out the proceeding. 3. Without prejudice to cases covered by criminal and tax law, the authorities referred to in Articles 10 and 11, ESMA, bodies or natural or legal persons other than competent authorities which receive confidential information pursuant to this Regulation may use it only in the performance of their duties and for the exercise of their functions including the disclosure of information to a superior body, in the case of the competent authorities, within the scope of this Regulation or, in the case of other authorities, bodies or natural or legal persons, for the purpose for which such information was provided to them or in the context of administrative or judicial proceedings specifically related to the exercise of those functions, or both. Where ESMA, the competent authority or another authority, body or person communicating information consents thereto, the authority receiving the information may use it for other non- commercial purposes. 4. Any confidential information received, exchanged or transmitted pursuant to this Regulation shall be subject to the conditions of professional secrecy laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. However, those conditions shall not prevent ESMA, or the authorities referred to in Articles 10 and 11, from exchanging or transmitting confidential information in accordance with their statutory tasks and with other legislation applicable to investment firms, credit institutions, pension funds, undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs), insurance and reinsurance intermediaries, insurance undertakings, regulated markets or market operators or otherwise with the consent of the competent authority or other authority or body or natural or legal person that communicated the information. 5. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not prevent the authorities referred to in Articles 10 and 11 from exchanging or transmitting confidential information, in accordance with national law, that has not been received from a competent authority of another Member State.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 b (new)

Article 20 b Exchange of information 1. ESMA, the authorities referred to in Articles 10 and 11 and other relevant authorities shall without undue delay provide one another with the information required for the purposes of carrying out their duties. 2. The authorities referred to in Articles 10 and 11, other relevant authorities, ESMA and other bodies or natural and legal persons receiving confidential information in the exercise of their duties under this Regulation shall only use it in the course of their duties. 3. Competent authorities shall communicate information to the ESRB and to the relevant members of the ESCB where such information is relevant for the exercise of their duties.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) a programme of operations stating in particular the services which it intends to provide, including the currency or currencies it processes;

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3

3. Within three months from the receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 2, the competent authority shall communicate that information to the authorities referred to in Article 11 and the competent authority of the host Member State unless, by taking into account the provision of services envisaged, it has reasons to doubt the adequacy of the administrative structure or the financial situation of the CSD wishing to provide its services in the host Member State.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1

ESMA, in close cooperation with the members of the ESCB, shall develop draft implementing technical standards to establish standard forms, templates and procedures for the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the CSD is subject to effective authorisation ~~and supervision~~, supervision and oversight or, if the securities settlement system is operated by a central bank, oversight, ensuring a full compliance with the prudential requirements applicable in that third country;

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) co-operation arrangements between ESMA and the ~~compete~~relevant authorities in that third country have been established pursuant to paragraph 7.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – point c

(c) the authorities referred to in ~~point (a) of~~ Article 11(1);

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 5

5. A CSD shall clearly determine the roles and responsibilities of the board and shall make the minutes of the board meetings available to the competent authority and the auditor.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5

5. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not apply where a CSD outsources some of its services or activities to a public entity and where that outsourcing is governed by a dedicated legal, regulatory and operational framework which has been jointly agreed and formalised by the public entity and the relevant CSD and ~~agre~~endorsed by the competent authorities o~~n the basis of the requirements established in this Regulation~~f the relevant CSD.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 6

6. A CSD shall achieve settlement finality no later than by the end of the business day of the intended settlement date. Upon demand by its user committee, it shall install ~~system~~operational procedures that allow for intraday or real-time settlement.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1

1. For transactions denominated in the currency of the country where the settlement takes place, a CSD shall settle the cash payments of its respective securities settlement system through accounts opened with athe central bank o~~perating in such~~f issue of that currency whenever practical and available.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1

A CSD shall adopt a sound risk- management framework for comprehensively managing legal, business, operational, systemic and other risks.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 4

4. In case of a provisional transfer of securities between linked CSDs, retransfer or onward transfer to a third CSD of securities prior to the first transfer becoming final shall be prohibited.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. A CSD shall provide appropriate account structures to enable participants, including other CSDs, to connect to its systems. The account structure shall be supported by the appropriate settlement, custody and fiscal arrangements.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1

ESMA shall develop in c~~onsult~~lose cooperation with the members of the ESCB draft regulatory technical standards to specify the conditions as provided in paragraph 3 under which each type of link arrangement provides for adequate protection of the linked CSDs and of their participants, in particular when a CSD intends to participate in the securities settlement system operated by another CSD, the monitoring and managing of additional risks referred to in paragraph 5 arising from the use of intermediaries, the reconciliation methods referred to in paragraph 6, the cases where DVP settlement through links is practical and feasible as provided in paragraph 7, the provisions of paragraph [8a] on the appropriate account structures including the relevant arrangements and the methods of assessment thereof.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1

1. AWithout prejudice to Articles 2(a), 9 and 10 of Directive 98/26/EC, any question with respect to proprietary aspects in relation to financial instruments held by a CSD shall be governed by the law of the country where the account is maintained. The account shall be presumed to be maintained at the place where the CSD has its habitual residence as determined by Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2

2. Where the ~~account is used for settlement in a securities settlement system~~law of the Member State where the account is maintained differs from the law governing the securities settlement system, and the securities settlement system has been designated in accordance with Article 2 of Directive 98/26/EC, the applicable law shall be the one governing that securities settlement system.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3

3. Where the account is not used for settlement in a securities settlement system, that account shall be presumed to be maintained at the place where the CSD has its habitual residence as determined by Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council.deleted

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article –52 (new)

Article –52 Assessment report By the end of 2014, the Commission shall, in close cooperation with the ECB, submit a report assessing the provision of ancillary banking services with an appropriate mitigation of risks, whilst safeguarding the efficiency of CSDs in providing their services. In accordance with the conclusions of that report, the Commission shall submit a legislative proposal to amend Title IV if appropriate.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Following a detailed impact assessment, a consultation of the ~~undertakings~~CSD concerned and after taking into account the opinions of the EBA, the ESMA ~~and the EC~~, the ECB and the supervisory authorities and the assessment of the ESRB, the Commission shall adopt an implementing decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 66. The Commission shall give reasons for its implementing decision.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3

3. A CSD that intends to settle the cash leg of all or part of its securities settlement system in accordance with Article 37(2) of this Regulation shall obtain authorisation to designate for this purpose an authorised credit institution as provided in Title II of Directive 2006/48/EC, unless the competent authority referred to in Article 53(1) of this Regulation demonstrates, based on the available evidence, that the exposure of one credit institution to the concentration of risks under Article 57(3) and (4) of this Regulation is not sufficiently mitigated. In the latter case, the competent authority referred to in Article 53(1) may require the CSD to designate more than one credit institution. The designated credit institutions shall be considered as settlement agents as defined in point (d) of Article 2 of Directive 98/26/EC.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2012/0029(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1

ESMA shall develop in c~~onsult~~lose cooperation with the members of the ESCB and EBA draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information that the applicant CSD shall provide to the competent authority.

2012/11/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

– having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 23 November 20121 on the Annual Growth Survey 2012 (COM(2011)0815),

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that the Annual Growth Survey 2011 and a number of other initiatives such as the Euro Plus Pact, which needs to be implemented through national and European legislation, already contained most of the elements which are necessary to regain confidence, increase competitiveness and achieve growth;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Agrees that the AGS, and the official positions published by the other European institutions, should continue to lay the basis for building the necessary common understanding about the priorities for action at national and EU level for the next twelve months, which should then feed into national economic and budgetary decisions, in line with the EU's country- specific recommendations;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Welcomes the evaluation of the progress of the flagship initiatvies of the EU 2020 strategy, but underlines that the fight against social exclusion and poverty should remain at the centre of every policy;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Believes that access to basic banking services remains a key factor for social inclusion and therefore encourages the Commission to take bolder actions to guarantee this access;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Acknowledges the interdependence between Member State economies and fiscal policies; stresses that the growth prospects of all Member States, whether they are currently in the Euro area or not, are highly dependent on how decisively the sovereign debt crisis is dealt with; urges Member States to correct their excessive deficits by the deadlines set by the Council and to better focus on investment and growth orientated expenditure;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

~~8. Welcomes the fact that a major overhaul of regulation and supervision of the financial sector is underway;~~deleted

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Is worried by the fact that many Member States, in particular those under market pressure, are falling behind in terms of productivity; insists on the role of structural reforms in tackling this problem; is worried by the fact that the bulk of global growth is expected to come from outside the EU in the coming years, which will necessitate a strengthening of the export capacity of Member States, as well as providing a stable framework for direct foreign investment;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Regrets the slow pace of the implementation of EU legislation by certain Member States and urges them to deliver the agreed results concerning the quality of statistics; is firmly convinced that the availability of reliable, accurate and up-to-date data provides a key element of the political decision making process; calls on the Member States to implement the recently adopted Council Directive on Requirements for the Budgetary Framework of the Member States as soon as possible;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Encourages the Commission, considering that the AGS covers much more than just economic elements, to develop programmes for specific policy sectors, such as defense, where joint management or joint ownership between multiple Member States would provide economies of scale, which would bring added-value and financial savings to the Member States involved;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14 b. Underlines, in the current economic context, the even more crucial role played by community funded programs and encourages the Commission to put forward a proposal to fund EU 2020 strategy actions through the transfer of unused payment appropriations;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2319(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Recalls that the economic governance legal framework ('the six pack') provides the tool of economic dialogue: "in order to enhance the dialogue between the Union institutions, in particular the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability, the competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup to appear before the committee to discuss decisions taken...The competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to the Member State concerned by such decisions to participate in an exchange of views"; calls on this tool, which enables economic co- operation and mutual understanding, to be utilised as much as possible;

2012/01/12
Committee: ECON

2011/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. Whereas the food aid distributed under the EU’s “Food Distribution programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the Community” plays a key role in assisting many NGOs and charity organisations in addressing hunger and undernourishment within the EU,

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas reducing food waste is a significant and indeed a preliminary step towards combating and reducing hunger and undernourishment in the world, confronting the increase ~~in demand~~ predicted by the FAO ~~and improving people's nutritional levels~~,

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, George LYON, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas food waste occurs across the entire food supply chain from the agricultural production stage, to the storage, processing, distribution, management and consumption stages,

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, George LYON, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the players in the food supply chain are chiefly responsible for food security and addressing avoidable food waste where possible,

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, George LYON, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Council, Commission ~~and~~, Member States ~~to encourage ways of improving the efficiency of~~and players in the food supply chain ~~and~~to address~~ing~~ as a matter of urgency the problem of food waste along the entire supply chain~~; urges them to prioritise both of these aspect~~ and to devise guidelines and support ways of improving the efficiency of the food supply chain sector by sector and urges them to prioritise this within the European policy agenda;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Council, Commission, Member States and players in the food supply chain to work together to develop a system of resource mapping and implement a policy to encourage resource efficiency over the entire lifecycle of food products;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, George LYON, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Invites the Commission to work towards harmonising EU food waste data requirements as there is no reliable evidence base to validate food waste figures across EU Member States and to use as the basis for designing effective food waste policy measures;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Urges the Commission, Member States and farming organisations to increase public awareness of the importance and value of agriculture to society and the value of agricultural produce;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, George LYON, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Calls on the Commission, Member States and processors to develop guidelines to address avoidable food waste and to implement greater resource efficiency in their section of the food supply chain, to continuously work to improve processing, packaging and transporting so as to cut down on unnecessary food waste;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, George LYON, Marit PAULSEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Urges the Commission, Member States and retailers to devise and implement voluntary agreements to pledge to take further resource efficiency measures and to address unnecessary food waste in their section of the food supply chain;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission and the Member States to promote awareness-raising campaigns to inform the public about the causes and effects of food waste ~~and~~, ways of reducing it and to inform them of the value of food and agricultural produce, fostering a scientific and civic culture guided by the principles of sustainability and solidarity; calls for the introduction of food education courses giving practical tips on food expiration, storage, keeping food at its best and food disposal, particularly in secondary schools and colleges, so as to encourage better behaviour; stresses the important role played by local authorities ~~and~~, municipal enterprises and retailers in providing information and support to citizens on preventing and reducing food waste;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Calls on retailers to engage with food redistribution programmes for citizens who lack purchasing power and to implement measures allowing for products nearing expiry to be discounted;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Invites the Commission to consider possible amendments to the public procurement rules on catering and hospitality services so that, all other conditions being equal, when contracts are awarded priority is given to undertakings that guarantee that they will redistribute for free any unallocated (unsold) items to groups of citizens who lack purchasing power and that promote specific activity to reduce waste upstream;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Invites the Commission to assess and encourage measures to reduce food waste upstream, such as addressing the problems caused by dual-date labelling (‘sell by’ and ‘use by’) and discounted sales of out-of- date or damaged goods, as well as to improve packaging to increase the longevity of the storage of goods and their freshness and to reduce packaging so as to achieve eco- friendly products by means of industrial eco-design;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2175(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Considers it essential that there is greater clarity and coherence in labelling in relation to food expiration, consistent storage and freezing guidelines for consumers, and for the Commission, Member States and food producers to ensure more effective measures are put in place to inform consumers of food edibility criteria;

2011/10/03
Committee: AGRI

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas on 10 May 2010, the ECB announced ithat the Eurosystem would intervene directly but temporarily in the euro area public and private debt securities markets through the Securities Markets Programme, the book value of settled purchases of which amounted to EUR 77110.5 billion ion ~~June~~19 August 2011,

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Rrecalls that the ~~single~~primary objective of ~~ECB is price stability; notes that de facto financial stability is becoming a second objective; also notes the work of the ESRB~~the ESCB shall be to maintain price stability in accordance with article 282 of the TFEU ; and that it thereby contributes to financial stability; welcomes the creation of the ERSB on 1 January 2011 under the auspices of the ECB ~~on financial stability~~;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Antolín SÁNCHEZ PRESEDO, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. underlines that the rebuying of bonds on the secondary markets is justified by the aim of restoring a monetary policy which functions effectively, during this period of exceptional malfunction of certain sectors of the market; these programmes of rebuying bonds are complemented by programmes neutralising liquidity;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes the entrance of Estonia into the eurozone as a proof of the strength of the euro project as a common currency.

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the determination and proactive stance of the ECB throughout the crisis since 2007 and in particular during the summer 2011 when some major EU economies were put in difficulty;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes the rapid e~~volut~~xpansion of the ~~leverage ratio of the ECB, measured by its capit~~balance sheet of the ECB in October 2008; notes, however, that by mid-August 2011 the bal and reserves in relation to assets; notes that this leverage ratio by far exceeds that of other comparable central banks, with the exception of those having implemented quantitative easing programmes, such as the Federal Reserve or the Bank of Englandce sheet has already shrunk by around 10% from its peak; notes that the increase is in line with other comparable central banks, and is significantly less than those central banks having implemented quantitative easing programmes, such as the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England, which are respectively of 216 % and 200 % as noted by Jean-Claude Trichet in ECON on August 29th 2011;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the ECB to put in place in the Security Markets Program a discount rate mechanism that can be adjusted, taking into account whether a certain security is further downgraded by most credit rating agencies and ensuring that the ECB does not end up with too many risky assets; in addition, believes that the ECB should use at least two credit rating qualifications before accepting a security as collateral;deleted

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Asks for more public information on flows between euro area central banks measured in the Target-2 programme so that these flows are not interpreted as permanently moving from current account surplus countries to deficit countries in order to avoid their financial collapse;deleted

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. underlines the constant and rigorous stance taken by the ECB for years in terms in order to strengthen economic governance in the European interest;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls for a more integrated macro- prudential policy framework within the monetary policy context, if necessary including differentiated macro-prudential tools in the Union to account for differences between the euro area and non-euro area countries; calls for an analysis of the effectiveness of the new financial supervisory architecture and for an evaluation of the option establishing a single European financial supervisory authority, unifying under its umbrella the current European Supervisory Authorities and the European Systemic Risk Board;deleted

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses the need for a single European minister of Finance, in ~~order to coordinate a basic common fiscal policy that could enhance the effectiveness of the euro~~the spirit of the proposal made by Jean-Claude Trichet in Aachen on 2 June 2011; believes that the democratic legitimacy of such a proposal must adequately be addressed; notes in this sense that in a monetary union, fiscal policy does not only concern the Member States and that the present crisis has shown the limits of 100% decentralised fiscal policies;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Stresses the need for a single European Treasury to relieve the ECB off its quasi- fiscal role; until that is the case, sugg~~Is of the opinion that the creation of a European finance minister should be complemented by a single European Treasury; welcomes the decision taken by the Heads of State and Government on 21 July to improve the effectivenests ~~confining more tasks to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM); regrets that, as it stands, the ESM will not operate under Community rules and did not acquire the right to purchase government bo~~of the EFSF and of the ESM by increasing their flexibility linked to appropriate conditionality, notably allowing them to intervene in the secondary markets on the basis of an ECB analysis recognizing the existence of exceptional financial market circumstances and risks to financial stability ands on the ~~secondary market as this would have meant a relief for the ECB in the current circumstanc~~basis of a decision by mutual agreement of the EFSF/ESM Member States, to avoid contagion; regrets that as it stands the ESM will not operate under Community rules;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Deplores in this regard that the ESM has been established outside the EU Treaties and therefore calls on the Commission to propose a permanent crisis management mechanism based on Community rules (e.g. a European Monetary Fund)

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that the introduction of eurosecurities may constitute the necessary fiscal quantum-leap forward that the Union needs at this juncture; ~~welcomes the rapid implementation of the feasibility report promised by the Commission in its declaration XXX;~~ calls on the Commission to immediately put forward legislative proposals on the setting up of a system of common issuance of European sovereign bonds, or euro securities, under joint and several liability, following Commissioner Rehn's declaration in Plenary in 22 June 2011; believes that increasing liquidity on a new global eurobonds market could reduce the financial costs for Member States and which would contribute to the Euro becoming a global reserve currency

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Antolín SÁNCHEZ PRESEDO, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Calls for a more integrated macro- prudential policy framework within the monetary policy context, if necessary including differentiated macro-prudential tools in the Union to account for differences between the euro area and non-euro area countries; is looking forward to the general report1 by the Commission expected at the latest by 2 January 2014, which should review the decisions taken for the creation of the ESFS (European System of Financial Supervision); __________________ 1 Article 81 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. As the ECB, IMF and Commission work together on missions in some Member States, calls on the Commission to put forward proposals for a single external representation of the euro area according to Article 138 TFEU; particularly for the IMF;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Reiterates its long-standing call for the minutes of the meetings of the Governing Council to be public; considers their non- publication as a sign of weakness of the monetary union, as if the public and necessary individual accountability in the decision-taking within the Governing Council should be interpreted as a confrontation between Member States;commends that the ECB enhance the transparency of its work in order to increase its legitimacy and predictability. Transparency is also needed with regard to the internal models used to value illiquid collateral and the valuations assigned to specific securities offered as collateral

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Further to the number of debates which have arisen on the subject, asks for more public information on flows between euro area central banks measured in the Target-2 programme, so as to establish whether or not these flows should be interpreted as permanently moving from current account surplus countries to deficit countries in order to avoid their financial collapse

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2156(INI)

Astrid LULLING, Sylvie GOULARD, Herbert DORFMANN, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)

21b. Welcomes the commitment of the ECB to its accountability in the front of the EP and stresses the very constructive role played by the ECB at the highest level and through its staff in the co-decision procedure;

2011/09/08
Committee: ECON

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Vincenzo IOVINE, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. Whereas higher food prices do not automatically translate into higher farm incomes, mainly due to the speed at which farm input costs increase and the growing divergence between producer and consumer prices;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas certified and patented seeds and royalties for use of these seeds represent ~~the m~~one of the factors which can explain increase in seed costs for farmers;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Vincenzo IOVINE, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Asks for greater scrutiny and better analysis to be given at EU and global level to the economic fundamentals which explain rising food prices, predominantly interactions between supply and demand fluctuations, as well as increasing interactions between the price movements of energy, inputs, and food commodities;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Vincenzo IOVINE, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Asks the Commission to refine its analysis on the reasons behind extreme market fluctuations and seek greater clarity on the interactions between speculation and agricultural markets, as well as energy markets and food commodities prices; stresses that this should be part of the efforts to better regulate, increase transparency and the quality of information on financial markets at global and EU level, including in the upcoming review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and the Market Abuse Directive (MAD);

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stresses in particular the need for a European Food Prices Monitoring Tool which w~~Welcomes the European Food Prices Monitoring Tool set up by Eurostat and the setting up of the High Level Forum for a better functioning of the food supply chain, which must include the input sector operating upstream and should deliver better transparency on input price development and ~~allow~~contribute to improved farm-gate prices ~~to be linked to production costs~~; Insists that regular reporting of progress made and concrete proposals should be transmitted to and discussed with the European Parliament;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS, Liam AYLWARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that primary producers cannot fully benefit from increased output prices as they are being 'squeezed' between, on the one side, low farm-gate prices due to the strong positions of processors and retailers, and high input prices due to increased concentration of input companies on the other side;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on national and European competition authorities to address robustly the abuses of dominant position of agribusiness traders and input companies, ~~and to consider proposals for anti-trust legislation~~in particular in the fertilizers sector where farmers face tremendous difficulties to forward-buy essential fertilizers for their production; European competition authorities should therefore consider launching a full sector inquiry to challenge all potential anti-competitive practices applied by fertilizers and crop protection products companies so as to ensure a freely operating input market;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Sylvie GOULARD, Liam AYLWARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the new ~~rural development policy~~CAP to include specific support measures for better and more efficient resource management and for sustainable practices which reduce input use and costs and ~~vulnerability to price volatility, and which specifically~~improve farmers' ability to adapt to price volatility, including measures to support short input and food chains;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers that efficient measures for on-farm and local energy saving and management should be made available throughout the EU ~~via rural development programmes and should become~~by creating new incentives and targeted support mechanisms at the heart of the CAP reform, including as part of farm extension services;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2114(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Marian HARKIN, Sylvie GOULARD, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Insists that, as part of the reform of the CAP, an EU-wide list of 'greening' measures should primarily reward increased resource efficiency, nutrient management including precision farming techniques for a competitive and less input intensive and fossil-fuel dependent EU agriculture;

2011/10/18
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the health of individual bees and colonies is affected by numerous lethal and sub-lethal factors, many of them interconnected; whereas the limited number of marketed medicines to fight the Varroa destructor mite are in many cases no longer efficient; whereas ~~the~~ toxic agents ~~in certain pesticid~~and their synergies, changing climatic and environmental conditions, loss of plant biodiversity, land use change, mismanaged beekeeping practices and the presence of invasive species weaken colonies’ immune systems and favour opportunistic pathologies,

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Astrid LULLING

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas beekeepers ~~are primarily responsible for~~can help to improve and preserve the health and well-being of their bees, ~~though farming methods have a role to play too~~even in a difficult environment,

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. Whereas a large number of European beekeepers are amateur and not professional apiarists,

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Astrid LULLING, Sylvie GOULARD, Herbert DORFMANN, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to promote the setting up of appropriate national surveillance systems in close cooperation with beekeepers’ associations and to develop harmonised standards which are easy to introduce at EU level to allow comparison~~; stresses the need for uniform~~, and the annual identification and registration of bee hives;

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the need to encourage young beekeepers to enter the sector and to support training programmes for beekeepers and farmers on disease prevention and control, botanical knowledge and the impact of pesticides~~, with the purpose of encouraging the acquisition of qualifications~~;

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Astrid LULLING, Sylvie GOULARD, Herbert DORFMANN, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Commission constantly to monitor the animal health situation in source countries, to apply the strictest animal health requirements and to put in place an appropriate monitoring system for the propagation material coming from third countries, in order to avoid introducing exotic bee diseases/parasites such as Aethina tumida beetles and Tropilaelaps mites into the EU; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with beekeeping organisations, to submit guidelines for the veterinary treatment of hives; calls on the Commission and Member States to increase transparency regarding the frequency, percentage, characteristics and above all the results of the security checks performed at border control posts;

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Calls on the Commission to put in place or modify the annexes to Directive 2001/110/EC (Honey Directive) in order to improve the standards of EU production by establishing clear legal definitions for all apicultural products, including honey varieties, and defining the important parameters of ~~honey~~the quality of natural honey, such as proline and saccarase content, low level of HMF or humidity, and adulteration (such as the glycerine content, sugar isotope ratio (C13/C14), pollen spectrum and aroma and sugar content of honey); calls on the Commission to ensure that monitoring of the natural properties of honey which applies to European products also applies to products from third countries;

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2108(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Calls on the Commission to strengthen and develop the agri-environmental measures specific to the beekeeping sector, in the spirit of the new EU Biodiversity Strategy, and to encourage ~~farmers to engage in agri-environmental measur~~Member States to establish agri-environmental measures targeted at beekeeping in their rural development programmes in order to support ‘bee-friendly’ grasslands on field margins, and to employ special crop rotation and variation;

2011/08/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the improved economic governance framework should rely on several inter-linked policies for sustainable growth and jobs, which need to be coherent with each other, in particular a Union strategy for growth and jobs (EU2020 strategy), with particular focus upon development and strengthening of the internal market, fostering international trade and competitiveness, an effective framework for preventing and correcting excessive government deficit (the Stability and Growth Pact), a robust framework for preventing and correcting macro- economic imbalances, minimum requirements for national budgetary frameworks, enhanced financial market regulation and supervision including macro-prudential supervision by the European Systemic Risk Board,

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas the experience gained and mistakes made during the first decade of functioning of the economic and monetary union show a need for improved economic governance in the Union, which should be built on stronger national ownership of commonly agreed rules and policies and on a more robust surveillance framework at Union level of national economic policies,

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the effectiveness of national economic policies, on the basis of closer coordination, depends on the democratic legitimacy of those policies at, which in turn depends on the intervention of parliament~~ary level~~s,

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

~~D. whereas the European Semester is prompting a review of the mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of the Commission and the Council,~~deleted

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas a purely intergovernmental coordination system would be an inadequate ~~in those areas requiring coordinated action by the Union,~~ response to the requirements of Article 121 TFEU, which states that the Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern,

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the introduction of the European Semester will ~~lead to changes in the work~~contribute to the increased, well-defined involvement of national parliaments,

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the Commission has not detailed its vision for the European Semester, and to date has not taken on board the need to confer democratic legitimacy on this new process, inter alia by involving Parliament more fully,deleted

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

~~H. whereas, given the experience it has gained in the area of monetary dialogue, Parliament should help to develop and oversee economic policies and budgetary surveillance,~~deleted

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that the European Semester is now the annual framework for the implementation and assessment of ~~the Europe 2020 strategy,~~ the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines; emphasises~~, however, that it must not replace these instruments, which are enshrined in the Treaty, or diminish their importance; call~~ that the European Semester takes place without prejudice to the powers onf the ~~Commission to clarify and explain how these different instruments fit together~~European Parliament conferred on it by the TFEU;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. CRecalls ~~for the adoption, via the ordinary legislative procedure, of specific legislation or of an interinstitutional agreement in order to ensure the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of~~that, in its vote on 19 April 2011 on the economic governance package, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs included legislative provisions specific to the European Semester;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to draft the Annual Growth Survey as a document subject to parliamentary negotiation and amendment, inter alia by drawing a distinction between political and technical developments;deleted

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Intends to organise, ~~prior to the Spring European Council each yea~~during the European Semester, an interparliamentary forum at the European Parliament for members of the competent national parliamentary committees responsible for the European Semester; 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 Spring European Council on the basis of the resolution thus adopted;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls on the Commission to work with the Member States to enhance the comparability of national budget expenditure items by incorporating them into a common nomenclature making it possible to assess the extent to which they contribute toNotes the work being done on the requirements applicable to the budgetary frameworks of the Member States (Ford report) and considers that these should enable national expenditure on the Europe 2020 targets to be identified;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

~~20. Calls on the Commission to come and present its recommendations once the analysis of the NRPs and SCPs has been comp~~deleted;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Sven GIEGOLD, Martin KASTLER, Peter LIESE, Sophie AUCONIE, Damien ABAD, Philippe LAMBERTS, Sylvie GOULARD, Herbert DORFMANN, Thomas MANN, Jürgen KLUTE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Is concerned that draft recommendations to member states under the European Semester contained to undermine the specific regulation of holidays and Sundays; asks the Commission and the Council to respect and support these achievements, especially for the work-family balance;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Council to come to Parliament in July each year, or in September in the case of election years, to justify any significant changes it has made to the Commission’s proposed recommendations;deleted

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2 a (new)

Scope of the European Semester

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. The European Semester involves: (a) the formulation and surveillance of the implementation of the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (Broad Economic Policy Guidelines) in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU; (b) the formulation and examination of the implementation of the employment guidelines that must be taken into account by Member States in accordance with Article 148(2) TFEU (Employment Guidelines); (c) the submission and assessment of the Member States’ Stability and Convergence Programmes in line with the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies; (d) the submission and assessment of the Member States’ National Reform Programmes supporting the EU growth and employment strategy and drawn up in line with the guidelines set out in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies and with the general recommendations to Member States issued by the Commission and the European Council at the beginning of the annual cycle of surveillance; (e) the surveillance to prevent and correct macroeconomic imbalances under Regulation (EU) No .../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of … (7) on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances*. In the course of the European Semester, in order to provide timely and integrated policy advice on macro-fiscal and macro- structural policy intentions, the Council shall, following the assessment of these Programmes on the basis of recommendations by the Commission, address guidance to the Member States making full use of the legal instruments provided under Articles 121 and 148 TFEU, the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies and Regulation (EU) No .../2011 + [on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances]. The Member States shall take due account of the guidance addressed to them in the development of their economic, employment and budgetary policies before taking key decisions on the national budgets for the following years. The Commission shall monitor developments in the situation. Failure by a Member State to act upon the guidance received may result in: (a) further recommendations to take specific measures; (b) a warning by the Commission pursuant to Article 121(4) TFEU; (c) measures under the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 and Regulation (EU) No …/2011 [on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances] Implementation of these measures will be subject to reinforced monitoring by the Commission and may include surveillance missions under the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies. Without overstepping its powers, the European Parliament is duly involved in the European Semester in order to increase transparency, ownership and accountability of the decisions taken, in particular by means of the economic dialogue carried out pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies; the Economic and Financial Committee, the Economic Policy Committee, the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee are consulted within the framework of the Semester where appropriate. Relevant stakeholders, in particular the social partners, are involved within the framework of the European Semester on the main policy issues where appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the TFEU and national legal and political arrangements. The President of the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article 121 TFEU, and where appropriate the President of the Eurogroup, shall report annually to the European Parliament and the European Council on the results of the multilateral surveillance;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Considers that under the European Semester the policy surveillance and coordination cycle starts early in the year with a horizontal review under which the European Council, based on input from the Commission and the Council, identifies the main challenges facing the Union and the euro area and gives strategic guidance on policies; discussion will also take place in the European Parliament at the beginning of the annual cycle of surveillance in due time before the discussion takes place in the European Council; the Member States are expected to take into account the horizontal guidance of the European Council when preparing their Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)

22c. Considers that, in line with the legal and political arrangements of each Member State, national parliaments should be duly involved in the European Semester and in the preparation of Stability Programmes, Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes in order to increase the transparency, ownership and accountability of the decisions taken; the Economic and Financial Committee, the Economic Policy Committee, the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee are consulted within the framework of the Semester where appropriate; relevant stakeholders, in particular the social partners, will be involved within the framework of the European Semester on the main policy issues where appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the TFEU and national legal and political systems;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Asks to be allowed to participate in the macroeconomic dialogue~~, which must be stepped up and made~~ at the ECOFIN Council, in cooperation with the Council of Ministers of Employment and Social Affairs and with the participation of representatives of the two configurations of the Council, of the Commission, of the Central European Bank and the social partners, set up following the Cologne European Council of 3 and 4 June 1999 for the ‘appropriate exchange of information and opinions on the way in which macroeconomic policy should be drawn up in order to increase and fully exploit the opportunities for growth and employment’, and considers that this dialogue must be reinforced, codified and more interactive;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Underlines the role of the economic dialogue proposed by the European Parliament in the economic governance package, which consists of enabling a public debate to be held in the European Parliament on surveillance procedures (the Stability and Growth Pact and macro-economic imbalances); recalls that, when the Commission makes its studies public, one or more of the ministers of economics and finance involved might respond, thereby initiating a debate across borders and enabling peer pressure, which the current provisions have failed to make possible;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Underlines that the codification of the European Semester must nevertheless permit the flexibility necessary for possible adaptation in the light of the lessons learnt from the initial experience; in its assessment and adaptation work, the Commission will focus in particular on the possible need for a framework more closely fashioned to the euro area;

2011/07/15
Committee: ECON

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, the excessive imbalances procedure and the requirements on the budgetary framework of the Member States, the Presidents of the European Council and of the Commission have announced their intention to table new proposals;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that the introduction of the ‘European Semester’ and enhanced fiscal policy coordination should leave enough scope and flexibility to the EU Member States to pursue ~~an effective alternative counter-cyclical strategy and stability policy, geared to distribution and development and providing an adequate level of public services and infrastructure for EU citizens~~the policies they believe appropriate in accordance with the EU 2020 strategy;

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 of the European Parliament~~believes that the European parliament should therefore hold a debate and give its opinion after the publication of the Annual Growth Survey by the Commission;

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 15

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

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure ~~an equal treatment~~the full implementation of 2020 targets and flagship initiatives in their guidance and recommendations addressed to each Member State and the EU as a whole;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to work with the Member States to enhance the comparability of National Reform Programmes and of national budget expenditure items by incorporating them into a common nomenclature making it possible to assess the extent to which they contribute to the Europe 2020 targets and the implementation of the seven flagship initiatives notably through the implementation of the directive of the Council on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (Ford report);

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Commission to come and present its recommendations to the European Parliament at an appropriate time, once the analysis of the NRPs and SCPs has been completed and to highlight the potential cross-border spill-over effects in view of the foreseen interparliamentary foruma and the discussions in the Council on the country-specific recommendations;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Takes note that the EP has not adapted its structure and working method to the evolution brought by the Lisbon treaty regarding the new role and powers of the President of the European Council and the Eurogroup; the Economic dialogue will be one of the answers;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

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 vote and other members could attend as observers;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

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

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;deleted

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Intends to organise, from 2013 following the Spring European Council, a second interparliamentary meeting bringing together the Chairs of the committees responsible for the European Semester within national parliaments and the European Parliament (ECON, EMPL, BUDG) to discuss the Commission’s proposed recommendations;deleted

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Underlines the role of the economic dialogue with the European Parliament adopted with the economic governance package, which consists of enabling ~~the Commission to make its analyses public and for the President of the Council, the Commiss~~a dialogue between the European institutions and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup to discuss on surveillance procedures (the Stability and Growth Pact and macro-economic imbalances); recalls that, when the Commission makes its studies public, one or more of the ministers of economics and finance involved might respond, thereby initiating a debate across borders and enabling peer pressure, which the current provisions have failed to make possibles well as with the national level to initiate a cross-border and public debate, increase the transparency and enable peer pressure; the relevant committee of the EP may invite the President of the Commission, of the Eurogroup and of the European Council and offer the opportunity to a Member State concerned by decisions in the EDP and/or EIP to participate in an exchange of views;

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; underlines, in light of the role the EFSF and the ESM are supposed to play, the need for the EP to conduct a hearing with their managing staff; 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 as well as 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 39

39. Intends to conduct an audit of the Union's macroeconomic situation in the autumn, having recourse to ~~heterodox and~~a wide range of expertise, including international external independent advice, and in consultation with the social partners, in order to foster debate and obtain a second opinion on economic issues in preparation for its discussions with the Commission prior to the drafting of the Annual Growth Survey;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Calls on the European Council to invite the President of the European Parliament to participate in its meetings on the European Semester; the President of the European Parliament will before hand liaise with the relevant committee;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Calls for Member States to ensure the professional independence of national statistical authorities in line with the provisions laid down in the governance package and to warrant compliance with the European statistics code of practice as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 in order to ensure the transmission of high quality statistics to the Commission for assessment during the European Semester;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

47 a. Considers of major importance to include in the constant dialogue between European Institutions the involvement of the European Central Bank;

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; the future institutional developments should be made taking into account the evolution of the EFSF and the ESM;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2071(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Underlines that the policy guidance to Member States partly concerns policy areas like wages and pensions that in line with Article 153 of the TFEU fall under the competences of Member States and social partners; emphasizes that democratic accountability needs to be ensured and the principles of ~~subsidiarity and~~ social dialogue to be respected in order to preserve the policy space required for National implementation;

2011/10/10
Committee: ECON

2011/2056(INI)

George LYON, Lena EK, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes the lack of evidence there is to establish a systematic link between financial speculation and long-term price trends of food commodities and agricultural raw materials; considers, therefore, that a thorough analysis aiming at gaining a better understanding of the multiple factors that affect short and long-term food commodities and agricultural raw materials price trends could provide a useful basis for adopting adequate measures to mitigate the effects of extreme price volatility;

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2056(INI)

George LYON, Lena EK, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Asks the Commission, together with other international bodies, to refine their analysis on the causes explaining market fluctuations and seek greater clarity on the interactions between speculation and agricultural markets, as well as energy markets and food commodities prices; Stresses that those steps should be taken as part of the efforts to regulate the financial markets at global and EU level;

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2056(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. With regard to food security, supports the finding of the Communication that without a Common Agricultural Policy and a direct support mechanism, ~~European agriculture is unlikely to survive~~food production capacity across the whole of Europe would be put at risk; agrees, furthermore, that the EU does and should continue to play a role in ensuring sufficient food for a growing world population; is therefore supportive of a strategy on raw materials and commodities that is based on an integrated approach which encompasses agricultural, financial, environmental and trade and development policy concerns;

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2056(INI)

Lena EK, Sylvie GOULARD, George LYON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Stresses that successful EU policies on raw materials must be tied into Europe’s policies on industry, research, energy, biodiversity, trade, development, agriculture, innovation, transport and the Europe 2020 strategy; sound and strategic management of raw materials, coupled with real reform of the internal market, would put Europe well on its way to becoming a competitive player in tomorrow's global economy;

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2056(INI)

Lena EK, George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to include incentive based initiatives in the CAP and the raw materials strategy aimed at unlocking the full potential of farmers to increase their production of sustainable energy, which is currently underexploited; thereby creating new rural jobs and adding an additional revenue stream to the income of farmers;

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2056(INI)

George LYON, Lena EK, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. With regard to financial instruments, ~~support~~notes the recent Commission proposals on regulating OTC derivatives and on public consultation on the MiFID Directive; ~~believes that~~requests that the Commission investigate whether limiting speculative behaviour on derivatives markets for commodities should be limited; supports in this context the measures requiring additional information that contributes to market transparency and the proposal for position limits, both aimed at limiting massive speculative behaviouagricultural commodities would result in reduced price volatility; is in favour of increased transparency and effective regulation of financial markets ; asks the Commission for an evaluation regarding future derivatives and commodities regulation as to whether separate regulation is needed for the agricultural commodities, given the specificity of the sector;

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2056(INI)

George LYON, Lena EK, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Deplores the fact that too much agricultural waste is currently not used to its full potential; considers that agricultural waste should be seen as an asset and therefore asks the Commission to investigate new means of using it as raw materials for other sectors;

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2056(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Asks the Commission to include these concerns in its strategy and to propose concrete measures to ensure food security ~~and~~, tackle market instability a~~s a matter of urgency.~~ nd decide whether agricultural commodities require separate regulation due to the specificity of the sector as a matter of urgency and before the finalisation of the EMIR and MiFID directives.

2011/05/31
Committee: AGRI

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)

– having regard to the revised European Social Charter, in particular Articles 30 (on the right to protection against poverty and social exclusion), 31 (on the right to housing) and 16 (on the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection) thereof,

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the most vulnerable groups have been those most severely affected by the crisis and the associated austerity measures,; whereas 116 million people in the European Union are at risk of poverty and 42 million (i.e. 8%) live ‘in conditions of severe material deprivation and can not afford a number of necessities considered essential in order to live a decent life in Europe’1, __________________ 1 The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (COM(2010)758 final).

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas severe poverty represents a violation of human rights and a serious erosion of human dignity,

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Frédéric DAERDEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Karima DELLI, Jean LAMBERT, Isabelle DURANT, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Patrick LE HYARIC

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Europe 2020 strategy aims to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty by 20 million, on the basis of three indicators (the at-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers, the material deprivation index and the percentage of people living in jobless households); whereas, given the figures of 116 million at risk of poverty and 42 million living in conditions of severe material deprivation, this aim, while it may be an acknowledgement of the importance of combating poverty and social exclusion, reflects the abandonment from the outset of millions of people in Europe, with the associated risk of generating threshold effects and excluding the most vulnerable people from the scope of policies geared to measurable results,

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Karima DELLI, Jean LAMBERT, Isabelle DURANT, Mara BIZZOTTO, Vincenzo IOVINE, Marian HARKIN, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Robert ROCHEFORT, Antigoni PAPADOPOULOU, Patrick LE HYARIC, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Rovana PLUMB, Ádám KÓSA, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Ccalls on the Commission to ~~involve civil society at national and European level and to make discussions with people living in poverty a formal part of the annual convention on poverty~~boost the involvement in the development of a European strategy at all levels of governance (European, national, regional and local) of organised civil society and of all stakeholders, such as NGOs, social economy organisations, service providers, experts in social innovation and the social partners, as well as people living in poverty themselves, in partnership with the associations in which they freely express their opinions and which have acquired experience and knowledge, particularly through the development of national platforms against poverty and social exclusion in each Member State; calls on the Commission to enhance cooperation between local, regional and national authorities and European Institutions, particularly the European Parliament; believes that the synergies should concern all stakeholders, including SMEs and entrepreneurs; calls for discussions with people living in poverty and social exclusion to be institutionalised, and to be extended at national level, and for their participation and contribution to be made a formal and central part of the annual convention on poverty and social exclusion, and calls for appropriate and regular follow-up of the recommendations so developed;

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the Commission’s new strategy for implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights aims, in particular, to improve the most disadvantaged people’s access to fundamental rights; whereas the Charter must be respected in its entirety and whereas severe poverty represents a violation of human rights and a serious erosion of human dignity and encourages stigmatisation and injustice; whereas the key objective of income support schemes is to bring people out of poverty and enable them to live in dignity,

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Patrick LE HYARIC, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Karima DELLI, Jean LAMBERT, Isabelle DURANT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls for poverty awareness seminars to be organised in the European institutions and Member State governments by organisations which have specific experience of combating poverty and for experiments in joint training on social and exclusion issues to be made, bringing together European officials and people with hands-on experience of combating poverty;

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Franz OBERMAYR, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Robert ROCHEFORT, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Patrick LE HYARIC, Karima DELLI, Isabelle DURANT, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Frédéric DAERDEN, Philippe BOULLAND, Joanna Katarzyna SKRZYDLEWSKA, Rovana PLUMB

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for ~~regular, critical monitoring of~~the establishment of a regular, critical evaluation mechanism, involving the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, based on precise indicators at national and European level, by which the multiple dimensions of poverty can be evaluated and the Member States’ progress, by gender and age, towards achieving the poverty reduction target, and towards breaking this target down into sub-targets, can be measured, in view of the fact that the lack of a precise definition of poverty leaves too much leeway for the Member States, t~~o break this target down into sub-targets;~~ hus risking aberrant interpretations; calls on the Commission to improve national and European indicators relating to the comparability of national statistics on the poverty of vulnerable people and to promote, with Eurostat, the production of more precise statistics within a comprehensive scoreboard on poverty and social exclusion by means of which it will be possible to track the number of people below the 50% and 40% levels of median income and on this basis to conduct an annual evaluation of the situations of poverty in the EU, the statistical approach of which should be supplemented by a qualitative and participatory approach; calls on the Commission to ensure the policies implemented are beneficial to all and not just to those close to the poverty threshold;

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Karima DELLI, Isabelle DURANT, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Patrick LE HYARIC, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO

Motion for a resolution
Considérant C

C. whereas the Europe 2020 strategy a~~ims to~~dopts, as one of its five major objectives, a soft target, i.e. one without sanctions, aiming at reduceing the number of people at risk of poverty by 20 million, on the basis of three indicators agreed by Member States (the at-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers, the severe material deprivation index and the percentage of people living in jobless households), and whereas this aim may be an acknowledgement of the importance of combating poverty and social exclusion but, given the figures of 116 million at risk of poverty and 42 million living in conditions of severe material deprivation, it reflects the abandonment from the outset of millions of people in Europe, with the associated risk of generating threshold effects and excluding the most vulnerable people from the scope of policies geared to measurable results; whereas if the most intractable situations are not addressed from the outset, the policies implemented will have no impact on them; whereas the European Platform against poverty constitutes one of the seven flagship initiatives of the EU 2020 strategy,

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ, Jan KOZŁOWSKI, Karima DELLI, Jean LAMBERT, Frédéric DAERDEN, Alejandro CERCAS, Pervenche BERÈS, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Patrick LE HYARIC, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls ~~for it to be made clear that the Commission will be legally accountable in~~ on the Commission to fully take account of the correct horizontal social clause as specified in Article 9 TFEU, under which the EU is to take into account 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 and protection of human health, and calls for the Commission to specify how the Platform will affect assessments of the implementation of that clause; calls for the social impact assessments of European policies to go into greater depthe, even~~t that the horizontal social clause is not applied, and calls for the Commission to specify how the Platform will affect assessments of the implementation of that clause~~ where those policies are not initiated by the Commission but by the European Council, as in the case of the Euro Plus pact; considers that such an in- depth analysis of the application of this clause will make it possible to avoid a levelling-down of social standards in Europe and to promote the development of a common social basis in Europe; calls for this social impact assessment to be made with the associations active in combating poverty and to take account of the situation of the poorest people in Europe as a reference; considers that these assessments should involve the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Commission’s departments responsible for social affairs under the responsibility of a director- general reporting to the General Secretariat of the European Commission;

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Karima DELLI, Jean LAMBERT, Isabelle DURANT, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Patrick LE HYARIC, Ilda FIGUEIREDO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission ~~to specify th~~, in consultation with the European Central Bank, to propose common principles ~~used~~ to define the ‘basket of basic goods and services’ ~~accessible to all;~~ required to enable everyone to live in dignity, and points out that these immediate needs are inseparable from respect for human dignity and effective access to all fundamental rights – whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural – without exception; calls for the target of price stability to be clarified so as to allow specific national situations to be taken into account that do not necessarily have a significant impact on the euro- system indicators;

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Karima DELLI, Jean LAMBERT, Frédéric DAERDEN, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Patrick LE HYARIC, Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ, Jan KOZŁOWSKI, Konstantinos POUPAKIS, Ádám KÓSA, Elizabeth LYNNE, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Sylvie GOULARD, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Calls on the Commission to initiate a horizontal anti-discrimination directive with a view to further eradicating discrimination;~~ Urges the Member States to agree and adopt as soon as possible the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426); calls on the Commission to continue to support the overcoming of technical difficulties within the Council in order to ensure a swift agreement is reached, and to close gaps in the existing anti-discrimination legislation which is currently not covering all relevant aspects, with a view to further eradicating discrimination, including social discrimination; Note: A citation referring to the Kosa report will be added by oral amendment.

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Roger HELMER, Karima DELLI, Jean LAMBERT, Frédéric DAERDEN, Isabelle DURANT, Joanna Katarzyna SKRZYDLEWSKA, Ádám KÓSA, Kinga GÖNCZ, Vincenzo IOVINE, Marian HARKIN, Ilda FIGUEIREDO, Patrick LE HYARIC, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ, Konstantinos POUPAKIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Advocates~~Recommends the Member States to adopt a proactive decent housing policy in order to ensure universal access to ~~decent, affordable housing~~quality housing at affordable prices or on preferential terms of purchase, and to prevent the loss thereof, with guaranteed access to services essential to health and safety, the lack of such housing being a serious affront to dignity, along with a proactive energy policy that steps up the use of renewable energies and boosts energy efficiency in order to combat energy poverty; calls for more attention to be paid to housing for migrants, who are often exploited and forced to live in sub- standard housing; recalls Protocol 26 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon on social housing and calls for the provisions contained therein to be respected, in particular on the Member States’ freedom to organise social housing, including the question of financing; encourages the Member States to implement special housing programmes and opportunities for homeless people, in view of guaranteeing the most basic standards of living for the most vulnerable in society;

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Frédéric DAERDEN, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Patrick LE HYARIC, Kinga GÖNCZ, Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ, Jan KOZŁOWSKI, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Thomas MANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls for the fight against child poverty to focus on prevention through the provision of equal access to high-quality early childhood ~~services~~education and care services, in order to prevent children from starting school life with multiple disadvantages, and to other provisions for children (activity centres during the school period and holidays, etc., extracurricular, cultural, sports activities, etc.), ensuring that the network of such services and centres covers all areas adequately; calls for financial support for proven services and the systematic integration of family-support policies in all relevant areas of activity, combining a universal approach with targeted measures for the most vulnerable families, in particular the families of handicapped children, single-parent families and large families; calls for the relationship between parents and children to be given particular attention in programmes to combat poverty and social exclusion in order to prevent children being placed in care as a consequence of severe poverty;

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Karima DELLI, Isabelle DURANT, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Patrick LE HYARIC, Mara BIZZOTTO, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Robert ROCHEFORT, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Evelyn REGNER, Jutta STEINRUCK, Sylvana RAPTI, Verónica LOPE FONTAGNÉ, Jan KOZŁOWSKI, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas ~~the most vulnerable groups have been those most severely affected by the crisis and the associated austerity measures,~~ 116 million people in the European Union are at risk of poverty and 42 million (i.e. 8%) live ‘in conditions of severe material deprivation and can not afford a number of necessities considered essential in order to live a decent life in Europe’1; whereas poverty is the unacceptable reflection of an uneven distribution of wealth, income and resources in a prosperous European economy; whereas the most vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and disabled people, have been those most severely affected by the financial, economic and social crisis and the austerity measures currently being taken in the EU in the context of the ‘Euro Plus Pact’ and the ‘governance package’, which could worsen the situation for these groups and put at risk of unemployment, economic insecurity or poverty millions of people who were still managing to live on, and meet their basic needs from, their wages or retirement pension, notably as a result of cuts in public service and social assistance budgets; whereas applying tougher conditions and penalties in social activation policies in response to the crisis aggravates the difficulties faced by the most vulnerable people at a time when few decent jobs are on offer; whereas the gap between rich and poor is getting ever wider as the crisis continues; __________________ 1 European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (COM(2010)758 final).

2011/09/09
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to involve civil society at national and European level, a~~nd to make discussions with people living in poverty a formal part of the annual convention on poverty~~s well as people living in poverty themselves, in partnership with the associations in which they freely express their opinions;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls for poverty awareness seminars to be organised in the European institutions and Member State governments by organisations which have specific experience of combating poverty;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for regular, critical monitoring of the Member States’ progress towards achieving the poverty reduction target, and for the Member States to break this target down into sub-targets; calls on the European Commission to draw up a scoreboard by means of which it will be possible to track the number of people below the 50% and 40% levels of median income and to ensure the policies implemented are beneficial to all and not just to those close to the poverty threshold, and also calls on the European Commission, in collaboration with Eurostat, to draw up a comprehensive scoreboard on poverty and social exclusion to be published each year, the statistical approach of which should be supplemented by a qualitative and participatory approach; this scoreboard should complement the scoreboard on macroeconomic imbalances created to prevent and correct macroeconomic imbalances and evaluated annually; it should be referred to in the annual report provided for in Article 11 of the Regulation on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for it to be made clear that the Commission will be legally accountable in the event that the horizontal social clause is not applied, and calls for the Commission to specify how the Platform will affect assessments of the implementation of that clause; calls for this assessment of the social impact of European policies to be carried out with the persons concerned, taking the poorest amongst them as a reference, and for the fight against poverty and for access to basic rights to be coordinated by the Commissioners responsible, under the responsibility of a director-general reporting to the General Secretariat of the European Commission;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission, in consultation with the European Central Bank, to specify the common principles used to define the ‘basket of basic goods and services’ accessible to all and to provide a definition of price stability; points out that these immediate needs are inseparable from respect for human dignity and effective access to all fundamental rights – whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural – without exception;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for the Platform to be geared towards asserting the rights which enable everyone to live in dignity, particularly in the field of employment, housing, health care, social security and adequate living standards, justice, education, training and culture, and the protection of families and children;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Sylvie GOULARD, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Jean-Luc BENNAHMIAS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for the Fundamental Rights Agency to produce a study on effective access by the poorest people to the whole range of fundamental rights and on the discrimination they face, with the participation of NGOs in which socially excluded can freely express themselves;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Commission to initiate a horizontal anti-discrimination directive with a view to further eradicating discrimination, including social discrimination;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Advocates a proactive housing policy in order to ensure universal access to decent, affordable housing, the lack of which is a serious affront to dignity, along with a proactive energy policy that steps up the use of renewable energies and boosts energy efficiency;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2052(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls for the fight against child poverty to focus on prevention through the provision of access to early childhood services, ensuring that the network of such services covers all areas adequately; calls for the relationship between parents and children to be given particular attention in programmes to combat poverty in order to prevent children being placed in care as a consequence of severe poverty;

2011/06/28
Committee: EMPL

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Lena EK, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas there should not be any differentiation in the treatment of farmers according to size of holding and legal form for the purpose of direct payments, although the possibility of introducing a basic allowance for small farmers should not be excluded,deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Sylvie GOULARD, Vincenzo IOVINE, Lena EK, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Insists, in line with the Commission Communication, that direct payments be distributed to active farmers only, defined according to appropriate objective and non-discriminatory criteria granting the possibility of support to all natural or legal persons whose agricultural activity forms a significant part of their economic activities, or whose principal business or company object consists of exercising an agricultural activity, in line with Article 28(2) of Regulation EC No. 73/2009;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14c. Calls for Member States, on a compulsory basis, to choose at least 2 to 3 measures from that EU list according to their priorities; Notes that in order to take account of the diversity of agricultural practices, productions, and ecosystems which characterises some of the Member States, the choice of measures may differ in different regions within a Member State;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD, Lena EK, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)

14d. Believes that the EU has a role to play in meeting the challenges of food security and energy security, and therefore needs to ensure that agriculture plays a full role in meeting both these challenges; Believes therefore, that it is inappropriate for compulsory set-aside to be included in the list of sustainability measures as proposed by the Commission;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 f (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 g (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

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

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls on the Commission to submit by 30 June 2016 a report setting out comprehensively how livestock farming in Europe can be safeguarded in the long term with regard to multifunctionality and regional aspects (such as mountain areas, Nordic regions and extremely remote areas) and also dealing with the question of how far the aims of the CAP can be realised in a more efficient, targeted way by means of decoupled, indirect support, e.g. premiums for extensive grassland or pasture land;deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 20

~~Resource protection and environmental policy component~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Considers therefore that any environmental advantages can be attained more effectively and directly by means of second-pillar measures adopted by the Member States, which should ideally build on existing agrienvironmental measures or should supplement measures which take into account climatic and geographical differences in the Member States; observes that resource protection programmes should be pursued everywhere by means of a priority catalogue of area-based measures in the second pillar which are subject to basic requirements, particularly in the fields of climate, environment and innovation (Annex I), and are 100% EU-financed; regards the greening of direct payments in the first pillar as lying in the fact that any recipient of direct payments in the EU must implement at least two priority area- based resource protection programmes in order to be eligible for the complete farm payment; believes that the administration involved in these measures can be minimised by managing them in accordance with the system of the existing agrienvironmental programmes, thus avoiding duplication of monitoring and additional application and administration procedures;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 c (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 d (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 32

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Sylvie GOULARD, Giommaria UGGIAS, Britta REIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Considers that a m~~ulti-stage~~inimum safety net comprising private storage, and public intervention, market disruption instruments and an emergency clause would confer the greatest possible benefit; calls for private storage and public intervention to be permitted for specific sectors where market disruptions are of limited duration; calls furthermo should be available to tackle market crisis and believes the Commission must have the powers and the resources to react quickly to a major crisis; considers there for a market disruption instrument and an emergency clause to be established for all sectors in common, making it possible for the Commission, under certain circumstances, in the event of crises to take action over a limited period which goes beyond the existing instrumene, that a special reserve budget line which could be swiftly activated should be made available in future EU budgets to provide a rapid reaction tool in the event of severe crises in the agricultural markets;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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 the same standards, to ensure fair 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; supports clear labelling which highlights the geographical origin of products;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Calls on the Commission to ~~investigate whether the current arrangement whereby~~maintain the planting rights currently granted under the wsingle market organisation ~~ban on planting is to expire should be maintained, in view of anticipated market trends~~, in view of the specific nature of this sector;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 48

Pillar 2: Rural development

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

George LYON, Richard ASHWORTH, Marit PAULSEN, Liam AYLWARD, Sylvie GOULARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Advocates therefore introducing targeted measures, to be decided by the Member States in the second pillar, to attain priority objectives of the EU (2020 Strategy); observes that these measures should be applied in addition to the basic programmes for greening of direct payments in the first pillar and that a reduced national cofinancing rate of 25% should apply, for a targeted approach under the second pillar, with sufficient flexibility left to Member States and regions to prioritise their rural development programmes at key priorities providing instruments to achieve the EU 2020 Strategy objectives;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 b (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 c (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 d (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 a (new)

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. Calls for simplification and a review of the ~~cross-compliance rule~~requirements and controls for the second pillar, considers simplification of the current indicator system to be necessary ~~and takes a critical view of the introduction of quantitative targets~~;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 57

~~Miscellaneous~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2051(INI)

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

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

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the development of the world economy during the last decades generally has been remarkably successful, with the number of people living in relative prosperity increasing from one to four billion, but this development has not remedied inequalities, with the result that more than one billion people are still living below the poverty threshold and, according to statistics from the International Labour Organisation for 2009, nearly 40% of workers are living in poverty, thus justifying the European Union’s decision to make combating poverty one of the priorities of the EU 2020 strategy,

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas the development of the global economy in recent decades has suffered from unsustainable imbalances,

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas effective global economic governance would make it possible to minimise the negative impacts and correct the dangerous effects of globalisation, such as the rise in inequality or destruction of the environment,

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas it is essential to ensure that economic and financial systems do not harm the real economy,

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that an imbalance as such does not necessarily constitute a threat to financial stability or economic growth; taking this into account, stresses that imbalances stemming from structural misalignments and a lack of competitiveness in the domestic economy should be addressed, as this is where the fundamental problems are to be foundupports the work and commitments of G20 States to implement medium-term fiscal consolidation, pursuing appropriate monetary policies, enhancing exchange rate flexibility to better reflect underlying economic fundamentals, and structural reforms to foster job creation and contribute to global rebalancing;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Supports the establishment of a timetable for an ambitious action plan that will implement the G20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Considers that one of the priority objectives of global economic governance should be to create a framework conducive to long-term investment;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Stresses that an imbalance as such does not necessarily constitute a threat to financial stability or economic growth; stresses, however, that it is important to remedy a certain number of imbalances which give rise to fundamental problems;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

~~2. Recognises that policy-makers around the world have already proposed different solutions and reforms of global financial governance to help rebalance the world economy and avoid another slump;~~deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Is aware that, ultimately, confidence in the strength of the underlying economy and the depth and sophistication of its financial markets are the main determinants for which currencies are kept as reserves by central banks;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Supports the work and commitments of G20 States to implement medium-term fiscal consolidation, pursuing appropriate monetary policies, enhancing exchange rate flexibility to better reflect underlying economic fundamentals, and structural reforms to foster job creation and contribute to global rebalancing;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

~~8. Supports the establishment of a timetable for an action plan that will implement the G20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth;~~deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Takes the view that the commitments given in the G20 need to be more concrete and that progress needs to be monitored by an independent body~~, such as the IMF~~;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Stresse~~Recalls the need to ~~agree a set of~~perform macroeconomic ~~indicators that will allow this monitoring to take place at a global level; underlines that these indicators should cover internal imbalances, such as~~monitoring at a global level; warmly welcomes therefore the adoption of a series of indicators at G20 level; is gratified that these indicators cover not only public debt and deficits ~~and~~but also private savings and debt, ~~as well as external imbalances from trade and investment flows and transfer~~in order to take into account internal imbalances; deplores, however, the fact that exchange rates and competitiveness are not among the indicators chosen, although they are useful for the purpose of assessing external imbalances;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Stresses that financial actors are evolving at global level and therefore considers it necessary to remedy very speedily the lacunae in coordination of financial regulation in order to prevent certain financial actors from taking advantage of regulatory arbitrage;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Calls on the various international forums to continue with their efforts in relation to the issue of excessive salaries in the financial sector, and to develop comprehensive and balanced responses;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Stresses that the European Union must play a leading role in global economic reform to make international institutions more legitimate, transparent and accountable;~~ Takes the view that global economic governance must enhance the complementarity of legitimate supra- national institutions operating in specific sectors, which act as shock absorbers and help to preserve global financial stability; emphasises, however, that institutional forums (such as the G7, G10 and G20) play a significant role in those areas in which the decision-making process continues to be confined to national level, in helping to develop standards and codes and facilitating the coordination of macro-economic policies;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Maintains that global economic governance must be sufficiently responsive, flexible and pragmatic to make it possible to establish which arrangements are the most suitable, depending on the circumstances and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Stresses that the European Union must play a leading role in global economic reform to make international institutions and informal forums more legitimate, transparent and accountable;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12c. Notes that these institutions and forums, in particular the G20, lack a certain parliamentary legitimacy at the global level, and consequently calls on them to involve parliaments in their decision-making processes; deplores the democratic shortcomings of some partners;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)

12d. Considers the G20 to be a crucial stage in, and a key forum for, global cooperation, notwithstanding issues of representativeness; calls, therefore, for adjustments to ensure more satisfactory representation of the states within it, and for similar adjustments to international economic and financial institutions;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 e (new)

12e. Notes the problems that may arise if the policies pursued by the various informal forums and international economic and financial institutions lack coherence; maintains that measures to promote global institutional coordination should be adopted via the IMF;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines the need for a global understanding and a common approach regarding monetary policy, sustainable public finances and flexible currencies based on economic fundamentals; considers that the global economy should be characterised by free trade in ~~all sectors~~most sectors, where this is possible in the light of extra-economic conditions of production (such as social and environmental conditions); stresses that the IMF and WTO should be the core of such a process, with input from the G20 and other relevant bodies;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Recommends a strong and independent IMF with sufficient tools and resources enabling it to increase its attention to cross- country linkages by not only strengthening multilateral surveillance but also focussing on economies of systemic importance ~~and developing indicators to assess durable large imbalances~~;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Emphasises the importance of the international initiatives undertaken in the areas of accounting and audit standards, for example; notes, accordingly, that the IMF and the G20 are not the only players in global economic governance;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers the G20 to be a key forum for global cooperation, but also underlines a lack of representativeness; stresses that actions for global institutional coordination should be carried out through the IMF;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Emphasises the progress made in the European Union thanks to the establishment of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs); hopes that this experience can yield valuable lessons for the establishment of a financial supervisory system at the global level;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Stresses the need to give European financial supervisory bodies a clear mandate to work in close cooperation with their non-EU or international counterparts, as the ESRB does with the Financial Stability Board (FSB);

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16c. Stresses the need to combine micro- and macro-prudential supervision as part of a coherent, uniform approach;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Recommends an enhanced macro- prudential dialogue, with a focus on the Atlantic dialogue, even-handed implementation of the ~~Basel III package~~principles of the Basel III package – with due regard for the existing range of banking structures – and further discussions on widening the scope of supervision to non-bank financial institutions;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Welcomes the establishment of the Global Economy Meeting of central bank governors under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as a reference group for the organisation of cooperation among central banks;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Is concerned about the risk of fragmentation as a result of the variety of regulations affecting the activities of global financial players; calls, therefore, for a greater degree of integration between the mechanisms put in place in different sectors;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Recalls that, under Article 138 of the Lisbon Treaty, the eurozone is supposed to introduce unified external representation; urges the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to that effect;

2011/05/24
Committee: ECON

2011/0442(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) The countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean referred to in this Regulation consist of member countries of the Union for the Mediterranean that are located on the southern and eastern shoreline of the Mediterranean and Jordan which is closely integrated into that region.

2012/03/23
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) Under a redemption fund, the debt above the reference value laid down in Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure could be transferred to a common fund subject to joint liability. A consolidation path would need to be laid down for each Member State according to which it would be obliged to autonomously redeem the transferred debt over a period of 20 to 25 years.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article -1 (new)

Article -1 Economic dialogue The competent committee of the European Parliament may invite the President of the Council, the Commission and, where appropriate, the President of the European Council or the President of the Eurogroup, to appear before the committee to discuss Council decisions under Article 126(6) TFEU, Council recommendations under Article 126(7) TFEU, notices under Article 126(9) TFEU or Council decisions under Article 126(11) TFEU. The competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to the Member State concerned by the closer monitoring referred to in Article 6(6) to participate in an exchange of views. The Council and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of the application of this Regulation.

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. To that end, as a special agreement among Member States to go beyond Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the annual structural balance of the general government shall not exceed a country-specific reference value, with a limit of a structural deficit of 0,5% of GDP. Where the general government debt level is significantly below 60% of GDP and risks to long-term fiscal sustainability are low, the country- specific reference value for the annual structural balance of the general government may reach a limit of a structural deficit of at most 1% of nominal GDP.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

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

1b. 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. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts further specifying the nature, size and time frame of the correction mechanism, including in the case of exceptional circumstances.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

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

1c. 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 5 – subparagraph 1

5. Where the Commission identifies particularly serious 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 and the Commission shall explain its request in front of the competent committee of the European Parliament.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission shall make an overall assessment of the budgetary situation and prospects in the euro area as a whole. The ~~assessment shall be made public~~Commission shall present in public its overall assessment to the competent committee of the European Parliament.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. The Eurogroup and the competent committee of the European Parliament shall discuss opinions of the Commission on the national budgetary plans ~~and~~. They shall also discuss the budgetary situation and prospects in the euro area as a whole on the basis of the overall assessment made by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3. The assessment shall be made public.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

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

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 report shall be made public. The competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to the Member State concerned to participate in an exchange of views.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0386(COD)

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

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. The competent committee of the European Parliament may offer the opportunity to the Member State concerned by the closer monitoring referred to in paragraph 6 to participate in an exchange of views.

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)

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 ~~outside the framework of the Union~~.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)

(5a) According to the case-law of the European Court of Justice of the European Union1, the free movement of capital, as a fundamental principle of the TFEU, can be limited by national regulation if this is justified for public- security reasons, which can include the fight against tax evasion, in particular for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area. _____________ 1 See Cases C-463/00 and C-174/04.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 b (new)

(5b) Such tax evasion represents a shortfall, which can be equal or even superior to the amount of the financial assistance from one or several Member States, the IMF, the EFSF, the EFSM or the ESM, and first and foremost results from the faulty implementation of the national tax policy.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Carl HAGLUND, Philippe DE BACKER, Sylvie GOULARD

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 c (new)

(5c) Upon a proposal by the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank, the Council can authorise restrictions concerning third countries responsible for movements of capital dangerous for the functioning of the EMU, in accordance with Article 66 TFEU.

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, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD

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 6 a (new)

Article 6a Measures to safeguard the tax revenues 1. The Member State concerned shall take, in accordance with Article 65 TFEU and in close cooperation with the Commission and in liaison with the ECB, measures aimed at preventing infringements of national law and regulations in particular in the field of taxation. 2. The Member State concerned shall request the Commission to make a proposal to the Council, in accordance with Article 66 TFEU, to take safeguard measures regarding movements of capital to or from third countries causing, or threatening to cause, serious difficulties for the operation of the economic and monetary union. The Commission shall consult the ECB.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

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

2011/0385(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)

Article 13a The Council and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of the application of this Regulation.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

2011/0385(COD)

Sylvie GOULARD, Liam AYLWARD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 b (new)

Article 13b Commission report on representation in international financial institutions Before 31 December 2012 and in accordance with Article 138(2) TFEU, the Commission shall submit a proposal to the Council to adopt appropriate measures to ensure unified representation within the international financial institutions and conferences and in particular the IMF. The Council shall act after consulting the European Central Bank.

2012/03/13
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a regulation
ANNEX III – Thematic sub-programme 2– point 9 a (new)

- Schemes ensuring access to quality food at affordable prices for all members of society

2012/07/26
Committee: AGRI

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The European System of Financial Supervisors should be a network of national and ~~Community~~European Union supervisory authorities, leaving day-to-day supervision of financial ~~market participant at the national level, and according a central role in the supervision of~~institutions that have no EU dimension at the national level. Colleges of Supervisors shall exert supervision of institutions operating as cross- border ~~groups to colleges of supervisors~~s that have no EU dimension. The Authority shall gradually take over supervision of institutions with European Union dimension. Greater harmonisation and the coherent application of rules for financial ~~market participant~~institutions and markets across the ~~Community~~Union should also be achieved. A European Securities and Markets Authority should be established, along with a European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions ~~Authority and~~) and a European Supervisory Authority (Banking) as well as a European ~~Banking~~Supervisory Authority (~~the European Supervisory Authorities).~~ Joint Committee). The European Systemic Risk Board shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervision.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) There is a need to introduce an effective instrument to establish harmonised technical standards in financial services to ensure, also through a single rulebook, a level playing field and an adequate protection of depositors, investors and consumers across Europe. As a body with highly specialised expertise, it is efficient and appropriate to entrust the Authority, in areas defined by ~~Community~~Union law, with the elaboration of draft technical standards, which do not involve policy choices. When drafting the technical standards the Authority should take into consideration the different structures and risk profiles of financial institutions. In particular, the Authorities should seek to ensure that unnecessary burden is not placed on financial institutions that are Union-based, member-owned and play an important role with regards to combating social exclusion. The Commission should endorse those draft technical standards in accordance with ~~Community~~Union law in order to give them binding legal effect. The draft technical standards have to be adopted by the Commission. They would be subject to amendment if, for example, the draft technical standards were incompatible with ~~Community~~Union Law, would not respect the principle of proportionality or would run counter to the fundamental principles of the internal market for financial services as reflected in the acquis of ~~Community~~Union financial services legislation. To ensure a smooth and expedited adoption process for those standards, the Commission should be subject to a time limit for its decision on the endorsement.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33 a (new)

(33a) Non-profit organisations in comparison to well funded and well connected industry representatives, are marginalised in the debate on the future of financial services and in the corresponding decision making process. This disadvantage has to be compensated by adequate funding of their representatives in the Securities and Market Stakeholder group.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

2 a. The Authority shall also act within the field of the activities covered by the legislation referred to in paragraph 2, including matters relating to shareholder rights, corporate governance, auditing, financial reporting, provided that such actions by the Authority are necessary to ensure the effective and consistent application of the legislation referred to in paragraph 2. The Authority shall also take appropriate action in the context of takeover bids, clearing and settlement issues, securitisation, short selling and derivative issues including standardization.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. The objective of the Authority shall be to contribute to: (i) improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, (ii) protecting ~~protect~~ investors, (iii) ensuring the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, (iv) safeguarding the stability of the financial system, ~~and~~ (v) strengthening international supervisory coordination and (vi) preventing regulatory arbitrage and contributing to a level playing field. For this purpose, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the ~~Community~~Union law referred to in Article 1(2) above, fostering supervisory convergence and providing opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. The objective of the Authority shall be to contribute to: (i) improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, (ii) protecting ~~protect~~ investors, (iii) ensuring the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, (iv) safeguarding the stability of the financial system, and (v) strengthening international supervisory coordination. For this purpose, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the ~~Community law~~EU legislation referred to in Article 1(2) above, fostering supervisory convergence and providing opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. It shall undertake an economic analysis of markets to promote the achievement of the Authority's objectives.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1

The Authority shall have its seat in ~~Paris.~~ Frankfurt.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f a (new)

(f a) establish databases in the area of its competence and, where specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2). The collected information has to be accessible to all market participants and should contain key information about registered market participants, products, misbehaviour and transactions if obligation of disclosure is specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2);

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f b (new)

(f b) foster investor protection, in particular by ensuring the enforcement of the harmonized EU regulations on product disclosure and selling processes to all retail investors for all retail investment products and services. EBA and EIOPA shall provide all the necessary support and cooperation to enable ESMA to properly execute this task;

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)

(ea) prohibit the trading of certain products or types of transactions to prevent damage to investor protection, the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union;

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

For that purpose, the Authority shall have appropriate powers of investigation and enforcement as specified in the relevant legislation, as well as the possibility of charging fees. The Authority may use the facilities and powers of the competent authorities to execute the exclusive supervisory powers and carry out investigations.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

The Authority shall execute any exclusive supervisory powers over Central Clearing Houses as well as over Credit Rating Agencies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies1. __________ 1 OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p.1.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

1. The Authority may develop technical standards into complete and modify elements theat are~~as specifically set out in~~ not essential to the legislationve acts referred to in Article 1(2). The ~~Authority sh~~technicall s~~ubmit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement~~tandards do not represent strategic decisions and their content shall be limited by the legislation on which they are based.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

~~Before submitting them to the Commission, the Authority shall, where appropriate,~~The Authority shall conduct open public consultations on technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits before adopting draft technical standards. The Authority shall also request an opinion or advice of the Securities and Market Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 22.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Drafting technical standards the Authority shall take into consideration the full variety of different players on financial markets and the different effects of the standards on all sorts of market participants.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 b (new)

The Authority shall submit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement and at the same time to the European Parliament and the Council.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

Within three months of receipt of the draft standards, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse, reject or amend the draft standards. The Commission may extend that period by one month. The Commission ~~may endorse the draft standards only in part or with amendments where the Community interest so require~~shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of its decision, stating the reasons.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4

~~Where the Commission does not endorse the standards or endorses them in part or with amendments, it shall inform the Authority of its reasons.~~deleted

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. The ~~standards~~Commission shall be adopt~~ed by the Commission by means of Regulations or Decisions and published in the Official Journal of the European Un~~ delegated acts in accordance with Articles 7a to 7d, designed to establish the technical standards referred to in paragraph 1. Those acts shall be in the form of regulations or decisions.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

The Authority shall conduct open public consultations on guidelines and recommendations and analyse the potential related costs and benefits. The Authority shall also request an opinion or advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 22.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The Authority may issue technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted under Articles 7 and 8 to harmonise supervisory functioning and best practices adopted by the colleges of supervisors.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The Authority may assign the tasks and responsibilities of the prudential supervision of financial institutions with EU dimension as referred to in Article 12a to the competent authorities in the Member States.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

(c) contribute to developing high quality and uniform supervisory standards, including accounting and reporting standards;

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point 4 a (new)

(4a) taking all appropriate measures in situations of financial instability and crisis with a view to facilitating the coordination of actions undertaken by relevant national competent supervisory authorities;

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1

~~Without prejudice to the competences of the Community Institutions, t~~The Authority ~~may~~shall develop contacts with supervisory authorities from third countries. It may enter into administrative arrangements with international organisations and the administrations of third countries.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

The Authority shall contribute in the representation of the European Union in all international fora concerning the regulation and supervision of the institutions falling under the legislation referred to in Article 1(2).

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 7a to 7d for the purpose of making equivalence assessments referred to in the second paragraph.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

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

The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals. Those requests shall use common reporting formats to be fulfilled, where appropriate, at a consolidated level.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2

2 The Authority shall cooperate closely with the ESRB. It shall provide the ESRB with regular and up-to-date information necessary for the achievement of its tasks. Any data necessary for the achievement of its tasks that are not in summary or collective form shall be provided without delay to the ESRB upon a reasoned request, as specified in Article [15] of Regulation (ECU) No …./… [ESRB]. The Authority shall develop an adequate protocol for the disclosure of confidential information regarding individual financial institutions.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

1. For the purpose of consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, a Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall be established. The Stakeholder Group shall be consulted on all relevant decisions and actions of the authority. If case of urgency immediate consultation is impossible, the Stakeholder Group has to be informed about the decision as quick as possible.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1

2. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions ~~Community~~Union financial market participants, their employees as well as consumers, investors and users of financial services.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1 a (new)

Not less than 5 of the members shall be independent top-ranking academics.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1 b (new)

The number of members representing professional market participants including their employees shall not exceed 15. At least 5 of them have to be representatives of the employees.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 - subparagraph 2

The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall meet ~~at least twice a year~~quarterly.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 - subparagraph 2

~~In making its decision, the Board of Supervisors shall, to the extent possible, ensure an appropriate geographical balance and representation of stakeholders across the Community.~~deleted

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 - subparagraph 3 a (new)

Adequate financial compensation shall be established for members of the stakeholder group representing non-profit organisations.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5

5. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group ~~may~~shall submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue ~~related to the tasks of the Authority specified in Articles 7 and 8~~. Any conflict of interest of members of the Securities and Market Stakeholder Group has to be disclosed whenever the Stakeholder Group issues opinions and advice.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6

6. The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group shall adopt its rules of procedure and designate its chairperson from amongst its members.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1

1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted under Articles 10 or 11 impinges ~~in any way~~directly in a significant manner on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

2. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken under Article 11 impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority and the Commission within ~~one month~~ten working days after notification of the Authority's decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

In its notification, the Member State shall justify why and ~~clearly demonstrate how~~provide an impact assessment on how much the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5

Where the Authority maintains its decision, the Council~~, acting by~~ shall take a decision whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revoked on the basis of a qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article ~~205~~16(4) of the Treaty~~, shall, within two months, decide whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revoked~~ on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, at a meeting no later than two months after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in subparagraph 4.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

The Council, acting by qualified majority as defined in Article ~~205~~16 of the Treaty on European Union, shall, within ten working days, decide whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revoked.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f a (new)

(f a) two representatives of the Securities and Market Stakeholder Group who shall be non- voting. Not more than one of them has to be a representative of the professional market participants or their employees.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Only those supervisory authorities included in the European System of Financial Supervisors shall be entitled to supervise financial institutions operating in the European Union.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

The Commission shall draft its report taking into account the proposals made by the Securities and Market Stakeholder Group, the Board of Supervisors, and the Joint Committee. Those proposals shall be annexed to the report published by the Commission.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 b (new)

The Commission's report shall evaluate inter alia: the degree of convergence in supervisory standard practices reached by national authorities; the functioning of the colleges of supervisors; the supervision mechanism of cross-border institutions, in particular the ones with an EU dimension; the functioning of Article 23 on safeguarding and regulatory and supervisory convergence in the fields of crisis management and resolution in the Union.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0144(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

That report shall also evaluate progress achieved towards regulatory and supervisory convergence in the fields of crisis management and resolution in the ~~Commun~~Union. The report shall also evaluate the efficiency of the whole European Supervisory Authorities System and the budgetary needs of the Authority respecting increasing responsibilities, powers and tasks of the Authority. The evaluation shall be based on extensive consultation, including with the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group.

2010/03/24
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) The financial crisis in 2007/2008 exposed important shortcomings in financial supervision, both in particular cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Nationally-based supervisory models have lagged behind the integrated and interconnected reality of European financial markets, in which many financial firms operate across borders. The crisis exposed shortcomings in the area of cooperation, coordination, consistent application of ~~Community~~Union law and trust between national supervisors. (This amendment applies throughout the text.)

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The European System of Financial Supervisors should be a network of national and Community supervisory authorities, leaving day-to-day supervision of financial institutions that ~~the national level, and according a central role in the~~do not have a Union dimension to the national level. Colleges of supervisors should exert supervision ofver cross-border ~~groups to colleges of supervisors~~institutions that do not have a Union dimension. The European Supervisory Authority should gradually take over supervision of financial institutions with a Union dimension. Greater harmonisation and the coherent application of rules for financial institutions and markets across the ~~Community~~Union should also be achieved. A European ~~Banking~~Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions) (the Authority) should be established, along with a European ~~Insurance and Occupational Pensions~~Supervisory Authority (Banking) and a European S~~ecurities and Markets Authority (the European Supervisory Authorities)~~upervisory Authority (Securities and Markets as well as a European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee). The European Systemic Risk Board should form part of a European System of Financial Supervision.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The ~~European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ("the Authority")~~Authority should act with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States, to prevent regulatory arbitrage and guarantee a level playing field, to protect policyholders and other beneficiaries, to ensure the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, to safeguard the stability of the financial system, to promote supervisory convergence and to strengthen international supervisory coordination while taking account of the need to enhance competition and innovation within the internal market and to ensure global competitiveness, for the benefit of the economy at large, including financial institutions and other stakeholders, consumers and employees. In order to be able to fulfil its objectives, it is necessary and appropriate that the Authority should be a ~~Community~~Union body having legal personality and it should have legal, administrative and financial autonomy.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)

(10a) In Case C-217/04, United Kingdom v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice held that: “nothing in the wording of Article 95 TEC implies that the addressees of the measures adopted by the Community legislature on the basis of that provision can only be the individual Member States. The legislature may deem it necessary to provide for the establishment of a Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonization in situations where, in order to facilitate the uniform implementation and application of acts based on that provision, the adoption of non-binding supporting and framework measures seems appropriate1”. Measures adopted under Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) may take the form of directives or regulations. For instance, the European Network and Information Security Agency was established by Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of 10 March 20042 and also the Authority will be established by a regulation. 1 Judgment of 2 May 2006, at paragraph 44. 2 OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p.1.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) The process for the development of technical standards in this regulation is without prejudice to the Commission's powers to adopt on its own initiative implementing measures under comitology procedures at level 2 of the Lamfalussy structure as laid out in the relevant Community legislation. The matters concernCommission should endorse those draft technical standards in order to give them binding legal effect. They will be subject to amendment if, for example, they are incompatible with Union law, do not respect the principle of proportionality or run counter to the fundamental principles of the internal market for financial services as reflected byin the ~~technical standards do not involve policy decisions, and their content is framed by the Community acts adopted at Level 1. Development of the draft~~acquis of European Union financial services legislation. To ensure a smooth and expeditious adoption process for those standards by, the ~~Authority ensures that they fully benefit from the specialised expertise of national supervisory authorities~~Commission should be subject to a time limit for its decision on the endorsement.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) In areas not covered by technical standards, the Authority should have the power to issue ~~non-binding~~ guidelines and recommendations on the application of ~~Community~~EU legislation. In order to ensure transparency and strengthen compliance by national supervisory authorities with those guidelines and recommendations, national authorities should be obliged to state their reasons where they do not comply with those guidelines and recommendations publicly in order to be fully transparent with market participants. In areas not covered by technical standards, the Authority should establish and promulgate best practices.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Where the national authority does not comply with the recommendation~~, the Commission should be empowered to~~ within a deadline fixed by the Authority, the Authority should address a Decision without delay to the national supervisory authority concerned in order to ensure compliance with ~~Community~~EU law, creating direct legal effects which can be invoked before national courts and authorities and enforced under Article 22658 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union..

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) Serious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the ~~Community~~Union require a swift and concerted response at ~~Community~~Union level. The Authority should therefore be able to require national supervisory authorities 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~~The European Systemic Risk Board should establish the existence of 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~~Union law directly applicable to them aimed at mitigating the effects of the crisis and restoring confidence in the markets.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) In order to ensure efficient and effective supervision and a balanced consideration of the positions of the competent authorities in different Member States, the Authority should be able to settle disagreements between those competent authorities with binding effect, including within colleges of supervisors. A conciliation phase should be provided for, during which the competent authorities may reach an agreement. The Authority's competence should cover disagreements on procedural obligations in the cooperation process as well as on the interpretation and application of ~~Community~~Union law in supervisory decisions. Existing conciliation mechanisms provided for in sectoral legislation have to be respected. In the event of inaction by the national supervisory authorities concerned, the Authority should be empowered to adopt, as a last resort, decisions directly addressed to financial institutions in areas of ~~Community~~Union law directly applicable to them. This also applies to disagreements within a college of supervisors.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)

(21a) The crisis has exposed major fault lines in existing approaches to supervision of cross-border financial institutions, particularly the biggest and most complex institutions the bankruptcy of which is capable of producing systemic damages. Those fault lines arise from the different areas of activity of the financial institutions on the one hand and from the supervisory bodies on the other. The institutions act in a market without borders while the jurisdiction of the supervisory bodies are limited by national borders.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 b (new)

(21b) The cooperation mechanism used to solve this asynchrony has clearly been shown to be insufficient. As the Turner Review, published in March 2009, points out, "sounder arrangements require either increased national powers, implying a less open single market, or a greater degree of European integration".

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 c (new)

(21c) The Union solution calls for the reinforcement of the colleges of supervisors in the supervision of cross- border institutions and for the progressive shift of supervisory powers over institutions with a Union dimension to a Union authority. Financial institutions with a Union dimension include those operating cross-border as well as those operating within national territory provided that their bankruptcy could threaten the stability of the Union's single financial market.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 d (new)

(21d) The national solution implies more host country national powers in regulating and supervising subsidiaries of companies based in other Member States.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 e (new)

(21e) Colleges of supervisors should have the power to define supervisory rules to foster the coherent application of Union law. The Authority should have full participation rights in colleges of supervisors with a view to streamlining the functioning of the information- exchange process, to foster convergence and consistency across the colleges in the application of Union law. The Authority should act as leader in supervising cross- border financial institutions operating in the Union. The Authority should also have a binding mediation role to solve conflicts between national supervisors.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 f (new)

(21f) Colleges of supervisors should play an important role in the efficient, effective and consistent supervision of cross-border financial institutions that do not have a Union dimension, but in most cases differences between national standards and practices subsist. There is no point in converging basic financial regulations if the supervisory practices remain fragmented. As the de Larosière Report points out, "competition distortions and regulatory arbitrage stemming from different supervisory practices must be avoided, because they have the potential of undermining financial stability – inter alia by encouraging a shift of financial activity to countries with lax supervision. The supervisory system has to be perceived as fair and balanced".

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)

(22a) The prudential supervision of institutions with a Union dimension should be entrusted to the European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions). National supervisors should act as agents of the European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions) and should be bound to the Authority's instructions when they supervise cross- border institutions with a Union dimension.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 b (new)

(22b) Institutions with a Union dimension should be identified, taking into account international standards.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 c (new)

(22c) A European Insurance Guarantee Scheme (Scheme) should be established to protect policyholders, beneficiaries and institutions facing difficulties where those could menace the financial stability of the Union's single financial market. The Scheme should be financed through contributions from those institutions, through debt issued by the Scheme or, in exceptional circumstances, through contributions made by the affected Member States in accordance with criteria previously agreed upon (revised Memorandum of Understanding). The contributions to the Scheme should replace those made to the national Insurance Guarantee Schemes.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) The delegation of tasks and responsibilities can be a useful instrument in the functioning of the network of supervisors in order to reduce the duplication of supervisory tasks, foster cooperation and thereby streamline the supervisory process as well as reduce the burden imposed on financial institutions. The Regulation should therefore provide a clear legal basis for such delegation. Delegation of tasks means that tasks are carried out by another supervisory authority instead of the responsible authority, while the responsibility for supervisory decisions remains with the delegating authority. By delegation of responsibilities one national supervisory authority, the delegatee, sh~~all~~ould be able to decide upon a certain supervisory matter in its name in lieu of the Authority or in lieu of another national supervisory authority. Delegations should be governed by the principle of allocating supervisory competence to a supervisor which is well placed to take action in the subject matter. A reallocation of responsibilities can be appropriate for example for reasons of economies of scale or scope, of coherence in group supervision, and of optimal use of technical expertise among national supervisory authorities. Relevant ~~Community~~EU legislation may further specify the principles for reallocation of responsibilities upon agreement. The Authority should facilitate and monitor delegation agreements between national supervisory authorities by all appropriate means. It should be informed in advance of intended delegation agreements to be able to express an opinion where appropriate. It should centralise the publication of such agreements to ensure timely, transparent and easily accessible information about agreements for all parties concerned. It should identify and promulgate best practices regarding delegation and delegation agreements..

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) The Authority should actively promote a coordinated ~~Community~~Union supervisory response, in particular ~~where adverse developments could potentially jeopardis~~to ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the ~~Community~~Union. In addition to its powers for action in emergency situations, it should therefore be entrusted with a general coordination function ~~within the European System of Financial Supervisors~~. The smooth flow of all relevant information between competent authorities should be a particular focus of the Authority's actions.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28

(28) Given the globalisation of financial services and the increased importance of international standards, the Authority should ~~foster the dialogue and cooperation with supervisors outside the Community. It shall fully respect the existing roles and competences of the European Institutions in rel~~represent the Union in the dialogue and cooperations with ~~authoritie~~supervisors outside the ~~Community and in international forums~~Union.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33 a (new)

(33a) In comparison to well-funded and well-connected industry representatives, non-profit organisations are marginalised in the debate on the future of financial services and in the corresponding decision-making process. This disadvantage has to be compensated for by adequate funding of their representatives in the Insurance and Occupational Pensions Stakeholder group.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Regulation establishes a European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions ~~Authority~~) ("the Authority").

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5

~~5. The Authority shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervisors, hereinafter referred to as 'ESFS', which shall function as a network of supervisors, as further specified in Article 39.~~deleted

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 6

~~6. The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority shall co-operate with the European Systemic Risk Board, hereinafter referred to as 'ESRB' as laid down in Article 21 of this Regulation.~~deleted

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 a (new)

Article 1a The European System of Financial Supervision 1. The Authority shall form part of the European System of Financial Supervision, the main objective of which is to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial sector are appropriately implemented, in order to preserve financial stability and thereby to ensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and sufficient protection for the customers of financial services. 2. The European System of Financial Supervision shall comprise the following: (a) the European Systemic Risk Board, established by Regulation (EU) No .../... [ESRB]; (b) the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) established by Regulation (EU) No .../... [ESMA]; (c) the European Supervisory Authority (Banking) established by Regulation (EU) No …/…[EBA]; (d) the Authority; (e) the European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee) provided for in Article 40; (f) the authorities in the Member States referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulations (EU) No .../... [ESMA], Regulation (EU) No …/2009 [EIOPA] and Regulation (EU) No …/… [EBA]; (g) the Commission, for the purposes of carrying out the tasks referred to in Articles 7 and 9; 3. The Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely, ensure cross-sectoral consistency of work and arrive at joint positions in the area of supervision of financial conglomerates and on other cross-sectoral issues with the European Systemic Risk Board as well as with the European Supervisory Authority (Banking) and the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) through the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee) referred to in Article 40. 4. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation in accordance with Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the parties of the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular in ensuring that appropriate and reliable information flows between them.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

(b) contribute to a consistent application of ~~Community~~Union legislation, in particular by contributing to a common supervisory culture, ensuring consistent, efficient and effective application of the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), preventing regulatory arbitrage, mediating and settling disagreements between ~~national supervisory authorities, promoting~~competent authorities, ensuring effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions with a Union dimension and a coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors and taking actions, inter alia, in emergency situations;

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)

(fa) prohibit the trading of certain products or types of transactions to prevent damage to investor protection, the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union;

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f b (new)

(fb) establish databases within the area of its competence and where specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2). The collected information shall be accessible to all market participants and shall contain key information about registered market participants, products, breaches and transactions if obligation of undisclosure is specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2);

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

(fa) prohibit the trading of certain products or types of transaction to prevent damage to investor protection, the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the Union's financial system;

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

For that purpose, the Authority shall have appropriate powers of investigation and enforcement as specified in the relevant legislation, as well as the possibility of charging fees. The Authority may use the facilities and powers of the competent authorities to execute the exclusive supervisory powers and carry out investigations.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

1. The Authority may develop technical standards ~~in the areas specifically set out in~~to complete, update and modify elements that are not essential to the legislationve acts referred to in Article 1(2). The ~~Authority shall submit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement~~technical standards shall not represent strategic decisions and their content shall be limited by the legislative acts on which they are based.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

~~Before submitting them to the Commission, the Authority shall, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations on technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits~~The Authority shall conduct open public consultations with all stakeholders before issuing guidelines and recommendations and shall analyse the potential related costs and benefits before adopting draft technical standards. The Authority shall request an opinion or advice from the Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds Stakeholder Group as referred to in Article 22.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

Within three months of receipt of the draft standards, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse, reject or amend the draft standards. The Commission may extend that period by one month. The Commission ~~may endorse the draft standards only in part or with amendments where the Community interest so require~~shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of its decision, stating the reasons.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 a (new)

Article 7a Exercise of the delegation 1. The powers to adopt delegated acts laying down technical standards referred to in Article 7 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time. 2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 7b to 7d. 4. In the report referred to in Article 35, the Authority shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of the technical standards that have been approved and of any national authorities that have not complied with them.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 b (new)

Article 7b Revocation of the delegation 1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 7 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council. 2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and the possible reasons for a revocation. 3. The decision of revocation shall state the reasons for the revocation and shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the technical standards already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 c (new)

Article 7c Objections to Technical standards 1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of four months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period may be extended by two months. 2. If on the expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein. Before the expiry of that period and in exceptional and duly justified cases, the European Parliament and the Council may both inform the Commission that they do not intend to raise objections to a delegated act. In such cases, the delegated act shall be published in the Official journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein. 3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a technical standard, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 d (new)

Article 7d Non-endorsement or amendment of the draft delegated acts 1. In the event that the Commission does not endorse the draft delegated acts or amends them, the Commission shall inform the Authority, the European Parliament and the Council, stating its reasons. 2. The European Parliament or Council may convene the responsible Commissioner, together with the Chairperson of the Authority, within one month for an ad hoc meeting of the competent committee of the European Parliament or Council to present and explain their differences.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

The Authority shall conduct public consultations regarding the guidelines and recommendations and shall analyse the potentially related costs and benefits. The Authority shall also request an opinion or advice from the Insurance and Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 22.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3

WIn the re ~~the national supervisory authority does not apply thos~~port on its activities referred to in Article 32(6), the Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the guidelines orand recommendations ~~it shall inform the Authority of its reasons~~that are issued, stating which national authority has not complied with them and outlining how the Authority intends to ensure compliance in the future.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

4. Where the national supervisory authority has not complied with ~~Community~~Union law within ~~one month from~~ten working days of receipt of the Authority's recommendation~~, the Commission may, after having been informed by the Authority or on its own initiative,~~ in accordance with paragraph 3, the Authority shall take a decision requiring the ~~national supervisory~~competent authority to take the action necessary to comply with ~~Community~~Union law.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

The ~~Commission~~Authority shall take such a decision no later than ~~thre~~one months from the adoption of the recommendation. ~~The Commission may extend this period by one month.~~

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3

The ~~Commission~~Authority shall ensure that the right to be heard of the addressees of the decision is respected.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4

The ~~Authority and the~~ national supervisory authorities shall provide the ~~Commission~~Authority with all necessary information.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 5

5. The national supervisory authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the decision referred to in paragraph 4, inform the Commission and the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to implement the ~~Commission~~Authority's decision.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1

6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 22658 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, where a national supervisory authority does not comply with the decision referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article within the period of time specified therein, and where it is necessary to remedy in a timely manner the non compliance by the national supervisory authority in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system, the Authority ~~may, where the relevant requirements of~~shall, pursuant to 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 ~~Community~~Union law including the cessation of any practice.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

The decision of the Authority shall be in conformity with the decision adopted ~~by the Commission~~ pursuant to paragraph 4.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Where the addressee of the decision refuses to comply with Union law or a specific decision taken by the Authority, the Authority may issue proceedings in the national courts, including applications for interim relief.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. In its report, the Authority shall set out which national authorities and financial institutions have not complied with the decisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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~~Union, the ESRB, upon its own initiative or following a request by the Authority, the ~~Council, or the ESRB, may adopt a dec~~European Parliament, the Council, or the Commission ~~addressed to the Authority, determin~~, may issue a warning declaring the existence of an emergency situation ~~for the purposes of this regulation~~in order to enable the Authority, without further requirements, to adopt the individual decisions referred to in paragraph 3.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

1a. As soon as it issues a warning, the ESRB shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Authority.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

2. Where the ~~Commission~~ESRB has adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 1, the Authority may adopt individual decisions requiring national supervisory authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with this Regulation and the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any risks that may jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system by ensuring that financial market participants and national supervisory authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

2. Where the ~~Commission has adopted a decision~~existence of an emergency situation is declared pursuant to paragraph 1, the Authority ~~may~~shall adopt individual decisions ~~requiring~~necessary to ensure that national supervisory authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any risks that may jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system by ensuring that financial institutions and national supervisory authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3

3. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 22658 of the Treaty~~, where a national supervisory~~ on the Functioning of the European Union, where a competent 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~~shall, pursuant to 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.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3

3. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 22658 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 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~~shall, pursuant to the relevant requirements laid down in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) ~~are directly applicable to financial market participants,~~ adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial market participant requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under that legislation, including the cessation of any practice.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Where the addressee of the decision refuses to comply with Union law or a specific decision taken by the Authority, the Authority may issue proceedings in the national courts, including applications for interim relief.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The ESRB shall review the decision referred to in paragraph 1 on its own initiative or following a request by the Authority, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The ESRB shall review the decision referred to in paragraph 1 at regular intervals and in any event at the request of the European Parliament or the Authority.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. In its report, the Authority shall set out the individual decisions addressed to national authorities and financial institutions under paragraphs 3 and 4.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 9, where a national supervisory authority disagrees on the procedure or content of an action or inaction by another national supervisory authority in areas where the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) requires cooperation, coordination or joint decision making by national supervisory authorities from more than one Member State, the Authority, on its own initiative or at the request of one or more of the national supervisory authorities concerned, ~~may~~shall take the lead in assisting the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 9, where a national supervisory authority disagrees on the procedure or content of an action or inaction by another national supervisory authority in areas where the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) requires cooperation, coordination or joint decision making by national supervisory authorities from more than one Member State, the Authority, on its own initiative or at the request of one or more of the national supervisory authorities concerned, may take the lead in assisting the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3

3. If, at the end of the conciliation phase, the national supervisory authorities concerned have failed to reach an agreement, the Authority ~~may take a decision requiring them to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter, in compliance with Community law~~shall, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 29(1), take a decision to settle the disagreement and to require them to settle the matter, in compliance with Union law, with binding effects on the competent authorities concerned.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4

4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 22658 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, where a national supervisory authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority, and thereby fails to ensure that a financial market participant complies with requirements directly applicable to it by virtue of the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority ~~may~~shall adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial market participant requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under ~~Community~~Union law, including the cessation of any practice.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1

1. The Authority shall contribute to promote and monitor the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors referred to in Directive 2006/48/EC and foster the coherence of the application of ~~Community legislation~~Union law across colleges.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The Authority may issue technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted under Articles 7 and 8 to harmonise supervisory functioning and best practices adopted by the colleges of supervisors.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. A legally binding mediation role should allow the new Authorities to solve disputes between national supervisors following the procedure set up in Article 11. Where no agreement can be reached between the supervisors of a cross-border institution, the Authority should be empowered to take supervisory decisions directly applicable to the institution concerned.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Supervision of financial institutions with a Union dimension 1. National authorities shall exert prudential supervision of financial institutions with a Union dimension by acting as the agent of and following the instructions given by the Authority, in order to guarantee that the same supervisory rules are applied across the Union. 2. The Authority shall submit its draft supervisory rules to the Commission and, simultaneously, to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission shall endorse the draft supervisory rules following the procedure set out in Article 7 or 8. 3. A decision taken by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 29(1) shall identify the significant insurer institutions with a Union dimension. The criteria for identifying such financial institutions shall take into account the criteria established by the Financial Stability Board, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements. 4. The Authority, in collaboration with the European Systemic Risk Board, shall develop an information template for significant insurer institutions in order to ensure a sound management of their systemic risk. 5. To ensure the co-responsibility of insurer institutions with a Union dimension, to protect the interests of Union policyholders and beneficiaries and to reduce the cost to tax payers of a systemic financial crisis, a European Insurance Guarantee Scheme (Scheme) shall be established. The Scheme will also play a role in helping the Union financial institutions facing difficulties when such difficulties are likely to threaten the financial stability of the Union's single financial market. The Scheme shall be financed through contributions from those institutions. Those contributions replace those made to national Insurance Guarantee Schemes of a similar nature. 6. Where the accumulated resources from the contributions made by insurers are not sufficient to solve the crisis, the Scheme shall have the capacity to increase its resources through debt issuance. Member States may, in exceptional circumstances, facilitate the issuance of debt by the Scheme through guarantees, and in exchange of a fee reflecting appropriately the risk assumed. Those guarantees shall be shared by Member States in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 7. 7. Where, in extreme, exceptional circumstances and in the context of a systemic crisis, one or more institutions fail and the resources available are insufficient, the affected Member States will deal with this burden in accordance with principles established in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), properly amended. 8. The membership in the Scheme shall replace the membership in the existing national Insurance Guarantee Schemes for the Union financial institutions participating in it. The Scheme shall be managed by a Board appointed by the European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions) for a period of five years. The members of the Board shall be elected from staff of the national authorities. The Scheme shall also create a Consultative Board comprising the insurer institutions participating in the Scheme.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Supervision of financial institutions with a Union dimension 1. For the supervision of financial institutions with a Union dimension operating in the Union the Authority shall act as leading competent authority. They shall act through national competent authorities who will act as delegated authority. 2. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 7a to 7d, to define the characteristics of financial institutions with a Union dimension. Those acts shall take the form of a decision and shall contain a list of institutions that are considered to be the financial institutions with a Union dimension operating in the Union. 3. The criteria for identifying such financial institutions shall at least include consideration of the following: market share in Member States where the financial institution is active, total assets, market share of total Union assets and EU or non-EU-based ultimate ownership. In the event that such a financial institution spans different sectors, the European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee) shall decide which part of the Authority shall act as the leading competent authority.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 b (new)

Article 12b Supervision of cross-border financial institutions 1. To ensure the co-responsibility of financial institutions with a Union dimension, to protect European depositors' interests and to reduce the cost to tax payers of a systemic financial crisis, a European Financial Protection Fund (Fund) shall be established. The Fund shall play a role in helping the Union financial institutions facing difficulties where those difficulties could menace financial stability of the Union's single financial market. The Fund shall be financed by contributions from those institutions. The contributions may replace those made to national funds of similar nature. 2. Where the accumulated resources from the contributions made by market participants are not sufficient to solve the crisis, the Fund shall have the capacity to increase its resources through debt issuance. Member States may, in exceptional circumstances, facilitate the issuance of debt by the Fund through guarantees, and in exchange for a fee reflecting appropriately the risk assumed. Those guarantees shall be shared by Member States in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 3 3. When, under extreme, exceptional circumstances and in the context of a systemic crisis, one or more institutions fail, and the resources available are insufficient, the affected Member States shall deal with this burden in accordance with the following criteria: the economic impact of the crisis on the affected Member States and the deposits, assets, distribution of those income flows of the affected institutions. 4. The membership in the Fund shall replace the membership in the existing national schemes for the Union financial institutions participating in it. The Fund shall be managed by a Board appointed by the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) for a period of five years. The members of the Board shall be elected from staff of the national authorities. The Fund shall also create a Consultative Board comprising the financial institutions participating in the Fund.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. No bilateral agreements concerning delegation to institutions that are identified as significant cross-border financial institutions pursuant to Article 12a shall be entered into.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Vladimír REMEK, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3

3. On the basis of the peer review the Authority may issue guidelines and recommendations ~~to the national supervisory authorities concerne~~pursuant to Article 8 to the competent authorities concerned, or adopt a decision addressed to competent authorities or adopt draft technical standards in accordance with Articles 7 to 7d.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point 4 a (new)

(4a) taking all appropriate measures in situations of financial instability and crisis with a view to facilitating the coordination of actions undertaken by relevant national competent supervisory authorities.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point 4 b (new)

(4b) acting as the central recipient of regulatory reporting for institutions active in more than one Member Sates. Upon receipt of the reports, the Authority will share the information with the competent national authorities.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3

3. The Authority shall ensure an adequate coverage of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities by closely cooperating with the European ~~Banking~~Supervisory Authority (Banking) and the European S~~ecurities and Markets Authority~~upervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) and the European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee).

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

The Authority shall contribute to the representation of the European Union in all international fora concerning the regulation and supervision of the institutions falling under the legislation referred to in Article 1(2).

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2

The Authority shall assist in preparing equivalence decisions pertaining to supervisory regimes in third countries in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 1(2). The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 7a to 7d, for the purpose of making assessments of equivalence referred to in this Article.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 7a to 7d for the purpose of making equivalence assessments referred to in the second paragraph.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. On the basis of Joint Guidelines, the Authority may conduct the change of assessment procedure under Directive 2007/44/EC. Upon receipt of the notification, the Authority will coordinate with the relevant national authorities.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals. Those requests shall use common reporting formats to be fulfilled, where appropriate, at a consolidated level.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. On a request from a national supervisory authority of a Member State the Authority may provide any such information that is necessary to enable the national authority to carry out its duties, provided the national authority in question has appropriate confidentiality arrangements in place.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 6

6. In discharging its tasks set out in this regulation, the Authority shall take ~~the utmost~~ account of the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

1. For the purpose of consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, an Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds Stakeholder Group shall be established. The Stakeholder Group shall be consulted on all relevant decisions and actions of the authority. If case of urgency immediate consultation is impossible, the Stakeholder Group has to be informed about the decision as quick as possible.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sylvie GOULARD, Burkhard BALZ, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

2. The Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions ~~Community~~Union insurance and reinsurance firms as well as occupational pension funds, their employees as well as consumers and users of the insurance, reinsurance and occupational pension services. Not less than 5 of the members shall be independent top-ranking academics. The number of members representing professional market participants including their employees shall not exceed 15. At least 5 of them have to be representatives of the employees.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

2. The Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions ~~Community insurance and reinsurance firms as well as occupational pension fund~~Union credit and investment institutions, their employees as well as consumers ~~and~~, users of ~~the insurance, reinsurance and occupational pension service~~banking services and representatives of SMEs. Not less than 5 of the members shall be independent top- ranking academics. The number of members representing market participants shall not exceed 10. Not less than 10 members shall be elected by SME organisations.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

The Authority shall ensure adequate secretarial support for the Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds Stakeholder Group. Adequate financial compensation shall be established for members of the stakeholder group representing non-profit organisations.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5

5. The Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds Stakeholder Group ~~may~~shall submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue ~~related to the tasks of the Authority specified in Articles 7 and 8~~. Any conflict of interest of members of the Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds Stakeholder Group has to be disclosed whenever the Stakeholder Group issues opinions and advice.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5

5. The Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pension Funds ~~Stakeholder~~ Group ~~may~~shall submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue related to the tasks of the Authority ~~specified~~with particular focus on the tasks set out in Articles 7 and 8.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1

1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted under Articles 10 or 11 impinges ~~in any way~~directly in a significant manner on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

In its notification, the Member State shall justify why and ~~clearly demonstrate how~~provide an impact assessment on how much the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5

Where the Authority maintains its decision, the Council~~, acting by qualified majority as defined in Article 205 of the Treaty, shall, wi~~ shall take a decision whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revoked on the basis of a qualified majority of its member not taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned no later thian two months~~, decide whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revok~~ after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in the fourth subparagraph. A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council excluding the Member State concerned, comprising at least fourteen of them representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union excluding the population of the Member State concerned.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

The Council, acting by qualified majority as defined in ~~Article 205 of the Treaty~~paragraph 2 subparagraph 5, shall, within ten working days, decide whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revoked.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)

(fa) two representatives of the Banking Stakeholder Group, one of them representing the SME, who shall be non- voting.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

2. For the purposes of Article 11, the Board of Supervisors shall convoke an independent panel to facilitate ~~the~~an impartial settlement of the disagreement, consisting of the Chairperson and two of its members, who are not representatives of the national supervisory authorities which are parties to the disagreement and who shall not have any interest in the conflict.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Board of Supervisors shall establish an Experts’ Panel comprising a limited number of independent high-level individuals, committed to the objectives of the European Union. The Experts’ Panel shall have the following tasks: (a) to express views on the Authority’s work programme; (b) to assist the Authority in the definition of priorities; (c) to alert the Authority on regulatory inconsistencies in the internal market and suggest areas for further work; and (d) to inform the Authority about major financial market developments. The Authority shall ensure adequate secretarial support for the Experts’ Panel.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. The members of the Experts’ Panel shall serve for a period of two-and-a-half years, following which a new selection procedure shall take place. The members may serve two successive terms.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. The Experts’ Panel shall adopt its rules of procedure.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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~~16 of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for acts specified in Articles 7, 8 and all measures and decisions adopted under Chapter VI.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 6

6. The Management Board shall, after consulting the Board of Supervisors, adopt ~~the annual~~a report on the activities of the Authority (Report) on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 38(7) and shall transmit th~~at r~~e Report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee by 15 June. The rReport shall be made public.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1

1. ~~A Joint Committee of t~~The European Supervisory Authorities ~~is hereby established~~(Joint Committee) ("the Joint Committee") is hereby established and shall have its headquarters in Frankfurt.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 a (new)

Article 40 a Supervision 1. The Joint Committee shall execute the tasks of the consolidating supervisor with respect to all financial market participants and key financial market participants in accordance with Article 12a. 2. The Joint Committee shall fund those supervisory activities by collecting a fee from each market participant that it supervises, based on the risk that the participant may go into liquidation.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44

1. The Board of Appeal shall be a joint body of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and the European Securities and Markets Authority. 2. The Board of Appeal shall be composed of six members and six alternates, who shall be individuals with relevant knowledge and experience, excluding current staff of the competent authorities or other national or Community institutions involved in the activities of the Authority. The Board of Appeal designates its President. The decisions of the Board of Appeal shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of at least four of its six members. The Board of Appeal shall be convened by its President when necessary. 3. Two members of the Board of Appeal and two alternates shall be appointed by the Management Board of the Authority from a short-list proposed by the Commission, following a public call for expression of interest published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and after consultation of the Board of Supervisors. The other Members shall be appointed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No …/… [EIOPA] and Regulation (EC) No …/… [EBA]. 4. The term of office of the members of the Board of Appeal shall be five years. This term may be extended once. 5. A member of the Board of Appeal, who was appointed by the Management Board of the Authority, may not be removed during his term of office, unless he has been found guilty of serious misconduct, and the Management Board takes a decision to that effect after consulting the Board of Supervisors. 6. The Authority, the European Banking Authority, and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority shall ensure adequate operational and secretarial support for the Board of Appeal.Article 44 deleted Composition

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

2. The Board of Appeal shall be composed of six members and six alternates~~, who~~. It shall bcomprise individuals ~~with relevant knowledge and experience~~, excluding current staff of the national supervisory authorities or other national or ~~Community~~EU institutions or financial institutions involved in the activities of the Authority, of high repute with a proven record of relevant knowledge and professional expertise, including supervisory experience at a sufficiently high level in the fields of banking, insurance and occupational pensions, securities markets or other financial services, and at least two members with sufficient legal expertise to provide expert legal advice on the Authority's exercise of its powers.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

3. Twohe members of the Board of Appeal and twoheir alternates shall be appointed by the ~~Management Board of the Authority~~European Parliament from a short-list proposed by the Commission, following a public call for expression of interest published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and after consultation of the Board of Supervisors. It shall include at least one member representing a consumer organisation, one member representing SMEs and one member representing the research community. The latter as well as his alternate shall be appointed by the Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

~~The other Members shall be appointed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No …/…[EBA] and Regulation (EC) No …/…[ESMA].~~deleted

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45

1. The members of the Board of Appeal shall be independent in making their decisions. They shall not be bound by any instructions. They may not perform any other duties in the Authority, in its Management Board or in its Board of Supervisors. 2. Members of the Board of Appeal may not take part in any appeal proceedings if they have any personal interest therein, or if they have previously been involved as representatives of one of the parties to the proceedings, or if they have participated in the decision under appeal. 3. If, for one of the reasons referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 or for any other reason, a member of a Board of Appeal considers that a fellow member should not take part in any appeal proceedings, the member shall inform the Board of Appeal accordingly. 4. Any party to the appeal proceedings may object to the participation of a member of the Board of Appeal on any of the grounds referred to in paragraph 1 and 2, or if suspected of bias. An objection may not be based on the nationality of members nor shall it be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objecting, the party to the appeal proceedings has nonetheless taken a procedural step other than objecting to the composition of the Board of Appeal. 5. The Board of Appeal shall decide on the action to be taken in the cases specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 without the participation of the member concerned. For the purpose of taking that decision, the member concerned shall be replaced on the Board of Appeal by his alternate, unless the alternate finds himself in a similar situation. Should this be the case, the Chairperson shall designate a replacement from among the available alternates. 6. The members of the Board of Appeal shall undertake to act independently and in the public interest. For that purpose, they shall make a declaration of commitments and a declaration of interest indicating either the absence of any interest which may be considered prejudicial to their independence or any direct or indirect interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence. Those declarations shall be made public, annually and in writing.Article 45 deleted Independence and impartiality

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The Commission shall draft its report taking into account the proposals made by the Insurance, Reinsurance and Occupational Stakeholder Group, the Board of Supervisors, and the Joint Committee. Those proposals shall be annexed to the report published by the Commission. The Commission may also consider the views of other stakeholder groups.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0143(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. The Commission's report shall evaluate inter alia: the degree of convergence in supervisory standard practices reached by national authorities; the functioning of the colleges of supervisors; the supervision mechanism of cross-border institutions, in particular the ones with an EU dimension; the functioning of Article 23 on safeguarding and regulator; supervisory convergence in the fields of crisis management and resolution in the Union and whether prudential and conducts of business should be combined or separated. It shall contain proposals on how to further develop the role of the Authority and the ESFS, with a view to creating an integrated European supervisory architecture.

2010/03/23
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The European System of Financial Supervis~~ors~~ion should be a network of national and ~~Community~~European Union supervisory authorities, leaving day-to-day supervision of financial institutions ~~at the national level, and according a central role in the supervision of~~that have not EU dimension to at the national level. Colleges of Supervisors shall exert supervision of institutions operating as cross- border ~~groups to colleges of supervisors~~s that have not EU dimension. The Authority shall gradually take over supervision of institutions with European Union dimension. Greater harmonisation and the coherent application of rules for financial institutions and markets across the Community should also be achieved. A European Banking Authority should be established, along with a European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions ~~Authority~~) and a European S~~ecurities and Markets Authority (the European Supervisory Authorities).~~ upervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) as well as a European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee). The European Systemic Risk Board shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervision.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The European Banking Authority (“the Authority”) should act with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States to prevent regulatory arbitrage and guarantee a level playing field, to protect depositors and investors, to ensure the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, to safeguard the stability of the financial system, and to strengthen international supervisory coordination, for the benefit of the economy at large, ~~including financial institutions and other stakeholders, consumers and employe~~while taking account of the need to enhance competition and innovation within the internal market and to ensure global competitiveness, including financial institutions and other stakeholders, consumers and employees. Its tasks also include promoting supervisory convergence and providing advice to the EU institutions in the areas of banking, payments, e-money regulation and supervision, and related corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting issues. In order to be able to fulfil its objectives, it is necessary and appropriate that the Authority should be a Community body having legal personality and it should have legal, administrative and financial autonomy.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) The delegation of tasks and responsibilities can be a useful instrument in the functioning of the network of supervisors in order to reduce the duplication of supervisory tasks, foster cooperation and thereby streamline the supervisory process as well as reduce the burden imposed on financial institutions. The Regulation should therefore provide a clear legal basis for such delegation. Delegation of tasks means that tasks are carried out by another supervisory authority instead of the responsible authority, while the responsibility for supervisory decisions remains with the delegating authority. By delegation of responsibilities one national supervisory authority, the delegatee, shall be able to decide upon a certain supervisory matter in its name in lieu of the Authority or in lieu of another national supervisory authority. Delegations should be governed by the principle of allocating supervisory competence to a supervisor which is well placed to take action in the subject matter. A reallocation of responsibilities can be appropriate for example for reasons of economies of scale or scope, of coherence in group supervision, and of optimal use of technical expertise among national supervisory authorities. Relevant Community legislation may further specify the principles for reallocation of responsibilities upon agreement. The Authority should facilitate delegation agreements between national supervisory authorities by all appropriate means. It should be informed in advance of intended delegation agreements to be able to express an opinion where appropriate. It should centralise the publication of such agreements to ensure timely, transparent and easily accessible information about agreements for all parties concerned.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28

(28) In order to safeguard financial stability it is necessary to identify, at an early stage, trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities stemming from the micro- prudential level, across borders and across sectors. The Authority should monitor and assess such developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the other European Supervisory Authorities and the European Systemic Risk Board on a regular and, as necessary, ad hoc basis. The Authority should also coordinate Community-wide stress tests to assess the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments, ensuring an as consistent as possible methodology is applied at the national level to such tests. In order to inform the discharge of its functions, the Authority should undertake economic analysis of markets and the impact of potential market developments on them.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32

(32) Close cooperation between the Authority and the European Systemic Risk Board is essential to give full effectiveness to the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board and the follow-up to its warnings and recommendations. The Authority and the European Systemic Risk Board should share any relevant information with the European Systemic Risk Board. Data related to individual undertakings should be provided only upon reasoned request. Upon receipt of warnings or recommendations addressed by the European Systemic Risk Board to the Authority or a national supervisory authority, the Authority should ensure follow-up as appropriate.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) ~~Where appropriate, t~~The Authority should consult interested parties on technical standards, guidelines and recommendations and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed measures. Before adopting draft technical standards, guidelines and recommendations the Authority should carry out an impact study. For reasons of efficiency, a Banking Stakeholder Group should be established for that purpose, representing in balanced proportions Community credit and investment institutions (including as appropriate institutional investors and other financial institutions which themselves use financial services), t~~heir employees,~~rade unions, academics and consumers and other retail users of banking services, including SMEs. The Banking Stakeholder Group should actively work as an interface with other user groups in the financial services area established by the Commission or ~~Community~~by EU legislation.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33 a (new)

(33a) Non-profit organisations in comparison to well funded and well connected industry representatives, are marginalised in the debate on the future of financial services and in the corresponding decision making process. This disadvantage has to be compensated by adequate funding of their representatives in the Banking Stakeholder group.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34 a (new)

(34a) Without prejudice to the particular responsibilities of the Member States in crisis situations should a Member State choose to invoke the safeguard the European Parliament should be informed at the same time as the Authority, the Council and the Commission. Furthermore the Member State should explain its reasons for invoking the safeguard. The Authority should, in cooperation with the Commission, set out the next steps to be taken.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38

(38) A full time Chairperson, selected by the ~~Board of Supervisors through an open competit~~European Parliament following an open competition managed by the Commission and the subsequent drawing up of a short list by the Commission, should represent the Authority. The management of the Authority should be entrusted to an Executive Director, who should have the right to participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board without the right to vote.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39

(39) In order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency in the activities of the European Supervisory Authorities, those authorities should coordinate closely ~~in a Joint Committee of~~through the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee) (“the Joint Committee”) and reach common positions where appropriate. The Joint Committee ~~of European Supervisory Authorities should assume all of the functions of the Joint Committee on F~~should coordinate the functions of the three European Supervisory Authorities in relation to financial Cconglomerates. Where relevant, acts also falling within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions ~~Authority or the European Securities and Markets Authority should be adopted in parallel by the European Supervisory Authorities concerned.~~ ) or the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) should be adopted in parallel by the European Supervisory Authorities concerned. The Joint Committee will be chaired on a yearly revolving basis by the Chairpersons of the three European Supervisory Authorities. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee should be a Vice-Chair of the European Systemic Risk Board. The Joint Committee will have a permanent secretariat, staffed on secondment from the three European Supervisory Authorities, to allow for informal information sharing and the development of a common cultural approach across the three European Supervisory Authorities.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. The objective of the Authority shall be to contribute to: (i) improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, (ii) protecting depositors and investors, (iii) ensuring the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, (iv) safeguarding the stability of the financial system, ~~and~~ (v) strengthening international supervisory coordination, whilst taking account of the need to enhance competition and innovation within the internal market and to ensure global competitiveness. For this purpose, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the Community law referred to in Article 1(2) above, fostering supervisory convergence and providing opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. The objective of the Authority shall be to contribute to: (i) improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, (ii) protecting depositors and investors, (iii) ensuring the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, (iv) safeguarding the stability of the financial system, ~~and~~ (v) strengthening international supervisory coordination, and (vi) preventing regulatory arbitrage and contributing to a level playing field. For this purpose, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the Community law referred to in Article 1(2) above, fostering supervisory convergence and providing opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. The objective of the Authority shall be to contribute to: (i) improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, (ii) protecting depositors and investors, (iii) ensuring the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, (iv) safeguarding the stability of the financial system, and (v) strengthening international supervisory coordination. For this purpose, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the Community law referred to in Article 1(2) above, fostering supervisory convergence and providing opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission, and undertaking economic analyses of markets to promote the achievement of the Authority’s objectives.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 a (new)

Article 1a The European System of Financial Supervision 1. The Authority shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervision the main objective of which is to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial sector are adequately implemented, in order to preserve financial stability and thereby to ensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and sufficient protection for the customers of financial services. 2. The European System of Financial Supervision shall comprise the following: (a) the European Systemic Risk Board; (b) the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) established by Regulation (EU) No .../... [ESMA]; (c) the European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions) established by Regulation (EU) No …/…[EIOPA]; (d) the Authority; (e) the European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee) provided for in Article 40; (f) the authorities in the Member States referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulations (EC) No .../... [ESMA], Regulation (EC) No …/2009 [EIOPA] and Regulation (EC) No …/… [EBA; (g) the Commission, for the purposes of carrying out the tasks referred to in Articles 7 and 9. 3. The Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely, ensure cross-sectoral consistency of work and arrive at joint positions in the area of supervision of financial conglomerates and on other cross-sectoral issues with the European Systemic Risk Board as well as with the European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions) and the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) through the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee) referred to in Article 40. 4. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation in accordance with Article 4(3) of the EU Treaty, the parties of the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular in ensuring that appropriate and reliable information flows between them. 5. Only those supervisory authorities included in the European System of Financial Supervisors shall be entitled to supervise financial institutions operating in the European Union.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5

The Authority shall have its seat in ~~London~~Frankfurt.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5

The Authority shall have its seat in ~~London~~[Frankfurt].

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

1. The Authority may develop technical standards ~~in the areas specifically set out in~~to complete, update and modify elements that are not essential to the legislationve acts referred to in Article 1(2). The ~~Authority shall submit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement~~technical standards shall not imply strategic decisions and its content shall be delimited by the legislative acts on which they are based.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. The ~~standard~~Commission shall adopt technical standards in accordance with Articles 7a to 7d. Those acts shall be adopted by the Commission ~~by means~~in the form of Rregulations or Ddecisions ~~and published in the Official Journal of the European Union~~.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

2. Upon request from one or more competent authorities, from the Commission, from the European Parliament, the Council or the Banking Stakeholder Group, or on its own initiative and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the Authority may investigate the alleged incorrect application of ~~Community~~Union law.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2

2. Where the ~~Commission~~ESRB 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 this regulation and the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any risks that may jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system by ensuring that financial ~~institution~~market participants and competent authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Where the addressee of the decision refuses to comply with Union law or a specific decision taken by the Authority, the Authority may issue proceedings in the national courts, including applications for interim relief.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The ESRB shall review the decision referred to in paragraph 1 upon its own initiative or following a request by the Authority, the Council, the European Parliament, or the Commission.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Leonardo DOMENICI, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Supervision of financial institutions with an EU dimension 1. National authorities shall exert prudential supervision of financial institutions with an EU dimension by acting as the agent of and following the instructions given by the Authority, in order to guarantee that the same supervisory rules are applied across the European Union. 2. The Authority shall submit its draft supervisory rules to the Commission and, simultaneously, to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission shall endorse the draft supervisory rules following the procedure set out in Article 7 or 8. 3. A decision taken by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 29(1) shall identify the significant financial institutions with EU dimension. The criteria for identifying such financial institutions shall take into account the criteria established by the FSB, the IMF and the BIS. 4. The Authority, in collaboration with the European Systemic Risk Board, shall develop an information template for significant institutions in order to ensure a sound management of their systemic risk. 5. To ensure the co-responsibility of financial institutions with EU dimension, to protect European depositors’ interests and to reduce the cost to tax payers of a systemic financial crisis, a European Financial Protection Fund (Fund) shall be established. The Fund will also play a role in helping the EU institutions facing difficulties when those are likely to threaten the financial stability of the European single financial market. The Fund shall be financed through contributions from those institutions. The contribution of each financial institution will be calculated according to criteria rewarding good management. Those contributions replace those made to national funds of a similar nature. 6. When the accumulated resources from the contributions made by banks are not sufficient to solve the crisis, the Fund shall have the capacity to increase its resources through debt issuance. Member States may, in exceptional circumstances, facilitate the issuance of debt by the Fund through guarantees, and in exchange of a fee reflecting appropriately the risk assumed. Those guarantees shall be shared by Member States in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 7. 7. Where, under extreme, exceptional circumstances and in the context of a systemic crisis, there is a failure of one or several institutions, and the resources available are insufficient, the affected Member States will deal with this burden according to principles established in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), properly amended. Burden- sharing arrangements could include one of the following criteria, or a combination thereof: the deposits of the institution; the assets (either in terms of accounting values, market values or risk-weighted values) of the institution; the revenue flows of the institution; and the share of payment system flows of the institution. 8. The membership in the Fund shall replace the membership in the existing national Deposit Guarantee Schemes for the EU institutions participating in it. The Fund shall be managed by a Board appointed by the European Supervisory Authority (Banking) for a period of five years. The members of the Board shall be elected from staff of the national authorities. The Fund shall also create a Consultative Board comprising the financial institutions participating in the Fund.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)

Article 13 a The Authority shall delegate on the authorities in the Member States the tasks and responsibilities to supervise the prudential supervision of financial institutions with EU dimension as referred to in article 12a.

2010/04/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point 4 a (new)

(4a) acting as the central recipient of regulatory reporting for institutions active in more than one Member Sates. Upon receipt of the reporting, the Authority will share the information with the competent national authorities.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

1. The Authority shall monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions ~~Authority~~), the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets ~~Authority~~), the ESRB and the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission about the relevant micro- prudential trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3

3. The Authority shall ensure an adequate coverage of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities by closely cooperating with the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority and the European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee).

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. On the basis of Joint Guidelines, the Authority may conduct the change of control procedure under Directive 2007/44/EC. Upon receipt of the notification, the Authority will coordinate with the relevant national authorities.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. On a request from a national supervisory authority of a Member State the Authority may provide any such information that is necessary to enable the national authority to carry out its duties, provided the national authority in question has appropriate confidentiality arrangements in place.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

1. For the purpose of consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, a Banking Stakeholder Group shall be established. The Stakeholder Group shall be consulted on all relevant decisions and actions of the authority. If case of urgency immediate consultation is impossible, the Stakeholder Group has to be informed about the decision as quick as possible.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 a (new)

Adequate financial compensation shall be established for members of the stakeholder group representing non-profit organisations.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5

5. The Banking Stakeholder Group may submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue related to the tasks of the Authority with particular focus on the tasks set out in specified in Articles 7 and 8.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

Burkhard BALZ, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN, José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Sven GIEGOLD, Sylvie GOULARD, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1

1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted under Articles 10 or 11 impinges ~~in any way~~directly in a significant manner on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 5

Where the Authority maintains its decision, the Council~~, acting by qualified majority as defined in Article 205 of the Treaty, shall, wi~~ shall take a decision whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revoked on the basis of a qualified majority of its member not taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned no later thian two months~~, decide whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revok~~ after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in the fourth subparagraph. A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the Council excluding the Member State concerned, comprising at least fourteen of them representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union excluding the population of the Member State concerned.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

The Council, acting by qualified majority as defined in ~~Article 205 of the Treaty~~paragraph 2 subparagraph 5, shall, within ten working days, decide whether the Authority's decision is maintained or revoked.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1

1. Before taking the decisions provided for in ~~Article 9(6), Article 10(2) and(3) and Article 11(3) and (4)~~this Regulation, the Authority shall inform the addressee of its intention to adopt the decision, setting a time limit within which the addressee may express its views on the matter, taking full account of the urgency, complexity and potential consequences of the matter.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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~~16 of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for acts specified in Articles 7, 8 and all measures and decisions adopted under Chapter VI.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. In addition to the information referred to in Articles 7a, 8, 9, 10, 11a and 18, the report shall include information on, in particular, the availability, amount and cost of banking credit to households and SMEs, and the volume and changes therein of public debt owned by credit institutions, and information detailing the scope of the interaction between the Authority and the European Systemic Risk Board and a response where relevant to opinions and reviews issued by the Banking Stakeholder Group. It shall also include any relevant information requested by the European Parliament on an ad-hoc basis.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter IV – Section 2 – title

~~JOINT COMMITTEE OF~~ EUROPEAN SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES (JOINT COMMITTEE)

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1

1. ~~A Joint Committee of t~~The European Supervisory Authorities ~~is hereby established~~(Joint Committee) ("the Joint Committee") is hereby established and shall have its headquarters in Frankfurt.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2

2. The Joint Committee shall serve as a forum in which the Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely and ensure cross-sectoral consistency and learning with the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority, in particular on: – financial conglomerates; – accounting and auditing; – micro-prudential analyses for financial stability; – retail investment products; – anti-money laundering measures; and – information exchange with the European Systemic Risk Board and developing the relationship between the European Systemic Risk Board and the European Supervisory Authorities.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~Authority shall contribute adequate resources to the administrative support of the Joint Committee of European Supervisory Authorities. This includes staff,~~Joint Committee shall have a permanent secretariat, staffed on secondment from the three European Supervisory Authorities. The Authority shall contribute adequate resources to administrative, infrastructure, and operational expenses.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1

1. The Joint Committee shall behave a board composed of the Chairperson ~~and the Chairpersons of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority~~s of the European Supervisory Authorities, and, where applicable, the Chairperson of a Sub-Committee established under Article 43.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2

2. The Executive Director, a representative of the Commission and the ESRB shall be invited to the meetings of the Board of the Joint Committee ~~of European Supervisory Authorities~~ as well as the Sub- Committees mentioned in Article 43 as observers.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3

3. The chair of the Joint Committee ~~of European Supervisory Authorities~~ shall be appointed on an annual rotational basis from among the Chairpersons of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be a Vice-Chair of the European Systemic Risk Board.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

4. The Joint Committee ~~of European Supervisory Authorities~~ shall adopt and publish its own rules of procedure. The rules may specify further participants of the meetings of the Joint Committee.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

The Board of the Joint Committee of European Supervisory Authorities shall meet at least once every two months.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1

For the purposes of Article 42, a Sub- Committee on Financial Conglomerates to the Joint Committee ~~of European Supervisory Authorities~~ shall be established.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3

The Sub-Committee shall elect a Chairperson from amongst its members, who shall also be a member of the Joint Committee ~~of European Supervisory Authorities~~.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

2. The Board of Appeal shall be composed of six members and six alternates~~, who~~. It shall bcomprise individuals ~~with relevant knowledge and experience~~, excluding current staff of the competent authorities or other national or ~~Community~~EU institutions or financial institutions involved in the activities of the Authority, of high repute with a proven record of relevant knowledge and professional expertise, including supervisory experience at a sufficiently high level in the fields of banking, insurance and occupational pensions, securities markets or other financial services, and at least two members with sufficient legal expertise to provide expert legal advice on the Authority's exercise of its powers.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 6

6. The Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority shall ensure adequate operational and secretarial support for the Board of Appeal through the Joint Committee.

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0142(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The Commission's report shall evaluate inter alia: the degree of convergence in supervisory standard practices reached by national authorities; the functioning of the colleges of supervisors; the supervision mechanism of cross-border institutions, in particular the ones with an EU dimension; the functioning of Article 23 on safeguarding and regulator; supervisory convergence in the fields of crisis management and resolution in the Union and whether prudential and conducts of business should be combined or separated. It shall contain proposals on how to further develop the role of the Authority and the ESFS, with a view to creating an integrated European supervisory architecture

2010/03/26
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) In its Communication entitled “European Financial Supervision” of 27 May 2009 , the Commission set out a series of reforms to the current arrangements for safeguarding financial stability at the EU level, notably including the creation of a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) responsible for macro- prudential oversight. The Council on 9 June 2009 and the European Council at its meeting of 18 and 19 June supported the view of the Commission and welcomed the Commission’s intention to bring forward legislative proposals so that the new framework is in place in the course of 2010. In line with the views of the Commission, it concluded inter alia that the ECB “should provide analytical, statistical, administrative and logistical support to the ESRB, also drawing on technical advice from national Ccentral Bbanks and supervisors”. The support provided to the ESRB by the ECB as well as the tasks conferred upon the ESRB should be without prejudice to the principle of the independence of the ECB in the performance of its tasks pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

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

1a. The ESFS shall comprise: (a) the ESRB; (b) the European Supervisory Authority (Securities and Markets) established by Regulation (EU) No .../2010 (ESMA); (c) the European Supervisory Authority (Insurance and Occupational Pensions) established by Regulation (EU) No …/2010 (EIOPA); (d) the European Supervisory Authority (Banking) established by Regulation (EU) No …/2010 (EBA); (e) the European Supervisory Authority (Joint Committee ) provided for by Article 40 of each of Regulation (EU) No …/… [EBA], No .../... [ESMA], No …/…[EIOPA]; (f) the authorities in the Member States as specified in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No .../... [ESMA], Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No …/2009 [EIOPA] and Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No …/… [EBA]; (g) the Commission, for the purposes of carrying out the tasks referred to in Articles 7 and 9 of Regulations (EU) No.../...[EBA], No .../... [ESMA] and No …/…[EIOPA]; The ESAs referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) shall have their seat in Frankfurt.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Each Member of the General Board with a voting right shall have one vote~~The General Board shall strive for consensus. Where consensus cannot be achieved each Member of the General Board with a voting right shall have one vote. Any Member of the Board may, at any time, request a vote on a draft warning or a draft recommendation.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. In order to provide advice and assistance on substance issues relevant to the work of the ESRB, the Advisory Scientific Committee shall work closely with the experts' working groups of the ESCB.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13

In performing its tasks, the ESRB shall seek, where appropriate, the ~~advice~~views of relevant private or public sector stakeholders, particularly, but not exclusively, the stakeholder groups of the ESAs.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3

3. ~~The ESRB may request information from~~On the request of the ESRB, the European Supervisory Authorities shall provide information in summary or collective form, such that individual financial institutions cannot be identified. If the requested data are not available to those Authorities or are not made available in a timely manner, ~~the ESRB may request the data from~~ national supervisory authorities, national central banks or other authorities of Member States shall provide the data pursuant to a request by the ESRB.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Staff of the ESRB may attend, together with staff of the ESAs, meetings between supervisors and the systemically important financial groups, in particular the colleges of supervisors, and may ask questions and receive first-hand relevant information.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0140(COD)

José Manuel GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL, Burkhard BALZ, Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO, Leonardo DOMENICI, Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS, Sylvie GOULARD, Sven GIEGOLD, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 a (new)

Article 16a Action in emergency situations 1. In the event 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 European Union, the ESRB in accordance with point (b) of Article 3(2) and Article 10 of each of Regulation (EU) No …/… [EBA], No .../... [ESMA], No …/…[EIOPA], may issue warnings, on its own initiative or following a request by an ESA, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, declaring the existence of an emergency situation. 2. As soon as it issues a warning, the ESRB shall simultaneously notify the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European Supervisory Authority. 3. The ESRB shall review the warning referred to in paragraph 1 upon its own initiative or following a request by a European Supervisory Authority, the Council, the European Parliament or the Commission.

2010/03/19
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 - introductory part

AMember States shall require that an AIFM applying for an authorisation shall provide the following to the competent authorities of the home Member State ~~where it has its registered office~~:

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) information on the persons who effectively conduct the business of the AIFM and the identities of the ~~AIFM~~ shareholders or members of the AIFM, whether direct or indirect, natural or legal persons, that have qualifying holdings and of the amounts of those holdings;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

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

(b) a programme of activity setting out the organisational structure of the AIFM, including information on how the AIFM intends to comply with its obligations under cChapters II, III, IV, and where applicable, V, VI and VII;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

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

(c) ~~detailed~~ information about the investment strategies including the AIFM’s policy as regards the use of leverage, and the risk profiles and other characteristics of the AIF it manages or intends to manage, including ~~the identific~~information ofabout the Member States or third countries oin wh~~ose territory they are domicile~~ich they are established or are expected to be established; (ca) information about the domicile of underlying funds, if such AIF is a fund of funds; (cb) information about the domicile of the master fund;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the fund rules or instruments of incorporation of each AIF the AIFM ~~intends to~~ manages;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(da) where already available, the fund rules or instruments of incorporation of each AIF the AIFM intends to manage;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) where already available, information on arrangements made for the delegation to third parties of ~~management services~~ functions as referred to in Article 18 ~~and where applicable Article 35~~;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) where already available, information on the arrangements made for the safe- keeping of the assets of AIF ~~including, where applicable, arrangements made under Article 38~~;

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) where already available, any additional information referred to in Article 20(1) for each AIF the AIFM manages or intends to manage.

2010/02/15
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1

2. ~~The Commission shall adopt implementing measures~~After having heard the ESRB and the ESMA, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 49a, 49b and 49c further specifying the disclosure requirements with regard to leverage and the frequency of reporting to competent authorities and of disclosure to investors.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Member States shall ensure that credit institutions approved under Directive 2006/48/EC and investment firms approved under Directive 2004/39/EC, which have AIF as counterparties, establish and maintain mechanisms to monitor the leverage associated with those AIF both on a case-by-case and on a global basis, and contractually set limits on the counterparty risk associated with each AIF and the AIF using the same investment strategy.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM use the information to be ~~report~~gathered under Article 241 appropriately for the purposes of identifying the extent to which the ~~use of leverage~~AIFM’s activities contributes to the build-up of systemic risk in the financial system or risks of disorderly markets.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2

2. HThe competent authorities of the home Member States of the AIFM shall ensure that all information ~~receiv~~gathered under Article 2~~4, aggregated~~1 in respect of all AIFM that ithey supervise~~s, are~~ is promptly conveyed to the ESMA and is made available to other competent authorities of the other Member States and to the ESRB through the procedures set out in Article 46 on supervisory co-operation. ItThey shall, without delay, also provide information through this mechanism~~, and bilaterally to~~ to the ESMA and the ESRB, and bilaterally to the competent authorities of other Member States directly concerned, if the activities of an AIFM under ~~its~~their responsibility could potentially constitute an important source of counterparty risk to a credit institution or other systemically relevant institution in those other Member States, or could affect the sound functioning of financial markets.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. In addition to their reporting obligations to the ESMA under paragraph 2, the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State shall: (a) respond promptly to any request on the part of the ESMA, whether such request relates to the AIFM they supervise, the AIFs managed by those AIFMs, or is of a general nature; (b) provide the ESMA promptly with the conclusions of their assessments of the risks that the activities of an AIFM with regard to the AIF that it manages could entail, including the measures that the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State propose to take in that respect; and (c) provide the ESMA with any information produced by them or in their possession, which they consider to be relevant for the purpose of the ESMA’s purpose.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3

3. ~~In order to ensure~~For the purpose of 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 sourcesmarkets, the ESMA may, in consideration of the assessments and analyses undertaken in the course of its supervision, develop and adopt technical standards which are legally binding. Such technical standards may, in particular, relate to the level or nature 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) used for a given investment strategy in specific circumstances, or the weight, concentration or correlation of investments by AIF on a given market.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 4

4. IOn ~~exceptional circumstances and when this is required in order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system,~~the basis of the information provided to it under this Directive, whether on a regular or ad hoc basis or on request or by any other means, and for the purposes of the stability and integrity of the financial markets, the ESMA: (a) shall supervise and assess the risks associated with the activities of any AIFM with regard to the AIF it manages. For the purpose of its assessment, the ESMA shall liaise with the ESRB and the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State; (b) may, where it deems it to be necessary, request complementary information that it considers relevant from the AIFM concerned either directly or through the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State; (c) may, on its own initiative and/or in the absence of appropriate action on the part of the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State, adopt individual decisions requiring the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State ~~may impose additional limits to the level of leverage~~to take the necessary action to address any risks that may jeopardise the integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system by ensuring that appropriate requests be made or restrictions imposed in relation to the activities of one or several AIFM with regard to the AIF it or they manage; such requests or restrictions include limits on the leverage, in particular regarding its level or nature, that an AIFM ~~can employ. Measures taken by~~may employ, taking into account, inter alia, the type of AIF, their strategy, the sources of their leverage and the concentration of their investments, the market conditions in which the AIF operate and the possible pro-cyclical effects following the implementation of such limits; such requests or restrictions also include amendments to the AIF investment policy, in relation to which the ESMA shall inform the ESRB of the individual decisions it has made; where the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State~~s shall have a temporary nature and should comply with the provisions adopted by~~ do not comply with such an individual decision of the ESMA within the period laid down therein, the ESMA may adopt an individual decision addressed to one or several AIFM concerned requiring the latter to take the necessary action (including the cessation of any practice) to comply with the individual decision of the ESMA; the ESMA’s individual decisions which are directly addressed to the AIFM shall prevail over any previous decisions of the Ccom~~mission pursuant to paragraph 3.~~ petent authorities of the AIFM home Member State on the same matter; in any event, any action taken by the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State in relation to facts which are subject to an ESMA’s individual decision either addressed to the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State or to the AIFM, shall be compatible with such individual decision.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – title and paragraph 1

~~Scope 1. This section shall apply to the following: (a)~~Prudential supervision over leverage buy- out operations regarding non-listed companies 1. Member States shall ensure that AIFM managing one orf more AIF which, either individually or in aggregation, acquire~~s 30 % or more of the voting rights of an issuer o~~ the control over of a non- listed company domiciled in the Community, as appropriate; (b) AIFM having concluded an agreement with one or more other AIFM which would allow the AIF managed by these AIFM to acquire 30 % or more of the voting rights of the issuer or the non- listed company, as appropriateprovide information on the level of debt that is borne, either directly or indirectly, by the targeted company before and after its acquisition.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2

2. ~~This section shall not apply where the issuer or the~~For the purpose of paragraph 1, AIFM shall, prior to the acquisition of a non- listed company ~~concerned are small and medium enterprises that employ fewer than 250 persons, have an annual turnover not exceeding 50 million euro and/or an annual balance sheet not exceeding 43 million euro.~~ , inform the competent authorities of their Member State where the contemplated acquisition may entail, either directly or indirectly, the targeted company’s debts are higher than a multiple of the company’s valuation. In such a case, the competent prudential authorities shall perform prudential controls on the potential consequences of the acquisition in particular having regard to the related systemic risks.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 49a, 49b and 49c specifying the notions of non- listed companies, acquisition of control, multiple (including the determination of its basis), and valuation, and determining the prudential rules that are applicable in this respect.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 27

Article 27 Notification of the acquisition of controlling influence in non-listed companies 1. Member States shall ensure that when an AIFM is in a position to exercise 30 % or more of the voting rights of a non- listed company, such AIFM notifies the non-listed company and all other share- holders the information provided in paragraph 2. This notification shall be made, as soon as possible, but not later than four trading days the first of which being the day on which the AIFM has reached the position of being able to exercise 30% of the voting rights. 2. The notification required under paragraph 1 shall contain the following information: (a) the resulting situation in terms of voting rights; (b) the conditions under which the 30% threshold has been reached, including information about the identity of the different shareholders involved; (c) the date on which the threshold was reached or exceeded.deleted

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28

~~Article 28 Disclosure in case of acquisition of controlling influence in issuers or non- listed companies 1. States shall ensu~~deleted In addition to Article 27, Member the information referred that where an AIFM acquires 30 % or more of the voting rights of an issuer or a non-listed company, that AIFM makes the information set out in the second and third subparagraphs available to the issuer, the non-listed company, their respective shareholders and representatives of employees or, where there are no such representatives, 1 OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p.12. to the employees themselves. With regard to issuers, theo in the policy for preventing and the policy for external and internal (d) the identity of the AIFM which either individually or in agreement with other AIFM shall make available the following to the issuer concerned, its shareholders and representatives of employees: (a) Article 6(3) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids1; (b) managing conflicts of interests, in particular between the AIFM and the issuer; (c) communication of the issuer in particular as regards employees. With regard to non-listed companies, the AIFM shall make available the following to the non-listed company concerned, its shareholders and representatives of employees: 2. implementing measures determining: Those measures, designed to amenve reached the 30 % threshold; (e) the development plan for the non-listed company; (f) the policy for preventing and managing conflicts of interests, in particular between the AIFM and the non-listed company; (g) the policy for external and internal communication of the issuer or non-listed company, in particular as regards employees. The Commission shall adopt (a) the detailed ncon~~- essential elem~~tents of th~~is Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3)~~e information provided under paragraph 1; (b) the way the information shall be communicated.

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29

Article 29 Specific provisions regarding the annual report of AIF exercising controlling influence in issuers or non-listed companies Member States shall ensure that AIFM include in the annual report provided for in Article 19 for each AIF that they manage, the additional information provided in paragraph 2 of this Article. The AIF annual report shall include the following additional information for each issuer and non listed company in which the AIF has invested: (a) with regard to operational and financial developments, presentation of revenue and earnings by business segment, statement on the progress of company's activities and financial affairs, assessment of expected progress on activities and financial affairs, report on significant events in the financial year; (b) with regard to financial and other risks at least financial risks associated with capital structure; (c )with regard to employee matters, turnover, terminations, recruitment. (d) statement on significant divestment of 1 2 assets. In addition, the AIF annual report shall, for each issuer in which it has acquired a controlling influence, contain the information provided for in point (f) of Article 46a(1) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies1 and an overview of the capital structure as referred to in points (a) and (d) of Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/25/EC. For each non-listed company in which it has acquired a controlling influence, the AIF report shall provide an overview of management arrangements and the information provided for in points (b), (c) and (e) to (h) of Article 3 of Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent2. 3.The AIFM shall, for each AIF it manages and for which it is subject to this section, provide the information referred to in paragraph 2 above to all representatives of employees of the company concerned referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 26 within the period referred to in Article 19 (1) 4. implementing measures specifying the detailed content of the information to be provided under paragraphs 1 and 2. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it,deleted OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 11. OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 1. The Commission shall be adopt~~ed in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3).~~

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 30

Article 30 Specific provisions regarding companies whose shares are no longer admitted to trading on a regulated market Where, following an acquisition of 30 % or more of the voting rights of an issuer, the shares of that issuer are no longer admitted to trading on a regulated market, it shall nevertheless continue to comply with its obligations under Directive 2004/109/EC for two years from the date of withdrawal from the regulated market.deleted

2010/03/08
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 46 – paragraph 1

1. The competent authorities responsible for the authorisation and supervision of AIFM under this Directive shall communicate information to the competent authorities of other Member States where this is relevant for monitoring and responding to the potential implications of the activities of individual AIFM or AIFM collectively for the stability of systemically relevant financial institutions and the orderly functioning of markets on which AIFM are active. The Ccom~~mittee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC of 23 January 20091 shall also be informed and shall forward this information to~~petent authorities responsible for the authorisation and supervision of AIFM under this Directive shall also ensure to efficiently inform the ESMA in particular by: - complying with their reporting obligations to the ESMA under this Directive, in particular those under Article 25; - promptly responding to any request on the part of the ESMA, whether such request relates to AIFM that they supervise or AIF managed by those AIFM, or is of a general nature; - promptly providing the ESMA with the conclusions of their assessments of the risks that the activities of an AIFM with regard to the AIF it manages could entail, including the measures that the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State propose to take in this OJL 25, 29.01.2009, p. 18-22 respect; and - providing the ESMA with any information produced by them or that is in their possession, that they deem relevant for the purpose of the ESMA’s mission. The ESMA shall forward to the competent authorities of the other Member States the information provided by the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State that is relevant for the purpose of the supervision of the competent authorities of the other Member States. 1

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 46 – paragraph 2

2. ASubject to the conditions laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No ... [on Community macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board] aggregated information relating to the activities of AIFM under ~~its~~their responsibility shall be communicated ~~on a quarterly basis~~ by the competent authorityies of the AIFM ~~to the Economic and Financial Committee established by Article 114(2) of the EC Treaty~~home Member State to the ESRB.

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 46 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission shall adopt implementing measures specifying the modalities, content and frequency of the information to be exchanged pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2.

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 47 – paragraph 1

1. The competent authorities of one Member State may request the co- operation of the competent authorities of another Member State in a supervisory activity or for an on-the-spot verification or in an investigation on the territory of the latter within the framework of their powers pursuant to this Directive, promptly informing the ESMA thereof. Where athe competent authorityies receives a request with respect to an on-the-spot verification or an investigation, ithey shall perform one of the following: (a) carry out the verification or investigation ~~itself~~themselves; (b) allow the requesting authority to carry out the verification or investigation; (c) allow auditors or experts to carry out the verification or investigation. When carrying out the verification or investigation referred to in this paragraph, the competent authorities shall take into account any comments provided by the ESMA in this regard.

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 47 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The competent authorities of a Member State shall promptly inform the ESMA of situations where a request: (a) to carry out an investigation or on-the- spot verification under paragraph 1 has been rejected or has not been acted on within a reasonable time; or (b) for authorisation for its officials to accompany those of the competent authorities of the other Member State has been rejected or has not been acted upon within a reasonable time.

2010/02/18
Committee: ECON

2009/0064(COD)