Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | REGI | VLASÁK Oldřich ( ECR) | WEBER Manfred ( PPE), KLEVA KEKUŠ Mojca ( S&D), PAKARINEN Riikka ( ALDE), SCHROEDTER Elisabeth ( Verts/ALE) |
Committee Opinion | EMPL | BERÈS Pervenche ( S&D) | |
Committee Opinion | ECON | BOWLES Sharon ( ALDE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Events
The European Parliament adopted by 551 votes to 42 with 67 abstentions, a resolution on regional policy as a part of wider State support schemes.
A proposal for an alternative resolution tabled by the Greens/EFA was rejected in plenary.
Parliament recalls that the existence of a mechanism ensuring the effective implementation and application of EU State aid is one of the general ex ante conditionalities provided for in the draft set of regulations on Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020. In this context, it formulates the following recommendations:
Coordination of State aid rules and Cohesion Policy : Parliament welcomes the Commission's draft regional aid guidelines for 2014-2020 as an integral part of the State aid modernisation programme. It takes the view that the implementation of both Cohesion Policy and the rules on State support schemes to reinforce local and regional investment and public-private partnerships are of key importance for promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion. It asks the Commission to ensure the State aid modernisation is consistent with the Cohesion Policy regulations 2014 – 2020.
Members regret that Article 109 TFEU – the Treaty basis for the enabling regulation and, indirectly, the GBER – provides only for consultation of Parliament, not codecision. It proposes that this deficit be overcome through interinstitutional arrangements in the field of competition policy, and corrected in the next Treaty change.
Parliament believes that regional aid can only play an effective role if it is used sparingly and proportionately and is concentrated on the most disadvantaged regions of the EU . It emphasises the structural contribution of aid to regional development, and calls on the Commission to recognise that the crisis criterion of ‘serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’ still applies in the real economy as well as in the financial sector.
Members take the view that the principles which underlie the process of modernisation should be both well coordinated with other EU policies and sufficiently clear, predictable and flexible to meet the needs of certain Member States and their regions which are facing a time of crisis and severe economic hardship. The Commission is asked to ensure that the aid intensities laid down in the future Regional Aid Guidelines
(RAG) are not applied to public subsidies from the European Structural and Investment Funds.
Territorial coverage of regional State aid 2014-2020 : Parliament takes the view that the geographical zoning of the new RAG 2014-2020 should be preserved or should go beyond the current level of 45 %, and that the aid intensity should be maintained at the present level.
Furthermore, the new rules should not have a restrictive impact on investment in and growth of regions as they move from the less developed to the more developed category . Those regions should have a special safety regime, similar to that for transition regions under Cohesion Policy. In this respect, Parliament proposes that the regions considered as ‘a’ regions in the period 2007 - 2013 should have the predefined status of ‘c’ regions for the period 2014-2020. The Commission is asked to ensure the possibility of increasing the maximum aid intensity in former ‘a’ regions including the statistical effect regions, and in ‘c'’' regions, accordingly.
Members highlights the role of State aid in economies which have been particularly hard hit by the crisis and for which public funding under Cohesion Policy might be the only source of investment. They propose, in this connection, that consideration be given to specific regional derogations outside the regional aid maps, to allow Member States to tackle the backlash effects of the crisis. They also recall the position of the European Council, which has instructed the Commission to ensure that the particular situation of regions bordering convergence regions is accommodated for. Accordingly, regions ineligible for State aid that border on ‘a'’' areas of another country should be granted a specific allocation in terms of ‘c’ coverage.
The Commission is asked to state clearly in the new RAG the principles of non-degressivity and non-limitation in time for operating aids in the outermost regions .
Administrative constraints of the State aid rules in the context of Cohesion Policy: Parliament believes that the application of State aid rules could be better achieved by focusing on large-scale and better-targeted aid, simplified rules, and extension of the horizontal categories in the Enabling Regulation and the scope of the block exemption rules. It recommends increasing the de minimis ceilings.
The Commission is asked to provide promptly for clear guidance for assessing what is and is not State aid, as well as for detailed criteria for distinguishing between important and less important State aid cases.
Members underline the need to guarantee a correct application of the State aid rules within the Cohesion Policy programmes in infrastructure projects used for economic activities . They believe that the Member States and regions should coordinate their activities with the Commission better, in terms of the quality and timeliness of the information they submit. They also ask the Commission and Member States to target their information campaigns regarding State aid rules specifically on regional and local bodies.
The Commission is called upon to ensure the administrative, legal and transparency obligations of application of the SAM rules remain as clear as possible. Members believe that certain newly proposed rules in the draft RAG for 2014-2020 – such as clear evidence that the aid has an impact on the investment choice, or the condition that work on the project must not start before a decision to award aid is taken by public authorities– are not compatible with the principle of simplification and ‘debureaucratisation’.
Attractiveness of regions and State aid rules : Parliament stresses the importance of ensuring clear and straightforward rules for regional as well as sector-specific State aid for attracting foreign direct investment to the EU and its regions and for ensuring their global competitiveness. It urges the Commission to make access to State aid for SMEs in those most disadvantaged regions simpler and clearer.
Members feel that excluding large enterprises from State aid rules is not justified given their contribution to employment, the supply chains they create with SMEs, their common involvement in innovation, research and development, and their positive role in combating the economic crisis. They stress that a decision to exclude large enterprises in ‘'’c' areas could lead to job losses, reduced economic activity in the regions, reduced attractiveness for foreign investment and the relocation of companies to other regions. They consider, therefore, that such companies should remain eligible for State aid in ‘'’c' areas, subject to particular scrutiny following individual notification and to additional compatibility criteria concerning incentive effect and contribution to regional development through clusters and subcontracting.
Parliament believes that the eligibility of large enterprises for State aid incentives should be determined not only on the basis of the size of the enterprise or the sector in which it operates, but also on the basis of the estimated number of jobs that could be created and preserved under the incentive, the quality and the sustainability of the jobs or project concerned and the long-term effects for the development of the region, including the social aspects.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2013)626
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0267/2013
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0204/2013
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0204/2013
- Committee opinion: PE513.065
- Committee opinion: PE510.677
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE510.599
- Committee draft report: PE510.510
- Committee draft report: PE510.510
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE510.599
- Committee opinion: PE510.677
- Committee opinion: PE513.065
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0204/2013
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2013)626
Activities
- Oldřich VLASÁK
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Erik BÁNKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Elena BĂSESCU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mojca KLEVA KEKUŠ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Iosif MATULA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jacek PROTASIEWICZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marie-Thérèse SANCHEZ-SCHMID
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Vilja SAVISAAR-TOOMAST
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Georgios STAVRAKAKIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
Amendments | Dossier |
30 |
2013/2104(INI)
2013/05/28
ECON
30 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s draft regional aid guidelines (RAG) for 2014- 2020 as an integral part of the State aid modernisation (SAM) programme; reiterates its support for an approach where the compatibility rules to assess State aid are rooted on common principles and are consistent across the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) and the different guidelines; favours the adoption of simpler, predictable and more effective State aid control and enforcement rules based on sound economic analysis;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Highlights that the purpose of the RAG is to promote a competitive and coherent internal market, while at the same time ensuring that distortive effects of aid are kept to a minimum;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission, however, to ensure that promoting economic growth through State aid will not again lead to an increase in public debt; underlines the need for less, but better-targeted, State aid; emphasises the need to avoid subsidy races between Member-States, particularly in times of tight budgetary constraints across the EU;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission, however, to ensure that promoting
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission, however, to ensure that promoting economic growth through State aid will not again lead to an increase in public debt; underlines the need for less, but better-targeted, State aid, keeping in mind that State aid is meant to be an exception, not the rule;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission, however, to ensure that promoting economic growth through State aid will not lead to an increase in public debt; underlines the need for simplification of rules and less, but better targeted, State aid;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that regional aid can only play an effective role if it is used sparingly and proportionately, and is concentrated on the most disadvantaged regions of the EU where it is needed the most; believes, consequently, that State aid policy and cohesion policy are, to a large extent, complementary and mutually reinforcing; in this regard, urges the Commission to ensure that State aid modernization will be consistent with the proposed changes in the General Regulation on the Structural Funds and to prevent areas belonging to the same category and experiencing similar economic difficulties from being treated unequally;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that regional aid can only play an effective role if it is used sparingly and proportionately, and is concentrated on the most disadvantaged regions of the EU where it is needed the most; believes, consequently, that State aid policy and cohesion policy are, to a large extent, complementary and mutually reinforcing
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that there is a margin of overlap between cohesion policy structural funds and State aid to companies; highlights that a significant part of the expenditure under EU cohesion policy in the period 2014-2020 falls under the GBER and that not only the RAG but also other horizontal or sector-specific guidelines are relevant in this context; notes that all these State aid instruments have to be coherent among themselves and with the cohesion policy objectives and that all these rules should ultimately ensure effective spending of public money and promote growth;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. In light of the upcoming changes in the General Regulation on the Structural Funds for period 2014-2020, stresses that changes in cohesion policy legislation, especially the new categorization of regions, need to be carefully taken into account when modernizing not only RAG but also other horizontal or sector-specific guidelines for State aid; insists on establishing real synergies between all State aid instuments and cohesion policy to eliminate any disturbing discrepancies and ensure maximum consistency of the two policies;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Is of the opinion that excluding large enterprises companies from State aid rules in areas covered by Article 107(3)(c) TFEU is not justified given their contribution to employment, the supply- chains that they create with SMEs, their common involvement in research and development, and the role they play in the economic crisis; takes the view that the presence of large undertakings is often key to the success of SMEs that benefit from clusters led by large companies and from their sub-contracting activities; underlines that such a decision may lead to job losses and reduced economic activity in the regions and to the relocation of companies to other regions either within and outside the EU; considers that eligibility of large enterprises has to cover State aids aimed at both greenfield and brownfield investments.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Acknowledges the problems regarding investment aid to large enterprises indicated by the Commission; is, however, of the opinion that excluding large undertakings from State aid rules in areas covered by Article 107(3)(c) TFEU is not justified given their contribution to employment, their subcontracting activities benefiting SMEs and their involvement in research and development; highlights that an exclusion of large undertakings may lead to job losses and reduced economic activity in the regions concerned as well as to relocation of activity to other regions, either within or outside the EU; believes that the eligibility of enterprises for State aid incentives should not be determined on the basis of the size of the enterprise or the sector in which it operates;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Supports the idea that the large enterprises should still be eligible for regional aid incentives in so called c regions and advocates not to limit the grant of the regional state aid to large companies investing only in new activities in the area concerned as it was suggested in draft GBER. As the investments of large companies in completely new activities and products are rather rare, it might lead to the exclusion of large companies from the regional aid.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Is of the opinion that excluding large enterprises companies from State aid rules in areas covered by Article 107(3)(c) TFEU is worth being considered given the lack of incentive effect for large enterprises as evidence suggests;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Urges the Commission to make access to State aid for SMEs in those most disadvantaged regions simpler and clearer, recognising the importance of those entities for regional development; at the same time, asks the Commission to step up enforcement efforts in bigger, potentially more distortive cases;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes that, contrary to other types of State aid which can be granted across the EU, regional aid should by definition have a limited geographical scope and population coverage;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Calls on the Commission to consider the economic effects of its regional aid decisions in a wider geographical context as border regions can compete with the EEA territory for economic activity location; recommends to the Commission to take this point into consideration in its EU neighbourhood policy and the negotiations with candidate countries;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Is of the opinion that the proposal, as published for consultation, is not sufficiently complementary to Cohesion Policy in particular in relation to the rules for preventing relocation and will go against the objective of simplification;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Calls on the Commission that companies undergoing restructuring should not be exposed to more stringent measures, especially when a priori negative assessment of aid requests from these companies might lead to the relocation outside the EU and serving the European market through export, and in consequence cause significant reduction of the economic capacity of the European regions. The reorganization of the company in today’s uncertain and constantly changing business environment is the main measure allowing in the long term the maintenance of the sustainability of the project and enhancement of the investment, job and growth creation.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Agrees with the Commission that it should be avoided that State aid leads to relocation of an activity from one site to another within the EEA; expresses doubts, however, about the proposed draft paragraphs 24-25 and 122-124; notes in particular that the figure of two years is necessarily arbitrary and that this rule may be impossible to enforce as any causal link, and the existence of a plan two years ahead will be difficult to prove; is concerned that this rule may favour non-European over European companies and that it may lead to relocation outside the EEA when an activity could otherwise be attracted by regional aid to assisted areas;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 e (new) 5e. Expresses doubts also about the ineligibility for regional aid of "firms in difficulties within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty" (paragraph 11 of the draft guidelines), noting that this is not only inconsistent with helping firms affected by the economic crisis in assisted regions but also impossible to implement, given that those guidelines explicitly contain no precise definition of firms in difficulty;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that the Commission has not yet published the draft GBER so that the RAG can be analysed together with the GBER; regrets that Article 109 TFEU, the Treaty basis for the enabling regulation and, indirectly, the GBER provides only for consultation of Parliament, not codecision; believes that this democratic deficit cannot be tolerated; proposes that this deficit be overcome as soon as possible through interinstitutional arrangements in the field of competition policy and corrected in the next Treaty change; points out that the Commission blueprint for a deeper Economic and Monetary Union foresees proposals for a Treaty change by 2014; deems that such a proposal should include inter alia a specific proposal amending Article 109 TFEU in order to adopt the regulations referred to in that Article in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 f (new) 5f. Is convinced that it is essential that some margin of flexibility for the revision of the guidelines is kept, as mentioned in draft paragraph 177, in order to allow for any future required adjustments, since these guidelines are designed to cover a period of 7 years;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Encourages the Commission to continue to issue soft law guidelines in the field of competition policy, in particular on State aid, duly taking into account the existing ECJ case law, in order to ensure some legal certainty for the stakeholders;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Underlines that if the purpose is to put forward binding provisions of general application in the context of Regional State Aid such provisions should be adopted by means of Regulations, as allowed by article 109, instead of Guidelines;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Welcomes the new proposed rules on transparency (paragraphs 127 and 128 of the draft guidelines); encourages Member-States to comply with these rules and publish in a central website complete and accurate information about granted aid;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Underlines the fact that the primary role of State aid control is to ensure a level playing field in the internal market; fully supports the SAM overall aim of tailoring State aid rules to the need to promote economic growth, foster economic, social and territorial cohesion and stimulate job creation in the EU; notes that it is particularly relevant to promote economic growth in the most disadvantaged regions of the EU; points out that in the current times of economic and social crisis, public investment is essential as part of an overall strategy for growth and employment;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Underlines the fact that the primary role of State aid control is to ensure a level playing field in the internal market; fully supports the SAM overall aim of tailoring State aid rules to the need to promote
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Underlines the fact that the primary role of State aid control is to ensure a level playing field in the internal market; fully supports the SAM overall aim of tailoring State aid rules to the need to promote economic growth in the EU; notes that it is particularly relevant to promote economic growth in the most disadvantaged regions of the EU, keeping distortive effects within the internal market to a minimum;
source: PE-510.866
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0/associated |
Old
TrueNew
|
committees/1 |
Old
New
|
committees/2 |
Old
New
|
docs/4 |
|
events/1 |
|
events/1 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.510New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-PR-510510_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.599New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/REGI-AM-510599_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE510.677&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-AD-510677_EN.html |
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE513.065New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EMPL-AD-513065_EN.html |
events/0/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/1 |
|
events/1 |
|
events/2/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130610&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2013-06-10-TOC_EN.html |
events/6 |
|
events/6 |
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE513.065&secondRef=01New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE513.065 |
docs/4/body |
EC
|
events/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-204&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0204_EN.html |
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-267New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0267_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
REGI/7/12399New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
other/0/dg/title |
Old
Regional PolicyNew
Regional and Urban Policy |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|