2019/2204(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Highlight~~Welcomes the progresses that the directives in the Defence Package ~~aim to promote~~have achieved toward the completion of an internal market for Defence goods and services, further integration of the EU defence supply chain and increase mutual trust among Member States, transparency, equal treatment and the overall competitiveness of Europe’s defence industry; emphasises that a competitive, innovative and resilient European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) is a crucial component of European Strategic Autonomy;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Recognises the relevance of EU- UK cooperation in the defence industry sector, as well as the importance of the cooperation already existing between individual EU Member States and the United Kingdom;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2 d. Before calling on the Member States to fully implement and apply the two directives, calls on the European leaders to act seriously on European defence policy, without hiding real actions behind ambiguous concepts such as strategic autonomy or a strategic compass; underlines that substantial cuts of funding for the EDF, military mobility and European Peace Facility, together with no concrete goals regarding military capabilities, will eventually lead to multiplication of ineffective projects and ineffectiveness of the EU spending;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2 e. Calls on the Member States to draw serious conclusions of the current pandemic with regards to the European defence industry and policy - given that the recession caused by the pandemic is likely to put pressure on defence budgets and foster nationalisation despite the supportive role played by the military forces to civilian authorities in the crisis and the fact that cooperation could lead to substantial savings; emphasizes that it also sheds new light on some of the Member States’ insistence on exclusive US security guarantees, without analysing the consequences of Washington's confrontational policy towards China; Calls on the European Commission to launch a serious analysis of the EU dependency on the US defence market, as well as of the dependency on civilian commercial sector in areas of big data, robotics and AI in front of recently enhanced global IT threats;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)

2 f. In this light, expresses hope that the creation of DG DEFIS, which finally brings the monitoring and management of the two directives under one DG, will also lead to creating intrinsic linkages between the two directives, eventually truly embedding defence industry into the internal market;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that an overwhelming percentage of contracts are still awarded nationally; ~~regrets the persistently significant degree of opacity in acquisition practices; deplores the widespread use of exemp~~encourages greater engagement with small and medium enterprises, particularly those working on emerging and disruptive technologies, to cooperate with prime defence industry companies in acquisition practices to ensure multi-national representations and ~~of offset requirements; calls for the systematic and comprehensive reporting of data by Member States concerning their use of exemptions in order to improve scrutiny; calls for~~innovation; encourages Member States to expand multi-national cooperation within market parameters of standard trade practices and intellectual property rights; encourages the utmost effort to uphold commercial sensitivity and national security and with every efforts t~~o ensure the effectiveness of infringement procedures~~aken to avoid inadvertently aiding industrial and third country espionage;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that an overwhelming percentage of contracts are still awarded nationally; regrets the persistently significant degree of opacity in acquisition practices; deplores the widespread use of exemptions and of offset requirements; calls for the systematic and comprehensive reporting of data by Member States concerning their use of exemptioncalls on the Member States to submit reports in order to improve scrutiny; calls for efforts to ensure the effectiveness of infringement procedures;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Highlight~~Notes that an overwhelming percentage of contracts are still awarded nationally; regrets the persistently significant degree of opacity in acquisition practices; deplores the widespread use of exemptions and of offset requirements; calls for the systematic and comprehensive reporting of data by Member States concerning their use of exemptions in order to improve scrutiny; calls for efforts to ensure the effectiveness of infringement procedurunderlines that, for reasons of national sovereignty and the defence of their vital interests, the Member States must be able to continue prioritising their national defence industries from the programming through to the export stages;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that an overwhelming percentage of contracts are still awarded nationally; regrets the persistently significant degree of opacity in some acquisition practices; deplores the widespread use of exemptions and the persistence of offset requirements; calls for tha more systematic and comprehensive reporting of data by Member States concerning their use of exemptions in order to improve ~~scrutiny; calls for efforts to ensure~~the implementation of relevant Commission’s guidelines ; calls the Commission to increase its efforts to enforce the directive, notably by ensuring the effectiveness of infringement procedures;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that an overwhelming percentage of contracts are still awarded nationally; regrets the persistently significant degree of opacity in acquisition practices; deplores the widespread use of exemptions and of offset requirements, which limits fair competition in the European defence equipment market; calls for the systematic and comprehensive reporting of data by Member States concerning their use of exemptions in order to improve scrutiny; calls for efforts to ensure the effectiveness of infringement procedures;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights that an overwhelming percentage of contracts are still awarded nationally; regrets the persistently lack of transparency and significant degree of opacity inof acquisition practices; deplores the widespread use of exemptions and of offset requirements; calls for the systematic and comprehensive reporting of consistent, accurate and comparable data by Member States concerning their use of exemptions in order to improve scrutiny; calls for efforts to ensure the effectiveness of infringement procedures;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Reiterates its support to the original ambition of the procurement directive to establish an open and competitive European defence equipment market (EDEM) and to boost the competitiveness of the European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB), as they play a key role in improving and maintaining Europe’s security and capacity to defend itself against current and future threats;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes the disparities in publication rates of contract notices between Member States, points out that such disparities could cause a disruption to the internal market and that the lack of reciprocity could disincentivise Member States with a higher degree of implementation;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls Recital 18 of Directive 2009/81/EC and insists that European defence markets should primarily be open to European companies and, on a case- by-case basis, to non-EU entities, on the basis of recognised eligibility criteria;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Recalls the strategic nature of supply chain security and reaffirms the importance of provisions concerning subcontracting aimed at dramatically limiting the risks associated with supply chains being open; also underlines the extreme competitiveness of American competitors, which is regularly promoted and defended by many Member States to the detriment of European industry players;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Stresses that the defence sector is a very specific market in which research and development in major projects is often financed by Member State governments in accordance with their operational requirements and their capacity, their supply strategies and the corresponding industrial policies, in line with supply security considerations;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the need to strictly limit the Member States’ use of exemptions, and in particular the potentially abusive use of Article 346 TFEU, in order to increase transparency and equality; calls on the Member States to strictly follow the Commission’s interpretative guidance as to the conditions under which Article 346 can be invoked; calls for a reduction in the use of exemptions and offset requirements in defence acquisitions, thereby enabling a faster and better development of the EDTIB as one of the key strategic aims of both directives;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the need to ~~strictly limit the Member States’ use~~ensure that Member States strictly respect the conditions of applications of exemptions, and in particular the potentially abusive use of Article 346 TFEU, in order to increase transparency and equality; calls on the Member States to strictly follow the Commission’s interpretative guidance as to the conditions under which Article 346 can be invoked; Calls on the Commission to scrutinise Member States’ recourses to the Directive’s exemptions, especially when their use may harm the competitiveness of the EDTIB;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the need to ~~strictly limi~~ensure that the Member States’ use of exemptions, and in particular the potentially abusive use of Article 346 TFEU, in order to increase transparency and equality; calls on the Member States to strictly follow the Commission’s interpretative guidance as to the condi are able to make use of exemptions under ~~which~~ Article 346 ~~can be invoked~~TFEU;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the need to strictly limit the Member States’ use of exemptions, and in particular the potentially abusive use of Article 346 TFEU, in order to increase transparency and equality; calls on the Member States to strictly follow the Commission’s interpretative guidance as to the conditions under which Article 346 can be invoked; calls on the Commission to closely assess the necessity and proportionality of exemptions invoked by Member States on the basis of Article 346 TFEU;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the directives in the Defence Package aim to promote further integration of the EU defence supply chain ~~and increase mutual trust among Member States, transparency, equal treatment and the overall competitiveness of Europe’s defence industry~~; expresses deep concern that such further integration, coupled with initiatives such as, inter alia, PESCO and the EDF, creates the spectre of a permanent European war economy and entrenched military industrial complex;

Amendment 40 #

4a. Calls for clarification of the guidance notes on exclusions to ensure their correct use, particularly those concerning cooperation, compensation and government-to-government markets; asks for the guidance notes on cooperation to enable a new Member State to participate in a project even after the R&D stage, and for them to be expanded to cover other forms of cooperation, such as cross-purchases between two Member States and government-to-government markets between Member States; calls for clarification of the guidance notes on government-to-government markets and for them to be adapted to the boom in American Foreign Military Sales practices and the new forms of public procurement;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Recognises that the list of products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) of Article346 TFEU apply defined in the Council Decision 255/58 of 15 April 1958 does not reflect the current priorities of the Union and the development of European defence integration registered in the last sixty years; underlines that the aforementioned list is too general since it only mentions the type of products without specifying their characteristics, thus allowing for broad use of exemptions by Member States; recommends the initiation of a proposal from the Commission to make changes to the aforementioned list of products to make it more detailed and specific with the aim to clearly define the types and characteristics of products that may be subject to exemptions;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Underlines that there is an urgent need to question the traditional interpretation of Article 346 in light of the fact that purely national defence products do not exist anymore due to multinational supply chains, multinational collaborative defence projects and a growing importance of the EU level in military R&D;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reiterates experts’ warnings that if Member States continue their current practices, whereby on average less than 20 % of defence procurement results in collaborative projects, the European defence industry and its technological innovation capacity will be doomed to decline;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to be bold when it comes to the enforcement of directive 2009/81/EC and act on a proactive basis to prevent the misuse of the exceptions;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls for the abolishing of the exemption for government-to-government sales in the context of the revision of the directive; stresses that data suggests that procurement of many high-value, strategic, and complex defence systems are done under the G2G exemption of Article 13f, in some cases even without the required market analysis, which de facto deprives European industry from market access;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Reminds that abolishing the government-to-government sales exemption would not mean that European governments are not allowed to for example procure US weapon systems in particular under the form of US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) but that European companies would have a fairer chance to present alternative technology;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the provisions of the directive that aim to foster cooperative procurement in the field of defence~~, and calls on the Member States to make use of all the cooperation possibili~~; recalls that the European Defence Fund creates a self-fulfilling and continuous loop between supply and demand for security and defence, funded with public money; underlines that the EDF, the EDIDP and the PADR are all efforts to turbo-charge the military industrial complex at the expense of public investment in areas such as health, social security, the fight against climate change, and education; stresses that these initiatives ~~offered by the directive, notably under th~~, along with other efforts that aim to promote further integration of the EU defence supply chain and thereby to produce and procure more arms and materiel more rapidly, will inevitably further militarise Eour~~opean Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) and the future European Defence Fund (EDF);~~ relations with countries and regions beyond our borders, heightening tensions, accelerating conflicts and instability and undermining the security of the Union; stresses that the scale and range of challenges we face as a species requires the redirection of resources away from militarism and towards people, and for much-increased international cooperation, assistance and solidarity;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the provisions of the directive that aim to foster cooperative procurement in the field of defence, and calls on the Member States to make use of all the cooperation possibilities offered by the directive with a pure spirit of solidarity, notably under the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) and the future European Defence Fund (EDF); recommends that major defence projects currently run on a bilateral or multinational basis by Member States outside of the framework of EU defence initiatives should be integrated therein in order to allow the meaningful participation of those Member States willing to take part in the projects, ensure coherence of actions, avoid duplications making better use of taxpayers’ money, and guarantee consistent added value to the whole Union;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls for renewed efforts to tackle persistent technological and innovation gaps and lags in the EDTIB, in order to reduce the growing European dependence on defence imports;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Underlines that decreased defence investments may contribute to renationalisation of supply chains which is in contrast to the Directive’s objectives;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Encourages Member States to systematically follow the Commission’s 2018 recommendation on cross-border market access for sub-suppliers and SMEs, notably on translating tenders, announcing large procurement programmes in advance, or dividing them into smaller lots, and conducting up to date mapping exercises of their industrial capabilities including the technological capabilities of SMEs, and then make these data public and properly advertised for allowing prime contractors in other Member States to identify SMEs with the adequate competencies required for launching a joint project;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Encourages Member States to ~~systematically~~ follow the Commission’s 2018 recommendation on cross-border market access for sub-suppliers and SMEs, notably on translating tenders, announcing large procurement programmes in advance, or dividing them into smaller lots; encourages ongoing efforts to provide regulatory relief that encourages SME cooperation via lower entry barriers, reducing complexities for bids, instilling preapproved SME companies and introducing cooperation with private equity firms that invest in SMEs and assisting SME growth via incubation and capital investment;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that SME participation in the field of defence procurement remains low; Encourages Member States to systematically follow the Commission’s 2018 recommendation on cross-border market access for sub-suppliers and SMEs, notably on translating tenders, announcing large procurement programmes in advance, or dividing them into smaller lots;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Believes in this regard, that the Commission must thoroughly examine the causes behind the lack of SME participation;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States to show full political will in ensuring the effective implementation of the directive’s provisions and in increasing intra-EU defence acquisition and R&;D cooperation; calls on Member States to make use of common defence R&D and acquisitions to raise the level of interoperability among their militaries;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Reminds that the current European defence industrial landscape is characterise by industrial overcapacities, duplication,fragmentation, poor levels of transparency and also cases of corruption which, altogether, amount to annual losses of between EUR 25-100 Billion of defence expenditure according to the Commission; believes that a modern, robust, efficient and reliable European defence equipment market significantly contributes to Europe’s security as it would well equip Member States armed forces;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States to show full political will ~~in ensuring the effective implementation of the directive’s provision~~for advancing disarmament and the creation of a Europe that does not produce, export or procure arms;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States to show full political will in ensuring the effective and harmonised implementation of the directive’s provisions;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Recognises that the fragmented and widely different national legislations among Member States in what concerns the transfer of defence-related products consistently undermine the possibility to create an EU-wide supply chain; recommends the revision of Directive 2009/43/EC in order to simplify the intra- EU transfer of defence-related products; suggests that a particular focus should be placed on those components created by sub-contractors that account for a limited share of the total value of the final product which could be completely exempted from national regulations in order to favour SMEs involvement in inter-states projects;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls on the Commission to further support Member States with the implementation of the Directive 2009/43/EC on intra-EU transfers of defence-related products by continuing dialogue with national authorities on this matter;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to raise awareness of the directives tools and benefits, especially with regard to SMEs;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that ~~a more coherent interpretation and consistent implementation of the EU C~~seeking, as a matter of principle, a common Pposition on Aarms Eexports is needed in order to limit fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ensure the EU’s credibility as a global actor; calls for action to address any loopholes which may exist among the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re-exporting products and components, given the discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Positionmight prove damaging to countries' fundamental interests, to their sovereignty, and to their freedom in terms of diplomatic, military and strategic relations;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that a more coherent interpretation and consistent implementation of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports is needed in order to limit fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ensure the EU’s credibility as a global actor; underlines that the Council, in its Conclusions of 16 September 2019, notes that the strengthening of a European defence technological and industrial base should be accompanied by closer cooperation and convergence in the field of export control of military technology and equipment calls for action to address any loopholes which may exist among the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re- exporting products and components, to sensitive destinations given the discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Position;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that a more coherent interpretation and consistent implementation of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports is needed in order to limit fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ensure the EU’s credibility as a global actor; calls for action to address any loopholes which may exist among and between the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re- exporting products and components, given the discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Position; behind this background, rejects the use of so called de-minimis rules for the transfer of components which exempt military technology from checks against the eight arms exports criteria up to a specific threshold;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that a more coherent interpretation and consistent implementation of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports is needed in order to limit fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ensure the EU’s credibility as a global actor; calls for action to address any loopholes which may exist among the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; ~~underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re-exporting products and components, given the discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Position;~~

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that a more coherent interpretation and consistent implementation of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports ~~is needed in order to~~would limit fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ~~ensure the EU’s credibility as a global actor~~reinforce the consistency of EU’s external policy; calls for action to address any loopholes, inconsistencies, or contradictions which may exist among the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; ~~underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re-exporting products and components, given the discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Position~~insists on the importance of giving full consideration to Article 4.8 of Directive 2009/43/EC, for example by introducing a de minimis rule for components of an end-product in the perspective of its exports;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes the sale of arms is tied closely with issues related to national security; and recognises that the sale of arms remains in the sovereign control of the member states for the purposes of national security;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that ~~a more coherent interpretation and consistent~~ implementation of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports is ~~needed in ord~~subject to the will of Member States and must prioritize the need to develop innovative technologies that address the security challenges of the future in a manner tohat limits fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ensures the EU’s credibility as a global actor; calls for action to address any loopholes which may exist among the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re-exporting products and components, given the discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Posilacks of operational capability, interoperability and SME participation;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Underlines that a more coherent interpretation and c~~Recalls the EU’s oft-stated ambition to be a global actor for peace; emphasises that this ambition si~~stent implementa~~ts in stark contradiction tof the EU Common Position on Arms Exports is needed in order to limit fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ensure the EU’s credibility as a global actor; calls for action to address any loopholes which may exist among the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re-exporting products and components, ggoal of EU defence integration, married to massive increases in public funding for the arms industry and efforts to integrate the EU defence supply chain and open up the internal market for defence; emphasises that the latest SIPRI figures show that arms exports from the EU amounted to some 26% of the global total over the period 2015 to 2019, making the EU collectivenly the ~~discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Position~~second largest arms supplier in the world;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Recommends to conduct appropriate analysis on the Directives’ impact on EU-UK cooperation in the defence industry sector in the post-Brexit scenario; calls for the inclusion of specific provisions on defence industry cooperation between the EU and the UK in accordance with the specificities of any potential general agreement that could be reached between the parties;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Calls for the revision of the ICT directive with the aim of integrating the eight EU criteria on arms exports which would make sure that intra-Community transfers do not undermine arms export policies towards third countries and that there is an increase in convergence between Member States;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Deplores the limited use of the general transfer licences (GTLs); calls on Member States to increase transparency by following more thoroughly the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Commission on which products should be subject to the use of GTLsCalls on Member States to increase transparency on all military expenditure;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Deplores the limited use of the general transfer licences (GTLs); calls on Member States to increase transparency by ~~follow~~implementing more thoroughly the ~~guidelines and~~ recommendations issued by the Commission on ~~which products should be subject to the use of GTLs~~aligning the scope of and conditions for GTLs; Calls on the Commission to carefully assess the implementation of its recommendations and to report on this point by 31 December 2021;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Deplores the limited use of the general transfer licences (GTLs); calls on Member States to increase transparency by following more thoroughly the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Commission on which products should be subject to the use of GTLs; underlines the need to provide translations of national transfer licences regulations;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Calls on Member States to develop harmonized global and individual transfer licences (GlTLs) for EDIDP and EDF projects in order to lift any obstacle to the fulfilment of these projects; calls on the European Commission to fully support these initiatives and assist Member States;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of ~~ensuring the accessibility of the CERTIDER online database and of~~ making data systematically available on intra-EU arms transfers, in order to provide for meaningful scrutiny and to properly assess the implementation of the directive.; calls on Member States to annually report to the European Commission on the use of GTLs, GlTLs and individual licences; calls the European Commission to maintain the CERTIDER online database’s sections on GTL up-to-date; to that end, calls on Member States to systematically transmit to the European Commission any change brought to their GTLs;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of ensuring the accessibility and usability of the CERTIDER online database ~~and~~, of making data systematically available on intra-EU arms transfers, including quantitative data and a breakdown by categories of licences, and of reflecting on the need to update the current statistical framework so as to better take into account defence and armament activities, in order to provide for meaningful scrutiny and to properly assess the implementation of the directive.

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that the Commission’s evaluation reports concluded in 2016 that both directives have helped to open up the internal market for defence, but that much more progress is needed; calls for more up- to-date evaluations to be conducted, taking into consideration the study by the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) of 19 October 2020; calls on the Member States to fully implement and apply both directives, and on the Commission to ensure full and consistent enforcement to avoid its uneven application among Member States;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of ensuring the accessibility of the CERTIDER online database and of making data systematically available on intra-EU arms transfers, in order to provide for meaningful scrutiny and to properly assess the implementation of the directiveInsists that the dissemination of data on transfers of defence-related products, both within the Union and in non-EU countries, must remain at the sole discretion of the Member States.

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Expresses its firm believe that the EU Member States, including the European Members of NATO, must improve their defence capabilities and capacities, and sees the effective implementation of the directives as one necessary aspect in the EU’s ambition to become more autonomous and work towards a European defence union.

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Emphasis~~Notes that the Commission’s evaluation reports concluded in 2016 that both directives have helped to open up the internal market for defence, but that much more progress is needed; calls for more up-to-date evaluations to be conducted; calls on the Member States to fully implement both directives, and on the Commission to ensure full and consistent enforcementand is concerned by this development; notes further that this development could further the goals of some within the European institutional establishment to create a common European defence; highlights that the EU does not need such a common defence policy and that such a common defence policy is enormously controversial, destructive and dangerous;

source: 660.191

2020/11/11 IMCO 76 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)

-A. whereas well-functioning markets are created by rules and their strict implementation and assertive enforcement; whereas the same applies to the vision of a future European Defence Equipment Market (EDEM);

Amendment 10 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas there is the need to develop a comprehensive and holistic concept for a European defence equipment market which formally connects all existing fragments such as the EDIDP, PADR, EDF, PESCO, Common Position on Arms Exports, the Dual-Use Regulation, the two directives of the 2009 Defence Package and future initiatives such as common rules on security of supply;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas there is a need to protect and strengthen European subcontractors and manufacturers of critical components or systems in light of the predatory approach of third country undertakings;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)

Gb. whereas without inter-linkages between the different fragments and policy coherence there is the risk that the EU level adds to the existing market distortions and other highly inefficient processes and policies in the defence sector;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)

Gc. whereas, after 11 years of implementation with very little impact, and in light of the creation of EU defence funds worth nearly EUR 10 billion for the next MFF which will introduce the EU as main actor in European military R&D, it is high time to revise both directives in order to ensure their meaningful contribution to the creation of an efficient and performant European Defence Equipment Market (EDEM);

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G d (new)

Gd. whereas there is a massive lack of data as regards the use or non-use of both directives which makes it extremely difficult for lawmakers and stakeholders to assess the impact of the directives and possible weaknesses as well as strong points;

Amendment 15 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

Improving the functioning of the internal market for defence products through better implementation and ~~enforcement of~~the adoption of a more assertive enforcement policy as regards the Defence Package

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes some of the positive trends witnessed in the progressive implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive, namely the increasing number of contract notices and contract-award notices issued by Member States, and the increasing proportion of procurement that has been tendered competitively through Tenders Electronic Daily (TED); stresses, howeverStresses, that a very high volume of procurement expenditure is still incurred outside the directive;

Amendment 17 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Marc ANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes some of the positive trends witnessed in the progressive implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive, namely the increasing number of contract notices and contract-award notices issued by Member States, and the increasing proportion of procurement that has been tendered competitively through Tenders Electronic Daily (TED); stresses, however, that a very high volume of procurement expenditure is still incurred outside the directive and an overwhelming percentage of contracts are still awarded nationally;

Amendment 18 #

Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes some of the positive trends witnessed in the progressive implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive, namely the increasing number of contract notices and contract-award notices issued by Member States, and the increasing proportion of procurement that has been tendered competitively through Tenders Electronic Daily (TED); stresses, however, that a very high volume of procurement expenditure is still incurred outside the directive, and that procedures are still not easily accessible by SMEs;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that ~~one of the main barriers to the full and proper implementation of the directive remains the systematic use~~the excessive use by the Member States of the provisions relating to exclusion ~~by the Member States~~, in particular those laid down in Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union could undermine the full and proper implementation of the directive;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Defence Procurement Directive seeks to introduce fair and transparent rules for defence procurement in an effort to make it easier for defence companies in the Member States to access other Member States’ defence markets; notes that there is unfortunately no adequate access for SMEs and that they face major challenges when participating in public procurement procedures;

Amendment 20 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines that there is an urgent need to question the traditional interpretation of Article 346 TFEU in light of the fact that purely national defence products do not exist anymore due to multinational supply chains, multinational collaborative defence projects and a growing importance of the EU level in military R&D;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls in particular that the development of a European defence technological and industrial base requires the establishment of a European preference for local or European production in defence procurement in Europe;

Amendment 22 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls for the abolishing of the exemption for government-to-government sales in the context of the revision of the directive; stresses that data suggests that procurement of many high-value, strategic, and complex defence systems are done under the G2G exemption of Article 13f, in some cases even without the required market analysis, which de facto deprives European industry from market access;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Considers that too many Member States source mainly from third countries to meet their defence needs;

Amendment 24 #

Sven MIKSER, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Maria GRAPINI, Marc ANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Reminds that abolishing the government-to-government sales exemption would not mean that European governments are not allowed to, for example, procure US weapon systems in particular under the form of US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) but that European companies would have a fairer chance to present alternative technology;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. BCalls for a reduction in the use of exemptions and offset requirements in defence acquisitions; believes, in this regard, that the Commission should take a more proactive role in monitoring the necessity and proportionality of exclusions usinvoked by the Member States in their awarding of contracts outside the scope of the Defence Procurement Directive, and should not be mainly reliant on received complaints filed by the industry;

Amendment 26 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Believes, in this regard, that the Commission should take a more proactive role in monitoring the exclusions used by the Member States in their awarding of contracts outside the scope of the Defence Procurement Directive, and should not be mainly reliant on received complaints filed by the industry; urges therefore the Commission to adopt a more assertive enforcement policy;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Believes, in this regard, that the Commission should take a more proactive role in monitoring the G2G exclusions used by the Member States in their awarding of contracts outside the scope of the Defence Procurement Directive, and should not be mainly reliant on received complaints filed by the industry;

Amendment 28 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Believes, in this regard, that the Commission should take ~~a more proactive role~~its responsibility in monitoring the exclusions used by the Member States in their awarding of contracts outside the scope of the Defence Procurement Directive, and should not be mainly reliant on received complaints filed by the industry;

Amendment 29 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that when a contracting authority authorises economic operators from countries outside the European Union or the European Economic Area to participate in a procedure for the award of defence or security contracts, this authorisation must take into account, inter alia, the requirements of security of information and supply, the safeguarding of defence and state security interests, the interest in developing the European defence technological and industrial base and the requirements of reciprocity;

Amendment 3 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Defence Procurement Directive seeks to introduce fair and transparent rules for defence procurement ~~in an effort to make it easier for~~to make sure that defence companies in the Member States tocan access other Member States’' defence markets;

Amendment 30 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Deplores the use of G2G exclusions to allow for FMS acquisitions on a very large scale from third country partners and the distortions of competition suffered by European actors;

Amendment 31 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Marc ANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that there is still a strong need to focus on the effective implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive, considers that, for that to happen, the Member States should focus on ensuring equal treatment, transparency and competition and on access to public procurement in this field, and that the Commission should focus on providing the Member States with further guidelines and information on the application of the provisions laid down in the directive;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that there is still a strong need to focus on the effective implementation and enforcement of the Defence Procurement Directive, considers that, for that to happen, the Member States should focus on ensuring equal treatment, transparency and competition and that the Commission should focus on implementing common reporting standards and providing the Member States with further guidelines on the application of the provisions laid down in the directive;

Amendment 33 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that there is still a strong need to focus on the effective implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive, considers that, for that to happen, the Member States should focus on ensuring equal treatment of suppliers of hardware manufactured in Europe, transparency and competition and that the Commission should focus on providing the Member States with further guidelines on the application of the provisions laid down in the directive;

Amendment 34 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the need for coherence between the implementation of Directive 2009/81 and the European Defence Fund; as such, calls for tenders financed by ‘European’ funds should be reserved for European solutions;

Amendment 35 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Member States to properly implement the Defence Procurement Directives and those with a large established defence industry to lead by example;

Amendment 36 #

Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that some aspects of the implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive could be improved, such as, where relevant, the Member States’ use of the open procedure as provided for in Directive 2014/24/EC9 and ~~how~~the consistent~~ly they apply~~ application of that directive whenever possible; calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to incorporate provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU which provide for quality- driven and agile procurement such as innovation partnerships when transposing Directive 2009/81/CE in their national laws; believes, however, that no revision of the Defence Procurement Directive is needed at this point, since the existing regulatory framework is sufficient if correctly implemented and properly used; __________________ 9 OJ L 094 28.3.2014, p. 65.

Amendment 37 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Marc ANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that some aspects of the implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive could be improved, such as the Member States’ use of the open procedure as provided for in Directive 2014/24/EC9 and how consistently they apply that directive whenever possible; believes, however, that noa revision of the Defence Procurement Directive is needed at this point, since the existing regulatory framework is ~~suffici~~too general and allows for too broad a divergence whent ift co~~rrectly implemented and properly used~~mes to incorporation into national legislation, resulting in dysfunctionalities and fragmentation on the internal market; __________________ 9 OJ L 094 28.3.2014, p. 65.

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that some aspects of the implementation of the Defence Procurement Directive could be improved, such as the Member States’ use of the open procedure as provided for in Directive 2014/24/EC9 and how consistently they apply that directive whenever possible; believes, however, that no revision of the Defence Procurement Directive is needed at this point, since the existing regulatory framework is sufficient if correctly implemented and ~~properly us~~enforced; __________________ 9 OJ L 094 28.3.2014, p. 65. 9

Amendment 39 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Wishes, on the other hand, for the exclusion be made more flexible for defence and security cooperation so as to allow for the participation of an additional Member State in a project, even after the R&D phase, and for it to be expanded to cover other forms of cooperation, such as cross-purchases between two Member States and government-to-government markets between Member States, and for user clubs to be created for solutions developed and conceived under the leadership of European industry;

Amendment 4 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the Defence Package Directives are needed to further develop a common European security and defence culture, based on the European Union's shared values and objectives, with respect to the specific character of the security and defence policies of the Member States;

Amendment 40 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Considers that the Commission should clarify the conditions for the application of the government-to- government exclusion in order to avoid anti-competitive practices organised by third countries, such as foreign military sales (FMS), which lead to unfair competition and seriously hamper the capabilities of Member States’ companies; calls also for the guidance note on ‘government-to-government’ exclusion to cover new forms of procurement such as the Global-FMS concept;

Amendment 41 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Calls for greater transparency on the advantages offered by the direct and indirect compensation negotiated by third countries in the European Union;

Amendment 42 #

Sven MIKSER, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Maria GRAPINI, Marc ANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to cmon~~tinue monitoring~~itor the implementation, improve transparency and provid~~ing~~e guidance to the Member States in order to ensure consistent use ~~of the directive~~and fully enforce the directive to prevent backsliding of implementation, reduce usage of exemptions and therefore fully achieve its objectives;

Amendment 43 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Observes, further, that there was a slower and lower than expected uptake of certification, and that there are still barriers to effective application of the directive, with low levels of awareness, particularly among SMEs, of the tools available under the directive, and the system used by the Member States in their export controls, in addition to the lack of harmonisation in the implementation of GTLs, which act as major barriers to the effective application of the directive; underlines the fact that an introduction of the ‘de Minimis’ rule principle, known from the Schmidt-Debré harmonisation agreement, in bilateral and/or multilateral agreements between Member States has the potential to further stimulate participation of SMEs in joint ventures and common export licenses throughout the internal market;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Underlines that a more coherent interpretation and consistent implementation of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports is needed in order to limit fragmentation of the EU’s internal defence market and ensure the EU’s credibility as a global actor; calls for action to address any loopholes which may exist among and between the ICT directive, the Common Position and the Dual-Use Regulation; underlines the necessity for prior authorisation before re-exporting products and components, given the discrepancies in the implementation of the Common Position; behind this background, rejects the use of so called de-minimis rules for the transfer of components which exempt military technology from checks against the eight arms exports criteria up to a specifics threshold;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Calls for the revision of the ICT directive with the aim of integrating the eight EU criteria on arms exports which would make sure that intra-Community transfers do not undermine arms export policies towards third countries and that there is an increase in convergence between Member States;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers, therefore, that the Transfers Directive has only partially achieved its main objectives, in particular that of smoothing the circulation of defence-related products within the internal market and of having an efficient internal market, greater security of supply and improved competitiveness, and that a revision of the Transfers Directive is therefore needed;

Amendment 48 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines the importance of having a genuine internal market for intra- EU transfers of defence-related products, and also of facilitating transfers from third countries, while at the same time ensuring the transparent monitoring of the whole process, where national authorities are aware of what and to whom products are transferred and where the export authorisations and other restrictions to exports are brought to a required minimum;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Recalls that the export of defence- related products, both within the Union and to non-EU countries, must remain at the sole discretion of the Member States.

Amendment 5 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the 2016 Commission evaluation concluded that the objectives of the Defence Procurement Directive had only been achieved partially, since it allowed for an initial increase in competition, transparency and non- discrimination in the EU’s defence procurement market, but much more progress in Member States’ consistent use of the directive was needed to fully achieve those objectives ~~fully~~showing a preference for local or European manufacturing in defence procurement;

Amendment 50 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to ~~further~~ improve the directive’s implementation in individual Member States by ~~continuing its dialogue with~~insisting on national authorities ~~in order~~ to resolve outstanding issues;

Amendment 51 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Calls for increased development of contacts and exchanges between the national transfer control communities across the EU to address the existing divergences of transfer control practices and the lack of trust among Member States, as well as to assess the appointment of unique national points of contact for intra-EU transfers related issues1a; __________________ 1aResearch Paper on the implementation of Directive 2009/81/EC, concerning procurement in the fields of defence and security, and of Directive 2009/43/EC, concerning the transfer of defence-related products, written by Jean-Pierre Maulny and Dr Edouard Simon, Institut des Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS); and Dr Alessandro Marrone, Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI)

Amendment 52 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Maria GRAPINI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Member States to take due account of the Commission recommendations on the scope of application and conditions of GTLs and to avoid adding conditions for transfers under GTLs, which would contradict or undermine the conditions listed in the recommendations; underlines the need to provide translations of national transfer licences regulations;

Amendment 53 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Maria GRAPINI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. CObserves that a number of SMEs active in the defence markets are involved in dual-use, while many remain specialised specifically in defence-related activities and are therefore particularly dependant on military and defence-related businesses; calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase efforts in raising awareness of the directive’s tools and benefits, in particular among SMEs to help increase their participation in the field;

Amendment 54 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Maria GRAPINI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Stresses that, in order to build a reliable and comprehensive European defence equipment market and an efficient defence sector, the Commission needs to present without further delay a comprehensive EU-wide Security of Supply regime which was asked for by the 19-20 December 2013 European Council and paragraph 21 of its conclusions but never presented by the Commission;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Calls on the Commission and Member States to improve the quality and availability of data, such as TED data,~~Highlights the disparities in publication rates of contract notices between Member States on TED; stresses the importance of ensuring the accessibility and usability of the Register of the Certified Defence-related Enterprises (CERTIDER) online database; emphasises the need to make data systematically available on intra-EU transfers, including quantitative data as well as a breakdown by categories of licences, to better take into account defence and armament activities; notes that such disparities contribute to the lack of reliable data and could cause a disruption to the internal market and that the lack of reciprocity could disincentive Member States with a higher degree of implementation; calls on the Commission and Member States to improve the quality, consistency and availability of data in order to facilitate the monitoring on implementation of these two directives; and provide meaningful scrutiny;

Amendment 56 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls on the Commission and Member States to improve the quality, transparency and availability of data, such as TED data, ~~in order to~~and reduce the disparities of publication practices, thereby facilitateing the monitoring on implementation of these two directives;

Amendment 57 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls on the Commission to study the feasibility of establishing common standardised administrative forms with the objective of lowering businesses' administrative burden, particularly for SMEs, and build a European approach to transfers of defence-related products;

Amendment 58 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls on the Commission to introduce a quicker simplified preliminary procedure in the first phase of the infringement procedure (administrative letter requesting explanations) in the event of a clear distortion of competition detrimental to a European company, and to be bold in enforcing the directives, including, where necessary, by making use of infringement procedures;

Amendment 59 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls on the Commission to be ~~bold~~strong in enforcing the directives, including, ~~where necessary, by making use of infringement procedures~~by making use of their right laid down in Article 258 TFEU to start infringement procedures; asks the Commission to initiate infringement procedures instead of solely acting on complaints filed by the industry;

Amendment 6 #

Virginie JORON, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas following the military stances adopted by Erdoğan recently, Turkey is no longer a reliable ally in the fields of defence and security like other NATO members;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls on the Commission to be bold in enforcing the directives, including, where necessary, by making more use of infringement procedures;

Amendment 61 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Maria GRAPINI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Notes that SMEs appear to be less successful in winning contracts under the Defence Procurement Directive than in general EU public procurement; notes, further, that the subcontracting provisions of the directive have clearly not been used on a regular and structured basis by Member States’ authorities; finds that some Member States experience these provisions as complex and difficult to use, which partially explains the limited impact of the directive, and that there is hence a need for SMEs to be encouraged to participate in this process and for procedures to be simplified in order to cut red tape;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Highlights that certification processes are regarded as costly, lengthy and burdensome, hence neither accessible nor attractive for SMEs;

Amendment 63 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Considers, therefore, that the goal of increasing SME participation has ~~only~~not been ~~partially~~ achieved;

Amendment 64 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Is of the opinion that the subcontracting provisions of the directive had no or a very limited impact on the cross-border access of sub-suppliers and defence SMEs; calls on the Member States to ascertain that their internal procedures a~~re not blocking SMEs’~~llow for SME cross border participation and to simplify access for companies that fall within the EU definition of SMEs for the participation in tendering processes in the fields of defence and security;

Amendment 65 #

Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Is of the opinion that the ~~subcontracting~~ provisions of the directive with regards to competition between subcontractors had no or a very limited impact on the cross- border access of sub-suppliers and defence SMEs; calls on the Member States to ascertain that their internal procedures are not blocking SMEs’ participation in tendering processes in the fields of defence and security;

Amendment 66 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Recalls the strategic nature of supply chain security and reaffirms the importance of provisions concerning subcontracting aimed at dramatically limiting the risks associated with supply chains being open or interrupted;

Amendment 67 #

Sven MIKSER, Brando BENIFEI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Marc ANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Commission to continue its work and thoroughly examine the causes behind the lack of SME participation, and consider creating an updated map of data on relevant SMEs, outlining their industrial and technological capabilities, which can be publicly accessed by prime contractors from other Member States in order to identify SMEs with relevant capabilities needed for a project;

Amendment 68 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Commission to continue its work and thoroughly examine the causes behind the lack of SME participation and to find an effective means for SMEs to participate in the public procurement process;

Amendment 69 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers that Member-State action could significantly improve cross-border market access for SMEs and sub-suppliers in the defence sectors, and therefore, calls on the Member States to ~~seriously take into consideration and follow when possible~~implement the Commission recommendations as much as possible;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the EPRS study pointed out the ~~limited~~insufficient effect of the Defence Procurement Directive on the Europeanisation of defence value chains;

Amendment 70 #

Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Svenja HAHN, Morten LØKKEGAARD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Calls on the Commission to improve access to finance for SMEs such as European guarantee funds;

Amendment 71 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Considers that better implementation of the directives is critical in order to attain the overarching objective of improving the functioning of the internal market for defence products and of contributing to the establishment of an open EDEM; prioritising European or locally produced hardware;

Amendment 72 #

Virginie JORON, Marco CAMPOMENOSI, Jean-Lin LACAPELLE, Markus BUCHHEIT, Isabella TOVAGLIERI, Alessandra BASSO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Recalls the need to strengthen Member States’ strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty by reducing technological and industrial dependencies and by better controlling foreign subsidies and foreign direct investment in Europe, in order to protect critical European companies against attempts by third countries to control them;

Amendment 73 #