Activities of Kārlis ŠADURSKIS
Plenary speeches (31)
Discontinuing seasonal changes of time (debate) LV
Implementation of the Treaty provisions related to EU Citizenship - Implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning enhanced cooperation - Implementation of the Treaty provisions on Parliament’s power of political control over the Commission - Implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the EU institutional framework (debate) LV
The UK’s withdrawal from the EU (debate) LV
Review of the Irish Presidency, including the MFF agreement (B7-0332/2013, RCB7-0334/2013, B7-0334/2013, B7-0335/2013, B7-0339/2013, B7-0340/2013)
Timing of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances (A7-0046/2013 - Matthias Groote)
Adoption by Latvia of the euro on 1 January 2014 (A7-0237/2013 - Burkhard Balz)
Decision on the opening of, and mandate for, interinstitutional negotiations on direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the CAP - 2011/0280(COD) (B7-0079/2013)
Decision on the opening of, and mandate for, interinstitutional negotiations on common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) - 2011/0281(COD) (B7-0080/2013)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Preparations for the European Council meeting (22-23 November 2012) with particular reference to the Multiannual Financial Framework (debate)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
EU-Russia trade relations following Russia's accession to the WTO (debate)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area - Monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area (debate)
EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR to the US Department of Homeland Security (debate)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Outcome of the presidential elections in Russia (debate)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Reprogramming of the structural funds to better combat youth unemployment and help SMEs (debate)
Explanations of vote
Conclusions of the informal European Council meeting of 30 January 2012 (debate)
Written explanations (7)
Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (A8-0317/2018 - Frédérique Ries) LV
Esmu patiesi gandarīts, ka Eiropas Parlaments ir apstiprinājis vienreizējās plastmasas aizliegumu Eiropas Savienībā pēc 2021. gada. Tas nozīmē, ka līdz 2021. gadam no tirdzniecības ir jāizņem tādi vienreizlietojamie plastmasas izstrādājumi kā galda piederumi, salmiņi, vates kociņi. Šī direktīva ietver arī citus būtiskus elementus, kuru mērķis ir mazināt plastmasas daudzumu mūsu ikdienā. Ir daudz stingrāk iezīmēts princips, ka piesārņotājam ir jāmaksā. Tāpat arī dalībvalstīm ir pienākums līdz 2029. gadam pārstrādei savākt 90 % plastmasas pudeļu. Šis ir būtisks solis, lai mazinātu plastmasas piesārņojumu mūsu vidē un piespiestu ražotājus rast videi draudzīgākas alternatīvas, tādēļ balsoju par.
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (A8-0245/2018 - Axel Voss) LV
Es atbalstu jauno Autortiesību direktīvu, jo uzskatu, ka radošo profesiju pārstāvjiem ir tiesības saņemt atlīdzību par savu darbu arī digitālajā vidē. Nav pieņemami, ka lielās interneta platformas pelna miljonus, izmantojot citu radītu saturu - bez jebkāda pienākuma par to norēķināties. Vai direktīva pieliks punktu vārda brīvībai un nogalinās internetu? Nē! Bet internets vairs nebūs mežonīgie rietumi autortiesību turētājiem. Protams, jaunā Autortiesību direktīva nav nevainojama, bet tas ir labākais iespējamais kompromiss starp visām iesaistītajām pusēm un interesēm, lai aizstāvētu radošo profesiju tiesības digitālajā vidē 21. gadsimta sākumā.
Fundamental rights of people of African descent (B8-0212/2019) LV
Par šo rezolūciju bija tikai viens balsojums, tādēļ to atbalstīju. Šī ir visnotaļ simboliska rezolūcija, kurai nav un nebūs pilnīgi nekāda juridiska spēka. Taču gribu paskaidrot, ka man pilnīgi nepieņemams liekas 23. punkts, kurš prasa dalībvalstīm nodrošināt drošus un legālus ceļus ne tikai bēgļu, bet arī visu citu migrantu, patvēruma meklētāju nokļūšanai Eiropas Savienībā.
Experiencing backlash in women’s rights and gender equality in the EU (B8-0096/2019, B8-0099/2019) LV
Es atturējos balsojumā par FEMM komitejas rezolūciju “par pretreakciju pret sieviešu tiesībām un dzimumu līdztiesību Eiropas Savienībā”, jo uzskatu, ka rezolūcija ir gaužām neobjektīva, ar izteikti kreisu politisko uzstādījumu. Rezolūcijas teksta kvalitāte ir ļoti zema un neskaitāmie dalītie balsojumi to nekādi nespēj uzlabot. Uzskatu, ka sieviešu tiesību ievērošana ES un dzimumu līdztiesība ir ļoti nopietni jautājumi, taču šī rezolūcija to padara par politisku izsmieklu un kreiso spēku mēģinājumu piesaistīt balsis pirms vēlēšanām, tādēļ te nav citas iespējas, kā atturēties balsojumā.
Amendments to Parliament's Rules of Procedure (A8-0462/2018 - Richard Corbett) LV
Ikviena Eiropas Parlamenta deputāta pienākums ir tikties ar iedzīvotājiem, iegūt maksimāli daudz informācijas par jautājumiem, kuros tiek pieņemti lēmumi. Tāpēc, protams, ir jātiekas ar dažādu jomu, tai skaitā interešu grupu, pārstāvjiem. Bieži vien priekšlikumi, kas, piemēram, ierobežo konkurenci vai rada nepamatotas priekšrocības tai vai citai sabiedrības vai uzņēmēju grupai, ir ieslēpti skaistos vārdos un cēlos lozungos. Tāpēc, lai izprastu to būtību, ir jāiegūst vispusīga informācija. Balsojumā par grozījumiem Eiropas Parlamenta Reglamentā vairākuma atbalstu guva norma par to, ka deputātiem būtu jāpublicē tiešsaistē informācija par visām plānotajām sanāksmēm ar interešu pārstāvjiem, kas, manuprāt, ir pārspīlēta izpratne un nedod nekādu praktisku pienesumu deputāta darbības caurspīdīguma veicināšanai. Tāpēc es balsojumā atturējos. Es pilnībā atbalstu jau eksistējošo praksi, ka EP deputāti tiekas tikai ar interešu pārstāvjiem, kuri ir reģistrējusies ES Pārredzamības reģistrā. Norma, kura it kā caurspīdīguma vārdā prasa deputātiem internetā publicēt visas savas tikšanās, ir uz atklātību vērstas darbības imitācija. Atbalstīju prasību EP izveidot sistēmu, kas ļautu deputātiem brīvprātīgi publicēt auditu par vispārējiem biroja izdevumiem. Savukārt uzskatu, ka grozījumā, kurš paredz deputātiem parakstīt Kodeksu par pienācīgu uzvedību, pildot savus pienākumus, ir tikai un vienīgi kreiso spēku populisms un kampaņas elements pirms Eiropas Parlamenta vēlēšanām, jo pienācīga un cieņpilna deputāta uzvedība ir kaut kas tik elementārs un pašsaprotams, ka par to parakstīties ir vienkārši muļķīgi. Mūsu sabiedrība to sagaida no katra sevi cienoša deputāta, amatpersonas un jebkura cilvēka.
Gender mainstreaming in the European Parliament (A8-0429/2018 - Angelika Mlinar) LV
Esmu par dzimumu līdztiesību, bet nevaru atbalstīt ideoloģiskus mēģinājumus to radīt mākslīgi, nosakot formālas kvotas, lai radītu pieņemamu statistiku. Piemēram, nav loģiski formāli noteikt, ka uz jebkuru vadošu amatu Eiropas Parlamentā ir jābūt abu dzimumu kandidātiem, ka komitejās jābūt līdzvērtīgam skaitam abu dzimumu deputātu. Manuprāt, jebkuram amatam svarīgākais kritērijs ir kandidāta prasmes, spējas un pieredze, nevis dzimums.
Gender equality and taxation policies in the EU (A8-0416/2018 - Marisa Matias, Ernest Urtasun) LV
Šis ziņojums ir galēji kreiso politisko grupu iniciatīva pirms gaidāmajām Eiropas Parlamenta vēlēšanām ar mērķi piesaistīt vēlētāju uzmanību, nevis sniegt reālu progresu dzimumu līdztiesībā. Ziņojums cenšas radīt iespaidu, ka nodokļu politika diskriminē sievietes pēc definīcijas, ka korporatīvais, kapitāla un īpašuma nodoklis, kā arī esošā PVN sistēma negatīvi ietekmē dzimumu līdztiesību. Tajā paustās idejas ir klaji ideoloģiskas un pilnīgs absurds no ekonomikas viedokļa, tādēļ balsoju pret šo ziņojumu.
Written questions (1)
The decision not to include Russia on the list of high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorism-financing regimes PDF (51 KB) DOC (20 KB)
Amendments (212)
Amendment 164 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Where there are no reasons to believe that the granting of a period for voluntary departure would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, voluntary return should be preferred over forced return and an appropriate period for voluntary departure of up to thirty days, depending in particular on the prospect of return, should be granted. A period for voluntary departure should not be granted whereMember States should ensure that those third-country nationals in respect of whom it has been assessed that third- country nationalsey pose a risk of absconding, who have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent or manifestly unfounded, or theywho pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security in particular on grounds of terrorism or serious crime, are not granted a period for voluntary departure. An extension of the period for voluntary departure should be provided for when considered necessary because of the specific circumstances of an individual case.
Amendment 175 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) Member States should ensure that persons facing return procedures do not intentionally and fraudulently exploit factors that might be considered as potentially increasing their vulnerability.
Amendment 181 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The deadline for lodging an appeal against decisions related to return should provide enough time to ensure access to an effective remedy, while taking into account that long deadlines can have a detrimental effect on return procedures. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding fiveten days should be granted to appeal against a return decision. This provision should only apply following a decision rejecting an application for international protection which became final, including after a possible judicial review.
Amendment 192 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) An appeal against a return decision should have an automatic suspensive effect only in cases where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement or where there is clear evidence for exceptional personal circumstances such as severe impairments to health.
Amendment 223 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Detention should be imposed, following an individual assessment of each case, where there is a risk of absconding, where the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process, or when the third country national concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security, especially if belonging to terrorist or serious crime networks. This should also apply to minors between the age of 16 and 18, who have repeatedly committed criminal offences, thereby proving their unwillingness to abide by the law.
Amendment 231 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Given that maximum detention periods in some Member States are not sufficient to ensure the implementation of return, a maximum period of detention between three and sixtwelve months, which may be prolonged, should be established in order to provide for sufficient time to complete the return procedures successfully, without prejudice to the established safeguards ensuring that detention is only applied when necessary and proportionate and for as long as removal arrangements are in progress.
Amendment 238 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) This Directive should not precludeencourages Member States fromto laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, in relation to the infringements of migration rules, especially with regard to convicted terrorists, organised crime offenders and offenders of severe crimes such as rape, provided that such penalties are compatible with the objectives of this Directive, do not compromise the application of this Directive and are in full respect of fundamental rights.
Amendment 251 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) To ensure effective return in the context of the border procedure, a period for voluntary departure should not be granted. However, a period for voluntary departure shouldmay be granted to third- country nationals who hold a valid travel document and cooperate fully with the competent authorities of the Member States at all stages of the return procedures. In such cases, to prevent absconding, third- country nationals should hand over the travel document to the competent authority until their departure.
Amendment 270 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Establishing return management systems in Member States contributes to the efficiency of the return process. Each national system should provide timely information on the identity and legal situation of the third country national that are relevant for monitoring and following up on individual cases. To operate efficiently and in order to significantly reduce the administrative burden, such national return systems should be linked to the Schengen Information System to facilitate and speed up the entering of return-related information, as well as to the central system established by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [EBCG Regulation] as well as other relevant central information systems.
Amendment 296 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Amendment 300 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
(c) anothery third country, toin which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he or she will be acceptedwill be accepted and where there is no risk of breaching the principle of non-refoulement;
Amendment 362 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point p a (new)
(pa) risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 371 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States shall establish that a risk of absconding is presumed in an individual case, unless proven otherwise, when one of the objective criteria referred to in points (m), (n), (o), (p) and (p a) of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.
Amendment 426 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall issue a return decision immediately after the adoption of a decision ending a legal stay of a third- country national, including a decision not granting a third-country national refugee status or subsidiary protection status in accordance with Regulation (EU) …/… [Qualification Regulation] in order to guarantee smooth procedures, which are also in the best interest of the returnees.
Amendment 460 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c – subparagraph 1 (new)
This should particularly apply to third- country nationals who have committed offences in several Member States or offences related to terrorism or serious crime.
Amendment 463 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c b (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point c b (new)
(cb) Where the third-country nationals has been convicted for benefit fraud by using multiple identities.
Amendment 468 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to enforce the return decision if no period for voluntary departure has been granted in accordance with Article 9(4) or if the obligation to return has not been complied with within the period for voluntary departure granted in accordance with Article 9. Priority shall be given to those third country nationals having been convicted for severe and repeated criminal offences, in particular terrorism. Those measures shall include all measures necessary to confirm the identity of illegally staying third-country nationals who do not hold a valid travel document and to obtain such a document.
Amendment 531 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
The assistance referred to in this paragraph shall as a rule not be granted to third-country nationals who already benefitted from reintegration assistance provided by a Member State once.
Amendment 640 #
2018/0329(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. Return decisions issued in returnIn the context of procedures carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article shall be given by means of a standard form as set out under national legislation, in accordance with Article 15(3), Member States shall issue: (a) either a return decisions given by means of a standard form as set out in the annex, or (b) a refusal of entry in accordance with Article14 of Regulation 2016/399; paragraphs 4 to 7 shall not apply in this case. Member States shall issue one of the decisions referred to in this paragraph as soon as possible, where possible under national law together with the decision rejecting an application for international protection taken by virtue of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) …/… [Asylum Procedure Regulation].
Amendment 2 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 3 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
Amendment 4 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard to the Council conclusions of 8 June 2011 on the memory of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe,
Amendment 5 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 c (new)
Citation 4 c (new)
– having regard to its many previous resolutions on democracy and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, including that of 13 January 1983 on the situation in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, of 27 January 2005 resolution on remembrance of the Holocaust, anti- semitism and racism, of 12 May 2005 on the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe on 8 May 1945, of 28 September 2005 on the 25th Anniversary of Solidarity and its message for Europe, of 26 October 2006 on the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising and its historical meaning for Europe, of 23 October 2008 on the commemoration of the Holodomor, and that of 15 January 2009 on Srebrenica,
Amendment 60 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas for many European countries the end of the Second World War did not lead to full freedom; whereas Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and part of Romania were forcefully incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940; whereas many eastern and central European countries were held captive by Soviet imposed communist dictatorships; whereas democracy was stifled in parts of Southern Europe until the late 1970s; whereas for many years after the war Europe was divided, and its central and eastern parts not fully liberated until after 1989, when the opportunity presented itself for genuine integration across the entire continent;
Amendment 143 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the presentation and teaching of history should be based not on political interpretation but on solid research work; whereas the full opening up of historical archives, including those of the former internal security services, secret police and intelligence agencies, will make it possible to carry out diligent research and to verify ‘historical lies’;
Amendment 154 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the creation of athe Platform of European Memory and Conscience is an essential step on the road to genuine reconciliation among European nations, and whereas EU financial support is essential for this project to achieve its mission;
Amendment 163 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas activities related to the awareness and education and research of the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes are only in place in the Member States which experienced such crimes, while in other Member States there is insufficient awareness of these crimes;
Amendment 168 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
Recital K b (new)
Kb. whereas legislation on the denial of the Holocaust exists in 10 Member States, only four Member States have national legislation on the denial of crimes committed by totalitarian regimes which explicitly includes crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes;
Amendment 170 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K c (new)
Recital K c (new)
Kc. whereas all Member States have commemoration days of the Holocaust, while 9 Member States commemorate European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, as called upon by the declaration of the European Parliament adopted on 23 September 2008;
Amendment 171 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K d (new)
Recital K d (new)
Kd. whereas the dominant historical experience of Western Europe was Nazism, and whereas Central and Eastern European countries have experienced both Communism and Nazism; whereas understanding has to be promoted in relation to the double legacy of dictatorship borne by these countries;
Amendment 172 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K e (new)
Recital K e (new)
Ke. whereas Europe will not be united unless it is able to form a common consciousness, recognises Nazism, Stalinism and fascist and Communist regimes as a common legacy and brings about an honest and thorough debate on their crimes in the past century;
Amendment 173 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K f (new)
Recital K f (new)
Kf. whereas there can be no reconciliation without truth and remembrance;
Amendment 230 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that it is unacceptable to apply double standards when assessing and critically analysing Communism and National Socialismcritical assessment and analysis of the National Socialist and other totalitarian regimes should be pursued with equal perseverance;
Amendment 254 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that historical truth and memory, nurtured among other things by educational activities and cultural events, will reinforce genuine reconciliation between nations and authentic European integration based on truth and therefore recommends that greater efforts should be made to teach the history of Eastern Europe in Western Europe and vice versa;
Amendment 276 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Supports the proposal for aof the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, the aim of which is to establish an international judicial body to deal with the most serious crimes of the Communist dictatorships;
Amendment 285 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on Member States to support ambitious history teaching programmes which do not gloss over the most difficult episodes; recognises that while Member States have complete autonomy as regards the content of their teaching syllabuses, they have to be based on common European values;
Amendment 306 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that modern media can play a vital role in promoting historical truth, both by accurately portraying historical events and by granting appropriate funding to historical productions and educational history programmes, such as the EUROCLIO project of Historiana, and, in this context, commends the level of awareness of the Holocaust and crimes of the Nazi regime and calls upon similar efforts to raise awareness of the crimes of other totalitarian regimes;
Amendment 335 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that the European Union should support cooperation between institutes and organisations which foster historical memory, and in this context calls on the Commission to ensure financial support for professional historical research to form the basis for future educational and cultural projects; calls for historical archives, particularly archives of repressive forces of the totalitarian dictatorships, to be fully opened up to research historians;
Amendment 351 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls for efforts to make education on totalitarianism in Europe more comprehensive, including education, research and remembrance on crimes committed by the totalitarian Communist regimes, which could not have been adequately addressed during the post-war decades;
Amendment 352 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Condemns the trivialization of totalitarianism through the public use of its symbols by the media, advertising and others;
Amendment 353 #
2013/2129(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Stresses that archives are essential for research and in turn research for the promotion of education and knowledge, therefore calls for a Statute of European Heritage for historical archives, including those of the former internal security services, secret police and intelligence agencies, which would provide a safeguard for the common history of the European Union;
Amendment 2 #
2012/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 3 #
2012/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the current allocation of seats in the European Parliament is not proportional and is thus in contradiction with the Treaty on European Union, and whereas the representation of each Member State in the European Parliament cannot be discussed separately from representation in the Council of the European Union,
Amendment 4 #
2012/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 7 #
2012/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas, given that the problem of truly degressive proportional representation in the European Parliament and the Council can be definitively solved only by changes to the Treaty on European Union, a temporary solution must be found pending the resolution of that question by changes to the Treaty,
Amendment 15 #
2012/2309(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that the only possible temporary solution, in order not to distort the balance of representation of the Member States within the Union, is to temporarily increase the number of seats in the European Parliament from the 2014- 2019 parliamentary term, pending changes to the Treaty;
Amendment 31 #
2012/2309(INI)
Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) This Decision mustshould have respected the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union, namely representatives of the Union's citizens not exceeding seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President, that representation being degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State and no Member State being allocated more than ninety-six seats,
Amendment 32 #
2012/2309(INI)
Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Article 1 – introductory part
Article 1 – introductory part
In the application of the principle of degressive proportionality provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the following principles shallould have been respected as far as possible:
Amendment 44 #
2012/2309(INI)
Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Article 3
Article 3
Pursuant to Article 1, the number of representatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member State is hereby set as follows, with effect from the beginning of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term: Belgium 212 Bulgaria 178 Czech Republic 212 Denmark 13 Germany 969 Estonia 6 Ireland 112 Greece 212 Spain 54 France 74 Croatia 112 Italy 73 Cyprus 6 Latvia 89 Lithuania 112 Luxembourg 6 Hungary 212 Malta 6 Netherlands 26 Austria 19 Poland 51 Portugal 212 Romania 323 Slovenia 8 Slovakia 13 Finland 13 Sweden 1920 United Kingdom 73
Amendment 60 #
2012/2309(INI)
Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Article 4
Article 4
This Decision shall be revised sufficiently far in advance of the beginning of the 2019- 2024 parliamentary term with the aim of establishing a system which in future will make it possible, before each fresh election to the European Parliament, toremain in effect until such time as new principles are laid down for the reallocate theion of seats between the Member States in an objective manner, based on the principle of degressive proportionality set forth in Article 1, taking account of any increase in their number and demographic trends in their population as duly ascertained, as well as voting rights in the Council.
Amendment 17 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
– having regard to the ongoing infringement proceedings in Case C- 288/12 brought by the European Commission against Hungary over the independence of the dlegality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection authoritystill pending before the European Court of Justice,
Amendment 20 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40
Citation 40
Amendment 22 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 41
Citation 41
Amendment 33 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and pursuant to Article 6 TEU, the Charter has the same legal value as the Trebecame legally binding and Member Staties, hence transforming values and principles into tangible and enforceable rights must ensure its full application when implementing EU law;
Amendment 36 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas according to Article 7(1) TEU grants the EU institutions the power to assess whethermay determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the commonby a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 by a Member State, and to engage politically with the country concerned in order to prevent and redress violations, while the ultimate purpose of the means laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) TEU is to penalise and remedy any serious and persistent breach of common values; whereas before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure;
Amendment 48 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
Amendment 67 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the scale of the comprehensive and systematic constitutional and institutional reforms (a root-and-branch revision of the legal system), which the new Hungarian Government has carried out in an exceptionally short time frame6 is unfull compliance with the applicable preocedented, andural requirements, explains why so many European institutions and organisations (the European Union, Council of Europe, OSCE) as well as the U.S. Administration have deemed it necessary to assess the impact of some reforms carried out in Hungary, wherea; whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States, thus the situation in other Member States, although following a different pattern, may also need tthe same pattern should also be monitored, while enforcingotherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties, and whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States is not respected;
Amendment 68 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V – footnote 6
Recital V – footnote 6
Amendment 121 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital AP
Recital AP
AP. whereas key safeguards for judicial independence, such as irremovability, guaranteed term of office, the structure and composition of the governing bodies, are not regulated in the Constitution but are – together with detailed rules on the organization and administration of the judiciary – still set out in the amended cardinal laws,; whereas it should be emphasized that the former Constitution did not contain more detailed rules on these issues either, and those have never been criticised; whereas, therefore thus the provisions of the Fundamental Law cannot be regarded as setbacks at any ways; and whereas in certain Member States the constitution does not refer to the judicial structure of the given country at all, or does not include any detailed regulation related to this (e.g. among others in Austria, France, Estonia, Finland or Germany);
Amendment 171 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital BX
Recital BX
BX. whereas freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 10 of the Charter is one of the foundations of a democratic society, and w, and whereas according to the Treaty of Lisbon the legislation on the reas the role of the State in this respect should be that of a neutral and impartial guarantor of the right to exercise various religions, faiths and beliefslation between the State and the churches belongs to the Member States' competence; thus there are many differences in how churches are recognized in Member States from official state religion (e.g.: Denmark, Greece, Malta) up to solely operating in the form of associations (e.g.: France);
Amendment 194 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic procthe "Union is founded on the valuess of enacting laws, and for a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition are key elements of the concepts of democracy and the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and proclaimed in the Preambles to both the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter,respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" as enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 219 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the extensive use of cardinal laws to regulate areas that are covered by oin Hungary has constitutional tradition since 1989, the number of areas subject to cardinaryl laws in most Member States or to set forth very specific and detailed rules undermines the principles of democracy and the rule of law as it has enabled the current government, which enjoys the support of a qualified majority, to set in stone political choices with the consequence of making it more difficult for any new future government having only a simple majority in the parliament to respond to social changes and thus of potentially diminishing the importance of new electionhas more or less remained steady since then and has never been a source of criticism so far, not even during the accession negotiations, and not even when the socialist-liberal coalition between 1994-1998 governed with two- thirds majority amending a great number of cardinal acts at will, therefore challenging solely the current Hungarian government is politically biased; and underlines that use of two-third majority laws is common in many other Member States, such as Austria, France, Spain or Romania, and whereas in Austria more than 50 subject matters are to be regulated by two-third majority laws;
Amendment 223 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that use of the individual members' bills procedure to implement the constitution (through cardinal laws) does not constitute a transparent, accountable andis in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirements, and is part of the democratic legislative process, as in practice it restricts public debate and consultation, and that it could run counter to Fundamental Law itself, which makes it an obligation for the government (and not individual members) to submit to the parliament the bills necessary for the implementation of the Fundamental Lawnobody more accountable than a Member of Parliament who may be dismissed by the electors at the next elections. Denying this right of the members of Parliament with reference to the democratic values common to EU member States would lead us to a conclusion that democratically elected MPs cannot exercise their representative roles;
Amendment 233 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Takes note that in several Member States the competences of the constitutional court is limited or restricted to a certain type of procedures, furthermore, there is no legal regulation for the competences of the constitutional court regarding the supervision of the constitution or any amendments thereof among others in Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia, France or Portugal; and takes note that in several Member States does not even exist the institute of a separate constitutional court at all (e.g. among others in Finland or in Greece, or the Danish system of courts, which are based on a unified structure, or in Ireland, where Supreme Court can deal with constitutional issues);
Amendment 246 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is deeply concerned about this shift of powers in constitutional matters to the advantage of the parliament and to the detriment of the Constitutional Court, which severely undermineUnderlines that according to rule of law a democratically elected Parliament has the right and duty to adopt the Constitution and Laws, and the Constitutional Court has the principle of separation of powers and a correctly functioning systemght and duty to safeguard the compatibility of cthecks and balances, which are key corollaries of the rule of law laws with the Constitution;
Amendment 290 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Deplores that the creation of the state- owned Hungarian News Agency (MTI) as the single news provider for public service broadcasters, while all major private broadcasters are expected to have their own news service, has meant it has a virtual monopoly on the market, as most of its news items arUnderlines that Member States remain free to organise their public service broadcasting in a way they deem appropriate while preserving media pluralism, in line with the Amsterdam Protocol attached to the fTreely available; recalls the recommendation of the Council of Europe to eliminate the obligation on public broadcasters to use the national news agency as it constitutes an unreasonable and unfair restriction on the plurality of news provisionaty; takes note of the recent statement of the European Commission with regard to the French media bill that the Commission in no way intends to comment on and evaluate draft national laws;
Amendment 322 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Objects the use of double standards in the treatment of a Member States; stresses that same situations, legal provisions should be treated similarly, otherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties is not respected;
Amendment 324 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. ReaffirmsTakes note of the fact that its present resolution is not only about Hungary, but inseparably about the European Union as a whole, and its democalthough several issues raised are present in the legal system and practic reconstruction and development after the fall of the 20th century totalitarianisms. It is about the European family, its common values and standards, its inclusiveness and its capacity to engage in dialogue. It is about the need to implement Treaties which all Member States have voluntarily acceded to. It is about the mutual help and mutual trust that the Union, its citizens and Member States need to havee of several Member States; Regrets that the principle detailed in Article 4(2) - according to which "the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent ifn these Treaties are to be more than just words on paper but the legal basis for a true, just and open Europe respecting fundamental rightsir fundamental structures, political and constitutional" - was not taken into account;
Amendment 326 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Shares the idea of a Union which is not only a ‘union of democracies’ but also a ‘Union of Democracy’, based upon pluralistic societies where respect for human rights and the rule of law prevail; and stresses that the freely elected Parliaments are excepted as basic elements of democracy;
Amendment 331 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 341 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Expects all Member States to take the necessary steps, particularly within the Council of the European Union, to contribute loyally to the promotion of the Union's values and to cooperate with Parliament and the Commission in monitoring their observance, especially in the framework of the ‘Article 2 Trilogue’ referred to in paragraph 76;
Amendment 347 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 361 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
– to adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing any potential risks of serious breach of fundamental values in a given Member State at an early stage and immediately to engage in a structured political dialogue with the relevant Member State and the other EU institutions without applying double standards; this structured political dialogue should be coordinated at the highest political level of the Commission and have a clear impact on the full spectrum of negotiations between the Commission and the Member State concerned in the various EU fields;
Amendment 362 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
Amendment 364 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 6
Paragraph 60 – indent 6
Amendment 369 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
– to regularly monitor the correct functioning of the European area of justice and to take action when the independence of the judiciary is put at risk in any Member State without applying double standards, with a view to avoiding the weakening of mutual trust between national judicial authorities, which would inevitably create obstacles to the correct application of the EU instruments on mutual recognition and cross-border cooperation;
Amendment 371 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
– to ensure that Member States guarantee correct implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to media pluralism and equal access to information, when these effect EU-law;
Amendment 374 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14
Paragraph 60 – indent 14
– to address the issue ofparticipate cooperatively in the ongoing dialogue with the Hungarian government on the conformity with EU law of the new provision of the Fourth Amendment enabling the Hungarian Government to impose a special tax in order to implement EU Court of Justice judgments entailing payment obligations when the state budget does not have sufficient funding available and when the public debt exceeds half of the Gross Domestic Product, and to suggest adequate measures to prevent what may result in a breach of sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.;
Amendment 384 #
2012/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – introductory part
Paragraph 61 – introductory part
61. Urges the Hungarian authorities to implement the following recommendations without any further delay, with a view to fully restoring the rule of law and its key requirements Stresses that it has no mandate to make recommendations to the Hungarian authorities; repeats its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary, which "Instructs the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in cooperation with the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, the constitutional setting, the system of checks and balances and the independence of the judiciary, as well as strong safeguards for fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, media and religion and the right to property:o follow up the issue of whether and how the recommendations of the Commission and the European Parliament set out in point 4 of this resolution have been implemented and to present its findings in a report;"
Amendment 262 #
2012/0337(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Annex 1 – point 38
Annex 1 – point 38
38. Turning waste into a resource, as called for in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap, requires the full implementation of EU waste legislation across the EU, based on strict application of the waste hierarchy and covering different types of waste. Additional efforts, including on waste prevention, are needed to: reduce per capita waste generation in absolute terms, limit energy recov, gradually shift recyclable and compostable waste away from disposal, carrying out the planning required in ordery to non- recyclable materials, phase out landfillingdevelop the necessary recycling and recovery infrastructure, ensure high quality recycling, and develop markets for secondary raw materials. Hazardous waste will need to be managed so as to minimise significant adverse effects on human health and the environment, as agreed at the Rio+20 Summit. To achieve this, market-based instruments that privilege prevention, recycling and re-use should be applied much more systematically across the EU. Barriers facing recycling activities in the EU internal market should be removed and existing prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and landfill diversion targets reviewed so as to move towards a ‘circular’ economy, with a cascading use of resources and residual waste close to zero.
Amendment 291 #
2012/0337(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Annex 1 – point 41 – subparagraph 1 - point d
Annex 1 – point 41 – subparagraph 1 - point d
(d) Waste is safely managed as a resource, waste generated per capita is in absolute decline, energy recovery is limited to non- recyclable materials and landfilling of recyclable and compostable materials is effectively eradicatedminimized, having regard to the postponements provided for in Article 5(2) of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC.
Amendment 314 #
2012/0337(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Annex 1 – point 41 – subparagraph 2 - point e
Annex 1 – point 41 – subparagraph 2 - point e
(e) Fully implementing EU waste legislation. This will include applying the waste hierarchy and the effective use of market-based instruments and measures to ensure that landfilling is effectively phased outminimized, energy recovery is limited to non- recyclable materials, recycled waste is used as a major, reliable source of raw material for the EU, hazardous waste is safely managed and its generation is reduced, illegal waste shipments are eradicated and internal market barriers for environmentally-sound recycling activities in the EU are removed.
Amendment 95 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The LULUCF accounting rules should reflect efforts made in the agriculture and forestry sectors to enhance the contribution of changes made to the use of land resources to the reduction of emissions. This Decision should provide for accounting rules applicable on a mandatory basis to the forestry activities of afforestation, reforestation, deforestation and forest management, and to the agricultural activities of grazing land management and cropland management. It should also provide for accounting rules applicable on a voluntary basis to the agricultural activities of grazing land management and cropland management; revegetation and wetland drainage and rewetting activities.
Amendment 99 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) To ensure the environmental integrity of the accounting rules applicable to the Union LULUCF sector, these rules should be based on the accounting principles laid down in Decision -/CMP.7, Decision 2/CMP.6 and Decision 16/CMP.1 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and applied in a consistent, comparable and complete manner within the Union and among Member States.
Amendment 121 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Member State LULUCF Action Plans established as a part of the Low Carbon Development Strategies should set out measures to limit or reduce emissions and to maintain or increase removals from the LULUCF sector. Each Member State should define the most appropriate measures to meet national circumstances. Each LULUCF Action Plan should contain certain information as specified in this Decision. Moreover, to promote best practice, an indicative list of measures that may also be included in those plans should be set out in Annex to this Decision. The Commission should periodically evaluate the content and implementation of Member States‘ LULUCF Action Plans and, where appropriate, provide recommendations to enhance Member State action.
Amendment 150 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point u
(u) ‘half-life value’ is the number of years it takes for the carbon content of aharvested wood products within one of the categories listed in Article 7(2) to decrease to one half of its initial quantity;
Amendment 152 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 173 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Amendment 182 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point f
Amendment 190 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States may also draw upprepare and maintain accounts that accurately reflect emissions and removals resulting from cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation, and wetland drainage and rewetting.
Amendment 195 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall make any technical corrections and recalculations necessary to include in their existing and newly established accounts, where otherwise excluded, the carbon pools referred to in this paragraph, and greenhouse gases referred to in Article 3(2).
Amendment 196 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
However, Member States may choose not to include in their accounts changes in carbon stock for carbon pools listed under points (a) – (e) of the first subparagraph where the carbon pool is not a declining sink or a source. Member States shall only consider that a carbon pool is not a declining sink or a source whereaccounting of these carbon pools would not lead to an accounted emission and this is demonstrated on the basis of transparent and verifiable data.
Amendment 227 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 9
Article 6 – paragraph 9
Amendment 270 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
No later than six monthsone year after the beginning of each accounting period specified in Annex I, Member States shall draw up and transmit to the Commission draft LULUCF Action Plans, as a separate document or as a clearly identifiable part of their national Low-carbon Development Strategies, to limit or reduce emissions and maintain or increase removals resulting from the activities referred to in Article 3(1). Member States shall ensure that a broad range of stakeholders are consulted.
Amendment 279 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States shall consider includeing in their draft LULUCF Action Plans the following information relating to each of the activities referred to in Article 3(1):
Amendment 281 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) a list of measures, including, but not limited to, as appropriate, those indicatively specified in Annex IV by each Member State defining the most appropriate measures to meet national circumstances, to be adopted in order to pursue the mitigation potential, where identified in accordance with the analysis referred to in point (c);
Amendment 286 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall provide guidance and technical assistance to Member States and adopt specific guidelines for the LULUCF Action Plans.
Amendment 290 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 308 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 316 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 2(2), 4(7), 6(9, 4(7), 7(6) and 9(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Decision.
Amendment 318 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 2(23), 4(7), 6(9), 7(6) and 9(45) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
Amendment 320 #
2012/0042(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 2(23), 4(7), 6(9), 7(6) and 9(45) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
Amendment 101 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that a decision on the price which may be charged for the medicinal product concerned is adopted and communicated to the applicant within 690 days of the receipt of an application submitted, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Member State concerned, by the holder of a marketing authorisation. However, with respect to medicinal products for which Member States use health technology assessment as part of their decision- making process, the time-limit shall be 90 days. With respect to generic medicinal products, that time limit shall be 1590 days, provided that the price of the reference medicinal product has been approved by the competent authorities.
Amendment 115 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. If the information supporting the application is inadequate, the competent authorities shall forthwith notify the applicant of the detailed additional information required and take their final decision within 690 days of receipt of this additional information. However, with respect to medicines for which Member States use health technology assessment as part of their decision-making process, the time-limit shall be 90 days. With respect to generic medicinal products, that time limit shall be in all events 1590 days, provided that the price of the reference medicinal product has been approved by the competent authorities. Member States shall not request any additional information which is not explicitly required under national legislation or administrative guidelines.
Amendment 132 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that a decision on an application submitted in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Member State concerned, by a marketing authorisation holder to increase the price of a medicinal product is adopted and communicated to the applicant within 690 days of its receipt.
Amendment 138 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
In case of an exceptional number of applications, the time limit set out in this paragraph may be extended once only for a further 690 days. The applicant shall be notified of such an extension before the expiry of the time limit set out in this paragraph.
Amendment 148 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The applicant shall furnish the competent authorities with adequate information, including details of those events intervening since the price of the medicinal product was last determined which in his opinion justify the price increase requested. If the information supporting the application is inadequate, the competent authorities shall forthwith notify the applicant of the detailed additional information required and take their final decision within 690 days of receipt of this additional information. Member States shall not request any additional information which is not explicitly required under national legislation or administrative guidelines.
Amendment 161 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall ensure that a reasoned decision on an application referred to in paragraph 2 is adopted and communicated to the applicant within 690 days of the receipt of the application. If the information supporting the application is inadequate, the competent authorities shall forthwith notify the applicant of the detailed additional information required and take their final decision within 690 days of receipt of this additional information. If the derogation is granted, the competent authorities shall forthwith publish an announcement of the price increase allowed.
Amendment 168 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
If there is an exceptional number of applications, the relevant time limit set out in paragraph 3 may be extended once only for a further 690 days. The applicant shall be notified of such extension before the expiry of the time limit set out in paragraph 3
Amendment 186 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that a decision on an application to include a medicinal product in the scope of the public health insurance system, submitted by the marketing authorisation holder in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Member State concerned, is adopted and communicated to the applicant within 690 days of its receipt. However, with respect to medicinal products for which Member States use health technology assessment as part of their decision-making process, the time-limit shall be 90 days. With respect to generic medicinal products, that time limit shall be 1590 days, provided that the reference medicinal product has already been included in the public health insurance system.
Amendment 197 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. If the information supporting the application is inadequate, the time limit shall be suspended and the competent authorities shall forthwith notify the applicant of the detailed additional information required and take their final decision within 690 days of receipt of this additional information. However, with respect to medicinal products for which Member States use health technology assessment as part of their decision- making process, the time-limit shall be 90 days. With respect to generic medicinal products, that time limit shall be 1590 days, provided that the reference medicinal product has already been included in the public health insurance system. Member States shall not request any additional information which is not explicitly required under national legislation or administrative guidelines.
Amendment 206 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. Irrespective of the organisation of their internal procedures, Member States shall ensure that the overall period of time taken by the inclusion procedure set out in paragraph 5 of this Article and the price approval procedure set out in Article 3 does not exceed 120 days. However, with respect to the medicinal products for which Member States use health technology assessment as part of their decision-making process, the time limit shall not exceed 180 days. With respect to generic medicinal products, that time limit shall not exceed 3180 days, provided that the reference medicinal product has already been included in the public health insurance system. Those time-limits may be extended in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Article or Article 3(5) or suspended in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
Amendment 222 #
2012/0035(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 118 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 6
Article 2 – point 6
Directive 2008/105/EC
Article 8 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 8 b – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The watch list shall contain no more than 2510 substances or groups of substances at any given time and shall indicate the monitoring matrix for each substance. The substances shall be selected from among those for which the available information indicates that they may pose a significant risk at Union level to or via the aquatic environment. In selecting the substances for the watch list the Commission shall take into account all available information including research projects, Member States' characterisation and monitoring programmes under Articles 5 and 8 of Directive 2000/60/EC and information on production volumes, use patterns, concentrations in the environment and effects, including that gathered in accordance with Directives 98/8/EC, 2001/82/EC and 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Amendment 134 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 6
Article 2 – point 6
Directive 2008/105/EC
Article 8 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 8 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. Member Sstates shall monitor eachmay participate in monitoring of these substances. Each participating Member State monitors substance in the watch list at selected representative monitoring stations over at least a 12-month period commencing within 312 months of its inclusion in the watch list.
Amendment 138 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 6
Article 2 – point 6
Directive 2008/105/EC
Article 8 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 8 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Each participating Member State shall selects at least one station per, on average, 15000 km2 geographical area, with a minimum of one per Member Statefor every 40000 km2 or, alternatively, at least one station for every 3 million inhabitants.
Amendment 147 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 6
Article 2 – point 6
Directive 2008/105/EC
Article 8 b – paragraph 5
Article 8 b – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall report the results of the monitoring carried out under paragraph 4 to the Commission within 18 months of the inclusion of the substance in the watch list, and every 12 months thereafter while the substance is kept on the list. The report shall include information on the representativeness of the station and monitoring strategy.
Amendment 163 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – table – row 12
Annex I – table – row 12
Directive 2000/60/EC
Annex X – table – row 12
Annex X – table – row 12
(12) 117-81-7 204-211-0 Di(2ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) X
Amendment 164 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – table – row 12
Annex I – table – row 12
Directive 2000/60/EC
Annex X – table – row 12
Annex X – table – row 12
(12) 117-81-7 204-211-0 Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) X
Amendment 175 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – table – row 46
Annex I – table – row 46
Amendment 182 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – table – row 47
Annex I – table – row 47
Directive 2000/60/EC
Annex X – table – row 47
Annex X – table – row 47
Amendment 189 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – table – row 48
Annex I – table – row 48
Amendment 209 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – table – row 46
Annex II – table – row 46
Directive 2008/105/EC
Annex I – table – row 46
Annex I – table – row 46
Amendment 214 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – table – row 47
Annex II – table – row 47
Directive 2008/105/EC
Annex I – table – row 47
Annex I – table – row 47
Amendment 219 #
2011/0429(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – table – row 48
Annex II – table – row 48
Directive 2008/105/EC
Annex I – table – row 48
Annex I – table – row 48
Amendment 80 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) With a view to simplifying the LIFE Programme and reducing administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries, more use should be made of flat rates and lump-sums, and funding should focus on more specific categories of costs. By way of compensation for ineligible costs and i. VAT and permanent staff costs should be eligible. In order to maintain the effective level of support provided by the LIFE Programme, the co- funding rates should be 70% as a general rule and 80% in specific cases, 80% in specific cases, and 75% for Nature and Biodiversity on priority habitats and species as defined in Directive 92/43/EEC or the species of birds considered in Directive 2009/147/EEC, as well as for species and habitats defined in Directive 92/43/EEC showing unfavourable conservation status in accordance with the latest assessment.
Amendment 85 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) In order to secure the best possible evaluation of the use of Union funds and to ensure European added value, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of eligibility criteria for project selection, criteria for the application of geographical balance to ‘Integrated Projects’, and performance indicators applicable to specific thematic priorities. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Amendment 87 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘'integrated projects’' mean projects implementing in a sustainable manner, taking into account environmental and climate Union legislation and policy, primarily in the areas of nature, water, waste, air and climate change mitigation and adaptation, on a large territorial scale, in particular, regional, multi-regional or , national or trans-national scale, environmental or climate strategies or action plans required by specific environmental or climate Union legislation, pursuant to other Union acts or developed by Member States' authorities. Integrated projects aim at promoting coordination with and mobilisation of other relevant Union funding sources;
Amendment 143 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) ensuring a cost-effective approach and being technically and financially coherent, reaching at least minimum quality criteria;
Amendment 145 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 157 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The Commission in the award process for Integrated Projects only shall ensure geographical balance in line with the principles of solidarity and effort sharing in the award process for Integrated Projects. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 30 concerning criteria for the application of geographical balance in each thematic area referred to in Article 18 point (d)by allocating certain number of Integrated Projects per each Member state over the planning period.
Amendment 176 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. The maximum co-financing rate for the projects referred to in Article 18 shall be 70% of eligible costs. By way of exception,: - the maximum co-financing rate for projects referred to in Article 18 points (d) and (f) shall be 80% of eligible costs; - the maximum co-financing rate for LIFE Nature and Biodiversity may be up to 75% of eligible costs in the case of projects concerning priority habitats or species as defined in Directive 92/43/EEC or the species of birds considered as a priority for funding by the committee set up pursuant Article 16 of Directive 2009/147/EEC; - the maximum co-financing rate may be up to 75% for species and habitats defined in Directive 92/43/EEC showing unfavourable conservation status in accordance with the latest assessment.
Amendment 179 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 208 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 3(2), 19(1) and 19(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the [date of entry into force of this Regulation].
Amendment 209 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
Article 30 – paragraph 3
3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 3(2), 19(1) and 19(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
Amendment 210 #
2011/0428(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 5
Article 30 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 3(2), 19(1) or 19(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
Amendment 149 #
2011/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – point a
Article 5 – point a
(a) promoting sustainable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture, including processing;
Amendment 154 #
2011/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – point 2 – introductory part
Article 6 – point 2 – introductory part
(2) Fostering innovative, competitive and knowledge based fisheries including related processing through the focus on the following areas:
Amendment 266 #
2011/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Amendment 335 #
2011/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) which lead to new or improved products, new or improved processes, or new or improved management and organisation systems.
Amendment 336 #
2011/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2
Article 72 – paragraph 2
Amendment 372 #
2011/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Specific aid intensity – table – row 8
Annex I – Specific aid intensity – table – row 8
Amendment 35 #
2011/0300(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall establish a Union-wide list of projects of common interest, classifying them in order of importance. The list shall be reviewed and updated as necessary every two years. The first list shall be adopted by 31 July 2013 at the latest.
Amendment 12 #
2011/0286(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 4 a (new)
Article 1 – point 4 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009
Article 133 a (new)
Article 133 a (new)
(4a) The following Article is inserted: "Article 133a Transitional national support The new Member States other than Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus may grant transitional national support in 2013 in a form of decoupled payments to farmers subject to the authorisation by the Commission. The amount of transitional national support may be limited by a specific financial envelope per sector. The sector specific financial envelope shall not exceed the difference between the total level of direct support that the farmers would have been entitled to receive in the sector in the calendar year 2003 under a CAP scheme and the direct support provided to the sector under Regulation No 73/2009."
Amendment 198 #
2011/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) financial contributions, paid directly to farmers or forest owners, to premiums for crop, animal and plan, plant and forest insurance against economic losses caused by adverse climatic events and animal, wild animal (birds) or plant diseases or pest infestation;
Amendment 200 #
2011/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) financial contributions to mutual funds to pay financial compensations to farmers or forest owners, for economic losses caused by the outbreak of an animal or plant disease or an environmental incident;
Amendment 203 #
2011/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2
Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1 points (b) and (c), ‘'mutual fund’' shall mean a scheme accredited by the Member State in accordance with its national law for affiliated farmers or forest owners to insure themselves, whereby compensation payments are made to affiliated farmers or forest owners affected by economic losses caused by the outbreak of an animal or plant disease or an environmental incident or experiencing a severe drop in their income.
Amendment 48 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Due to the successive integration of various sectors into the single payment scheme and the ensuing period of adjustment granted to farmers, it has become increasingly difficult to justify the presence of significant individual differences in the level of support per hectare resulting from use of historical references. Therefore direct income support should be more equitably distributed between Member States, by reducing the link to historical references and having regard to the overall context of the Union budget. To ensure a more equal distribution of direct support, while taking account of the differences that still exist in wage levels and input costs, the levels of direct support per hectare should be progressively adjusted. Member States with direct payments below the level of 90 % of the average should close one third of the gap between their current level and this level. However, Member States whose direct payment levels, even after adjustment, would be below 80 % of the Union average, should adjust their payment level to 80 %. This convergence should be financed proportionally by all Member States with direct payments above the Union average. In addition, all payment entitlements activated in 2019 in a Member State or in a region should have a uniform unit value following a convergence towards this value that should take place during the transition period in linear steps. However, in order to avoid disruptive financial consequences for farmers, Member States having used the single payment scheme, and in particular the historical model, should be allowed to partially take historical factors into account when calculating the value of payment entitlements in the first year of application of the new scheme. The debate on the next Multiannual Financial Framework for the period starting in 2021 should also focus on the objective of complete convergence through the equal distribution of direct support across the European Union during that period.
Amendment 72 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States whose direct payment levels, even after adjustment, would be below 80 % of the Union average, shall adjust their payment level to 80 %.
Amendment 74 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. No direct payments shall be granted to natural or legal persons, or to groups of natural or legal persons, where one of the following applieActive farmer means a person who exercises an agricultural activity and agricultural activity means:
Amendment 78 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the annual amount of direct payments is less than 5 % of the total receipts they obtained from non-agricultural activities in the most recent fiscal year; orrearing or growing of agricultural products including harvesting, milking, breeding animals and keeping animals for farming purposes and
Amendment 81 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) maintaining their agricultural areas are mainly areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation and they do not carry out on those areas in a state which makes it suitable for grazing or cultivation or performing other minimum activityies to be established by Member States in accordance with Article 4(1)(c).
Amendment 84 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Amendment 87 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 98 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to have threewo different crops on their arable land where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirelyhectares than the average size farm in the Member State concerned and if more than 40% of eligible area is used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year;
Amendment 101 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) to maintain existing permanent grassland on their holding; and
Amendment 107 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3
Article 29 – paragraph 3
3. Farmers whose holdings are fully or partly situated in areas covered by Directives 92/43/EEC or 2009/147/EC and Regulation No 1698/2005 (concerning certain agri-environmental schemes) shall be entitled to the payment referred to in this Chapter provided that they observe the practises referred to in this Chapter to the extent that those practises are compatible in the holding concerned with the objectives of those Directives and that Regulation.
Amendment 112 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. Where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirelyhectares than the average - farm size in the Member State concerned and if more than 40 % of the eligible area is used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year, cultivation on the arable land shall consist of at least threewo different crops. None of those three crops shall cover less than 5 % of the arable land and tThe main onecrop shall not exceed 780 % of the arable land.
Amendment 122 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Farmers shall maintain as permanent grassland the areas of their holdings declared as such in the application made pursuant to Article 74(1) of Regulation (EU) No XXX (HZ) for claim year 2014, hereinafter referred to as ‘reference areasThe Member States shall ensure that land which was under permanent grassland is maintained under permanent grassland’ at a State level.
Amendment 125 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 130 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Farmers shall be allowed to convert a maximum of 5 % of their reference areas under permanent grassland and to renew 25 % of their sown grassland area yearly. That limit shall not apply in the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 132 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Amendment 138 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. Farmers shall ensure that at least 7 % of their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2), excluding areas under permanent grassland, is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips and afforested areas as referred to in article 25(2)(b)(ii).
Amendment 145 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 to furFarmers in the Member States in which more than 50 % of area is covered with forests, wetlands, swamps and natural habitats shall ensure that at least 1,5 % of their defineligible the types ofctares is an ecological focus areas refer. Farmers who have mored to in paragraph 1 of this Article and to add and define ohan 20 % of forest land in their types of ecological focus areas that can be taken into account for the respect of the percentage referred to in that paragrapheligible area shall be exempted from this requirement.
Amendment 150 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay grant an annual payment to young farmers who are entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1.
Amendment 184 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Due to the successive integration of various sectors into the single payment scheme and the ensuing period of adjustment granted to farmers, it has become increasingly difficult to justify the presence of significant individual differences in the level of support per hectare resulting from use of historical references. Therefore direct income support should be more equitably distributed between Member States, by reducing the link to historical references and having regard to the overall context of the Union budget. To ensure a more equal distribution of direct support, while taking account of the differences that still exist in wage levels and input costs, the levels of direct support per hectare should be progressively adjusted. Member States with direct payments below the level of 9a current level of direct payments per hectare below 80 % of the EU average should close one third of the gap between their current level and this level. This convergence should be financed proportionally by all Member States with direct payments above the UnionMember States with a level of direct payments above 80% but below the EU average should close this gap by 10 %. This convergence should be financed proportionally by all Member States with direct payments above the Union average. However, the maximum level of direct payments per hectare in the Member States should not exceed 120% of the EU average. In addition, all payment entitlements activated in 2019 in a Member State or in a region should have a uniform unit value following a convergence towards this value that should take place during the transition period in linear steps. However, in order to avoid disruptive financial consequences for farmers, Member States having used the single payment scheme, and in particular the historical model, should be allowed to partially take historical factors into account when calculating the value of payment entitlements in the first year of application of the new scheme. The debate on the next Multiannual Financial Framework for the period starting in 2021 should also focus on the objective of complete convergence through the equal distribution of direct support across the European Union during that period.
Amendment 1418 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 29 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Farmers complying with the requirements laid down in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards organic farming shall be entitled ipso facto to the payment referred to in this Chaptershall be entitled ipso facto to payment referred to in this Chapter when they fall within the following categories: - farmers which have at least 20 % of forest areas; - farmers with more than 50 % of the eligible agricultural area covered by grassland; - farmers which are 100 % certified as using sustainable farming methods, including of integrated farming.
Amendment 1550 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The first paragraph shall not apply to farms: - where the arable land is entirely used for grass production or other herbaceous forage, entirely left fallow, entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year or a combination of these, or; - where the arable land of the farmer covers up to 50 hectares and more than 50% of the eligible agricultural area of the holding is covered by permanent crops.
Amendment 1625 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure the maintenance of the ratio of the land under permanent grassland in relation to the total agricultural area. That obligation shall apply at national or regional level. The reference ratio shall be established as relation between the land under permanent grassland and total agricultural area declared by the farmers in 2014.
Amendment 1643 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
2. Farmers shall be allowed to convert a maximum of 5 % of their reference areas under permanent grassland. That limit shall not appMember States shall ensure that the ratio under this Article shall not decrease to the detriment of land under permanent grassland by more than 10 % relatively into the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstancesratio for the relevant reference year.
Amendment 1667 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 laying down rules concerning the increase of reference areas under permanent grassland as laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the renewal of permanent grassland, the reconversion of agricultural area into permanent grassland in case the authorised decrease referred to in paragraph 2 is exceeded, as well as the modification of the reference areas under permanent grassland in case of transfer of land. For the purposes of paragraph 2, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 laying down rules on maintenance of permanent grassland, in particular to ensure that measures are taken to maintain the ratio, including individual obligations to be respected such as obligation to reconvert areas into permanent grassland where it is established that the ratio of land under permanent grassland is decreasing.
Amendment 1728 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. FWhere the arable land and area covers more than 20 hectares, farmers shall ensure that at least 7 % of their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2), excluding areas under permanent grassland and permanent crops, is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strip like hedges or stone walls, buffer strips, land planted with nitrogen-fixing crops, land cultivated according to environmentally friendly methods and afforested areas as referred to in article 25(2)(b)(ii).
Amendment 1763 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 32 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the minimum percentage indicated in paragraph 1 is reduced to: - 5% in cases of joint undertakings of groups of farmers putting in place continuous, adjacent ecological focus areas; - 1,5% in the Member States with at least 45% of their total terrestrial area covered by forests or; - 1,5% in the Member States where utilised agricultural area constitute is less than 35% of the total terrestrial area.
Amendment 31 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Support from the CSF Funds shall be implemented in close cooperation between the Commission and the Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Amendment 81 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 82 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 4
Article 84 – paragraph 4
Amendment 89 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The co-financing rate at the level of each priority axis of operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal shall be no higher than 785%.
Amendment 1234 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Part 3 – article 84 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
For Member States which acceded to the Union before 2013, whose GDP per capita is below 75% of the EU 27 average, and whose average real GDP growth 2008- 2010 was lower than the EU 27 average, the cohesion policy allocation shall not be lower than in the period 2007-2013.
Amendment 32 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) recreational fisheries of salmon in the Baltic Sea where such fisheries are conducted by service vesselsMember States concerned, where it has a significant impact.
Amendment 37 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. For wild salmon rivers which have reached 50% of the potential smolt production capacity by the time of the entry into force of this Regulation, the wild smolt production shall reach 75%the maximum of the potenrealistically possible smolt production capacity for each river in five years after the entry into force of this regulation.
Amendment 38 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. For wild salmon rivers which have not reached 50% of the potential smolt production capacity by the time of the entry into force of this Regulation, the wild smolt production shall reach 50% of the potential smolt production capacity for each river in five years and 75%the maximum of the realistically possible smolt production in ten years after the entry into force of this regulation.
Amendment 39 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. After ten years from the entry into force of this regulation, the wild salmon smolt production shall be maintained at a level of at least 75%the maximum of the potenrealistically possible smolt production capacity in each wild salmon river.
Amendment 49 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. For wild salmon rivers which have not reached 50% of the potential smolt production capacity by the time of the entry into force of this Regulation, Member States concerned shall establish, keep and, if necessary, improve existing national technical conservation measures not later than two years after the entry into force of this Regulation national technical conservation measures.
Amendment 51 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Stocking shall be conducted in a way that safeguards the genetic diversity of the different salmon river stocks taking into account existing fish communities in the stocked river and in neighbouring rivers while maximising the effect of stocking. Mature fish shall come from the same river basin.
Amendment 53 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – point a
Article 13 – point a
(a) the river or its respective parts has free migratory waterways, appropriate water quality and habitat suitable for reproduction and growth of salmon;
Amendment 55 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
da) mature fish shall come from the same river basin.
Amendment 57 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Direct restocking can be performed also outside the potential salmon rivers in the framework of the methodology established by the ICES concerning breeding Technologies and conditions for restocking to avoid negative impact of such releases to wild salmon populations.
Amendment 61 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
Article 16
By way of derogation from Article 14 of Regulation 1224/2009 masters of European Union fishing vessels of all length holding a fishing authorisation for salmon shall keep a logbook of their operations in accordance with the rules set in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, except where a vessel flying the flag of a relevant Member State has an annual salmon catch of less than 10 tonnes, is less than 12 metres in overall length, fishes exclusively in territorial waters and does not spend more than 24 hours out of port.
Amendment 63 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17
Article 17
By way of derogation from the introductory sentence of Article 17(1) of Regulation 1224/2009, masters of European Union fishing vessels of all length retaining salmon and/or sea trout on board shall notify the competent authorities of their flag Member State immediately after the completion of the fishing operation of the information listed in Article 17(1) of Regulation 1224/2009, except where a vessel flying the flag of a relevant Member State has an annual salmon catch of less than 10 tonnes, is less than 12 metres in overall length, fishes exclusively in territorial waters and does not spend more than 24 hours out of port.
Amendment 65 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Obligations mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 and in Article 18 shall not apply to the service vessels of the Member States, whose annual salmon catch is less than 10 tons. In such cases salmon fishing should be monitored and data collected in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.
Amendment 68 #
2011/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – paragraph 5 – point 1
Annex 1 – paragraph 5 – point 1
– Salaca, Vitrupe, Peterupe, Irbe, Uzava, Saka
Amendment 154 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 2
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 2
2. The Common Fisheries Policy shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure, by 2015, where possible, that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
Amendment 204 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 6
Part 1 – article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 6
– ‘maximum sustainable yield’ means the maximum catchhighest theoretical equilibrium yield that maycan be taken from a fish stock indefinitely;continuously taken (on average) from a stock under existing (average) environmental conditions without affecting significantly the reproduction process.
Amendment 278 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 9 – paragraph 1
Part 3 – article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Multiannual plans providing for conservation measures to maintain or restore fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield shall be established as a priority: (i) by 2015 for all stocks of harvested species already included within recovery or management plans; (ii) by 2015, where possible, for all other stocks of harvested species in Union waters.
Amendment 372 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 4
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that Union fishing vessels flying their flag are equipped to ensure full documentation of all fishing and processing activities for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the obligation to land all catches.
Amendment 430 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 5
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 5
Amendment 436 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 6
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 6
Amendment 439 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 7
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 7
Amendment 444 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 29 – paragraph 4
Part 4 – article 29 – paragraph 4
Amendment 611 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 1
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 1
1. The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure that fishing, fish processing and aquaculture activities provide long-term sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions and contribute to the availability of food supplies.
Amendment 633 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 2
Part 1 – article 2 – paragraph 2
2. The Common Fisheries Policy shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure, by 2015, where possible and not later than by 2020, that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
Amendment 713 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Part 1 – article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) provide conditions for efficient fishing and fish processing activities within an economically viable and competitive fishing industry;
Amendment 851 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 1 – article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 6
Part 1 – article 5 – paragraph 1 – indent 6
– ‘'maximum sustainable yield’' means the maximum catchhighest theoretical equilibrium yield that maycan be taken from a fish stock indefinitelycontinuously taken (on average) from a stock under existing (average) environmental conditions without affecting significantly the reproduction process;
Amendment 1259 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 10 – paragraph 1
Part 3 – article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Multiannual plans shall provide for adaptations of the fishing mortality rate, resulting in a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains all stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield by 2015, where possible and not later than by 2020.
Amendment 1512 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) At the latest from 1 January 2015: cod, hake, solefisheries in the Baltic Sea;
Amendment 1549 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 2
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 2
2. MWhere necessary, minimum conservation reference sizes based on the best available scientific advice shall be established for the fish stocks set out in paragraph 1. The sale of catches of such fish stocks below the minimum conservation reference size shall be restricted for reduction to fish meal or pet food only.
Amendment 1572 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 4
Part 3 – article 15 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that Union fishing vessels flying their flag are equipped to ensure full documentation of all fishing and processing activitieadequate capacity and means for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the obligation to land all catches.
Amendment 1730 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – article 20 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Part 3 – article 20 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Without prejudice to its rights of initiative, the Commission shall adopt delegated or implementing acts on the basis of joint recommendations, for which there is an agreement between Member States having a direct management interests. Such recommendations are deemed to be compatible with the relevant conservation measure and/or multiannual plan.
Amendment 1881 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 5
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1893 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 6
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 6
Amendment 1901 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 7
Part 4 – article 28 – paragraph 7
Amendment 1934 #
2011/0195(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 4 – article 29 – paragraph 4
Part 4 – article 29 – paragraph 4