BETA

7 Amendments of Marc JOULAUD related to 2016/2032(INI)

Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that the cultural and creative sectors are key sectors for the EU economy and that they consist mostly of SMEs, but that those SMEs have very specific characteristics and encounter more problems in securing funding;
2016/04/28
Committee: CULT
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and Member States to provide a clear and stable legal environment, and to guarantee coordination, consistency and synergies between instruments and programmes which support SMEs, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI funds), Horizon 2020 and COSME; welcomes the Juncker investment plan, and draws SMEs' attention to the opportunities offered by the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI); stresses the need to improve information for SMEs on the conditions of eligibility and the allocation of European funding;
2016/04/22
Committee: REGI
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Notes differences in financing conditions for SMEs between Member States and between regions, notably the quantity and cost of available funding, which are influenced by SME-factors specific and country-specific factorsto SMEs and to the regions in which they are established;
2016/04/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Considers it to be crucial, against the background of cuts in public funding for the cultural sectors, that the EU and its Member States broaden the range of financing instruments available to micro- enterprises and SMEs in the cultural and creative sector with new and innovative financing schemes such as microcredit, repayable contributions, crowdfunding, risk capital finance and venture capital.
2016/04/28
Committee: CULT
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that, setting aside the issue of their size, each SME is different and there are many factors which determine their needs and the ease with which they can obtain funding, such as where they are based (for instance, metropolitan, urban, rural, backward, remote or outermost regions), the business sector in which they operate and the stage they have reached in their development; calls on the Commission, Member States and regional authorities to take these factors into account in coming up with tailor-made financing arrangements for various types of SME (for instance, micro-enterprises, innovative start-ups and also family, craft or industrial enterprises) which in particular exploit the scope for combining subsidies and funding instruments.
2016/04/22
Committee: REGI
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Encourages SMEs to consider the whole EU as their home market and to use the potential of the single market for their financing needs; welcomes the Commission’s initiatives supporting SMEs and start-ups in an upgraded Single Market; underlines, in this context, the importance of the implementation of the Small Business Act; calls on the Commission for a follow-up to the Small Business Act; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure coordination, consistency and synergies between European instruments and programmes for SMEs, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI funds), Horizon 2020 and COSME;
2016/04/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Notes that during this period of fiscal restraint, cohesion policy is an important source of support for SMEs, but stresses that the complexity of the rules and the red tape involved in obtaining ESI funding affect SMEs in particular, resulting in disproportionate administrative costs; urges the Member States and the Commission to make significant progress towards further simplification so as to make funding more attractive for SMEs and calls on the Commission to clarify the link between the rules on ESI Funds and the rules on state aid;
2016/04/06
Committee: ECON