58 Amendments of Valentinas MAZURONIS
Amendment 107 #
2018/2008(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that products marketed in the single market in a specific type of packaging should have the same composition in every Member State, and that consumers should be duly informed of any variation in composition compared to the original recipe; calls on the Commission to guarantee that the quality of products is the same across the Union; initiate amendments to legislation regulating the labelling of products and oblige producers or distributors to label packaging in a transparent and very clear when identically branded products have significant differences in composition or characteristics;
Amendment 83 #
2016/2058(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the deployment of effective heating and cooling solutions has significant potential to stimulate the development of Europe's industrial and service sectors, particularly in the renewable energy sector, and the creation of higher value added in remote and rural regions;
Amendment 10 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls in particular the very substantial added value of the Union in medical research (e.g. research for paediatric and orphan medicines) and also in fighting cross-border health threats, such as Ebola; urges to ensure that the financing of the new EU research projects on Ebola vaccine and diagnostics does not suffer from Horizon 2020 budget cuts; against this background, deeply regrets that the public health programme, with a total amount in commitments of only EUR 62,2 million, which represents, as in previous years, a share of only 0,04% in commitments in the DB 2016, does not fully reflect the importance of health as a value in itself and as a prerequisite to promote growth; calls on the Council to reconsider further budgetary reductions that it has introduced with regard to this programme;
Amendment 11 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights that the Union has the highest standards for food safety in the world; stresses the importance of promotion of healthy and safe food as a means to prevent unnecessary spending in healthcare and help Member States to improve the long term sustainability of their health systems; therefore, also regrets that the food and feed programme, with a total amount in commitments of only EUR 264,1 million, which represents a share of only 0,17% in commitments in the DB 2016 and proposed further cuts by the Council, does not fully reflect the importance of the issue of food and feed safety in the Union;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2040(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognises that the installation of the Commission was unduly delayed because some Member States were slow to nominate their candidates; to avoid a repetition of such a situation in the future, calls for Member States to be subject to a deadline for putting forward at least two nominations;
Amendment 10 #
2015/2040(INI)
2. Recommends that section 1(b)(7) (Hearings) of Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure (Guidelines for the approval of the Commission) provides that questions ‘may’ rather than ‘shall, where possible’ be grouped together by theme; believes that such a change would be consistent with the need for political groups to set their own political priorities in questioning and would enable greater flexibility in the arrangements for the increasing number of joint committee hearings (involving two or more committees); maintains that questions should be of use in making a value judgement and intended to assess the competence and qualifications of the Commissioner-designate;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2040(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confronting more sensitive issues; whilst there is merit in examining this problem, underlines the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings, and of apportioning time in accordance with the principle of equal treatment;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2040(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on the evaluation; believes nevertheless that, where they are unable to do so, they should be able to act by a majority representing a large majority of the committee, having regard to the respective strengths of the various groups; considers further that the opinion of groups which dissent from the majority view should be able to request an appropriate reference in the evaluation letterrecorded in the evaluation letter, together with the relevant related information; recalls that the Rules of Procedure in any event also allow for a political group to request that the Chair convene a full committee meeting; considers that the evaluation of the Commissioner-designate should be put to the vote at a committee meeting;
Amendment 40 #
2015/2040(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Maintains that the opinion of the committee responsible should be legally binding; considers further that Parliament’s requests should be taken into account when it asks for a candidate to be replaced or given a different portfolio.
Amendment 47 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The EFSI should support strategic investments with high economic and societal value added contributing to achieving Union policy objectives, such as projects of common interest which aim to complete the single market in the sectors of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures, including energy interconnections and digital infrastructure, and to develop and modernise the energy sector and enhance the security of energy supply, including the use of local energy resources, and exploit potential synergies between those sectors; in the urban development and social fields; in the environmental and natural resources fields; and which strengthen the European scientific and technological base and foster benefits for society as well as better exploitation of the economic and industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development. The EFSI should improve access to finance and the competitiveness of enterprises, with special emphasis on SMEs. The EFSI should contribute to the transformation to a green, sustainable and resource efficient economy and to sustainable job creation.
Amendment 128 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Member States have also begun work at national level on establishing andshould be able to participate in the creation of the European investment pipeline including by promotviding project pipelinformation on inves fortment projects of national significance. The information prepared by the Commission and the EIB should provide links to the accompanying nin their territory to the Commission and the EIB. Before launching the pipeline, the Commission and the EIB should carry out appropriate consultations with Member States, experts and stakeholders, regarding the principles and guidelines for projects to be listed in the pipeline, including mechanisms to prevent the publicational of project pipelines which could undermine national security, and regarding the template for publishing information about individual projects.
Amendment 156 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
National promotional banks or institutions' means legal entities carrying out financial activities on a professional basis which are conferred a mandate by a Member State, whether at central, regional or local level, to carry out public development or promotional activities.
Amendment 253 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) Within its operations under EFSI, the EIF may also grant a guarantee to a national promotional bank or institution or investment platform or invest in an investment platform.
Amendment 269 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission and the EIB, with support from the Member States, shall promote the creation of shall create a transparent pipeline of current and potential future investment projects in the Union. The pipeline is without prejudice to the final projects selected for support according to Article 3(5)Member States may contribute to its establishment and management.
Amendment 307 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
In the second subparagraph of Article 7(3), the words 'and Article 21(4)' are deleted;
Amendment 308 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013
Article 21 – paragraph 4
Article 21 – paragraph 4
Article 21(4) is deleted
Amendment 58 #
2014/2238(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Calls on the Member States to implement ‘green’ tax reforms in order to provide incentives for environmental protection, thrifty use of natural resources, and employment, as well as making for favourable performance of macroeconomic indicators while ensuring fair competition;
Amendment 71 #
2014/2238(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Calls on the Member States to apply ‘eco-bonuses’ to help mitigate possible undesirable effects of a ‘green’ tax reform;
Amendment 74 #
2014/2238(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Paragraph 7 f (new)
7f. Calls on the Member States to focus greater attention on the implementation of environmental management and eco- auditing systems based on the European standard (ISO 14000);
Amendment 16 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Maintains that, in order to implement the strategy in the proper way, it is essential to have a specific long-term action plan emphasising the importance of mobilisation and sustainable use of forest timber, with the aim of creating added value and jobs, while providing means of strengthening private forestry businesses and supporting organised groupings of forest owners;
Amendment 24 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls for greater attention to be focused on the preparations for a negotiating process leading to a legally binding agreement on European forests so as to enable the new EU forest strategy to be implemented while seeking to ensure in particular that forest resources are put to use in an effective and harmonious way when implementing the future climate and energy strategy for the year 2030;
Amendment 47 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls for greater attention to be paid to the expansion of forest coverage and to conserving and creating sustainable forest ecosystems by applying additional nature- friendly forestry methods; believes that rational use of forest resources should be ensured by supervising felling more effectively, optimising business operations, and employing every other effective means;
Amendment 119 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes that forest owners, especially those operating on a small scale, should participate in economic activities as equal partners and therefore calls for a new support scheme to be set up with a view to encouraging private forest owners to cooperate.
Amendment 133 #
2014/2223(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers it important to encourage scientific research work oriented towards rational use of biomass and the development of fast-growing energy crops and to create a model providing an economic incentive for the use of biomass waste.
Amendment 7 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the key to the quality of healthcare lies in patient safety, the essential elements of which are a healthcare culture and the management of adverse events;
Amendment 10 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas 23% of Europeans have said that they themselves or their family members have been personally affected by the direct result of a medical error in hospital;
Amendment 27 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas 30%-50% of patients do not take the medicines prescribed for them by doctors or do not take them as directed by the doctor’s prescription;
Amendment 32 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas HAIs are a major public health problem in the Member States (some 4.1 million patientsaccording to figures compiled by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 1 in 20 hospital in-patients, on average, suffers from an HAI in the EU annually, that is to say, 4.1 million patients annually, and every year 37 000 people in the EU die as a result of an HAI, although 20%-30 % of these infections are considered to be preventable by intensive hygiene and control programmes), and this places a heavy burden on limited health service budgets;
Amendment 93 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)
Recital R a (new)
Ra. whereas the fast-growing health (medical) tourism is making new demands, in terms of safety and quality, on the national healthcare systems of the countries concerned;
Amendment 166 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Invites the Member States to improve their reporting systems for adverse events and medical errors by developingincorporating subsystems enabling failings to be recorded and lessons to be learnt from them, and oriented towards preventing such incidents, and, in addition, to lay down measures that encourage accurate, blame-free and anonymous reporting by health professionals and patients;
Amendment 196 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Points out that antibiotic resistance often holds up treatment with the right antibiotics and that, when they are given the wrong antibiotics or treatment starts too late, patients with serious infectious diseases suffer grave complications which in some cases can be fatal;
Amendment 205 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Calls for greater attention to be focused on the development of new antimicrobial agents aimed at new targets and for encouragement to be given to the use of bacteriostatic antibiotics, which do not kill pathogens, but merely inhibit their proliferation, making pathogens less likely to become resistant;
Amendment 223 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Member States to promote the responsible and sensible use in human medicine of all antimicrobial agents and in particular antibiotics, bearing in mind that improper use of antibiotics, especially in hospitals, is one of the main contributory factors in the emergence of antibiotic resistance;
Amendment 251 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 – point d
Paragraph 22 – point d
d) monitor antibiotic resistance and the use of antibiotics in hospitals and, on the basis of the findings, make recommendations for the empirical treatment of seriously ill patients, and ensure that antibiotics are used in hospitals only for the correct indications, at the correct dose and for the shortest duration possible as recommended by evidence- based guidelines;
Amendment 320 #
2014/2207(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further engage in a dialogue with all stakeholders, increase interoperability between institutions, sectors, and States in healthcare service provision, and develop a coordinated, comprehensive and sustainable EU strategy for patient safety, as well as to put forward concrete solutions to be implemented at EU, national, regional, local and/or primary care levels;
Amendment 149 #
2014/0100(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point 7
Article 3 – point 7
(7) ‘group of operators’ means a group in which each operator is a farmer who has a holding of up to 5 hectares of utilised agricultural area, under the rules in force in the Member State concerned, can be considered to be a smallholder and who may, in addition to producing food and/or feed, be engaged in processing of food or feed;
Amendment 188 #
2014/0100(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the entire agricultural holding or a part thereof or the aquaculture operation shall be managed in compliance with the requirements applicable to organic production;
Amendment 322 #
2014/0100(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – part II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point 4 – point 1 – point a
Annex II – part II – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point 4 – point 1 – point a
(a) feed for livestock shall be obtained primarily from the agricultural holding where the animals are kept or from other organic holdings in the same region, if resources allow, or, if they do not, explicit permission shall be given for it to be obtained from outside the region;
Amendment 19 #
2014/0011(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the state of the European carbon market in 20127 identified the need for measures in order to tackle structural supply-demand imbalances. The impact assessment on the 2030 climate and energy policy framework8 indicates that this imbalance is expected to continue, and would not be sufficiently addressed by adapting the linear trajectory to a more stringent target within this framework. A change in the linear factor only changes gradually the cap. Accordingly, the surplus would also only gradually decline, such that the market would have to continue to operate for more than a decade with a surplus of around 2 billion allowances or more. In order to address this problem and to make the European Emission Trading System more resilient to imbalances, a market stability reserve should be established. To ensure regulatory certainty as regards auction supply in phase 3 and allow for some lead-time adjusting to the introduction of the design change, the market stability reserve should be established as of phase 4 starting in 2021. In order to preserve a maximum degree of predictability, clear rules should be set for placing allowances into the reserve and releasing them from the reserve. Where the conditions are met, beginning in 2021, allowances corresponding to 12% of the number of allowances in circulation in year x-21 should be put into the reserve. A corresponding number of allowances should be released from the reserve when the total number of allowances in circulation is lower than 400 million. __________________ 7 COM(2012) 652 final. COM(2012) 652 final. 8 Insert reference.
Amendment 115 #
2014/0011(COD)
Proposal for a decision
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. In each year beginning in 2021, a number of allowances equal to 12% of the total number of allowances in circulation in year x-21, as published in May year x-1, shall be placed in the reserve, unless this number of allowances to be placed in the reserve would be less than 100 million.
Amendment 146 #
2013/0443(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall, as a minimum, limit their annual anthropogenic emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds other than methane (NMVOC), ammonia (NH3), and particulate matter (PM2,5) and methane (CH4) in accordance with the national emission reduction commitments applicable from 2020 and 2030, as laid down in Annex II.
Amendment 206 #
2013/0443(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Amendment 389 #
2013/0443(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – table b – heading
Annex II – table b – heading
Table (b): Emission reduction commitments for ammonia (NH3), and fine particulate matter (PM2,5) and methane (CH4). Fuels sold, base year 2005.
Amendment 399 #
2013/0443(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – table b – CH4 reduction
Annex II – table b – CH4 reduction
Amendment 229 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Member States may exempt existing medium combustion plants which do not operate more than 1500 operating hours per year from compliance with the emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex II. In that case, for plants firing solid fuels, an emission limit value for particulate matter of 200 mg/Nm³ shall apply.
Amendment 255 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Member States may exempt existing medium combustion plants which do not operate more than 1500 operating hours per year from compliance with the emission limit values set out in Part 1 of Annex II. In that case, for plants firing solid fuels, an emission limit value for particulate matter of 1050 mg/Nm³ shall apply.
Amendment 298 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Exemption from the obligation to apply certain limit values 1. Where, in a given zone as defined in Directive 2008/50/EC or administrative area in a Member State, conformity with the emission limit values would not result in anticipated health benefits due to relatively low population density and current level of ambient air pollutant in that particular zone or administrative area, a Member State may apply higher dust emission limit values in Annex II for that particular zone or administrative area. 2. The level of particulate matter shall not exceed limit values set in Annex XI of Directive 2008/50/EC. Member State shall demonstrate this following the provisions in Directive 2008/50/EC. 3. Member States shall, by 1 January 2023, send to the Commission a list of any plant to which paragraph 1 applies. In its assessment, the Commission shall take into account ambient air quality in the Member States, at present and in the future, of measures that have been taken by the Member States as well as estimated effects on ambient air quality of current Community measures and planned Community measures to be proposed by the Commission. Where the Commission has raised no objections within nine months of receipt of that notification, the relevant conditions for the application of paragraphs 1 or 2 shall be deemed to be satisfied. When the Commission considers that conditions in paragraphs 1 and 2 are not fulfilled, it shall inform the Member State concerned that its exemption cannot be accepted.
Amendment 394 #
2013/0442(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Annex II – part 1 – table 1
Emission limit values for existing medium combustion plants 1. Emission limit values (mg/Nm³) for medium combustion plants other than engines and gas gas turbines Pollutant Solid Other solid Liquid fuels Heavy fuel Natural gas Gaseous fuels biomass fuels other than oil fuels other than heavy fuel than natural gas oil gas SO2 200 400 170 350 - 35 NOX 650 650 200 650 200 250 Particulate 3150(1) 30 30 30 - - matter (1) 45150 mg/Nm3 for plants with a thermal input below or equal to 510 MW using solid biomass as a main fuel if the conditions mentioned in Article 5a are fulfilled
Amendment 45 #
2013/0433(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has confirmed that surrogate dams used in cloning suffer in particular from placenta dysfunctions contributing to increased levels of miscarriages21. This contributes, amongst other things, to the low efficiency of the technique, 6 to 15 % for bovine and 6 % for porcine species, and the need to implant embryo clones into several dams to obtain one clone. In addition, cClone abnormalities and unusually large offspring result in difficult births and neonatal deaths. That is why the cloning technique is associated with a high mortality rate. In addition, cloning adversely affects biodiversity and genetic inheritance and creates problems related to resistance to emerging risk factors and new zoonotic agents entering Europe. __________________ 21 Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals derived from Cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT) and their Offspring and Products Obtained from those Animals http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/c loning.htm?wtrl=01.
Amendment 71 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In accordance with Article 2(2) TFEU, Member States are therefore entitled to have a possibility, during the authorisation procedure and thereafter, to decide to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO on their territory with the effect of excluding cultivation of a specific GMO in all or part of that Member State's territory. In that context, it appears appropriate to grant Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, more flexibility to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GMO crops on their territory without affecting the risk assessment provided in the system of Union authorisations of GMOs, either in the course of the authorisation procedure or thereafter, and independently of the measures that Member States are entitlrequired to take by application of Directive 2001/18/EC to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. The grant of that possibility to Member States should facilitate the decision-making process in the GMO field. At the same time, freedom of choice of consumers, farmers and operators should be preserved whilst providing greater clarity to affected stakeholders concerning the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. Member States are required to cooperate with the neighbouring Member States with a view to ensuring appropriate information sharing, aiming the Union. This Directive should therefore facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal marketo prevent cross-border GMO contamination.
Amendment 106 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In addition, and only where the notifier/applicant has refused to adjustWithout prejudice to the possibility provided for a Member State to request the adjustment of the geographical scope of thea notification/application of a GMO as requested by a Member State, there should always be the possibility for thata Member State to adopt reasoned measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thata GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs once authorised in all or part of its territory, on the basis of grounds distinct from those assessed according to the harmonized set of Union rules, that is Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which are in conformity with Union law. Those grounds may be related to environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or other compelling grounds such as town and country planning, land use, socio- economic impacts, co-existence and public policrelating to the public interest, which are in conformity with Union law. Those grounds may be related to environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or other legitimate factors such as socio-economic impacts, where those factors have not been addressed as part of the harmonised procedure provided for in Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, or to persisting scientific uncertainty. Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply.
Amendment 172 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 1
Article 26 b – paragraph 1
1. During the authorisation procedure of a given GMO or during the renewal of consent/authorisation, a Member State may request, via the Commission, to present to the notifier/applicant its demand to adjust the geographical scope of its notification/application submitted in accordance with Part C of this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation. Thisat request shall be communicated to the Commission at the latest 360 days from the date of the circulation of the assessment report under Article 14(2) of this Directive, or from receiving the opinion of the Authority under Article 6(6) and Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Commission shall communicate the request of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay.
Amendment 194 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
3. Where the notifier/applicant opposes the adjustment of the geographical scope of its notification/application corresponding to a request made by a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, that Member State may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thatithout prejudice to paragraph 1 of this Article, Member States may, following the risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive or to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of a GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs in all or part of itstheir territory once authorised in accordance with Part C of this Directive or with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, provided that such measures are in conformity with Union law, reasoned, proportional and non-discriminatory and, in addition, are based on compelling grounds such as those related to:
Amendment 206 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) environmental policy objectives distinct from the elements assessed according to this Directive and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Those grounds may include: - the prevention of the development of pesticide resistance amongst weeds and pests; - the invasiveness or persistence of a genetically modified variety, or the possibility of interbreeding with domestically cultivated or wild plants; - the prevention of negative impacts on the local environment caused by changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs; - the maintenance of local biodiversity, including certain habitats and ecosystems, or certain types of natural and landscape features, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services; - the absence or lack of adequate data concerning the potential negative impacts of the release of GMOs on the local or regional environment of a Member State, including on biodiversity;
Amendment 212 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) socio-economic impacts; such as the impracticability or the high costs of coexistence measures or the impossibility of implementing coexistence measures due to specific geographical conditions such as small islands or mountain zones
Amendment 220 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 –point f
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 –point f
(f) agricultural policy objectives;. Those grounds may include: - the need to protect the diversity of agricultural production; - the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer a better potential to reconcile production with ecosystem sustainability; – the need to ensure seed purity.
Amendment 223 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point g
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point g
Amendment 240 #
2010/0208(COD)
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, with the exception of the ground set out in point (g) which cannot be used individually, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply, but shall, in no case, conflict with the environmental risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive or to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.