537 Amendments of Lucas HARTONG
Amendment 1 #
2013/2084(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NotesObserves with concern that an expansion of the Agency’s staff establishment is contrary to the decision taken at an earlier stage to reduce the EU’s staff establishment by 5%; calls, therefore, with regard to the staff increase for the European GNSS Agency that, for the offsetting through reductions in Commission staff will noto start immediately in 2013 but will only be fully accomplished in the course of the next MFF period, as the Agency intends to expand its staff establishment from 1 January 2014;
Amendment 2 #
2013/2084(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. IDoes not intends to support the additional posts for the Court of Justice which the Commission omitted in this Draft, in the context of the annual budgetary procedure 2014;
Amendment 20 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes the figures given for the EYV 2011 communication campaign in the annexes to the Commission report, and deplores the fact that poor results were achieved because of a lack of financial resources;
Amendment 26 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 29 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 39 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 43 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 46 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that volunteering, which is becoming increasingly common among both young and elderly people, can promotes intergenerational solidarity and possibly fosters active ageing and lifelong civic participation;
Amendment 51 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that volunteering can plays a key role in creating human and social capital and promoting social inclusion; calls on the Commission to give due recognition to the key contribution that volunteering makes, for example in the world of sport;
Amendment 57 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 61 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to introduce a volunteering policy worthy of the name and to use the open method of cooperation to foster dialogue and cooperation between stakeholders in the variousWelcomes the many forms of volunteering policy already existing in the Member States;
Amendment 67 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 69 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 72 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 75 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 82 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 85 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 90 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on theWelcomes the numerous initiatives already under way in various Member States to facilitate volunteering through the provision of formal, informal and non- formal training to enhance volunteers' skills and empower them in their work;
Amendment 98 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 101 #
2013/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 193 #
2013/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Considers education to be a field in which powers rest not with the EU but with the Member States, in accordance with subsidiarity; rejects, therefore, any involvement of the EU in this field;
Amendment 5 #
2013/2017(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. RegretsIs gratified that in this time of economic crisis some Member States arguecertain – particularly Northern – Member States are sensibly arguing for spending cuts in the Union budget and the multiannual financial framework, thus hindering the growth within the Union and allowing in the same time for tax avoidance; is concernpromoting sensible economic and financial policy and hence growth within the Union; is furthermore gratified that these Member States, amongst them many "friends of better spending", neither shoulder a sufficient degree of responsibility for the implementation of Union funds nor agree to discuss in the Council, in the form of a peer review, there taking responsibility for the correct, transparent and effective implementation of Union funds and seeking prudent execution of the Union budget and the protection of the Union's financial interests;
Amendment 6 #
2013/2017(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Asks for recoveries from undulawfully spent Union funds into be returned to the Member States to be used in the Union budget; which are net contributors to the Union budget and for the amount of the unlawful expenditure to be deducted from the allocation of funds for the forthcoming programming period;
Amendment 194 #
2013/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 195 #
2013/0136(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to ensure high standards of animal and public health in the Union, the rational development of the agriculture and aquaculture sectors and to increase productivity, animal health rules should be laid down at Union level. These rules are necessary, inter alia, to contribute to the completion of the internal market, and to avoid the spread of infectious diseasesPursuant to the Lisbon Treaty, regulation of animal health is not a matter falling within the remit of the EU, and should therefore be decided at the level of the national Member States in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.
Amendment 4 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Jordan's economy has been significantly affected by domestic events related to the events in the Southern Mediterranean since the end of 2010, known aswrongly dubbed the "Arab Spring", and by the ongoing regional unrest, notably in neighbouring Egypt and Syria. Combined with a weaker global environment, the repeated disruptions to the flow of natural gas from Egypt, which have forced Jordan to replace gas imports from Egypt with more expensive fuels for electricity generation, and the important inflow of refugees from Syria have resulted in important external and budgetary financial gaps.
Amendment 5 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Since what, by a misnomer, is referred to as the Arab Spring began, the Union has unilaterally declared on various occasions its commitment to support Jordan in its economic and political reform process. This commitment was reaffirmed in the conclusions of the 10th meeting of the Association Council between the Union and Jordan in December 2012.
Amendment 6 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Jordan has embarked on a series of political reforms, most notably leading to the adoption by the Jordanian Parliament in September 2011 of over 40 constitutional amendments, which may possibly representing a significant step towards a fully- fledged democratic system. Political and economic support from the Union to Jordan's reform process is consistent with the Union's policy towards the Southern Mediterannean region, as set out in the context of the ENP.
Amendment 7 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) TAt the expense of the taxpayer, the Union has made available EUR 293 million in grants for the period 2011- 13 under its regular cooperation programme in support of Jordan's political and economic reform agenda. In addition, albeit without consulting the taxpayer about the matter. In addition, without any democratic legal basis, EUR 70 million has been allocated to Jordan in 2012 under the "Support for partnership, reforms and inclusive growth" (SPRING) programme, and EUR 10 million in Union humanitarian aid to support Syrian refugees.
Amendment 8 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Given thatAlthough, after taking into account macroeconomic support from the IMF and the World Bank, a residual financing gap may remains in Jordan's balance of payments, and given the vulnerability ofalthough Jordan's external financial position may be vulnerable to exogenous shocks, which requires maintaining an appropriate level of the foreign exchange reserves, macro-financial assistance is considered an appropriate response to Jordan's request under the current exceptional circumstances. The Union macro-financial assistance to Jordan (''the Union macro-financial assistance") would support the economic stabilisation and the structural reform agenda of Jordan, supplementing resources made available under the IMF's financial arrangementthe country ought nonetheless to seek financial/macro-financial assistance independently and if necessary in its own region, as this should be regarded as an internal affair (of a budgetary nature) of Jordan itself and not as a matter for the EU. The Union macro-financial assistance to Jordan (''the Union macro-financial assistance") must therefore be rejected, partly because the power to pursue a foreign policy is vested solely in the national Member States in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.
Amendment 9 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 10 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 11 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 12 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 13 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The releasejection of the Union macro- financial assistance should be without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority.
Amendment 14 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 15 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 16 #
2013/0128(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. The Union shall make available to Jordan macro-financial assistance of a maximum amount of EUR 180 million, with a view to supporting Jordan's economic stabilisation and reforms. The assistance shall contribute to covering Jordan's balance of payments needs as identified in the current IMF programmFor the above reasons, the Union refuses to give Jordan macro-financial assistance.
Amendment 36 #
2012/2308(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees that Parliament would be morest effective and cost-efficient if it were not located in a single place; resolves, therefore, to propose Treaty changes under Article 48 of the TEU.ny place at all but immediately abolished;
Amendment 12 #
2012/2253(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Remains concerned as to whether the recruitment objectives of attracting staff from national diplomatic services, and ensuring fair and adequate geographical representation of nationals from all the Member States and at all position levels, are being pushed forward with this aim in mind; is particularly concerned about the high percentage of staff from Belgium and France;
Amendment 20 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the existing de factounlawful division of Cyprus dates back to Turkey’s military invasion of inand illegal occupation of the Northern part of the island in July 1974;
Amendment 25 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that as a result of the 1974 events, the vast majority of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots live separately on the respective sides of the buffer zone and that the resulting property issue has been one of the most difficult problems to solve as part of the ongoing efforts to reach a settlementis actually crystal-clear and easy to solve provided that the illegal occupation measures by Turkey are recognised and completely rejected and that the lawful Greek Cypriot owners of property in illegally occupied Turkish Cyprus are accorded recognition;
Amendment 28 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Acknowledges the factStresses that an estimated 78 % of privately owned land in the northern part of Cyprus legally belongs to Greek Cypriots, whose consent is required for EU-funded infrastructure investments on their land; stresses furthermore that the EU must not and will not in any way at all cooperate with expropriation procedures or investment in infrastructure by the illegal Turkish occupier against Greek private individuals who own property in the northern part of Cyprus;
Amendment 31 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the UN Security Council Resolution 541 (18 November 1983) states that the attempt to create an independent state in the occupied part of Cyprus was illegal, null and void and that UNSC Resolution550(1984) calls upon all States not to recognise the so-called "Turkish republic of northern Cyprus" and "not to facilitate or in any way assist the secessionist entity"; stresses that the EU will therefore not in any way invest, or support investment, in the illegal ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Observes that according to Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession while the whole island is legally part of the EU, the acquis communautaire is suspended in the Northern part, an area over which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control; this constitutes a uniquescandalous political, legal and diplomatic context; calls on Turkey to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from the territory of the EU Member State Cyprus;
Amendment 40 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers it essential for the EU and the destination of EU aid to clarify independently the issue of how large the Turkish Cypriot population actually is;
Amendment 53 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that the programme has assisted many different beneficiaries across the Turkish Cypriot community; but observes nevertheless that it has not been possible to implement the single largest bi-communal project, the construction of a seawater desalination plant (27,5 million euro) due to restrictions imposed byopposition from the Turkish army. This represents a significant setback for the programme; has severe doubts as to whether it is the task of the EU to invest in projects in the Turkish Cypriot community in view of the illegal Turkish occupation and its resultant total control over the Turkish Cypriot community;
Amendment 58 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notices that "more generally, the sustainability of projects is often in doubt due to the limited administrative capacity of the beneficiaries and the presence of the Turkish occupier;
Amendment 62 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls here that the ultimate objective of the instrument is to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus and to put an end to the illegal Turkish occupation as soon as possible;
Amendment 63 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Agrees with the CommissExpresses the conviction, that until a settlement of the Cyprus issue is achieved, the support to the TCc is to be based on the current Aid Regulationshould be halted, in view inter alia of UN Security Council Resolution 541 and Regulation (EC) No 389/2006, and that, therefore, the current Aid Regulation should be suspended with effect from 1 January 2013;
Amendment 67 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 68 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Nevertheless notes with concern that the Commission faced – and continues to face – significant constraints in the setting up and implementation of the programme, that the effectiveness of the Commission's local support office has been undermined by several factors, all of which are more or less linked to the illegal Turkish occupation, that the programme implementation procedures are not always effective and that the sustainability of projects remains risky despite some results;
Amendment 69 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 71 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Regrets the loss of the seawater desalination plant project which was an unfortunate setback; recalls that this project was not only the main project in the water sector but also the largest bi-communal project funded under the instrument and that the plant was intended to provide 23 000 m3 of clean drinking water per day covering the needs of an estimated 100 000 people and recalls that water supply is becoming an increas¬ingly critical issue for the island following a 40 % decrease in the mean annual rainfall in the past 30 years; is deeply concerned that the cancellation of the project due to the restrictions, imposed byin particular to the opposition of the Turkish army to the Greek Cypriot contractor by the Turkish army means that this serious environmental issue will not be addressed;
Amendment 80 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Deeply regrets that delays have affected most of the actions on local and urban infrastructures, although these are largely outside the control the Commission and the UNDP due to opposition by the Turkish occupier and its illegal bodies; furthermore notes the ineffectiveness of the UN and its bodies in resolving the situation which currently exists in Cyprus;
Amendment 88 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. StressDeplores the transitional and exceptional character of the EU aid to the TCc, pending the reunification of Cyprus;
Amendment 91 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 97 #
2012/2107(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Emphasizes that the main objective of Regulation 389/2006 is to facilitate the reunification of the island; recommends reviewing once again the distribution of the aid to the TCc and the objective obstacles related to the sustainability of the projects; suggests considering whether large scale bi-communal infrastructure programs should still be pursued or a focus on smaller scale bi-communal projects managed and supervised by the official government of the Republic of Cyprus, confidence building measures, the support of the civil society, the missing persons' related activities, the youth mobility, the preservation of historical sites should be considered instead;
Amendment 1 #
2012/2062(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 1
Section 1 – paragraph 1
1. Reaffirms that the universal human rights and freedoms as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to every human being, regardless of any circumstance or situation, custom or religion; stresses, at the same time, that the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) cannot be equated with this;
Amendment 9 #
2012/2062(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 6
Section 1 – paragraph 6
6. Calls for the inclusion of a human rights assessment in the deployment of EU country aid modalities and the conclusion of implementation agreements and of agreements (particularly concerning fisheries) with countries, in particular regarding budget support;
Amendment 13 #
2012/2062(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 1 – paragraph 8
Section 1 – paragraph 8
8. Recalls that democracy and the rule of law are prerequisites for, but not identical to, the fulfilment of human rights; calls on the EU to support the establishment of democratic and human rights-based ideals throughout society, especially with a view to promoting gender equalityfreedom of expression and assembly and women’s and children’s rights;
Amendment 27 #
2012/2009(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers, moreover, that in the light of the Court's criticism it becomes clear that the EFF and CFP provide no value added, further disrupt the fishing industry in Europe and should therefore be discontinued in order to avoid further waste of taxpayers' money; further takes the view that the EFF and CFP should be re-nationalised and brought back within the sphere of competence of the Member States;
Amendment 1 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas, in a context of a heavy burden of public debt and of restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts, the Parliament is not yet particularly showsing budgetary responsibility and self-restraint,; noting the letter dated 23 January 2012 from Commissioner Lewandowski to the Presidents of the European Institutions; noting the letter of 21 February 2012 from the Dutch, Swedish and British finance ministers to the President of Parliament;
Amendment 10 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomesNotes the efforts made to present realistic estimates and acknowledges the fact that the Bureau adopted savings as compared to the original level suggested in the Secretary- General's report; notes that the Bureau adopted the preliminary draft estimates for the 2013 budget at its meeting on 12 March 2012, at the rate of increase of xx % over the 2012 budget; further notes that, pursuant to the agreement reached by the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets at the conciliation meeting of 13 March 2012, this rate is currently set at xx % over the 2012 budget;
Amendment 17 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 28 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the administration to present an independent evaluation of Parliament's budgetthe budgets of Parliament, the Commission and the agencies with the aim of identifying savings throughout and present this evaluation to the Committee on Budgets, as well as to the Committee on Budgetary Control, by September 2012 at the latest; to this end, reminds the Secretary-General and the Bureau of its request for the establishment of a working group as soon as possible; considers that such group should discuss inter alia the findings of the requested report concerning Members' travels, due to be completed by 31st March 2012, the results of a comparative study with the budgets of a representative sample of Member States parliaments and with the budget of the United States Congress and the financing of the building policy; recalls that conclusions reached by the group should be implemented without delay;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Requests a report on savings achieved, and cost overruns, during the implementation of the 2012 budget, in line with the calls for savings expressed in its position of 26 October 2011 on the 2012 draft budget as modified by Council - all sections; expects such a report to be communicated to the Committee on Budgets by no later than 31st August 2013;
Amendment 33 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights its willingness to contribute actively to maintain budgetary discipline by freezing all budget lines relating to travel and not indexing any of the Members' individual allowances until the end of the legislature; presses again for a single venue for plenary sessions in order also to reduce travel expenses substantially;
Amendment 37 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is of the opinion that further reorganisation of the Parliament working methods should be considered; calls on the Secretary-General to implement a possible revision of the calendar for committee meetings and delegation missions; furthermore, calls on the Secretary-General to examine possible further opportunities for savings regarding delegations; if such changes can be implemented in 2012, requests that the administration provides the Committee on Budgets with a record of savings generated, and details of any cost overruns, in 2012 in these areas;
Amendment 60 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the revision of the estimated running costs of the House of the European History; takes note that the 2013 budget will see a substantial increase in its funding given the fact that its opening is foreseen for 2014; is concerned about the estimated development costs and requests, therefore, strict adherence to the minimum costs and not to exceed the figures set out in the estimates; believes that the Parliament should look for sources of possible financing other than its own budget; furthermore, referring to the letter from the President of the European Commission of 28 September 2011, expects that a concrete agreement on co-financing the running costs will be signed by no later than August 2013; would very much prefer to scrap the entire project, since Europe’s citizens can in no way exercise democratic influence over decision-taking and, moreover, there is overlapping between Parliament and the House of European History and any semblance of conflict of interest must be avoided;
Amendment 65 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that the preliminary draft estimates request a 22 % increase compared to 2012 for the implementation of an "enhanced maintenance policy"; requests more detail from the Secretary- General with regard to this policy and how the proposed appropriations will be used; understands the need for certain buildings to be renovated; however calls for more detailed information on the timing and costs of the renovation policy, and, at least until that time, withholds approval of any increase whatever;
Amendment 5 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the institutions, in the context of continued challenging economic circumstances, should freezemake cuts in their administrative budgets; emphasises, however, the need to respect legally binding obligations and possible subsequent increase, whilst respecting possible legally binding obligations;
Amendment 9 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 12 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the importance of strengthening non-discrimination policies which facilitate the access, recruitment and integration of people with disabilities;
Amendment 13 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need for an effective environmental policymeasures across the institutions, which could begin with savings on the heating of buildings;
Amendment 16 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines; requests, therefore, a detailed and clear overview of budget lines that were under- and/or over- implemented in 2011 and an objective analysis of the reasons for this;
Amendment 20 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that, in order to make significant long-term savings, an independent evaluation of the EP budget should be considered;executed annually; primarily by the courts of auditors of the EU member states
Amendment 27 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for a freeze on budget lines related to all travel in 2013 and no indexation of any of the Members' individual allowances until the end of the legislature; also asks for a freeze of the salaries of EU civil servants and an abolishment of the automatic indexation, at least until the end of the present legislature;
Amendment 37 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Encourages all institutions to look for further savings to maintain budgetary discipline and to freeze their budgets whilst bearing in mind legal obligations and new financial challenges such as the Croatian enlargement;
Amendment 41 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Takes note ofFinds unacceptable the European Court of Justice's (Section IV) request to amend its Statute in a way which will have a direct impact on the budget; considers that the necessary financing shall be ensured in order to guarantee the smooth running of the institution and consequently a proper judicial protection of EU citizensalso points out that evidently more efficiency is needed at the Court; asks for a report on the efficiency of the Court to be presented to the Budget committee in 2012;
Amendment 43 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Understands the challenges that faced the EEAS in drawing up its first budget for 2011; expects, however, its estimates for 2013 to be more accurate deplores their heavy inaccuracy until now and the repeated overruning order to avoid the transfer of appropriations throughout the budgetary yearf budget lines during the last year; expects its estimates for 2013 to be exact.
Amendment 19 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
Amendment 20 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The Union's vision ofIn accordance with the subsidiarity principle, humanitarian aid, including a common objective, principles and good practice and a common framework to deliver the Union's humanitarian aid, is set out in the "European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid". The European Consensus underlines the Union's firms primarily a responsibility of the Member States, not the Union. Naturally it is unquestionably important that the Member States should be commitmentted to upholding and promoting the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. The actions of theHowever, there is absolutely no legal basis or necessity for the establishment and operation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps (hereinafter referred to as the 'EU Aid Volunteers') should be guided by the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, nor would it possess any European added value.
Amendment 21 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 22 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The number, scope and complexity of humanitarian crises worldwide have increased significantly over the years, particularly in regions where Islam is – or aspires to be – dominant, leading to a rising demand on humanitarian actors to provide an effective, efficient and coherent response and to support third country local communities in order to make them less vulnerable and to strengthen their resilience to disasters.
Amendment 23 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) VNational volunteering schemes exist in Europe and worldwide focusing on third country deployment. These are often national schemes which focus mainly or exclusively on development projects. ThDuplication should be avoided and, because EU Aid Volunteers shwould, therefore, avoid duplication and should add value by providing opportunitie not possess any European added value, there is tno volunteers to jointly contribute to humanitarian aid operations thus reinforcing active European Union citizenship and by fostering transnational cooperation of implementing organisations participating in the actions of the Corpsneed to establish them, particularly in these times of economic crisis in Europe, in which Member States in particular are finding it very difficult to put their national budgets in order or to keep them that way.
Amendment 24 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 25 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The Union carries out its current humanitarian aid operations in partnership with implementing organisations. These organisations should play a significant role in implementing the EU Aid Volunteers' initiative to ensure ownership, which is by no means an unalloyed success, in the light of the actreports ion the field and to maximise the potential uptake of the Voluntary Corps' actions. The Union should entrust implementing organisations notably with the identification, selection, preparation and deployment of EU Aid Volunteers in accordance with standards established by the Commission. The Commission should, in addition, be able to draw upon successfully trained and prepared volunteers for deployment, where appropriatesubject by the Court of Auditors of the EU and the information which is being compiled by OLAF concerning cases of fraud or suspected fraud, precisely in connection with EuropAid and cooperation with implementing partners.
Amendment 26 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Private companies can play an important role and contribute to the Union's humanitarian operations of the national Member States notably through employee volunteering.
Amendment 27 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 28 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
Amendment 29 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 30 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 31 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 32 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Participation of third countries, in particular acceding, candidate, EFTA and partner countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy, should not be possible on the basis of cooperation convent, because they cannot, either lawfully or formally, represent the Unions.
Amendment 33 #
2012/0245(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 34 #
Amendment 174 #
2012/0039(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) This Regulation should also give the Member States the possibility to authorise, where the need for an urgent departure arisesof the owner arises - for example, in the event of a sudden natural disaster, political unrest or particularly personal emergencies -, the direct entry onto their territory of pet animals of the species listed in Annex I which do not comply with the conditions provided for in this Regulation provided that a permit is applied for in advance and granted by the Member State of destination, and a time-limited quarantine under official supervision is carried out to meet those conditions. Despite the need for such urgent departure, such permit should be indispensable due to the animal health risks arising from the introduction into the Union of a pet animal not complying with the conditions provided for in this Regulation.
Amendment 200 #
2012/0039(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the name, and address and signature of the owner;
Amendment 206 #
2012/0039(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. The veterinarian issuing the identification document shall not record the information referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b) and keep records of that information for at least 10 years from the date of issue of the identification document.
Amendment 212 #
2012/0039(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. By way of derogation from Article 22(1), Member States shallcan authorise the non-commercial movement into a Member State from another Member State of pet animals accompanied by the identification document issued for the purposes of Article 10(e):
Amendment 213 #
2012/0039(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the name and address of the owner or the natural person acting on behalf of and in agreement with the ownerauthorised person;
Amendment 215 #
2012/0039(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the name, and address and signature of the ownerof the owner or the authorised person;
Amendment 217 #
2012/0039(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the name and address of the owner or the natural person acting on behalf of and in agreement with the ownerauthorised person;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2318(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomesNotes that the Commission’ is commitmentted to developing a new generation of sustainable fisheries agreements (SFAs) to promote the conservation of resources, environmental sustainability, good governance and the effectiveness of sectoral support in partner countries by means of strengthening conditionalities;
Amendment 10 #
2011/2318(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Would like to see the SFAs improve the integration of developingpartner countries in the world economy and encourage investment and the development of the local private sector, including small enterprises and small-scale fisheries, by supporting processing and marketing activities;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2318(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the allocation for sectoral support in the SFAs boosts the EU’s development cooperation Member States’ objectives and is in line with the signatory country’s national development plan; calls for this allocation not to replace the cooperation on fisheries provided for in other agreements or cooperation instruments but to complement it in a coherent way;
Amendment 14 #
2011/2318(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to enter into agreements with partner countries solely on the express condition that the EU Member States should benefit from the agreement concerned and certainly not suffer any economic loss;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2318(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the Commission to enter into agreements solely with countries where human rights are respected unconditionally, the rule of law is applied in line with internationally recognised laws and democratic governance principles are complied with;
Amendment 20 #
2011/2318(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Asks the Commission to base any renewal and/or extension of the agreement also on the impact assessment and, where the assessment is negative, not to extend the agreement;
Amendment 7 #
2011/2307(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 29 #
2011/2307(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the need for more effective cooperation at European level regarding the diversity of animal and plant genetic resources in order to ensure their conservation and improve their ability to adapt to climate change;
Amendment 33 #
2011/2307(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 43 #
2011/2307(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 51 #
2011/2307(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 8 #
2011/2297(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned that the balance between the need for water and available resources has reached a critical level in many regions of Europe and that climate change could make the situation even worse; water scarcity now affects the whole territory of some Member States on a permanent basis;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2297(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 38 #
2011/2297(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Asks at the same time the Commission anddvises the Member States to improve monitoring and reporting of chemical pollutants in water, along with a mechanism to obtain better information on concentrations of other pollutants for which monitoring may prove necessary in the future at EU level;
Amendment 6 #
2011/2254(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. ApproveRejects the decision annexed to this resolution;
Amendment 6 #
2011/2253(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. ApproveRejects the decision annexed to this resolution;
Amendment 6 #
2011/2252(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. ApproveRejects the decision annexed to this resolution;
Amendment 23 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission, in such time of financial crisis, to stop the increases in the Agencies’ budgets, to even consider reducing the Union contribution to their budgets, in particular to the Agencies which mainly perform research; also urgesdemands that the Agencies to reduce their running costs and establish mechanisms to show the clear use and accountability of each EUR and to make substantial savings of Union funds;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that in 2010 several Agencies introduced amending budgets and proceeded to make carryovers and transfers; noticed that some of the Agencies explain the purpose of those actions, for instance CDT and ERA; urgesdemands that all Agencies to justify, systematically, amending budgets, transfers and carryovers in their report on the final annual accounts and annual report on Budgetary and Financial management;
Amendment 32 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the high level of carryovers and cancellations is generally indicative of the inability of an Agency to manage a large increase in its budget; demands that the absorptive capacity and the time needed to carry out additional tasks should play a larger role in budgetary decisions; urges that the annual budget for the Agency concerned be reduced if no structural action is taken to address this issue;
Amendment 35 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. UrgesDemands that the Agencies, accordingly, to improve their internal planning and general revenue forecasting in order to reduce their high carry over and cancellation rates as well as their spending; reminds the Agencies that they need to refine their programming and monitoring system and initiate contracting earlier in the calendar year to reduce the need to carry over appropriations; calls in addition on the Commission to provide guidancemonitor the situation strictly in this respect;
Amendment 58 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Agencies to make and present a periodicbiannual overall evaluation on their activities and performance, to be commissioned by the Commission, the European Parliament and/or the European Court of Auditors, and to make the report available on their website; the Management Board’s Agencies must then be called to prepare a roadmap with a follow-up action plan based upon the conclusions of those evaluations, and report on progress bi-annually;
Amendment 140 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Notes that the large size of certain agencies’ Governing Boards and the high turnover of their members could lead to an ineffective decision-making body; calls, accordingly, on the Interinstitutional Working Group on Agencies to address and resolve this issue; suggestcalls in addition that consideration be given tofor the possibility of merging governing boards for Agencies working in related fields to reduce meeting costs;
Amendment 145 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76 – indent 1
Paragraph 76 – indent 1
– merging or shutting down smaller and research focused Agencies in order to achieve savings and stop and/or avoid overlapping objectives, and prevent further spending of the Union budget;
Amendment 148 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Calls on the Commission, the European Parliament and/or the European Court of Auditors to immediately carry out an evaluation of all the Agencies in order to detect occurrences of unnecessary or overlapping activities and to analyse the merger of some of the Agencies, and to inform Parliament about this issue by the 15 July 2012 at the latest;
Amendment 158 #
2011/2232(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Finds that the activities and results of some Agencies cast doubt on their true added-value to the Union’s objectives; considers that a large number of reports and papers and other related outputs, such as those of the EEA and others, can be seen as lacking substantial, innovative and practical input to the objectives and work on the Union; notes also that the EIGE outputs were rather limited in 2010; calls, therefore, on the Commission, Council and the Court of Auditors to report immediately on the real added-value of the Agencies’ activities and to focus primarily, but not exhaustively, on CEDEFOP, EEA, EIGE, EUROFOUND.; considers that Agencies which are of no true added value to the Union’s objectives should be phased out and ultimately shut down;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2227(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Citation 3
Citation 3
– having regard to the Council’s recommendation of... (0000/2012 – C7- 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 3 #
2011/2227(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ...Refuses to grant the Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 5 #
2011/2227(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 2
Citation 3
Citation 3
– having regard to the Council’s recommendation of... (0000/2012 – C7- 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 8 #
2011/2227(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
– having regard to the Council’s recommendation of... (0000/2012 – C7- 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 9 #
2011/2227(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the overall budget of the Centre for the year 2010 was EUR 57 800 000 compared to EUR 49 200 000 in 2009, an increase of 17,5%; whereas the total contribution of the European Union to the budget of the Centre for 2010 was EUR 53 223 000,; whereas the precise amount of the subsidies allocated to the Centre for 2010 is different from earlier figures and, accordingly, doubts have arisen with regard to that amount;
Amendment 15 #
2011/2227(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges from the Centre's Final Annual Accounts that the budget execution at year end 2010 reached 95% in terms of commitment appropriations; is however concerned that the budget execution in terms of payments only reached 68 % of the total budget; finds nevertheless that this is already an improvement compared to 59 % in 2009 but considers that further efforts need to be made by the Centre in this respecconsiders that the Centre can evidently make do with a smaller annual budget;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2227(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. AcknowledgNotes that the Centre is now working with its partners to implementmaking negligible changes on the basis of lessons learned from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, in order to further improve the performance of the Centre for the future; points nevertheless to the important contributions made by the Centre to the measures on fighting the H2N1 pandemic, by issuing preliminary guidelines on the "Use of specific pandemic influenza vaccines" in 2009disaster; very much wonders, because of that too, whether Member States’ national institutions are not in a much better position to carry out this task than the Centre;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the Council'’s recommendations of dd mm yyyy concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Funds for the financial year 2010 (C7-0000/2011), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time withheld their approval of the discharge,
Amendment 2 #
2011/2212(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2207(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Citation 5
Citation 5
– having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which did at the same time establish serious irregularities,
Amendment 2 #
2011/2207(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision to grants the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions/Postpones discharge in respect of the implementation of the Committee of the Regions budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 7 #
2011/2207(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is satisfied withNotes the explanations provided by the Committee of the Regions (CoR) regarding these errors, and with the decisions taken in order to ensure that such situations do not reoccur (improved recruitment procedure for officials from other institutions, supervision and monitoring of contract value estimates using a standard format for documentation, and enhancing the supervisory and control system for tenders by setting up a restricted-access mailbox);
Amendment 13 #
2011/2207(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 18 #
2011/2207(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union highlights the importance of the subsidiarity principle, thus strengthening the role of the CoR; in this context, congratulates the CoR, in particular for its work on the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy and on multi-level governance72% of the budget is spent on staff costs and 28% on the management of buildings, cleaning services, etc., raising very serious doubts about the European added value of the Committee, given that it makes no tangible contribution to decision-making by the EU and its institutions, thus in fact making its existence unnecessary and inefficient;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2206(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 3 #
2011/2206(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision to grants the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee/Postpones discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Economic and Social Committee budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 23 #
2011/2206(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the EESC to consider the usefulness of organisinge an assessment of its work, as the Committee of the Regions has already done (CAF: Common Assessment Framework);
Amendment 41 #
2011/2206(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reiterates its request for the Court of Auditors to identify evidence of irregularitiefuses discharge to the EESC at least for as long as OLAF, the Ombudsman and the Court of Justice are still conducting investigations and the outcome of these investigations ins the 2009 and 2010 audits as well as the deficiencies in the promotion system of the EESC which led the EESC to undertake the thorough reform which is ongoingus unclear; also refuses discharge on the grounds of the political issue of whether the EESC does still actually offer European added value;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the audit of the Court of Auditors stated that, as regards administrative expenditure in 2010, all the institutions satisfactorily operated the supervisory and control systems required by the Financial Regulation andbut only 93 % of the 58 payments audited were free from material error,
Amendment 2 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Secretary-General certified, on 16 June 2011, only his reasonable assurance that Parliament's budget has been implemented in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and that the control framework put in place provides the necessary guarantees as to the legality and regularity of the underlying operations,
Amendment 3 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision to grants its President discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Parliament budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 5 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the audit of the Court of Auditors stated that, as regards administrative expenditure in 2010, all the institutions satisfactorily operated the supervisory and control systems required by the Financial Regulation andbut only 93 % of the 58 payments audited were free from material error,
Amendment 6 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Secretary-General certified, on 16 June 2011, only his reasonable assurance that Parliament's budget has been implemented in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and that the control framework put in place provides the necessary guarantees as to the legality and regularity of the underlying operations,
Amendment 7 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas soma considerable number of the issues raised in the course of the discussions on the 2010 discharge in the Committee on Budgetary Control went beyondconcern the specific 2010 issues, and; where included in wide-ranging questions from the Committee,as the present report remains principspecifically focussed on the budget implementation and discharge for the financial year 2010,; whilst acknowledging that approaches to budgetary matters are a subject for wider discussion elsewherereas these issues are thus politically relevant and democratically accountable,
Amendment 17 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 20 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that this overall high level of implementation is partly due to two targeted transfers made before the end of the financial year 2010 (EUR 9 240 000 for the purchase of a Europe House in Sofia and EUR 10 923 000 for four major IT projects); welcomes the fact that no mopping-up transfers took place between 2010 and 2011; encourages, however, itParliament’s administration and Committee on Budgets to pursue the objective of better and clearer budget planning and discipline in the future and notes that to put buildings, IT or any other important expenditure in the budget would provide more financial clarity; wants to keep ITER in the budget;
Amendment 79 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Notes that, on 5 July 2010, the Bureau adopted Parliament's updated Communication Strategy integrating the project of the House of European History and that, in September 2010, an international jury examined that projects; further notes that use was not made of budget chapter 1 0 6 "Reserve for priority projects under development" for this project as all the appropriations of that chapter (EUR 5 000 000) were transferred to chapter 2 1 0 "Computing and telecommunications"; reiterates its expectation that the cost plan contained in the Business Plan should be strictly adhered to; considers also that the House of European History is a personal prestige project for certain EPP MEPs that has come into being in an undemocratic manner, with citizens having had no opportunity to exert any influence on political decisions taken regarding the House;
Amendment 91 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Regrets that EuroparlTV cannot be considered to be a success story in view of its very low number of direct individual users (excluding viewers through partnership agreements with regional TVs) in spite of the considerable financing that it received in 2010, amounting to some EUR 9 000 000 (item 3 2 4 6); welcomes the efforts made to reduce this budget by 14 % (to EUR 8 000 000) in 2011 and in the subsequent years; calls however for a cost-benefit evaluation of Europarl TVants EuroparlTV to therefore be shut down as soon as possible as a direct cost saving in the interests of citizens;
Amendment 96 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Notes that the costs relating to the LUX Prize in 2010 were EUR 380 666,.18; is concerned that the costs rose for the event in 2011 to 573 722,.08 (by over 50 %) and; looks forward to a sharp reverse in this trend from 2012 onwardsthis Prize being discontinued as of 2012;
Amendment 113 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Notes that, in 2010, there were 33 200 missions (official trips) representing a total of 98 629 mission days, most of them involving travel between Parliament's three places of work; reiterates the need to avoid unnecessary missions between the three working places and the costs they entail with more systematic and documentary justifications and better monitoring; requests that the Secretary General report, as part of the discharge procedure, on any savings made as a result of further rationalisation; emphasises once again that Parliament’s part-sessions should be held in one place only rather than in Brussels and Strasbourg;
Amendment 134 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Notes that, in 2010, the cost of travel of Members and staff amounted to some EUR 107 000 00023 (or 6,.6 % of all total final appropriations) and that a 5 % reduction is now in force; considers that the potential for further reductions through pooled airmiles should be considered, as should the idea of Parliament meeting in one place only;
Amendment 137 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Notes that final appropriations for the Travel Agency amounted to EUR 1 438 000 in 2010, with a high commitment rate (94 %); further notes that it obtains negotiated prices from airlines, which means that there is an average price for the best service; stresses however that this does not mean that, for a specific day or journey, it is not possible to get better prices by booking directly with travel operators; calls for an independent inquiry to produce a financial audit of the Travel Agency, its structure and its operation;
Amendment 157 #
Amendment 158 #
2011/2202(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84
Paragraph 84
Amendment 9 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 2
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 14 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 3
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 19 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 4
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 24 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 5
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 29 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 6
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 34 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 7
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 38 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 8
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 39 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the annual accounts of the Union for the financial year 2010 present fairly in alla reasonably fair picture in material respects of the position of the Union as of 31 December 2010, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the then completed year;
Amendment 43 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes with satisfaction that revenue underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 is legal and regular in allmost material respects;
Amendment 44 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with satisfaction that commitments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 are legal and regular in allmost material respects;
Amendment 45 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Understands that the basis for the adverse opinion of the Court of Auditors is also based on the observation that supervisory and control systems are only partially effective and – as a result – payments are affected by an error rate which is estimated to be most likely 3,.7 %;
Amendment 46 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is seriously worried about this increase because it reverses the positive trend observed in the past few yeafurther increase, despite previous reports containing warnings and recommendations from the Court of Auditors;
Amendment 49 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 81 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Underlines that the two policy areas prone to the highest error rates (‘Cohesion, transport and energy’ and ‘Agriculture and natural resources’) are implemented under shared management and regrets deeply that the estimated most likely error rates amount to 7.7 % and 2.3 %, respectively; calls on Bulgaria and Romania in particular to make serious efforts to tackle fraud and thereby ensure full transparency;
Amendment 86 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Recalls its repeated invitations to the Commission to present a proposal for the introduction of mandatory national management declarations (NMDs) issued, made public and duly audited by an independent auditor; notes that NMDs should contain full information about the use of Union funds; calls therefore also on Parliament to respond to this proposal in the short term;
Amendment 155 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Understands that the Commission has the option (but not the obligation) to sanction non-conforming Member States with different tools:
Amendment 179 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105
Paragraph 105
105. Invites the Commission to encourage EuropeAid to complete as soon as possible the work on a methodology to calculate the level of ‘residual error’ which might remain after all controls have been executed and to share the results with the other external relations Directorates- General in view of achieving the necessary improvement of the Commission’s management representations for external aid, development and enlargement; notes that the level of transparency at EuropeAid is none too good;
Amendment 196 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Europe is faced with a severe budgetary and financial crisis which can lead to a crisis of confidence in the Union and whereas it is vitally important that the Commission is a leading example for good public management,;
Amendment 200 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 201 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas in the majority of cases where errors were identified in the Cohesion area Member States' authorities had sufficient information to have detected and corrected errors prior to certifying the expenditure to the Commission (Annual Report, point 4.25), ; whereas it is regrettable that these irregularities came to light accidentally through inspections conducted by the EU and not through internal inspections in the Member States in question; whereas this applies in particular to Bulgaria and Romania;
Amendment 202 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas a number of specific Member States' lack of serious interest in the discharge procedure could beis largely, but not exclusively, due to the Commission's insufficient efforts in identifying publicly, clearly, unequivocally and in a substantiated way which Member States, regions and programmes are underperforming in managing Union funds,;
Amendment 203 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas mandatory national management declarations issued and signed at ministerial level and duly audited by an independent auditor are a necessaryn essential means to counter and punish some national authorities' lack of responsibility as regards the use and management of Union money,;
Amendment 204 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 208 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the Member States shall cooperate with the Commission toould ensure that the appropriations are used in accordance with the principles of sound and transparent financial management,;
Amendment 210 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 212 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the statement of assurance as to the partial reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Amendment 213 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 214 #
2011/2201(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
– having regard to the Council's recommendation of ... on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (0000/2012 – C7 0000/2012), and noting that England [sic], the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to approve the discharge,
Amendment 1 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomDeplores the conclusion of the accession negotiations and confirms its consent for Croatia to become the 28th member of the European Union;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 3 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 5 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 7 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. SupporRejects, in that connection, the creation of a temporary financial assistance mechanism, the Transition Facility, designed to strengthen Croatia’s administrative and judicial capacity to implement and enforce EU legislation;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the growing effectiveness of the fight against corruption, including actions taken against a number of former leading politicians and officials; notes, however, that corruption is still regarded by the Commission as prevalent in some areas and that there is further progress to be made in the fight against corruption; supports all the necessary commitments and legal, administrative and auditing measures that the Croatian authorities will take to that end, including in the protection of the EU’s financial interests and control of EU funding; reiterates, however, its opposition to Croatia's accession to the EU;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomeRejects the creation of a special temporary Schengen facility supporting the necessary investments to be made by Croatia for the maintenance and reinforcement of the EU’s external borders and its eventual entry into the Schengen system;
Amendment 14 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 15 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the position of the European Union on the financial and budgetary provisions, as defined in the Conference on the Accession of Croatia, and based on an accession date of 1 July 2013; nNotes that the required financial envelopes for Croatia’s possible accession, by heading and sub-heading of the budget, for the last semester of the last financial year of the current MFF, would substantially increase the expenditure in the EU budget; opposes Croatia's accession to the EU for that reason as well;
Amendment 17 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Urges the Commission in consequence to propose, as planned in early 2012 following the signature of the Accession Treaty in December 2011, and as provided for in point 29 of the IIA, a revision of the MFF for the financial year 2013 in order to avoid financing Croatia’s accession by redeploymentsnot to propose a revision of the MFF for the financial year 2013, given that it would be inappropriate for Croatia to join the EU;
Amendment 18 #
2011/2191(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 21 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates itsTakes the position that, with regard to the MFF post-2013, the financial resources dedicated to large-scale projects such as ITER and Galileo should be fixedcut back very severely for the whole programming period and ring-fenced so that any cost overrun must be financed with fresh money through employing budgetary flexibility, as opposed to the redeployment of fundsis completely ruled out rather than funds being redeployed at the expense of other programmes such as research and innovation;
Amendment 26 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly supports a further increasereduction in the EU’s annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellentdo not deliver any comprehensively demonstrable European added value and tonor do they aid recovery from the economic crisis; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the Council, clearly states the need for additional funds for research and innovation.research and innovation are a core task of the Member States which may be achieved perfectly well by multi-lateral international consultation and the sharing of best practice in close cooperation with international business;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas Norway has urgently asked Odense Steel Shipyard to provide 750 staffmembers to help in offshore work in Norway; whereas Maynards Europe and Hilco Industrial Europe have purchased the equipment of the Odense Steel Shipyard,
Amendment 2 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the shipyard closure announcement was already made in August 2009, but nonetheless Odense Steel Shipyard applied for the ESF funding in July 2010, knowing that the shipyard was going to close down,
Amendment 3 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the application in this specific case does not fulfilsl the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,
Amendment 4 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 6 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 7 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors; concludes that, because these redundancies could clearly be foreseen, and that this application must be considered more as a state-contribution to end activities and thus is not eligible for EGF funding;
Amendment 8 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 9 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 10 #
2011/2093(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. ADoes not approves the decision annexed to this resolution;
Amendment 8 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that the terms and the implementation of control and follow-up of EU funds under joint management have demonstrated serious weaknesses; urges the Commission to agree, notably with the UN agencies, on the measures to rely onmake the audit work carried out by UN bodies reliable and effective and to reinforce and greatly enhance the assurance gained from the existing checks, including verifications;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Insists that audit results be made available in a timely fashion to the discharge authority; this will not preclude the ECA’s or OLAF’s powers and competences; urges that, if these audit results are not supplied, or are not supplied in full, an inquiry should immediately be instituted by the Court of Auditors and/or OLAF;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to ensure that UN reports contain sufficient information concerning the results, i.e. the output and outcome, of projects within the reporting time scale; stresses that measurable output and impact indicators must be an integral part of the reporting criteria; deplores the fact that over 70 % of ECHO’s replies to the ECA’s questionnaires for its Special Report 15/2009 reveal that UN reports were late; expresses its disapproval of this misconduct by the UN;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deplores the difficulties the ECA has encountered in accessing information about the actions carried out by UN partners; recalls that according to the FAFA verification clause, the EU and therefore the ECA may undertake on-the-spot financial checks and that the UN is to provide all relevant financial information; stresses that the UN must provide the ECA with the necessary access to information and thus fulfil the verification clause of FAFA; stresses that, unless the UN improves its conduct in the near future, the EU may consider options for reducing or even entirely halting aid via the UN;
Amendment 18 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the current efforts of the Working Group on ‘Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-Related Aid’ established in the framework of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) and led by a Member of the European Court of Auditors; recalls that the two main objectives are: (i) establishing guidance and good practice with a view of to ultimately arriving at a single integrated reporting model and (ii) establishing guidance and good practice in the area of audit of disaster-related aid; notes at the same time that it is actually regrettable that such a working group had to be set up, as this indicates that the existing situation is far from ideal;
Amendment 19 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Points out that, since the revelation of abuses of UN funds for humanitarian and development activities by the Government of North Korea in late 2006, there has been broad criticism regarding the lacking transparency, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness of the management of funds by the UN; regrets that the UN reform in matters of transparency and accountability has not yet made any significant progress; stresses that EU Member Statesthe Commission and the European Parliament need to demonstrate more political will, determination and coherence to advance the reform and ensure higher accountability; calls on the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy to prioritise this issue and play a facilitating role; draws attention to the possibility of cutting off all or part of the financial assistance to the UN;
Amendment 22 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Recalls the ECA opinion expressed in its Special Report 15/2009 according to which the strategic and legal requirements to select partner in an objective and transparent way are insufficiently translated into practical criteria to support decision making in the case of UN partners; insists that the choice of a UN partner to implement humanitarian action must demonstrate that this approach is more efficient and effective than other ways of delivering aid; calls on the Commission to systematically carry out and document formal appraisals of, and comparisons with, alternative aid delivery mechanisms; advises the Commission no longer to automatically regard the UN as an ‘aid partner’ but also to make a point of seeking other possible partners;
Amendment 27 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Notes that the Commission provides OCHA with significant support; deplores the fact that the experience in Haiti and Pakistan highlighted the currently insufficient coordinating ability of OCHA; stresses that OCHA’s ability to fulfil its coordinating function was undermined by low capacity, inadequate needs assessment and partially functional electronic tools, necessary for processing the information; advises, therefore, no longer working with/via OCHA;
Amendment 28 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Notes that the Commission has provided the UN with significant support in its effort to develop and implement the cluster system; stresses that both disasters revealed that there is still much work to be done to improve its effectiveness, efficiency and coordination and to reinforce ownership and accountability; advises therefore against working primarily with the UN in future;
Amendment 29 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Points ouDeplores the fact that the Commission did not provide Parliament’s rapporteur with the final narrative and financial reports of the ECHO partners on the implementation of humanitarian actions in the aftermath of the catastrophes in Haiti and Pakistan in 2010, with the justification that they included sensitive information on ECHO partners; stresses that Parliament must have access to such reports, or at least to the main facts about the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of actions, in order to be able to judge as to their sound financial management; regards this conduct on the part of the Commission as a manifest violation of its own rules on transparency;
Amendment 31 #
2011/2073(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Takes the view, at all events, that, in the light of the subsidiarity principle, aid – whether or not in the form of development aid – is a matter not for the Commission or the European Parliament but for the Member States;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2060(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ApproveRejects the decision annexed to this resolution;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Communication and in particular its focus on raw and recovered raw materials from mineral resources and biotic resources, its emphasis on resource efficiency and recycling, and its recognition of the importance of urban mining as a valuable source for retrieving, recycling and upcycling RM; points out the potential of re-use as a separate category, to extend the life of products and urges the Commission (EC) to develop re-use;
Amendment 15 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 24 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 31 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 50 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 69 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 76 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 82 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 88 #
2011/2056(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 1 #
2011/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 5 #
2011/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes note ofDeplores the 3.3 % increase in the draft budget 2012 for the European Platform against Poverty flagship initiative as compared to last year; asks the Commission to explain in detail which budget lines will benefit from the increase;
Amendment 7 #
2011/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned about the cuts or limited increasepleased, in view inter alia of the economies being made in the Member States, about the cuts proposed by the Commission for the main instruments contributing to this initiative, i.e. the 7th Framework Programme, Progress and the European Fund for Refugees; considers these proposals to be in contradiction with the ambitious objectives and key initiatives identified in the Commission communication on the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion; is determined to ensure that sufficient funds are available in the Budget 2012 to meet the objectives announcedreflect a sensible and prudent policy; is determined to ensure that the Budget 2012 adequately implements the necessary economies;
Amendment 8 #
2011/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 13 #
2011/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Invites the Member States to establish national targets to define their contribution to this Europe 2020 target, and to inform the Commission, within the European Semester procedure, of the exactto specify the amount of resources they will, if any, it intends allocate to fighting poverty and social exclusion, and to give detailed reasons in either case.
Amendment 2 #
2011/2036(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Schools arehave hitherto been financed principally by contributions from the Member States, amounting to 21% of the schools’ total budget, and a balancing contribution from the European Union, which in 2010 comprised around 58% of the total,
Amendment 3 #
2011/2036(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the mainone aim of the 2009 reform of the European Schools was to open them up to a wider and more diverse intake, while at the same time ensuring the system’s long-term viability,
Amendment 4 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 5 #
2011/2036(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Reaffirms that the European Schools must no longer be financed on a sound and adequate basis so that the commitments made in the Convention and in the Staff Regulations of Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union can be fulfilled and the quality of the education provided can be guaranteed, and noteby the EU, because there are perfectly good state and international schools in Belgium which the children of officials can attend, and expressly rejects, in this regard, the recent petition by the parents’ and teachers’ associations of the Brussels European Schools opposing any budget cuts;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2036(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that, in the short term, the European Union’s commitments should be honoured, while, at the same time, account should be takenreduced, thus taking account of the prevailing climate of budgetary restrictions at both Union and Member State level; notes that the 2012 draft budget provides for a 1.7% increase in funding for the European Schools, at a time when budgetary difficulties have led the Commission to propose a freeze on its own administrative expenditure andtherefore rejects the provision in the 2012 draft budget for a 1.37% increase in administrative expenditure for the European institutions generally; undertakes to scrutinise the appropriations on the budget lines in questionfunding for the European Schools;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the European Schools cannot be put in the same category as international schools because they meet athe same need to educate children in their mother tongue,
Amendment 12 #
2011/2036(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 14 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 16 #
2011/2036(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that, with that in mind, that there can be no question of giving each of the European Schools a greater degree of budgetary autonomy may be an effective way of improving the management of the resources allocated to them.;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 21 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the educational model on which the European Schools are based should be promoted in the Member Statesis already being put into practice in the Member States in the form of international schools and/or bilingual education,
Amendment 26 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 32 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the European Schools arshould no longer be funded by contributions from the Member States and a balancing contribution from the EU,
Amendment 38 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 41 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 43 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas a special levy on the salaries of officials, intended to be used inter alia for the European Schools, was introduced in 2004should be abolished as soon as possible,
Amendment 45 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 51 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the European Schools should serve as an example and that exporting this model to the national education systems would assist professional mobilitybe closed in a reasonable timeframe;
Amendment 61 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 65 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 68 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Board of Governors to think further ahead about infrastructure requirements and to take measures that will help avoid the problems of excessive numbers; cCalls on the Member States and the Commission to encourageimmediately stop the development of Type II and Type III Schools;
Amendment 72 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Encourages the Member States to promotestop the concept of European Schools on their territory by creating pilot establishments;
Amendment 85 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recommends that the Member States should continue to promote within their own educational systems certain concepts borrowed from the European School system,international concepts of education as proven fruitful and to encourage the emergence of Europeannational citizenship within Europe from a very young age;
Amendment 96 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Encourages twinning between the European Schoonational and international schools;
Amendment 100 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 104 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to definestop its budget contribution so that these principles are respected and there is adequate provision for students with special educational needs (SEN);
Amendment 112 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 114 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 116 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 119 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 123 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 128 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses the need for an external evaluation of the present European Schools’ syllabuses and financial accounts;
Amendment 134 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Hopes that the recruitment of local staff meets the excellence criteria and that they are checkedStresses the need of inspection of present local and international staff by inspectors;
Amendment 138 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 144 #
2011/2036(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 2 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas at the 1999 Helsinki Summit, the European Council gave Turkey the status of candidate country for EU membership and the EU-Turkey Accession Partnership was adopted in 2001, and whereas at the 2003 Thessaloniki European Council the Stabilisation and Association Process was confirmed as the EU policy on the countries of the Western Balkans region, thus making them eligible for EU accession;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that since 2001 EU pre-accession assistance to Turkey in the area of the fight against corruption has amounted to EUR 6 160 000 for 5 projects, of which EUR 1 661 732 was paid out as of 31 December 2012; highlights the fact that at present one project has been completed, two are ongoing and two are to be started5; seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 12 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note that since 2005 EU pre- accession assistance to the countries of the Western Balkans in the area of the fight against corruption has amounted to EUR 55 160 227.76 for 45 projects, of which EUR 16 060 007.57 was paid out as of 31 December 2012; highlights the fact that at present 18 projects have been completed, 17 are ongoing and 10 are to be started6; seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the EU is co-financing two ongoing multi-beneficiary programmes in the area of the fight against corruption under IPA 2010 and IPA 2011 for a total amount of EUR 5 450 000, of which EUR 2 509 942 was paid out as of 31 December 20127; seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 19 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the Commission’s new approach to addressing justice reform and home affairs issues early in the accession process; observes, however, that on average only 2.87 % of the total EU pre- accession assistance envelope for the period 2007-2013 is devoted to justice and only 0.52 % to the fight against corruption; therefore seriously doubts the effectiveness of that assistance;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 37 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that genuine implementation and concrete results, in particular in the cases of high-level political corruption and corruption in the judiciary, are still a big challenge and that a convincing track record of cases of prosecution and conviction should be built up in order to measure progress; stresses the need for better planning and funding of anti- corruption work, based on a broad range of stakeholders; calls on the Commission to develop a longer-term and broad-based strategic perspective of EU funding for civil society organisations which are working in the areas of transparency and anti-corruptionurges that those Member States making little progress with implementation be specifically named;
Amendment 42 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned about the chronic delays incurred in the implementation of projects and, ultimately, their efficiency; notes, for instance, that projects in Turkey incur on average a one-year delay before contracts are executed, because of bottlenecks in tendering and contracting, while in Croatia contracts for PHARE programmes were signed on average more than one year later than scheduled, just a couple of days prior to the contracting deadline established in the Financial Agreement; therefore urges that those contracts be reassessed forthwith, or even immediately terminated, so as to prevent needless squandering of public tax revenues;
Amendment 48 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that a sectoral approach in the areas of judiciary reform and the fight against corruption would entail positive changes, such as enhancing donor coordination and ensuring better interaction between individual projects; calls, nevertheless, on the Commission to reassess its sectoral approach, given that in most candidate and potential candidate countries neither institutional set-up nor budgeting processes are at a level that will allow this approach to work and that a clear overall strategy and guidance at EU level are still lacking; therefore urges that current accession negotiations with candidate countries be halted;
Amendment 50 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Acknowledges that, following its audit of pre-accession projects for the period 2001-2005, the European Court of Auditors stated that project sustainability could be improved if: (i) beneficiary involvement was increased; (ii) no projects were launched without a maintenance plan; (iii) the Commission monitored distribution more closely and evaluated the use of EU-funded equipment and infrastructure; and (iv) the delivery of technical assistance was adequately complemented by active encouragement for institutional change; underlines the fact that despite improvements under the IPA programme some weaknesses still remain, notably in terms of stakeholder involvement and maintenance, and notes, for instance, that during the 2011 programming process in Turkey the beneficiaries were hardly involved in the last 12 months; therefore urges, inter alia because of this, that pre-accession assistance for Turkey in particular be discontinued;
Amendment 53 #
2011/2033(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 18 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concerned, against this background, byNotes the alarming drop in public investment in the Member States in some of these areas and firmly believes that this trend must be reversed if the EU as a whole is to deliver on the EU 2020 strategy; is of the opinion that the EU budget has an role to play as a leverage tool for Member States’ recovery policies by triggering and supporting national investment to reinforce growth and employment; emphasises that this is fully in line with the dynamics of the European Semester, which, as a new mechanism for enhanced European economic governance, aims at increasing consistency, synergies and complementarities between the EU and the national budgets in delivering on the jointly agreed Europe 2020 goals;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 29 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 31 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 37 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 48 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Takes the view that, besides the delivery of the EU 2020 strategy, appropriations in the EU 2012 Budget should be kept at an appropriat wise level to ensure the continuation of by the Member States agreed EU policies and the achievement of EU objectives; underlines in particular the need to allow the EU to shoulder its global responsibility, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring and the unrest in the Middle East;
Amendment 51 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. ObserFirmly approves that the Commission has made a first endeavour to identify negative priorities and savings in some policy areas as compared with what was initially foreseen in the financial programming, particularly in those characterised by poor performance and low implementation rates in the recent past; asks the Commission to provide additional information supporting its assessments; notes also that, contrary to previous years, the Commission has frequently departed from its indicative financial programming presented in January 2011; is determined to further check and analyse these proposals before endorsing them;
Amendment 58 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. NotesIs deeply concerned by the proposed increase in PA of 4.9% compared to 2011; is convinced thatdoubts whether the Commission is proposing such figures on the basis of a careful and critical analysis of forecasts provided by Member States, which themselves co-manage 80% of the EU budget; notes that the bulk of this increase is linked to legal needs arising in relation to the 7th Research Programme and the Structural and Cohesion Funds; is convinced that the proposed level of payments represents the bare minimum required to honour EU legal commitments made in previous years and that it is the EU’s duty to comply with the legal obligations deriving from these commitments; strongly urges the Council, therefore, to refrain fromcontinue cutting the proposed level of payments;
Amendment 64 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. WelcomDeeply deplores the Commission’s proposal in the DB 2012 to increase CA by 12.6% (to EUR 15 223 million) and PA by 8.1% (to EUR 12 566 million) as compared to Budget 2011, since Heading 1a is the key heading of the MFF 2007-2013 in terms of reaching the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, thanks to its direct or indirect contribution to the financing of all its five headline targets and the seven flagship initiatives;
Amendment 69 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. UnderlinWelcomes that, with the DB 2012 and the updated financial programming for 2013, the total amount of funds committed by 2013 for key programmes for the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy, such as the 7th EC Framework Research Program (EC FP7), anti-pollution measures, Marco Polo II, PROGRESS, Galileo and GMES, would be less than the reference amount agreed by Parliament and Council when these programmes were adopted; notes that, on the contrary, these reference amounts would be slightly exceeded in the case of the following key Europe 2020 programmes: the Competiveness and Innovation Framework programme (CIP), Trans-European Transport Network, Trans-European Energy network, Erasmus Mundus and Lifelong Learning; regrets, howeverwelcomes, that these proposed increases are well below the 5% legislative flexibility allowed under Point 37 of the IIA;
Amendment 83 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 89 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. WelcomNotes the increase (+ EUR 5.7 million) in the overall level of commitment appropriations for the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework programme compared to what was initially foreseen; hopes that this increase will contribute to improving the access of SMEs to this programme and to developing specific programmes and innovative financial mechanisms;
Amendment 92 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 98 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 106 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. StresseDoubts the decisive contribution of cohesion policy to growth and employment, as well as to social and territorial cohesion between EU regions and Member States; stressedoubts that cohesion policy plays an instrumental role in enabling all EU regions to participate in the achievement of Europe 2020 objectives and in supporting regional investments aimed at implementing all flagship initiatives; takes the view accordingly that, while its redistributive nature and its aim to reduce regional disparities should be preserved, cohesion policy must remain EU-wide and visible to EU regions and citizens;
Amendment 108 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 111 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 130 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. EndorOpposes the continued support for programmes concerning school fruit , as well as for the Aid for Deprived Persons programme; deploreaccepts, conversely, the reduced budgetary allocation to the school milk scheme and is concerned aboutnotes the cuts made to veterinary and phyto-sanitary measures;
Amendment 132 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Stresses that part of the spending under Heading 2 is instrumental in realising the Europe 2020 goals; emphasises that the priority goals of this strategy – growth and employment – are also accomplished through the rural development programmes; regards climate action and food security as two of the main challenges for the CAP; calls, therefore, for a further greening of the CAP, which should also contribute to meeting the vast environmental challenges the EU faces, including water pollution; in this context, also welcomes the increase for the LIFE+ programme (+4.3% and +1.9% in commitments and payments respectively);
Amendment 138 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Emphasises that energy efficiency, the fight against climate change and the promotion of renewable energy are transversal priorities that can be financed under several headings of the EU budget, and that Parliament will pay specific attention to their funding, by budget line and overall; urges the Commission to further mainstream such priorities in other policies, including EU financial support to developing countries; takes the view that the proper implementation of the existing legislation on these topics is crucial and therefore asks the Commission to carefully analyse whether more resources are required in order to examine seriously the implementation of EU environmental legislation, and to report back to Parliament;
Amendment 152 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
Amendment 159 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Deeply regretsAccepts however that overall appropriations under this heading are down for a third consecutive year, with CA being reduced by 0.1% (to EUR 683 5 million) and PA by 0.3 % (to EUR 645 7 million) as compared to the 2011 Budget (excluding the EU Solidarity Fund), leaving a margin of EUR 15.5 million;
Amendment 161 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
Amendment 164 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. WelcomDeplores the ambitions of the Commission in proposing to increase by EUR 8 million, as compared to the initial financial programming, the 2012 allocations for Youth in Action (EUR 134.6 million foreseen in 2012), stresses that this programme constitutes one of the main tools of the ‘Youth on the Move’ flagship initiative and provides support for non-formal learning experiences and the development of active citizenship for young people;
Amendment 167 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
Amendment 171 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
Amendment 176 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. DeplorWelcomes the decrease in the Civil Protection Financial Instrument’s funding as compared to the financial programming (EUR -1.8 million ), and asks the Commission to provide further explanations for this decrease, given that civil protection is now a new competence of the EU;
Amendment 182 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 184 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
Amendment 188 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Asks the Commission, therefore, not to limit its upcoming amending letter to the budgetary consequences of its review of the European Neighbourhood Policy butand also to address, if necessary together with the use of all the means provided for by the IIA, all other outstanding issues and needs, including the financing of Palestine and UNRWA, which is very wisely decreased by EUR 100 million as compared to 2011 Budget, in order to maximise the impact of EU assistance in the world;
Amendment 193 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. DeploreApplauds the reduction of the programmed increase in the funding for the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance from EUR 139 million to only EUR 79 million, as compared to Budget 2011;
Amendment 194 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. NotDeplores the proposed increase in the funding of environment and sustainable management of natural resources (ENRTP) under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) by EUR 51.8 million as compared to financial programming in order to address the fast-start climate change action; strongly opposwelcomes the other decreases, amounting to EUR 78 million overall, made to DCI geographical programmes, which would run counter to the EU effort to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and respect the EU commitment, at the highest level, to reaching the 0.7% of GNI target by 2015 for development cooperation;
Amendment 195 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63
Paragraph 63
Amendment 203 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. AcknowledgWelcomes the Commission’s great effort to freeze its own administrative expenditure in nominal terms; notes that this was rendered possible through the offsetting of the increases linked to statutory and contractual obligations against other drastic cuts in other administrative expenditure; is nevertheless concerned about the possible consequences of the latter, for instance those related to training (-11%) and publications (-17% and -2.1% for the Publication Office);
Amendment 210 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
Amendment 219 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Takes the view that the European Schools should be adequately funded in the interests of addressing the specific situation and needs of the children of agents of the EU institutions; will carefully scrutinise the proposed overall 1.7% increase as compared to 2011, which is below that foreseen in the financial programming, as well as each of the European Schools’ budget lines, and make, during its reading, any modification it considers appropriate in this respecnot be funded by the EU and be taken off the budget;
Amendment 222 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Stresongly opposes that pilot projects (PPs) and preparatory actions (PAs) are key tools for the formulation of political priorities and for paving the way for new initiatives that might turn into EU activities and programmes likely to improve the lives of EU citizens; intends, therefore, to supporreject by all possible means its proposals regarding pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2012 Budget, while stressing the need carefully to study the Commission’s preliminary assessment expected in July 2011 for the definition of a global and balanced final package on this issue;
Amendment 225 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
Amendment 226 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
Amendment 228 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. NotDeeply deplores the overall level of EUR 720.8 million devoted to EU decentralised agencies in DB 2012, an increase in the total EU contribution as compared to the 2011 Budget of EUR 34.6 million, or +4.9%; is aware that this increase mainly stems from the one new5 and seven phasing-in agencies6 , with a view to providing them with adequate funding; underlines the importance ofstrongly opposes additional funding for those 10 agencies7, the tasks of which have been extended, so as not to hinder their performance; notes that the increase in the EU contribution to the agencies at cruising speed is in line with, or even below, inflation correction (2%), with no additional staff;
Amendment 232 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
Amendment 235 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. NotDeplores that, among the 213 new establishment plan posts for agencies (out of a total of 4 854), 80 will be allocated to new or starting-up agencies, and the rest to agencies whose tasks are being extended; reiterates its call for a specific approach to the recruitment of specialised scientific staff with professional experience, especially when these posts are financed exclusively from fees and are thus budget- neutral forfull stop to EU decentralised agencies and for them to be taken off the EU budget;
Amendment 25 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In the interest of simplification and of a consistent staff policy, the rules adopted by the Commission to implement the Staff Regulations should apply by analogy to the agencies. However, in order to ensure that the specific situation of agencies may, if necessary, be taken into account, agencies should be entitled to request the Commission's authorisation to adopt implementing rules which derogate from those adopted by the Commission, or not to apply the Commission's rules at all.
Amendment 28 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 32 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (a)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (a)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – second indent
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – second indent
– one or morea Joint Committees, as appropriate for the number of officials at the places of employment;
Amendment 33 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (a)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (a)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – third indent
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – third indent
– one or morea Disciplinary Boards, as appropriate for the number of officials at the places of employment;
Amendment 34 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (a)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (a)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – fourth indent
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – fourth indent
– one or morea Joint Advisory Committees on for professional incompetence, as appropriate for the number of officials at the places of employment;
Amendment 57 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 27 – paragraph 1a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 1a (new)
Amendment 58 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Article 27 – paragraph 2
Article 27 – paragraph 2
Amendment 100 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 55 – point (e)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 55 – point (e)
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union
Annex XIII - Article 22 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 3
Annex XIII - Article 22 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 3
Officials aged less than 30 years on 1 May 2013 shall become entitled to a retirement pension at the age of 657 years.
Amendment 103 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 2
Article 2 – point 2
Conditions of employment of Other Servants of the European Union
Article 2 (f) (new)
Article 2 (f) (new)
(f) '(f) staff engaged to fill a post which is included in the list of posts appended to the section of the budget relating to an agency as referred to in Article 1a(2) of the Staff Regulations and which the budgetary authorities have classified as temporary, except heads of agencies and deputy heads of agencies as referred to in the European Union act establishing the agency.';
Amendment 17 #
2011/0427(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Since the establishment of EUROSURborder surveillance cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone and can therefore, by virtue of the scale and impact of the action, be better achieved at UnionMember State level, the Union may adopt no measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty of the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective.
Amendment 18 #
2011/0427(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
This Regulation shall, on the basis of the subsidiarity principle, cannot possibly be binding in its entirety and directlyis therefore not applicable in the Member States, in accordance with the Treaties.
Amendment 34 #
2011/0406(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The Union and the Member States should improve the consistency and the complementarity of their respective policies on development cooperation, in particular by responding to partner countries' and regions' priorities at country and regional level. To ensure that the Union's development cooperation policy and that of the Member States complement and reinforce each other, it is appropriate to provide for joint programming procedures which should be implemented whenever possible and relevantIn accordance with the subsidiarity principle, development policy is a task for the Member States and not for the Union.
Amendment 41 #
2011/0406(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Fighting climate change and protecting the environment are among the great challenges which face the Union and where the need for international action is urgent. In accordance with the intent stated in Commission Communication "A budget for Europe 2020" of 29 June 2011, this Regulation should contribute to the objective of addressing at least 20%not relevant challenges in the context of development aid. It is neither desirable nor necessary for the Member States ofr the EU budget to low carbon and cliCommission to matke resilient society, and the global public goods and challenges programme should use at least 25% of its funds to cover climate change and environment. Actions in these two areas should, wherever possible, be mutually supportive in order to reinforce their impactmore money available for this purpose in the budget, and certainly not in the current economic hard times.
Amendment 44 #
2011/0406(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should under no circumstances be conferred on the Commission, given that development aid is a matter for the Member States in accordance with the subsidiarity principle..
Amendment 36 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 41 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
Amendment 42 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 43 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 46 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The committees established under this Regulation should be also competent for acts relating to the implementation of the previous Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, as well as for the implementation of financial assistance to the Turkish Cypriot community. Until such time as the ‘Cyprus question’ has bee resolved and until the full democratic rights of EU Member State Cyprus are respected by Turkey, pre-accession assistance to Turkey shall be frozen.
Amendment 47 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Where a beneficiary country violates the principles on which the Union is founded, or fails to respect the commitments contained in the relevant agreements concluded with the Union, or makes insufficient progress with respect to the accession criteria, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, should be able to take appropriate measures to redress the situation, including halting pre-accession assistance.
Amendment 48 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 61 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. For programmes addressing the policy areas referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 3 and implemented indirectly by the beneficiary countries, the Commission shall be assisted by the Coordination Committee of the Funds referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU) No [….] of the European Parliament and of the Council of … laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. For programmes addressing the policy area referred to in point (d) of Article 3 and implemented indirectly by the beneficiary countries, the Commission shall be assisted by the Rural Development Committee referred to in Article 91 of Regulation (EU) No [….] of the European Parliament and of the Council of … on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). In such cases, the IPA committee shall be informed without delay of the opinion delivered by the other committee(s).
Amendment 62 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The committees referred to under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be competent for legal acts and commitments under Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre- Accession Assistance. In addition, the IPA committee shall also be competent for the implementation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006 establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction.
Amendment 69 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 20 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Cooperation between the Programme and international organisations in the field of education, training, youth and sport, in particular with the Council of Europe, needs to can be strengthened.
Amendment 21 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) It is necessary to ensure the Europeandemonstrable and measurable added value of all actions carried out within in the framework of the Programme, and their complementarity to activities of Member States in compliance with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and other activities, in particular in the field of culture, research, industrial and cohesion policy, enlargement policy and external relations, since education par excellence fall within the competence of the Member States.
Amendment 22 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The need of establishing measurable criteria of performance on which the allocation of budget between Member States for the actions managed by the National Agencies should be based.
Amendment 23 #
2011/0371(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) The candidate countries for accession to the Union and the EFTA countries which are members of the EEA may not participate in the Union Programmes on the basis of Framework Agreements, Association Council Decision. Turkey in particular is excluded from the programmes given its poor track record in the area of equal rights for similar agreemen and woments.
Amendment 1 #
2011/0286(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 has established a system of compulsory, progressive reduction of direct payments ('modulation') including an exemption of direct payments of up to EUR 5 000 to be applicable until calendar year 2012. As a consequence, the total net amounts of direct payments ('net ceilings') which may be granted in a Member State after application of modulation have been fixed until calendar year 2012. In order to maintain the amount of direct payments in calendar year 2013 on a level similar to that of 2012, however with due account taken to phasing-in in the new Member States, it is appropriate to establish an adjustment mechanism for 2013 having an equivalent effect to that of the modulation and the net ceilings. Due to the specificities of the support in the outermost regions under the common agricultural policy, such adjustment mechanism should not be applied to farmers in those regions.
Amendment 4 #
2011/0286(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) According to the phasing-in mechanism provided for in the Act of Accession of 2005, the level of direct payments in Bulgaria and Romania continues to be below the level of direct payments applicable in the other Member States in 2013 after application of the adjustment of payments to farmers in the transitional period. Therefore, the adjustment mechanism should not apply to farmers in Bulgaria and Romania.
Amendment 7 #
2011/0286(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009
Article 10 a – paragraph 3
Article 10 a – paragraph 3
Amendment 5 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources should be based on the precautionary approach, which is to be derived from the precautionary principle referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 191(2) of the Treatyindependent scientific data.
Amendment 6 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 7 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) It is important that the management of the Common Fisheries Policy is guided by principles of good governance. Those principles include decision-making based on best available independent scientific advice, broad stakeholder involvement and a long-term perspective. The successful management of the Common Fisheries Policy also depends on a clear definition of responsibilities at Union, national, regional and local levels and on the mutual compatibility and consistency of the measures taken with other Union policies.
Amendment 8 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Landings of unwanted catches should not result in full economic disadvantages for the operator. For landings of catches of fish under the minimum conservation reference size, the destination of such catches should be limited and exclude sale for human consumptiofishermen.
Amendment 9 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) For the sake of conservation of stocks clear objectives should be applied with respect to certain technical measures and independent scientific advice.
Amendment 10 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) Fisheries management based on the best available independent scientific advice requires harmonised, reliable and accurate data sets. Therefore Member states should collect data on fleets and their fishing activities, in particular biological data on catches, including discards, survey information on fish stocks and on the potential environmental impact of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem.
Amendment 11 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) DIndependent data collection should include data which facilitate the economic assessment of undertakings active in the fisheries sector, in aquaculture and in the processing of fisheries and aquaculture products and of employment trends in these industries.
Amendment 12 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 a (new)
Recital 39 a (new)
(39a) Sustainable Fisheries Agreements should prove to be financially beneficial to the Union and Member States before the agreement is renewed.
Amendment 13 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 b (new)
Recital 39 b (new)
(39b) No Sustainable Fishing Agreements should be concluded with countries that do not respect human rights or are ruled by a corrupt regime, according to criteria based on information from Transparency International.
Amendment 14 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
Amendment 15 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
Amendment 18 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52 a (new)
Recital 52 a (new)
(52a) Member States should be in a position to present substantiated requests to the Commission for it to impose operators who endanger the lives of other operators fishing in the same waters.
Amendment 23 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Part 1 – Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ensure independent, systematic and harmonised data collection and management.
Amendment 24 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point f – point i
Part 3 – Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point f – point i
(i) modifications or additional devices to improve selectivity or to reduce impact on the benthic zone, including the promotion of pulse trawl fishing;
Amendment 25 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 5 – Article 35 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Part 5 – Article 35 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 (new)
When recalculating the fishing capacity ceilings a level playing field among Member States shall be ensured.
Amendment 106 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 107 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 110 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The Common Fisheries Policy should ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities contribute to long-term sustainable environmental, economic, and social conditions. It should contribute moreover to increased productivity, a fair standard of living for the fisheries sector, and stable markets, and ensure the continued availability of resources and that supplies reach consumers at reasonablefair prices.
Amendment 113 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The Union is a Contracting Party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (UNCLOS) and it has ratified the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks of 4 August 1995 (UN Fish Stocks Agreement). It has also accepted the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas of 24 November 1993 of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO Compliance Agreement). These international instruments predominantly foresee conservation obligations, including among other things obligations to take conservation and management measures designed to maintain or restore marine resources at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield both within sea areas under national jurisdiction and on the high seas, and to cooperate with other States to this end, obligations to apply the precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of fish stocks, obligations to ensure compatibility of conservation and management measures where marine resources occur in sea areas of different jurisdictional status and obligations to have due regard to other legitimate uses of the seas. The Common Fisheries Policy should contribute to the Union's proper discharge of its international obligations under these international instruments. Where Member States adopt conservation and management measures, for which they have been empowered in the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy, they should also act in a manner which is fully consistent with the international conservation and cooperation obligations under the said international instruments; Member States, particularly those in the Mediterranean, should besides comply with current international and European legislation without delay and refrain from engaging in jurisdictional battles between their 'own' fishermen and fishermen from other Member States for reasons of purely nationalistic economic gain.
Amendment 115 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 117 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources should be based on the precautionary approach, which is to be derived from the precautionary principle referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 191(2) of the Treaty. The Commission may also not base any decision on current fish stocks on figures from a monopolistic research agency in the Member States and free market forces should be left to do their work in determining (national) fish stocks.
Amendment 119 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 122 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) An ecosystem based approach to fisheries management needsNotes with satisfaction that European fishermen are doing everything in their power to be implemented, an environmental impacts of fishing activities should be limited and unwanted catches should be minimised and progressively eliminatedly aware approach to fisheries management and to minimise and progressively eliminate unwanted catches; urges the Commission in this context therefore to grant pulse fishing permits as quickly and as widely as possible, as this system is particularly environmentally friendly, especially for reducing fuel consumption by vessels.
Amendment 124 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Rules in place restricting access to resources within the 12 nautical mile zones of Member States have operated satisfactorily benefiting conservation by restricting fishing effort in the most sensitive part of Union waters. Those rules have also preserved traditional fishing activities on which the social and economic development of certain coastal communities is highly dependent. Those rules should therefore continue to apply; threats against and attacks on EU Member State fishing vessels by national coastal fishermen should, however, be roundly condemned, as should the misuse of 'own' (inter)national nautical charts such as those unfortunately used by France, for example.
Amendment 125 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 127 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 131 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) In their 12 nautical mile zone, Member States should be allowed to adopt conservation and management measures applicable to all Union fishing vessels, provided that, where such measures apply to Union fishing vessels from other Member States, the measures adopted are non-discriminatory, prior consultation of other interested Member States has taken place and that the Union has not adopted measures specifically addressing conservation and management within that 12 nautical mile zone; in the event of arbitration between Member States, at least one independent representative of the respective national supervisory authorities should be present.
Amendment 135 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Sustainable fisheries agreements concluded with third countries should ensure that Union fishing activities in third country waters are based on the best available scientific advice, ensuring a sustainable exploitation of the marine biological resources. Those agreements, which provide for access rights in exchange for a financial contribution from the Union, should contribute to the establishment of a high quality governance framework to ensure in particular efficient monitoring, control and surveillance measures; a positive return on investment for the EU should be the deciding factor here and it should not be some disguised form of development aid.
Amendment 137 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) Respect for democratic principles and human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments, and for the principle of the rule of law, should constitute an essential and, if necessary, binding element of S(sustainable) Fisheries Agreements and be subject to a specific human rights clause. This clause and compliance with it will also play a determining role with respect to the possible continuation of such fisheries agreements with third countries.
Amendment 139 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
Amendment 140 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
Amendment 141 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
Amendment 142 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 55
Recital 55
Amendment 143 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
Recital 58
Amendment 275 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 279 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 288 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) It is important that the management of the Common Fisheries Policy is guided by principles of good governance. Those principles include decision-making based on best available independent scientific advice, broad stakeholder involvement and a long-term perspective. The successful management of the Common Fisheries Policy also depends on a clear definition of responsibilities at Uninternational, national, regional and local levels and on the mutual compatibility and consistency of the measures taken with other Union policies.
Amendment 303 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Union fishing vessels should have equal access to UnioEuropean waters and resources subject to the rules of the CFP.
Amendment 313 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 352 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Landings of unwanted catches should not result in full economic advantages for the operator. For landings of catches of fish under the minimum conservation reference size, the destination of such catches should be limited and exclude sale for human consumptiondisadvantages for the operator.
Amendment 463 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) Fisheries management based on the best available independent scientific advice requires harmonised, reliable and accurate data sets from more than one source. Therefore Member states should arrange for the independent collection of data on fleets and their fishing activities, in particular biological data on catches, including discards, survey information on fish stocks and on the potential environmental impact of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem.
Amendment 482 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Policy-oriented fisheries science should be reinforced by means of nationally-adopted fisheries scientific data collection, independent research and innovation programs in coordination with other Member States as well as by Union research and innovation framework tools.
Amendment 493 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
Amendment 497 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) Respect for democratic principles and human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments, and for the principle of the rule of law, should constitute an essential element of Sustainable Fisheries Agreements and be subject to a specific human rights clause. States which violate human rights should not be eligible for a fisheries agreement.
Amendment 538 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) The objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Union, unlike the Member States, given the problems encountered in the development of the fishing industry and its management, and the limits on the financial resources of the Member States. Therefore, multiannual Union financial assistance focused on the priorities of the Common Fisheries Policy should be granted to contribute to the achievement of those objectives. The common fisheries policy should therefore be renationalised as soon as possible on the basis of the subsidiarity principle. In order to achieve this, the Union should therefore as soon as possible formulate a policy to carry out this renationalisation.
Amendment 551 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
Amendment 559 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 55
Recital 55
Amendment 6 #
2011/0105(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 7 #
2011/0105(COD)
Draft legislative resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 8 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 9 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 10 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 11 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 12 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) There is a need to ensure the effective coordination and management of technical and administrative aspects of this Regulation at Union level. The European Chemicals Agency ("the Agency") established by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 has the competence and experience in implementing Union legislation on chemicals and intMember State level. The national agencies in the Member States should, therefore, in close coopernational agreements on chemicals. The Agency should, therefore with the Union, carry out tasks with regard to the administrative, technical and scientific aspects of the implementation of this Regulation and the exchange of information. In addition, the Agency should support the Commission in implementing the Union's international obligations under the Convention.
Amendment 13 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 14 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 15 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In cases where Union or Member State final regulatory actions do not qualify for notification because they do not meet the criteria, there is no need to convey information concerning the actions should nevertheless be conveyed to the Convention Secretariat and other Parties to the Convention in the interests of information exchange. This is in order to avoid unnecessary administrative procedures and reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In order to ensure effective control and enforcement of the rules, Member States should designate authorities such as customs authorities that should have the responsibility of controlling imports and exports of chemicals covered by this Regulation. The Commission and the Member States have a key role to play and should act in a targeted and coordinated way. Member States and should provide for appropriate sanctions in the event of infringements.
Amendment 17 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In order to facilitate customs control and to reduce the administrative burden for both exporters and authorities, a system of codes to be used in export declarations shouldmay be established. The codes should also be used for chemicals exported for the purpose of research or analysis in quantities not likely to affect health or the environment, and in any event not more than 10 kg per year.
Amendment 18 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Information exchange, shared responsibility and cooperative efforts between the Union and the Member States and third countries should be promoted with a view to ensuring sound management of chemicals, whether or notespecially where those third countries are Parties to the Convention. In particular, tTechnical assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition shouldmay only be provided directly by the Commission and the Member States, or indirectly via support for projects by and therefore not via non-governmental organisations, especially assistance seekingin order to enable those countries to implement the Convention.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) There should be regular monitoring of the operation of the procedures if they are to be effective. To this end, Member States and the AgencyUnion should regularly submit reports to the Commission, which should in turn regularly report to the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment 21 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Technical notes for guidance should be drawn up by the AgencyMember State national agencies involved to assist the competent authorities, including such authorities as customs controlling exports, exporters and importers in the application of this Regulation. To this end, exchanges of best practice can naturally be useful.
Amendment 22 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The Commission should beuncil and Commission are duly empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty in respect of the following: modifications of the lists of chemicals in Annex I, inclusion of a chemical that is subject to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants in Part 1 of Annex V, inclusion of a chemical already subject to an export ban at Union level in Part 2 of Annex V, modifications of Annexes II, III, IV and VI, and modifications of entries in Annex V.
Amendment 23 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
Amendment 24 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union, the objectives of ensuring coherent and effective implementation of the Union's obligations under the Convention cannot beare being more than sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the necessity to harmonise the rules concerning imports and exports of chemicals, be better achieved by them extremely well with no added value from the Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation hence does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 25 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) It is appropriate to provide for the deferred application of this Regulation so as to allow the Agencynational agencies in the Member States sufficient time to prepare itstheir new role and to the industry to familiarise itself with the new procedures,
Amendment 27 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
Article 6
Amendment 28 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 31 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 33 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 8
Article 8 – paragraph 8
Amendment 34 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Article 14 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission, assisted by the Agency, and the Member States shall advise and assist importing Parties, upon request and as appropriate, in obtaining further information needed to prepare a response to the Secretariat concerning the import of a given chemical.
Amendment 35 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1
In the case of chemicals listed in Parts 2 or 3 of Annex I, the designated national authority of the exporter may, in consultation with the Commission assisted by the Agency and on a case- by-case basis, decide that the export may proceed if, after all reasonable efforts, no response to a request for explicit consent pursuant to paragraph 6(a) has been received within 60 days and there is evidence from official sources in the importing Party or other country that the chemical has been licensed, registered or authorised or that it has in the last 5 years been used in, or imported into the importing Party or importing other country and no regulatory action has been taken to prohibit its use.
Amendment 38 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
When deciding on the export of chemicals listed in Part 3 of Annex I, the designated national authority in consultation with the Commission assisted by the Agency shall consider the possible impact on human health or the environment of the use of the chemical in the importing Party or other country.
Amendment 40 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 9
Article 14 – paragraph 9
Amendment 42 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. The designated national authority of the Member State shall forward to the Commission with a copy to the Agency, the information received from the exporter under paragraph 2 together with any additional information available.
Amendment 44 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The Commission, and the Member States and the Agency shall act in a targeted and coordinated way in monitoring exporters' compliance with this Regulation.
Amendment 45 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Article 19 – paragraph 4
Amendment 46 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission, assisted by the Agency, and the Member States shall, as appropriate, facilitate the provision of scientific, technical, economic and legal information concerning chemicals subject to this Regulation, including toxicological, ecotoxicological and safety information.
Amendment 47 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
The Commission, with the support of the Member States and the Agency as necessary, shall, as appropriate, ensure:
Amendment 48 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission, and the Member States and the Agency shall protect any confidential information received from a Party or other country as mutually agreed.
Amendment 49 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 50 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
The Commission, and the designated national authorities of the Member States and the Agency shall, taking into account in particular the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transitionshall, where necessary and/or desirable, cooperate in promoting technical assistance, including training, for the development of the infrastructure, the capacity and the expertise necessary to manage chemicals properly throughout their lifecycles.
Amendment 51 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
In particular, and with a view to enabling those countries to implement the Convention, technical assistance shall be promoted by means of the provision of technical information concerning chemicals, the promotion of the exchange of experts, support for the establishment or maintenance of designated national authorities and the provision of technical expertise for the identification of hazardous pesticide formulations and for the preparation of notifications to the Secretariatexchange of best practices.
Amendment 52 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4
Article 21 – paragraph 4
The Commission and the Member States shall also consider givingby definition give no support to non- governmental organisations, given that, in financial terms, they are responsible for revenue and moreover obtain no demonstrable added value at this particular stage.
Amendment 53 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. Member States and the Agency shall regularly forward to the Commission information concerning the operation of the procedures provided for in this Regulation, including customs controls, infringements, penalties and remedial action, as appropriate.
Amendment 54 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall regularlyat least once a year compile a report on the performance of the functions provided for in this Regulation for which it is responsible and shall incorporate it in a synthesis report integrating the information provided by the Member States and the Agency under paragraph 1. A summary of that report, which shall be published on the Internet, shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Amendment 55 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. As regards the information supplied pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Member States, the Agency and the Commission shall comply with relevant obligations to protect the confidentiality of data and ownership.
Amendment 56 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Article 23 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission and the national agencies of the Member States may, for the purpose of adapting this Regulation to technical progress, adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 26, the following measures:
Amendment 57 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24
Article 24
Amendment 58 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 59 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 60 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Amendment 63 #
2011/0105(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
The AgencyCommission shall specify formats and software packages and make them available free of charge on its website for any submission of information to the Ahrough the Member State national agencyies. Member States and other parties subject to this Regulation shall use those formats and packages in their submissions to the AgencyCommission pursuant to this Regulation.
Amendment 9 #
2011/0092(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 11 #
2011/0092(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Therefore, provision should be made for energy taxation to consist of two components, CO2-related taxation and general energy consumption taxation. In order for energy taxation to adapt to the operation of the Union scheme under Directive 2003/87/EC Member States should be required to explicitly distinguish between those two components. This would also allow distinct treatment of fuels that are biomass or made from biomass. This also makes it clear and understandable to tax-paying citizens and/or firms in the Member States why, and how, these cost-increasing measures are being imposed on them by Europe’s left-wing political elite.
Amendment 13 #
2011/0092(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In the field of motor fuels, the more favourable minimum level of taxation applicable to gas oil, a product originally put to business use for the most part and thus traditionally taxed at a lower level, creates a distortive effect with regard to petrol, its main competing fuel. Article 7 of Directive 2003/96/EC therefore provides for the first steps of a gradual alignment to the minimum level of taxation applicable to petrol. It is necessary to complete this alignment and gradually move to a situation where gas oil and petrol are taxed at an equal level. This will make it clear to gas oil users that a considerably increased financial burden is being forced upon them by Europe’s left-wing political elite.
Amendment 14 #
2011/0092(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) As regards the possibility for Member States to apply a lower level of taxation to commercial than to non-commercial use of gas oil as motor fuel, this provision would appear to be no longer compatible with the requirement to improve energy efficiency and the need to address the growing environmental impact of transport and should therefore be deleted. Article 9(2) of Directive 2003/96/EC authorises certain Member States to apply a reduced rate on heating gas oil. That provision is no longer compatible with the proper functioning of the internal market and with the wider objectives of the Treaty. It should therefore be deleted. This too is a clear signal from Europe’s left-wing political elite to consumers that environmental measures taken to ludicrous lengths are likely to cost a great deal, with the bill being passed on to consumers, who are already going through difficult economic times.
Amendment 15 #
2011/0092(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Article 5 of Directive 2003/96/EC permits the application of differentiated rates of taxation in certain cases. However, in order to ensure the consistency of the CO2 price signal, the possibility for Member States to differentiate national rates should be restricted to general energy consumption taxation. Moreover, the possibility to apply a lower level of taxation to motor fuel used by taxis is no longer compatible with the objective of policies promoting alternative fuels and energy carriers and the use of cleaner vehicles in urban transport and should thus be removed. Users of taxi services are simply going to have to pay more for their journeys; that is the rationale of this measure.
Amendment 16 #
2011/0092(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The rules on optional tax reductions and exemptions contained in Article 15 of Directive 2003/96/EC should be adapted in the light of experience gathered and of the new framework created by this Directive. The possibility for Member States to apply those optional reductions and exemptions should as much as possible be limited to general energy consumption taxation in order to establish a comprehensive and consistent CO2 price signal outside the Union emission trading scheme, though this proposal is entirely contrary to the subsidiarity principle.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0092(CNS)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2003/96/EC
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay not impose taxation on energy products and electricity in accordance with this Directive.
Amendment 1 #
2010/2290(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is of the opinion that, although the draft budget as modified by Council does not entirely meet the real need for a sustainable, coherent and efficient EU budget, Parliament's objective is to provide the Union with a budget that can be fully and predictably implemented from the beginning of a financial yearfor 2011 should not be increased at all and should at least remain on the 2010 level, seen the economic recession that the member states are in;
Amendment 5 #
2010/2290(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 8 #
2010/2290(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a
Paragraph 2 a
Amendment 1 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2
Citation 2
Amendment 2 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 3 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
Amendment 5 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 20 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that IUU fishing is possibly one of the most serious threats facing the biodiversity of the world's oceans;
Amendment 29 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the new EU control package, consisting of the IUU Regulation, the Control Regulation and the Fishing Authorisations Regulation, constitutes a comprehensive set of instruments to combat this scourge of the oceans, since it specifies the flag, coastal, port and market State responsibilities of both the EU Member States and third countries;
Amendment 34 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists that the Commission and the control authorities in the Member States be provided with sufficient resources (human, financial, technological) to fully implement these regulations and that they should not shy away from identifying and sanctioning EU interests when appropriate, since the credibility of the EU is at stake;
Amendment 42 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 65 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 73 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – indent 1
Paragraph 10 – indent 1
Amendment 75 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – indent 5
Paragraph 10 – indent 5
Amendment 82 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 95 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. BelievesRejects the idea that a new body should be set up, under the auspices of the UN, to perform independent evaluations of both flag States and RFMO performance;
Amendment 107 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 120 #
2010/2210(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 5 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 6 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 7 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) To that end, notwithstanding Article 28 of the Treaty, imports of certain agricultural products from third countries should not be exempt from the applicable import duties. To take account of their origin and the customs treatment accorded to them under European Union law, products which have entered the Union’s customs territory under inward processing or customs warehousing arrangements shouldmust not be considered as direct imports, for the purpose of granting the benefits of the specific supply arrangements.
Amendment 8 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 9 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 10 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Since the quantities covered by the specific supply arrangements are limited to the supply requirements of the outermost regions, this system possibly does not impair the proper functioning of the internal market. Nor should the economic advantages of the specific supply arrangements provoke diversions of trade in the products concerned. Dispatching or exportation of those products from the outermost regions should therefore be prohibited. Nevertheless, the dispatch or export of these products must be authorised if the financial advantage resulting from the specific supply arrangements is reimbursed.
Amendment 11 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) However, appropriate measures shouldmay be taken to allow for the necessary restructuring of the sugar processing sector in the Azores. These measures should take into account that in order for the sugar sector on the Azores to be viable, a certain level of production and processing needs to be ensured. Against this background, dispatches of sugar from the Azores to the rest of the Union should be allowed exceptionally to exceed traditional flows for a limited period of five years, subject to progressively reduced annual limits. Given that the quantities that may be re- dispatched will be proportional and limited to the extent strictly necessary for ensuring the viability of local sugar production and processing, such temporary dispatching of sugar from the Azores willould perhaps not adversely affect the internal market of the Union.
Amendment 12 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 13 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 14 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 15 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) European Union policy to assist local production in the outermost regions has involved a multitude of products and measures for their production, marketing or processing. These measures have not really proved effective and ensured that agriculture continues and develops. The EU should not continue to support these lines of production, which are a key element to ensure the environmental, social and economic equilibrium of the outermost regions. Experience has shown that, as in the case of rural development policy, a closer partnership with local authorities can help to address the particular issues affecting the regions concerned in a more targeted way. Support to promote local production therefore needs to continue by means of the POSEI programmes.
Amendment 16 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In order to support the marketing of products from the outermost regions, aidthe regions should be established to assist commercialisation ofncouraged to market theseir products outside of the region in which they are produced. However, this is a task for the regions themselves.
Amendment 17 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 18 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 19 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The structures of certain farms or processing and marketing firms in the outermost regions are seriously defective and face specific difficulties. Articles 26(2) and 28(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) therefore provide for more favourable support rates for certain types of investment in the outermost regions.
Amendment 20 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Annex I thereto determine the maximum annual amounts eligible for agri-environmental payments. To take into account the specific environmental situation of certain very sensitive pasture areas in the Azores and the preservation of the landscape and traditional featureshese amounts should on no account be exceeded, in view of the EU’s desire to cut back heavily ofn agricultural land, in particular the areas of terrace cultivatioexpenditure. Furthermore, in lin Madeira, provision should be made for the possibility, in the case of certain specific measures, of increasing those amounts up to twofolde with the subsidiarity principle, any aid accorded is a matter between the peripheral regions and the national authorities within whose responsibility they fall.
Amendment 21 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 22 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
Amendment 23 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
Amendment 24 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 25 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Traditional livestock farming activities should be supported. In order to meet the local consumption needs of the French overseas departments and Madeira, duty-free imports from third countries of male bovine animals intended for fattening should be authorised subject to certain conditions and up to a maximum annual limit by the authorities of the Member States within whose responsibility the peripheral areas in question fall.
Amendment 26 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 27 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) Tobacco growing is of historical importance in the Canary Islands. Economically speaking, tobacco preparation continues to be one of the chief industrial activities in the region. In social terms, tobacco cultivation is very labour- intensive and carried out by small farms. Since the crop is not sufficiently profitable, however, it is in danger of dying out. Tobacco is currently cultivated on only a small area on the island of La Palma, for the small-scale manufacture of cigars. Spain should therefore be authorised to continue to grant aid, in addition to EU aid, so that this traditional crop can be maintained with a view to supporting the artisanal activity associated with it. In addhe EU has no intention of granting aid to undertakings that are clearly not profitable except with EU aid. EU aid is not intended to be a covert form of state aid to maintain p unfair competition, t. To maintain the manufacture of tobacco products, imports into the Canary Islands of raw and semi-manufactured tobacco should continue to be exempt from customs duty, up to an annual limit of 20 000 tonnes of stripped raw tobacco equivalentthe producers may if they will approach the national authorities.
Amendment 29 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 32 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 37 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22
Article 22
Amendment 38 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Amendment 39 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Amendment 40 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 42 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27
Article 27
Amendment 43 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28
Article 28
Amendment 44 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Amendment 45 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 46 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 47 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – introductory part
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – introductory part
Amendment 48 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 1
Amendment 49 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 2
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 2
Amendment 50 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 3
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 3
Amendment 51 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 4
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 4
Amendment 52 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 5
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 5
Amendment 53 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 6
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 6
Amendment 54 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 7
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 7
Amendment 55 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 8
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b – indent 8
Amendment 56 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 57 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2
Article 28 – paragraph 2
Amendment 31 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (hereinafter the Financial Regulation), lays down the budgetary principles and financial rules which should be respected in all legislative acts. It is necessary, however, democratically undesirable to amend certain provisions of the Financial Regulation in order to take account of the amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Amendment 33 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The undemocratically introduced Treaty of Lisbon can never establishes a European External Action Service (hereinafter “EEAS”). According to the conclusions of the European Council of 29 and 30 October 2009, the EEAS is a service of a sui generis nature and should be treated as an institution for the purposes of the Financial Regulation.
Amendment 35 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 37 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 40 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 42 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 43 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 44 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 45 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 46 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 10
Recital 10
10. In order to ensure coherence, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of financial control, the ienternal auditor of the Commission should act as the internal auditor of the EEAS in respect of the budget implementation of both the Commission and the EEAS sections of the Budgetire proposal and preparation for introduction of the EEAS should immediately be dropped.
Amendment 49 #
2010/0054(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 11
Recital 11
11. Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 should therefore be amended accordinglydoes not need to be amended,
Amendment 2 #
2009/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. RecallDeplores that the inadequate funding for the GNSS programmes led in 2007 to a revision of the current MFF which increased the ceiling for Heading 1a by €2.4 billion for the period 2007-2013; points out that again in 2010 the Commission proposed an MFF revision to increase the ceiling for Heading 1a, owing to a shortage of funding for the ITER project; emphasises that such ad hoc, emergency solutions are likely to jeopardise the success and added value of strategic, large-scale EU projects and undermine the political momentum around them ; considers that sound, long- term solutions for their funding must be devised insteadevidence of the fact that this project must be scrapped immediately from the EU budget, to prevent further future losses for the European citizens;
Amendment 8 #
2009/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. DeplorWelcomes the fact that in its mid-term review in January 2011 the Commission did not propose any additional funding for the GNSS programmes for the period to 2013, which may lead to unacceptable delays in their completion; points out that, should extra funds be needed dur any further investments ing this period,rogram should be terminated immediately so that redeployment from current multiannual programmes cannot be seen as a viable option and thatand further reductions under Heading 1a, in particular concerning the 7th Framework Programme, are unacceptablewill not be needed;
Amendment 11 #
2009/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that GNSS is a critical technology that could or could not revolutionise European transport infrastructure and various market sectors; points out that any delay wouldmight or might not result in a loss of international competitiveness, in current infrastructure becoming obsolete, in an inability to use technologies and applications under development and in the loss of up to 60% of the expected benefits;
Amendment 14 #
2009/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that Galileo is the first EU- owned project and that to avoid uncertainties, reassure market players and bring it to full operability within the shortest possible period its budget must be steadily increascrapped; supports, therefore, the proposal that in the future, where large- scale projects such as this are concerned, a predetermined annual amount should be covered from the EU budget and that the Member States should be responsible for financing any balancewill only be funded securely and in detail, accorded by the Member States, under their responsibility;